Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The personal is political : the late nineteenth century Russian schoolmistress speaks for herself Boniface, Pamela J. 1991

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1991_A8 B67.pdf [ 7.53MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0098727.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0098727-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0098727-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0098727-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0098727-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0098727-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0098727-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0098727-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0098727.ris

Full Text

THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL: THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY RUSSIAN SCHOOLMISTRESS SPEAKS FOR HERSELF By PAMELA J. BONIFACE B.A., Simon Fraser University, 1988 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (History) We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1991 (c) Pamela J. Boniface, 1991 In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. The University of British Columbia Vancouver, Canada Department of DE-6 (2/88) ABSTRACT In late nineteenth century Russia, a stereotype of schoolmistress as passive victim and amateur featured prominently i n the dominant pedagogical discourse. Because present day historians have f a i l e d to consider the factors of gender and estate when presenting information concerning the l i v i n g and working conditions and status of Russian teachers, t h i s stereotype p e r s i s t s i n contemporary l i t e r a t u r e concerned with that country's educational history. Through an analysis of 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s published memoir/articles, t h i s thesis demonstrates that at least some of the women who entered teaching were competent and self-assured. In fact, almost a l l schoolmistresses -- who wrote and published t h e i r writings --engaged i n a counter-discourse challenging the stereotype. The thesis presents i t s case by f i r s t e s t a b l i s h i n g the context i n which the pedagogical discourse took place. I t then introduces the f i e l d of discourse and i t s participants -- the editors of the journals i n which u c h i t e l ' n i t s y published and the schoolmistresses themselves. In order to place the 14 schoolmistresses i n t h e i r own context, they are compared with a group of schoolmasters who also wrote and with primary schoolteachers i n general. Chapter 3 examines the advice schoolmistresses passed on to th e i r colleagues and women intending to enter the profession. Chapter 4 discusses the layers of discourse schoolmistresses' memoir/articles contain. This thesis attempts to prove that at least some Russian schoolmistresses possessed a gender and estate-determined professional ethic. The existence of such an ethic negates the stereotype of schoolmistress as passive victim. In the stereotype's place, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y offered a self-created f i c t i o n of schoolmistress as servant of the people. Future studies must include t h i s f i c t i o n i n discussions that s p e c i f i c a l l y concern schoolmistresses. This self-image, or at least the f l u i d world i t suggests, must feature i n any discussion concerning journal discourse of the period. i i i TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i • Table of Contents i v . L i s t of Tables v. Acknowledgements v i . Preface 1 • The Problem Revealed 9. The F i e l d of Discourse and i t s Participants 39. Teaching Through Journal Writing 75. Layers Within the Discourse 108. Conclusion 141. Bibliography 150. Appendix A 159 . i v LIST OF TABLES Table I. Feminization of the Teaching Profession i n Rural Schools, 1880-1911 4 Table II. Sources of Funding for Rural Schools, 1879 and 1911 . 18 Table I I I . Average Teacher's Salary i n European Russia, 1898 20 \ Table IV. Average Salary for 2314 Teachers with Varying R e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , 1898. 20 Table V. Teachers' Educational Backgrounds and Perceived Adequacy of Preparation for Teaching 62 and 63 v ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Thanks to Bon for giving moral support and swift kicks i n appropriate measure! This thesis i s dedicated to a l l the Russian women tishe vody - nizhe travy (quieter than water, lower than grass), whose voices and l i v e s didn't enter the h i s t o r i c a l record. They are as much a part of Russian history as tsars, bureaucrats and d i c t a t o r s . Without them dynasties, empires and school systems would never have been possible. Ladies, I salute you! As well, special thanks i s due to the University of B r i t i s h Columbia's I n t e r l i b r a r y Loans d i v i s i o n . It was only with t h e i r help that I obtained many of the Russian language sources required for t h i s work. F i n a l l y , I wish to thank the women graduate students of the UBC h i s t o r y department. Their humour, insight and helpfulness w i l l always be remembered. v i PREFACE This thesis offers readers interested i n Russian educational h i s t o r y an alternate perspective on both the developing, piecemeal educational system and the teachers who taught i n i t s elementary schools. The thesis i s multi-layered; however, i t p r i m a r i l y features a dialogue between pedagogues and public elementary schoolmistresses (or u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) concerning the r o l e and duties of women teachers. Using R.J. Ware's a r t i c l e s concerning journal discourse as a unifying concept, t h i s thesis w i l l examine the relationship between journals and t h e i r readers and writers.(1) It w i l l demonstrate how a dominant discourse (as expressed through a journal's e d i t o r i a l policy) came into c o n f l i c t with a counter-discourse (which, i n t h i s case, was c a r r i e d out by schoolmistresses). The dominant discourse, which stressed the value of education and i t s importance to Russia's future, was created and reinforced by male i n t e l l e c t u a l s and pedagogues. "For those wanting change, education's appeal i s e s p e c i a l l y seductive because i t seems to o f f e r a means of achieving s o c i a l transformation without resort to v i o l e n t , often uncontrollable/ revolution."(2) As A l l e n S i n e l , Patrick Alston and Ben Eklof have noted i m p l i c i t l y , the dominant discourse was rooted i n pessimism.(3) Pro-education i n t e l l e c t u a l s and pedagogues emphasized the small number of schools and students i n Russia, the abysmal completion rate of primary school students and the 1 2 poor q u a l i t y of the numerous religiously-based schools.(4) They also bemoaned the p i t i f u l economic and s o c i a l status of primary schoolteachers -- esp e c i a l l y schoolmistresses. In the same way that a stereotype concerning women had developed i n the writings of male l i b e r a l and rad i c a l writers of the l a t e nineteenth century, a p o r t r a i t of the perfect, passive and l a d y - l i k e schoolmistress c i r c u l a t e d through the male-dominated world of l i b e r a l , r a d i c a l pedagogy.(5) The 14 women whose writings form the basis of t h i s work took issue with t h i s p o r t r a i t and spoke against i t i n t h e i r writings. They presented t h e i r own informed perspectives on schoolmistresses i n educational journals and -- by demonstrating an a r t i c u l a t e understanding of pedagogical concepts and discourse -- entered d i r e c t l y into contemporary discussion to counter the stereotype concerning teachers. That i s , they engaged i n a counter-discourse. In published a r t i c l e s (which as a re s u l t of t h e i r anecdotal and personal nature, I w i l l hereafter refer to as memoir/articles), u c h i t e l ' n i t s y also offered t h e i r readers p r a c t i c a l advice concerning teaching and surviving i n d i f f i c u l t s o c i a l and economic circumstances. It i s impossible to determine i f the thoughts and attitudes of the 14 were representative of a l l Russian schoolmistresses i n the period 1880-1905; however, following an intensive search of two prominent educational journals and a close survey of a t h i r d , I am convinced that t h e i r attitudes are representative of those 3 who wrote.(6) A further s t a t i s t i c a l comparison, discussed i n d e t a i l i n Chapter 2, suggests that they were also not a t y p i c a l of the majority of schoolmistresses i n the period 1880-1905. During t h i s period, the number of schools and schoolmistresses increased dramatically. While i n 1880 only 4,900 teachers (close to o n e - f i f t h of the t o t a l 24,000) were women, by 1911 women occupied 83,376 teaching positions (more than 50% of the t o t a l 153,360). (7) For this reason t h e i r memoir/articles can be seen to offer a di r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of these women's self-image, i f not the i r r e a l i t y . Schoolmistresses' memoir/articles could warrant our atte n t i o n for th i s reason alone; however/ this thesis looks beyond the u c h i t e l ' n i t s y to the audience they expected to influence -- pedagogues, women entering and already i n the profession, and male i n t e l l e c t u a l s who perpetuated the stereotype of schoolmistress as victim and martyr. It i s the f i r s t such work, which i s s t a r t l i n g considering h i s t o r i a n s ' recent profound concern for society's r e l a t i v e l y powerless and mute majority. The idea for t h i s thesis grew out of a perceived omission i n the l i t e r a t u r e concerning nineteenth century Russia's developing educational system. S i g n i f i c a n t work has been done concerning bureaucrats i n the Ministerstvo Narodnoqo  Prosveshcheniia ( l i t e r a l l y , the Ministry of Public Enlightenment, translated herein as the Ministry of Public Instru c t i o n ) , v i l l a g e and zemstvo (lo c a l government) schools and Table I Feminization of Teaching Profession i n Rural Schools, 1880-1911 Women Teachers as a Percentage of a l l Rural Teachers Provinces 34 zemstvo 13 nonzemstvo 3 B a l t i c 50 European 10 Polish 60 European (t o t a l ) 1880 1894 1911 27.5% 41.4% 62.2% 10.8 23.9 35.8 1.9 1.6 9.8 20.6 38.6 54.9 14.0 10.8 24.0 20.0 36.4 53.8 Source: Eklof, Russian Peasant Schools, 186. Note: Data included 26,000 teachers i n 1880, 69,098 i n 1894, and 126,501 i n 1911. For pr o v i n c i a l tabulations, see MNP, Odnodnevnaia perepis' 16:88, table 31. 5 r a d i c a l zemstvo professionals.(8) However, the a p o l i t i c a l teacher -- e s p e c i a l l y the schoolmistress -- i s almost missing from the discussion. When she does appear, the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a i s portrayed as a passive, much-abused figure.(9) As well, although women teachers composed 71 percent of zemstvo teachers and 55 percent of teachers o v e r a l l , present day historians continue to explain issues such as teacher turn over by reference to male-only options.(10) For example, Ben Eklof suggests that teachers l e f t the profession to become "clerks i n the state-owned liq u o r stores, p o l i c e constables, tax o f f i c i a l s , or even pest exterminators."(11) It should be noted that none of these professions was open to women who l e f t teaching. Other gender-specific touchstones that have been applied unthinkingly to schoolmistresses include an assessment of economic poverty that -- as Eklof and Seregny note — affected married teachers (the s i g n i f i c a n t majority of whom were men) most. As well, teachers* professional ethic has been defined almost e n t i r e l y i n terms of t h e i r involvement in professional associations that sought to ra i s e wages and establish t r u s t funds for the education of teachers' children (again, usually the children of male teachers). As the following chapters w i l l demonstrate, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y developed and fostered a self-image and a series of professional standards that were d i f f e r e n t i n many ways from those of schoolmasters and male pedagogues. I believe that gender and cla s s differences, v i r t u a l l y ignored u n t i l now, are the 6 foundations of these d i f f e r e n t concepts. When these differences are factored into a reading of schoolmistresses' memoir/articles, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y writings offer i n t e r e s t i n g comment on the developing Russian educational system, and on the stereotype of woman and schoolmistress. Published and c i r c u l a t i n g among the educated public, these alternative gender-based concepts challenged ( i m p l i c i t l y , i f not d i r e c t l y ) the e x i s t i n g discourse and offered an alternative perspective to readers -- espe c i a l l y women who favoured pedagogical journals. Through t h e i r memoir/articles, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y communicated with peers and pedagogues. They rejected pedagogues' abstract views of education, and offered advice and encouragement to the growing number of women entering the profession. In t h i s advice and encouragement, schoolmistresses presented t h e i r solutions to the dichotomy of pedagogical theory and classroom r e a l i t y . For t h i s reason, as much as for t h e i r work i n classrooms across Russia, the u c h i t e l ' n i t s y featured i n this thesis deserve recognition i n the history of education in Russia. Up to now t h e i r personal and professional contribution to Russia's educational system has been ignored or undervalued. *** Tr a n s l i t e r a t i o n s in t h i s text follow the Li b r a r y of Congress system. Dates are according to the Julian calendar. 7 Translations from Russian sources are my own unless otherwise indicated. In order to simplify my prose and avoid the d i f f i c u l t i e s of t r a n s l a t i n g a language with gendered words into ungendered English, I have translated u c h i t e l ' n i t s a as schoolmistress and u c h i t e l ' as schoolmaster. Also, I have translated Ministerstvo  Narodnoqo Prosveshcheniia ( l i t e r a l l y the Ministry of Public Education) as the Ministry of Public Instruction because t h i s governmental department and the schools i t administered seemed more concerned with i n s t r u c t i n g (or moulding) t h e i r students than enlightening them. F i n a l l y , I have d e l i b e r a t e l y l e f t Russian words that frequently appear i n English, such as zemstvo and guberniia, u n i t a l i c i z e d . Endnotes 1. R.J. Ware, "A Russian Journal and i t s Public: Otchestvennye  Zapisk i , 1868-1884," Oxford Slavonic Papers, (New Series Volume) 14 (1981): 121-46 and R.J. Ware, "Some Aspects of the Russian Reading Public i n the 1880s," Renaissance and Modern Studies, 24 (1980): 18-37. 2. A l l e n S i n e l , "The Campaign for Universal Primary Education i n Russia," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, 30 (1982): Heft 4, 481. 3. S i n e l , "Campaign"; Patrick Alston, "Recent Voices and Persistent Problems i n T s a r i s t Education," Paedaqogica H i s t o r i c a 16, 2 (1976): 203-15; and Ben Eklof, "Myth of the Zemstvo School: The Sources of the Expansion of Russian Education i n Imperial Russia, 1864-1914," History of Education Quarterly 24 (Winter 1984): 561-84. 8 4. S i n e l , "Campaign" 483-6 and Eklof "Zemstvo School". Interestingly, Eklof accepts pedagogues poor assessments of Russian schooling and then points out that basic l i t e r a c y may have been enough to meet peasant needs. 5. see Barbara Heldt, T e r r i b l e Perfection: Women and Russian  L i t e r a t u r e . (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987) and Toby Clymas "Memoirs of 19th century Russian Women-Physicians," a paper delivered March 1990 at the New England S l a v i c Association annual meeting. 6. I had d i r e c t access to 13 out of 17 years of Obrazovanie and 15 out of 27 years of Russkaia shkola. Of course, I supplemented these years with a r t i c l e s discovered i n indexes. 7. Ben Eklof, Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, V i l l a g e  Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861-1914. (Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1983) 183. 8. see Eklof, Russian Peasant; Allen S i n e l , The Classroom and  the Chancellery: State Educational Reform i n Russia under Count  Dmitry T o l s t o i . (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973); and Scott Seregny, Russian Teachers and Peasant Revolution: The  P o l i t i c s of Education i n 1905. (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989). 9. see Eklof, Russian Peasant and Ben Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e : The Russian Teacher and the Peasant Community, 1880-1914," Land Commune and Peasant Community i n Russia: Communal  Forms i n Imperial Russia and Early Soviet Society, Ed.Roger B a r t l e t t , (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990). 10. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 341. 11. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 345. CHAPTER I THE PROBLEM REVEALED As noted i n the Preface, t h i s thesis w i l l investigate and uncover schoolmistresses' contributions to and r e j e c t i o n of the dominant educational discourse. R.J. Ware, l i t e r a r y c r i t i c and h i s t o r i a n , has stated that "one of the fundamental tasks of l i t e r a r y - h i s t o r i c a l study i s 'the c r i t i c a l analysis of the reactions of the o r i g i n a l readers of a work, the c l a r i f i c a t i o n of what was perceived and what remained unperceived i n an author's work by his contemporaries'."(1) In order to f u l f i l t h i s 'fundamental task', my thesis must f i r s t examine the broad context i n which u c h i t e l ' n i t s y wrote t h e i r memoir/articles; i t should then assess the e d i t o r i a l p o l i c i e s of the three journals i n which they published, and present any biographical information available on the women themselves. Once a foundation has been b u i l t ( i n Chapters 1 and 2), i t w i l l be possible to comprehend and peel back the layers of intended meaning i n schoolmistresses' writings and to determine how the intended audience of memoir/articles received them. As t h i s thesis inhabits the world of late nineteenth century Russian pedagogical discourse, i t seems prudent to begin by defining and situating the context and meaning of the discourse. To begin, discourse must be understood as d i a l o g i c or symbiotic i n nature. That i s , as ideas expressed by indivi d u a l s i n the public (journals, speeches, art, etc.) and 9 10 private (conversations, d i a r i e s , actions) sphere, discourse a f f e c t s the recipient or audience and frequently e l i c i t s response. Ware has noted that response need not nece s s a r i l y be on a verbal or l i t e r a r y l e v e l . It can be expressed through the emotional and c u l t u r a l habits of a journal's writers and readers.(2) As evidence, he points to the e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y of Notes of the Fatherland, a 'thick' journal that sought to benefit Russia's masses by teaching i n t e l l e c t u a l s a combination of c i v i c r e s p o n s i b i l i t y and modern s o c i a l science.(3) Notes of  the Fatherland's readers -- primarily members of l i b e r a l educated society (obshchestvo) and ra d i c a l youth -- responded to the journal's e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y by p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n a c t i v i t i e s that benefited Russia's lower orders.(4) Of course, discourse -- of the kind mentioned above -- i s furthered on a m u l t i p l i c i t y of levels with broader and narrower f o c i . Obviously, readers of Notes of the Fatherland responded to that journal's e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y not only through engaging i n philanthropic work. They wrote to the journal and to family and friends about i t s content, and discussed s p e c i f i c journal a r t i c l e s with colleagues. Inevitably some readers were interested i n the journal's philosophy, while others sought p r a c t i c a l advice i n i t s pages. As we s h a l l see, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y were no d i f f e r e n t i n t h i s respect. The discourse that u c h i t e l ' n i t s y featured i n t h i s thesis entered concerned (at i t s narrowest) teaching, (at i t s most general) pedagogy, and (at i t s most self-interested) the place of the developing professions in the age of 'small deeds'. It also overlapped with contemporary discourse concerning the zhenskii vopros, or the 'woman question'. In order to situa t e better both discourses, t h i s chapter w i l l b r i e f l y discuss the status of education and the position of women i n Russian during the late nineteenth century. The Discourse Concerning Primary Education Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , most levels of the discourse concerning education overlap; however, the sa l i e n t features of teaching, pedagogy and professional s e l f - i n t e r e s t are as follows. Teaching i s defined as the p r a c t i c a l task of getting childr e n into the classroom, keeping them there and educating them. Teaching included classroom dynamics, d i s c i p l i n i n g , reading comprehension t e s t s , integrating the school into the community i n which i t was situated, and offe r i n g the c h i l d r e n a glimpse of a d i f f e r e n t , less brutal world than the one to which they were accustomed. In other words, teaching was a series of techniques used ju d i c i o u s l y i n the task of educating c h i l d r e n . Pedagogy, on the other hand, comprised the ideologies and theories that surrounded the purpose of education and the actions of teachers. It was at the centre of the dominant discourse concerning education. During the period examined, a ba t t l e between the philosophies and supporters of vospitanie 12 (or, for the want of a better word, 'upbringing') and vocational education occupied centre stage within the discourse. L i b e r a l and and pedagogues and i n t e l l e c t u a l s believed that vospitanie, or child-centred education, was the root of true learning. This technique required that i n d i v i d u a l attention be paid to each c h i l d and focused not only on a child's i n t e l l e c t u a l development, but also on his moral and physical progress.(5) Many of the pedagogues who propagated vospitanie believed (or at least wrote as though they believed) that i t was the answer to society's problems.(6) Since the greatness, the well-being, the industry, the finances, the peaceful c u l t u r a l development of a country, the proper conduct of a l l i t s public i n s t i t u t i o n s depend f i r s t of a l l on the q u a l i t y of knowledge i n the people, schooling must be as obligatory as m i l i t a r y service and the payment of taxes.(7) In other words, pedagogues believed that by developing appropriate (see Chapters 3 and 4) morals and decision-making s k i l l s among students of a l l Russian s o s l o v i i a (or estates), crime, poverty and b r u t a l i t y would become a thing of the past.(8) When present day historians w r i t i n g about pedagogy i n the late nineteenth century r e f e r to 'the hidden curriculum', they mean vospitanie.(9) Pedagogues and i n t e l l e c t u a l s who supported the philosophy of vospitanie saw education as more than the a c q u i s i t i o n of a series of s k i l l s ; i t was also the a c q u i s i t i o n of a moral and i n t e l l e c t u a l perspective, one emphasizing personal freedom and f u l f i l m e n t . This philosophy c o n f l i c t e d explosively with one which saw education as a series of tool s k i l l s that were necessary to ind i v i d u a l s l i v i n g i n an incr e a s i n g l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d and modernized state. As many scholars have noted, Russia -- with i t s unwieldy bureaucracy and outdated autocratic p o l i t i c a l system -- was unwillingly being forced into the modern world by a shrinking world market and the development of domestic industry.(10) While r a d i c a l and and e s p e c i a l l y l i b e r a l pedagogues (often Anglophiles) believed that t h i s tardy t r a n s i t i o n from an agrarian to modern state offered Russia f a n t a s t i c opportunity to p r o f i t from the public education experiences of other European countries, many individuals -- who were either conservative p o l i t i c a l l y , members of the governmental hierarchy, or part of the Orthodox Church -- found the prospect of child-centred universal education frightening. This l a t t e r group believed the answer to Russia's problems was to provide a r i g i d vocational education to workers and peasants, one that would equip them for the tasks of factory workers, and to comprehend and u t i l i z e new a g r i c u l t u r a l techniques. Theoretically, zemstvo (or l o c a l government) schools were supposed to engage i n vospitanie, while parish church schools emphasized vocational education. Schoolmasters of the period noted and stressed a diffe r e n c e i n the type and q u a l i t y of zemstvo and church-parish education.(11) Such assertions, however, were more often l i k e l y to be p o l i t i c a l r h e t o r i c than r e f l e c t i o n s of r e a l i t y . As J e f f r e y Brooks has noted, zemstvo school boards were frequently dominated by conservative gentry 14 members.(12) They were just as leery about giving factory workers and peasants the tools to engage in independent thought as the government and Church. That the t r a d i t i o n a l Russian power structure was concerned about the possible influence of the teacher i s i l l u s t r a t e d by the fact that zemstvo schoolteachers were subordinate to about 18 d i f f e r e n t o f f i c i a l s or a u t h o r i t i e s : including the inspector, the marshall of the n o b i l i t y , the chairman of the l o c a l zemstvo board, the l o c a l land captain, the v i l l a g e p r i e s t , a l l members of the l o c a l school board, the diocesan Church hierarchy, and the peasant volost' o f f i c e , including the clerk, the elder (both volost' and v i l l a g e ) , and the constable, along with the school trustee. (13) The above subordination of a l i t e r a t e c u l t u r a l messenger (the teacher) to l o c a l , often i l l i t e r a t e , authority obviously reduced the power of education to f a c i l i t a t e the economic and c u l t u r a l changes pedagogues espoused. This, and similar s i t u a t i o n s , was at the heart of much contemporary debate -- e s p e c i a l l y debate concerned with professional development. Following The Great Reforms and the expansion of educational i n s t i t u t i o n s , the professions (including those of teacher and pedagogue) experienced tremendous growth.(14) However, i n the period 1881-1905, because p o l i t i c a l p a rties, professional associations, conferences and meetings were r e s t r i c t e d and spied upon by the suspicious T s a r i s t bureaucracy, professional men (and v i r t u a l l y a l l were men) had no say i n the p o l i t i c a l or economic sphere. Well-trained but unable to 15 influence s i g n i f i c a n t l y governmental p o l i c y , these i n d i v i d u a l s engaged i n what has come to be known as 'small deeds'. 'Small deeds' were a c t i v i t i e s that aimed through reformism to improve the conditions of l i f e of Russia's lower estates. This philosophy, l i k e vospitanie, was espoused by the dominant l i b e r a l discourse. And l i k e the c a l l for vospitanie and universal education, the philosophy of 'small deeds' flowered i n the 1890s. The Age of Small Deeds was a time of personal contributions, and doctors, f e l ' d s h e r i (or medical o r d e r l i e s ) , lawyers, j o u r n a l i s t s , and -- not su r p r i s i n g l y -- teachers p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the cause. The work was often ground-breaking and d i f f i c u l t . Lack of resources and f i n a n c i a l support often made even the simplest of tasks almost impossible.(15) Many of these professionals were i d e a l i s t s , who sought to improve the l i v e s of others and thus to enrich t h e i r own. However, these new professionals had very l i t t l e status and even less power i n a country s t i l l possessed of an entrenched gentry and a conservative peasantry. One way of increasing the power and status of individuals employed i n the professions was to emphasize th e i r importance to Russia's future and i t s underprivileged. William Wagner has noted that t h i s was lawyers' strategy when they stressed the unjust nature of family law.(16) T r a d i t i o n a l Russian family law, which upheld the absolute power of father and husband, was constantly attacked i n law journals. Wagner claims that t h i s was because p a t r i a r c h a l authority i n the home recreated 16 autocratic authority i n the state, which kept Russian professionals from p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the governing of t h e i r country (as, for example, professionals -- es p e c i a l l y lawyers --did i n B r i t a i n ) . Seen from t h i s perspective, Russian lawyers' b a t t l e to reform family law, when the family was the foundation upon which tsarism was based, was i n some measure s e l f interested.(17) If the family was reformed, the state must be also. And in e v i t a b l y the role lawyers would play i n both the professional and p o l i t i c a l sphere would naturally increase, as would t h e i r standard of l i v i n g . A s i m i l a r combination of 'small deeds' philosophy and s e l f -i n t e r e s t can be seen i n a r t i c l e s and speeches by famous pedagogues, and even i n th e i r espousal of vospitanie. It i s e s p e c i a l l y obvious i n the pages of journals they published. And, just as lawyers used graphic examples of family violence, and women and children's abject subservience to support t h e i r bid for reform of the legal system, pedagogues stressed the violence and immorality of peasant and worker families.(18) As wel l , they highlighted the d i r e s i t u a t i o n of public schoolteachers: t h e i r low wages, t h e i r poor l i v i n g conditions, t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s with l o c a l authorities and th e i r tendency to f l e e the profession.(19) Out of t h i s d i r e picture painted by pedagogues came the stereotype of the much-abused teacher. 17 The D i f f i c u l t L i f e of a Schoolteacher This stereotype of the unhappy and abused schoolteacher, which was central to the dominant discourse, did have strong basis i n fact i n the Russian context. In the 30 years following 1880, when the Ministry of Public Instruction turned i t s attention from secondary and university education, the number of primary schools i n Russia exploded from approximately 25,000 to 100,749.(20) However, the system remained i n c o n f l i c t and underfunded. While the Ministry was in nominal control of a l l schools, 12 d i f f e r e n t types of primary schools -- run by d i f f e r e n t organizations and departments — existed i n Russia.(21) A large, and growing, number of private schools flourished. Russia's piecemeal educational system was a d i r e c t consequence of limited governmental resources. An near-empty treasury meant that instead of developing and building a centralized and ordered educational system (as i n say, for example, France), the Russian government attempted to enforce standardized curriculum and teacher quality through c e n t r a l i z e d control over school budgets and s t r i c t — although infrequent --supervision over teaching.(22) Because the central government set p o l i c y and budgets, and the l o c a l — often r u r a l -- schools carrying out these p o l i c i e s were responsible to parents, problems were inevitable.(23) Some problems were economic and environmental i n nature, such as infrequent or tardy s a l a r i e s and overdue school maintenance Table II Sources of Funding for Rural Schools, 1879 and 1911 Percentage of funds supplied 1879a 1911 Central government 11.3% 45% Zemstvo 43.4% 29.6% V i l l a g e commune 32.3% 14.8% Church and philanthropic organizations b 1.3% 1.3% Private 6.4% 6.0% Fees 3.0% 1.6% Other 0.7% 1.6% Source: Eklof, Russian Peasant Schools, 89. Note: The 1879 study included the f i f t y European province, whereas the 1911 School Census covered the e n t i r e Empire. However, because schooling was so infrequent outside European Russia, the data remain roughtly comparable. a) The figures i n the o r i g i n a l data add up to only 98.4%. b) Includes l o c a l parishes and monasteries. The budget of the Holy Synod came from the central government. 19 payments. Others involved the persecution and defamation of teachers.(24) As has already been mentioned, teachers were subordinate to some 18 d i f f e r e n t authorities and for t h i s reason i t was d i f f i c u l t to appeal bad treatment, and almost impossible to determine to whom one was responsible. Of course, i t was not only teachers who had d i f f i c u l t y deciding for whom they worked. Peasants often believed the teacher was a government agent, while the government sometimes saw the teacher as a pawn of l o c a l interests. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the elementary teacher was often the victim of c o n f l i c t s between central and l o c a l authority, Ministry of Public Instruction and zemstvo, church and parish, and peasant community and p r i e s t or zemstvo. In some cases where the peasant commune could not r e t a l i a t e d i r e c t l y against an overbearing governmental o f f i c i a l or proud v i l l a g e elder, the teacher (as his supposed representative) was punished. Because there was generally a d i v i s i o n of salary and maintenance r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s between zemstvo (or town council or church) and peasant (or worker) community, even c o n f l i c t s at the l o c a l l e v e l could r e s u l t i n great problems for the teacher. Consider, for example, the d i f f i c u l t i e s that could r e s u l t i f zemstvo and peasant commune fought. The zemstvo paid salary, provided school furniture, blackboards, slates, pens, l i b r a r y books and sometimes the school i t s e l f , while the peasant commune provided heat, l i g h t , building maintenance, teacher's quarters and often the school building.(25) In his a r t i c l e concerning Table III Average Salary Less than 120 r. 120-180r. 180-240r. 240-360r. More than 360r. No. 182 886 1735 1830 339 % 3.7% 17.9% 34% 36.8% 6.8% Source: Blinov, Narodnyi u c h i t e l ' v R o s s i i , 76. Note: Data from a survey of 5015 r u r a l teachers of whom 497 responded. Only 2314 d i f f e r e n c i a t e d between t h e i r p o s i t i o n teachers or helping teachers, or i n regards to t h e i r sex. Table IV Average Salary for 2314 Differenciated Teachers Less than 120 r. 120-80r. 180-240r. 240 Schoolmaster 6.9% Schoolmistress 6.4% Male helper 57.1% Female helper 6.9% 8.6% 25.9% 14.4% 36.4% 35.7% 3.6% 37.2% 33.9% -360 r. More than 360r 41.9% 16.7% 36.2% 6.6% 3.6% 22.0% Source: Blinov, Narodnyi u c h i t e l ' v Ros s i i , 76. 20 21 the role of zemstva i n elementary education, J e f f r e y Brooks has noted that c o n f l i c t between zemstvo and commune was common and that peasants often fought through withdrawal of services and zemstva through the use of state pol i c e , which tended to exacerbate d i f f i c u l t i e s . ( 2 6 ) For a teacher, who was often l i v i n g at subsistence l e v e l , such a ba t t l e could mean severe p r i v a t i o n . In an a r t i c l e published i n 1902, L. Blinov produced a survey of 4,972 male and female teachers and assistant teachers which showed that 55.6% earned less than 240 rubles a year.(27) Only 6.8% earned more than 360 rubles a year. In a chart that followed, he showed that i n a smaller sample group 44.4% of schoolmasters earned less than 240 per annum, and so d i d 47.2% of schoolmistresses . (28 ) Such wages compared poorly with the 3600 rubles, 3000 rubles and 1,200 rubles zemstvo s t a t i s t i c i a n s , agronomists and doctors re s p e c t i v e l y earned annually.(29) They were instead comparable to the 240 rubles earned by i n d u s t r i a l workers.(30) A survey of budget studies compiled a few years a f t e r the above survey demonstrated that single teachers with an average income of 273 rubles only had 69 rubles of dispensable income a f t e r outlays on food and clothing. A 1900 study of teachers i n Moscow d i s t r i c t noted that 85% of teachers were i n debt.(31) While c o n f l i c t s between opposing factions and low s a l a r i e s caused teachers unsought d i f f i c u l t i e s , some teachers brought trouble upon themselves. Many s t o r i e s e x i s t of peasant communes 22 r e j e c t i n g teachers or teachers' techniques and curriculum. In his book Twenty-five Years i n the Countryside, S.T. Semenov noted how the members of one v i l l a g e d i s l i k e d the lazy, urban-born schoolmistresses, who sat around drinking tea most days, schemed to marry and leave the profession, and ruined part of the harvest through improper threshing.(32) The schoolmistress E.S. wrote that the teacher for whom she f i r s t worked earned the enmity of the v i l l a g e by befriending a merchant, who was reputed to be an arsonist, and by taking bribes from the r i c h e r members of the community.(33) Semenov's u c h i t e l ' n i t s a was simply insulted, c a l l e d "baba" and "long hair".(34) E.S.'s schoolmaster was threatened by a drunken crowd intent upon taking the law into i t s own hands. As far as community disapproval and r e j e c t i o n of a teacher's curriculum are concerned, Eklof notes numerous instances when parents kept t h e i r children away from school i f the teacher was incompetent or was not teaching what parents considered important.(35) Often v i l l a g e communes forced teachers to teach church singing and basic l i t e r a c y , rather than, for example, Russian l i t e r a t u r e and ethics. That i s , many communities rejected vospitanie. The Stereotype As was mentioned e a r l i e r , pedagogues and i n t e l l e c t u a l s emphasized the d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by schoolteachers, s t r e s s i n g 23 t h e i r p a s s i v i t y and powerlessness. In so doing, they argued for dramatic s t r u c t u r a l change and standardization within the Russian educational system. Such changes would take schools out of the hands of peasant elders and l o c a l bureaucrats and place them under the d i r e c t i o n of educational professionals -- that i s , the above-mentioned pedagogues or t h e i r d i s c i p l e s . Of course, i t was i n these pedagogues* best int e r e s t s that the p o r t r a i t they painted of both the educational system and that system's representative (the teacher) be pessimistic and dark. Vera Sandomirsky Dunham has noted that i n Russian r e a l i s t f i c t i o n of the period, society and l i v e s tended to be painted unnaturally dark. (36) The same can be said of the p o r t r a i t painted of l i v e s and society by journal a r t i c l e s of the l a t e r nineteenth century. As R.J. Ware has noted, i t i s d i f f i c u l t to t a l k about thick journals' a r t i c l e s as f i c t i o n or non-fiction; most of t h e i r a r t i c l e s existed i n an intermediate range of semi-f i c t i o n a l mixed genres. This i s understandable given thick journals' desire not only to inform but also to motivate readers.(37) Darkness i n journal a r t i c l e s was also a natural r e s u l t of the f r u s t r a t i o n writers and i n t e l l e c t u a l s f e l t i n Russia's backward p o l i t i c a l and economic culture. In such a culture, where they were barred from democratic p o l i t i c a l o f f i c e and the centres of bureaucratic power, i n t e l l e c t u a l s used t h e i r writing as a p o l i t i c a l t o o l . By emphasizing the limited and mainly negative r e s u l t s of the educational system, pedagogues 24 c r i t i c i z e d i t s root (the oppressive, autocratic government) — just as disgruntled lawyers attacked the t r a d i t i o n a l i s t l e g a l system by stres s i n g the inequities of family law. An understanding of t h i s technique of argument-by-analogy of f e r s an in s i g h t into methods of protest i n nineteenth century t s a r i s t society. It should also prevent the present day reader from accepting the contents of journal a r t i c l e s as f a c t . However, t h i s has not been the case. Many present-day hi s t o r i a n s have ignored the p o l i t i c a l agenda of l i b e r a l journals as they mined pedagogical a r t i c l e s i n an e f f o r t to i d e n t i f y the economic and s o c i a l conditions i n which teachers l i v e d and worked. They have accepted as fact, a picture that was painted with d i s t i n c t p o l i t i c a l goals.(38) Interestingly, i n order to f l e s h out t h e i r s t a t i s t i c a l and anecdotal-based re-creations, at least one contemporary h i s t o r i a n has also woven Russian r e a l i s t f i c t i o n into his work.(39) For example, Ben Eklof relates the troubles the schoolmistress i n A.P. Chekhov's "Na podvode" (In the cart) has getting her already over-due salary i n a section of his book Russian Peasant Schools, which discusses the precarious economic p o s i t i o n of schoolteachers. In doing so, he p i l e s f i c t i o n upon p o l i t i c a l l y - b i a s e d fact and so reinforces the stereotypical p o r t r a i t of the schoolteacher, p a r t i c u l a r l y the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a . This stereotype concerning the schoolteacher occupied a prominent place i n the discourse concerning education. And, i n the case of schoolmistresses, was i n t e g r a l l y connected to the 25 discourse surrounding the zhenskii vopros, or woman question.(40) The l i t e r a r y discourse concerning women had long emphasized women's passive, martyr-like q u a l i t i e s . Heroines since Karamzin's Poor Li z a had shown strength and displayed femininity by suffering v a l i a n t l y i n service to family and s o c i a l norms. (41) It i s out of the convergence of these two discourses that Potapenko's short story "The General's Daughter", i n which a genteel young woman dies of tuberculosis while teaching i n the countryside, and Chekhov's pathetic character Irina i n The Three Sister s come. In both l i t e r a r y examples, the women are trapped by the conventions that describe women. The general's daughter i s doomed to death by a romantic l i t e r a r y i d e a l of service, while Irina i s forced into teaching by her fiance's death and the need to fin d solace i n a c t i v i t y : Tomorrow I s h a l l go alone, I ' l l teach i n a school, and I ' l l give my whole l i f e to those who may need i t . It i s autumn now, soon winter w i l l come, i t w i l l cover everything with snow, and I s h a l l work, I s h a l l work... (42) The stereotype of the nineteenth century schoolmistress was created and reinforced (even, as we have seen, into the twentieth century) by male i n t e l l e c t u a l s , which i s a fact that was understood even by ind i v i d u a l s of the period. As the writer N. Ia. Abramovich noted i n his 1913 book Woman and the World of  Male Culture, "Thus, we r e a l i z e r i g h t away, that creative hunger and fantasies about the poetic cast of women's souls are not documents about women, but rather are testimonies concerning men's souls."(43) Despite the fact that such documented 26 commentary exists i n the h i s t o r i c a l record, no study touching upon Russian female professionals has b u i l t i t into that study's basic methodology. S p e c i f i c a l l y , neither pedagogues of the day nor i n t e l l e c t u a l s since have given appropriate attention to the writings of women who entered and happily remained within the teaching profession i n surveys and a r t i c l e s concerning the s o c i a l and economic conditions of public schoolteachers.(44) By analyzing the memoir/articles written by 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , I hope to b u i l d a more r e a l i s t i c p o r t r a i t of the d a i l y l i f e of a schoolmistress. As we w i l l see, a l l but one of the 14 memoirs were written i n deliberate opposition to the stereotype. Of course, since the memoirs were introduced i n a po l i t i c a l l y - m o t i v a t e d discourse, i t i s highly u n l i k e l y that they are 'true' i n the objective sense. However, they do represent a version of r e a l i t y that the 14 authors believed was worthy of presentation to pedagogues, the public and other teachers.(45) For individuals interested i n the discourse concerning education i n the late nineteenth century, these women's writings are of sp e c i a l interest, because they display a complex and l i v e l y understanding of the established educational discourse i n both the s t y l e and content of the writing. As well, they o f f e r a supplement to the discourse concerning the t r a d i t i o n a l place of women i n Russian society. Of course, i n order for the reader to understand the weight of t h i s supplement, some attention must f i r s t be paid to the position of women within Russian society of the period. The Position of Women In t h i s section, only the position of women who would have read about, i f not participated i n , the debate concerning the woman question w i l l be discussed. In l a t e r chapters, the status and treatment of krest'ianki (women peasants) and rabot'nitsy (women factory workers) w i l l be discussed as necessary. This section w i l l therefor concern only women from the middle and gentry estates, the same women (i n t e r e s t i n g l y enough) who came to form the majority of teachers i n the period under analysis.(46) In order to understand the world such women inhabited, i t i s e s s e n t i a l to consider their legal and s o c i a l conditions. F i r s t , women's freedoms were r e s t r i c t e d i n Russia, as throughout a l l nineteenth century Europe. Law codes subordinated single women to parents and then transferred authority to husbands upon marriage. (47) Much has been made of the fact that Russian women, i n contrast to B r i t i s h or French women, owned property. However, ownership was of considerably less value when the administration of said property was i n husbands' hands.(48) As well, Russian men held t h e i r wives' passports, without which i t was impossible to t r a v e l , work, or get an education.(49) A l l the above r e s t r i c t i o n s and l e g i s l a t i o n would have had r e l a t i v e l y l i t t l e impact upon a woman with reasonable parents and a kind husband. However, for a woman involved i n a unhappy re l a t i o n s h i p , the s i t u a t i o n must have been almost unendurable. 28 Of course, divorce was an option, but a limited one. A r i g i d sexual double standard made i t almost impossible for women to procure divorce -- even on the basis of adultery. (50) As wel l , s o c i a l conventions that i d e a l i z e d wife and, e s p e c i a l l y , mother operated to encourage women to marry and to stay married. In her a r t i c l e "Mother-Child Relationships among the Russian N o b i l i t y " , Jessica Tovrov describes how women were educated and trained from childhood to become house managers and s o c i a l conveners -- that i s , wives.(51) Such conditioning produced women who were firmly convinced that wedlock and motherhood were the hallmarks of femininity and the natural destiny of a l l women. As one young woman wrote, "I passionately want to be a woman and a mother -- both these feelings are equal i n me. I w i l l marry, even i f love i s not present i n f u l l measure."(52) The s o c i a l pressure to adhere to a t r a d i t i o n a l view of women as wife and mother was reinforced by a resounding lack of career and l i f e a lternatives. Following the un i v e r s i t y disturbances of 1863 (in which some women participated), women were barred from attending u n i v e r s i t y courses — even as auditors. Higher education could only be pursued i n the medical f a c u l t y at the M i l i t a r y Surgical I n s t i t u t e and the few Women's Higher Courses s t i l l operating within the Empire.(53) Thus, s e l f - f u l f i l m e n t through higher education was closed to a l l but a few women -- as were most careers.(54) Educated women, who aspired to positions within the burgeoning professions, were disappointed.(55) Of the three jobs open to large numbers of 29 women i n the late nineteenth century (factory worker, midwife and teacher), only teacher appeared respectable and so the competition for positions was great. Christine Johanson has determined that during the period 1880-4, over 1400 women f a i l e d to secure positions as teachers and governesses i n Moscow guberniia alone.(56) Teaching appeared respectable because i t involved l i t t l e manual labour, and i t placed women among children, where --according to s o c i a l norms -- they were expected to be. In fac t , i n the writings of many pedagogues a strong connection was drawn between u c h i t e l ' n i t s y and mothers. For example, i n an extremely popular teachers' handbook from the period, the connection between educating women and producing teachers i s stated e x p l i c i t l y . "If you teach f i v e g i r l s , i t i s equivalent to teaching 25 people; they w i l l have children."(57) Of course, the connection between schoolmistresses and mothers was purely an abstract one, because i n many Russian educational d i s t r i c t s , women teachers were forbidden to marry.(58) Although a common practice i n many countries throughout the 1890s, and explicable i n terms of fear for the health of pregnant women and of the disruption of a married schoolmistress' family l i f e , such l e g i s l a t i o n created a dissonant situation.(59) That i s , women teachers, who cared for c h i l d r e n a l l day long, were forbidden from engaging i n the most respected a c t i v i t y open to women i n t h e i r society -- the bearing and r a i s i n g of t h e i r own children. For schoolmistresses, the 30 f a m i l i a r V i c t o r i a n middle and upper class d i v i s i o n of the world into male (public) and female (private) spheres was turned on i t s head. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y (often women from the middle and upper estates) were care-givers and nurturers i n the public (not private) sphere, for which they were paid. Alison Prentice has argued that teaching became a profession at the point at which the nurturing and educating of children was moved from the domestic to the public sphere;(60) that i s , at the point where i t ceased to be a private inte r a c t i o n , c a r r i e d out by v i r t u a l amateurs. In a woman teacher's case, however, l i t t l e (except the location of instruction) seemed to have changed. She was b i o l o g i c a l l y suited to be a mother and, i n so far as her a c t i v i t i e s as teacher replicated those of a mother, she could hardly have been seen as a professional — i n the conventional sense. (61) The majority of Russian schoolmistresses did not receive pedagogical t r a i n i n g or pa r t i c i p a t e i n professional development conferences and courses. Thus, while she t h e o r e t i c a l l y may have been a natural nurturer (and so a champion of vospitanie), the schoolmistress may not have been trained to nurture i n a group se t t i n g . For thi s reason, she may not have been seen as the ide a l teacher. Lacking a spe c i a l i z e d professional education, the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a had not been made over completely — according to the dominant discourse's educational philosophy -- into a teaching professional. As we w i l l see, women who themselves taught, were not 31 w i l l i n g to accept t h i s equation (women=natural, but non-professional, teacher) so rea d i l y . They knew that the l o g i s t i c s of educating 50 children divided into three classes were very d i f f e r e n t from r a i s i n g (and possibly educating) one or two at home. They also knew that an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t personality and set of s k i l l s were required to t r a i n and d i s c i p l i n e c h i l d r e n of a d i f f e r e n t estate. As well, they were required to develop coping s k i l l s to buffer r e j e c t i o n -- a product of t h e i r unmarried status and elevated estate -- by the communities i n which they taught. In the opinions of schoolmistresses who wrote, women who could develop and hone such s k i l l s were professionals. **** The above chapter has investigated the nature and purpose of the discourse concerning education, the conditions of l i f e and work for Russian schoolteachers, the stereotype of the schoolteacher (e s p e c i a l l y the schoolmistress) that grew out of the discourse concerning education, and the pos i t i o n of women i n middle and upper estates during the la t e nineteenth century. I t has also demonstrated how the public discourse concerning women and education was dominated by men, who expressed professional and p o l i t i c a l f r u s t r a t i o n , s e l f - i n t e r e s t , and personal need by emphasizing the di r e conditions of less powerful people. 32 Pedagogues emphasized the poor economic and s o c i a l conditions teachers laboured under; men emphasized the e f f e c t of the pa t r i a r c h a l and repressive family upon women. The nineteenth century l i t e r a r y c r i t i c Abramovich i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s tendency when he noted that men writing about women's souls were r e a l l y discussing t h e i r own. In an a r t i c l e concerning the campaign for universal primary education i n Russia, A l l e n Sinel showed how such transference operated i n the discourse concerning education. Pedagogues believed that nothing was as valuable to Russia's future as the expansion of the educational system: If the heavily taxed populace, the overburdened zemstvos and the i n d i f f e r e n t and sometimes h o s t i l e government were to provide the immense resources needed to prove Strannoljubskij [a man who i n s i s t e d that the educational system was i n e f f e c t i v e ] wrong, they would a l l have to be convinced [by pedagogues] that nothing was so v i t a l to in d i v i d u a l , l o c a l and national well-being as mass education. (62) What they may r e a l l y have believed (even subconsciously) was that nothing was as valuable to pedagogues as an expanded school system. Perhaps the above statement i s a l i t t l e harsh and overly s i m p l i s t i c . However, i t serves to i l l u s t r a t e the fact that the dominant discourse was created and reinforced by in d i v i d u a l s with aims and biases. As R.J. Ware noted, these aims and biases were transferred to readers and writers through journals. A journal's audience then demonstrated support of e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y through actions (perhaps p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n 'small deeds') or writings. The dominant discourse thus spread into the l i v e s of 33 people, who were required to act upon i t s l o g i c and demands. As we w i l l see, because the discourse was rooted i n i n t e l l e c t u a l s ' abstract and long-term desires, i t offered l i t t l e i n the way of p r a c t i c a l advice to the actors i t inspired. In some cases, (for example, women who were stereotyped as passive and vulnerable) the actors were even hampered by the discourse. The above chapter has established the context for the forthcoming inves t i g a t i o n and interpretation of the purpose and meaning of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles. The following chapters w i l l reveal how schoolmistresses engaged i n a counter-discourse that offered t h e i r educated and unmarried colleagues a p o s i t i v e self-image i n a society that worshipped mothers. They w i l l also uncover Russian schoolmistresses' fascinating professional ethic. Endnotes 1. Ware, "Russian Journal" 121. 2. Ware, "Russian Journal" 122. 3. Ware, "Russian Journal" 133-4. 'Thick' journals were perio d i c a l s (generally published monthly) that offered i n t e l l e c t u a l and s o c i a l comment on contemporary issues and events. They were the primary communication medium u t i l i z e d by Russian i n t e l l e c t u a l s and educated society (obshchestvo) during the nineteenth century. In an enormous empire lacking an elected government or laws permitting professional associations and public meetings, they were the l i n k that connected educated Russia and gave i t a voice. 34 4. Ware, "Russian Journal" 136-7. 5. See A. Baulina, Zadachi sovremennaqo vospitaniia. (St. Petersburg: M.M. S t a s l i u l e v i c h , 1910), e s p e c i a l l y Chapter 18, for a f u l l explanation of vospitanie. 6. S i n e l , "Campaign" 485-97. 7. S i n e l , "Campaign" 486-7. V.P. Vakhterov, "Vseobshchee nachal'noe obuchenie", Russkaia mysl' 15(1894) Book 7, otdel I I , 1-18. 8. Gregory L. Freeze, "The Soslovie (Estate Paradigm and Russian Social History," The American H i s t o r i c a l Review v o l . 91, 1 (February 1986): 11-36. In t h i s a r t i c l e , Freeze attempts to define soslovie, a word that i s not appropriately translated as eith e r class or estate. Freeze shows how the d e f i n i t i o n of soslovie changed from the seventeenth to the twentieth centuries. He also shows that i t was a dynamic term, changing as the society which used i t changed. Even a f a c i l e d e f i n i t i o n of soslovie must encompass categories of kinship, occupation, l e g a l status, corporateness and d i s t i n c t i v e culture. (Freeze 19). 9. See Eklof, Russian Peasant 419-437. 10. See Hans Rogger, Russia i n the Age of Modernisation and  Revolution, 1881-1917. (New York: Longman, 1983) i n order to get a sense of the dramatic transformations taking place i n society. 11. Byvshii u c h i t e l ' , "Iz vospominanii sel'skago u c h i t e l i a , " (Iz Permskoi gubernii), Obrazovanie, 5-6 (1896): Sect. 2, 106-8. 12. J e f f r e y Brooks, "The Zemstvo and the Education of the People," The Zemstvo i n Russia: An Experiment in Local S e l f - government, Ed. Terence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich, (Melbourne: Cambridge University Press, 1982) 250-9. 13. Eklof, Russian Peasant 222. 14. See Charles A. Ruud, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and  the Russian Press, 1804-1906, (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982) and Richard S. Wortman, The Development of a  Russian Legal Consciousness, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976) for descriptions of the growth of professionalism i n two f i e l d s -- journalism and law. 15. See John F. Hutchinson, P o l i t i c s and Public Health i n  Revolutionary Russia 1890-1918, (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990) and Nancy Mandelker Frieden, Russian  Physicians i n an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856-1905, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981) for examples of these d i f f i c u l t i e s . 35 16. William G. Wagner, "The Trojan Mare: Women's Rights and C i v i l Rights i n Late Imperial Russia," C i v i l Rights i n Imperial  Russia, Ed. Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989), 65. 17. Wagner 66 and 78. 18. A. Anastasiev, Narodnaia shkola rukovodstvo d l i a u c h i t e l e i  i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'nykh" u c h i l i s h c h nastol'naia spravochnaia  kniqa, 7th ed, v o l . 2, (Moscow: A.A. Stupin, 1910), 33 and 37. As well, see David L. Ransel, "Child Care Cultures i n the Russian Empire," a paper delivered August 1988, at the Conference on the History of Women i n the Russian Empire for a description of habits of c h i l d care and the comments of contemporary physicians and pedagogues. 19. As examples, see S.V. Anikina, "0 material'noi i iur i d i c h e s k o i neobespechennosti russkago narodnago u c h i t e l i a , " Russkaia shkola, 7-8 (1903) 217-28; "Antisanitarnoe shkol'noe zdanie," Russkaia shkola, 5-6 (1904), sect. 3, 101; "Begstvo narodnykh u c h i t e l e i , " Russkaia shkola, 1 (1904), sect. 2, 107. 20. Eklof, Russian Peasant 287. 21. Ben Eklof, "Peasant Sloth Reconsidered: Strategies of Education and Learning i n Rural Russia Before the Revolution," Journal of Social History 14, 3 (Spring 1981): 379. See A.I. Piskunov, Ocherki i s t o r i i shkoly i pedagogicheskoi mysli narodov  SSSR: vtoraia polovina XIX v, (Moscow: Pedagogika, 1976) for descriptions of the various types of schools — o f f e r i n g primary, secondary and advanced educations. 22. Eklof, Russian Peasant 102, 127 and 140-1; K. Barsov, "Sel'skaia shkola i u c h i t e l ' , " Russkaia shkola, 5-6 (1896) 54-5. 23. Such c o n f l i c t s were common i n many countries. See Eugen Weber, " C i v i l i z i n g i n Earnest," Peasants into Frenchmen: The  Modernization of Rural France, 1870-1914, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976); Roger Thabault, Education and Change i n  a V i l l a g e Community:Mazieres-en-Gatine, 1848-1914, trans. Peter Tregear, (New York: Schocken Books, 1971) 123, 165-6, and 206-7; and Polly Welts Kaufman, Women Teachers on the Frontier, (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984) 21-37. 24. Eklof, Russian Peasant 186-94 and 234-7, and "Uchitel'nitsa Ivanova," Russkaia shkola, 10-11 (1901), sect. 2, 126. 25. Brooks, "Zemstvo" 258-9. 26. Brooks, "Zemstvo" 261. 36 27. L. Blinov, "Narodnyi u c h i t e l ' v R o s s i i , " Vseobshchee  obrazovanie v R o s s i i , Ed. D.M. Shakhovskii, (Moscow, 1902), 76. 28. Blinov 76. As well, he notes that d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s had r a d i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t pay scales. 75. 29. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 345. 30. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 345. 31. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 345. 32. S.T. Semenov, Dvadstat'piat' l e t v derevne, (St. Petersburg: Kn--vo "Zhinzn' i znanie", 1895) 42-3. 33. Elizaveta Nikolaevna S., "Vospomirianiia sel ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Russkaia shkola, 5-6 (1902) 39. 34. Semenov 42. 35. See Eklof, "Zemstvo School" and Eklof, "Peasant Sloth". 36. Vera Sandomirsky Dunham, "The Strong-Woman Motif," The  Transformation of Russian Society, Ed. C y r i l E. Black, (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967) 482. 37. Ware, Russian Journal 124. 38. See Eklof, Russian Peasant, Seregny Russian Teachers and Scott Seregny, "Zemstvo Rabbits, A n t i c h r i s t s and Revolutionaries: Rural Teachers i n Saratov Province, 1890-1917," P o l i t i c s and Society i n Provincial Russia: Saratov, 1600-1917, Ed. Scott J. Seregny, (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989), 113-38. 39. Eklof, Russian Peasant 234-5. Is i t too much to suggest that by engaging i n t h i s t a c t i c of mixing fact ( s t a t i s t i c s ) with f i c t i o n , Eklof has entered the same semi-fictional world as the pedagogues upon whose writings he has based his research? 40. See the f i r s t section of Heldt, T e r r i b l e Perfection concerning the iconography of women; also refer to Dunham. 41. Sonia i n Crime and Punishment and Anna Karenina are two good examples of t h i s type of l i t e r a r y heroine. 42. Anton Chekhov, The Three Sisters, trans, and ed. Eugene K. Bristow, (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1977), 157. 43. N. Ia. Abramovich, Zhenshchina i mir muzhskoi kul'tury:  mirovoe tvorchestvo i polovaia liubov', (Moscow: Svobodnyi Put', 1913) 7. 37 44. Eklof quotes from A.V. Filotova; however, her work i s r e a l l y part of the discourse of the soviet period. For t h i s reason, i t does not feature i n th i s thesis. 45. Just as Toby Clymas* a r t i c l e on women physicians does. 46. Blinov 68. 47. Wagner 68, and Dorothy Atkinson, "Society and the Sexes i n the Russian Past," Women in Russia, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1977) 33. 48. Wagner 69 and Richard S t i t e s , The Women's Liberation  Movement i n Russia: Feminism, Nihilism and Bolshevism 1860-1930, (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978) 7-8. 49. Atkinson 32-3 and Wagner 66. 50. S t i t e s 181-2 and Linda Edmondson, Feminism in Russia, 1900- 1917, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984), 11 and 140. 51. Jessica Tovrov, "Mother-Child Relationships among the Russian N o b i l i t y , " The Family i n Imperial Russia: New Lines i n H i s t o r i c a l Research, Ed. David L. Ransel, (Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1978) 15-43. 52. Quoted i n S t i t e s , 181. 53. Christ i n e Johanson, Women's Struggle for Higher Education i n  Russia, 1855-1900/ (Kingston: McGi11-Queen's University Press, 1987), 89 and 100-1. 54. The women featured i n A. P o l i a n s k i i , Russkaia zhenshchina  na gosudarstvennoi i obshchestvennoi sluzhbe, (Moscow: Tip. S. Skirmunt, 1901) were p r i n c i p a l l y brought into the jobs they had through t h e i r connection with men already i n the profession --husbands, fathers, etc. No large-scale h i r i n g went on. 55. See Johanson and Sophia Satina, Education of Women i n Pre- revolutionary Russia, (New York: Smith College manuscript, 1966) 23. 56. Johanson 61. 57. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 44. 58. See Catherine Ruane Hinshaw, "The Vestal Virgins of St. Petersburg: Schoolteachers and the 1897 Marriage Ban," a paper delivered August 1988 at the conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire. 38 59. Hinshaw makes an intere s t i n g argument that the basis of the l e g i s l a t i o n i s to move women through the profession and on into other areas of the economy. 60. Alison Prentice, "The Feminization of Teaching", The  Neglected Majority: Essays in Canadian Women's History. Ed. Susan Mann Trofimenkoff and Alison Prentice, (Toronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1977), 50. 61. Ssee Reddings S. Sugg, J r . , Motherteacher: The Feminization  of American Education, ( C h a r l o t t e s v i l l e : University Press of V i r g i n i a , 1978), 79-83 for a b r i e f discussion of American educational pioneer Catherine Beecher's argument that women 'naturally' were better suited than men for teaching. 62. S i n e l , "Campaign" 485. CHAPTER II THE FIELD OF DISCOURSE AND THE PARTICIPANTS As noted i n Chapter 1, there was a dialogue between the edit o r s and readers of a l l thick journals.(1) The editors promoted a new l i t e r a t u r e that would draw readers toward the e d i t o r s ' p o l i t i c a l convictions; readers and writers responded by absorbing and acting (writing) out the s o c i a l and p o l i t i c a l convictions expressed i n journals. "The 'thick* journal had become more than a convenient and p o t e n t i a l l y p r o f i t a b l e l i t e r a r y vehicle; i t came to occupy a special place i n the emotions of the writers and i n the c u l t u r a l habits of the readers."(2) As Ware discovered, even i n the case of l i t e r a r y journals, audiences consisted primarily of people involved f u l l -time i n education: pedagogues, teachers and students.(3) This was because the vocabulary and content of thick journals were accessible only to people with a high l e v e l of general education. Because of the r e l a t i v e l y sophisticated nature of journal a r t i c l e s , the dialogue between editors, writers and readers was of a comparatively elevated nature. It was rooted i n the context that was introduced i n Chapter 1, as well as i n the l i f e experiences of the p a r t i c i p a n t s . This chapter w i l l examine the l i v e s and s o c i a l experiences of the individuals who generated and reinforced the dominant discourse concerning education through a survey of t h e i r journals; i t w i l l also examine the 39 40 l i v e s , s o c i a l experiences and situations of the u c h i t e l ' n i t s y who created the counter-discourse. In order to place the schoolmistresses whose memoir/articles form the basis of t h i s thesis i n closer context, t h e i r educational and s o c i a l p r o f i l e s w i l l be compared to a selected group of schoolmasters that also wrote memoir/articles and to primary schoolteachers i n general. A Survey of Three Educational Journals The three journals t h i s thesis examines -- Russkaia shkola (Russian School), Obrazovanie (Education) and Narodnoe  obrazovanie (Elementary Education) -- that published a r t i c l e s by schoolmistresses were 'thick' journals that stressed educational issues. Beyond t h i s , each journal had a s p e c i f i c socio-p o l i t i c a l o r i e n t a t i o n or e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y . As we already know, the e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y of Russian journals affected not only t h e i r content, but also the world view and habits of t h e i r audiences. (As we s h a l l see, i t also influenced that audience's writing s t y l e and the content of a r t i c l e s they wrote.) Needless to say, i n order to understand the e f f e c t of a journal's e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y on readers, i t i s necessary to determine the nature of t h i s policy. This section w i l l be devoted to such a task. It w i l l present what i s known about the above journals' editors and publishers, as well as a discussion of each journal's content 41 and purpose. Journals w i l l be discussed according to the number of memoir/articles by schoolmistresses each contains -- and therefore i n order of th e i r importance to t h i s thesis. Nine schoolmistress memoir/articles appeared in Russkaia  shkola. This journal was published i n St. Petersburg from 1890 to 1917. Registered i n 1889, i t s s u b t i t l e was "general pedagogical journal for school and family." In 1907, following a change i n editor, the s u b t i t l e was altered to "general pedagogical journal for teachers and a c t i v i s t s concerned with public education."(4) The change i n name was long overdue, for Russkaia shkola's content had always stressed the pragmatic aspects of public school teaching. This concern with the public education system was reflected even i n the journal's structure. Russkaia shkola was divided into sections offering teaching techniques, information about teachers' s e l f - h e l p organizations, advertisements concerning upcoming summer courses and openings of new pedagogical seminaries, and reviews of textbooks.(5) From i t s inception, Russkaia shkola was edited and published a l t e r n a t e l y by l a . G. Gurevich and his son l a . Ia. Gurevich. Upon the father's death i n 1906, the son took over e d i t o r i a l and publishing duties full-time.(6) The elder Gurevich was a famous teacher, i n t e l l e c t u a l and pedagogue, well-known i n St. Petersburg's educated society.(7) Both t h i s fact and his l i f e ' s a c t i v i t i e s had a d i r e c t bearing on the journal he founded, and so warrant attention here. 42 The f i r s t and perhaps most important feature of l a . G. Gurevich's career i s that he graduated from the H i s t o r i c o -P h i l o l o g i c a l Faculty at St. Petersburg University, which was the t r a i n i n g ground for a s i g n i f i c a n t number of pedagogues of the l a t e nineteenth century. Following graduation, Gurevich taught at gymnasia f i r s t i n Novgorod and then St. Petersburg. In 1883, he became direc t o r of a teaching school c a l l e d Gurevich's Gymnasium and Real School. In the 1880s, he also was a l e c t u r e r on world history at St. Petersburg University and taught i n women's higher courses. F i n a l l y , i n 1890 he founded Russkaia  shkola and began to act as treasurer of the St. Petersburg L i t e r a c y Committee and as founder of other philanthropic i n s t i t u t i o n s . From the f i r s t , Russkaia shkola was a weighty contribution to the discourse concerning education. The f i r s t 23 issues were between 240-400 pages each.(8) By 1901 and continuing to 1916, the monthly journal published substantial tomes comprised of one to three sections of 200-300 pages each. The journal was popular, and i n 1903 some issues even went into second printing.(9) In short, Russkaia shkola was a journal founded, published and edited by a well-educated and famous teacher, i n t e l l e c t u a l and pedagogue (and then his son), which stressed the p r a c t i c a l d i f f i c u l t i e s of teaching. Certainly, l a . G. Gurevich's experience as a teacher of teachers influenced the journal's content and presumably determined i t s intended audience. Russkaia shkola's s u b t i t l e and contents suggest that i t s primary audience was teachers and those preparing to enter the profession. Ia. G. Gurevich's education i n St. Petersburg University's H i s t o r i c o - P h i l o l o g i c a l Faculty, and his a c t i v i t y i n l a t e r l i f e on Petrograd's Literacy Committee and the boards of other philanthropic i n s t i t u t i o n s , assure that he was i n both s o c i a l and professional contact with contemporary pedagogical thought.(10) As such, the attitude and perspective of his journal can be expected to r e f l e c t the dominant pedagogical discourse. Narodnoe obrazovanie -- registered i n St. Petersburg i n 1896 and published 1898-1916 (11) -- i s an interesting contrast to Russkaia shkola. This i s because the journal was not the project of one pedagogue, but of the educational council attached to the Holy Synod. Also, unlike Russkaia shkola's descriptive s u b t i t l e , Narodnoe obrazovanie' s s u b t i t l e "monthly pedagogical journal published by the Educational Council under the d i r e c t i o n of the Holy Synod" — does not t e l l the reader much about the journal's contents. However, i t does suggest the journal's i d e o l o g i c a l perspective; i t , l i k e the Holy Synod, was surely conservative and heavily r e l i g i o u s . In contrast to the wealth of information concerning the famous and much-discussed editor of Russkaia shkola, no available information exists concerning Narodnoe obrazovanie's editor P.P. M i r o n s i t s k i i or A. Tumin, who prepared a systematic l i s t i n g of Narodnoe obrazovanie's a r t i c l e s i n 1908 and then 44 again i n 1913.(12) As there i s no e c c l e s i a s t i c a l t i t l e i n front of M i r o n s i t s k i i *s name (as there i s i n front of the names of p r i e s t s and teachers who wrote to and for the journal) and considering that the Holy Synod was a secular body that oversaw the Orthodox Church's business, i t seems l o g i c a l to assume that the e d i t o r was a government functionary -- probably of a f a i r l y conservative p o l i t i c a l orientation.(13) Such a supposition i s supported by the pedantic and un-scholarly nature of the l e a f l e t s and brochures Narodnoe  obrazovanie published between 1901 and 1916. They concerned school readings, school calendars and approved books, among them School Songs and School Rules of Church Singing. The journal also served to promulgate statutes and governmental instructions concerning the work of church schools.(14) Thus, the l e a f l e t s the journal published and many of i t s a r t i c l e s emphasized r e l i g i o u s study, order and non-academic subjects. (As school years were often only s i x months long, an emphasis on singing resulted i n a de-emphasis of reading.) In summary, Narodnoe obrazovanie was an uneasy mixture of pedagogical and r e l i g i o u s doctrine; as such, i t r e f l e c t e d the p o s i t i o n of the Holy Synod, which straddled the realm between r e l i g i o n and p o l i t i c s . As well, i t reproduced parish schools' odd curriculum that s p l i t class time between academic and r e l i g i o u s subjects, and authority between the teacher and the p r i e s t (who usually taught r e l i g i o n and singing). For t h i s reason, the journal had two p r i n c i p a l and r e l a t i v e l y diverse 45 publics -- p r i e s t s and teachers, many of whom were women. This d i v e r s i f i e d public i s r e f l e c t e d i n the journal's Table of Contents, which l i s t s a r t i c l e s as d i f f e r e n t as "Universal Education," "School Work i n the Community. Assorted News and L i t t l e Notes about School Work," and "School Singing."(15) Narodnoe obrazovanie's non-scholarly content was i n d i r e c t contrast Obrazovanie's l o f t y and abstract a r t i c l e s . Obrazovanie was a journal published i n St. Petersburg from 1892 to 1909, which -- i f we are to judge by i t s numerous changes of s u b t i t l e — frequently changed focus.(16) When i t was f i r s t published, Obrazovanie's s u b t i t l e was "a Pedagogical and Popular Science Journal". In 1902, the word " l i t e r a r y " was added to the s u b t i t l e . In 1906, i t was renamed Education: a l i t e r a r y and  s o c i o - p o l i t i c a l j o u r n a l (zhurnal l i t e r a t u r n y i obshchestvenno- p o l i t i c h e s k i i ) . F i n a l l y , i n 1908, i t was given the unwieldy s u b t i t l e "a L i t e r a r y , Popular Science and Amateur P o l i t i c a l Journal". Such d i v e r s i t y was not limited to the journal's name. During i t s short existence, Obrazovanie had six editors and three publishers.(17) The f i r s t , the creator of the journal, was the famous h i s t o r i a n and pedagogue V.D. Sipovskii. Like l a . G. Gurevich, Sipovskii was born i n 1843 and received a degree from St. Petersburg University's h i s t o r i c o - p h i l o l o g i c a l f a c u l t y . He had been involved since 1876 i n the publishing of Zhenskoe  obrazovanie, from which the journal Obrazovanie had developed.(18) He was a frequent contributor to such journals as Semiia i shkola (Family and School), Mir bozhii (God's World) and, probably as a re s u l t of his r e l a t i o n s h i p with Gurevich, Russkaia shkola. Although Obrazovanie was founded as a pedagogical journal, i t s t r a n s i t i o n to a l i t e r a r y , s c i e n t i f i c and p o l i t i c a l forum began as early as 1895, when l i t e r a r y c r i t i c V.V. Sipovskii (son of the founder) became editor.(19) Frequent contributors included famous s t a t i s t i c i a n s , scholars and l i t e r a r y c r i t i c s such as P.F. Karterev, V.P. Ostrogorskii, A. Strannoliubskii, I. Paul'son, N. Pozniakov, N. Rubakin and D. Semenov.(20) Their l e s s famous, but equally well-connected, r e l a t i v e s A. Ia. Ostr o g o r s k i i and D.A. Karyshev acted as editors and publishers at d i f f e r e n t times.(21) Obrazovanie's abstract and fractured focus was r e f l e c t e d i n the content of i t s a r t i c l e s . Short stories by A.P. Chekhov appear i n the same issues as s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons of women's professional education i n Europe.(22) Its a r t i c l e s are much more t h e o r e t i c a l and academic than those of Russkaia shkola and Narodnoe obrazovanie, r e f l e c t i n g — i t must be assumed -- the i n t e r e s t s of i t s editors and readership. Only two memoir/articles written by schoolmistresses appear i n Obrazovanie; and, as we s h a l l see, neither offered the kind of p r a c t i c a l and helpful information that was an integral part of such writings i n the two other journals surveyed. Both memoir/articles r e f l e c t e d the l i t e r a r y conventions of the time; one was t y p i c a l of the p o r t r a i t of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y painted by 47 writers of the time, while the second was r e a l l y an examination of great l i t e r a t u r e ' s e f f e c t upon young minds. To sum up, Obrazovanie's discourse operated at an elevated and abstract l e v e l . Its content was diverse and i n t e r e s t i n g , not aimed at the prosaic needs and interests of teachers and students i n pedagogical i n s t i t u t i o n s and courses. That i t d i d not p r i n t many a r t i c l e s written by teachers demonstrates the lack of intere s t evinced by St. Petersburg's i n t e l l i g e n t y concerning the l i v e s and career experiences of schoolteachers. The journal disseminated the dominant discourse to i t s readers, but allowed l i t t l e i f any of th e i r counter-discourse to enter the journal. The implications of t h i s e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y are extensive, e s p e c i a l l y considering that Russkaia shkola and Obrazovanie had a s i m i l a r p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n -- l i b e r a l and reformist. The editor s attended the same educational i n s t i t u t i o n s and pa r t i c i p a t e d i n the same s o c i a l and philanthropic organizations. The difference between t h e i r journals was primarily one of focus. Russkaia shkola's intended audience was schoolteachers or those interested i n entering the profession. Obrazovanie spoke to society (obshchestvo) at large. It i s u n l i k e l y , however, that t h e i r ideology and attitudes were s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t . 48 Biographical Information Concerning Fourteen Schoolmistresses When conceptualizing t h i s thesis, I d e l i b e r a t e l y chose to exclude the writings of part-time schoolmistresses, Sunday school teachers and women who ran t h e i r own school. This i s why the famous memoirs of Kh. D. Alchevskaia and Aleksandra Shteven, although considered, are not featured i n t h i s work.(23) Instead, I was interested i n that segment of women who made t h e i r l i v i n g teaching elementary school and who were thus subject to the problems of dependency; that i s , I sought out women who were required to l i v e on a teacher's income, i n a teacher's residence and, usually, i n an a l i e n community. Because the women whose j o u r n a l - a r t i c l e s form the basis of t h i s essay were not well-known pedagogues or philanthropic l a d i e s , they d i d not catch the interest of biographers. Information a v a i l a b l e about them i s scarce, derived only from t h e i r own writings and Zaionchkovskii's bibliographic index. In some instances, i t i s incomplete or uncertain. As i t i s often impossible to determine when the schoolmistresses began teaching, t h e i r memoir/articles w i l l not be presented chronologically. Instead, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y writings have been grouped and presented according to a number of important and revealing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . These c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s include: the type and location of the school i n which the schoolmistress taught, the education she had received, the number of classes 49 (or grades) for which she was responsible at any one time, the number of years she taught, and her s o c i a l background. As noted i n the introduction, these memoir/articles represent a substantial number -- i f not the complete c o l l e c t i o n -- of writings by elementary schoolmistresses. The f i r s t memoir I discovered was published i n 1893, the l a s t i n 1914. Uch i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles have been divided into two major groups: those written by women who taught i n urban schools and those written by women who taught i n ru r a l schools. They w i l l be presented i n accordance with the number of years each schoolmistress taught. Biographical information concerning urban teachers w i l l be presented f i r s t . Aleksandra Tolmachevskaia began teaching i n an Odessa primary school when she was 20 years of age. The school had several teachers, and each teacher taught a s p l i t - c l a s s . Tolmachevskaia received a gymnasium education and some p r a c t i c a l pedagogical t r a i n i n g through observing other teachers' classroom techniques. Tolmachevskaia*s family had sunk from s o c i a l prominence during her grandfather's l i f e t i m e into genteel poverty. She was the only u c h i t e l ' n i t s a of the group who noted that she entered teaching for a p o l i t i c a l reason; she entered the profession i n 1878, under the sway of narodnichestvo (populist) philosophy. Tolmachevskaia fought with the Odessa school board to obtain her teaching position and with a repressive school inspector. She taught for 20 years. Her 50 a r t i c l e "From the Diary of an Elementary Schoolmistress" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1914.(24) The anonymous author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " taught for 10 years i n a variety of schools. She had been a governess, and a teacher i n a pansion and an orphanage before she got a job i n a g i r l s school i n St. Petersburg. This l a s t school i s the subject of her memoir. The school had three classes and one teacher. I do not know i f t h i s teacher l e f t teaching a f t e r 10 years, and i f so where she went. She received no formal teacher t r a i n i n g and came to the school i n St. Petersburg with no teaching plan. This author published her memoir i n Russkaia shkola i n 1893.(25) O. Pavlovich taught at a co-educational urban school for at leas t f i v e years. -Pavlovich was responsible for teaching three classes i n a school that could afford assistant teachers and substitutes. She had a pronounced nervous condition that interrupted her teaching twice and which may have led to her retirement from teaching. Pavlovich was gymnasium-educated but received no formal training.(26) Her a r t i c l e "The Importance of D i s c i p l i n e i n the Work of Vospitanie" was published i n Russkaia  shkola i n 1895.(27) E.R. taught i n a three-class g i r l s school i n St. Petersburg for at least one year. She received no formal pedagogical t r a i n i n g . As to her s o c i a l background, she came from a d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l class than the children she taught -- which i s indicated by the fact that she could not understand t h e i r songs 51 or j o i n i n to play t h e i r games. She was frequently distressed by the make-believe games her students played, p a r t i c u l a r l y those concerning drinking and violence. Her a r t i c l e "Pictures from School L i f e " was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1898.(28) The r u r a l schoolmistresses are as follows. V. Karpinskaia trained as an assistant teacher to an u c h i t e l ' at an elementary school i n Moscow. She taught at a number of multi-class schools during her 15 years i n the profession. She entered the profession i n 1882, at a young age. The a r t i c l e she wrote i s les s about her than a fellow teacher she met during her t r a i n i n g -- Mar'ia Nikolaevna V.--, the i d e a l i s t k a . She seems very r e l i g i o u s . Karpinskaia's a r t i c l e "The I d e a l i s t " appeared i n Narodnoe obrazovanie i n 1907.(29) "Schoolmistress" I.K. Chuvasheva taught i n a northern backwoods r u r a l school i n Sosnovka. She taught both a Sunday school course and i n the church-supported two-class elementary school. Chuvasheva began teaching when she was 16 years old, a f t e r being educated at home. She d i d not have a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e , a f a c t that disturbed her greatly. She even commented i n her text that she was a f r a i d of not finding another job i f she f a i l e d at her f i r s t . There i s a mention i n her memoir that she entered teaching p a r t l y through f i n a n c i a l need. Following her f i r s t year teaching, she attended a zemstvo summer course. Chuvasheva was strongly r e l i g i o u s . Health problems forced her to leave the profession a f t e r 14 years of service. 52 Her a r t i c l e "Thank God for Everything!" appeared i n Narodnoe  obrazovanie i n 1914.(30) "Schoolmistress" V. Elanskaia taught i n two r u r a l church schools. Her memoir discusses the f i r s t school, which was located i n S--kaia guberniia. I t was a two-class school that placed great emphasis on r e l i g i o u s instruction and hymns. Elanskaia led her students i n r e l i g i o u s processions. She taught fo r at least eight years. Her a r t i c l e "From the Memoir of a Schoolmistress" was published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie i n 1909.(31) Olga Nikolaevna Ko--ka taught i n a r u r a l zemstvo school, a two-grade urban school with f i v e sections and an a s s i s t a n t teacher, and i n a gymnasium. Her memoir i s concerned almost e n t i r e l y with the year she spent as a teacher, i n the zemstvo school, which was located i n a northeastern province i n the v i l l a g e of Sh v. Ko—ka received a gymnasium education, and -- unlike the majority of women featured i n this thesis — she also attended (and graduated from) a teaching seminary. That i s , she received a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e through a pedagogical i n s t i t u t i o n . Her pedagogical education was supplemented by a zemstvo summer school course, which taught classroom s t r a t e g i e s , techniques for teaching reading and other p r a c t i c a l s k i l l s . She entered the teaching profession at 19 or 20 years of age and was the sole supporter of her mother, younger brother and s i s t e r . (Her family had been r e l a t i v e l y w e l l -off before her father died.) Ko--ka was frequently at odds with the p r i e s t and bishop 53 of her d i s t r i c t because her students often missed church to do homework. Olga Nikolaevna was forced to leave the r u r a l school because of recurring health problems. She had taught for at l e a s t s i x years at the time she wrote her a r t i c l e and gave no i n d i c a t i o n that she intended to leave the profession. Her a r t i c l e "A Year i n a Rural School" was published i n Russkaia  shkola i n 1905.(32) Ad. Sem. Simonovich taught school for fiv e years i n a r u r a l school i n a northern province. The school had three classes, and f i v e lessons were taught each day. She l e f t the one school she wrote about only when she became i l l . She received no formal teacher t r a i n i n g but was extremely well educated. Because she could speak French and could afford to v i s i t Paris f o r a cure, i t i s l o g i c a l to assume that she was from a r e l a t i v e l y elevated soslovie. Her memoir "Notes from the Diary of a Rural Schoolmistress" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1893.(33) Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. taught i n three r u r a l schools. The school that she wrote about i s located 50 versts from the nearest town. It was a three-class school, and she was a s s i s t a n t teacher to a schoolmaster. Elizaveta Nikolaevna was 16 years old when she began teaching. She received her t r a i n i n g at a large town school as an assistant teacher. She was not p a r t i c u l a r y r e l i g i o u s ; at one point i n her memoir she r e l a t e s how her breaking a fast upsets her students. (They think that she w i l l go to h e l l . ) E.S. l e f t the school about which she 54 wrote a f t e r the u c h i t e l ' began to spread rumours about her and because she was offered a school of her own. Elizaveta Nikolaevna taught for at least three years. "Memoir of a Rural Schoolmistress" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1902.(34) L. Guseva taught i n a r u r a l school with 40 students for at l e a s t one year. Her a r t i c l e was almost e n t i r e l y concerned with vospitanie and the environment i n which her students l i v e d . Almost nothing i s known about the writer herself. Her memoir/article "Notes of a Rural Schoolmistress" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1895.(35) N.M. taught i n a r u r a l school i n Petersburg province. The school had a four-year course. She was r e l a t i v e l y well educated and emphasized c l a s s i c s by T o l s t o i and Turgenev i n her class. She made no reference to teacher t r a i n i n g . She taught for at l e a s t one year. "From the Notes of a Primary Schoolmistress" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1897.(36) A. Zelinskaia taught i n a r u r a l l i t e r a c y school i n Ekaterinoslav guberniia (on the Dnepr River) for at least one year. (37) The school, which was well supported by the l o c a l p r i e s t , had three classes. Zelinskaia was urban-born, and suffered nerve and health problems as a r e s u l t of the f i l t h and loneliness of r u r a l l i f e . I t i s probable that she came from an elevated estate, because she longed f o r c u l t u r a l events and c a r r i e d pictures of her family and friends with her to the school. She taught for at least one year. There i s no i n d i c a t i o n of her education i n her "Letter from the Provinces". 55 "From the Diary of a Rural Schoolmistress" was published i n Obrazovanie i n 1896.(38) Although many of the above schoolmistresses taught at both r u r a l and urban schools (but chose to write about only one type)/ N. Leont'eva emphasized that she taught at urban and r u r a l schools. For th i s reason, her biographical paragraph has been separated from the rest of the u c h i t e l ' nitsy. She had students of a l l ages and grades -- mostly g i r l s . Her l i t e r a r y and h i s t o r i c a l knowledge suggests that she had at least a gymnasium education. Her writing s t y l e and interests -- the books that great men read as children and that her students enjoy — imply that she was a member of the gentry. She taught for at lea s t eight years. "Concerning Children's Reading" was published i n Obrazovanie i n 1905.(39) Some points concerning the above schoolmistresses that should be noted include: few of the women received p r a c t i c a l pedagogical t r a i n i n g , most were of a di f f e r e n t background (usually a higher estate and urban born) than t h e i r students, many women taught i n more than one school, and the average number of years for which they taught (keeping i n mind that many probably taught for longer than the one year noted i n t h e i r memoir) was 6.8. A l l , except Elanskaia, taught i n a multi-class school, which meant that they were responsible for the simultaneous education and d i s c i p l i n i n g of approximately 50 students divided into two, three or four classes.(40) T h e o r e t i c a l l y , the more classes i n a school, the more the 56 teacher was responsible for knowing and teaching her students.(41) Half of the urban schoolmistresses, the anonymous author and E.R., taught i n g i r l s ' schools. The remaining u c h i t e l ' n i t s y taught co-educational classes. As most of these women were presumably educated i n an urban setting, they themselves would probably have attended g i r l s ' schools. The t r a n s i t i o n to a co-educational setting, even as a teacher, must have been j a r r i n g . The three schoolmistresses i n church-parish schools --Elanskaia, Chuvasheva and Karpinskaia -- taught for the longest periods and transferred the l e a s t . It i s as though they were more c l o s e l y t i e d to the community i n which they taught. Probably the explanation f o r t h e i r length of service and duration of residence l i e s i n the dual nature of the schools i n which they taught. They were i n service not only to the school ( t h e i r students) but also the Church. For this reason, they c l o s e l y resemble nuns -- p a r t i c u l a r l y those of the teaching orders. F i n a l l y , none of the schoolmistresses was married. This means that they were self-supporting and, p a r t i c u l a r l y i n the case of the urban-born r u r a l schoolmistresses, l i v i n g alone i n an a l i e n environment. Of course, i t i s possible that the schoolmistresses teaching i n church-parish schools, who (as we w i l l see) were usually p r i e s t s ' daughters, may not have been so lonely. They, at least, probably grew up i n the countryside. 57 Biographical Information Concerning Five Schoolmasters The following i s a b r i e f biographical survey of the f i v e schoolmasters whose writings are offered as contrasts to the memoir/articles of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . As t h e i r small number in d i c a t e s , they are not a complete sample of schoolmasters, who published a r t i c l e s i n the same period and journals as the 14 schoolmistresses. Instead, they are a group chosen at random, whose writings nevertheless manifest numerous s i m i l a r i t i e s with one another and s t r i k i n g differences with the writings of schoolmistresses. One such point of convergence and contrast i s the small amount of personal information schoolmasters volunteered about themselves. (Only one schoolmaster -- Barsov — offered s i g n i f i c a n t biographical d e t a i l ) . V i r t u a l l y a l l u c h i t e l i a a r t i c l e s were devoted to work-related issues. Another point of convergence and contrast i s that each one i n group of schoolmasters taught in r u r a l schools. Because schoolmasters' memoir/articles are so similar, d i v i s i o n s such as those applied above to u c h i t e l ' n i t s y writings are not t e r r i b l y i n s t r u c t i v e . Instead, schoolmasters' biographies w i l l be presented i n order of publication. "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " (Former schoolmaster) was employed i n a r u r a l school i n Perm d i s t r i c t . He spent at least one year i n the profession and was i n contact with other school teachers. In his memoir/article, "Byvshii u c h i t e l " 1 indicated that he was aware of negative attitudes concerning his chosen profession. 58 "I know, that there i s much that i s n ' t enjoyable i n the work of a r u r a l schoolmaster, [however] I was e n t i r e l y contented with it."(42) His r e l a t i o n s h i p with the church-parish school and i t s teachers was poor. As far as the reader i s able to t e l l , he was unmarried. "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " published "From the Memoir of a Rural Schoolmaster" i n Obrazovanie i n 1896. K. Barsov had been a clerk i n an o f f i c e before taking a s p e c i a l exam to become a schoolmaster. He entered the profession under the influence of narodnik (populist) l i t e r a t u r e and his experiences i n m i l i t a r y service. He taught for one year i n a parish school i n Moscow province and then transferred to a p r i v a t e school i n a southern province. Barsov taught i n t h i s school for nine years, u n t i l he became i l l . He was unmarried. His reference to m i l i t a r y service implies that he was from the lower estates and was possibly a peasant. He published his a r t i c l e "Rural School and Schoolmaster" i n Russkaia shkola i n 1896.(43) "Elementary schoolmaster" V. Simonovskii taught i n a r u r a l zemstvo school i n Khorol, Polmavsk d i s t r i c t . He taught for at l e a s t two years and was involved i n an attempt to r a i s e teachers' incomes and improve t h e i r conditions of work. His a r t i c l e was based on a survey that discussed the poor material conditions of elementary schoolteachers. He does not mention a wife. His short "Letter from the Provinces" was published i n Russkaia shkola i n 1897.(44) Dido taught i n a northeastern r u r a l school that was attended by a substantial number of Viatka natives. He was what today we would c a l l disgustingly ethnocentric, measuring his native students against his Russian ones and finding them lacking. Despite his knowledge of Greek and Latin, his presence i n a small backwoods community implies that he was not w e l l -educated (at least not pedagogically trained). He does not make mention of a wife. He taught for at least two years. Dido published "Notes and Observations" i n Russkaia shkola i n 1899.(45) "Schoolmaster" A. Barakshin taught i n rural school for 20 years, beginning i n 1887. He taught i n at least two schools; the f i r s t was a three-year, three-class school c a l l e d Ugronsk i n Vel'sk uezd, Vologodsk guberniia. He was not from the countryside, but was "drawn" there to teach peasant c h i l d r e n . Barakshin had obviously read widely on the d i f f i c u l t i e s of r u r a l l i f e and had developed a plan to aid his integration into the peasant community. In his second year of teaching, he opened a Sunday school for adults. Barakshin*s "From the Notes (zapisok) of a Rural Schoolmaster" was published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie i n 1902.(46) A l l the schoolmasters i n the above survey taught i n a r u r a l s e t t i n g . None referred to s p e c i a l i z e d pedagogical t r a i n i n g . None admitted to being from the peasant estate, although they appear to be from the lower orders. Apparently none was married. This survey group taught for an average of 10 years. 60 In the following section we w i l l discover i f t h i s group of schoolmasters and the 14 schoolmistress were t y p i c a l of men and women i n the f i e l d . Such a study can a s s i s t us to understand the rel a t i o n s h i p of teachers who wrote to both t h e i r colleagues and the dominant educational discourse. It w i l l e s t a b l i s h the points at which the s o c i a l backgrounds and experiences of the writers converge with and diverge from others i n the profession. Just as placing journal editors* biographical sketches beside schoolmistresses* biographies t o l d us something about the incongruity of theoreticians abstractly advising teachers, comparing the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s educational and s o c i a l backgrounds to other teachers may possibly t e l l us about t h e i r biases and goals. That i s , i t may help us to understand the counter-discourse. Comparison With Other Primary Teachers The following section w i l l examine teachers' marital statuses, educations, class o r i g i n s , years of service and the number of schools i n which most taught. Following each discussion, comparisons w i l l be made between the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of teachers i n general and the schoolmistresses and schoolmasters whose writings inform this thesis. F i r s t , the question of marriage must be examined. In 1880, 85.2% of schoolmistresses were single, 10.4% were married and 61 4.4% were widowed/divorced, while i n 1911 80.6% were sing l e , 15.7% were married and 3.7% were widowed/divorced. By comparison, i n 1880 50.6% of schoolmasters were si n g l e , 47.8% were married and 1.6% were widowed/divorced. In 1911, 53.7% were si n g l e , 44.2% were married and 1.4% were widowed/divorced. (47) What these s t a t i s t i c s t e l l us i s that the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y had the same marital status as the majority of women teachers, and a bare majority of schoolmasters — they were single. Despite the substantial increase i n the absolute number of married schoolmistresses -- as the number of women i n t o t a l i n the profession increased 17 times between 1880 and 1911 -- married u c h i t e l ' n i t s y were s t i l l uncommon. However, none of the schoolmasters whose memoir/articles are quoted herein was married, which makes then a rather unusual group. Second, according to a survey published by the Ministry of Public Instruction i n 1903, the number of schoolmistresses who received a teacher's c e r t i f i c a t e a f t e r attending pedagogical i n s t i t u t i o n s generally constituted only one-half to two-thirds of the number of women teaching i n any one educational d i s t r i c t . ( 4 8 ) For example, out of a t o t a l of 2,213 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y teaching i n St. Petersburg d i s t r i c t , only 1,612 had such t r a i n i n g . The s t a t i s t i c s for schoolmasters were 1,732 out of 2,022. In Moscow d i s t r i c t , the discrepancy i n the s t a t i s t i c s was more gl a r i n g . Only 4,968 out of 7,336 schoolmistresses had received t r a i n i n g and a teacher's c e r t i f i c a t e at pedagogical i n s t i t u t i o n s , while 3,389 out of 4,914 u c h i t e l i a had. In Riga Table V Teachers' Educational Backgrounds and Perceived Adequacy Preparation for Teaching (based on teachers' comments) Teachers' Education Received S u f f i c i e n t Preparation Overall Had I n s u f f i c i e n t Pedagogical Knowledge Had In s u f f i c i e n t Pedagogical Experience Teachers' seminaries Women's gymnasiums C l e r i c a l seminaries 14.2% 8.2 10.2 Urban schools (male teachers)7.1 Women's pro-gymnasiums 9.9 Teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations 10.1 Secondary and spe c i a l i z e d education 11.3 Primary and incomplete secondary education 9.0 A l l respondents 10.3 21.8% 35.7 41.4 51.3 44.4 51.0 32.7 48.8 54.9% 67.6 68.1 68.0 58.3 66.8 62.9 64.2 72.3 Teachers' Education Had I n s u f f i c i e n t General Knowledge Received In s u f f i c i e n t Preparation for Living Conditions Teachers 1 seminaries Women's gymnasiums C l e r i c a l seminaries Urban schools (male teachers) Women * s pro-gymnasiums Teacher c e r t i f i c a t i o n examinations Secondary and s p e c i a l i z e d education Primary and incomplete secondary education A l l respondents 18.0% 6.6 10.6 13.6 14 .4 15.7 12.6 31.8% 45.8 27.7 24.8 30.2 22.6 33.0 14.6 13.3 25.9 30.2 Source: Eklof, Russian Peasant Schools, 203. Note: There were 13,812 respondents. The survey considered only teachers who had been working for at l e a s t three years. It should be noted that the lead question i n the survey was weighted to emphasize shortcomings: "At the i n i t i a l states of your teaching career, i n which of the following areas and subjects d i d you experience the most severe shortcomings i n background, t r a i n i n g , and experience?" 63 64 d i s t r i c t , the s t a t i s t i c s were even more s t r i k i n g : only 192 out 617 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y had received teacher t r a i n i n g , as opposed to 1,656 out of 3,652 schoolmasters.(49) However, substantial numbers of women in a l l three d i s t r i c t s had obtained teaching c e r t i f i c a t e s as a r e s u l t of taking a s p e c i a l exam. Women constituted 556 out of 791 teachers who had taken such an exam i n St. Petersburg d i s t r i c t . In Moscow d i s t r i c t , women accounted for 2,281 out of 3,727 such teachers, while i n Riga d i s t r i c t such schoolmistresses represented 408 out of 1,206 special examination candidates.(50) (As there were only 617 female teachers i n Riga d i s t r i c t , t h i s route into the profession was obviously p a r t i c u l a r l y popular.) The above s t a t i s t i c s demonstrate that a substantial percentage of Russian schoolmistresses did not receive pedagogical t r a i n i n g . That they were able to pass the special exam to receive a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e argues that they received a f a i r l y high l e v e l of academic education. In a survey of teachers' education levels from 1890, L. Blinov noted that 0.5% of schoolmasters had received higher education, 66.5% vocational education, 11.7% secondary education, and 2.3% a primary education.(51) (The remaining teachers had either q u a l i f i e d through special exam or were not c e r t i f i e d to teach.) In the same survey, he noted that 1.1% of schoolmistresses had received higher education, 30.1% vocational t r a i n i n g , 52.6% a secondary school education and 1.2% a primary education. This fact t a l l i e s with the substantial number of 65 women among the 14 who had received no pedagogical education. Only one -- Ko--ka -- out of the 14 was trained i n a pedagogical seminary; three -- Tolmachevskaia, Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. and Karpinskaia -- others received p r a c t i c a l t r a i n i n g as helping teachers. However, f i v e schoolmistresses -- Simonovich, Tolmachevskaia, Ko--ka, Pavlovich and Leont'eva — indicated that they received a gymnasium education. Surprisingly, i n contrast to the majority of schoolmasters, none of the schoolmaster/authors received vocational t r a i n i n g ; one, Barsov, took the sp e c i a l exam and then worked as a helping teacher i n a ru r a l school. Third, i n 1891, only 10% of Moscow schoolmistresses had served more than ten years; by 1910, t h i s figure had increased to 42%. In 1891, 28% of schoolmasters had served more than ten years; by 1910, 54.7% had served that long. In Vladimir province, the proportion of schoolmasters who worked for f i v e years or more increased from 52% to 60% between 1898 and 1911, while among schoolmistresses the increase was from 30 to 45 percent.(52) Of the 10 schoolmistress who offered some in d i c a t i o n of t h e i r length of service, nine recorded service of fi v e or more years. Three, (Chuvasheva, Karpinskaia and anonymous) recorded service of 10 or more years. Of the two schoolmasters who made reference to t h e i r length of service, two (Barsov and Barakshin) noted service of 10 years or more. Of course, many primary teachers transferred school during t h e i r time i n the profession. In Moscow province during the 66 1890s, for example, 49% of female teachers had been employed at one school, 34% at two schools, 11% at three and 6% at four or more. In the same province, 48% of male teachers had been employed at one school, 26% at two schools, 15% at three schools and 9% at four of more. In Vladimir province, 47% of schoolmistresses had been employed at one school, 30% at two schools, 16% at three schools and 7% at four or more. In the same province, 37% of schoolmasters had been employed at one school, 26% at two schools, 15% at three schools and 21% at four or more schools.(53) The s t a t i s t i c s demonstrate that movement was common among teachers -- male and female. Karpinskaia, who taught i n Moscow province, was not unusual i n having moved school at le a s t once. Nor was Ko--ka, who taught i n a northeastern province (possibly Vladimir), for t r a n s f e r r i n g school three times. Elizaveta Nikolaevna S., the anonymous author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " and N. Leont'eva also taught i n at least two schools. Scanty information about the remaining teachers' careers prohibits further comparison; however, i t i s f a i r l y safe to assume that i f they had served in an unusual number of teaching positions i t would have appeared i n t h e i r memoirs. Thus, there i s nothing unusual i n the movement patterns of the women whose memoirs form the basis of t h i s t h e s i s . L i t t l e i s known about schoolmasters' movement. Only one (Barsov) notes a school transfer — that i s , two schools i n ten years. Barakshin, who taught for 20 years, does not record a transfer. F i n a l l y , the s o c i a l composition of primary school teachers must be considered. V.R. Leikina-Svirskaia's The I n t e l l i g e n t s i a  i n Russia i n the Second Half of the Nineteenth Century notes that a survey of teachers from Pskov guberniia (which d i d not d i f f e r e n t i a t e between men and women) found that of 203 teachers 54.4% were from the peasantry and meshchane ( c i t y dwellers, such as shop keepers and tradesmen), 18.1% were children of p r i e s t s , 15.7% were childre n of gentry and chinovniki (or state functionaries), and 11.7% were children of merchants and honourary c i t i z e n s (a t i t l e conferred upon persons not of noble b i r t h for services to the state).(54) Leikina-Svirskaia also notes a survey i n Riazanskii volost' that found that 37% of rur a l schoolteachers were children of clergy (more than h a l f of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y were the children of clergy), 31% were the children of peasants (58% of u c h i t e l ' i a were peasants), 4.5% of men were gentry-born, as compared with 16.7% of women.(55) The bias among schoolmistresses toward urban-born women from middle and upper s o s l o v i i a i s evident i n the s o c i a l backgrounds of the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . Zelinskaia, Tolmachevskaia and Simonovich are urban-born gentry women. Karpinskaia, Elanskaia and Chuvasheva — a l l three of whom published i n the church journal Narodnoe obrazovanie -- were much more r e l i g i o u s i n word and action than any of the other schoolmistress, and they taught i n church schools; possibly they were the daughters of p r i e s t s . The attitude of most of the rest of the uc h i t e l ' n i t s y toward t h e i r students -- a mixture of compassion 68 and horror at the f i l t h and immorality of t h e i r l i v e s --suggests that they were of a more elevated estate than peasants and workers. None of the schoolmasters defined his s o c i a l status; most i n t e r e s t i n g , none admitted to being a peasant, even though t h i s s o c i a l group provided the majority of men to the profession. Barakshin was obviously well-informed about the problems of teaching, probably from having read a great deal. (He was not a peasant, although he was "drawn" to teach peasant children.) Barsov, who was c a l l e d to m i l i t a r y service, was probably from the lower middle estates. In sum, we have learned that the 14 schoolmistress/authors were representative of the majority of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y i n a l l areas except t h e i r length of service. They served for considerably longer than the majority of schoolmistresses i n Vladimir province and Moscow. The f i v e schoolmaster/authors, however, were not necessarily representative of male primary teachers -- e i t h e r i n t h e i r s o c i a l , educational or service backgrounds. "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " and Dido l e f t the profession a f t e r a b r i e f time; only Barakshin remained at his post for 20 years. None of the schoolmasters married, which places them i n the bare majority of male teachers i n the period studied. *** The above chapter has introduced a number of facts that are invaluable to the following analysis of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles and the counter-discourse they contain. The chapter demonstrated how the educational and vocational experiences of i n t e l l e c t u a l s and pedagogues -- who c o n t r o l l e d the dominant discourse -- contrasted with those of the 14 schoolmistresses, who created and reinforced a counter-discourse. It showed that male and female elementary teachers had d i f f e r e n t s o c i a l and educational backgrounds, as well as needs once i n the profession. The differences between male and female teachers were further emphasized by the content of the memoir/articles schoolmistresses and schoolmasters wrote. (We w i l l see numerous examples of these differences i n upcoming chapters.) U c h i t e l i a volunteered very l i t t l e personal information, while u c h i t e l ' n i t s y wove such information into the body of t h e i r writings.... Further, we have seen how journals' p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s were r e f l e c t e d i n the content of the a r t i c l e s they printed. Such biases and needs also featured i n the memoir/articles each journal printed. Obrazovanie — the abstract l i t e r a r y journal -published a memoir o f f e r i n g a p o r t r a i t of a passive, vulnerable and pathetic lady schoolmistress and an educated book review written by a well-educated schoolmistress. Narodnoe  obrazovanie -- the Holy Synod's educational journal — published t r a c t s , featuring women who taught i n r u r a l schools f o r a great many years and who had strong r e l i g i o u s f a i t h . Russkaia shkola -- a p r a c t i c a l teacher's handbook — printed the largest number of memoir/articles. They were p r i m a r i l y concerned with prosaic 70 issues, such as d i s c i p l i n e and teaching techniques and classroom dynamics. In following chapters, we w i l l see i f -- despite the d i f f e r e n t p o l i t i c a l a f f i l i a t i o n s of the journals i n which they published -- schoolmistresses engaged in a s i m i l a r counter-discourse. If so, t h i s would argue that the issue of gender i s one of great importance and requires greater attention than i t t has received to date. Endnotes 1. Ware, "Russian Journal" 126. 2. Ware, "Russian Journal" 122. . 3. Ware, "Some Aspects" 26. 4. Spisok Russkikh Povremennyikh Izdanii s 1703 do 1899 god  Svedeniiami ob Ekzempliarakh, (St. Petersburg: The Imperial Academy of Science, 1901) 760 and L.N. Beliaeva, M.K. Zinov'eva and M.M. Nikoforov, B i b l i o q r a p h i i a Periodicheskikh Izdanii  R o s s i i , 1901-1916, Ed. V.M. Burashenko, O.D. Golubevaia and N.R. Morachevskii, (Leningrad: Ministry of Culture of the RSFSR, 1959), v o l . 3, 61-2. 5. A review of the Table of Contents reveals the v a r i e t y of a r t i c l e s and the regular d i v i s i o n of the journal into sections dealing with teaching s t r a t e g i e s , news from the provinces and announcements/advertisements. 6. Spisok 760. 7. I.A. Arsen'ev, ed., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', (St. Petersburg: I.A. Efron, 1897), v o l . 22, 911. 8. Spisok 760. 9. In addition to publishing the journal, l a . Ia. Gurevich edited and published a 1913 handbook advising teachers on equipping t h e i r schools and a short 1914 lesson book on the teaching of Russian grammar and conversation. 71 10. Entsik l o p e d i c h e s k i i, v o l . 22, 911. 11. Each reference text consulted offered d i f f e r e n t publication dates for Narodnoe obrazovanie. Spisok sets i t s publication dates from 1901-16, while Bi b l i o q r a p h i i a notes that the f i r s t e d i t i o n came out i n 1898 and leaves the date of i t s collapse to speculation. 12. Spisok 604. 13. This assumption i s an extrapolation based on the character of other bureaucrats and o f f i c i a l s i n the Holy Synod, such as Pobedonotsev. 14. Spisok 604. 15. See Narodnoe obrazovanie Table of Contents i n order to get a general sense of the contents and e d i t o r i a l p o l i c y of the journal. 16. B i b l i o q r a p h i i a v o l . 2, 503-4 and Spisok 640. 17. Spisok v o l . 2, 503-4 and Entsiklopedicheskii v o l . 21, 561. 18. Entsiklopedicheskii v o l . 30, 58. 19. Entsiklopedicheskii v o l . 30, 58. 20. Entsiklopedicheskii v o l . 21, 561. See A. Strannoliubskii reference i n Chapter 1. 21. Spisok 640. 22. As examples, see A.N. Strannoliubskii, "0 zhenskom professional'nom obrazovanii," Obrazovanie 2 (1896): 75-86; 3 (1896): 8-28; 4 (1896): 16-41. 23. Kh.D. Alchevskaia, Peredumannoe i perezhitoe, (Moscow, 1912) and A. A. Shteven, Iz zapisok sel'skoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , (St. Petersburg: I.N. Skorokhodov, 1895).As well, A.V. F i l a t o v a , Vospominaniia u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , (Moscow: Rabotnik Prosveshcheniia, 1929), while i n t e r e s t i n g and enlightening, has not been used because her work i s part of Soviet discourse. 24. Aleksandra Tolmachevskaia, 111 z dnevnika narodnoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Russkaia shkola 4 (1914): 104-23. 25. "Pervyi god moei u c h i t e l ' s k o i d e i a t e l * n o s t i . (Iz vospomanii nachal'noi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) , " Russkaia shkola 9-10 (1983): 38-64. 26. A gymnasium i s a g i r l s secondary school that offers a high l e v e l of education, generally grounded i n language and 72 l i t e r a t u r e . The education a g i r l attending a gymnasium received was roughly equivalent the one received by a boy at a boys gymnasia. However, g i r l s , unlike boys, could not apply to enter u n i v e r s i t y on the strength of t h e i r gymnasia marks. See Satina 51-60 and A.I. Piskunov 127-52, e s p e c i a l l y 131-7. Satina's book i s a very personal r e c o l l e c t i o n of the pre-revolutionary period, while Piskunov's book i s a useful reference t o o l . 27. 0. Pavlovich, "Znachenie d i s t s i p l i n y v dele v o s p i t a n i i a . (Nabliudeniia, p r i z n a n i i a i zametki u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'noi shkoly)," Russkaia shkola 11 (1895): 39-53. 28. 31. E.R., "Kartinki shkolnoi z h i z n i . (Iz nabliudenii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'noi shkoly)," Russkaia shkola 7-8 (1898): 26-38; 9 (1898): 47-55; 10 (1898): 36-53. 29. V. Karpinskaia, "Idealistka. (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) , " Narodnoe obrazovanie 2 (1907): Vol. 1, Book 2, 182-6. 30. I.K. Chuvasheva, "Slava Bogu za Vse! (Vospominaniia derevenskoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) , " Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8 (1914): V o l . 2, 1-9; 9 (1914): 113-24; 10 (1914): 265-77; 11 (1914): 378-83. 31. V. Elanskaia, "Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Narodnoe  obrazovanie 1 (1909): Vol 1,1-5. 32. Olga Nikolaevna Ko—ka, "God v sel's k o i shkole. (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) , " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1905):51-76 . 33. A.S. Simonovich, "Zametki i z dnevnika s e l ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Russkaia shkola 12 (1893): 18-40. 34. El i z a v e t a Nikolaevna S., "Vospominaniia s e l ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1902): 30-41. 35. L. Guseva, "Zametki se l ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , " Russkaia shkola 7-8 (1895): 63-8. 36. N.M., "Iz zametok nachal'noi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . (Chtenie v shkol i shkolnykh t i p y ) , " Russkaia shkola 12 (1897): 80-92. 37. A l i t e r a c y schools (or free/wild schools) were informal i n s t i t u t i o n s i n which students learned only the basics of reading, w r i t i n g and arithmetic. There was no o f f i c i a l school year and the teacher was paid according to the number of c h i l d r e n taught. Because parents paid i n d i v i d u a l l y to keep c h i l d r e n i n schools, they often had a great say i n what was taught i n these schools. Parental interference i n teaching and curriculum choice was common. 73 38. A. Zelinskaia, "Iz dnevnika sel'skoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . (Iz Ekaterinoslavskoi gubernii)," Obrazovanie 5-6 (1896): Sect. 2, 103-5. 39. N. Leont'eva, "0 detskom c h t e n i i . (Iz nabli u d e n i i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) , " Obrazovanie 11-12 (1905): Sect. 2, 111-41. 40. The pupil-teacher r a t i o i n town schools was 1:50. In v i l l a g e schools, i t was 1:56. Si n e l , "Campaign" 498. Eklof, Russian Peasant 303-07 gives pupil-teacher r a t i o breakdown by school type and area of the Empire. 41. The standard teaching programs for two and three-year schools (zemstvo and church-parish) are printed i n Eklof, Russian Peasant 483-7. 42. Byvshii u c h i t e l 1 , "Iz vospominanii sel'skago u c h i t e l i a . (Iz Permskoi gubernii)," Obrazovanie 5-6 (1986): Sect 2, 106. 43. K. Barsov, "Sel'skaia shkola i u c h i t e l ' . (Vospominaniia i zametki)," Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1896): 45-55; 7-8 (1896): 25-31. 44. V. Simonovskii, "Pismo i z p r o v i n t s i i , " Russkaia shkola 11 (1897): 346-7. 45. Dido, "Zametki i nabliudeniia. (Iz zametok byvshago sel'skago u c h i t e l i a ) , " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1899): 179-89; 7-8 (1899): 195-200; 9 (1899): 237-46; 12 (1899): 176-82. 46. A. Barakshin, "Iz zapisok sel'skago u c h i t e l i a , " Narodnoe  obrazovanie 3 (1902): 249-54. 47. Eklof, Russian Peasant 192. 48. Russian Ministry of Public Instruction, S t a t i s t i c h e s k i i a  svedeniia po nachal'nomu obrazovaniiu v rossiskoi imperil vur  IV, (Dannyia 1900 goda), Ed. V.F. Famorkorskii and E.P. Kovalevskii, (St. Petersburg, 1903) 276-77. 49. The small number of schoolmistresses i n t h i s educational d i s t r i c t who received pedagogical tr a i n i n g probably r e f l e c t s resistance to women i n the profession as a re s u l t of German influence on the B a l t i c educational system. See Catherine Ekstein Stodolsky, "Missionary of the Feminine Mystique: The Female Teacher i n Prussia and Bavaria, 1880-1920," d i s s . , SUNY-Stony Brook, 1987. 50. Stat. Sved. 276-77. 51. Blinov 67. 52. Eklof, Russian Peasant 207. 74 53. Eklof, Russian Peasant 209 and V.R. Leikina-Svirskaia I n t e l l i q e n t s i i a v R o s s i i vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka, (Moscow "Mysl"', 1971), 165. 54. Leikina-Svirskaia 163. 55. Leikina-Svirskaia 163. CHAPTER III TEACHING THROUGH JOURNAL WRITING Journal a r t i c l e s were a combination of entertaining and i n s t r u c t i v e reading for educated subscribers.(1) This was e s p e c i a l l y so of a r t i c l e s i n journals concerned with education. In a section of A. Anastasiev's extremely popular Public School  Handbook for Constant Reference for Schoolmasters and  Schoolmistresses i n Primary Schools, K.D. Ushinskii (a famous pedagogue of the 1860s) i s quoted as saying that educational l i t e r a t u r e helps a teacher f e e l that his modest job i s one of the greatest a c t i v i t i e s i n history.(2) Through l i t e r a t u r e , U s h i n s k i i writes, a teacher's findings and questions are not lim i t e d to his school (or worse die with him), but f l y to the ends of Russia and engender controversy.(3) Educational l i t e r a t u r e also introduces teachers to thoughts about and the l i t e r a t u r e concerning the teachers' lives.(4) On one l e v e l , schoolmistresses' memoir/articles, which described and offered advice concerning classroom and community d i f f i c u l t i e s , f u l f i l l e d t h i s mandate and thus participated i n the discourse. When p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the discourse i s defined i n t h i s way, i t i s obvious that even Zelinskaia's pathetic l e t t e r -- i n which she described the squalid huts and grave-like quiet (mogil'naia tishina) of the v i l l a g e i n which she taught, and her coarse, d i r t y students — entered the discourse. Zelinskaia also offered advice of a sort to readers. In her 75 76 memoir/article, Zelinskaia related that she dealt with her personal and professional d i f f i c u l t i e s through writing i n her di a r y and then submerging herself i n work. "I think about a l l t h i s [her poverty and l o n e l i n e s s ] , take i t a l l up i n my diary, and then cast i t away and take care of a stack of notebooks --which, on t h i s occasion, contained a lesson on calligraphy."(5) Obviously, a l l the schoolmistresses who published memoir/articles adopted t h i s s u r v i v a l strategy (venting f r u s t r a t i o n through writing) to some extent or another. Afte r a l l , they a l l wrote and were published. However, they also employed s p e c i f i c t a c t i c s i n d i f f i c u l t classroom and community s i t u a t i o n s , which they then presented to t h e i r intended audience i n anecdotal form. The f i r s t two schoolmistresses to publish memoirs — A . Simonovich-{-whose a r t i c l e - concerned the moral and i n t e l l e c t u a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of r u r a l students) and the anonymous author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " (whose memoir/article offered advice to u c h i t e l ' n i t s y by discussing her own classroom mistakes and successes) established a format that t h e i r s i s t e r s followed.(6) Through anecdote and d e s c r i p t i o n , Simonovich and the anonymous author demonstrated successful teaching and s u r v i v a l strategies to teachers and those entering the profession. A r t i c l e s written by schoolmistresses for Narodnoe  obrazovanie used the same l i t e r a r y techniques. However, there was one s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the memoirs written f o r Russkaia shkola and Obrazovanie, and those for Narodnoe 77 obrazovanie. Although a r t i c l e s ( l i k e V. Elanskaia's "From the Memoirs of a Schoolmistress") addressed an intended audience d i r e c t l y " ( h ) e l l o there, my s p i r i t u a l r e lations ... future schoolmistresses", they were read by a wider audience that was made up of both p r i e s t s and church-parish schoolteachers.(7) Thus, i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the answers these u c h i t e l ' n i t s y presented to community and schoolroom problems a l l had a r e l i g i o u s basis. Even V. Karpinskaia, a supporter of vospitanie, noted that her mentor Mar'ia Nikolaevna V. gave her ch i l d r e n a strong foundation i n r e l i g i o n . "She [M.N.V.] was t r u l y an ideal schoolmistress, r a i s i n g children on a foundation of r e l i g i o n , truth and love."(8) Despite the differences engendered by journals' e d i t o r i a l p o l i c i e s and audience demographics, there were many common features i n schoolmistresses' published writings. F i r s t , memoir/articles written by schoolmistresses offered i n d i v i d u a l s entering the profession a foretaste of the problems of teaching 50 children i n a multi-class s e t t i n g , the d i f f i c u l t y of r e c o n c i l i n g vospitanie with t r a i n i n g and educating i l l i t e r a t e c h i l d r e n , and the a l i e n a t i o n and loneliness of v i l l a g e l i f e . Second, for individ u a l s already i n the profession, these writings offered successful techniques for improving classroom d i s c i p l i n e and teaching s k i l l s , as well as suggestions on how to integrate into peasant communities. A 1911 survey found that 72.3% of teachers f e l t that they had i n s u f f i c i e n t pedagogical experience and knowledge, while 78 30.2% had received i n s u f f i c i e n t preparation for l i v i n g conditions.(9) Almost 46% of graduates from women's gymnasia, and 30.2% of graduates from pro-gymnasia (respectively, the highest and fourth highest response rate) believed that they had received i n s u f f i c i e n t preparation for l i v i n g conditions. Also, only 8.2% and 9.9% of graduates from gymnasia and pro-gymnasia re s p e c t i v e l y believed that they had received adequate preparation o v e r a l l . A r t i c l e s , such as those written by the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y t h i s thesis features, attempted to f i l l the gap between academic preparation and day-to-day experience. Presented i n memoir form, they entertained as well as instructed. Schoolmistresses' Solutions to Problems i n the Classroom As t h i s chapter i s presenting the straight-forward and sel f - d e c l a r e d advice of schoolteachers to t h e i r intended audience, i t w i l l present the advice and teaching strategies with a minimum of analysis. The following i s a sample of just a few of the techniques schoolmistresses u t i l i z e d i n order to teach and ensure classroom d i s c i p l i n e . The problems they attempted to solve were surely common. The techniques they offered as solutions s u f f i c e to demonstrate both the breadth of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s and these women's capacity for crea t i v e problem-solving. Each of the following d i f f i c u l t i e s was rooted i n the environment i n which the schoolmistresses taught. For example, there were d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with teaching children, who l i v e d i n an oral culture, to read. N.M. (a r u r a l teacher from Petersburg province who published i n Russkaia shkola) had such a d i f f i c u l t y and set about investigating the reasons.(10) She found that some of her students had to walk three to f i v e versts home every night and that such a walk l e f t l i t t l e time for reading. Others had simply heard that the books were khudaia (bad, or worthless) and chose not to read them. Instead of accepting the s i t u a t i o n or blaming her own teaching s k i l l s , N.M. devised a multi-faceted strategy. At f i r s t , she attempted to shame her students into reading by asking questions about the books i n clas s , but the children simply answered " p r o c h i t a l * " (I have read (it).).(11) Realizing that she would be forced to supervise the children as they read, she put aside two precious hours a week for in-class reading. In addition, she permitted only her best readers to take books home. At home, these students read aloud to t h e i r family and received attention and p o s i t i v e reinforcement. In t h i s way, N.M. drew a connection between the a b i l i t y to read well and the possession of books, which made good reading s k i l l s desirable. N.M.'s teaching strategy would have been useful to teachers who were finding i t d i f f i c u l t to get peasant children, brought up i n an o r a l culture, to read. I t offered a series of p r a c t i c a l techniques that could be modified to s u i t d i f f e r e n t conditions. 80 Schoolmistresses also experienced d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with r e c o n c i l i n g the abstract ideology of vospitanie to the d a i l y grind of teaching. For example, believing that she should teach to the dictates of abstract pedagogy, the author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " (who taught i n a g i r l s school i n St. Petersburg and published i n Russkaia shkola) drew up an overly structured educational plan during her f i r s t year of teaching and corrected fundamental rather than small mistakes: [In t h i s a r t i c l e ] I am not enlarging upon t r i f l i n g mistakes and blunders i n the t r a i n i n g side of the work, I am speaking only about fundamental errors. The greatest that I know of, and that I suffered along with many educators, i s a unconsidered general teaching plan, f o o l i s h l y giving oneself a complete account of the r e l a t i v e importance of each subject and the importance of each section of the subject.(12) Of course, t h i s author found i t d i f f i c u l t to keep to her abstract educational plan i n a classroom environment. Instead, she talked to the c h i l d r e n , i n order to find out which subjects they enjoyed most, and neglected subjects they found boring. At the end of the year, she found that her students' w r i t i n g and mathematical s k i l l s had suffered.(13) Because of the d i f f i c u l t i e s that teachers faced when c h i l d r e n are sidetracked by t h e i r moods, excitement about the weather, and a n t i c i p a t i o n of upcoming f e s t i v i t i e s , t h i s schoolmistress advised her readers that " i n school a c t i v i t i e s i t i s not necessary for her [the schoolmistress], i t seems to me, to have ta l e n t , or enthusiasm, or fervour. It i s necessary to have strength of character, consistency, to be organized, even 81 [to have] some narrowness of int e l l e c t . . . " ( 1 4 ) For t h i s reason, the anonymous author decided to forego a s t r i c t and t h e o r e t i c a l lesson plan. She spent more time teaching and le c t u r i n g to each class.(15) This u c h i t e l ' n i t s a ' s advice was directed to teachers who were fi n d i n g i t d i f f i c u l t reconciling the t h e o r e t i c a l constraints of vospitanie with the l o g i s t i c s of teaching, and to future teachers l i k e l y to experience the same d i f f i c u l t y . Schoolmistresses also experienced d i f f i c u l t i e s associated with d i s c i p l i n e . E.R. (who taught i n a g i r l s ' primary school i n St. Petersburg and published i n Russkaia shkola) had d i f f i c u l t y keeping her large class (divided into three sections) busy and quiet. This must have been a common problem for the 14 schoolmistresses because, as we have seen, a l l but one taught i n a multi-class school. Such-numbers forced teachers to- forego (or, at l e a s t , moderate) vospitanie and to engage i n mass classroom s t r a t e g i e s . E.R. offered her readers a v a r i e t y of d i s c i p l i n i n g s t r a t e g i e s . F i r s t , she compromised on classroom d i s c i p l i n e , allowing children to break into small groups to work and to l i s t e n (rather than work) when other sections were reading aloud. Second, she appointed classroom monitors to help maintain some semblance of order and to act as assistant teachers.(16) By using classroom monitors, E.R. ensured that the students became accustomed to d i s c i p l i n i n g themselves — and each other -- to an external standard. By allowing only the best students to become monitors, she created a reward system i n which the quietest and most academically capable were 82 rewarded.(17) Obviously, such behaviour soon would come to be seen as valuable. E.R. enforced t h i s behaviourial value system by bringing g i f t s to school for the most improved student.(18) Third, E.R. ensured that her students burned off excess energy by engaging i n active, but structured, games i n the school's recreation room.(19) In the recreation room, rules --r e p l i c a t i n g order i n the classroom -- prevailed. Imitative games, i n which the g i r l s played drunken people and v i o l e n t parents, were forbidden i n favour of skipping and b a l l games that emphasized order and routine. E.R.'s a r t i c l e was addressed to teachers who had d i f f i c u l t y c o n t r o l l i n g their three-section classes alone -- whether urban or r u r a l . Of course, E.R.'s d i s c i p l i n i n g techniques were not alone. Other schoolmistresses advised t h e i r colleagues to use a series of verbal and s o c i a l i z i n g techniques that produced much better r e s u l t s than corporal punishment. Such techniques were fundamental to the philosophy of vospitanie, p a r t i c u l a r l y as regards the development of i t s moral facet (better known as s e l f - c o n t r o l ) . These technigues were doubtless more f a m i l i a r to women from the upper and middle estates than those based upon phys i c a l punishment. However, they were unfamiliar to peasant and working class children, who l i v e d i n physically v i o l e n t worlds.(20) Their very u n f a m i l i a r i t y made them very successful. A. Simonovich (a gentry woman, who taught i n a r u r a l school and published i n Russkaia shkola) noted bluntly, "I even believe that a word has a stronger e f f e c t upon them than physical 83 punishment/ to which they are completely dulled/ since i n s t r u c t i o n i n r u r a l homes i s very severe .*'( 21) In order to prove that words provided a better deterrent to mischief and apathy than physical violence, Simonovich recorded that, while i t was common for l o c a l peasants to steal not only from the l o r d but also from each other, only two children stole from the school during her five-year term.(22) By appealing to her students' reason, rather than t h e i r fear, Simonovich attempted to i n s t i l l a form of int e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e ; she also u t i l i z e d a much more subtle and painful form of punishment -- g u i l t . The establishment of i n t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e was one of the most important hallmarks of vospitanie. Schoolmistresses -- who published memoirs i n Russkaia shkola and Narodnoe obrazovanie --were proud of t h e i r a b i l i t y to u t i l i z e this—technique. In-V. Karpinskaia's memoir/article "The I d e a l i s t " , Karpinskaia's mentor Mar'ia Nikolaevna V. (who taught i n a religiously-based p r i v a t e school) used her a b i l i t y to i n s t i l l g u i l t feelings --and her students' fear of i s o l a t i o n from t h e i r fellows — to i n f l i c t r e f i n e d punishment. The most s t r i k i n g example of Mar'ia Nikolaevna's techniques was presented following an instance when a c h i l d s t o l e a pen: "Children, you can go home!" cri e d Mar'ia Nikolaevna through the open classroom door, "but remember, I am not pleased with you. Stealing does not occur among decent children. I am repelled. U n t i l the g u i l t y one i s found, I w i l l not walk with you i n the f e s t i v a l ; there w i l l be no games. Nothing! No one w i l l move from seats [during c l a s s ] . [The room] w i l l be grave s i l e n t , l a t e r on there can be whispers — the voices of malicious children."(23) Needless to say, when the children found out that they 84 would regain Mar'ia Nikolaevna's trust and be rewarded once the t h i e f was found, i t required only 20 minutes for them to discover and o f f e r him up to the schoolmistress. The following i n t e r a c t i o n i s appalling; i t features the l i t t l e boy explaining and begging " t i e t i a Masha" (Aunt Mary) and " l i t t l e auntie" {tietien'ka) to forgive him and Mar'ia Nikolaevna declaiming i n front of the entire class that "God sees and hears everything." (24) Having made her point, the schoolmistress then asked the c l a s s i f the student r e a l l y took the pen and should s u f f e r the consequences. The class y e l l e d , "he didn't take i t , aunt Masha, he never took i t ! ... He i s ashamed."(25) Her object lesson i s thus complete. By presenting themselves as against the use of corporal punishment, the above schoolmistresses entered the discourse concerning education on the side of l i b e r a l pedagogues, who supported the development of internal forms of classroom c o n t r o l . The methods of control they adopted instead of corporal punishment might seem cruel and class-bound to us, but at the time such methods were viewed as p o s i t i v e and enlightened. The methods forced peasant and working class c h i l d r e n to adhere to and u t i l i z e techniques other than violence t o solve disputes. And, because many schoolmistresses asked the c h i l d r e n i n t h e i r care when a misdemeanour was detected "... to think only one minute: i s i t possible or necessary to act l i k e that?", the children became aware that i t was within t h e i r power to act appropriately.(26) 85 As we have seen, schoolmistresses offered a wide v a r i e t y of competent advice to t h e i r intended audience; however, one further point should be made before turning to schoolmistresses' solutions to problems i n the community: often the above strategies r e f l e c t e d the locale and situations of the teachers who used them. For example, N.M.'s strategy to encourage reading among her students worked with rather than against the peasant commune's s o c i a l norms. Her strategy u t i l i z e d that o r a l culture's custom of s t o r y t e l l i n g to make the a b i l i t y to read a desired t a l e n t . When her students read to t h e i r f a m i l i e s , they took on the mantle of s t o r y t e l l e r and integrated l i t e r a c y into e x i s t i n g c u l t u r a l norms. Likewise, E.R.'s d i s c i p l i n i n g techniques were the natural r e s u l t of a three-section c l a s s . They also r e f l e c t e d something of the factory for which a growing number of children -- both urban and r u r a l -- were being groomed. In a three-class school, there was a greater emphasis on order and regime. Also, the separation of powers among monitors and teacher c l o s e l y r e p l i c a t e d the separation of authority between factory owner and foremen. While E.R. may or may not have been preparing her students to enter the i n d u s t r i a l labour force, she was c e r t a i n l y not looking to the 'community' to enforce her lessons and her students' s k i l l s . She was looking to her students. As we have seen, both r u r a l and urban schoolmistresses appealed to t h e i r students to d i s c i p l i n e t h e i r peers according to the uc h i t e l ' n i t s a ' s rules rather than those of the community. 86 Such a technique was central to the moral dimension of vospitanie.(27) Obviously, schoolmistresses -- who could assess the environment i n which they l i v e d and taught, and impose external values and techniques -- were far from passive. They were strong women with a v i s i o n of t h e i r duty. Schoolmistresses' Solutions to Problems i n the Community In order to explain why r u r a l l i f e and d i f f i c u l t i e s had been so shocking to her at f i r s t , E l i z a v e t a Nikolaevna S. wrote that " l i k e the greater part of beginner schoolmistresses, [I] knew r u r a l l i f e only through books and s t o r i e s . " (28) Inevitably, l i t t l e of what she and others read prepared them f o r l i f e i n the countryside. In the l a t e nineteenth century, most l i t e r a t u r e and journal a r t i c l e s concerning r u r a l l i f e presented i d e a l i z e d p o r t r a i t s of peasants and l i b e r a l reformers. Because they were generally written by i n t e l l e c t u a l s unexperienced i n the realm described, even f i c t i o n and a r t i c l e s , which offered negative assessments of r u r a l l i f e focused on big issues (such as, i l l i t e r a c y , bad a g r i c u l t u r a l practices and peasant alcoholism). L i t t l e attention was paid to the da i l y r i s k s taken by teachers faced with unsanitary conditions and disease. Even l e s s space was dedicated to discussion of the p o l i t i c s necessary f o r s u r v i v a l i n a rur a l community. Thus, many women (who may 87 have been convinced to enter the profession by a r t i c l e s written by pedagogues) would have been surprised by the number of unremarkable, yet d i f f i c u l t situations they encountered d a i l y . In many ways, schoolmistresses' problems i n communities ( e s p e c i a l l y peasant communities) i n which they usually l i v e d and taught were much more s t r e s s f u l and dangerous than the d i f f i c u l t i e s they encountered i n the classroom. Among the 14 memoir/articles, there are two accounts of drunken crowds of muzhiki (male peasants) marching on a teacher's home to dispense v i g i l a n t e justice.(29) In E.S.'s a r t i c l e , the crowd was looking f o r an alleged arsonist, who was known to be a f r i e n d of the teacher for whom she worked. Of course, the teacher was also threatened.(30) In Olga Nikolaevna Ko--ka's a r t i c l e , a crowd of drunken peasants marched.on (but did not reach) her home. The crowd was seeking to punish her because she -- and not a l o c a l peasant boy (newly graduated from the teaching seminary) — had received the posting to t h e i r school.(31) Such sit u a t i o n s must have been very frightening and r e l a t i v e l y frequent, i f the 1 i n 7 r a t i o gleaned from my research i s any i n d i c a t i o n . U c h i t e l ' n i t s y , p a r t i c u l a r l y those who worked i n the countryside, couldn't f a i l to understand the precariousness of t h e i r p o s i t i o n . As representatives of a l i t e r a t e , outside authority, they presented a threat to l o c a l a u t h o r i t i e s , p r i e s t and commune elders — as did schoolmasters: 88 An end to s o c i a l l y r e s t r i c t e d l i t e r a c y jeopardized the o f f i c i a l s ' t r a d i t i o n a l functions of in t e r p r e t i n g the law, mediating with the outside world, and int e r p r e t i n g the sacred texts. On a simpler l e v e l , expanded l i t e r a c y meant that anyone could v e r i f y the accounts of the v i l l a g e and volost' offices.(32) Of course, as unmarried women, schoolmistresses presented an add i t i o n a l threat to s o c i a l norms i n the v i l l a g e . In a staunchly p a t r i a r c h a l world, i n which wife beating was common, the schoolmistress was a woman with no man to govern her. (33) She was also l i v i n g proof that g i r l s could learn to read and, once having acquired t h i s s k i l l , need not necessarily marry. Rose Glickman has found that l i t e r a t e peasant women had a greater tendency to remain unmarried by choice.(34) This was because they could then f i n d employment outside of the home and make t h e i r l i v i n g s as teachers (usually i n church-parish schools), readers for the dead, f e l ' d s h e r i and l i t e r a t e h e r b a l i s t s . Schoolmistresses may have been perceived as a s o c i a l l y disruptive r o l e model upon which peasant g i r l s could pattern. The u c h i t e l ' n i t s a ' s status, based as i t was upon her education and s o c i a l c l a s s , undermined established peasant power and family structures. Knowing that t h e i r p o s i t i o n was a vulnerable one, schoolmistresses developed s u r v i v a l strategies. The following are just a few of the strategies -- the most common -- that schoolmistresses who wrote passed on to t h e i r s i s t e r s i n the profession. It should be noted that these strategies were more 89 important to women who taught i n the countryside than to urban schoolmistresses. The explanation for this i s p r i m a r i l y environmental. In the c i t y , single female wage earners were common and l i t e r a c y was a desirable s k i l l . ( 3 5 ) Urban schoolmistresses thus had higher status and greater access to protectors. I.K. Chuvasheva (who taught i n a r u r a l , two-class church-parish school and published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie) faced a most d i f f i c u l t challenge when integrating into the northern community to which she had been posted. She was rejected outright by the v i l l a g e r s for a number of reasons. F i r s t , they had a r e l a t i v e l y high standard of l i v i n g already and thus f e l t that l i t e r a c y was a useless s k i l l . ( 3 6 ) "The members of the community are free to do anything they l i k e , " the p r i e s t explained to Chuvasheva. "Everyone squanders money on drink. Everyone i s involved i n forestry or f i s h i n g . They don't need a school."(37) Second, v i l l a g e r s were opposed to having a schoolmistress; already three schoolmistresses had taught at and l e f t the school i n two years.(38) The community had boasted to the p r i e s t before her a r r i v a l that Chuvasheva "won't be the f i r s t we have sent o f f . " (Ne pervaia tak o t p r a v l i a e t s i a ) . Instead of taking the p r i e s t ' s advice and returning home, Chuvasheva -- who was a f r a i d of never finding another teaching p o s i t i o n because she did not have a teaching c e r t i f i c a t e --decided to make herself invaluable to the community.(39) When only four children -- two boys and two g i r l s — reported to 90 school, she taught those that did to sing hymns (molenii) . This impressed the community. As well, she gave Sunday readings (some "divine"). Soon, 50 or 60 people of a l l ages were attending her Sunday readings and saying afterward to chat.(40) Gradually, the schoolmistress won the trust of the community and the next school year 25 children -- eight of them g i r l s — entered grade one and four remained for grade two.(41) By using her imagination and demonstrating to the v i l l a g e r s that the a b i l i t y to read was useful even i n the i r s e l f - s u f f i c i e n t community, Chuvasheva created a place for herself and her school. Ben Eklof has noted many instances where the teaching of hymns and r e l i g i o u s i n s t r u c t i o n were considered an unproductive burden by teachers.(42) It i s worthy of note that the teachers he was investigating were employed i n zemstvo schools and were mostly men, who believed that teaching was a profession with a value they should not have to promote.(43) In parish schools, however, r e l i g i o u s study and hymn singing were integrated into the curriculum. Chuvasheva's a r t i c l e served the dual purpose of advising u c h i t e l ' n i t s y on su r v i v a l s k i l l s in a h o s t i l e community and demonstrating a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p between the success of the school and that i n s t i t u t i o n ' s symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p with the church. For t h i s reason, Chuvasheva's a r t i c l e offered the teachers who read i t a s u r v i v a l strategy for use not only within the v i l l a g e community i n which they l i v e d and worked, but also within the p o l i t i c a l realm of the church-parish school system. 91 By contrast, Eli z a v e t a Nikolaevna S. (who taught i n a three-class r u r a l school and published in Russkaia shkola) of f e r e d an e n t i r e l y d i f f e r e n t series of strategies to her readership. E.S. was rejected in a more personal way than Chuvasheva. That i s , she was rejected because she was the new teacher, rather than simply a schoolmistress — any schoolmistress. She was the recipient of "cold looks" (kholodny b y l i vzliady k r e s t ' i a n) , and when she walked through town the v i l l a g e r s would watch her and comment out loud: Usually when I went to town, my children [students] would catch sight of me and begin to y e l l "the new teacher i s coming", and r i g h t away everyone would crowd into courtyards and looked through chinks [in t h e i r fences]. As I s t r o l l e d along they came up with and made t h e i r remarks aloud concerning me, but as soon as I glanced back, they were a l l once again hiding. Thus, i t was impossible to detect who had spoken.(44) E.S. responded to t h i s i s o l a t i o n and i n s u l t by becoming great friends with the children i n her care. She became a "well-loved older s i s t e r " (starshaia liubimaia sestra), who had the children over as company on long winter nights.(45) At the same time, she became invaluable to the community as a doctor of sorts. The nearest medical orderly, or fel'dsher, was seven versts away and the nearest doctor was 20.(46) Besides, not a l l the peasants had horses or were able to pay the fee for medical treatment either offered. Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. r e a l i z e d t h i s and provided her services free of charge. After she had s u c c e s s f u l l y nursed three children i n the v i l l a g e back to health, she was accepted by the v i l l a g e . " L i f e was good for me 92 with the students and people, but the sun didn't always shine. We often ran up against clouds."(47) One such cloud was the schoolmaster for whom E.S. worked. He resented her r e l a t i o n s h i p with the people i n the v i l l a g e and began to spread rumours about her. For a while, she l i v e d with the hope that t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p would improve, but eventually she decided to transfer schools. The l a s t three paragraphs of E.S.'s a r t i c l e j u s t i f y that transfer. As j u s t i f i c a t i o n , Elizaveta Nikolaevna wrote that she had taught her students to love one another, that her post represented only the f i r s t step in her pedagogical a c t i v i t y , and that i t was r e a l l y the job (not her feelings) which was most important. "I was sorry to abandon everyone, but I didn't cry, -- no, I knew that I was going to another v i l l a g e , to a school, where I would do my well-loved work."(48) Elizaveta Nikolaevna S.'s memoir/article offered teachers who read i t complex solutions to a complex series of d i f f i c u l t i e s . F i r s t , she demonstrated how the company of children could solve the problem of r u r a l loneliness.(49) Second, she showed how a teacher, as a healer, could become an accepted member of the community. Third, she demonstrated to teachers, who may have been unhappy in t h e i r posts, that i t was p e r f e c t l y acceptable for them to transfer schools i f and when d a i l y l i f e became i n t o l e r a b l e . She also j u s t i f i e d t h e i r transfers through the philosophy of 'small deeds.' That i s , E.S. emphasized that, as a teacher (and a healer), she was 93 valuable to a l l people i n a l l v i l l a g e s and a l l children i n a l l schools. When she moved, Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. i n s i s t e d that she was not leaving the people; instead, she was moving on to others who needed her equally. Another technique u c h i t e l ' n i t s y u t i l i z e d i n order to protect themselves and to integrate into the v i l l a g e community was mentioned, but never discussed e x p l i c i t l y i n any of the memoir/articles. However, the implications of the technique --which involved teachers surrounding themselves with students and attempting to establish themselves i n the position of "aunt" --seem obvious. (As we have seen, V. Karpinskaia's mentor Mar'ia Nikolaevna V. was calle d t i e t i a Masha (aunt Mary) by her students, even when she was punishing them.(50)) The technique was an attempt to create a pseudo-familial relationship with the children they taught. Out of t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p came a f f e c t i o n as well as security. Former teacher and pedagogue P. Salomatin maintained that schoolmistresses were more l i a b l e to i n s u l t and assault -- both physical and sexual -- than schoolmasters.(51) One of the chief reasons for t h i s was that the schoolmistress usually l i v e d alone i n an i s o l a t e d hut or schoolhouse. (Remember most d i s t r i c t s and townships forbade female teachers from marrying.) By encouraging children to spend evenings and nights with her, the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a reduced the physical threat. In the c i t y , where a schoolmistresses* status was higher and physical space more secure, such t a c t i c s were not adopted. In fact, i n a l e t t e r 94 printed i n S.K. Govorov's The Marriage Question i n the Lives of  Educators, a 38 year-old urban schoolmistress demonstrated that she had no need for such t a c t i c s . She described the negative r e s u l t s of having her b i o l o g i c a l niece l i v e with her for a time. Instead of being a benefit, the niece's presence was a heavy and unpleasant weight on her s o c i a l and professional l i f e . ( 5 2 ) U c h i t e l ' n i t s y acted the part of the "aunt" for another rel a t e d reason. By o f f e r i n g t i r e d parents some re s p i t e , that i s by acting as a babysitting service, they hoped to earn some community support. The schoolmistress also confirmed her t i e to the children and thus acted out an appropriate female r o l e . Even among peasants, aunts and older s i s t e r s were women who cared for children alongside mothers. In fact, the most common reason why older peasant g i r l s were prevented from attending school was that they were at home taking care of younger children.(53) By presenting herself i n a nurturing (that i s , c h i l d care) r o l e , the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a drew attention away from her status as what Ben Eklof has c a l l e d an (educated and female) "outsider i n the v i l l a g e " . She instead hoped to integrate into the v i l l a g e by taking on tasks that were expected of someone of her gender. Martha Vicinus, author of Independent Women: Work  and Community for Single Women, 1850-1920, has argued that sing l e women commonly adopted t h i s strategy of e s t a b l i s h i n g surrogate families i n order to appear respectable.(54) This comparison of the teacher to the maiden aunt surely had resonance for young female readers, who had grown up i n the 95 middle and upper estates. In her book Cordial Relations: The  Maiden Aunt i n Fact and F i c t i o n , Katherine Moore shows that the maiden aunt was portrayed p o s i t i v e l y i n nineteenth century f i c t i o n ; she was also viewed as a helpmate by many children --intervening between them and unthinking parents.(55) By w r i t i n g as though the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a was an aunt, the schoolmistress formed and presented her readers with a picture of the female professional that was very d i f f e r e n t (as we s h a l l see) from the male v i s i o n of the professional. Lacking a vocabulary that held words for a single career woman, the schoolmistress compared herself to perhaps the one single lady she had ever known -- the maiden aunt. Advice from Schoolmasters' A r t i c l e s Schoolmistresses* memoir/articles were primarily concerned with students, teaching techniques and the d i f f i c u l t i e s of l i v i n g i n a peasant community. By contrast, schoolmasters' a r t i c l e s were concerned with the r a i s i n g and equalization of s a l a r i e s , provision of better l i v i n g quarters, improved s o c i a l and educational benefits for teachers' children, and a s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n schoolteachers' status. This divergence i n content i s e a s i l y explained; i t r e f l e c t s the divergent gender and class-based interests and needs of male and female writers and readers. For example, i n 1911 44.2% of 96 schoolmasters were married, as compared to 15.7% of schoolmistresses.(56) As t h e i r memoir/articles presumably served the same purpose as u c h i t e l ' n i t s y a r t i c l e s -- to give advice to those already i n the profession and a foretaste of a schoolteacher's l i f e to those preparing to become teachers -- i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the f i v e schoolmasters (although unmarried) should have emphasized the d i f f i c u l t i e s married teachers faced. It i s l o g i c a l that schoolmasters (who were more l i k e l y to marry) would have placed greater emphasis on t h e i r r o l e as breadwinner, and on the problems therein.(57) V. Simonovskii (who taught i n a r u r a l school and published i n Russkaia shkola) presented a d i r e picture of the status of schoolmasters, which was s t r i k i n g but hardly unique. " I f the p o s i t i o n of an unmarried schoolmaster i s unenviable, then the st a t e of a teacher who has a family i s p o s i t i v e l y hopeless. The l i f e of a schoolmaster with a family i s a sorrowful t a l e of material deprivation, d i f f i c u l t work and mental torture."(58) According to Ben Eklof's c a l c u l a t i o n s , Simonovskii's d e s c r i p t i o n — although p i t i f u l --was accurate. Budget studies from 1900 and 1910 "showed that married teachers with two childr e n spent 74 per cent of t h e i r annual income (372 rubles) on food; those with three children spent 86 per cent."(59) Concern with issues of status i s also d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e t o teachers' genders and s o c i a l backgrounds. As the majority of schoolmasters were peasants, who had sought a career other than farming, i t i s not su r p r i s i n g that they hoped to improve t h e i r status through becoming teachers. Most, i f we are to believe E k l o f , were disappointed.(60) Schoolmasters' memoir/articles o f f e r e d examples of teachers' (e s p e c i a l l y r u r a l teachers') low sta t u s . K. Barsov (who taught in a r u r a l school and published i n Russkaia shkola) wrote, "and the clerk, the v i l l a g e constable, elders, etc. -- people not at a l l refined -- a l l , you see, want to play the role of a boss i n front of the schoolmaster."(61) He also related a few s t o r i e s to demonstrate the powerlessness of primary schoolteachers. For example: on an alarming day, at the end of 18 years i n an impoverished town mister innkeeper Karp Parfenov took i t into his head by way of some petty o f f i c i a l [who noted that the schoolmaster] ("doesn't make the sign of the cross before a meal, ordered eggs on fas t day, goes around i n a red s h i r t " ) caused a teacher i n A skoi school [to be called] " s i t s i l i s t a " [ s o c i a l i s t ] . . . Pedagogical a c t i v i t y was closed to him, and he had to look for other work.(62) Perceived as representatives of the government and l i t e r a t e c u l t u r e , teachers faced other d i f f i c u l t i e s i n peasant communities. For example, "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " , or Former schoolmaster, (who taught i n a r u r a l school i n Perm province and published i n Obrazovanie) described the d i f f i c u l t i e s teachers could experience with p r i e s t s and parish schools. He phrased the c o n f l i c t almost metaphorically, "The r u r a l school, i n which I served, and the church-parish [school] occupy two adjacent church houses."(63) Then "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " showed how the p r i e s t and teacher battled for control of students i n the peasant v i l l a g e . In opposition to the p r i e s t ' s communal 98 authority, the teacher offered better q u a l i t y of i n s t r u c t i o n and a better success rate i n the graduating exam.(64) In the same way that schoolmistresses' memoir/articles offered t h e i r readers solutions to problems, schoolmasters' writings offered readers suggestions on how to deal with d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s . Just as u c h i t e l ' n i t s y experienced d i f f e r e n t situations and circumstances than u c h i t e l i a , the solutions they offered varied r a d i c a l l y -- as d i d the ways i n which they were expressed. For example, i n order to improve the status of schoolteachers and the qu a l i t y of education i n v i l l a g e communities, K. Barsov created and published a 10-point plan. I t i s as follows: 1) To b u i l d school buildings according to a drawn-up plan and furnish the school with model class f u r n i t u r e . 2) To commit a r u r a l doctor to make periodic examinations of students. 3) To se l e c t a trustee for supplying poor students with clothes and shoes. 4) To give students breakfast with hot food. 5) To b u i l d a l i b r a r y i n the school with sections: a) f o r children and b) for adults. 6) To improve the material status of teachers (salary and pension; provide schools on land with a garden and market-garden) . 7) To b u i l d a free l i b r a r y for teachers and to organize the c i r c u l a t i o n of books on timed loans. 8) To i n v i t e teachers' representatives to commissions, to school councils, etc., when they consider questions that a f f e c t schools and teachers. 9) To make arrangements for teachers' congresses: a) at uezd and raion and b) guberniia. 99 10) To publish a newspaper s t r i c t l y for rural teachers.(65) In contrast to schoolmistresses' memoir/articles, which presented personal answers to problems i n the classroom and community, Barsov's points were straight-forward demands for greater planning and investment i n the educational system; as w e l l , he asked for a greater say by teachers i n t h e i r working and l i v i n g conditions. His memoir/article was published i n 1896 -- a period when professional association and conferences were viewed with suspicion by the government. For t h i s reason, his program i s s t r i k i n g l y p o l i t i c a l i n nature. V. Simonovskii's l e t t e r d e t a i l i n g the p o l i c i e s and expenditures of the Khorol zemstvo to improve the material conditions of r u r a l teachers and to ensure proper upkeep of school buildings also offered readers a plan. Although i t i s implied rather than stated, Simonovskii i s obviously presenting h i s l e t t e r as a basis from which other teachers can negotiate. His f i n a l sentence was almost a blessing. "From our souls we hope that t h i s good example of the Khorol zemstvo w i l l be followed by other zemstva i n our guberniia."(66) On a more basic l e v e l , both "Byvshii u c h i t e l " ' and A. Barakshin (who taught i n a r u r a l school and published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie) advised teachers to plan ahead and work hard i f they want to be accepted into r u r a l communities; that i s , to demonstrate that teachers deserved respect, instead of simply expecting i t . Because the journals i n which they 100 published had d i f f e r e n t agendas, the two men -- not s u r p r i s i n g l y -- o f f e r descriptions of divergent community pressures. "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " faced off against the l o c a l p r i e s t and commune elders, while Barakshin was the p r i e s t ' s a l l y but suspect to the peasant community. Yet, i n t e r e s t i n g l y , despite t h e i r divergent perspectives and place of publication, both offered s i m i l a r basic advice to readers: win peasant support by giving v i l l a g e r s what they want. Of course, as should be expected, t h e i r d e f i n i t i o n s of peasant wants were d i f f e r e n t and r e f l e c t e d the bias of the journal i n which each published. "Byvshii u c h i t e l ' " believed that peasants wanted to read. He wrote, " a l l these facts from my p r a c t i c a l experience, and confirmed by other r u r a l teachers, c l e a r l y convinced us of a conscious desire among the people for reading and thus the necessity of a school l i b r a r y , which ex i s t s i n only some r u r a l schools. And which I have never met i n a church-parish school."(67) Barakshin, by contrast, believed that the people wanted a greater input into t h e i r church. He noted, "improving influence and circumstance .. . permitted me to manage in the very f i r s t year of my service to form a l a r g i s h choir from my students and we sang i n the l o c a l church, and, as i s well-known, peasants l i k e t h i s very much."(68) "Byvshii u c h i t e l " ' pleased the community by giving his students ( t h e i r children) better reading s k i l l s , while Barakshin impressed the v i l l a g e r s by teaching t h e i r c h i l d r e n to sing hymns. 101 * * * This chapter has discussed the content and advice schoolmistresses and schoolmasters offered t h e i r readers i n memoir/articles. Both groups offered descriptions of future l i v e s to those preparing to enter the profession, as well as suggestions on how to change or improve conditions to those already employed as teachers. While schoolmistresses offered t h e i r audience i n d i v i d u a l (personal) teaching techniques and suggestions for integrating into male-dominated communities, schoolmasters suggested group action and province-wide s t r a t e g i e s for r a i s i n g teachers' standard of l i v i n g and status. The differences in a r t i c l e content are e a s i l y comprehensible when the educational and s o c i a l backgrounds of male and female schoolteachers are taken into account. Most u c h i t e l ' n i t s y received secondary education but not pedagogical t r a i n i n g ; also, a vast majority were urban-born. Thus, i t i s l o g i c a l that schoolmistresses should o f f e r advice on the s k i l l s which they lacked upon f i r s t entering the profession -- that i s , teaching s k i l l s and r u r a l s u r v i v a l s k i l l s . As most u c h i t e l i a had received some form of teacher t r a i n i n g and the vast majority were peasant-born, l i t t l e had to be communicated on the l e v e l of teaching or l i v i n g i n a peasant community. What did have to be discussed were the economic and s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by teachers, e s p e c i a l l y those with families.(69) 102 As outsiders ( p a r t i c u l a r l y ) i n v i l l a g e communities, schoolmistresses were (often r i g h t l y ) l i a b l e to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s to t h e i r class and gender. Thus, t h e i r answers to problems were personal and i n d i v i d u a l . Because schoolmasters were accustomed to r u r a l l i f e , they were more l i k e l y to a t t r i b u t e t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s to t h e i r jobs. For t h i s reason, they sought redress of t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s through t y p i c a l l y professional channels --that i s , through demanding greater expenditures on education and increased p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n decision-making when i t concerned schools and teachers. A l l elementary schoolteachers -- who offered advice concerning and descriptions of the l i v i n g and working conditions of teachers -- supported the dominant discourse (at l e a s t , superficially)..... The famous pedagogue K.D. Ushinskii had written that teachers should read and become involved with the l i t e r a t u r e concerning education. A. Anastasiev's widely-read teachers' handbook reiterated and supported t h i s admonishment. Elementary teachers' descriptions of the d i f f i c u l t i e s they faced both i n the classroom and i n the community supported the dark p i c t u r e pedagogues painted of teachers' l i v e s (and thus of the educational system). Memoir/articles that noted instances where schoolmistresses were rejected because of t h e i r gender and schoolmasters were placed at the mercy of v i l l a g e gossips r e c a l l e d the stereotype (created and reinforced by pedagogues) of elementary teacher as victim. Reflections of t h i s stereotype appeared i n many 103 memoir/articles, as did vocabulary and situations espoused by journal e d i t o r s . For example, vospitanie and concern with the importance of reading featured prominently in memoir/articles published i n the l i b e r a l journals Russkaia shkola and Obrazovanie, and to a lesser extent i n Narodnoe obrazovanie. By contrast, a majority of events i n memoir/articles published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie took place i n a r e l i g i o u s context — often i n a church. Doubtless, the a r t i c l e s written by schoolteachers seemed very useful to editors attempting to form 'emotional and c u l t u r a l habits* among t h e i r readers. Surely, they were chosen f o r publication by journal ed i t o r s , who were attempting to present a p o r t r a i t of the i d e a l schoolteacher. What journal e d i t o r s f a i l e d to notice, however, was that many of the memoir/articles (those written by uchitel'nitsy ) contained another layer of discourse — one that challenged the dominant discourse. Chapter 4 w i l l provide an analysis of t h i s counter-discourse . Endnotes 1. Ware, "Some Aspects" 28. 2. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 31. 3. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 31. 4. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 31. 5. Zelinskaia, Obrazovanie 105. 104 6. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 18 and "Pervyi god", Russkaia  shkola 38. 7. Elanskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 5. 8. Karpinskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 186. 9. Eklof, Russian Peasant 203. 10. N.M., Russkaia shkola 81-84. 11. N.M., Russkaia shkola 81-2. 12. "Pervyi god", Russkaia shkola 49. 13. "Pervyi god", Russkaia shkola 50-1. 14. "Pervyi god", Russkaia shkola 52. 15. "Pervyi god", Russkaia shkola 63. 16. E.R., Russkaia shkola 7-8: 32-3. 17. O r i g i n a l l y she had allowed a l l the students to act as monitors i n turn but f i n a l l y chose monitors based upon performance i n homework assignments. 18. E.R., Russkaia shkola 7-8: 26. 19. E.R., Russkaia shkola 9: 47-55. 20. See Guseva, Russkaia shkola 64-5 on domestic violence; Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 35-6 on alcoholism; and Anastasiev vol.2, 33 on the immoral environment i n which most peasant and working class children grew up. 21. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 34. 22. Simonovich, Russkaia : shkola 35. 23. Karpinskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 184. 24. Karpinskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 185. 25. Karpinskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 185. 26. E.S., Russkaia shkola 32. 27. This technique was probably easier to implement i n urban settings where community values and tr a d i t i o n s — i f they every existed — broke down quickly. See Rose Glickman, Russian  Factory Women: Workplace and Society, 1880-1914, (Berkeley: 105 Un i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1984) 120 concerning married workers' and working women's separation from even the world of "zemliachestvo". Also, see Barbara Alpern Engel, "The Working Class Family i n Urban Russia", a paper given August 1988 at the Conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire for an idea of the d i v i s i v e and competitive nature of day-to-day l i v i n g i n Russian c i t i e s . 28. E.S., Russkaia shkola 30. 29. See Cathy Frierson, "Crime and Punishment i n the Russian V i l l a g e : Rural Concepts of Cr i m i n a l i t y at the End of the Nineteenth Century," Sla v i c Review, Spring 1987, 55-69 for examples of the violence of peasant v i g i l a n t e j u s t i c e . 30. E.S., Russkaia shkola 39. 31. Ko--ka, Russkaia shkola 64-5. 32. Eklof, Russian Peasant 226. 33. Rose Glickman, "Women and the Peasant Commune," Land Commune  and Peasant Community i n Russia: Communal Forms i n Imperial  Russia and Early Soviet Society, Ed. Roger B a r t l e t t , (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), 312-338 and Atkinson, "Society and the Sexes i n the Russian Past". 34. Glickman, "Women and Commune" 333. At present, there i s not enough information to suggest that u c h i t e l ' n i t s y acted as r o l e nnodels for the peasant g i r l s that went on to teach i n growing number i n the period under examination. 35. Johanson 124 nn 13, "Literacy among urban women was more than t h r i c e that of female peasants: 35.6 percent versus 9.8 percent." For a more complete breakdown of l i t e r a c y i n Russia see Rashin 284-311. 36. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 4. 37. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 4. 38. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 1. 39. Chuvasheva per s i s t s i n her po s i t i o n not only out of conviction and stubbornness, but because she i s economically forced into teaching. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 1. 40. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 6. 41. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 9: 114. 42. Eklof, "Peasant Sloth" 356-8 and 371-4. 106 43. There i s also the question of teacher status, which as we w i l l see i n Chapter 4, seemed to be lowered when teachers were forced to use such techniques. 44. E.S., Russkaia shkola 31. 45. E • S • / Russkaia shkola 32 and 35 46. E • S • f Russkaia shkola 39. 47 . E • S • / Russkaia shkola 41. 48. E • 2 • / Russkaia shkola 41. 49. N.D. Kivshenko, Dnevnik s e l ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , (St. Petersburg: Fontanka, 1887), 16-18. 50. Karpinskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 185. 51.. P. Salomatin, Kak zhivet i rabotaet narodnyi u c h i t e l ' , (St. Petersburg: "Prometei", 1912), 58-60. 52. Govorov, 49. 53. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 42. 54. Martha Vicinus, Independent Women: Work and Community for  Single Women, 1850-1920, (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985), 12. 55. Katharine Moore, Cordial Relations: The Maiden Aunt i n Fact and F i c t i o n , (London: Heinemann, 1966) 2-3. "There are few people whose youth has not owned the influence of at least one such dear good soul. It may be a good habit, the f i r s t i n t e r e s t i n some l i f e - l o v e d pursuit or favourite author, some counsel enforced by narratives of r e a l l i f e : i t may be only the p e r i o d i c a l return of g i f t s and kindness ... we a l l owe something to such an aunt, the f a i r y godmothers of r e a l l i f e " . 56. Eklof, Russian Peasant 192. 57. S.F. Ts, "V zashchitu zamushnikh u c h i t e l ' n i t s ' , " Russkaia  shkola, 4 (1904): Sect 2, 64-7 notes that an average teacher's s a l a r y i s s u f f i c i e n t f or personal maintenance but i s i n s u f f i c i e n t for supporting a family. 58. Simonovskii, Russkaia shkola 346. 59. Eklof, "Face to the V i l l a g e " 345. 60. Eklof, Russian Peasant 220-237. 107 61. Barsov, Russkaia shkola 7-8: 30. 62. Barsov, Russkaia shkola 7-8: 30. 63. Byvshii u c h i t e l ' , Obrazovanie 106. 64. Byvshii u c h i t e l ' , Obrazovanie 108. 65. Barsov, Russkaia shkola 7-8: 31. 66. Simonovskii, Russkaia shkola 347. 67. Byvshii u c h i t e l ' , Obrazovanie 107. 68. Barakshin, Narodnoe obrazovanie 251. 69. E s p e c i a l l y as by becoming a teacher these peasant men were alienated from v i l l a g e l i f e and community (through t h e i r education and a l t e r e d expectations) i n the same way as Sam Ramer's f e l ' d s h e r i . See Samuel C. Ramer, " C h i l d b i r t h and Culture: Midwifery i n the Nineteenth-Century Russian Countryside," The Family i n Imperial Russia: New Lines of  H i s t o r i c a l Research, Ed. David L. Ransel, (Urbana: Univ e r s i t y of I l l i n o i s Press, 1978). CHAPTER IV LAYERS WITHIN THE DISCOURSE As R.J. Ware has noted, the type of a r t i c l e s that appeared i n journals required readers to do more than simply read them. They demanded that readers respond -- e i t h e r through actions or by catching semi-concealed allusions and drawing unarticulated conclusions.(1) While Chapter 3 l i s t e d the advice (or c a l l s to action) o f f e r e d by primary schoolteachers, t h i s chapter w i l l uncover the subtle a l l u s i o n s and conclusions i n u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles. I t w i l l do so by l o c a t i n g and examining "archetypal" moments i n t h e i r texts. Archetypal moments are points i n texts that connect the anecdotal experiences of one i n d i v i d u a l with the dominant discourse. Such moments contained vocabulary and descriptions of behaviour that were heavy with meaning f o r the reader. One s i m p l i s t i c example of an archetypal moment occurred when schoolmistresses discussed the importance of vospitanie to t h e i r job. None of the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y t h i s t h e s i s investigates defined v o s p i t a n i e . However, when they used t h i s word, schoolmistresses were conveying t h e i r educational philosophy to readers and were i n d i c a t i n g an understanding (no matter how limited) of the p r e v a i l i n g pedagogical discourse. The presence of archetypal moments i n texts c a l l s attention to these t e x t s ' l i t e r a r y q u a l i t i e s . The presence of s p e c i f i c vocabulary, p l o t devices of greater or l e s s e r subtlety, and 108 109 l i t e r a r y themes emphasizes t h i s fact. The l i t e r a r y q u a l i t y of these writings reminds readers that the u c h i t e l ' n i t s y wrote t h e i r memoirs afte r the fact and thus chose to imbue s p e c i f i c incidents with a greater r e a l i t y (or a higher meaning) -- a technique that implies purpose. As Chapter 3 demonstrated, part of t h i s purpose was to teach. This chapter w i l l show that memoir/articles were also written for the purposes of entering i n t o and sometimes challenging the dominant discourse concerning education — e s p e c i a l l y with reference to the p o r t r a i t of the u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . One p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t e r e s t i n g fact discussed i n t h i s chapter i s the extent to which schoolmistresses used the vocabulary and l i t e r a r y techniques of the dominant discourse to further t h e i r p a r t i c u l a r i n t e r e s t s . In other words, this chapter w i l l i n d i c a t e how they used l i t e r a r y techniques to e s t a b l i s h a counter-discourse. In order to,demonstrate that these i n t e r e s t s were rooted i n gender-based needs, t h i s chapter w i l l also examine schoolmasters' archetypal moments. Methodology While Chapter 3 matter-of-factly presented the contents and stated desires of schoolmistresses, t h i s chapter w i l l d i g beneath the surface of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles to uncover half-hidden meanings offered to an intended audience along with 110 advice concerning teaching. Vera Sandomirsky Dunham, who noted that r e a l i s t f i c t i o n was darker than i t needed to be, also wrote that Russian male writers and i n t e l l e c t u a l s accepted women's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n public l i f e and l i t e r a r y ventures only i f they d i d not challenge men's egos.(2) Barbara Heldt has shown how women writers i n nineteenth century Russia avoided d i r e c t l y challenging male l i t e r a r y figures — who had created and c o n t i n u a l l y reinforced the stereotype of the passive, martyred heroine -- by writing and publishing memoirs.(3) The memoir -- written at home for s e l f or family -- was considered to be a domestic a r t and c r a f t and thus a s u i t a b l e v e h i c l e for women writers. "Women writers grew up and remained i n s i d e houses: domestic i n t e r i o r s or gardens figure as the chief locus of t h e i r writing."(4) However, the limited geographical range of women's memoirs did not l i m i t t h e i r power or i n s i g h t . These memoirs frequently referred to s o c i a l issues, such as economic oppression and sexism. For schoolmistresses -- who l i v e d and worked i n the public sphere -- memoir writing was a t r i c k y undertaking.(5) As was noted e a r l i e r , there were few career alternatives for women. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y could not afford to alienate t h e i r employers or the pedagogues who controlled the educational discourse. For t h i s reason, while (as we w i l l see) they opposed the embarrassing stereotype of schoolmistress as passive martyr, female teachers were reduced to presenting t h e i r opinions i n a type of code.(6) This means that instead of stating opinions I l l i n the body of the text, schoolmistresses offered opinions and self-perceptions i n text details.(7) Indicating the p o l i t i c a l and covert nature of such a text, feminist l i t e r a r y c r i t i c P a t r i c i a Yaeger c a l l s s i m i l a r women's writings " t e r r o r i s t texts".(8) And she maintains that through these text d e t a i l s and anecdotes (or archetypal moments), u c h i t e l ' n i t s y attained "an unprecedented power of dialogue with the dominant t r a d i t i o n , a power, above a l l , of interrupting that t r a d i t i o n and revealing i t s violence."(9) In the following section, we w i l l see how u c h i t e l ' n i t s y d e l i b e r a t e l y connected t h e i r work to the world of 'small deeds' reformism and 'service to Russian people'. Also, schoolmistresses demonstrated through anecdotal comment and archetypal moment that- they were capable, powerful people. As Toby Clymas' a r t i c l e on women physicians revealed, they d i d so i n a s i m i l a r ways as other contemporary female professionals. "In the i n i t i a l sections [of her memoir/article], [Dr. Aptekman] sets out to debunk the negative image society has of the woman physician." (10) Archetypal Moments that Demonstrate Schoolmistresses'  P o s i t i v e Self-image Aleksandra Tolmachevskaia (who taught i n an Odessa multi-c l a s s , multiple-teacher school and published i n Russkaia shkola) 112 o f f e r e d her readers the most straight-forward rationale for her choice to become a teacher. She began teaching i n 1878, under the s p e l l of narodnichestvo (or populist) l i t e r a t u r e . "People who were young then l i v e d through an in t e r e s t i n g i d e o l o g i c a l time and went 'to the people' with conviction. It was necessary to prepare yourself, and we greedily f e l l upon i t all. " ( 1 1 ) By naming narodniki as her role models, Tolmachevskaia emphasized her desire to serve the people. She also indicated her developed p o l i t i c a l ideology. Tolmachevskaia reinforced the importance of her p o l i t i c a l ideology through a series of meaningful descriptions, which d e l i b e r a t e l y connected her memoir/article (published i n 1914) with the Russian revolutionary t r a d i t i o n . F i r s t , Tolmachevskaia indicated that the Russian people's d i f f i c u l t i e s weighed heavily upon her. Just as a number of Russian revolutionaries, Vera Zasulich among them, were unable to dismiss the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by workers and peasants from t h e i r minds, Tolmachevskaia and her cousin, Masha, found themselves unable to dance or laugh or sleep without thinking about the benighted masses (temnoi narod).(12) Second, she and Masha stayed up a l l night and swore dramatically to serve the people. As she described i t , the scene i s reminiscent of Herzen's and Orgarev's oath on the Sparrow H i l l s : Masha i n ecstasy seized my hand. "Swear by t h i s sombre, befouled heaven, swear by these shining stars, swear by t h i s night and on your l i f e that you w i l l serve the people... " "I swear!." I repeated i n a voice weakened by emotion. "I swear!"(13) 113 T h i r d , Tolmachevskaia noted how her decision to become a teacher was strongly opposed by her family and how she persisted despite them i n her decision.(14) Tolmachevskaia thus offered her decision to become a teacher as one natural to an energetic young woman who was r a i s e d at a s p e c i f i c time i n Russia's history -- a time i n which the phrase 'service to the people' was common currency. She presented her decision i n t h i s way to place i t i n a wider context -- a context i n which such a decision represented higher values and a respected a l t e r n a t i v e to matrimony. Thus, when she became a teacher, Tolmachevskaia was not just taking up a career but also entering into service to the 'people'. Such service had i t s own emotional and s o c i a l rewards. And, i t was i n f u l f i l m e n t of the dictates of a contemporary discourse. Although they began teaching closer to the turn of the twentieth century, a s i m i l a r desire to serve i s present i n the memoir/articles of Olga Nikolaevna Ko--ka (who taught i n a r u r a l zemstvo school and published i n Russkaia shkola) and V. Elanskaia (who taught i n a r u r a l church parish school and published i n Narodnoe obrazovanie). This i s not s u r p r i s i n g because the period 1890-1905 was synonymous with the era of 'small deeds'. As Chapter 1 noted, 'small deeds' were i n d i v i d u a l actions of a reformist nature carried out by Russian professionals and other educated persons. Because Russia was an autocracy, i t was impossible for these individuals to change conditions of l i f e or work for the country's people through 114 l e g i s l a t i o n (as, for example, i n England). Instead, members of obshchestvo (educated society) created philanthropic organizations or sought employment with zemstva. Their service to the people was of a personal, not (overtly) p o l i t i c a l nature. Both Ko--ka and Elanskaia used the analogy of being on f i r e to describe t h e i r desire to teach, to serve. Ko--ka wrote: "I burned ( i a gorela) with a desire to go soon to a r u r a l school, i n order to give every thing of myself to i t . My dreams were ardent, my soul was bursting..."(15) Elanskaia wrote: "I didn't l i v e , I burned. My soul l i v e d . . . I didn't know (then or now) boredom or melancholy."(16) By using such d e s c r i p t i v e and resonant phrases as the above, both schoolmistresses conveyed a passion, a fervour, that was almost missionary i n q u a l i t y . Because of the type of school i n which Elanskaia taught and the id e o l o g i c a l slant of the journal i n which she published, such a passion for service i s understandable. Parish schoolmistresses were most frequently clergymen's daughters or peasant g i r l s trained at parish schools.(17) Thus, her passion f o r service can be seen to have developed quite l o g i c a l l y out of the service and missionary ethic emphasized i n the New Testament, which she surely had studied throughout her education. It also offered a devotional j u s t i f i c a t i o n f o r her unmarried status. The "burning" and the awakening of soul that Elanskaia experienced as an u c h i t e l ' n i t s a were d i r e c t l y a t t r i b u t a b l e to her service to the church and thus to God. The female teachers, who read her a r t i c l e , would have understood 115 t h i s at once and found her testimony invigorating and r e i n f o r c i n g . For these readers, the l i t e r a l truth of Elanskaia's a r t i c l e was not the issue. Instead, what i t implied and offered was of greater importance. Elanskaia's memoir/article offered her intended audience a j u s t i f i c a t i o n other than selfishness or economic need for a woman to enter the teaching profession. I t subsumed a personal need (perhaps to avoid the violence and oppression of peasant l i f e ) under the greater c a l l to service. Thus, Elanskaia's memoir/article assured her readers that a church-parish schoolmistress served God and her students, and only then her own w i l l . In the same way, i t i s impossible to separate Ko—ka's a r t i c l e and the statement that she "burned with the desire to go to a r u r a l school" from the context i n which she offered i t to Russkaia shkola's readers. We have already determined that Russkaia shkola encouraged and supported 'small deeds' reform, a task that included o f f e r i n g p o s i t i v e r o l e models and p r a c t i c a l t i p s on performing the deeds. Olga Nikolaevna's a r t i c l e should be viewed i n t h i s l i g h t . While mention i s made of the d i f f i c u l t economic s i t u a t i o n her family f e l l into a f t e r the death of her father, Ko--ka i s adamant that she had wanted to teach even before her father's death. "In the f i r s t gymnasium c l a s s , I always explained the lessons to poor students, and i n the fourth c l a s s [a year before her father's death] I already gave private lessons teaching c h i l d r e n to read."(18) Even i f Ko—ka had not 116 a c t u a l l y experienced an almost physical need to teach i n a r u r a l school at age 19, she would have been aware -- because she trained i n a teaching seminary and most probably read pedagogical journals -- that such a statement was expected of a schoolmistress r o l e model. (19) This i s not to say that Olga Nikolaevna did not honestly f e e l the "burning"; rather that by using such a phrase, she d e l i b e r a t e l y entered the discourse surrounding education and demonstrated that her personal anecdotes were of more than passing inte r e s t to pedagogues and teachers. Her memoir/article represented the t r i a l s , t r i b u l a t i o n s and triumphs of an i n d i v i d u a l committed to 'small deeds' reformism. Schoolmistresses' Archetypal Moments That  Challenged the Dominant Discourse In Chapter 3, Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. remarked that she, l i k e many beginning teachers, had no exposure to r u r a l l i f e other than through books and s t o r i e s . Obviously, the only exposure most had to the l i v e s of r u r a l schoolmistresses was also through f i c t i o n and journal a r t i c l e s . As we have seen, the dominant discourse concerning schoolmistresses painted a romantic p o r t r a i t of the u c h i t e l ' n i t s a as a genteel woman fi g h t i n g a courageous (and ultimately doomed) b a t t l e against ignorance and immorality. Her p a s s i v i t y and self-abnegation were q u a l i t i e s designated as a t t r a c t i v e by a society led by 117 l i b e r a l male writers and i n t e l l e c t u a l s . The l i t e r a r y construction of schoolmistress must have been very appealing to a l t r u i s t i c young women. By contrast, the r e a l i t y of a schoolmistress* l i f e ( p a r t i c u l a r l y , a r u r a l schoolmistress') must have been a great shock. The r e a l i t y of powerlessness and dependency was surely not as romantic as i t had been made to seem. Uc h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles offered a foretaste of t h i s shock to young women preparing to enter the profession and empathy to schoolmistresses, who had already experienced the shock. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y communicated t h e i r challenge to the dominant discourse through archetypal moments. The following are just a few of the most s t r i k i n g archetypal moments written with an intended audience of female elementary teachers i n mind. The f i r s t such archetypal moment concerns bright, talented students doomed to physical deprivation, moral corruption and l i f e - l o n g f r u s t r a t i o n by a lack of career alternatives and the stop-gap, one-sided educational system. Aleksandra Tolmachevskaia presented perhaps the most b r u t a l moment of a l l when she discussed the hunger her students experienced d a i l y and noted how each day she had to decide which ch i l d r e n needed lunch most: Brother and s i s t e r Makarov, workers' children, were stunted i n t h e i r growth. Our school doctor discovered that t h e i r stomachs were swollen with hunger. The l i t t l e g i r l had frightened eyes and was submissive. The father fed the family by begging ... We, along with the doctor, c o l l e c t e d a l i t t l e something from among friends and dispatched four individuals to the orphanage to eat lunch each day. Noon. My hand reached the l i t t l e box where the money for 118 luncheon was kept when 10 hands rose s i l e n t l y and pleading eyes watched me. Whom to send? They a l l rose: there poor "sleeveless" Sashka. Her hand raised, she smiled i n g r a t i a t i n g l y ... L i t t l e G., i n whose eyes were terror and expectation of his share ... Whom to send? (20) The irony of thi s moment i s that i t i s placed (deliberately) d i r e c t l y p r i o r to a description of a mandatory gymnastics class i n which Tolmachevskaia's hungry students were forced to pa r t i c i p a t e . The implication of such a st r u c t u r a l p a r a l l e l i s that the school board -- which decided that a gymnastics class was mandatory for the health of the students -- f a i l e d to provide the food that would have more s i g n i f i c a n t l y improved t h e i r health.(21) Obviously, Tolmachevskaia offered t h i s archetypal moment i n order to demonstrate that i t was her personally -- and not members of the school board (no doubt under the influence of modern pedagogy) -- who engaged i n a d i f f i c u l t b a t t l e for her students' s u r v i v a l . In other words, through t h i s archetypal moment, Tolmachevskaia was demonstrating that she was active and competent, while persons who created and supported the dominant discourse were unfamiliar with students' r e a l needs. N.M. (who taught i n a r u r a l school and published i n Russkaia shkola) offered a s i m i l a r c r i t i q u e of the stop-gap and misdirected educational system. Like Tolmachevskaia*s, her c r i t i q u e i s i n d i r e c t but pointed. It i s based i n descriptions of a number of her most talented and charming students. One such description concerned a boy (M.T.), who loved nature — 119 e s p e c i a l l y birds -- and read and re-read the short s t o r i e s i n Boqdanov's book From the L i f e of Russian Nature.(22) M.T. hoped to l i v e his l i f e studying birds. Another description concerned a romantic boy (I.T.), who longed to v i s i t the steppes a f t e r reading about them i n the works of Gogol.(23) Another c h i l d (V.) had a tale n t for painting and was only allowed to paint a f t e r his father found the pictures would sell.(24) Viewed i n i s o l a t i o n , these descriptions could appear to be simple d e s c r i p t i v e colour, added to ensure a reader's emotional i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the schoolmistress. However, when seen i n t o t a l , they present a disturbing picture, e s p e c i a l l y to N.M. — who saw that none of these children succeeded i n using t h e i r t a l e n t s -- e i t h e r as a n a t u r a l i s t , a poet, or a painter: Thus i t was with many of the talented heads i n the families of V., I.T. and M.T., and others of whom I have no memory ... by necessity these young people, at the end of t h e i r school course, but the majority even e a r l i e r , depart to perform seasonal labour i n St. Petersburg. And Petersburg favours no one: i t oppresses everything that was nice i n them; i t drives everyone to imitation of the same standard. It i s a p i t y that a l l capacities go to seed without development ... It i s bad that Petersburg, or other big c i t y , with t h e i r inns and cheap amusements commonly k i l l i n them [ex-students] newly awakened i n t e l l e c t u a l wants. It i s too bad! Too bad!(25) The inexorable b r u t a l i t y of t h i s waste of human pot e n t i a l i s ce n t r a l to u c h i t e l ' n i t s y writings, as i s i t s profound emotional impact upon schoolmistresses themselves. By discussing t h i s impact, schoolmistresses shared t h e i r pain with colleagues. They also condemned a system that educated c h i l d r e n just enough to make them useful to the i n d u s t r i a l machine, but not enough to save them from the e v i l s 120 of c i t y l i f e . Pedagogues' claims that a basic education through vospitanie would reduce immortality were thus disproved.(26) A. Simonovich (a r u r a l schoolmistress who published i n Russkaia shkola) also wrote a memoir/article that disagreed with the importance pedagogues attached to basic education. Her a r t i c l e , presented i n a diary format, i s powerful and stunning i n i t s matter-of-factness: November 14, 1889 N... finished the course. He passed the examination e a s i l y and his smart answers drew the attention of his examiner. He continued to v i s i t school. He was bored at home ... for him i t would be necessary to carry on in learning. February 27, 1890 N. . . went to work i n a tea shop: his r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s included whilingaway his time washing tea dishes, brewing tea, serving his customers and recording the receipts i n a book. He earns 3r. 50 kop. a month. Here's the career for an i n t e l l i g e n t , talented boy. November 10,1891 V... an in t e r e s t i n g boy: pale, blond, blue-eyed, loves verse... A p r i l 17, 1892 Today V... spent a long time studying a map of Europe and asked me how far i t was to the Atlantic Ocean. "Why do you want to know?" I asked. "I want to walk to the ocean and then take a boat and s t r i k e out for America," he answered. September 15, 1892 Pale V... has not found himself i n America, rather a tea shop, ( i n which) he earns 3 r . a month. (27) Obviously, a basic education and extraordinary natural a b i l i t y were not s u f f i c i e n t to s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r peasant children's futures. By demonstrating t h i s , Simonovich was showing that alone education -- pedagogues' universal panacea -- was i n s u f f i c i e n t to change Russian society. "The whole future of 121 Russia rests on these children: t h e i r evolution/development depends upon the cessation of crop f a i l u r e s , hunger, epidemics, i n other words, a l l types of hardships, which trouble Russia at the present time."(28) Thus, while pedagogues offered l i t e r a c y as a cure for Russia's i l l s , which ranged from low factory productivity to alcoholism, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y were pointing out that education was j u s t one component i n improving the l i v e s of the people. Childrens' bodies had to be taken care of as well as t h e i r minds. And they had to be offered some future p o s s i b i l i t i e s . One schoolmistress noted that i t was f r u s t r a t i o n r e s u l t i n g from a lack of opportunities following t h e i r school days, and not i l l i t e r a c y , that sparked a good deal of r u r a l violence and crime.(29) Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , schoolmistresses challenged not only pedagogues' assessment of the importance of l i t e r a c y ; they also attacked the r h e t o r i c that emphasized the importance of the schoolteacher. The philosophy of vospitanie implied that a good teacher and a good upbringing i n the classroom would change a c h i l d ' s l i f e completely. Uchitel'nitsy's descriptions of starved, b r u t a l i z e d and s o c i a l l y frustrated students demonstrated that the teacher was not the only influence on a c h i l d ' s l i f e . When Simonovich noted that despite her great influence only nine out of 150 students chose d i f f e r e n t careers and futures from t h e i r parents, she was c a l l i n g attention to the influence of family and community.(30) Three schoolmistresses 122 offered t h e i r readers a d e f i n i t i v e assessment of a teacher's comparatively minor e f f e c t on her students' l i v e s . E.R. (who taught i n a g i r l s school i n St. Petersburg and published i n Russkaia shkola) wrote that a teacher had great moral r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , but l i t t l e power. After describing a s i t u a t i o n i n which a very nice g i r l became pregnant a f t e r leaving school and going to work i n a factory, E.R. wrote: Is i t possible for our school — in which they stay f o r a l l of three years — to save, develop and enhance good feelings, thoughts and i n c l i n a t i o n s i n them? [A school] which they leave at 12 or 13 years of age — a most disagreeable age for g i r l s ? It i s t e r r i b l e and p a i n f u l ! To f e e l v i v i d l y one's impotence along with enormous moral responsibility...(31) Later i n the same section of her a r t i c l e , E.R. concluded that a teacher's p r i n c i p a l task was to demonstrate the importance of continued learning to her students. Such teachers: would hamper no one, but could give them [the students] --the enormous majority of whom through t h e i r whole l i f e must be confined to darkness -- i n three short orderly years i n our elementary school, support and d i r e c t i o n on the path to further self-education.(32) Thus, i n E.R.'s assessment, the teacher i s more of a guide and a helper than a saviour. She i s c e r t a i n l y not all-powerful. 0. Pavlovich (who taught i n an urban school and published i n Russkaia shkola) offered a s i m i l a r assessment of teachers' work and of elementary schools. She d i d not believe that schooling could change children; however, Pavlovich was convinced that there were long-term benefits of encouraging a student's p o s i t i v e (that i s , well-behaved and hard-working) behaviour: 123 I don't wish, of course, to say that our elementary school, l i k e a l l elementary schools i n general, can produce i n children both strength of w i l l and firmness of character. (Emphasis i n o r i g i n a l . ) No, i t i s not possible for i t to give these to people of completely d i f f e r e n t i n t e l l e c t u a l , moral and physical attitudes -- about which nothing can be done -- but i t ought to lay down a stone foundation f o r further development. (33) Pavlovich believed that school could not mould a l l of the c h i l d r e n that entered. I t could, however, serve as a support f o r those that entered with strong w i l l s and characters, and as a benchmark of morality for the rest. The author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " o f f e r s a s i m i l a r assessment of the role of the elementary school i n students' l i v e s . After noting that the nice lessons of and a t t e n t i o n to moral issues i n schools were nothing when weighed against a hard l i f e that from 11 or 12 years of age was c a r r i e d on i n a workshop or factory, she wrote: Can our elementary school give much to these children? .. . F i r s t , the majority of them bear a true love of reading, which becomes a need. The second [thing] that remains with them from school are memories of good school days, of school l i f e with i t s cheery work and happy animation, with i t s f e s t i v e occasions, with i t s joys and cares.(34) The anonymous author obviously believed that students took academic s k i l l s ( p a r t i c u l a r l y reading s k i l l s ) with them when they l e f t school. They also took pleasant memories of learning without the threat of corporal punishment and of school celebrations. As the majority were condemned to a l i f e of drudgery, the pleasant memories may have proved invaluable (and perhaps more useful than reading s k i l l s ) over the long term. 124 What i s most s t r i k i n g about the anonymous author's assessment of the role of the elementary school i n her students' l i v e s i s that she never once mentioned a l a s t i n g (or even basic) moral r e s u l t of education. By neglecting to discuss or c r e d i t t h i s moral dimension of education, she challenged the e f f i c a c y of vospitanie -- the i n t e l l e c t u a l , physical and moral 'upbringing' that provided the foundation of l i b e r a l pedagogy and the dominant discourse. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y also challenged the dominant discourse i n another, more s e l f - i n t e r e s t e d , way. In Chapter 3, I noted how schoolmistresses' decision to act as and to c a l l themselves "aunts" and "older s i s t e r s " allowed u c h i t e l ' n i t s y p a r t i c u l a r l y those employed i n the countryside — to present themselves as ' t y p i c a l ' women. That i s , by emphasizing the nurturing aspects of t h e i r profession and by engaging i n nurturing even aft e r class hours, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y reduced the threat they presented to the power structures and s o c i a l norms of the peasant commune. This s e l f - d e f i n i t i o n served another purpose, however -- one which extended even into urban environments. In the same way as the American champion of women teachers Catherine Beecher constantly emphasized women's 'natural' a b i l i t y to teach, Russian schoolmistresses used t h e i r gender as a tool when competing with schoolmasters (the majority of whom had pedagogical training) for teaching positions.(35) As Nezametnyi (Insignificant) — who was a history and geography teacher i n a women's progymnasium -- noted, the d i f f e r e n t 125 education male and female teachers received was a known and much discussed fact.(36) For a contemporary reader, i t may be d i f f i c u l t to understand how schoolmistresses challenged the dominant discourse by i n s i s t i n g that some people (even without pedagogical training) were naturally g i f t e d as teachers. F i r s t , i t must be understood that such an assertion d i r e c t l y contradicted pedagogues* support of the pro f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n of teaching. That i s , pedagogues were continually discussing the importance of t r a i n i n g a cadre of teachers to adhere to t h e i r educational philosophies and teaching strategies. The assumption was that only teachers with appropriate t r a i n i n g and professional indoctrination could teach students c o r r e c t l y (in accordance with the contemporary educational discourse). Schoolmistresses without vocational t r a i n i n g were simply viewed as fodder for the educational system. Perhaps i t i s t h i s fact which explains the general c i r c u l a t i o n of the stereotype of schoolmistress as passive and incapable. That schoolmistresses used gender (and gender stereotypes) to t h e i r advantage i n the sphere of public debate does not mean that they a c t u a l l y believed that women were more capable, more natural, teachers as a re s u l t of t h e i r biology. The amount of p r a c t i c a l advice schoolmistresses offered women colleagues i n t h e i r memoir/articles argues against t h i s . Instead, i t suggests that they saw an advantage i n the discourses concerning women and education that could be used by women teachers to increase 126 t h e i r representation and improve t h e i r positions within the profession.(37) Consider, for example, the hidden agenda that was being transmitted to pedagogues and the educated public by schoolmistresses, who noted that t h e i r students' home and s o c i a l environments often worked against vospitanie. Such women off e r e d children a more refined environment in which to spend t h e i r free time. Were not u c h i t e l ' n i t s y suggesting that by h i r i n g a woman a school board was ensuring a wider ( i n t e l l e c t u a l , moral and physical) education for i t s students and a greater boon to the community? (38) After a l l , the schoolmistress was forbidden to marry and thus lacked children of her own. Such a woman would doubtless be lonely and would respond to her 'natural' desire to nurture by spending a good deal of her free time with her students. Thus, for an equal or l e s s e r wage, school board and peasant community would receive a greater number of productive hours a week. In the case of church-parish schoolmistresses, women presented themselves as a strong resource for the e c c l e s i a s t i c a l — as well as the educational -- community. V. Elanskaia marched her students through the town on re l i g i o u s holidays, and i n s t i l l e d and reinforced r e l i g i o u s values among the young people of the village.(39) I.K. Chuvasheva taught the peasant community to sing hymns and read church readings, and bonded with them during a lovely Easter service at the end of her f i r s t year of teaching.(40) 127 In the case of secular schoolmistresses, women offered a l l of t h e i r students an enthusiasm for reading and a chance to learn behaviours from the middle and upper estates. To those c h i l d r e n who displayed "appropriate" behaviour (see above and Chapter 3 for d e t a i l s ) , u c h i t e l ' n i t s y offered a chance to spend more time reading and acting out the values of the middle and upper estates. Elizaveta Nikolaevna S. noted that "As a reward f o r good behaviour and work, I read something to students a f t e r c l a s s , or t o l d s t o r i e s , or showed pictures ... The very best encouragement, the best reward for students was permission to spend the night at school."(41) The implication i s that during that night the students were being read to and educated. Further, (schoolmistresses implied) as a res u l t of t h e i r natural gentleness and refinement, female teachers offered students an environment that was i n sharp contrast to t h e i r s o c i a l world and home l i v e s . Consider, for example, the subtext when E.R. forbade her students even to imitate behaviour they had seen at home i n the games room: Sometimes the children "play pretend"; these games suggest grievous thoughts: that the children see and hear at home such things [as are in] t h e i r imitative games! The favourite [game], " r e f l e c t i n g daughter-mother" was s t r i c t l y forbidden to them ... The mother was always coarse, loud, beating and punishing her children mercilessly. The childre n were naughty, s h i f t y , noisy, duping the watchful mother at every possible moment and breaking away from under her supervision.(42) Another benefit that unmarried schoolmistresses discussed i n t h e i r memoir/articles was s o c i a l intervention. For example, ]L. Guseva (who taught i n a r u r a l school and published i n 128 Russkaia shkola) often intervened i n the l i v e s of her students: fir It i s good for an educator to desire always to have the opportunity to become fa m i l i a r with the home environment of her students: she c a l l s on the family, looks at i t c l o s e l y , t a l k s with the children, i f necessary c a l l s i n the doctor. Thus i t w i l l be seen what actions should be forthcoming. If i t turns out to be the harmful influence of comrades [that are causing a student's bad behaviour], i t i s possible to remove the c h i l d from t h e i r midst; what i s more, i f the family i s bad, i t i s possible ... to have a conversation with the parents and explain to them the consequences of t h e i r e v i l influence on the child.(43) Intervention, such as Guseva's, i s of the same type as middle c l a s s female philanthropists. In the eyes of twentieth century readers, i t may appear maternal, self-assured and class-bound. I t would have appeared enlightened to Guseva's educated contemporaries. In summary, schoolmistresses challenged the dominant educational discourse that presented u c h i t e l ' n i t s y as passive and incompetent by using the discriminatory l e g i s l a t i o n governing u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s private l i v e s to t h e i r advantage. They emphasized the great s a c r i f i c e s (greater than schoolmasters) they were required to make as teachers. In doing so, they demonstrated how much more committed they were to t h e i r students and the goals of the educational system than were male elementary schoolteachers. By emphasizing t h e i r own 24-hour commitment, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y implied that schoolmasters, who were permitted to marry, were not serving the people but themselves -- a fact seemingly proven by t h e i r overriding concern with wages and teachers' status. In other words, u c h i t e l ' n i t s y 129 demonstrated i n t h e i r writings that teaching was a job for schoolmasters but a conscious philanthropic act f o r schoolmistresses.(44) Schoolmistresses' emphasis on the ext r a - c u r r i c u l a r lessons they offered t h e i r students also reveals that they understood, at least subconsciously, the class dynamic at work i n the task of educating Russia's peasant and working class c h i l d r e n . Women, who had received a gymnasium or perhaps higher education, were naturally capable of teaching children without i n f l i c t i n g corporal punishment. Many had been trained according to the dictates of in t e r n a l d i s c i p l i n e themselves. Schoolmasters, the majority of whom were from the peasant estate, would probably have had to be trained not to beat children who misbehaved or rejected learning. The Philosophical Content of Schoolmasters' Memoir/articles Having established that u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s archetypal moments — whether concerned with a schoolmistress' desire to teach, issues of d i s c i p l i n e , or students' ex t r a - c u r r i c u l a r a c t i v i t i e s — were rooted i n the discourse concerning education and women, we must now turn to a discussion of the philosophical content of schoolmasters' memoir/articles. Such a task i s rather more simple, and less i n t r i g u i n g , because schoolmasters' memoir/articles were not as l i t e r a t e or multi-layered as those 130 written by schoolmistresses. For t h i s reason, the following s e c t i o n i s , i n many ways, a more i n depth analysis of the issues discussed i n Chapter 3. This section w i l l discuss three archetypal moments, beginning with a consideration of schoolmasters' material and s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s . As Chapter 3 dealt i n d e t a i l with the parameters of poverty and teachers' low status, l i t t l e space need be devoted to a discussion of meagre s a l a r i e s and dependence. Instead, I w i l l suggest how schoolmasters' commentary on teachers' economic and s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s connected with the dominant pedagogical discourse. One point must be made before beginning an analysis of schoolmaster memoir/articles, however. Unlike u c h i t e l ' n i t s y , u c h i t e l i a o f f e r e d no counter-discourse to the dominant discourse which was created and controlled by pedagogues. The following section w i l l suggest possible reasons for t h i s a l l i a n c e of pedagogue and schoolmaster. The most obvious point at which u c h i t e l i a memoir/articles connected with the dominant discourse concerns the notion that a schoolmaster's status r e f l e c t e d the status of education. Stated bluntly, usually i n a s i t u a t i o n where the teacher was not respected, neither was the school nor what the school had to o f f e r . As we saw i n Chapter 3, schoolmasters frequently complained about t h e i r s a l a r i e s , and l i v i n g and working conditions. "The l i f e of a schoolmaster with a family i s a sorrowful t a l e of material deprivation, d i f f i c u l t work and 131 mental torture."(45) In dominant pedagogical discourse, i t was emphasized that the meagre salary the Ministry of Public Instruction and l o c a l zemstvo paid teachers for t h e i r s k i l l s r e f l e c t e d and reinforced a perception that education was unimportant.(46) To pedagogues who believed that education (through vospitanie) would reduce and possibly eliminate moral v i c e s , change the authoritarian nature of Russian society and increase the strength of Russia's economy -- teachers' low status and poverty were of great concern. By p r i n t i n g teacher memoir/articles that emphasized the low p r i o r i t y the government attached to education, the editors of journals were i m p l i c i t l y lobbying for reform. By wri t i n g l e t t e r s and memoirs with t h i s emphasis, u c h i t e l i a were r e f l e c t i n g and entering into the discourse. Another archetypal moment i n which schoolmasters entered i n t o and supported the dominant pedagogical discourse involved school inspectors' v i s i t s . A f t e r noting that his students passionately loved to read and knew a great deal, K. Barsov described one such v i s i t and the inspector's narrow-minded and petty attitude: The method of seating i n class -- and other things were exposed to sharp c r i t i c i s m . "What i s t h i s ! , " said the displeased voice of the inspector. "They don't know how to s i t . " And taking a student's arms, shook him and forced him to s i t s t r a i g h t , to be erect; the boy was embarrassed at such unwonted treatment. My soul f e l t badly for him, but what could I do? T e l l me, reader, i s there a crime i n t h i s : for a student to lean against the back of a bench or lean on his elbows? Do rules preserve a c e r t a i n body posture? I think not, and I l a t e r s a t i s f i e d myself that i n Swedish schools -- which are the model arrangement --hardly anyone worries about [the position of students'] 132 torsos ... But "mister" inspectors have nothing to do with t h i s [advanced pedagogical thought]. Bearing i s the only thing they think necessary.(47) By drawing attention to the petty concerns of school inspectors, Barsov was doing two things. F i r s t , he was i n d i c a t i n g that he supported the l i b e r a l philosophy of education, which was more concerned with the s k i l l s students learned than the physical d i s c i p l i n e they received. Second, by confirming the appropriateness of his teaching techniques a f t e r the departure of the inspector by reference to a book (or perhaps a r t i c l e ) which described and commended the "model" Swedish s t y l e of education, Barsov demonstrated that he was under the sway of the dominant pedagogical discourse. That i s , Barsov -- unlike the 14 u c h i t e l ' n i t s y -- needed frequent coaching on the appropriate professional behaviour of teachers. His teaching s t y l e , with i t s emphasis on reading, was thus a product of professional development and educational l i t e r a t u r e — not natural i n c l i n a t i o n . Barsov*s demonstrated in t e r e s t i n and need of pedagogical reference texts reinforced the dominant pedagogical discourse. Barsov's de s c r i p t i o n of the misguided aims and petty behaviour of the school inspector (school inspectors were bureaucrats and personal noblemen i n the Table of Ranks) served the same end. As representatives of the autocratic and conservative Russian state, school inspectors were generally more interested i n maintaining the status quo and enforcing d i s c i p l i n a r y measures than i n promoting child-centred 133 education.(48) By noting that the Ministry of Public Instruction's bureaucrats had no knowledge of the "Swedish model" and other "advanced" educational models and theories, Barsov was arguing that those persons who d i d ( i e . pedagogues) should have been i n positions of authority. By doing so, he strode confidently into the world of journal discourse.(49) He was arguing, l i k e the educated i n d i v i d u a l s and professionals whose hands wrote or guided a l l journal discourse, that the tr a i n e d experts and not amateurs (such as schoolmistresses) or bureaucrats should influence the d i r e c t i o n of new fields.(50) In a s i m i l a r vein, secular schoolmasters also participated i n the contemporary i n t e l l e c t u a l discourse by arguing that church-parish schools provided i n f e r i o r education. By showing how l o c a l p r i e s t s (who were not trained teachers) interfered with teachers' duties i n such schools and b u l l i e d or bribed parents to send t h e i r children to church-parish schools, schoolmasters were arguing for the e f f i c i e n c y of secular schools and the importance of having teachers (not priests) i n control of schools.(51) This argument i s reminiscent of the one voiced by schoolmistresses, i n which they argued that u c h i t e l ' n i t s y o f f e r e d school boards and communities more 'natural* s k i l l s and longer work weeks than male teachers. By i n d i c a t i n g t h e i r more extensive pedagogical knowledge, greater dedication to the school and better student performance on exams, secular schoolmasters were seeking professional advantage over church-p a r i s h schoolteachers.(52) 134 *** The above chapter has shown how u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s and u c h i t e l i a ' s writings r e f l e c t e d , supported and challenged the dominant educational discourse. It has also shown, through an analysis of archetypal moments, how points of emphasis i n the writings of both gender groups r e f l e c t e d the basic needs and desires of each. For example, schoolmistresses emphasized t h e i r 'natural' a b i l i t y to nurture children i n order to ensure t h e i r continued (and growing) presence i n Russia's elementary schools. By contrast, schoolmasters asked for improved l i v i n g and working conditions by couching t h e i r need i n rhetoric c a l l i n g for a greater appreciation of education. Archetypal moments r e f l e c t e d authors' educational and s o c i a l backgrounds as well as gender, just as did the p r a c t i c a l s t r a t e g i e s discussed i n Chapter 3. For example, schoolmistresses — two-thirds of whom were from the middle and upper estates -- generally lacked specialized teacher t r a i n i n g and thus demonstrated how t h e i r natural (estate) b e l i e f s and attitudes were intimately connected with child-centred pedagogy. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ' s answers to classroom and community problems were generally of a personal nature. Schoolmasters, on the other hand, had comparatively less general education and came from a lower estate. Their claim to the p o s i t i o n of teacher was founded on t h e i r vocational t r a i n i n g — 135 a t r a i n i n g r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r continued use of reference texts written by pedagogues. Instead of r e l y i n g upon themselves for answers to classroom and community d i f f i c u l t i e s , schoolmasters' answers came from 'the experts' and were st r u c t u r a l (usually developing out of professional organizations and ethics) i n nature. The above discoveries are s i g n i f i c a n t and demand a reassessment of previous scholarship concerning teachers ( i n p a r t i c u l a r ) and pedagogical discourse (in general). Obviously, c l a s s and gender affected teachers, determining t h e i r experiences and responses to d i f f i c u l t i e s . These factors must be examined i n future studies. In the same way, the multi-layered q u a l i t y of pedagogical discourse must be considered from now on. Up to t h i s point, the discourse has been treated as p o l i t i c a l l y - c h a r g e d , but b a s i c a l l y factual. It must now be understood as a series of f i c t i o n s or creations, each with i t s own logic.(53) One of the most important f i c t i o n s contained within the pedagogical discourse has remained hidden under layers of meaning u n t i l now. I t was the f i c t i o n of 'schoolmistress as servant of the people.' It was created by schoolmistresses themselves to challenge the dominant f i c t i o n of 'female teacher as martyr.' In a counter-discourse, carried out using the same vocabulary and with the i d e n t i c a l parameters as the dominant discourse, schoolmistresses compared t h e i r decisions to enter the teaching profession with those of other servants of the 136 people -- narodniki and saints. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y also demonstrated that they were strong, capable, creative problem solvers, who (because of t h e i r gender and the l e g i s l a t i o n that prohibited tmarriage for schoolmistresses) were dedicated teachers 24 hours a day. It was th i s dedication (and not vocational t r a i n i n g or professional associations) that made u c h i t e l ' n i t s y professionals. To the present-day reader, the semi-concealed a l l u s i o n s and unarticulated conclusions i n the memoir/articles upon which t h i s t h e s i s i s based are d i f f i c u l t to see. However, for a nineteenth century female reader, used to interacting with obscure texts, these allusions and conclusions would have been r e a d i l y apparent. Undoubtedly, they served as r a l l y points for the increasing number of women entering the teaching profession. Endnotes 1. Ware, "Russian Journal" 133. 2. Dunham 479. 3. See Heldt T e r r i b l e Perfection. 4. Barbara Heldt, "Codes for Women i n Autobiographical F i c t i o n : " Prophecy and Lament", a paper given August 1988 at the Conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire. 5. Vicinus 12. A sin g l e woman's public writings must have been under a si m i l a r type of scrutiny as her public l i f e . In her writi n g s , such a woman had to j u s t i f y a new domestic and public 137 e t h i c , had to achieve an improved economic position, and had to es t a b l i s h surrogate families i n order to appear respectable. 6. Toby Clymas' a r t i c l e makes a si m i l a r point. Thanks to Toby f o r sending me her unpublished paper. It helped me to focus my thoughts. 7. Naomi Schor, Breaking the Chain: Women, Theory, and French  R e a l i s t F i c t i o n , (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), x. 8. P a t r i c i a Yaeger, Honey-Mad Women: Emancipatory Strategies i n Women's Writing, (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), 3. "But i n focusing on these t e r r i f y i n g moments we neglect the woman writer's e c s t a t i c espionage, her expropriation of the language she needs, her own invention of a t e r r o r i s t text." 9. Yaeger 156. 10. Clymas, "Russian Women-Physicians." 3. 11. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 103-4. 12. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 106. See Jay Bergman, Vera  Zasulich: A Biography, (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1983) for examples of such behaviour. 13. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 106. See Martin Malia, Alexander Herzen and the Bir t h of Russian Socialism, (London: Harvard University Press, 1961) 50-1 and 214. 14. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 106. See Barbara Alpern Engel, Mothers and Daughters: Women of the I n t e l l i g e n t s i a i n  Nineteenth-Century Russia, (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983). 15. Ko--ka, Russkaia shkola 52. 16. Elanskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 5. 17. Eklof, Russian Peasant 195. 18. Ko—ka, Russkaia shkola 51. Ko—ka swrites that even while at the teaching seminary, her overwhelming desire to teach (and not her d i f f i c u l t f i n a n c i a l position) forced her to overtask her strength and teach outside of cla s s . Inevitably, she became s e r i o u s l y i l l and was never again strong. 19. O. Kaidanova, Ocherki po i s t o r i i narodnoqo obrazovaniia vo  Ro s s i i 1 SSSR na osnove lichnogo opyta 1 nabliudenii, (Canada, 1938) 170-95 and E. Sveshnikova, "Iz perepiski s sel'skimi u c h i t e l ' n i t s a m i , " Russkaia shkola 1 (1896): 75-86; 2 (1896): 51-62. Both authors discus techniques used to t r a i n teachers 138 ( e s p e c i a l l y g i r l s ) to be good teachers and d e t a i l the a t t i t u d e s of t h e i r teachers. 20. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 117. 21. Tolmachevskaia, Russkaia shkola 117-8. 22. N.M., Russkaia shkola 85. 23. N.M., Russkaia shkola 89. 24. N.M., Russkaia shkola 86-7. 25. N.M., Russkaia shkola 92. 26. Famous pedagogues, V.P. Vakhterov among them, developed a s e r i e s of schemes that would ensure universal education at an affordable cost. Of course, s a c r i f i c e s had to be made i n the scope of education offered by these schemes. For example, Vakhterov presented a plan to the Moscow Committee of L i t e r a c y i n 1894 that seemed a pragmatic answer to the problem of ensuring universal public education. In the plan, he argued that children should spend no more than three years i n school and a r e s t r i c t i o n against peasant g i r l s attending should be enforced. S i n e l , "Campaign" 498-501. 27. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 32. 28. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 40. 29. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 33. 30. Simonovich, Russkaia shkola 30. 31. E.R., Russkaia shkola 10: 43. 32. E.R., Russkaia shkola 10: 53. 33. Pavlovich, Russkaia shkola 53. 34. "Pervyi god" 64. 35. See Suggs, J r . 42-7 and Meyers 493-506. Suggs' book t a l k s about Catherine Beecher's b e l i e f s about women's natural t a l e n t s as teachers. Meyers* a r t i c l e d e t a i l s the f a m i l i a r b a t t l e between male and female teachers i n a profession i n which gender meant prestige. 36. Nezametnyi, " R e v i z i i a , " (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l i a ) , Russkaia shkola 4 (1903): 70-84. 139 37. Many thanks to Marjorie Theobald, who suggested t h i s i n t e r e s t i n g p o s s i b i l i t y i n a stimulating conversation that took place during her tenure as a guest lecturer at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia. 38. Anastasiev v o l . 2, 33. In t h i s section, K.D. Ushinskii i s quoted concerning the importance of role models to childr e n from bad homes. 39. Elanskaia, Narodnoe obrazovanie 2. 40. Chuvasheva, Narodnoe obrazovanie 7-8: 6 and 8-9. 41. E.S., Russkaia shkola 34. 42. E.R., Russkaia shkola 9: 55. 43. Guseva, Russkaia shkola 64-5. 44. Eklof, Russian Peasant 229-33 and 237 and Seregny, Russian  Teachers Chapter 3. 45. Simonovskii, Obrazovanie 347. See Dido, Russkaia shkola 9. 46. S i n e l , "Campaign" 488. Schoolmasters, e s p e c i a l l y those with f a m i l i e s , were required to work summers for extra money. Schoolmasters worked as supervisors in d i s t i l l e r i e s and i n the f i e l d s . Barsov, Russkaia shkola 7-8: 26. (Schoolmistresses may have given lessons, which kept them i n the f i e l d of education.) 47. Barsov, Russkaia shkola 5-6: 55. 48. Of course, a great deal of attention has been paid to school inspectors and bureaucrats within the Ministry of Public Instruction who encouraged the development of a standardized, •professional' school system. Lenin's father was such an administrator. 49. Wortman's book The Development of a Russian Legal  Consciousness demonstrates how a s i m i l a r desire for p r o f e s s i o n a l i z a t i o n grew through the nineteenth century i n the T s a r i s t Ministry of Ju s t i c e and gradually resulted i n the development of a professional ethos among i t s employees. 50. Such a demand l i e s at the base of Barsov's 10 point plan that demanded s p e c i f i c 'enlightened' actions and required that teachers have a say i n decisions that affected them and the school system. 51. Byvshii u c h i t e l ' , Obrazovanie 106-8 and Barsov, Russkaia  shkola 5-6: 47 and 54. See S i n e l , "Campaign" fo r the dominant discourse concerning church-parish schools 484-6. 140 52. See Meyers on how such a c o n f l i c t developed and concluded i n France. 53. See Natalie Zemon Davis, F i c t i o n i n the Archives:Pardon  Tales and Their T e l l e r s i n Sixteenth-Century France. (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987). CONCLUSION In Chapter 1, "The Problem Revealed", I set myself the task of analyzing the reactions of the o r i g i n a l readers of schoolmistresses' memoir/articles. My aim was to determine what was perceived and unperceived i n these authors' works by t h e i r contemporaries. In order to do t h i s , i t was necessary to e s t a b l i s h the context i n which the memoir/articles had been written. Chapter 1, therefore, discussed the discourse concerning education, the p o s i t i o n of schoolteachers i n l a t e nineteenth century Russian society and the status of women i n Russia's autocratic and pa t r i a r c h a l culture. Chapter 2 next presented an analysis of the three journals in which a majority of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles had been published and offered biographical information concerning the 14 schoolmistresses. U c h i t e l ' n i t s y educational and s o c i a l backgrounds were then compared to a sample of schoolmasters who also wrote memoir/articles and a s i g n i f i c a n t number of other schoolteachers. Then Chapter 3 demonstrated that schoolmistresses taught and offered advice to t h e i r colleagues and young women just entering the profession. F i n a l l y , Chapter 4 used the parameters of feminist l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m to reveal the layers of meaning contained within u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles. Through these layers of meaning, schoolmistresses ca r r i e d on a counter-discourse with the dominant pedagogical discourse and communicated with t h e i r s i s t e r s . 141 142 This thesis has demonstrated how the discourse concerning education was symbiotic i n nature. Educational l i t e r a t u r e transmitted words and expectations to teachers who acted upon, or wrote i n response to, them. The number of such i n d i v i d u a l s , moved by the discourse but mute, can not be calculated. What has been determined by t h i s thesis, however, i s that schoolmistresses saw the discourse as powerful and thus entered i t with the intention of supplying readers with new c u l t u r a l and emotional values. In a recently published work concerning the ro l e of single women i n the b a t t l e f or improved women's right s and career opportunities, Martha Vicinus has argued that single women's ascribed role i n private and public l i f e was simultaneously " d r a s t i c a l l y l i m i t i n g and immensely liberating."(1) "I believe," Vicinus wrote, "that women are never passive p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the larger culture but a c t i v e l y transform and redefine t h e i r external constraints." (2) Her book i l l u s t r a t e d t h i s point by demonstrating how single V i c t o r i a n women entered formal i n s t i t u t i o n s (most philanthropic i n nature) and within them developed leadership s k i l l s , friendship networks and a power base for public work.(3) Of course, i t was not easy fo r the women Vicinus discussed to enter the public sphere and remain there succes s f u l l y . The prejudices of t h e i r male-dominated society frequently made professional l i f e d i f f i c u l t . "Probably the greatest achievements of V i c t o r i a n women were i n 143 the area of philanthropy, yet even here we find them encouraged to remain amateurs."(4) The 14 schoolmistresses whose writings form the basis of t h i s thesis experienced d i f f i c u l t i e s s i m i l a r to those of the women i n Vicinus' book. They were relegated to the po s i t i o n of poor, passive stereotypes by the male-dominated pedagogical discourse of the period. In a world that was becoming increasingly professionalised, the competent single woman teacher without vocational t r a i n i n g (the amateur), was viewed as a threat -- both by pedagogically-trained male teachers and the male pedagogues who sought influence i n the Russian state through c o n t r o l l i n g the discourse concerning education. In the vast majority of published u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles, schoolmistresses challenged the dominant pedagogical discourse that painted women teachers as passive and incompetent. In mounting t h i s challenge, Russian schoolmistresses used s i m i l a r t a c t i c s as women physicians who were fi g h t i n g the same b a t t l e . "But while the reading public sought to learn from these women's memoirs about the l i v e s and pl i g h t of the le s s fortunate, the women [doctors] writing t h e i r memoirs had other, more compelling motives: namely to shatter the c u l t u r a l h a l l of mirrors and to i n s c r i b e themselves as competent individuals and usef u l , contributing members of society."(5) Through anecdotes and descriptions, schoolmistresses and women physicians demonstrated that they were f u l l y capable of dealing with a wide range of d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n s . They also offered — through the 144 anecdotes -- helpful advice to colleagues and young women preparing to enter the professions. Through t h e i r anecdotes, schoolmistresses also offered subtle comment. For example, they demonstrated t h e i r 'natural' teaching a b i l i t i e s and implied that as a r e s u l t of l e g i s l a t i o n that prohibited female teachers from marrying they were more accessible to t h e i r students than schoolmasters. Such a c c e s s i b i l i t y made them more useful and productive to school boards. Through descriptions, schoolmistresses also emphasized the great s a c r i f i c e that they were required to make upon entering the teaching profession. In a society that worshipped marriage and motherhood, schoolmistresses were barred from family l i f e . Thus, by becoming a teacher, women indicated s a c r i f i c e and a desire (which sometimes had a physical manifestation) to serve the people; i t was an archetypal action i n the era of 'small deeds.' Of course, as we have seen, not only schoolmistresses engaged i n representative actions or included archetypal moments (describing these actions) i n t h e i r memoir/articles. Both male and female teachers included advice and archetypal moments i n t h e i r writings. However, the emphasis and content of advice and moments were very d i f f e r e n t . Schoolmistresses, who were p r i m a r i l y urban-born and from the middle and upper estates, stressed the d i f f i c u l t i e s of r u r a l l i v i n g and offered solutions t o the problem of i s o l a t i o n from the peasant commune. Some, l i k e E l i z a v e t a Nikolaevna S., sought a e s p e c i a l l y close 145 r e l a t i o n s h i p with t h e i r students. Others, l i k e I.K. Chuvasheva, were accepted a f t e r s e t t i n g up a course of Sunday school readings for the ent i r e village.(6) As well, because the majority of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y had not received pedagogical t r a i n i n g , memoir/articles also offered suggestions concerning d i s c i p l i n e and classroom dynamics. E.R., for example, suggested that teachers i n a multi-class s i t u a t i o n should employ monitors, while the author of "The F i r s t Year of My Teaching A c t i v i t y " counselled teachers to be firm and s t r i c t above a l l else.(7) By contrast, the memoir/articles written by schoolmasters -- who were mostly rural-born, from the lower estates and pedagogically trained -- emphasized the economic and s o c i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s encountered by teachers -- e s p e c i a l l y married teachers. K. Barsov, for example, related a story of the ease with which rumour could destroy a teacher's career. V. Simonovskii offered a description of the hard l i f e and "mental t o r t u r e " of a married schoolmaster's l i f e . ( 8 ) The content of schoolmasters' writings i s a d i r e c t r e f l e c t i o n of the fact that t h e i r previous l i f e experiences had not prepared them for a l i e n a t i o n from the community i n which they l i v e d and taught. There were also great philosophical differences i n the writings of male and female teachers. Schoolmistresses' memoir/articles challenged the dominant pedagogical discourse's easy, unproven assertions concerning the value and nature of education, as well as the p o s i t i o n of women. For example, A.S. Simonovich demonstrated that even talented students needed more 146 than a basic education to change their l i v e s ; they needed career options and a chance to continue in school.(9) Aleksandra Tolmachevskaia showed that schoolmistresses were committed to •small deeds' reformism and to changing the l i v e s of Russia's lower orders by describing her decision to become a teacher i n a way s i m i l a r to descriptions offered by a number of revolutionaries.(10) By contrast, schoolmasters' writings constantly referred to and reinforced the dominant pedagogical discourse. For instance, K. Barsov indicated that when i n doubt as to how to proceed i n the classroom, he located a reference text describing "model" classrooms. In doing so, Barsov abdicated his personal authority to the "experts."(11) The differences between schoolmaster and schoolmistress a r t i c l e content were obviously rooted i n class and gender issues. Because schoolmistresses tended to see t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s as class and gender-based (and thus as personal), they offered personal solutions to s o c i a l problems. Better put, they offered personal anecdotes which demonstrated that an u c h i t e l ' n i t s a could solve teaching and community problems alone. By comparison, because schoolmasters tended to be f a m i l i a r with the environment i n which they taught, they emphasized s t r u c t u r a l or group solutions to t h e i r problems. For example, they showed that zemstva needed to put more money toward both teachers' wages and the equipping and maintenance of schools. They also emphasized the necessity of developing teachers' associations, 147 naming teachers' representatives to l i a i s e with the government and creating a newspaper just for teachers. It i s possible that the difference i n the type of solutions offered by u c h i t e l ' n i t s y and u c h i t e l i a may have originated i n the d i f f e r e n t career alternatives open to Russian men and women, as well as schoolmistresses' understanding (perhaps subconscious) of the d i f f e r e n t behaviours expected of men and women. It may be that women teachers were cautious i n expressing a desire for better working and l i v i n g conditions because they had much fewer career alternatives than schoolmasters (who pressed for teacher representatives and professional association) and thus, they were forced to solve career problems p r i v a t e l y and in-person. Certainly, the lack of complaints from schoolmistresses concerning the economics of teaching and teachers' low status i s r e f l e c t e d i n the small number of women who part i c i p a t e d i n teacher activism -- such as professional associations and pedagogical conference planning committees.(12) Of course, i f i t could be proved that such conditions prevailed and schoolmistresses d e l i b e r a t e l y avoided conventional professional organization, t h i s thesis would be strengthened. As i t stands, s u f f i c i e n t information exists to demonstrate that schoolmistresses developed a professional ethic and series of surv i v a l techniques that met and r e f l e c t e d t h e i r gender and class needs. The primary discovery of t h i s thesis i s that while l i f e may have been d i f f i c u l t for the majority of 148 schoolmistresses, at least some were developing and passing on strategies to permit themselves and other women to continue to l i v e and prosper i n the teaching profession. These schoolmistress/strategists offered t h e i r advice to s i s t e r colleagues by interrupting and reinte r p r e t i n g the dominant discourse. a Because u c h i t e l ' n i t s y used the vocabulary and l i t e r a r y conventions of the dominant discourse, i t i s possible that the (male) editors of the journals i n which they published d i d not notice, or at lea s t did not r e a l i z e the extent of, the counter-discourse. However, schoolmistresses -- the intended audience -- would understand the intent and meaning of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y memoir/articles. The intended audience would understand them because memoir/articles simultaneously offered t h e i r female readers the stereotypical p o r t r a i t of woman as martyr (that i s , the romantic dream to which many i n the profession -- and those about to enter -- aspired) and the r e a l i t y of a teacher's l i f e . For women already i n the profession, t h i s dissonance would r i n g true. Meanwhile, women about to enter the profession would be warned. My greatest hope i s that following an analysis of the content and nature of u c h i t e l ' n i t s y a r t i c l e s the p o r t r a i t of the passive, powerless and mute schoolmistress has f i n a l l y been l a i d to rest. 149 Endnotes 1. Vicinus, 12. 2. Vicinus 7. 3. Vicinus 7. The work i s t o t a l l y dedicated to demonstrating t h i s . 4. Vicinus 22. 5. Clymas 3. 6. See Chapter 3, section 2. 7. See Chapter 3, section 1. 8. See Chapter 3, section 3. 9. See Chapter 4, section 3. 10. See Chapter 4, section 2. 11. See Chapter 4, section 4. 12. See Seregny, Russian Teachers for an example of the small number of p o l i t i c a l l y active female teachers. BIBLIOGRAPHY Russian Sources Abramovich, N. Ia. Zhenshchina i mir muzhskoi kul'tury: mirovoe  tvorchestvo i polovaia liubov'. Moscow: Svobodnyi Put', 1913. Anastasiev, A. Narodnaia shkola rukovodstvo d l i a u c h i t e l e i 1  u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'nykh u c h i l i s h c h nastol'naia spravochnaia  kniqa. 7th ed. 2 vols. Moscow: A.A. Stupin, 1910. Arsen'ev, I.A., ed. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar'. 82 vols. St. Petersburg: I.A. Efron, 1897. Barakshin, A. "Iz zapisok 1' sel'skago u c h i t e l i a . " Narodnoe  obrazovanie 3 (1902): 249-254. Barsov, K. "Sel'skaia shkola i u c h i t e l ' . (Vospominaniia i zametki)." Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1896): 45-55; 7-8 (1896): 25-31. Baulina, A. Zadachi sovremennago vos p i t a n i i a . St. Petersburg: M.M. Stasiulevich, 1910. Beliaeva, L.N., M.K. Zinov'eva and M.M. Nikiforov. B i b l i o g r a p h i i a  Periodicheskikh Izdannii R o s s i i , 1901-1916. 4 vols. Ed. V.M. Burashenkov, O.D. Golubevaia and N.R. Morachevskii. Leningrad: M i n i s t r y of Culture of the RSFSR, 1959. Blinov, L. "Narodnyi u c h i t e l ' v R o s s i i . " Vseobshchee obrazovanie  v R o s s i i . Ed. D. M. Shakhovskii. Moscow, 1902. 63-84. Byvshii u c h i t e l . "Iz vospominanii sel'skago u c h i t e l i a . (Iz Permskoi gubernii)." Obrazovanie 5-6 (1896): Sect. 2, 106-108. Chuvasheva, I.K. "Slava Bogu za Vse! (Vospominaniia derevenskoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) . " Narodnoe Obrazovanie 7-8 (1914): Vol. 2, 1-9; 9 (1914): 113-24; 10 (1914): 265-77; 11 (1914): 378-83. Dido. "Zametki i nabliudeniia. (Iz zametok byvshago sel'skago u c h i t e l i a ) . " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1899): 179-89; 7-8 (1899): 195-200; 9 (1899): 237-46; 12 (1899): 176-82. Elanskaia, V. "Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . " Narodnoe  obrazovanie 1 (1909): Vol. 1, 1-5. F i l a t o v a , A.V. Vospominaniia u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . Moscow: Rabotnik Prosveshcheniia, 1929. 150 151 Govorov, S.K. Brachnyi vopros v bytu uchashchik' . (Nachal'noi  shkoly). Moscow: A. I. Mamontov, 1903. Guseva, L. "Zametki sel' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . " Russkaia shkola 7-8 (1895): 63-8. K--ka, Olga Nikolaevna. "God v sel's k o i shkole. (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l • n i t s y ) . " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1905): 51-76. Kaidanova, 0. Ocherki po i s t o r i i narodnoqo obrazovaniia vo Rossii  i SSSR na osnove lichnoqo opyta i na b l i u d e n i i . Canada, 1938. Karpinskaia, V. "Idealistka. (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) . " Narodnoe obrazovanie 2 (1907): Vol. 1. Book 2, 182-86. Kivshenko, N. D. Dnevnik sel'skoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . St. Petersburg: Fontanka, 1887. Leiki n a - S v i r s k a i a , V.R. I n t e l l i g e n t s i i a v Rossii vo vtor o i  polovine XIX veka. Moscow: "Mysl"', 1971. Leont'eva, N. "0 detskom c h t e n i i . (Iz nabliudenii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) . " Obrazovanie 11-12 (1905): Sect. 2, 111-41. Ministerstvo Narodnago Prosveshcheniia. S t a t i s t i c h e s k i i a svedeniia  po nachal'nomu obrazovaniiu v ro s s i s k o i imperii vur IV. (Dannyia 1900 goda) Ed. V.F. Farmorkorskii and E.P. Kovalevskii. (St. Petersburg, 1903). Ministerstvo Narodnago Prosveshcheniia Otdeleniie Promyshlennykh Uc h i l i s h c h . M a t e r i a l y i trudy kommissii po voprosam' ' zhenskaqo  professional'nago obrazovaniia. St. Petersburg: T i p o - L i t o g r a f i i a , 1904. N.M. "Iz zametok nachal'noi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . (Chtenie v shkol i shkolnykh t i p y ) . " Russkaia shkola 12 (1897): 80-92. Nezametnyi. " R e v i z i i a . (Iz vospominanii u c h i t e l i a ) . " Russkaia  shkola 4 (1903): 70-84. Paskhalov, l a . "Odin den' v sel'skoi shkole." Russkaia shkola 3 (1897): 142-146. Pavlovich, 0. "Znachenie d i s t s i p l i n y v dele vo s p i t a n i i a . (Nabliudeniia, p r i z n a n i i a i zametki u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'noi shkoly)." Russkaia shkola 11 (1895): 39-53. "Pervyi god moei uch i t e l ' s k o i d e i a t e l ' n o s t i . (Iz vospomanii nachal'noi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y ) . " Russkaia shkola 9-10 (1893): 38-64. Piskunov, A.I. Ocherki i s t o r i i shkoly i pedagogicheskoi mysli  narodov SSSR: vtoraia polovina XIX v. Moscow: Pedagogika, 1976. 152 P o l i a n s k i i , A. Russkaia zhenshchina na qosudarstvennoi i  obshchestvenoi sluzhbe. Moscow: Tip. S. Skirmunt, 1901. E.R. "Kartinki shkolnoi z h i z n i . (Iz nabliudenii u c h i t e l ' n i t s y nachal'noi shkoly)." Russkaia shkola 7-8 (1898): 26-38; 9 (1898): 47-55; 10 (1898): 36-53. Rashin, A.G. Naslenie Rossii za 100 l e t (1811-1913 qq.):  s t a t i s t i c h e s k i e ocherki. Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe statisticheskoe i z d a t e l ' s t v o , 1956. El i z a v e t a Nikolaevna S. "Vospominaniia sel'skoi u c h i t e l 1 n i t s y . " Russkaia shkola 5-6 (1902): 30-41. Salomatin, P. Kak zhivet i rabotaet narodnyi u c h i t e l ' . Petrograd: T i p . "Prometei", 1912. Semenov, S.T. Dvadstat'piat l e t v derevne. Petrograd: Kn--vo "Zhinzn 1 i znanie", 1915. Shteven, A.A. Iz zapisok s e l ' s k o i u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . St. Petersburg: Tip. I.N. Skorokhodov, 1895. S i l o v , V. Zhenshchina zamuzhen. Moscow: Tip. I.I. Pashkov, 1897. Simonovich, A. S. "Zametki i z dnevnika sel'skoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . " Russkaia shkola 12 (1893): 18-40. Simonovskii, Nar. Uch. V. "Pismo i z p r o v i n t s i i . " Russkaia shkola 11 (1897): 346-47. Spisok russkikh povremennykh i z d a n i i s 1703 do 1899 god svedeniiami  ob ekzempliarakh. St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia akademii nauk, 1901. St r a n n o l i u b s k i i , A.N. "0 zhenskom professional'nom obrazovanii." Obrazovanie 2 (1896): 34-50; 3 (1896): 8-28; 4 (1896): 16-41. Sveshnikova, E. "Iz perepiski s sel'skimi uchitel'nitsami." Obrazovanie 1 (1896): 75-86; 2 (1896): 51-62. Tolmachevskaia, Aleksandra. "Iz dnevnika narodnoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . " Russkaia shkola 4 (1914): 104-123. Tret'iakova, O. "'Sovremennyi' T i t Tityn." Obrazovanie 5 (1901): 35-37. S.F. Ts. "V zashchitu zamushnikh u c h i t e l ' n i t s ' . " Russkaia shkola 4 (1904): Sect 2, 64-67. " U c h i t e l ' n i t s a Ivanova." Russkaia shkola 10-11 (1901): Sect. 2, 126. 153 Zaionchkovskii, P.A. I s t o r i i dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii v dnevnikakh  i vospominaniiakh: annotirovannyi ukazatel' kniq i p u b l i k a t s i i v  zhurnalakh. Moscow: Kniga, T.3, Ch. 4.2 1980; Moscow: Kniga,T.4, Ch. 4.3 1985. Ze l i n s k a i a , A. "Iz dnevnika sel'skoi u c h i t e l ' n i t s y . (Iz Ekaterinoslavskoi gubernii)." Obrazovanie 5-6 (1896): Sect. 2, 103-105. English A r t i c l e s Alston, Patrick. "Recent Voices and Persistent Problems i n T s a r i s t Education." Paedaqogica His t o r i c a 16 2(1976): 203-15. Atkinson, Dorothy. "Society and the Sexes i n the Russian Past." Women in Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1977. 3-38. Brooks, Je f f r e y . "The Zemstvo and the Education of the People." The Zemstvo i n Russia: An Experiment i n Local Self-government. Ed. Terence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich. Melbourne: Cambridge Unive r s i t y Press, 1982. 243-278. Clyntas, Toby W. "Memoirs of 19th century Russian Women-Physicians." A paper-in-progress given at the New England Slavic Association annual meeting March 30-31 1990. Dicks, Henry V. "Some Notes on the Russian National Character." The Transformation of Russian Society. Ed. C y r i l E. Black. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. 636-651. Dudgeon, Ruth A. "The Forgotten Minority: Women Students i n Imperial Russia, 1872-1917." Russian History 9 (1982): 1-26. Dunham, Vera Sandomirsky. "The Strong-Woman Motif." The  Transformation of Russian Society. Ed. C y r i l E. Black. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967. 583-495. Eklof Ben. "Face to the V i l l a g e : The Russian Teacher and the Peasant Community, 1880-1914." Land Commune and Peasant Community  i n Russia: Communal Forms i n Imperial Russia and Early Soviet  Society. Ed. Roger B a r t l e t t . New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990 339-62. "The Myth of the Zemstvo School: The Sources of the Expansion of Russian Education i n Imperial Russia, 1864-1914." History of Education Quarterly 24 (Winter 1984): 561-84. "Peasant Sloth Reconsidered: Strategies of Education 154 and Learning i n Rural Russia Before the Revolution." Journal of  Soc i a l History 14 3(Spring 1981): 355-85. Engel, Barbara Alpern. "The Working Class Family i n Urban Russia." A paper i n progress given at the Conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire held at the University of Akron and Kent State University 11-14 August 1988. "Mothers and Daughters: Family Patterns and the Female I n t e l l i g e n t s i a . " The Family i n Imperial Russia: New Lines  of H i s t o r i c a l Research. Ed. David L. Ransel. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1978. 44-59. Freeze, Gregory L. "The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm and Russian So c i a l History." The American H i s t o r i c a l Review 91 1(February 1986): 11-36. Garrison, Dee. "The Tender Technicians: The Feminization of Public Librarianship, 1876-1905." C l i o ' s Consciousness Raised:  New Perspectives on the History of Women. Ed. Mary S. Hartman and Lois Banner. New York: Octagon Books, 1976. 158-78. Glickman, Rose. "Women and the Peasant Commune." Land Commune and  Peasant Community i n Russia: Communal Forms i n Imperial Russia and  Early Soviet Society. Ed. Roger B a r t l e t t . New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990. 321-38. Greene, Gayle. "The Uses of Memory i n Feminist F i c t i o n . " Paper i n progress. Given at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, October 24, 1990. Hajnal, J . "European Marriage Patterns i n Perspective." Population  i n History: Essays i n H i s t o r i c a l Demography. Ed. D.V. Glass and D.E.C. Eversley. London: Edward Arnad, 1965. 101-43. Heldt, Barbara. "Codes for Russian Women i n Autobiographical F i c t i o n : Prophecy and Lament." A paper i n progress given at a conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire held at the University of Akron and Kent State University 11-14 August 1988. Hinshaw, Catherine Ruane. "The Vestal Virgins of St. Petersburg: Schoolteachers and the 1897 Marriage Ban." A paper i n progress given at a conference on Women i n the History of the Russian Empire held at the University of Akron and Kent State University 11-14 August 1988. Meyers, Peter V. "From C o n f l i c t to Cooperation: Men and Women Teachers i n the Belle Epoque." The Making of Frenchmen: Current  Directions i n the History of Education i n France. Ed. Donald N. Baker and Patrick J. Harrigan. Waterloo: Queens University Press, 1980. 493-506. 155 Rainier, Samuel C. "Childbirth and Culture: Midwifery i n the Nineteenth-Century Russian Countryside." The Family i n Imperial  Russia: New Lines of H i s t o r i c a l Research. Ed. David L. Ransel. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1978. 218-35. Ransel, David L. "Child Care Cultures i n the Russian Empire." A paper i n progress given at the Conference on the History of Women in the Russian Empire held at the University of Akron and Kent State University 11-14 August 1988. Seregny, Scott J. "Zemstvo Rabbits, A n t i c h r i s t s and Revolutionaries: Rural Teachers i n Saratov Province, 1890-1907." P o l i t i c s and Society i n Pr o v i n c i a l Russia: Saratov, 190-1917. Ed. Scott J . Seregny. Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1989. 113-38. S i n e l , A l l e n . "The Campaign for Universal Primary Education i n Russia." Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas 30 (1982): Heft 4, 481-508. "Count D m i t r i i T o l s t o i and the Preparation of Russian School Teachers." Canadian Slavic Studies I I I , 2 (Summer 1969): 246-62. Tovrov, Jessica. "Mother-Child Relationships among the Russian N o b i l i t y . " The Family i n Imperial Russia: New Lines i n H i s t o r i c a l  Research. Ed. David L. Ransel. Urbana: University of I l l i n o i s Press, 1978. 15-43. Wagner, William G. "The Trojan Mare: Women's Rights and C i v i l Rights i n Late Imperial Russia." C i v i l Rights in Imperial Russia. Ed. Olga Crisp and Linda Edmondson. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1989. 65-84. Ware, R.J. "A Russian Journal and i t s Public: Otchestvennye  Za p i s k i , 1868-1884." Oxford Slavonic Papers (New Series Volume) 14 (1981): 121-46. . "Some Aspects of the Russian Reading Public i n the 1880s." Renaissance and Modern Studies 24 (1980): 18-37. English Books Abbott, H. Porter. Diary F i c t i o n : Writing as Action. Ithaca: U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1984. 156 Alston, Patrick. Education and the State i n T s a r i s t Russia. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1969. Andrew, Joe. Russian Writers and Society in the Second Half of the  Nineteenth Century. London: The MacMillan Press Ltd., 1982. Auerbach, Nina. Romantic Imprisonment: Women and Other G l o r i f i e d  Outcasts. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Bridger, Susan. Women i n the Soviet Countryside: Women's Roles i n Rural Development i n the Soviet Union. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987. Brooks, Jeffrey. When Russia Learned to Read: L i t e r a c y and  Popular Literature, 1861-1917. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1985. Edmondson, Linda. Feminism i n Russia, 1900-1917. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1984. Eklof, Ben. Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, V i l l a g e  Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861-1914. Berkeley: U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1986. Engel, Barbara Alpern. Mothers and Daughters: Women of the  I n t e l l i g e n t s i a i n Nineteenth-Century Russia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Frieden, Nancy Mandelker. Russian Physicians i n an Era of Reform  and Revolution, 1856-1905. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981. Glickman, Rose. Russian Factory Women: Workplace and Society,  1880-1914. Berkeley: University of C a l i f o r n i a Press, 1984. Grumet, Madeleine R. B i t t e r Milk: Women and Teaching. Amherst: The University of Massachusetts Press, 1988. Hans, Nicholas. The Russian Tra d i t i o n i n Education. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963. Heldt, Barbara. T e r r i b l e Perfection: Women and Russian L i t e r a t u r e . Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1987. Hingley, Ronald. Russian Writers and Society i n the Nineteenth  Century. 2nd ed i t i o n . London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1977. Hubbs, Joanna. Mother Russia: The Feminine Myth i n Russian  Culture. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988. 157 Hutchinson, John F. P o l i t i c s and Public Health i n Revolutionary  Russia 1890-1918. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990. Hutton, Marcelline Judith. "Russian and Soviet Women, 1897-1939: Dreams, Struggles, and Nightmares." Vol. 1 and 2. Diss. The U of Iowa, 1986. Johanson, C h r i s t i n e . Women's Struggle for Higher Education i n  Russia, 1855-1900. Kingston: McGi11-Queen1s University Press, 1987. Kaufman, Polly Welts. Women Teachers on the Frontier. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1984. Mallon, Thomas. A Book of One's Own: People and Their D i a r i e s . New York: Ticknor and Fi e l d s , 1984. Manning, Roberta. The C r i s i s of the Old Order i n Russia: Gentry  and Government. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982. Mason, Mary Grimley and Carol Hurd Green, eds. Journeys:  Autobiographical Writings by Women. Boston: G.K. Hall and Co., 1979. Moore, Katharine. Cordial Relations: The Maiden Aunt i n Fact and  F i c t i o n . London: Heinemann, 1966. Porter, Cathy. Fathers and Daughters: Russian Women i n Revolution. London: Virago, 1976. Rogger, Hans. Russia i n the Age of Modernisation and Revolution,  1881-1917. New York: Longman, 1983. Ruud, Charles A. Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the  Russian Press, 1804-1906. Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1982. Satina, Sophia. Education of Women i n Pre-revolutionary Russia. New York: Smith College manuscript, 1966. Schor, Naomi. Breaking the Chain: Women, Theory, and French  R e a l i s t Theory. New York: Columbia University Press, 1985. Scott, Joan Wallach. Gender and the P o l i t i c s of History. New York: Columbia Uni v e r s i t y Press, 1988. Seregny, Scott J . Russian Teachers and Peasant Revolution: The  P o l i t i c s of Education i n 1905. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989. 158 S i n e l , A l l e n . The Classroom and the Chancellery: state Educational Reform i n Russia under Count Dmitry T o l s t o i . Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1973. S t i t e s , Richard. The Women's Liberation Movement i n Russia:  Feminism, Nih i l i s m and Bolshevism 1860-1930. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978. Stodolsky, Catherine Ekstein. "Missionary of the Feminine Mystique: The Female Teacher i n Prussia and Bavaria, 1880-1920." Diss. SUNY-Stony Brook, 1987. Suggs, J r . , Reddings S. Motherteacher: The Feminization of  American Education. C h a r o l e t t e s v i l l e : University Press of V i r g i n i a , 1978. Vicinus, Martha. Independent Women: Work and Community for Single  Women, 1850-1920. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1985. Weber, Eugen. Peasants into Frenchmen: The Modernization of Rural  France, 1870-1914. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976. Wortman, Richard S. The Development of a Russian Legal  Consciousness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1976. Yaeger, P a t r i c i a . Honey-Mad Women: Emancipatory Strategies i n Women's Writing. New York: Columbia University Press, 1988. APPENDIX A PREAMBLE TO THESIS DEFENSE OF "THE PERSONAL IS POLITICAL: THE LATE NINETEENTH CENTURY RUSSIAN SCHOOLMISTRESS SPEAKS FOR HERSELF" Good Afternoon. I want to t e l l you before I begin t h i s 15 minute presentation that I am very g r a t e f u l for the time. It w i l l allow me to present the implications of the thesis I have written. This presentation w i l l not summarize the contents of the t h e s i s . (I assume we are a l l now f a m i l i a r with i t s content.) Instead, t h i s presentation w i l l i n d i c a t e the greater importance and larger implications of the work. And the implications are many. By way of introduction, l e t me describe the i d e o l o g i c a l and d i s c i p l i n a r y context of t h i s t h e s i s . F i r s t , i t stands at the crux of a number of d i s c i p l i n e s -- Women's Studies, L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m , the History of Education, and, of course, History proper. Each of these d i s c i p l i n e s has i t s own ethos and set of preconceptions. Each, i n other words, takes c e r t a i n information for granted and finds c e r t a i n s i t u a t i o n s and issues i n t r i n s i c a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g . The History of Education, for example, continues to be fascinated with the concept that schools are tools of s o c i a l c o n t r o l . While History proper (as a d i s c i p l i n e ) searches events and ideologies for cause and e f f e c t . As f a r as ideologies are concerned, t h i s thesis treads a f i n e l i n e between the "objective", " s c i e n t i f i c " ethos which i s at the base of History. (This ethos i s a product of History's 19th century development.) And the subjective -- which does not mean 159 160 in c o r r e c t -- ideology that underpins Feminist L i t e r a r y C r i t i c i s m . While History (rooted as i t i s in "cause and e f f e c t " and documentary analysis) has i n large and continues to emphasize the p o l i t i c i a n , the bureaucrat, the general, and the mass (or the people), l i t e r a r y c r i t i c i s m ( p a r t i c u l a r l y , concerning women's writings) tends to emphasize the unique, the s o l i t a r y , the i n d i v i d u a l . This thesis has attempted (in so far as i t s limited scope has allowed) to demonstrate the symbiotic r e l a t i o n s h i p between the i n d i v i d u a l and the general population. In doing so, i t has i t has attempted to demonstrate how the i n d i v i d u a l appears i n , and i s r e a l l y c e n t r a l to, History. Consider what t h i s piece of writing has taught us about the r e l a t i o n s h i p of the schoolmistress to educated society, schoolmasters and h e r s e l f . In conceiving my t h e s i s , I looked to Joan Wallach Scott -- who wrote i n her book Gender and the  P o l i t i c s of History -- that "to pursue meaning, we need to deal with i n d i v i d u a l s u b j e c t i v i t y as well as s o c i a l organization, and to a r t i c u l a t e the nature of t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . " (Scott 42) As noted i n my Preface, I chose Russian schoolmistresses as the subject of my thesis because they were strangely absent from or mute i n the hi s t o r y of the Russian educational system. I chose to cast my thesis as a dialogue of sorts, as a symbiosis, i n order to o f f e r my readers content and considerations that I think are absent from or mute i n the majority of conventional h i s t o r i e s . I offered my readers ambiguity of meaning and i n d i v i d u a l i t y of c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n — two human and dynamic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s too often 161 strained out of conventional h i s t o r i e s i n order to make room for s o l i d "cause and e f f e c t " . That i s , facts which "prove" that a c e r t a i n person did such a thing for t h i s s p e c i f i c reason. At present, a war i s being waged over the nature of "women's his t o r y " . On one side, are those who believe that women's hi s t o r y i s simply another subsection of s o c i a l history -- that i s , of "history from below". What thi s means i s that women, who form an absolute majority of the population in most countries at present and down through History, and who assume the primary r e s p o n s i b i l i t y of caring for the family (most s o c i e t i e s ' embryonic s o c i a l unit) have been relegated to the position of a minority. The emphasis of conventional History remains a few "great men". In the opposing camp, are those who believe "we can not write women into history, for example, unless we are w i l l i n g to entertain the notion that h i s t o r y as a un i f i e d story was a f i c t i o n about a universal subject whose u n i v e r s a l i t y was achieved through an i m p l i c i t process of d i f f e r e n t i a t i o n , marginalization, and exclusion. Man was never, i n other words, a t r u l y universal f i g u r e . " (Scott 197) My work -- needless to say — supports the second of these assumptions. Through i t s reference to and use of dialogue, discourse and symbiosis, The Personal i s P o l i t i c a l : The Late  Nineteenth Century Russian Schoolmistress Speaks for Herself has revealed how the process of the marginalization of women i n the d i s c i p l i n e of History has occurred i n one f i e l d . It has also suggested and u t i l i z e d a technique for introducing women into 162 textbooks and the very ethos of that f i e l d . Through i t s discussion and use of text and subtext, t h i s thesis has challenged the very concept of u n i v e r s a l i t y upon which much History i s unfortunately based. Like Martha Vicinus, I believe "that women are never passive p a r t i c i p a n t s i n the larger culture but a c t i v e l y transform and redefine t h e i r external constraints."(Vicinus 7) My thes i s (and t h i s preamble) support such a b e l i e f . Pamela J. Boniface Concluding note: The analogic q u a l i t y of the foregoing t h e s i s can not f a i l to be noticed by the reader. The underlying t h e s i s i t presents -- that men judge women's p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the pub l i c sphere through the construction of stereotypes that exceptionalize women -- has a universal relevance. Such a process of marginalization ensures that men's conceptions of the ' r i g h t ' types of professional conduct w i l l never be challenged or overthrown. Thus, the native g i f t s that women bring to business, academia, education and government (including consensus decision-making and a more democratic approach to task a l l o c a t i o n ) are portrayed as charming abberations -- not new a l t e r n a t i v e s . As the h a l l s of academe have been my haunt for the l a s t two years, I f i n d t h i s conclusion has tremendous implications for the careers and s e l f -images of a l l female scholars. We must be aware of tendency of the 163 male i n t e l l e c t u a l to theorize concerning our wishes and motivations. During my f i r s t week i n a graduate program, for example, I was asked when I intended to have children. I was 23 (and married) and had a great deal of time to decide upon t h i s most personal of guestions myself. I, not su r p r i s i n g l y , drew a conclusion from the timing and content of thi s question: that the male scholar who had asked believed married women i n academia are simply biding time u n t i l t h e i r most important of careers -- that of mother -- i s begun. I also sensed an eagerness on the part of the i n d i v i d u a l i n question to have some say i n (or to have some control over) th i s d e c i s i o n . As I proceeded with my research, I was surprised and saddened to see that such a desire for control on the part of males i n positions of authority has been a feature of professional women's experience f o r many years. My thesis has been an attempt to draw attention to t h i s subtle dynamic. I hope that i t has been informative. May we a l l soon have the freedom to speak for ourselves. August 24, 1991 University of B r i t i s h Columbia 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0098727/manifest

Comment

Related Items