DMITRY MIKHAILOVICH; ROMANOV, MIKHAIL FYODOROVICH; SHUISKY, VASILY IVANOVICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Barbour, Philip. (1966). Dimitry Called the Pretender: Tsar and Great Prince of All Russia, 1605-1606. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Bussow, Conrad. (1994). The Disturbed State of the Russian Realm, tr. G. Edward Orchard. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s.
Dunning, Chester. (2001). Russia’s First Civil War: The Time of Troubles and the Founding of the Romanov Dynasty. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press. Howe, Sonia, ed. (1916). The False Dmitri: A Russian Romance and Tragedy Described by British Eye-Witnesses, 1604-1612. London: Williams and Norgate. Margeret, Jacques. (1983). The Russian Empire and Grand Duchy of Muscovy: A Seventeenth-Century French Account, tr. and ed. Chester S. L. Dunning. Pittsburgh, PA: Pittsburgh University Press. Massa, Isaac. (1982). A Short History of the Beginnings and Origins of These Present Wars in Moscow under the Reigns of Various Sovereigns down to the Year 1610, tr. G. Edward Orchard. Toronto: University of Toronto Press. Perrie, Maureen. (1995). Pretenders and Popular Monar-chism in Early Modern Russia: The False Tsars of the Time of Troubles. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Platonov, S. F. (1970). The Time of Troubles, tr. John T. Alexander. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas. Skrynnikov, Ruslan. (1982). Boris Godunov, tr. Hugh Graham. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. Skrynnikov, Ruslan. (1988). The Time of Troubles: Russia in Crisis, 1604-1618, tr. Hugh Graham. Gulf Breeze, FL: Academic International Press. Zolkiewski, Stanislas. (1959). Expedition to Moscow, tr. and ed. J. Giertych. London: Polonica.
CHESTER DUNNING
the new, they leveled the existing walls down to the foundations and commissioned the architect Vasily Stasov to construct a neo-Byzantine church. This church was demolished by the Soviets in 1935 and the site covered with pavement.
From twentieth-century excavations, however, there emerged a plausible notion of the original plan, with the arms of a cross delineated by the aisles at the center of the church. While there is no way of determining with any accuracy the church’s appearance, some sense of its decoration may be gleaned from the salvaged fragments of mosaics, frescoes, and marble ornaments. The walls were probably composed of alternating layers of stone and flat brick in a mortar of lime and crushed brick. See also: ARCHITECTURE; CATHEDRAL OF ST. SOPHIA, KIEV; KIEVAN RUS; VLADIMIR MONOMAKH
Brumfield, William Craft. (1993). A History of Russian Architecture. New York: Cambridge University Press. Rappoport, Alexander P. (1995). Building the Churches of Kievan Russia. Brookfield, VT: Variorum.
WILLIAM CRAFT BRUMFIELD
The most ancient church in Kiev was built between 989 and 996 by Prince Vladimir, who dedicated it to the Virgin Mary and supported it with one-tenth of his revenues. Destroyed by a fire in 1017 and reconstructed in 1039, the church was looted in 1177 and in 1203 by neighboring princes, and it was finally destroyed in 1240 during the siege of Kiev by the Mongol armies of Khan Batu. Various stories exist concerning the cause of the structure’s collapse; as one of the last bastions of the Kievans, it came under the assault of Mongol battering rams, and it may have been further weakened by the survivors’ attempt to tunnel out. Nonetheless, part of the eastern walls remained standing until the nineteenth century, when, in 1825, church authorities decided to erect a new church on the site. Rejecting the idea of incorporating the old walls into
(1844-1886), revolutionary Russian writer.
The voluminous writings of the revolutionist Petr Nikitich Tkachev were considered by Vladimir Lenin to be required reading for his Bolshevik followers. Lenin said that Tkachev, a Jacobin-Blanquist revolutionary in Russia of the 1870s, was, “one of us.”
Indeed, Soviet publicists in the 1920s (before Lenin’s death) treated Tkachev, once a collaborator of the terrorist Sergei Nechayev, as a prototypical Bolshevik. As one writer put it, he was “the forerunner of Lenin.” This apposition was dropped, however, after 1924, when Stalin introduced the Lenin Cult. This Stalinist line did not acknowledge any pre-1917 revolutionary as a match for Lenin’s vaunted status as mankind’s unique, genius thinker.
The proto-Bolshevik concepts developed by Tkachev in such publications as the illegal newspaper Nabat (Tocsin) and in publications in France,
1553
where he resided as an exile, consisted of the following points: 1) a revolutionary seizure of power under Russian conditions must be the work of an elitist group of enlightened, vanguard thinkers; to wait for the “snail-like . . . routine-ridden” people themselves spontaneously to adopt true revolutionary ideas was a case of futile majoritarianism; 2) the revolutionary socialist elite would establish a dictatorship of the workers and a workers’ state; 3) new generations of socialists could thus be reeducated and purged of old, private-property mentality; 4) rejecting Hegel and his protracted dialectic, Tkachev called for a proletarian revolution tomorrow, claiming that to wait for private property-mindedness to sink deeper within the Russian population was unacceptable; instead, a revolutionary jump (skachok) must be made over all intermediate socioeconomic stages (Tkachev parted with the Marxists on this point, describing Hegelianism as metaphysical rubbish); 4) to ensure the purging of old ways, the new workers’ state must set up a KOB (Komitet Obshchestvennoi Be-zopasnosti), or Committee for Public Security, modeled on Maximilien Robespierre’s similar committee in striking anticipation of the Soviet Cheka, later OGPU and KGB.
In a famous letter written to Tkachev by Friedrich Engels, the latter disputed Tkachev on the Tkachevist notion that Russia could become a global pacesetter by independently making the social revolution in Russia, a backward country, in Marxist terms, building socialism directly on the basis of the old Russian commune (obshchina). In his letter to Engels in 1874, Tkachev had lectured Marx’s number one collaborator to the effect that Karl Marx simply did not understand the Russian situation, that Marxist strategies were “totally unsuitable for our country.” Ironically, this allegation became the mirror image of Georgy Plekhanov’s point d’appui in his dispute with Russian Jacobins in the mid-1880s, since Plekhanov, basing himself on Hegelian historical teaching of orthodox Marxism, regarded Jacobinism and Blanquism as a distortion of true Marxian revolutionism. For his part, years later Lenin, echoing Tkachev, retorted by describing Plekhanov as a feeble, wait-and-see gradualist.
When Tkachev died in a psychiatric hospital in Paris in 1886 (he was said to have suffered paralysis of the brain), the well-known Russian revolutionist Petr Lavrov delivered the eulogy together with others such as the French Blanquist Eduard Vaillant. Years later, Tkachev’s body was disin1554 terred since the cemetery plot in the Cim?tiere Parisien d’Ivry was not adequately financed. His remains were cremated. See also: BOLSHEVISM; ENGELS, FRIEDRICH; LENIN, VLADIMIR ILICH
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Volkogonov, Dmitri. (1994). Lenin: A New Biography. New York: Free Press. Weeks, Albert L. (1968). The First Bolshevik: A Political Biography of Peter Tkachev. New York: New York University Press.
(1890-1970), prominent Bashkir nationalist activist during the early Soviet period and well-known scholar of Turkic historical studies.
Born in a Bashkir village in Ufa province and educated at Kazan University, Ahmed Zeki Validi (Russianized as Validov) had begun a promising career as an Orientalist scholar before the revolution. In May 1917 Validov participated in the All Russian Muslim Congress in Moscow, where he advocated federal reorganization of the
