by James Millar
Cross, Samuel Hazzard and Sherbowitz-Wetzor, Olgerd P., tr. and ed. (1973). The Russian Primary Chronicle. Cambridge, MA: Mediaeval Academy of America. Kaiser, Daniel, tr. and ed. (1992). The Laws of Russia, Series 1, Vol. 1: The Laws of Rus’, Tenth to Fifteenth Centuries. Salt Lake City, UT: Charles Schlacks, Jr. Noonan, Thomas S. (1967). “The Dnieper Trade Route.” Ph.D. diss., University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Noonan, Thomas S. (1991). “The Flourishing of Kiev’s International and Domestic Trade, ca. 1100-ca. 1240.” In Ukrainian Economic History: Interpretive Essays, ed. I. S. Koropeckyj. Cambridge, MA: Ukrainian Research Institute.
ROMAN K. KOVALEV
RSFSR See RUSSIAN SOVIET FEDERATED SOCIALIST REPUBLIC.
RUBLE
The basic unit of Russian currency.
The term ruble (rubl’) emerged in thirteenth-century Novgorod, where it referred to half of a grivna. The term derives from the verb rubit (to cut), since the original rubles were silver bars notched at intervals to facilitate cutting. The ruble was initially a measure of both value and weight, but not a minted currency. Under the monetary reform of 1534, the ruble was defined as equal to 100 kopecks or 200 dengi. Other subdivisions of the ruble were the altyn (3 kopecks), the grivennik (10 kopecks), the polupoltina (25 kopecks), and the
1306
RUBLE CONTROL
A five-ruble Russian banknote. TNA ASSOCIATES. poltina (50 kopecks). A highly inflationary copper ruble circulated during Alexei Mikhailovich’s currency reform (1654-1663), the first instance of minted ruble coins.
In 1704 the government began the regular minting of silver rubles, defined initially as equal to 28 grams of silver but declining steadily to 18 grams by the 1760s. Gold coins were minted in 1756 and 1779, copper rubles in 1770 and 1771. From 1769 to 1849, irredeemable paper promissory notes called assignatsii (sing. assignatsiya) circulated alongside the metal currency.
Nicholas I reestablished the silver ruble as the basic unit of account. In 1843 he introduced a new paper ruble that remained convertible only until 1853. In 1885 and 1886, the silver ruble, linked to the French franc, was reinstated as the official currency. Sergei Witte’s reforms in 1897 introduced a gold ruble, and Russia remained on the gold standard until 1914. Fully convertible paper currency circulated at the same time. A worthless paper ruble (kerenka) was used at the close of World War I.
The first Soviet ruble-a paper currency-was issued in 1919, and the first Soviet silver ruble appeared in 1921. Ruble banknotes were introduced in 1934. A 1937 reform set the value of the ruble in relation to the U.S. dollar, a practice that ended in 1950 with the adoption of a gold standard. Monetary reforms were implemented in 1947, 1961, and 1997. See also: ALTYN; DENGA; GRIVNA; KOPECK; MONETARY SYSTEM, SOVIET
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Spassky, Ivan Georgievich. (1968). The Russian Monetary System: A Historico-Numismatic Survey, tr Z. I. Gor-ishina and rev. L. S. Forrer. Amsterdam: J. Schulman.
JARMO T. KOTILAINE
RUBLE CONTROL
The Soviet economy was predominantly centrally controlled, with production and supply targets set using physical indicators or quasi-physical units, and with prices fixed according to criteria that were far removed from any consideration of the demand and supply equilibrium. Given the dual monetary circulation in the economy, only physical or quasi-physical units were to be used inside the state sector. Households, on the other hand, participated in a mostly fixed-price cash economy. Central control of monetary units was called ruble control. It aimed both at the quasi-physical monetary units used for decision-making within the state sector and the mostly fixed-price monetary units that the household sector faced.
In the broad sense of the phrase, ruble control thus included central control over any activities
1307
RUBLEV, ANDREI
that used monetary units. This primarily encompassed prices, wages, costs, profits, investment, and finance, as well as credits. Because the use of monetary units is broadly pervasive in a multiresource and multiproduct economy, the field of ruble control was extensive, even in a centrally managed economy. In addition to being another general control tool, ruble control was supposed to focus on improving efficiency and equilibrium in the economy. The more the economy moved from direct central control of entrepreneurial and other behaviors to the more indirect control based on prices and other monetary units, the more the importance of ruble control tended to grow. However, the monetary units used were administratively determined, and enterprises had soft budget constraints with little real decision-making independence, so that ruble control remained just one more way of implementing central management, and did not become an element of market relations.
Because the centrally managed economy had a wide variety of monetary units, ruble control also had a large number of subjects, from business enterprises to governmental ministries to the State Bank. The variety of controlling agencies and their always badly defined prerogatives, as well as the inevitable divergence of interests among these disparate groups, meant that ruble control was far from an optimal management tool. Different controllers sent different or even contradictory commands, giving subordinated units at least some decision-making room. Businesses had an impact at the planning stage on the directives and parameters that would ultimately be given to them. In addition, since these enterprises had soft budget constraints, the availability of finance was not a binding constraint if a priority target threatened to go unfulfilled. This is because, although costs were theoretically under ruble control, they could be exceeded if necessary in order to meet output targets. Soviet leaders thought they could well accept inefficiency if that helped them to reach goals with a higher priority, because they believed that resources were in almost unlimited supply. In other words, central management was based on priority thinking, and ruble control had to accommodate the established priorities.
The negative consequences of this logic were visible from the very beginning of central management. Already by 1931, many proposals were circulated for enhancing ruble control. Among these were more rational pricing, fuller cost-accounting, and better coordination of different controls, as well as increased decentralization, at least in plan fulfillment. It is revealing about the priority-planning logic that very similar, even identical proposals for rationalizing central management were put forward during all the waves of Soviet reform discussion until the 1980s. Still, in the early 1980s the system functioned very much as it had fifty years earlier, with one crucial difference: Mass terror had been abolished and increased consumption had become a priority. On one hand, this had made ruble control more important. On the other, by weakening other controls and by increasing the autonomy both of managers and households, these developments had made ruble control more difficult. There were markets and quasi-markets, but market-based policy instruments remained absent. See also: HARD BUDGET CONSTRAINTS; MONETARY SYSTEM, SOVIET; REPRESSED INFLATION
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Kornai, Janos. (1992). The Socialist System. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nove, Alec. (1977). The Soviet Economic System, 2nd edition. London: Allen amp; Unwin.
PEKKA SUTELA
RUBLEV, ANDREI
(c. 1360-1430), fifteenth century Russian artist.
Among all the known icon painters in Russian history, Andrei Rublev stands out as most prominent. Early in his life he joined the Trinity-Sergius Lavra Monastery, becoming a monk and a pupil of the artist Prokhor of Gorodets. Later he moved near Moscow, to the Spaso Andronikov Monastery, where he died on January 29, 1430, after painting frescoes in that monastery’s Church of the Savior. He was buried in the altar crypt beside the artist, Daniel Chorni.
Rublev is considered the founder of the Moscow School of painting. The earliest reference to Rublev’s work is to paintings in the Annunciation Cathedral of the Moscow Kremlin. Here in 1405 he worked with the eminent Theophanes the Greek (who strongly influenced his style) and the monk Prokhov of Gorodets. On the iconostasis (the screen separating the church nave from the a
ltar area) Rublev is credited with the scenes of the annunci1308
RUBLE ZONE
ation to the Virgin Mary and scenes from the life of Christ that show his nativity, baptism, transfiguration, the resurrection of Lazarus, entry into Jerusalem, and the presentation in the Temple.
Rublev worked extensively outside of Moscow as well. In about 1400, in the Dormition Cathedral on Gorodok in Zvenigorod, Rublev, assisted by Daniel Chroni, painted a number of wall frescoes, including those of St. Laurus and St. Florus, and several panel icons, including Archangel Michael, Apostle Paul, and the Christ. In the Cathedral of the Dormition in Vladimir, assisted again by Daniel Chorni, he painted frescoes of the Last Judgment in 1408. He is also credited with five surviving icons.
The last reference to Rublev’s work refers to his work on the iconostasis in the Cathedral of the Trinity at Zagorsk (Trinity-Sergius Monastery), where he was assisted once again by Daniel Chorni. It was here that he produced his most famous icon, the Old Testament Trinity (1411; now in the Tretyakov Gallery, Moscow). Ordered by Nikon and painted in honor of Father Sergius of Radonezh (d. 1392), it was originally displayed at the latter’s grave. The ethereal and beautifully-integrated group of three angels has never been surpassed. Of the other icons on this iconostasis, Rublev was credited with those depicting the Archangel Gabriel, St. Paul, and the Baptism of Christ. Rublev is believed to have painted two more icons for other venues: a Christ in Majesty (c. 1411, now at the Tretyakov Gallery) and a version of the Vladimir Mother of God (c. 1409, Vladimir Museum).
Rublev’s fame continued to increase after his death. The Church Council held in Moscow in 1551 prescribed the official canon for the correct representation of the Trinity: “. . . to paint from ancient models, as painted by the Greek painters and as painted by Andrei Rublev.” It is the other-worldly, spiritual, and contemplative quality of Rublev’s painting that sets him apart from his contemporaries. His Old Testament Trinity has had by far had the strongest impact on subsequent icon painting up through the twentieth century, not only in the Russian Orthodox Church, but in Catholic and Protestant circles as well. In Soviet Russia, gifted filmmaker Andrei Tarkovsky produced an epic-length, classic film titled Andrei Rublev in 1966. It was widely acclaimed, and continues to be shown in art theaters and at Russian conferences. See also: DIONISY; ICONS; THEOPHANES THE GREEK
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Lazarev, Viktor Nikitich. (1966). Old Russian Murals amp; Mosaics from the XI to the XVI Century. London: Phaidon. Lazarev, Viktor Nikitich. (1980). Moscow School of Icon Painting. Moscow: Iskusstvo.
A. DEAN MCKENZIE
RUBLE ZONE
“Ruble zone” refers to the accidental currency union that emerged when the Soviet Union broke up in December 1991, after which several independent states (former republics) each used the ruble as their primary currency. This sparked an intense debate among the Central Bank of Russia (CBR), the Russian government, the other post-Soviet governments, and the international financial institutions over the pros and cons of retaining the ruble zone. The ruble zone at first encompassed all fifteen former Soviet republics, grew progressively smaller through 1992 and 1993 as the new states introduced their own currencies, and disappeared completely in 1995 when Tajikistan adopted the Tajik ruble as its sole legal tender. The three Baltic states, having no intention of staying in the ruble zone, introduced their own currencies in mid-1992, but the other post-Soviet states initially chose to remain.
The ruble zone’s existence presented a significant dilemma for the CBR, because it prevented the CBR from controlling the Russian money supply. Only the CBR could print cash rubles, because all of the printing presses were on Russian territory. However, a legacy of the Soviet-style currency system (called the dual monetary circuit) allowed any central bank in the ruble zone to freely issue ruble credits to its domestic banks. These banks then loaned the credits to domestic enterprises, which could in turn use them to purchase goods from other ruble zone states (primarily Russia). In effect, the ruble zone states self-financed their trade deficits with Russia through these credit emissions. In addition, several ruble zone states issued so-called “coupons” or parallel currencies to circulate alongside the ruble in 1992 and 1993, thereby increasing the cash money supply in the ruble zone as well.
In an attempt to mitigate the impact of this credit expansion on the Russian economy, as of
1309
RUMYANTSEV, PETER ALEXANDROVICH
July 1992 the CBR began keeping separate ruble credit accounts for each state. In August 1992 it announced that Russian goods could be purchased only with CBR-issued credits, and it suspended the other banks’ credit-granting privileges entirely in May 1993. During this process, Ukraine and Kyr-gyzstan left the ruble zone. The CBR then fatally undermined the ruble zone through a currency reform in July 1993. It began to print new Russian ruble notes (circulating at equivalency with the old Soviet ones) in early 1993, but did not send these new rubles to the other states; they received their cash shipments solely in Soviet rubles. On July 24, the CBR announced that all pre-1993 ruble notes would become invalid in Russia, forcing the other ruble zone members either to leave or to cede all monetary sovereignty to the CBR. Azerbaijan and Georgia left the ruble zone immediately, while Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan left in November 1993 after talks on creating a ruble zone of a new type broke down. Although this effectively destroyed the ruble zone, its formal end came in May 1995 when war-torn Tajikistan finally introduced its own currency. See also: MONETARY SYSTEM, SOVIET; RUBLE
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdelal, Rawi. (2001). National Purpose in the World Economy: Post-Soviet States in Comparative Perspective. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press. Chavin, James. (1995). “The Disintegration of the Soviet Ruble Zone, 1991-1995.” Ph.D. diss. Berkeley, CA: University of California, Berkeley. Goldberg, Linda; Ickes, Barry; and Ryterman, Randi. (1994). “Departures from the Ruble Zone: The Implications of Adopting Independent Currencies.” World Economy 17 (3):239-322. Johnson, Juliet. (2000). A Fistful of Rubles: The Rise and Fall of the Russian Banking System. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
JULIET JOHNSON
RUMYANTSEV, PETER ALEXANDROVICH
(1725-1796), military commander, from 1774 known as Rumiantsev-Zadunaisky for his military victories “across the Danube.”
Peter Alexandrovich Rumyantsev was the son of Alexander Ivanovich Rumyantsev, who rose to prominence in the circle of Peter I, and Maria An-dreyevna Matveyeva, whose father was an ambassador and senator. Early in the reign of Empress Anna (1730-1740), the Rumyantsevs fell from favor, but Alexander resumed service in 1735 and was rewarded with the hereditary title of count. In 1748 Peter Rumyantsev married Princess Ekaterina Mikhailovna Golitsyna, with whom he had three sons, Mikhail, Nikolai, and Sergei. He was estranged from his wife early in the marriage.
Despite earning a reputation for dissolute behavior, young Peter Rumyantsev received several commissions in the army. He served with distinction in the Seven Years’ War (1756-1762), commanding a cavalry regiment during several successful Russian actions. Having been promoted by Emperor Peter III, he expected to be exiled when Catherine II (r. 1762-1796) seized power, but in 1764 she made him governor-general of Ukraine, with the task of integrating that territory into the Russian administrative and fiscal system. He carried out a major survey and census, introduced a new postal system and courts, and revised laws on peasants. In 1767 he was summoned to participate in the Legislative Commission and was required to investigate Ukrainian delegates to minimize claims for independent privileges and institutions for the region.
At the outbreak of the Russo-Turkish war in 1768, Rumyantsev was first given command of Russia’s Second Army and charged with the responsibility of guarding the southern borders. He then took over the First Army from Prince Alexander Mikhailovich Golitsyn. He won victories in July 1770 at Larga and Kagul against great odds and went on to capture towns in Ottoman-held Moldavia and Wallachia. In 177
1 he moved west to the Danube, and in 1773 he laid siege to towns in the region but was forced to retreat by supply difficulties. In 1774 Rumyantsev’s forces outmaneu-vered the Turkish vizier and forced him to accept peace terms at Kuchuk Kainardji.
Rumyantsev was made a field marshal and received the orders of St. George and St. Andrew, as well as lavish rewards that included landed estates. He returned to Ukraine to implement Catherine’s Provincial Reform (1775). In the second Russo- Turkish War (1787-1792) Rumyantsev commanded the Ukrainian army, but was in the shadow of Grigory Potemkin. His last major campaign was in Poland in 1794 against Tadeusz Kosciusko. When he died, Emperor Paul ordered three days mourning in the army in his honor.
1310
RURIKID DYNASTY
See also: MILITARY, IMPERIAL ERA; RUSSO-TURKISH WARS; SEVEN YEARS’ WAR
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alexander, John T. (1983). “Rumiantsev, Petr Aleksan-drovich.” In Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, edited by Joseph L. Wieczynski, vol. 31, 15-19. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press.
LINDSEY HUGHES
RURIK
(d. 879), Varangian (Viking) leader who established his rule over the Eastern Slavs in the Novgorod region and became the progenitor of the line of princes, the Rurikid dynasty (Rurikovichi), that ruled Kiev and Muscovy.
The Primary Chronicle reports that a number of Eastern Slavic tribes quarreled but agreed to invite a prince to come and rule them and to establish peace. They sent their petition overseas to the Varangians called the Rus. In 862 three brothers came with their kin. Sineus occupied Beloozero and Truvor took Izborsk, but they died within two years. Consequently Rurik, who initially may have ruled Staraya Ladoga, made Novgorod his capital and asserted his control over the entire region. He sent men to Polotsk, Rostov, Beloozero, and Murom. In doing so, he controlled the mayor river routes carrying trade between the Baltic to the Caspian Seas. Rurik allowed two boyars, Askold and Dir, to go to Constantinople; on the way they captured Kiev. In 879, while on his deathbed, Rurik handed over authority to his kinsman Oleg and placed his young son Igor into Oleg’s custody.