Encyclopedia of Russian History

by James Millar

  The banking system and the budget system were the two pillars of the monetary system. The budget system had three layers-central, regional, and municipal-but, like the Soviet state, it too was unitary. Tax revenue mostly consisted of commodity-specific taxes separating retail and wholesale prices, company-specific profit taxation, usually confiscating any “excessive” revenue companies might have, and foreign trade taxes, used to separate domestic and foreign prices. As state revenue was thus based on fees specifically tailored for commodities, companies, and foreign markets, the system should perhaps not be called taxation at all. Wages were, in principle, set by the state, but there was little use for income taxation.

  State revenue was used to pay state-sector wages and for investment, subsidies, and other public expenditure, including the military. To hide the extent of military expenditure and cover up the deficiencies of social services, state finances were always among the best-kept secrets of the Soviet state. This was especially so toward the end of the period, when there was much justified suspicion that the state, unable to cover expenditure by revenue, was actually engaged in the monetization of budget deficits. This created a monetary overhang with several undesired consequences, among them a popular withdrawal of work effort.

  During the war communism of 1918 to 1921, Soviet Russia went through a hyperinflation that destroyed the ability of money to fulfill any of its functions. To what degree this came about by design so as to reach full communism immediately, to what degree by default due to inability to control the monetary system during a civil war, is still debated. Along with the partial rehabilitation of markets in the early 1920s, a successful money reform was made by introducing a parallel currency. The establishment of the centrally managed economy again drove the monetary system into turmoil, but in a few years it had found its new contours. World War II intervened before there had been sufficient time for monetary and financial policy to establish themselves. By the mid-1950s the situation had stabilized, but at the same time the need to reform the economic system was increasingly recognized. The reform proposals, based on the idea of indirect centralization, had little room for monetary or other macroeconomic questions. Not unexpectedly, the partial implementation of such thinking during the late 1980s left post-Soviet Russia in a situation of near hyperinflation with a financial system almost in collapse. See also: BANKING SYSTEM, SOVIET; GOSBANK; WAR COMMUNISM

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Kornai, Janos. (1992). The Socialist System. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

  MONTENEGRO, RELATIONS WITH

  Nove, Alec. (1977). The Soviet Economic System, 2nd edition. London: Allen amp; Unwin.

  PEKKA SUTELA

  MONTENEGRO, RELATIONS WITH

  Over the course of several centuries, Russia developed what could be termed a “special relationship” with Montenegro (located in the western Balkans) and its largely Serb Orthodox population. Modern Montenegro began to emerge as a result of the collapse of the Serbian empire in the fourteenth century. Occupying land characterized by rugged karst mountains, Montenegrins stubbornly resisted Turkish attempts to subdue their mountain redoubts. Until the secularization of the Montenegrin state in 1852, Montenegro’s clans were loosely ruled by vladike (prince-bishops)-Orthodox metropolitans who exercised temporal as well as ecclesiastical authority, and who occasionally managed to make the long, difficulty journey to Russia to be formally consecrated in office. After the election of Vladika Danilo I in 1696, succession was restricted to members of his family, the Petrovici, who continued to rule Montenegro until World War I.

  Beginning with Peter the Great, Russian rulers bestowed financial awards upon Montenegro and its rulers as an expression of their friendship and as payment for various services rendered in support of Russia’s numerous military ventures against the Turks. In the course of the eighteenth century, Russian envoys visited Montenegro, and some Montenegrin youth acquired military training in Russia. The first “modern history” of Montenegro was published by Bishop Vasilije in Russia in 1754. The Russians appealed to the common ethnic and religious heritage of the two peoples and claimed that the war against the Turks was a crusade to rescue the Orthodox Christians of the Balkans from the “Muslim yoke.” For their part, Montenegrins responded enthusiastically to these overtures. The nature of the relationship was such that for more than six years during the reign of Vladika Sava (1735-1781), a monk called ?cepan Mali (Stephen the Small) claiming to be Peter III, the murdered husband of Catherine the Great, successfully established himself as the effective ruler of Montenegro. As one British writer later observed, “Russia was a name to conjure with.” Even so, the extent of St. Petersburg’s support for Montenegro was necessarily determined by greater Russian geostrategic interests. Accordingly, Montenegro was awarded nothing in the peace treaties ending Russo-Turkish wars in 1711, 1739, 1774, and 1792. The famous bargain struck by Catherine II and Joseph II of Austria in 1781 would have yielded much of the western Balkans to the Habsburg rule, as would have the Austro-Russian Reichstadt Agreement of 1876.

  As a result of the 1878 Treaty of Berlin (which replaced the Treaty of San Stefano of the same year), Montenegro secured formal international recognition of its independence as well as territorial aggrandizement. For the next thirty years, Russo-Montenegrin relations were generally cordial, and Nicholas I Petrovic-Njegol (1860-1918), Montenegro’s last prince and only king, took steps to keep them that way. Two of his daughters married Russian grand dukes (Peter and Nikolai Nikolayevitch) and served as spokeswomen for Montenegrin interests in the Russian capital. Nicholas carefully followed political trends in St. Petersburg. His introduction of a constitution in 1905 was a partial echo of the tsar’s reluctant decision to grant a duma. For its part, Russia contributed large sums of money to Montenegro royal and state coffers, and engaged in a series of projects designed to promote Montenegrin welfare. Russia subsidized not only the Montenegrin army, but also Montenegrin schools, including a famous girls’ school founded by the Empress Marie Alexan-drovna. Russians also served as nurses in a largely Russian-financed hospital.

  On balance, Russia was Montenegro’s most generous great-power sponsor in the eighteenth, nineteenth, and early twentieth centuries. Tsar Alexander III once asserted that Nicholas of Montenegro was his only friend, and the Montenegrins reciprocated this affection by shouting their famous slogan “We and the Russians-100 million strong!” Nevertheless, the Montenegrin ruler alienated his Russian benefactors on numerous occasions.

  In 1908 Austria-Hungary formally annexed Bosnia-Hercegovina, incurring the wrath of Russia, Serbia, and Montenegro. In 1910 Russia, along with all other European great powers, approved the elevation of Prince Nicholas to the dignity of king. In 1912, Russian diplomats worked behind the scenes to help forge the Balkan League, consisting of Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria, and Montenegro. The First Balkan War ensued, launched by Montenegro

  MORDVINS

  in October of the same year. In May 1913 Russia reluctantly joined other European powers in pressuring King Nicholas to withdraw his forces from the Albanian fortress city of Scutari, conquered by Montenegrin troops in April.

  In August 1914, Montenegro joined Serbia and Russia in the World War I. One year later, in December 1915, Austro-Hungarian forces occupied Montenegro. Subsequently, official Russian influence was largely limited to Russian representation at the Montenegrin court-in-exile, first in Bordeaux, then in Paris. With the outbreak of the Bolshevik Revolution, official Russo-Montenegrin relations came to an end, and King Nicholas appealed to the Western Allies in a futile attempt to secure the restoration of the Montenegrin kingdom. At war’s end, in December 1918, Montenegro was incorporated into the new Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes (Yugoslavia).

  After World War I, however, Russian/Soviet influence continued to manifest itself in Montenegro. In initial elections for a Yugoslav constituent assembly, over a third of those Montenegrins voting supported communist candidates. During World War II, many Montenegrins joined the Communist
-led Partisan movement headed by Josip Broz Tito. After Tito’s split with Stalin in 1948, Montenegro remained a center for limited, underground pro-Cominformist (i.e., pro-Soviet) activity for many years. See also: BALKAN WARS; CONGRESS OF BERLIN; SERBIA, RELATIONS WITH; YUGOSLAVIA, RELATIONS WITH; WORLD WAR I

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Rossos, Andrew. (1981). Russia and the Balkans: Inter-Balkan Rivalries and Russian Foreign Policy, 1908-1914. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Treadway, John D. (1983). The Falcon and the Eagle: Montenegro and Austria-Hungary, 1908-1914. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.

  JOHN D. TREADWAY

  MORDVINS

  The largest Finno-Ugrian nationality in Russia (over a million), the Mordvins are divided into the Erzia and the Moksha sub-ethnic communities. They are a highly dispersed nationality, with over 70 percent of Mordvins residing outside their republic. The Mordvins are an ancient people indigenous to the area between the Volga, Oka, and Sura rivers. They are first mentioned as Mordens in the writings of the sixth-century Gothic historian Jordanes. Of the surviving Volga nationalities they were the first to encounter the Russians even before 1103, in the first recorded skirmish in the Russian Chronicles. With the conquest of Kazan in 1552, all Mordvins came under Russian rule.

  Their history under the tsars is one of expropriations of lands, harsh exploitation, assault on native animist beliefs, and periodic conversion campaigns that led to rebellion and flight. Native leaders were killed in futile uprisings or enticed to the Russian side, leaving the Mordvins a dispersed nation of illiterate peasants. By the seventeenth century, the Mordvin homeland had become central Russian territory and the Mordvins there a minority; those fleeing eastward were soon overtaken by the Russian advance. By the end of the nineteenth century, all Mordvins were listed as Russian Orthodox and were considered “sufficiently russified” not to require special schools or translations in their language. Yet the language-based 1897 census recorded 1,023,841 Mordvins.

  Under the Soviets, despite their dispersion, lack of a common language, and a weak national self-consciousness, the Mordvins achieved significant cultural progress. While attempts to forge a common language failed, both Erzia and Moksha became literary languages widely used in education and publishing. In 1934, the Mordvins acquired their own Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic (26,200 square kilometers) with its capital in Saransk, albeit the majority were Russians and most Mordvins were left outside. However, by the late 1930s, national revival was halted as the elite was decimated in the purges and Soviet nationality policy shifted to emphasizing the Russian language and culture. The Mordvin population, which had slowly risen to 1,456,300 in 1939, continued to erode, dropping to 1,153,500 in the last Soviet census of 1989.

  Since perestroika and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the Mordvins have been trying to stage a national revival. However, despite new freedoms, conditions are unfavorable. Less than 30 percent of the Mordvins live in their republic, where they are a minority and among the poorest. The new national organizations are narrowly based and suffer from separatist demands from militant Erzias. However, hope is still to be found in their relatively

  961

  MOROZOVA, FEODOSYA PROKOPEVNA

  large number, the support of fellow Finno-Ugrians abroad, and the world community’s concern for endangered cultures and languages. See also: FINNS AND KARELIANS; NATIONALITIES POLICIES, SOVIET; NATIONALITIES POLICIES, TSARIST

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Iurchenkov, Valerii. (2001). “The Mordvins: Dilemmas of Mobilization in a Biethnic Community.” Nationalities Papers 29(1):85-95. Kreindler, Isabelle. (1985). “The Mordvinian Languages: A Survival Saga.” In Sociolinguistic Perspectives on Soviet National Languages, ed. Isabelle Kreindler. Berlin: Mouton de Gruyter. Lallukka, Seppo. (1990). The East Finnic Minorities in the Soviet Union. Helsinki: Suomalaisen Tiedeakatemia.

  ISABELLE KREINDLER

  MOROZOVA, FEODOSYA PROKOPEVNA

  (1632-1675), aristocratic martyr of the Old Believers.

  Feodosya Morozova, one of the most remarkable characters of the seventeenth century, was born on May 21, 1632, to Prokopy Sokovnin, a relative of Tsaritsa Maria Miloslavskaya, and his wife Anisya. In 1649 Feodosya was married to Gleb Morozov, brother of the famous Boris Morozov, favorite and tutor of Tsar Alexei Mikhaylovich.

  In 1650 Morozova’s only child Ivan was born. When her husband died in 1662, one of Muscovy’s largest properties came under her control. It is not clear when Morozova first made contact with the Old Believers, who refused Patriarch Nikon’s church reforms of the middle of the century. Nikon’s most ardent opponent, Archpriest Av-vakum, returned in February 1664 from his banishment in Siberia to Moscow and took up residence in Morozova’s home. Tsar Alexei ordered the confiscation of her possessions in August 1665, but on the insistence of the tsaritsa they where returned in October 1666.

  During the second exile of Avvakum after 1666, Morozova continued her correspondence with the Archpriest and made her house a meeting place for the Old Believers. She prepared writings against the “Nikonian heresy” and missed no opportunity to raise her voice against the official church. Besides the exiled Avvakum, a certain Melanya was of great importance to Morozova. She put herself under the authority of Melanya, whom she regarded as her spiritual “mother,” and sought her teaching and advice. At the end of 1670 Morozova took the veil and chose the religious name Feodora.

  With the death of Tsaritsa Maria Miloslavskaya in 1669, the Old Believers lost a valuable protectress. When Morozova refused to attend the wedding of the tsar with his second wife Natalya Naryshkina on January 22, 1671, she deeply offended the sovereign. In November 1671 she was arrested along with her sister, Princess Evdokia Urusova. Morozova’s estate and landstocks were distributed among the boyars, while all the valuables were sold and proceeds paid into the state treasury. Her tweny-one-year-old son died shortly after her arrest-of grief, as Avvakum noted.

  The tsar tried repeatedly to convince Morozova and Urusova to return to the official church, but both refused categorically, even under severe torture. As long as Morozova was imprisoned in or around Moscow, she was able to maintain communication with the Old Believers. A strong, proud, and impressive personality of highest rank, she attracted many noblewomen, who flocked to the monastery to see her. Although she was relocated several times, her numerous admirers persisted in visiting her. Finally, at the end of 1673 or in the beginning of 1674, the alarmed tsar had her transferred to the prison of Borovsk, some 90 kilometers away from Moscow, where she was soon joined by her sister. The two women were held under severe conditions in an earthen hole. In April 1675 the situation worsened, as they were put on starvation rations. Urusova died on September 11 that year, and Morozova on November 1.

  Soon after her death, Morozova’s life and martyrdom were described by a contemporary, possibly her elder brother. This remarkable literary document is known as the Tale of Boyarina Moro-zova. See also: AVVAKUM; NIKON; OLD BELIEVERS

  BIBLIOGRAPHY

  Michels, Georg. (1995). “Muscovite Elite Women and Old Belief.” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 19:428-450. Ziolkowski, Margaret, ed. (2000). Tale of Boiarynia Mo-rozova: A Seventeenth-Century Religious Life. Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.

  NADA BOSKOVSKA

  MOROZOV, PAVEL TROFIMOVICH

  MOROZOV, BORIS IVANOVICH

  (1590-1661), lord protector and head of five chancelleries under Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich.

  Boris Ivanov syn Morozov was an important, thoughtful leader, but he also stands out as an exceptionally greedy figure of the second quarter of the seventeenth century. His cupidity provoked uprisings in early June 1648 in Moscow and then in a dozen other towns, forcing Tsar Alexei to convoke the well-known Assembly of the Land of 1648-1649, the product of which was the famous Law Code of 1649.

  Morozov in some ways personified the fact that early modern Russia (Muscovy) was a service state. He was not of princely (royal) origins; his ancestors had been commoners who rose through
service to the ruler of Muscovy. Thus his patronymic would have been Ivanov Syn (son of Ivan), rather than Ivanovich, which would have been the proper form were he if noble origin.

  By 1633 Morozov was tutor to the heir to the throne, the future Tsar Alexei. He and Alexei married Miloslavskaya sisters. After Alexis came to the throne, Morozov became head of five chancelleries (prikazy, the “power ministries”: Treasury, Alcohol Revenues, Musketeers, Foreign Mercenaries, and Apothecary) and de facto ruler of the government (Lord Protector). He observed that there were too many taxes and came up with the apparently ingenious solution of canceling a number of them and concentrating the imposts in an increased tax on salt. Regrettably Morozov was not an economist and probably could not comprehend that the demand for salt was elastic. Salt consumption plummeted-and so did state revenues-while popular discontent rose.

  As Morozov took over the government, he brought a number of equally corrupt people with him. They abused the populace, provoking a rebellion in June 1648. The mob tore one of his cocon-spirators to bits and cast his remains on a dung heap. Another was beheaded. Tsar Alexei intervened on behalf of Morozov, whose life was spared on the condition that he would leave the government and Moscow immediately. This arrangement helped to calm the mob. Morozov was exiled on June 12 to the Kirill-Beloozero Monastery, but he returned to Moscow on October 26. He never again played an official role in government, though he was one of Alexis’s behind-the-scenes advisers throughout the 1650s.