The production sharing agreement (PSA) offers an alternative to the joint venture as a way for two or more economic entities to collaborate on the development and production of a commodity. Russian officials and business entrepreneurs have been reluctant to allow foreign firms to acquire direct ownership and managerial control over domestic resources and firms. The Russian government has also been reluctant to privatize valuable domestic resources completely, especially with respect to oil and gas reserves and companies. The PSA is the principal way for foreign firms to invest in Russia and for the Russian government to maintain a degree of control over valuable resources. Under a standard form of PSA, the entity that invests in a development project is the first to capture the investment from revenues generated by the forthcoming output.
The Russian Duma has been reluctant to condone foreign ownership, or, in some cases, even foreign participation in the economy. Legislation governing PSAs was not passed in the Duma until late 1998 under the government of Yevgeny Primakov. In certain fields PSAs must be approved by the Duma. In the oil and gas industries, the PSA is the single most important form of collaboration between the government and the oil companies and with foreign oil and gas companies as well. See also: FOREIGN TRADE; PRIMAKOV, YEVGENY MAXI-MOVICH
PROKOFIEV, SERGEI SERGEYEVICH
(1891-1953), composer and pianist, one of the most important figures of the early Russian modernism, later of Socialist Realism.
Sergei Sergeyevich Prokofiev studied at the Petersburg conservatory from 1904 to 1914. By 1915 he was already one of the outstanding figures of modern Russian music. In his early works, Prokofiev employed new modes of expression while audibly referring to the musical language of the late nineteenth century. Prokofiev followed various stylistic courses. He was known as a radical exponent of provocative new music and also distinguished himself through his neoclassical experiments. Later he would be known precisely for his synthesis of the unusual and the familiar, of complexity and simplicity, of constructive rationality and melodious emotionalism.
In 1918, hoping for greater artistic perspectives, Prokofiev left Russia for the United States. After mixed experiences there, he left in 1922 to settle in Paris. Prokofiev was not a “classical” emigrant: He assumed Soviet citizenship in 1924 and often travelled to the Soviet Union to give concerts. Finally, in 1936, the artist returned to Russia with his family. His decision can be attributed to a deep longing for his home country, a diffuse sympathy for the political developments there, a marked interest in the privileged position of an exceptional artist in the Soviet state, and a sense of invulnerability. It was not difficult for Prokofiev to fulfil the ideological standards of “Socialist Realism,” given the melodious simplicity of his work. He had long ago given up his futuristic inclinations and instead tried to realize a new rhythmic-motoric, tonally tense, poignant style. Yet in 1948 even Prokofiev was severely criticized by the Soviet government, which perceived “formalistic distortions and antidemocratic tendencies” in the works of leading Soviet composers. Prokofiev criticized himself, and until his death (on the same day as Stalin’s) he attempted to reconcile his own stylistic conceptions with the party line. See also: MUSIC; SOCIALIST REALISM
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gregory, Paul R., and Stuart, Robert C. (2001). Russian and Soviet Economic Performance and Structure. New York: Addison-Wesley.
Jaff?, Daniel. (1998). Sergey Prokofiev. London: Phaidon. Robinson, Harlow L. (1987). Sergei Prokofiev: A Biography. New York: Viking.
1234
(1681-1736), prelate, philosopher, writer, and liaison between the Russian Orthodox Church and Protestantism.
Born to a merchant family in Kiev but orphaned early, Feofan received an education at the Kiev Academy, one of the few institutions for ecclesiastical education at the time. Like other gifted students of the time, he nominally converted to the Uniate (Eastern Catholic) faith in order to qualify for studies in Rome-in his case, at a Jesuit institution, the College of St. Athanasius. In 1701 he left Rome, imbued with a profound animosity toward Catholicism and, his critics would later charge, uncritical fondness for Protestantism. In any case, in 1702 he returned to Kiev with an exceptionally strong training in philosophy and theology. After repudiating his Catholic faith of convenience, he embarked on a brilliant career in the Russian Orthodox Church. He first made his mark at the Kiev Academy, where he became not only its rector but also a prolific writer, his works including a five-act “tragicomedy” Vladimir that ridiculed paganism and superstition. In 1709, in the presence of Peter, he delivered a sermon celebrating the Russian victory at Poltava; such perorations caught the emperor’s eye, earned him a summons to St. Petersburg, and led to his elevation to the episcopate (first in 1718 as the bishop of Pskov, and then in 1720 as archbishop of Novgorod).
During these years Feofan became one of Peter’s more erudite ideologists and propagandists. Drawing upon European political theory and exalting the just and creative power of the ruler, Fe-ofan was a principal architect of Peter’s new conception of dynamic autocracy. Feofan played a key role in composing a number of state documents, from the “Preface” to the Naval Charter (1719) to the famous Truth about the Monarch’s Will (1722), defending Peter’s right-and duty-to override custom and designate the most qualified person as his successor. Feofan also served as a key liaison with the Protestant world, reinforcing the suspicions of contemporaries and impelling Orthodox historians to dismiss him as a mere “Protestant.” By far his most important work was the Ecclesiastical Regulation (1721), drafted at Peter’s behest. Significantly, this critical document-which served as the institutional charter of the Russian Church until 1917-contained much more than a mere justification of Peter’s decision to replace the patriarchate with a collegial board (first called the Spiritual College but renamed the Holy Synod). Namely, the Ecclesiastical Regulation adumbrated an ambitious program to bring enlightenment and extinguish superstition in the Church, chiefly by improving ecclesiastical administration, establishing seminaries to educate parish clergy, and extirpating superstition among the laity. Feofan played a key role in the new Synodal administration and, simultaneously, authored several important works, including a treatise on the patriarchate, a catechism, and a tract critical of monasticism.
Peter’s death in 1725 initially left Feofan vulnerable to a concerted attack by conservatives, but in 1730 the astute prelate once again gained favor by siding with the new monarch, Anna, against a coterie of magnates seeking to limit her authority. He thus enjoyed considerable influence in church affairs until his death on September 8, 1736. See also: HOLY SYNOD; PETER I; PROTESTANTISM
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Cracraft, James. (1973). “Feofan Prokopovichy.” In The Eighteenth Century in Russia, ed. J. G. Garrard. Oxford: Clarendon. Cracraft, James. (1975). “Feofan Prokopovich: A Bibliography of His Works.” Oxford Slavonic Papers 8:1-36. Della Cava, Olha. (1971). “Feofan Prokopovich: His Life and His Sermons, 1681-1736.” Ph.D. diss. Columbia University, New York.
An acronym for “proletarian cultural-educational organizations,” Proletkult was a loosely structured cultural organization that first took shape in Petro-grad (now St. Petersburg) a few days before the Bolshevik Revolution in 1917. It began as a loose coalition of clubs, factory committees, workers’ theaters, and educational societies devoted to the cultural needs of the working class. By 1918, when the organization held its first organizational conference under Soviet power, it had expanded into a national movement with a much more ambitious purpose: to define a unique proletarian culture that would inform and inspire revolutionary Russian society.
The Proletkult’s most important theorist was a left-wing Bolshevik intellectual named Alexander
1235
