Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The education of Russian women: evolution or revolution; a comparative analysis Klabik-Lozovsky, Nora Neli 1972

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A2 K43.pdf [ 26.19MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101525.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101525-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101525-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101525-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101525-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101525-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101525-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101525-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101525.ris

Full Text

1121' THE EDUCATION OF RUSSIAN WOMENi EVOLUTION OR REVOLUTION A Comparative Analysis by NORA NELI KLABIK-LOZOVSKY B.A., American University of Beirut, i960 M.A., American University of Beirut, 19^3 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF EDUCATION in the Faculty of Gradttate-iStu^ies We accept this thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA April, 1972 In presenting t h i s thesis i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the Library s h a l l make i t f r e e l y available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of t h i s thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the Head of my Department or by h i s representatives. It i s understood that copying or publication of t h i s thesis for f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Foundations, School of Education The University of B r i t i s h Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date April, 26, 1972. ABSTRACT The hypothesis of the thesis is that changes i n provisions for the education of women introduced after the Russian revolu-tion were evolutionary in nature rather than revolutionary. In essence educational traditions rather than p o l i t i c a l ideology have been an important determining factor in post-revolutionary educational reforms in the Soviet Union and the privileges, rights and equality in education granted to women after 1917 have been inherent in the Russian tradition of education and educational theory prior to 1917. The study traces the history of the education of women from the period of Kievan Rus' i n the ninth century to the pre-sent with a special emphasis on the second half of the nineteenth century education and educational reforms. It is limited to the analysis of only those ideological and institutional factors which directly affected the education of women. The conclusion reached i n this study is that the nature of the educational system of the Soviet Union and the p a r t i c i -pation of women in the system can be explained i n terms of the same determining factors, attitudes and values, within an iden-t i f i a b l e social context, which underlined the educational system of the Tsars. Major changes in educational policies, reforms and attitudes towards the education of women i n the U.S.S.R. are thus a part of the educational traditions imminent in the ideology and institutional factors of Tsarist Russia rather than Marxist-Leninist educational philosophy. The equal educa-tional opportunities enjoyed by Soviet women today are therefore the result of an evolution rather than a revolution, t The thesis is not a study of a l l the issues and aspects of the education of women in pre- and post-revolutionary Russia and is focused on those issues and situations which concerned the education of women of Greater Russia, rather than the minori-ties, i n the lepartment of the Fourth Section of His Imperial Majesty's Own Chancellery and under the Ministry of Public Education. The study is divided into three parts comprising a total of ten chapters and a conclusion. The f i r s t part traces the history of the education of women from the f i r s t era of Christie anity to 1856, and notes the contributions of the Russian Tsars and their advisors as well as those of Russian philosophers and educators to the development of a system of education for women. The second part, covers the period between 1856 and 1917, certain trends in educational philosophy and the develop-ment of a public elementary and secondary system, and the pro-visions made for the higher education of women are discussed. The third part is a study of the Marxist-Leninist educational philosophy and the extent to which i t influenced and modified the development of post-revolutionary educational theories and practices concerning the education of women. The "Last chapter is a comparative analysis of the forces of pre-revolutionary Russian educational traditions and Marxist educational philo-sophy i n the development of equal educational opportunities for i i i women in the U.S.S.R. and indentifies, particularly with respect to the education of women the educational elements common to pre- and post-revolutionary Russia. iv TABLE OP CONTENTS ABSTRACT ' i i LIST OF TABLES x LIST OF FIGURES x i i LIST OF APPENDIXES x i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS X V INTRODUCTION 1 PART I. THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN BEFORE I856 Chapter I. THE FIRST ERA OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE EDUCATIONAL REFORMS UNDER PETER THE GREAT AND ELIZABETH (873-1762) 7 The F i r s t Era of Christianity 1 Kievan Russia 7 The Education of Women The Mongol Invasions and Their Aftermath Educational Reforms Under Peter the Great and Elizabeth 18 Reforms of Peter the Great Schools Under Elizabeth II. EDUCATIONAL REFORMS UNDER CATHERINE THE GREAT 27 Educating a 'New Breed'" 29 Educational Homes The Basic Establishment Concerning the Education of Children of Both Sexes The Educational Society The Public School System  The Public Schools of Catherine the Great The Public Schools of Novikov v Chapter The Private Boarding Schools 55 III. THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN IN THE DEPARTMENT OF MARIA FEODOROVNA 59 Changes Introduced by Maria Feodorovna . . . 59 The Project of January 1797 J. H. Campe's Fatherly Advice to My Daughter 66 The Department of the Fourth Section of His Ma.jesty's Own Chancellery . . . . . . . . 71 Tha Education of Girls for Prtriotism and Adoration of Autocracy The Education of Girls Under the Ministry of Public Education . . . . . . . . 77 The Statutes of 180^ Girls in the Public Schools under Alexander I Education under Nicolas I PART II. THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN BETWEEN 1856 AND 1917 IV. THE GREAT RUSSIAN PEDAGOGUES OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY 8k The Revolutionary or Materialistic Trend . . 90 The Liberal Trend . 96 V. ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 108 Education Under Alexander II . . . 108 Sunday Schools The Governmental Reforms Changes Under Alexander III and Nicolas II . 120 Stagnation Under Alexander III Democratization of Education After the Revolution of 1905 VI. SECONDARY EDUCATION 133 The Schools of the Ministry of Public Education . . . . . . . . . . 135 The Decree of May 30, 1858 v i Chapter The New Regulations of 1890 The Regulations of I87O Changes Under Alexander II Secondary Schools in Other Departments . . . 1^ 3 The Department of Maria Feodorovna The Schools for the Daughters of the Clergy The Schools of other Ministries. Private Gymnasia 1^ 9 The Gymnasium of M. N. Stoyunina The Educational Philosophy of the Private Progressive Gymnasia The Gymnasia and the Drive for Higher Education 15^ VII. HIGHER EDUCATION 163 The Movement of the Emancipation of Russian Women 163 Russian Women at Foreign Universities . . . . 175 The Medical Courses for Women 180 The Higher Courses for Women 191 The Lublianski Courses The Legislation and Development of Higher Courses The Higher Courses for Women in St. Petersburg The Development of Higher Courses at the Turn of the Century 201 The Reorganization of the Bestuzhev Courses The ,New' Higher Courses in Moscow Conclusion Professional Education . 206 The Training of Teachers, Pharmacists and Dentists The Academy of Arts and Music Schools Public Universities 213 v i i Chapter PART III. THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN AFTER THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION VIII. MARXIST PHILOSOPHY OF EDUCATION AND ITS IMPLICATIONS FOR THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN . . . . 218 The Philosophy of Marx and Engels 219 Marx's and Engels' Educational Philosophy Polytechnical Education The Marxist Philosophy Concerning the Woman Question . . . . . . . . 238 The Position of Women as a Function of Economic Conditions The Status and Education of Women in the Communist State IX. SOVIET EDUCATIONAL THEORY AND PRACTICE 2^7 Leninism and the Educational Philosophy of N. K. Krupskaya . . . . 248 Lenin's Views on the Woman Question Nadezhda Konstantinovna Krupskaya's Philosophy of Education Soviet Educational Practices in the 1920's and Early 1930's 265 Early Soviet Legislation The Unified Labour School Reforms in Polytechnical Education X. THE STALIN-KRUSHCHEV ERA OF EDUCATIONAL REFORMS 284 Changes in the O f f i c i a l Educational Th Philosophy 284 The Return to Traditional Methods and Classical Education Separate Schools for Boys and Girls Further Reforms in Polytechnical Education Higher Education of Women 298 Stalin's Views on the Woman Question and Their Effect on the Status of Women . . . . . 304 PART IV. CONCLUSION XI. CONCLUSION 315 v t i i BIBLIOGRAPHY APPENDIXES LIST OP TABLES Table Page 1. Number of Schools Under the Direction of the Commission Including Private Lay Schools, 1781-1804 49 2. Public Minor School Attendance in Olonetz District 50 3. Public Major School Attendance in Different Provincial Towns for the Year 1790 551 4. Number of Elementary Schools Opened Yearly Between l 8 6 l and 1897 122 5. Results of S t a t i s t i c a l Survey Carried on Elementary Schools of a l l Departments in the 60 Districts of European Russia 124 6. Number of Elementary Schools in Different Departments (without Poland and Finland), 1881-189^ 125 7. Elementary Public Education in Russia (Data Collected by January 1, 1893) 127 8. Elementary Public Schools in Different Departments (without Poland and Finland), 1894-1915 . . . . 128 9. Number of Women Attending the Medical Institute for Women in St. Petersburg, 1897-1903 189 10. Per cent of Women of the Total Number of Students Attending Institutions of Higher Learning in St. Petersburg / Leningrad, 1913-1930 301 11. Percentage of Women Students in the Total Number of Students at Higher and Secondary Special Schools, 1927-1962, by decades 303 12. Participation of Women in the Party for the Year 1966-1967 307 13. The Number of Women in the Directing Bodies of the Party in Order of Importance for the Year 1966 . 307 x Table Page 14. Percent of Women i n Positions of Leadership in Industry on December 1, 1961 . . . . . . . . 309 15. Distribution of Manual and Mechanized Work between Men and Women, 1967 310 16. The Number of Women-Specialists (in Thousands) and in per cent of the Total Population for the Years 1957 and 1965 311 x i i LIST OP FIGURES Figure Page 1. Public Education for Girls During the Decade Preceding the Revolution of 1917 131 2. The Educational System in the Soviet Union . . . 287 x i i LIST OP APPENDIXES Appendix Page I. General Information 352 II. Tables of Expenditure on Education . . . . . . . 355 III. Advertisements on "What w i l l Girls Learn in Private Boarding Schools" . 359 IV. Table of Ranks, January 24, 1722 360 V. The Instructions to the Commissioners for Composing a New Code of Laws, (The Nakaz of Catherine the Great) 362 VI. Number of Schools, Teachers and Pupils i n Russia (1782-1930) 364 VII. The General Plan of the Moscow Educational Home (1763), Chapter IV . . . 366 VIII. Extracts from the Letter of Maria Peodorovna to the Council of the Educational Society for Noble Girls on January 4, 1797 369 IX. A Comparison of the Condorcet Scheme and the Russian Statutes of 1804 372 X. Number of Elementary Schools, Teachers and Pupils under the Different Controlling Agencies . . . . . . 375 XI. Tables of Literacy . 377 XII. Number and Types of Secondary and Higher Educational Institutions 382 XIII. Tables of Programmes i n Girls' Gymnasia . . . . 387 XIV. Social Composition of Pupils i n Secondary and Higher Educational Institutions 391 XV. Decree of May 311 1873 [.Published in Pravitel'stvennyi Vestnik ( O f f i c i a l Herald)} . 394 xiiri Appendix Page XVI. Alexandra Kollontay's Speech on Prostitution and Marriage addressed to the Women Sections of the Third Congress of the Communist Party (1918) 396 XVII. Clara Zetkini "Lenin on the Woman Question." (Extracts) 403 XVIII. Abolition of Coeducation in Soviet Schools . . . 408 XIX. Soviet Women i n Education and Work ('Statistical Returns) 412 XX. Legislation Concerning Women 428 xlv ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The writer is greatly indebted to Professors P. H. Johnson and Joseph Katz for their valuable suggestions, guidance and interest throughout the course of the preparation of this thesis. The writer would also like to thank Professors J. Avakumovic, J. Calam, L. Marsh and S. Pech as the members of the supervisory committee. xv INTRODUCTION The educational achievements of the Union of Soviet Soc i a l i s t i c Republics have been attributed in the main to the revolutionary changes brought about i n Russian educational theories and practices by the Communist Revolution of 1917 and by Marxist educational ideals. It has also been assumed that the radical changes wrought by the revolution i n a l l aspects of the social, economic, p o l i t i c a l and religious l i f e of the U.S.S.R. also brought equally radical changes in a l l areas of education. Indeed, since 1917 "the educational achievements of the U.S.S.R. have been so spectacular in terms of sc i e n t i f i c and technological achievements, massive enrolments, variety of opportunities and equality of sexes that these have tended to obscure the fundamentally evolutionary character of the Soviet educational views. In particular the aforementioned educational achievements have tended to obscure the real and significant influence of the Tsarist provisions for the education of both men and women? provisions which served as a base for subsequent educational policies. A careful study of the educational system under the Tsars in the second half of the nineteenth century reveals that Russia, under i t s more enlightened rulers, not only had a system of elementary and secondary schools but also institutions of 1 2 higher learning for women, open to a l l g i r l s regardless of class or creed. This study therefore involves a historical survey of the provisions made for the education of women in pre-revolutionary Russia as well as in post-revolutionary Russia. An analysis of educational theory, o f f i c i a l and unofficial (public opinion, educators, writers), and values and norms of the pre-revolutionary period as compared to the post-revolutionary Marxist-Leninist-St a l i n i s t attitude towards the education and status of women is also being included. The period covered is between 1724 and 1936 (Stalin's consolidation of power) with a special emphasis on the second half of the nineteenth century educators and educational reformer. In no way does this thesis pretend to be a study of the history of Russian or Soviet education, not even a detailed study of the education of women. It is a study of trends and attitudes in the history of the education of Russian women—a history which seems to have repeated i t s e l f through the centuries changing only in magnitude and intensity, and indicating, perhaps, that the problem of equal educational opportunity and equality in general between the sexes or the classes is a universal prob-lem and not the particular problem of anyone system or nation. The purpose of this thesis is to determine to what extent the provisions for equal educational opportunities attained by women in the Soviet Union were the direct result of Marxist edu-cational policies and practices. The aim of the thesis therefore is to show that educational 3 traditions rather than p o l i t i c a l ideology are an important factor in post-revolutionary educational reforms in the U.S.S.R., and that most of the privileges, rights and equality in education granted to women after 1917 were in fact granted before the Revolution of 1917 and have been inherent in the eighteenth and nineteenth century Russian tradition of education and educational philosophy. i The thesis is thus an attempt to identify the influences which brought about changes in Russian educational policies and examine the relationship between the educational traditions of pre-revolutionary Russia and the changes in educational policies introduced after the Revolution of 1917 and hence to show that the development of education of women after the Revolution was in nature evolutionary rather than revolutionary. The method best suited to such a study seems to be the historical-comparative approach. Based upon the theory, of , Kandel-Hans-Schneider, that 'the power of ideas as factors which represent immanent or permanent forces are more real and lasting than any other', one can search for explanations of the nature of educational systems in terms of such determining factors as ideologies, norms, attitudes or valuesi and in institutions, organizations and practices which accommodate these ideas in an identifiable social context. If one accepts Kandel's definition of educational tradition as the "intangible, s p i r i t u a l and cul-tural forces which underline an educational system," one can search for causes which give rise to certain issues in education and lead to major changes in educational policies by studying 4 the educational traditions which are imminent in the ideological and institutional factors. The historical method permits the identification of ante-cedent factors and forces which influence educational reforms, policies and practices, and which determine the development of educational systems. The comparative analysis of the systems permits the identification of the similarities and differences to he found in educational ideologies and institutions. The study is limited to the analysis of only those ideolo-gical and institutional factors directly affecting the education-of women and expressed through the writings of leading educa-tors, philosophers, general public opinion as expressed through news media of the period, memoirs, literary works, and o f f i c i a l policies of the Ministry of Public Education or other ruling bodies. P o l i t i c a l , economic and social forces are taken into account only when directly relevant to policy changes and reforms in the educational policies concerning women. Primary as well as secondary sources are available for the Soviet period, but for the pre-revolutionary period, especially the earlier period, primary sources are scarce. The Journal of the Ministry of Education which is the main primary source was started only in 1845. Other important journals concerned with education of women were started in late l86o*s. Furthermore, the study has been limited mainly to Russia proper and the Russians. The schools of the various minorities i n the Russian empire and the Soviet Union are not dealt with in this study. "I shall he content i f those shall pronounce my History useful who desire to give a view of events as they did really happen, and as they are very l i k e l y , in accordance with human nature, to repeat themselves at some future t i m e — i f not exactly the same, yet very similar." Thucydides, Historia, i , 2, 2. P A R T I THE EDUCATION OP WOMEN BEFORE 1856 CHAPTER I THE FIRST ERA OF CHRISTIANITY AND THE EDUCATIONAL REFORMS UNDER PETER THE GREAT AND ELIZABETH (873-1762) Russian educational traditions even before the October Revolution had for most of the time been secular, s c i e n t i f i c and u t i l i t a r i a n , often with humanitarian and nationalistic tendencies. Although very backward in many ways when compared to the West, Russia never really lagged behind the West in i t s educational reforms, and many of the leading Russian educators were far ahead of the Western philosophers of their time i n their teachings of progressive and humanitarian ideals. 1 The Fi r s t Era of Christianity» Kievan Russia In the f i r s t era of Christianity, around the eleventh 2 century, in Kievan Russia, churches, monasteries and towns, See later in text, I. I. Betski, N. I. Novikov, K. 0. Ushinsky, N. I. Pirogov, N. A. Dobrolyubov, N. V. Shelgunov, as well as the i860 reforms in Part II, Chapter IV. • 2 About 873 A. D. Oleg (Norwegian by descent) conquered the city of Kiev and established Kievan Russia—a military and trad-ing state at f i r s t . Later under Vladimir the Saint, in 988, Christianity was instituted as the o f f i c i a l religion of the en-ti r e Russian people. By 1000 the area occupied by Kievan Russia was from the Finnish Gulf and Lake Ladoga on the North to'the lower Danube, the Black, Azov and Caspian seas to the South, the River Don to the East and present day Hungary to the West. 7 8 as elsewhere in Western Europe, were the cultural centers. Monks and priests, but especially the ruling princes and their families became the f i r s t educated e l i t e of the country, and the Church, after Russia's conversion to Christianity, became the main vehicle of Byzantine c i v i l i z a t i o n i n the country.^ The Orthodox Church of Kievan Russia thus played an important part not only in the f i e l d of religion but also in art, music and literature. The knowledge of holy writings, i.e. the a b i l i t y to read, understand and transcribe the holy books was the i n i t i a l stage or the f i r s t degree of education and literacy. The f i r s t schools were thus founded at the monasteries. Nevertheless, the Eastern Church, as an in s t i t u -tion, never played a major role in education. Unlike the Catholic Church, the Eastern Church did not establish schools of higher learning, nor did i t control or prescribe educational practices and aims. Although in the six-teenth century the Orthodox clergy, especially those in the western regions, reacted to the highly educated Catholic and Protestant clergy, and a period of intellectual awakening among them followed, . . the clergy was not, however, Records show that the members of the ruling families were more educated than the members of other European countries i n this period. At the time when one of the greatest kings of Europe, Charlemagne, was learning to write and read, and when the German Emperor Konrad II was i l l i t e r a t e , Prince Vladimir "read books day and night," translated books from Greek and collected books i n Slavonic. Prince Yaroslav founded schools, his son Vsevolod knew six languages, his daughter Anna was married to a French king who was i l l i t e r a t e while she could correspond in Russian and Latin. £N. A. Konstantinov and V. Struminski, Ocherki po i s t o r i i nachalnogo obrazovania v Rossii (Sketches of the History of Elementary Education in Russia), (Moscowi Gos. Uch. Ped., 1953) t p. 9 j . 9 generally prepared to expand the knowledge and pedagogy beyond what was necessary to defend their religious integrity and interests. 1 , 1 Thus, although " i t is true that the Roman Church became the school teacher of Western Europe, . . . i t i s especially true that the Eastern Church did not play the same pole in Russia." 2 Not only the Russian princes of the eleventh and twelfth centuries but the later Russian raonarchs and Tsars were and remained the initiators and founders of the different elementary and secondary schools as well as the universities. At f i r s t these schools were founded at the different convents and monas-teries, later they developed in private or public buildings. In the eleventh and twelfth centuries the education offered by these schools was religious in nature, mainly because the princes considered the education of their people necessary for true orthodoxy, and that of the clergy to serve the church. In both cases the prince considered i t his duty to educate his people. Schools were thus financed and controlled by the ruling princes and a l l i n i t i a t i v e and action concerning educa-tion came from the ruling family, i.e. from the state and not the church or the community—a practice which became an educa-^ i l l i a n K. Medlin, "Cultural Crisis in Orthodox Rus' in the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Centuries as a Problem in Education and Social Change," A History of Education Quarterly, Vol. IX, No. 1, Spring 1969. p. 39. o Vladimir Simkhovitch, "The History of the School in Russia," Educational Review, Vol. XXXIII, Jan.-May 1907, p. 487. 10 tional tradition i n Russia. 1 About 1028 two kinds of schools were established, both, only for males: State Schools and Schools for the Clergy. 2 The State Schools were schools of a "higher type" where the children of the higher classes were educated in state a f f a i r s . In these schools foreign languages, especially Greek and Latin were taught to enable the potential state o f f i c i a l s to commu-nicate with their counterparts i n Byzantium and Western Europe.J The Schools for the Clergy prepared boys and young men to read, write, and taught them the law and history of th§ Orthodox faith as well as church ceremonial. The remaining children, male and female alike, were taught by the local 'pops' (parish priests) to read the holy books and learn some church law and history.^ The State Schools and the Schools for the Clergy were financed by the princes who often spent their own personal incomes on their establishment and upkeep. Where the 'pops' were concerned, in the Chronicle of 1037 mention is made of E. Likhacheva, Materiali d l i a i s t o r i i zhenskogo obrazo-yania (Materials for the History of Education of Women), Vol. I, (St. Petersburg! 1890), p. k. N. A. Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 9. o I n i t i a l l y i t was assumed that the children entering these schools could read and write, hence the term 'higher*. This of course was not always the case. •a •^Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 10. ^Ibid. •^Polnoe sobranie russkikh letopisei (Complete Collection of Russian Chronicles), Vol. I, p. 66,(cited by Ibid.). Prince Yaroslav's ordering the 'pops* to teach the "people i t lower than themselves," this being God's w i l l . * The Education of Women Already, before Christianity came to Russia, i.e. before the eleventh century, women, at least those of the higher classes, played an important role in Russian l i f e . They often were the advisors to the rulers and could read and write. By the seventh century there were records ofggovernesses teaching 2 the royal princesses at the palace. This tradition was continued and in the f i r s t era of Christianity, the eleventh century, there seems to have been no apparent separation of the education of women from that of men. A l l children, of higher or lower classes, male and female, were given the same general and elementary education.^ The f i r s t mention of an organized educational estab-lishment for women is made in connection with the plans of Prince Vladimir to establish two monasteries, male and female, to teach children of both sexes. In 1025 Vladimir's son, 1 I b i d . 2 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 9. ^In the Kievan period p o l i t i c a l institutions were based upon a society of free citizens; "It i s only with reservation that one can speak of the existence of social classes in Russia at that time." Tji. Vernadsky, A History of Russia, (N. Y.» Bantam Books, 196l)J . It must be mentioned that a small portion of the population were slaves or half slaves—a practice remi-niscent of Ancient Greece i ) Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 4 12 Yaroslav, founded a school for three hundred children in Novgorod.1 Whether this school was coeducational or not is s t i l l a matter of argument, although the children were referred to as pupils and were not identified as either boys or g i r l s . In 1086 the f i r s t school for g i r l s , claimed to be the f i r s t of i t s kind in Europe, was organized in Kiev at the Andreevsk convent by Anna Vsevolodovna, the daughter of Prince Vsevolod, known also as Yanka. She took the vows and at the convent taught g i r l s to read, write, sing, draw and embroider icons. 2 By the end of the twelfth century, with Christianity well established, women played an important part in religious ceremoniest they read in the church, sang in the choir, visited the sick and the dying. They also taught the children of both sexes to read the holy books and transcribe. Many of them taught in rooms donated by some benefactor. They were paid i n food and clothing, and a l i t t l e money as their students finished the alphabet, catechism, psalter and other holy books.^ The Mongol Invasions and Their Aftermath From the mid-thirties of the twelfth century, witht.the Mongol invasions, d i f f i c u l t times lasting over two centuries 1 1 I b i d . 2 N. V. Tatishchev, Istoria rossiiskava (History of Russia), Vol. I, (St. Petersburg, 1740, ed.), (Moscows Academy of Sciences U.S.S.R., 1962), p. 95. Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 6. began for Russia. Ties with Byzantium were severed; most of the clergy and frequently the Princes themselves became illite» rate. The invaders burnt towns and with them many precious books and manuscripts disappeared. Schools closed and the teachers were either k i l l e d or took refuge i n the convents and 2 monasteries. Meanwhile, the towns of Western Kievan Russia, for another century, were spared the Mongol invasion. Literacy there flourished, permeating through to the lower classes. Records show that in Novgorod, Tverskoe and Vladimirsk, many writers of the period came from the craftsmen or artisan class.^ Furthermore, books were not only found in th| possession of rich classes in the city but also in smaller towns and even in villages at the homes of moderately well-to-do people.*1' As the Mongol hegemony spread through Russia, literacy among the secular folk reached i t s lowest ebb and was confined practically only to the monastic orders. The number of monas-teries and convents during this period, i.e. thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, grew significantly both in c i t i e s as well as the rural areas. Many young men joined monastic orders to 1The Mongols controlled Western Russia for about a century and the Eastern parts for two centuries. 2 M. I. Demkov, Istoria russkoi pedagogii (The History of Russian Education), (ReveTi Gymnasia, 1898), Part I, p. 51. -'Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 17. Konstantinov stresses the fact that these writers were not monks but artisans or crafts-men. He also includes a l i s t of names. L Demkov, op. c i t . , pp. 51-53. 14 avoid recruitment by the Mongol Khans into their armies. Simi-l a r l y , most women of the higher ranks and well-to-do-families entered convents because they could find there security and peace. There, besides praying and fasting they learned to read and write, sing, sew and embroider.1 Although references are made to some private schools which functioned sporadically during the thirteenth and four-2 teenth centuries, up to the middle of the fifteenth century education was confined to the monasteries and convents and was purely of the monastic type. Such education comprised the elements 6f fast, prayer, brotherly love, hard work, patience, some reading and transcribing of holy books and singing. J The monasteries and convents thus became not only wealthier and larger, but also the centers of learning, especially after the second half of the thirteenth century when Mangu-Temir granted the immunity charter to the Russian Church and the 4 clergy. It was during this period, under the rule of the heathen Mongols that the Russian Church became more important and had more influence in fostering literacy and the growth of art and literature than i t had in the Kievan period or at any other time of Russian history. 1Tatishchev, op. c i t . , Vol. II, p. 138. 2 In the letter of the Khan of Uzbeck to Metropolitan Peter (1313) reference is made to teaching staff. (Demkov, op. c i t . , p. 53, cited by). -^ Demkov, op. c i t . , p. 6 l . Vernadsky, op. c i t . , p. 70. 15 Secular education as offered under the Princes of Kiev was eliminated under the Mongol rule. The Princes, when the invasions commenced were too busy defending themselves from the invaders. Later, under the Mongol rule, the whole p o l i t i c a l and economic structure of Russia underwent drastic changes and the democratic elements in the Kievan system of government were replaced by the authoritarian system of the Khans. Although the Princes were subordinated to the Khan and had to go to the Horde to acknowledge themselves vassals of the Khan, they now had more power over the boyars (the aristo-cratic elements) and the towns* people, for they were protected by the Khan's patent against the p o l i t i c a l claims of either. The people,, i.e. the commoners, in their turn were trained by the Mongols into subservience f i r s t to the invaders, later to the acknowledged vassal Prince. According to Demkov, this subservience of the Princes to the Mongol Khans and the accompanying humiliation developed into despotism in the higher classes of the Russian people, and in turn led to the serf-like humility of the lower classes. 1 Thus, the Kievan society, once a free society, was now trans-formed into a society with clearly defined classes a l l bound to state service. "The period 1450-1600 was one of religious and i n t e l -2 lectual ferment in Russia." Greek and South Slav scholars Demkov, op. c i t . , p. 52. Vernadsky, op. c i t . , p. 112. 16 escaping from Turkish rule emigrated to Russia and brought with them new interest in learning and urged the foundation of schools for training the clergy. Around 1500, after the Mongol invaders were conquered, the church made several attempts to reestablish literacy among the people, and at a higher level among i t s own ranks. A school for the clergy, and also schools for children were established at the houses of the priests in villages and towns. Here, b o t h r 2 g i r l s and boys learned to read and write. By the early seventeenth century, when Michael, the f i r s t of the Romanov dynasty was crowned, the government had become centralized and serfdom was firmly established. The middle class, which in Western Europe prized and encouraged education, in Russia, as a class, was doomed to extinction by the different decrees forbidding the movement of population between the town and the country. The p o l i t i c a l and social changes in the Russian state of the seventeenth century had an important effect on education. Education at the higher than elementary level became confined to the clergy and the aristocratic minority, and in general to males. Only education at the elementary level where the rudi-ments of writing and reading were taught in connection with religious education remained open to the lower classes and both 1 J . S. Roucek, "Education in Czarist Russia," History of  Education Journal, Vol. IX, 1958, No. 2, p. 38. 2 Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 21. ^Demkov, op. c i t . , p. 55» (the different decrees are cited). 17 sexes. In fact, during the seventeenth century there was a con-siderable increase in the number of these elementary schools. At the same time a great number of textbooks, mainly readers and primers, but also psalters and song books were written and circulated in these schools and among the common f o l k . 1 In 1662 Tsar Feodor Alexeevich signed the charter of the Moscow Latin-Greek Academy, which lasted from 1685 t i l l 1700. At the Academy Slavonic, Greek, Latin and Polish languages were taught, along with the seven l i b e r a l arts of which Grammar was considered as the most important. The aim of the Academy was to serve "God's Church and Us, the great ruler and a l l Our 2 Tsardom and be useful to the souls of the fa i t h f u l . " The education offered was therefore to teach "wisdom—both religious and that of citizenship." 3 The main goal of the Academy, according to Demkov, was to spread, establish and protect Orthodoxy against heresy. Since the Academy was a training place for the clergy and state o f f i c i a l s , women were automatically excluded. According to Likhacheva, this is the f i r s t time in Russian history when ^Demkov, op. c i t . , p. 322. 2Ibid., p. 292. S. M. Soloviev, Istoria r o s s i i , Vol. XIII, (St. Petersburg! Obshchestvennaya Pol'za, 1894-95?). p. 326. Likhacheva refers to the above mentioned Academy as the Slavonic-Latin-Greek Academy (op. c i t . , p. 42). 3 I b i d . ^Ibid., p. 293. 18 women are excluded, although not through any legislative acts, but due to practical considerations, from an institution of learning. 1 This practice was continued and accentuated even more under Peter the Great. Educational Reforms Under Peter the Great  a n d Elizabeth Peter the Great's main concern was Westernizing Russia and the Russian people. This could only be done by imitating the West. He was the f i r s t to introduce the u t i l i t a r i a n and s c i e n t i f i c trend into the newly established schools in Russia and subordinated the Church to the secular government. The schools he founded were mainly technical or vocational, such as the School of Mathematics and Navigation at Moscow in 1701, the Surgeon's Schools, the School for A r t i l l e r y and Engi-2 neering, and a Naval Academy in St. Petersburg i n 1715• Peter's u t i l i t a r i a n and s c i e n t i f i c interests in education were carried out to such extent that the l i b e r a l education curriculum so prominent at the time in the West, was ignored and no room was made in the school curricula to teach Latin, religion or the classics. The Moscow School of Mathematics and Navigation, for example, had a curriculum which consisted of arithmetic, regionometry, geometry, geography, geodesy, Eng-l i s h , navigation and other sciences.^ ^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 7» 2 N. Hans, The Russian Tradition in Education, (Londoni Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), p. 7« -^Roucek, op. c i t . , p. 40. 19 Nevertheless, Peter the Great, never indulged in narrow professionalism and his interpretation of the Western ideas of humanism was perhaps "broader and nearer to modern ideas than the classical-religious humanism of Western grammar schools." With Peter the Great, then, a tradition of the sc i e n t i f i c and u t i l i t a r i a n interest, and systematic state control in edu-cation was started and remained one of the characteristic traits of Russian education* a t r a i t which was also continued under the Soviet system. Furthermore, regardless of how much was borrowed from the West, or to what extent imitation of the West was implemented, Peter and his ministers remained inherently Russian and conscious of their nationality. This nationalistic trend often reflected i t s e l f i n the educational philosophies and practices of later centuries and became another characteristic of Russian education. Although Peter the Great had done nothing directly for the education of women, his attitude and respect for learning as well as his projected and completed reforms had a great in-p fluence on the development of education in Russia. Likhacheva also suggested that Peter had some plans for the education of women, since when he visited France, he went to see one of the best known schools for g i r l s of his time— 1Hans, op. c i t . , p. 18. 2 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 45. stated that many of the schools founded by Peter the Great became the prototypes of the technical and professional schools founded in the nine-teenth century. Also of great importance was the foundation of the Academy of the Sciences. Saint Cyr, administered by the famous Mme de Maintenon. He also encouraged education among the members of the royal family and i t s entourage—whether male or female, and even appointed 2 a woman painter to the Academy of the Sciences to teach young lads to paint. 3 Nevertheless, a l l the newly established schools by Peter excluded women by the very nature of the courses offered. The reason for this was not that Peter was opposed to the education or women, but because his main concern was the building of a state, and he needed educated people in the army, navy and the government. Since women did not take part in any of the above mentioned institutions, there could hardly be any provisions made for their education at such schools as those of Mathematics or Navigation, or the Academy at St. Petersburg. It must also be remembered that even i f Peter the Great had provided women with schools of higher education there would have been probably none who would or could have taken advantage ^Ibid., pp. 45-46. Mme de Maintenon, mistress and second wife of Louis XIV. o By the Ukaz of 1724, issued by Peter the Great, an institution of higher learning—the Academy of Sciences was to be founded at St. Petersburg. It was to be comprised of three establishmentsJ the Academy proper, the University and the Gymnasium. The Academy was established in 1725. (Soloviev, op. c i t . , Vol. XVIII, p. 192). •'She was the daughter of the well-known Maria S i v i l l y Marian—a woman painter herself. She married the Swiss painter Hell who was invited to Russia by Peter the Great. (Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 44). According to Likhacheva, nowhere in the Ukaz concerning the founding of the technical school by Peter is there a clause excluding women. Ibid. of these schools. Centuries of internment in convents or 'tower-chambers' may have provided the Russian woman with some knowledge of writing and reading, but i t provided her mainly with a religious education which laid neither the basis for, nor inspired any regard or urge for higher studies, or studies at a l l . In general, the male counterpart of the society of Peter's time was no better: men "ran away from learning as they would from f i r e . " 1 They had no respect or need for learning and considered learned men to be 'lower' socially and in 'nature'. With great resentment they sent their sons to school where they were forced "to study in an incomprehensible language and where 2 in general they were taught God knows what." What the sons themselves thought of studying one can easily deduce from Peter the Great's Ukaz of 17l6 on Regulations Concerning Discipline in the Academies: To eliminate shouting and outrageous behaviour, good retired soldiers from the guards should be chosen to stand one i n each classroom during study time with a 'cat-o-nine t a i l s ' i n their hands? and whosoever should show any signs of misbehaviour, no matter what family he came from, he should be properly beaten up.3 This general attitude of the public may well have been the 1 I b i d . 2 I b i d , (cited by). ^"Regulations or Ukaz of His Ceasarian All-Russian Highness on Pupils' Proper and Obedient Behaviour in the Academies." (par. 8 of the resolution written by Peter himself and cited in Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura p r i Petre (Science and Literature in Russia at the Time of Peter the Great), Vol. II, p. 362, cited by Ibid. 22 reason why the Ukaz of 17211 on the establishment of elementary public schools in a l l towns for both g i r l s and boys, although 2 confirmed in 1724, was never realized. The above mentioned public schools were to lay the founda-tions of the education of the nation. Althoughtthe schools of Mathematics and Navigation were not accessible to gi r l s and to a l l boys, the public schools were to be open to a l l children, of any class and sex. In these schools only the very fundamen-tals of reading and writing were to be taught. 3 To make some practical use of the clergy and their numerous monasteries and convents, in 1724, by the Ukaz of January 20^ Peter the Great demanded that orphans, both g i r l s and boys be taught by the clergy to read and write. The children were to stay u n t i l the age of seven at the convents where they were to be taken care of and fed by the nuns and at the age of five taught to read and write. At the age of seven-* the boys were to be sent to monasteries to complete their education while the gi r l s continued at the convents to learn further s k i l l s in ^Polnoe gobranie aakonov rossiiskikh (Full Collection of Laws), Vol. VI, p. 3708. Regulations or Ukaz to Chief Magis-trates , Chapter XXI, "On Schools," cited by Likhacheva, Ibld~., p. ^3. 2 I b i d . 3 I b i d . 4 Institute of Law, Akty o vysshikh gosudarstvennykh ustanov-l e n i i (Acts of Higher Governmental Resolutions), Vol. I (Legal Acts of Peter the Great), (Moscowt Academia Nauk, 1945), p. 41. ^By the Ukaz of 1738, the age limit for boy's stay in convents was raised from seven to ten. embroidery, singing and sewing. Although no administrative or o f f i c i a l measures were taken to implement this Ukaz, i t must have been put to practice to some extent, since in 1738, the age limit for boys* stay in convents was revised. Furthermore, the above mentioned Ukaz not only assigned a practical goal and a raison d'etre to the monasteries and convents, but also legalized the old Kievan educational pattern—that of relegating elementary education 2 into the hands of the clergy. Peter the Great's policies of encouraging foreign, German, French and English masters to come and establish schools in Russia led to the establishment of a large number of private boarding schoolsj some coeducational, others only for boys or g i r l s . The most important of these schools was in Moscow, where the Lutheran Church organized in the eighteenth century a coeducational school open to a l l (free) classes. By 1804 there were forty-four boys and twenty-four g i r l s attending this school. The children were taught Russian, German, French, Latin, history, geography, mathematics, logic and religion. These children actually came mainly from the 3 lower and middle classes. 1Ibid., pp. 145-147 ("Regulations about Monasteries of Peter I, given to Capitan Baskakov for the implimentation of monastry reforms, May 29, 1?24). 2Actually the Tzar Feodor Alexeevich, in the supplement to the Ukaz of 1682 concerning public education, mentioned the necessity to establish and diffuse public education in Russia. Here the importance of the establishment of schools for poor g i r l s and boys was stressed. (Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 62). 3Ibid., p. 58. 2> The Evangelical Church in St. Petersburg founded a similar school in which boys and g i r l s were taught identical programmes. Other private schools that flourished at the time of Peter were the Raskolnik Russian Schools (The Old Believers' Schools), where women taught g i r l s and boys alike, mainly reading, writing and religion. The Raskolniks worked generally in the inacces-sible regions of north and east Russia, but later at the time of Peter I. they had i n f i l t r a t e d the larger cities including Moscow and St. Petersburg. 1 There were also coeducational schools founded on the i n i -tiative of individuals in some d i s t r i c t s . Thus, in the f i r s t half of the eighteenth century, in the Chernygorsk d i s t r i c t , 370 2 schools were established on popular demand. These schools were a l l coeducational. Other schools were founded by some rich in-dividuals on their own account. In 1726 Prince Dobrinski opened such a school and himself taught boys and g i r l s to read and write. 3 Schools Under Elizabeth Under Elizabeth, there was already a large number of private institutes and boarding schools for g i r l s and boys. To 1Ibid., p. 66. 2 Ibid., p. 6 l . These schools were usually established by groups of citizens and their joint efforts, very much like the f i r s t 'town-schools' in the mid-eighteenth century New England. 3 I b i d . "^ The Empress Elizabeth (17^1-1762) was the daughter of Peter the Great and his second wife Catherine Skavronsky (Catherine I, Empress). some, children from the best families were sent; others catered to the needs of a l l classes. There were no fixed programmes and students came and went as they pleased. Many adults attended classes also. 1 By the Ukaz of 17^3* Elizabeth ordered the nobles and the free people to teach their children the alphabet, catechism and the holy books so as to become good Christians and defend the Christian religion. Those who did not comply were to be fined and their children could not rise in chins (the special rank system established by Peter the Great). There was no specific mention whether this Ukaz concerned boys only, but was so under-stood since only males could receive chins. In 1775 the State Senate passed a correction and the Ukaz explicitly stated that 2 the order concerned both sexes. Later Elizabeth's Ukaz of 1754 3 provided for schools for midwives in Moscow and St. Petersburg f i r s t , then in the pro-vinces. Although more private institutes were opened under Elizabeth, no o f f i c i a l action was taken to provide education for women on a larger scale. Since most of the private schools were short lived, de-pending mainly on the i n i t i a t i v e and capital of individuals, 1Ibid., p. 69. For general programmes of these boarding schools see Appendix III. 2 Soloviev, op. c i t . , p. 32. The State Senate was founded by Peter the Great and was to be, although an advisory, never-theless, a legislative organ. For further detail see G. B. Sliozberg, Dorevolutsionnoi s t r o i Rossii (Pre-Revolutionary Structure of Russia), (ParisJ 1933). pp. 1^3-149. 3Ibid., p. 66. (cited by). 26 up to this time, the only continuous educational establishments for women were the Raskolnik schools and the convents. 1 Those who could afford i t , had their daughters taught at home by foreign governesses. Thus in nine hundred years of Russian history only four Ukazes were passed concerning the education of women—Peter the Great's Ukaz of 1721 on the establishment of elementary public schools in towns for g i r l s and boys, and the Ukaz of January 20,  1724 on educating orphans of both sexes at the monasteries and convents? Elizabeth's Ukaz of 1743 ( i f we consider the 1775 revised form) urging a l l nobles and free citizens to teach their children and the Ukaz of 1754 providing for schools for midwives. Of these four Ukazes, the Ukaz of 1721 did not materialize and the rest with the exception of the school for midwives were not of much significance in the development of the education of women in Russia. Ibid. CHAPTER II EDUCATIONAL REFORMS UNDER CATHERINE THE GREAT By the middle of the eighteenth century an attitude of distrust towards learning s t i l l lingered among the nobility as well as the general population of the Russian society. Although the higher classes now showed some interest in French literature and language, mainly because such knowledge made membership in the royal entourage more accessible, they nevertheless dis-trusted and rejected any learning i f i t could not be used for some practical purpose or personal embellishment. This fear and hatred of learning i n some parts of the Russian society was such as to induce M. Lomonosov* to insert the following statement in his projected privileges of St. Petersburg University in 1760: ". . . induce the clergy not to curse sciences (learning) in their sermons."3 Furthermore, the morals and habits of the Russian people, Michael Lomonosov (1711-1765) was the son of a peasant shipbuilder from the north of Russia. He became one of the f i r s t members of the Academy of Sciences. He was said to be "equally proficient in chemistry, physics, mineralogy, history, philology, and poetry." 2 The University was founded by the Ukaz of 1724 by Peter the Great as a part of the Academy of Sciences. 3Jurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshchenia, Oct., 1865, p. 42. 27 28 especially the higher classes, as compared to their counter-parts in Prance or England were so crude that they were referred to elsewhere in Europe as 'ignorant savages lacking good breeding'. The few educated individuals who moved i n the circles of the Academy of Sciences and St. Petersburg schools; , or at the newly founded Moscow University (1755)*. soon realized that education in terms of acquiring knowledge, as Peter the Great would desire, was no longer sufficient. These educated fewr were later to become, under Catherine, the educators and teachers at the Pedagogical Seminary and also the co-organizers of the public schools system and the authors of a vast literature of textbooks and educational philosophies. Their attitude toward education was well represented in the speech made in 1760 by the Moscow University professor A. A. Barsov *0n the Goals of Learning' where he paraphrased the following extract from Montaigne's essay on education* It is not enough to join learning and knowledge to the mind. It should be incorporated unto i t , i t must not be sprinkled, but dyed with i t ; and i f i t change not and better her estate (which is imperfect), i t were much better to leave i t . It is a dangerous sword and which hindreth and offendeth her master i f i t be in a weak hand and which hath not the s k i l l to manage the same. "So as i t were better that we had not learned."2 Thus towards the end of Elizabeth's reign there was more concern with mental discipline and moral education or good breeding (Vospitanie) than with learning or culture 1Founded by Elizabeth. 2 Montaigne, "Of Pedantry," cited by Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 99. 29 (Obrazovanie). This stress upon character formation, manners and proper habits rather than education in terms of acquiring knowledge was to become the basic concept which permeated Catherine the Great's reforms in education during the second half of the eighteenth century. The section concerned with education i n Catherine's Nakaz of 176? exemplified best this s p i r i t * Every one ought to inculcate the Pear of God into the tender Minds of Children, to encourage every laudable Inclination, and to accustom them to the fundamental Rules, suitable to their respective Situations; to incite in them a Desire for Labour, and a Dread of Idleness, as the Root of a l l E v i l , and Error; to train them up to a proper Decorum in their Actions and Conversation, C i v i l i t y , and Decency in their Behaviours and to sympathize with the Miseries of poor unhappy Wretches; and to break them of a l l perverse and forward humours; to teach them Oeconomy, and whatever is most useful in a l l affairs of l i f e ; to guard them against a l l Prodigality and Extravagance; and parti-cularly to root a proper Love of Cleanliness and Neatness, as well in themselves as in those who belong to them; in a Word, i n s t i l l , a l l those Virtues and Qualities, which join to form a good Education; by which, as they grow up, they may prove real Citizens, useful Members of the Community, and Ornaments to their Country.-' Educating a 'New Breed' When Catherine became the Empress of Russia in 1762, she *' The Russian term 'Vospitanie,' the main concern of the above-mentioned educators, means training, upbringing, rearing or good breeding. The term 'Obrazovanie,' on the other hand means education in terms of learning, acquiring factual know-ledge and general culture. 2 Catherine II, "The Instructions to the Commissioners for Composing a New Code." This commission was like a national congress; i t contained representatives from the nobility, the towns, and the state peasants. ^Ibid., 'On Education,' Chapter XIV, see. 3 , par. 356. See Appendix V for further detail. 30 found i n Ivan Ivanovitch Betski 1 a tireless and dedicated col-laborator and a capable administrator and reformer in educational matters. During the fifteen years that Betski spent in Paris, he had become a close friend of the Encyclopedists and Rousseau. He had read Montaigne and, like Catherine, believed in the power of education and the possibility of developing a 'new breed' of people through education. He also was convinced that i t was the duty of the state to educate i t s people and of the necessity to isolate children from the e v i l influence of the society to attain this 'new breed'i With these ideals in mind, Betski and Catherine set out to educate the Russian people by establishing an educational system which would encompass the nobles, the commoners and the serfs. On August 26, 1763, a year after her coronation, Catherine confirmed the General Plan of the Moscow Imperial Educational Home3 designed by professor A. A. Barsov and based •"•I. I. Betski (1704-1795) was the son of the 'last boyar'i general-field marshal Prince Ivan Urevich Trubetski. In 174l Elizabeth decorated him with St. Catherine's Order for his loyalty to her? in 1762 Peter III appointed Betski as a general director of the Chancellery of the construction of houses and gardens for His Highness giving him the rank of general-commander; in 1763 Catherine II appointed Betski as the general director of the Academy of Art and in 1765 he was given the t i t l e of Active Privy Councelor, in 1778 the Senate rewarded Betski with a Gold Medal for 'his love for the fatherland'. f_"Betski," Entsiklo-pedicheski Slovar, (St. Petersburg! 1892), Vol. VI, p. 649/J. 2"Betski," op. c i t . , pp. 649-650. 3 -'Part three of the General Plan is printed in the Appendix of M. V. Sychev-Mikhailov, Iz i s t o r i i russkoi shkoly i pedagogii  XVIII veka (Prom the History of the Russian School and Pedagogy of XVIII Century), (Moscowt Academy of Ped. Sciences, i 9 6 0 ) , pp. 179-218. 31 upon the directives of Betski. The Moscow Imperial Educational Home was o f f i c i a l l y inaugurated on August 21, 1764.1 The General Plan drew heavily from a document 'Views on Provincial Schools' presented by a certain T, S. Teplov to the Empress in 1763. In this document Teplov suggested that the f i r s t generation of pupils admitted to the Home should only be reared for good breeding, i.e. educated morally and not taught. Perhaps, then according to Teplov, the children of these c h i l -dren, the second or third generation of the 'new breed' could be educated in the proper sense of the term, i.e. taught philo-p sophy, mathematics, ethics, religion, physics and languages. Teplov further claimed that children can be brought up only by proper examples and fatherly and friendly attitudes towards them. Punishment, only i f absolutely necessary, should be carried out without anger. The physical environment should be warm and light, well decorated and pleasant to live in. He also suggested that children should be taken into the Home practically at birth, for when they are three or four years old their character is already formed.3 Teplov cautioned that pupils should be chosen with great care to ensure that each combines 'calmness with a joyful s p i r i t *. To avoid mistakes, children should be taken on a t r i a l 1"Educational Homes," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar (St. Petersburg! 1892), Vol. XIII, p. 276. 2 "Mnenie o provintsialnykh shkolakh," (Views on Provin-c i a l Schools), presented by T. S. Teplov to the Empress Catherine II, Jurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshchenia, June 1844, Part V. 3 I b i d . 32 basis. In this way a new generation* a new breed of mothers and fathers could be educated.1 The Educational Homes In the General Plan for the Moscow Imperial Educational Home Betski claimed there was a need to "provide the nation 2 with a new education". The root of a l l e v i l and good—education (Vospitanie) . . . (through which) we can bring forth a new breed of new fathers and mothers, who would teach their own children the desirable basic principles and educate their own children in the way they were educated.3 Hence the necessity, according to Betski, to organize educational establishments where children could stay t i l l eighteen to twenty years of age without coming into contact with the outside society, isolating them,, thus from the e v i l influences of the society. Betski then worked out several projects for the organi-zation of such establishments which were a l l , like the Moscow Educational Home to be coeducational.^ Ibid. Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 59. 3Ibid., (cited by). ^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , pp. 102-103. ^'Educational Homes', op. c i t . , p. 2?6. In 1770 another Home considered to be a branch of the Moscow Home was opened in St. Petersburg. By 1828 there were such Homes in a l l the major ci t i e s in Russia. Each of these Homes arranged for women from the towns or the villages to nurse infants. Some children were given away for one or two years t i l l they were weaned. The nurse was paid a daily rate for the period. Later s t i l l , by 1880 each Home supported schools, teaching seminaries, courses for training nurses. The St. Petersburg Home ran 100 schools and i n 1881 there were 33»501 children belonging to the Home, of these 31,242 were given out to the villages. 33 Basically a l l of these institutions functioned like or-phanages and were to serve as homes for illegitimate children who were brought in soon after birth. Later poor people who could not look after their children sent them there too. According to the General Plan no one was obliged to give the name and particulars of the child brought in. Children, even new-born ones, could be brought in at any time of the day or night, and night sentries in the city were specially directed to let any one carrying a child pass freely. When the child was brought, the date and the clothes he was brought in were registered, in case later one of the parents or relatives should want to trace the child. The children were dressed, taught and fed at the expense of the government.1 From the age of seven, the children were taught to acquire desirable mental and physical habits as well as learn to write and read. At the age of fourteen or fifteen they were directed towards training in various arts and crafts. Not a l l were to become craftsmen. Children who showed the necessary a b i l i t y , could continue their studies in technical schools or go to the gymnasia and eventually the University of Moscow from which 2 women were not excluded. 1 I b i d . 2When the Statutes of the University of Moscow were being worked out by Graff Shuvalov and Lomonosov in 1755, both Lomono-sov and Shuvalov wanted to include an article in the Statutes allowing women to attend. Accordingly in 1757 the Senate passed an Ukaz by which women were allowed to attend the University, f l b i d . , cited also by Sophie Satina, "Obrazovanie zhenshchin v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii," (The education of Women in Pre-Revolutionary Russia), Novyi Jurnal, (New Yorki New Review Inc., 1964), June, No. 76, p. 161J. 3" Concerning higher education Betski e x p l i c i t l y underlined! "Prom such learning the female sex is not to be excluded." 1 According to Likhacheva he repeated the above statement twice concluding! Hopefully, there w i l l be a fortunate change in the morals and inclinations of a l l that part of the nation to which they would belong. Thus, the aim of establishing these Homes of which the Moscow Imperial Educational Home was a prototype, was to edu-cate a 'new breed' out of children who belonged to no class, being illegitimate, or those who belonged to the poor lower classes. According to Konstantinov, this 'new breed' was to be-come the "'third class*—the bourgeoisie, artisans! those people, who, according to Betski, would help to strengthen the Russia of the nobles." 3 The case may have been such, for this lack of a powerful middle class did differentiate Russia from Western Europe. In the Russia of Catherine there were basically only two classes: of importance! the serfs and the nobles, hence the attempt made by Catherine and Betski to build and strengthen such a third class. 1Konstantinov, op. c i t . , pp. 5 9 - 6 l . 2 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 102. ^Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 6 l . There were other schools also organized, those for the middle classes and the merchants and those for the nobility, each group was to be reeducated into a *new breed* corresponding to their position. "Betski," op. c i t . , p. 650. 35 That these Homes were established to educate a third class may also be supported by the fact that many privileges were granted to those who attended these institutions. Every pupil who attended and 'graduated' became a free subject and even i f he married a serf, the serf would also become free. If the g i r l married a serf, she would remain free but her husband •i would not be freed. A l l the graduates, g i r l s or boys and their children had the right to become property owners, buy 2 shops, build factories and become merchants. The Basic Establishment Concerning the Education of Children of Both Sexes In 1?64 Betski presented a report—"Basic Establishment on the Education (Vospitanie) of Children of Both Sexes" to Catherine, which she confirmed on March 12 of the same year. This 'Basic Establishment' became the founding document of the state system of public education established by Catherines i t was incorporated in the statutes of a l l the educational Batata-'s lishments whether they were for the nobility or the commoners.-' In the 'Basic Establishment' Betski stressed again the importance of moral education and good breeding and warned against the dangers of mere learning by claiming* 1Later this rule was changed in the case of the graduates (the middle class girls) from the Institutes of the Educational Society (see text pp. 12-16) when a free g i r l could marry a serf who would then become free also. (Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 204). p "Educational Homes," op. c i t . , p. 2?6. Likhacheva, op. c i t . , pp. 103-104. 36 It has been s c i e n t i f i c a l l y proved, that the sole embel-lishment and enlightment of the brain with knowledge is not enough to make a man good and upright citizem but in many cases i t leads to harm i f from the early years one is not brought up in virtue and i f virtue has not taken roots in one's heart. 1 Betski, thus, in the •Establishment' recommended the foundation of boarding schools where children at the age of four or five would be accepted and kept t i l l the age of eighteen to twenty. These children would be allowed to see their parents only at the school and in the presence of the administrators. Evidently Betski was concerned with the reeducation of the nation—of rearing in these boarding schools a new breed of people who would eventually become the mothers and fathers of the future, virtuous and enlightened citizens. Basically, these schools, then, had the same function as the Educational Homes, i.e. re-educating, but they were geared to another class of pu* p p i l s — t h e middle and noble classes. In paragraph 1 0 of the Basic Establishment i t was claimed that students should be brought up in such a way so as to . . . acquire a l l those virtues and qualities which are characteristic of good education (vospitanie) and which w i l l make them righteous citizens, useful and adorning members of the society. . . . and at the same time en-lighten their minds with sciences and arts according to the a b i l i t y , sex and inclination of each. 3 The legalized regulations for the education of youngsters of both sexes through the 'Basic Establishment* became the "Basic Establishment concerning the Education of Youngsters of Both Sexes," par. 5, cited by Likhacheva, op. c i t . . p. 105. 2Ibid., par. 9. ^Ibid., pars. 10, 7. 11. (Emphasis mine). 37 foundation of the statutes of the following institutes which with their programmes were to serve as prototypes for the foundation of corresponding institutes throughout Russia* 1 i - The Educational Society for Two-Hundred Noble Girls (later known as Smolny Institute), May 1764. - The Academy of Arts and the Educational Institute attached to i t (for boys of the middle classes and merchants), October 1766. - The Special Institute at the Voskresenski Novodevichi Convent for Two Hundred and For*# Middle Class Girls, January 1765. - The Imperial Gentry Cadet Corpus, September 1766. - The Second and Third Part of the General Plan of the Moscow Educational Home, coeducational. Programmes drawn for these institutes, though established for different classes, were for a l l practical purposes identical. Great stress in a l l was put upon rules of good conduct. These were taught as a special subject including such topics as humi-l i t y and politeness. Homemaking and orderliness were also stressed in a l l l i n s t i t u t e s except the Academy of Arts. Accountan-cy was emphasized especially for the Cadets and the Educational Home.2 Attempts were also made to establish boarding schools for boys and gi r l s where crown lands had been distributed in Novo-rossiisk d i s t r i c t . In these schools a l l children were to study free and only those who could, the rich, had to pay board. A l l children were taught reading, writing, arithmetic, law and the capable and willing could study foreign languages and other ALikhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 105. 2Ibid., pp. 106-107. 38 subjects, such as sciences. The Educational Society 2 The Educational Society for Noble Girls founded the f i r s t institutes for educating women administered by the state. The f i r s t such institute was the Educational Institute for Two Hundred Noble Girls at the Voskresenski Convent, later to be known as the Smolny Institute. Since the Educational Society was founded by a royal Decree, the Ukaz of May 5, 1764, this according to Likhacheva was the f i r s t time in Russian history that the education of women was granted legal recognition. J The Educational Society and especially the Smolny Insti-tute were Catherine's special pets. Several years before she became Empress, Catherine wrote in her notebook about France's St. Cyr and the possibility of acquiring information concerning it s programmes, teaching methods and administrative practices. She had even noted that since the above were secret and i t was not possible to obtain this information, the best way would be to send some young g i r l s to study there and learn the ways of ^Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskikh (Full Collection of Laws), Vol. XVI, p. 12099, cited by Ibid., p. 125. 2 The Educational Society was administered by a Committee (Soviet) of Trustees. These were four well known persons or senators, or other high ranking nobles. They were appointed by the Empress. A principal was also appointed by the Empress to deal with Administrative, financial and admission problems. Teachers, discipline, classroom organization, programmes and other details were to be taken care of by a directress also appointed by the Empress. (Ibid.) Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 136. 39 St. Cyr. 1 Whether Catherine did send some one to St. Cyr and ob-tained the necessary information is hard to t e l l . Although the Educational Society had many of the characteristics of St. Cyr, i t was i n many ways very different from i t . It was a state institution with different goals and foundations. When Voltaire wrote of i t to Catherine he praised i t as "fort audessus 2 de notre Saint Cyr". By the Ukaz of January 31* 1765 at the same convent, the Educational Society for Two Hundred and Forty Middle Class Girls was founded. The same Ukaz ordered the establishment of Educational Societies in a l l the other dis t r i c t s of the Empire.^ In a l l of these institutes, whether they were for nobles, or commoners, boys or g i r l s , twelve year programmes were set. For the g i r l s ' institutes two goals were set« u t i l i t y , i.e. the a b i l i t y to read, write, keep a home, carry out practical tasks and the necessary s k i l l s to be good wives and motherst and ornamental, i.e. to be able to shine i n society.** A l l through her reign, Catherine poured large amounts of her own private funds into the institutes of St. Petersburg, 1Sbornik russkogo :;istoricheskogo obshchestva, Vol. XVII, p. 82. (notes written by Catherine between 1761 and 1762). 2 Voltaire's Letter to Catherine, December 12, 1772. Oeuvres Completes de Voltaire, Correspondance avec les souverains. (Paris« Gamier Freres, 1877-85), Vol. 48, pp. 404-405. ^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 152. ^Ibid. 4 0 for the society was most of the time on the verge of bankruptcy.1 She also had great d i f f i c u l t y in finding the proper teachers and often even students. To the general public, learning at these institutes was not a privilege but an obligation, especially i f they belonged to the lower middle classes. Thus only those went, at least in the beginning, who were orphans and needed some security, or those whose parents thought that they would be better looked after at the institute than at home. Many of these g i r l s became the wards or proteges of nobles or the royal family members, or even Catherine herself. The g i r l s could thus board and learn at no 2 expense to their parents or relatives. Later, on graduating, they were given dowries and ensured employment i f they needed such. For some, l i f e pensions were arranged (100,000 Roubles were given by Catherine to the Society for this purpose), others could stay at the convent indefinitely i f they had no-where to go.-' Although there were not too many parents who were willing to send their daughters to school, Catherine did not relax ac-k ceptance rules, nor change the programmes. By 1796, the year "'•Part of the expenses was paid by the students. Many stu-dents were the wards of the members of the royal family or the members of the nobility. Catherine herself educated at her own expense a large number of g i r l s both from the nobility and the middle class (Meshchanki). 2 3 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , pp. 172-180. -'Ibid., p. 172. 4 The acceptance rules were rather interesting. The St. Petersburg Committee suggested to the Moscow Educational Society the following: to ensure that the g i r l s were of the correct age i.e. five years old, two g i r l s five years old (of 41 Catherine died, 1,316 g i r l s had attended or s t i l l were attending the Educational Society of St. Petersburg. 1 Of the 850 who had graduated, 440 were nobles, 4l0 belonged to the middle class 2 (Meshchanki). The Public School System The Public Schools of Catherine the Great In the beginning of her reign Catherine had the grandiose project of educating a l l her subjects whether they were free or serfs, male or female. Eventually she must have become aware not only of the lack of funds to carry out such a scheme but also the lack of trained teachers and above a l l the unwilling-ness of her subjects to study. She then modified her plans and by the Ukaz of November 7» 1776 3 she ordered the establishment of elementary schools in a l l towns and populated villages "for 4 a l l those who would voluntarily study in them". which they were certain to be that age) should be selected, one should be very t a l l for her age, the other very short. The ap-plicant then should be put between the two, i f she fit t e d i n between, she then could be accepted, i f she was either t a l l e r or shorter, then she had to be rejected. Also after the medical examination, a lock of hair of the g i r l was to be attached to her name so no exchange would be possible. (Ibid.) ^here St. Petersburg's Educational Society is made reference to usually both institutes, for the noble g i r l s and the middle class g i r l s is meant. 2Ibid., p. 171. 3 •'Full Collection of Establishments concerning the Districts of November 7t 1776, p. 384. cited in Urban Elementary Schools  during the Reign of Catherine II, D. A. Tolstoy, 1886, p. 2. Also in Supplement to LIVth Volume of Notes of the Imperial  Academy of Sciences, No. I , cited by Ibid., p. 281. Ibid.. (cited by). 42 According to Likhacheva there is no record of such schools being organized within the next five years. But in l?8l Catherine founded the Isakievsk Institute in St. Petersburg using her own Cabinet funds. This institute was free, open to a l l classes and both sexes. Later six more such institutes were opened in St. Petersburg. In the original institute at the end of i t s f i r s t year out of a total of 486 students only 40 were g i r l s . By 1786 the number of g i r l s attending had slightly increased: out of 1,491 pupils 2 0 9 were g i r l s , i.e. from 8.2$ to l4fS. In 1786 these institutes were transferred into the newly organized public (narodnyi), state controlled school system.3 By the Ukaz of September 7, 1782, Catherine founded the 4 Commission on the Establishment of Schools. J This Commission was to study the organization of a system of free public 1 I b i d . 2 This increase is actually not indicative of any steady rise of interest i n education. The number of g i r l s attending varied according to no law or reason. (Voronov, Historico- S t a t i s t i c a l Survey of Educational Institutes of St. Petersburg  Educational District from 1715 to 1828 inclusive, (St. Peters-burg: 1849), p. 11, cited by Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 281. 3Ibid., p. 171. 4 The Commission was appointed by the Empress and consisted of the chairman P. V. Zavadovsky and members Epinous, Pastoukhov and Yankovich. cited by "Yankovich," Entsiklopedicheski Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1904), Vol. XLT. . Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 62. 43 (narodnye) 1 schools open to a l l classes, including the serfs, 2 any creed and both sexes. To establish such a public school system, Catherine chose 3 to adapt the Austrian public school systenr to Russian needs. She invited P . I. Yankovich , a Serb who had organized a public school system in the Serbian speaking provinces of the Austrian Empire, to organize the public school system in Russia. Yankovich was a great admirer of Comenius. In his Handbook to Teachers of the F i r s t and Second Degree, and in most of his other pedagogical works he drew heavily upon Comenius' educational philosophy. In his organization of the Russian school system he was naturally influenced by the Austrian model. Immediately after September 21, 1782, when the proposed programme of studies in the public schools was confirmed by Catherine, Yankovich was appointed the director of the St. 1The term "narodnyi"1 in Russian means either people's, public or national. In case of Catherine's schools they were to be nation-wide and for a l l the nation, nevertheless the term public seems to be more appropriate than national, ( p l u r a l — narodnye). 2"Yankovich," op. c i t . , p. 673. 3This system is discussed in N. Hans, The History of  Russian Educational Policy, (New York* Russell & Russell, 1964), pp. 21-23. 4 Also known as Jankovich de Marijev. When Joseph II of Austria met Catherine at Mogilev, he described to her the Austrian public school system and brought her textbooks to examine. He also suggested that she ask Yankovich to help her. ("Yankovich," op. c i t . , p. 673). ^Ibid. "Yankovich," Jurnal Ministerstva . . ., op. c i t . , 1909. No7~5, p. 63. 44 Petersburg major public school which at f i r s t concentrated on the training of teachers. 1 Yankovich thus, almost single-handed carried out the three directives of the Commission on the Establishment of Schools* to establish a plan and actualize the establishment of a public school system; to prepare teachers to teach in this system; and to either translate, or write new 2 textbooks to be used in these schools. Mainly in the f i e l d of textbook writing, but also in administrative and financial matters, Yankovich enlisted the help of leading professors and pedagogues from Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities as well as from the Academy of Sciences. Nevertheless, most of the textbooks were either written or translated from German by Yankovich himself. A l l textbooks with the exception of the mathematics textbook were examined 3 and their use was approved by Catherine. In i t s finalized form the project for public schools con-sisted of suggestions to organize schools at two levelst minor schools (two years) and major schools (four years). Major schools were simply minor schools extended by another two years. Thus the two years of the minor schools coincided with and cor-responded to the f i r s t two years of the major schools. The f i r s t major and minor schools were established in St. Petersburg 4 and i t s d i s t r i c t in 1782. 1 ? Ibid. Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 64. 3 -'"Yankovich," Jurnal Ministerstva . . ., op. c i t . , p. 673. ^Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 64. 45 In April 1786 Catherine ordered the opening of major schools in twenty-five d i s t r i c t s . Each d i s t r i c t capital had to have at least one major school. Minor schools were opened in smaller towns, as well as d i s t r i c t towns where the need arose. 1 The Statutes of August 5, 1786 of the Public Schools began with the following statement: The education (vospitanie) of youngsters was honored to such an extent by most enlightened nations, that they con-sidered education the only means to ensure the welfare of the citizens . . . Education, by enlightening men's minds with different kinds of knowledge, adorns the s p i r i t , and inclines the w i l l towards good actions: guides towards a virtuous l i f e and f i l l s men with the understanding necessary for community l i f e . The aim of the public school system was then, not only to impart basic knowledge but also to bring up good citizens and loyal subjects. To ensure the latter, in the last year of the minor schools and the second year of the major schools con-siderable time was spent on a civic ethics course covered in a book called On the Duties of Men and Citizens written specially for the above mentioned purpose. In the minor schools (the f i r s t two years of the major school) and in the major schools the programme of study was the following: F i r s t Year: Alphabet, reading, writing, shortened Catechism and church history (only for Orthodox students), numbers. Second Year: Church law and the lives of saints and virtuous men with detailed Cathecism without proofs, the book On the Duties of Men and Citizens, f i r s t part of arithmetic and basic drawing. Ibid. 2Ibid., p. 64. (cited by). 46 Third Year* The New Testament and detailed Catechism with proofs, (Orthodox students only), second part of arithmetic, f i r s t part of general history, intro-duction to general Russian history, geography of Russia, Russian grammar, drawing. Fourth Years more Russian grammar, applied knowledge of Russian to essays and letter writing, Russian history, general geography, mathematics, basic geometry, mechanics, physics, natural history and c i v i l architecture. Latin and a foreign language of a neighboring state for those who wanted to con-tinue into the gymnasia.1 It is interesting to mention that from the foreign languages curriculum French was excluded upon Catherine's per-sonal request (perhaps as a reaction to the French Revolution and i t s ideals), and the suggestion was made to teach the f o l -lowing languages in the appropriate d i s t r i c t s ! in Siberia, Chinese was to be taught; in the Southern provinces, Greek was to be taught; i n the south-eastern part of Russia, Tartar was to be introduced since most of the peoples l i v i n g in that part of Russia were either of Tartar origin or spoke Tartar. Latin was an important language since i t was the language of learning in Europe and no student of higher studies could continue his studies without Latin. Church Greek was also introduced as a 2 classical language. As mentioned above the minor schools followed the pro-grammes of the f i r s t two years of the major schools with a few changes. No foreign languages were taught in the minor schools and the second part of arithmetic which was taught in the Third xIbid. 2 ''Yankovich," Jurnal Ministerstva . . ., op. c i t . , 1909. No. 3, p. 64. 47 Year of the major schools was taught along with the f i r s t part of arithmetic in the second and last year of the minor schools. 1 In both schools religion was not taught by the clergy but by lay teachers. Although the clergy were not allowed to teach religion in these schools, some high ranking priests were on the committees preparing the programmes and the texts for the courses in religion. Non-Orthodox students were to be pro-2 vided with lectures of their own faith, also by laymen. Although these schools were called secular, a prominent place was alloted in their programmes to religious studies, mainly because the Russian Orthodox faith played a very im-portant part in the Russian people's l i f e . It was this Ortho-dox faith that gave them their identity, for they were f i r s t Orthodox, then Russian. The ancient history of Russia is inseparable from i t s Church history, for the f i r s t Prince to found the Russian state was also the f i r s t Orthodox Christian Russian. Any attempt to eliminate religious studies from the public schools would have alienated the masses completely from these schools for not only was the Orthodox faith a part of their h i s t o r i c a l tradition but also of their educational tradition. 1 I b i d . 2 Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 66. This arrangement was made perhaps because the public schools system was defined as a secular system open to a l l , irrespective of creed or class. 3 ^Many of the Russian Tzars were not Russian, they were accepted as long as they became Orthodox. The same applied to the Tsarinas, they were a l l baptized and given new names, names which had to be those of some Orthodox martyr or saint. 48 The minor schools, then, prepared literate people who could read and write, who knew the basic facts about their faith and the rules of good conduct. The major schools gave more general education. Willing and capable students, who graduated from the major schools, could eventually become teachers 1 in the minor schools, or continue their education through gymnasia to the universities. Textbooks were provided with rules of teaching and de-tailed programmes to be s t r i c t l y followed. Rules concerning the conduct of students, both at school and outside were 2 published in a special handbook and taught. The public's reaction to the schools was far from being positive. Parents, especially those of higher classes with some means, f e l t i t demeaning to their class and social status to send children to the public schools. The lower classes were only interested in some practical trade or some useful training. A l l those who sent their children, usually sent them only for the f i r s t two years. Most parents preferred to keep their daughters at home rather than send them to a coeducational pub-l i c school. The farther from the capital, the less enthusiasm was shown for the education of g i r l s at public schools. Thus for the year 1786 from a total of 1,121 g i r l s studying at the public schools, 759 came from St. Petersburg and i t s d i s t r i c t "^There even was a project where the suggestion was made by Catherine to send serfs (force them) to pedagogical seminaries and then make them teach. The project did not materialize. (Likhacheva, loc. c i t . ) . 2 I b i d . 49 and only 362 came from a l l the other thirty-six d i s t r i c t s of Catherine's empire.1 Nevertheless, as the years went by attendance in public schools considerably increased. Figures representing the total number of students attending the major and minor public schools show this increase. (Table l) TABLE 1 NUMBER OF SCHOOLS UNDER THE DIRECTION OF THE COMMISSION INCLUDING PRIVATE LAY SCHOOLS Number of Number of Number of Pupils Years Schools Teachers Boys Girls 10 T a x l?8l 6 27 474 12 486 1782 8 26 474 44 518 1783 9 28 654 77 731 1784 11 33 1,082 152 1,234 1785 12 38 1,282 209 1,491 1786 40 136 no information 4,398 1787 165 195 10,230 858 11,088 1788 218 525 11,968 1.571 13.539 1789 225 576 13,187 1,202 14,389 1790 269 629 15,604 921 16,525 1791 288 700 16,723 1,064 17,787 1792 302 718 16,322 1,178 17,500 1793 311 738 16,165 1.132 17,297 1794 302 767 15.540 1,080 16,620 1795 307 716 16,035 1,062 17,097 1796 316 744 16,220 1,121 17,3^1 1797 285 664 14.457 1,171 15,628 1798 284 752 15,396 1,405 16,801 1799 277 705 15.75^ 1,561 17,315 1800 315 790 18,131 1,784 19,915 1804 495 1,425 no information 33,484 According to Likhacheva, during the f i r s t sixteen years of the existence of the public schools 176,730 students studied "^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 289. 2 Hans, The History . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 28-29. i n them; of these only 12,595 were g i r l s . Where s t a t i s t i c s concerning the d i f f e r e n t d i s t r i c t s are available, they c l e a r l y show the unpopularity of these schools i n the distant provinces. (Table 2 ) . 2 TABLE 2 PUBLIC MINOR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN OLONETS DISTRICT Year Number of Boys Number of G i r l s 1787 181 8 1789 77 5 1790 90 5 1791 81 7 1792 63 6 1793 155 9 1794 142 1 In the Viatsk Province no g i r l s at a l l attended the f i r s t year. 3 In 1790 i n the St. Petersburg major school out of 33^ students, 48 were girls.**" In other p r o v i n c i a l towns the attendance of students i s shown i n Table 3.^ •••Archives of the Department of the Ministry of Public Education, Report on the number of students i n 1799 (for the years 1?82 t i l l 1800), c i t e d by Likhacheva, op. c i t . . p. 289. 2JurnaliMini&ters^va^'.'^ ,. opy e i t v ^ . 1865, c i t e d by Likhacheva, l o c . c i t . " """ 3 I b i d . ^Archives of the Ministry of Public Education, c i t e d by Likhacheva, l o c . c i t . ^Archives of the Department of the Ministry of Public Education, c i t e d by Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 285. 51 TABLE 3 PUBLIC MAJOR SCHOOL ATTENDANCE IN DIFFERENT PROVINCIAL TOWNS FOR THE YEAR 1790 City Number of Number of Boys Girls Perm 165 7 Revelsk 40 8 Rizhsk 59 12 Polotsk 92 27 Mogilevsk 139 12 Chernigorsk 149 11 Novgorod-Seversk 166 5 Kiev 160 64 Astrakhansk 255 8 Kharkov 116 11 In 1794, in the Moscow, Smolensk and Tver provinces there was not one g i r l studying at the public schools and even in the private schools of the Moscow province out of 3 i 0 6 l students only 113 were g i r l s . 1 Although the public schools were free and open to a l l classes, including the serfs, the major schools served mainly the children of the nobles, mostly the impoverished, and the merchants. In 1801 the children attending a l l the major schools were distributed according to class as follows: 33$ came from the nobility, 14$ belonged to the lower middle classes (Meshchanie), 12$ were the children of merchants, 11$ the children of soldiers, 11$ were serfs and manor serfs, 8$ be-longed to the class of clerks and intellectuals not belonging 1 I b i d . 52 to the gentry, 5% were State peasants, 2% were children of the clergy and hf0 were children of Kozaks and foreigners. 1 In the minor schools the students belonged mainly to the merchant, lower middle class, peasants, servants, serfs and other lower 2 classes. It would seem then that the public school system did serve i t s purpose, i t was not only theoretically but actually open to a l l and free. The general public, however, seemed reluctant to make use of this opportunity for an education. The Public Schools oft N. I. Novikov3 Soviet writers on the period claim that Catherine estab-lished her public school system out of fear rather than con-k viction. Fear of new uprisings, and the necessity to educate a class of citizens who would be devoted to her: and also the fear of the success of the projects of N. I. Novikov. The projects of Novikov (and their success) to organize public schools on public finances (hence independent of the State) was one of the reasons which forced the Tsarist government to hasten with the school reform, in the interest of the s e r f s . 6 Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 78. 2 Ibid. For further s t a t i s t i c a l details see Appendix VI. ^Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov (1744-1818), was a non-commissioned officer of Catherine's Ismailian regiment. In 1768 he retired and started his activities in public l i f e . £•*Novikov,' Ents. Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1897), Vol. 4 l , p. 2 5 3 J . 4 See for example Konstantinov and Struminsky in Konstan-tinov, op. c i t . , pp. 77-79. 5Ibid., p. 61. 6 Ibid. 53 Novikov founded a journal Utrennyi Svet in St. Petersburg in order to use proceeds and donations made to i t for the establishment of free schools for the poor. In November 1777 he was able, using the donations and subscription funds, to open the f i r s t coeducational public 1 school in Russia for the poor and orphans, independent of the State. In 1778 he opened a second school in St. Petersburg followed by six more in 1781, In 1779 another school was opened in Tver; in 1783 in Moscow, Vladimirsk and Kursk; in 1784 in Tul; in 1785 in Voronezh and Nizhnii Novgorod, and in 1792 in Irkutsk. 2 Soon in addition to donations from subscribers to the journal, other individuals interested in the foundation of these schools helped to finance them. In 1777 Novikov collected 200 roubles only in St. Petersburg and by 1781 he was able to collect in one year 13,663 roubles. In St. Petersburg there were 426 students studying in these schools of which 135 were g i r l s . Most were children of commoners and not necessarily orphans.3 Novikov's educational philosophy did not basically d i f f e r from that of Catherine; i t was? also founded upon the theories of the Encyclopaedists and Rousseau as well as Locke. In the 1 i . e . narodnyi, the same term as that used by Catherine. 2 N. I. Novikov, Izbrannye pedagogicheskie sochineniia, (Selected Pedagogical Works), M. F. Shabaev (ed.), (Moscow1 Ministry of Education, R.S.F.S.R., 1959), p. 16. ^"Novikov," Bnts. Slovar, op. c i t . . pp. 254-255. N. I. Novikov, op. c i t . , p. 17. 54 public schools of Novikov humane behaviour towards the children, love and understanding, as well as a stress upon upbringing, were prevalent, Children were admitted between the ages six and sixteen a l l year round, and given a general education con-sisting of instruction ons religion, writing, reading, arith-metic, geometry, drawing, German and dancing. 1 Regular reports on the progress of the students, the financial situation and other affairs concerning the schools were made in the Utrennyi Svet. These schools were completely independent of the State and Catherine—a fact which she resented, for she must have feared to lose control over the education of her subjects in these schools. There may have been also personal reasons. Catherine hated Novikov "almost passionately", for Novikov had harshly c r i t i c i z e d her literary endeavours i n the journal Vsiakaya Vsiachine of which she was the coeditor. 3 Thus, when Catherine's state controlled public schools were established and the Commission on the Public Schools made regular inspection of a l l other schools in the country, to check on teaching standards, textbooks?andmtea<Sherequalifications, Novikov's schools were put into a d i f f i c u l t position. He was asked to change some of the textbooks, some of the programmes, and f i n a l l y , Catherine forbade the founding of any more such 1Ibid., p. 14. 2"Ekaterina II," Ents. Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1894), Vol.XI, p. 574. "Novikov," op. c i t . , p. 253. 3 I b i d . 55 schools on private i n i t i a t i v e , and with time even the better schools of Novikov slowly disappeared. 1 The Private Boarding Schools The private boarding schools organized by individuals, foreign or Russian, were not touched by the public school system of Catherine, for basically they catered to a different class of peoples people who could afford the fees. Most of these boarding schools at the time of Catherine were owned and directed by Germans. In 1784, in total, there were twenty-six private boarding schools i n St. Petersburg and ten in Moscow. Of these, in St. Petersburg, seventeen were Russian owned or 2 directed and in Moscow only one. Many of these schools were coeducational or provided for parallel classes for boys and g i r l s with practically identical programmes. They offered a variety of coursesi German, French, Russian, religion, art, geography, history and physics. For special fees they taught dancing and drawing. Much also was done privately at people's homes. The richer nobles hired private tutors and governesses to teach their children. Some organized 'schools' at their own residences for children of the region. Thus Derzhavin, the governor of Tambov, between the years 1786-1788 had 150 g i r l s taught free at his residence. The g i r l s came from a l l classes* "they "^Novikov, op. c i t . , p. 16. 2 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 258. 3 I b i d . 56 were pretty and ugly, rich and poor". 1 Although throughout the reign of Catherine the Great the total number of g i r l s studying, whether at the boarding schools, the Educational Society, the public schools or privately, was a very small fraction of the total number of school-age g i r l s 2 in Russia, the fact remains that Catherine laid a foundation for the education of gi r l s and that in the thirty-four years of her reign, great progress was made in the f i e l d of education in general, and particularly in the f i e l d of the education of women. Catherine personally encouraged any woman who showed signs of interest in education. She wrote in literary journals and encouraged other women to write. During her reign seventy women writers, mainly poetesses had gained enough renown to find their way into bibliographical dictionaries. 3 She appointed Princess Dashkova, one of the best educated women of her time, as the president of the Academy of Sciences in 1782 and in l ? 8 k the president of the New Russian Academy.** She did not differentiate between the education of men and 1Ibid., p. 265. 2 The number of boys studying was not too great either. In fact, i n the last years of Catherine's reign there were approximately thirteen times more boys than g i r l s in the public schools. (Ibid., p. 289). -'Prince N. N. Golitsin, "Bibliographicheskii slovar russkikh pisatelei," (Bibliographical Dictionary of Russian Writers), (Supplement) Jurnal Ministerstva . . . » op. c i t . , August, December 1888, January, April, 1889. Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 278. 57 women.1 Her public school system was coeducational and led for those who were able, male or female, to higher studies in the Academies or the University. In the boarding schools of the Educational Society the same curriculum was to be taught regardless of whether the schools were organized for boys or g i r l s . Even in the Smolny Institute g i r l s were to "get a general education" with no lim i -tations or adjustments made "for the female brain" or "female 2 a b i l i t y and talents". Catherine was not interested in educating women as women, but was interested in their general education as persons f i r s t , then perhaps women. In her instruction to Prince Saltnikov 3, Catherine wrote« . . . i t i s not as important to teach the g i r l s as to make them willing to learn and love learning so that they would search for i t by themselves.4* Although Catherine's public school system did not attain i t s aim to 'educate the nation', nor stamped out i l l i t e r a c y , one cannot deny that for the f i r s t time in Russian history, after the Mongol invasion, the attempt was made not only to educate the serfs but also women; and that for the f i r s t time *Her view is expressed in an essay on the question "Should Girls be Educated in the Same Way as Boys," General Plan for  Moscow Educational Home, op. c i t . , Ch. 4. See Appendix VII. 2 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , p. 131. (citing Catherine II). 3Serge Saltnikov, f i r s t lover of Catherine and according to her the father of her son Peter III. k Catherine II, "Iazyki i znanija," (Languages and Know-ledge), Ibid., p. 130. (cited by Ibid.). 58 but also for the last time for almost a century to come women were given equal opportunity i n education. Furthermore, i f Catherine's educational reforms are to be judged in terras of durability, most of the educational institutions established by her thrived and grew to be swept away only by the Revolution of 1917.1 Among the best known throughout the nineteenth century were the Smolny Institute, the Imperial Gentry Cadet Corpus, the Moscow and the St. Peters-burg Educational Homes, and even, in a reformed form the public schools system. That Catherine did succeed in establishing long lasting, and eventually popular educational institutions is undeniable, but had she succeeded in educating her 'New Breed'? From the literature available i t is hard to judge? perhaps she had suc-ceeded in educating the higher classes and especially the women of the higher classes, for travelers to Russia at the time of Catherine referred to the Russian women of the higher classes as 2 being better educated than the men. E. Clarke who travelled in Russia around the year 1800, four years after Catherine's death wrotet Dans l a classe des nobles, les femmes paraissent de beaucoup superieure aux hommes, elles sont douces, sensible, souvent instruites, belles, accomplies.3 10nly to be revived in another form and under another name under the Soviet regime. 2 Count de Segur, Memoires, Vol. I l l , p. 33j Vol. II, p. 228. (n.p., n.n., n.d.). 3 E . Clarke, Voyages en Russie, en Tartarie et en Turquie, (Paris* 1813). Vol. I, p. 11. CHAPTER III THE EDUCATION OP WOMEN IN THE DEPARTMENT OP MARIA FEODOROVNA Changes Introduced by Maria Feodorovna Only six days after the death of Catherine, Paul I's Ukaz of November 6, 1796 gave Maria Feodorovna the direct control over the Educational Society for Noble and Middle Class G i r l s . 3 In 1802 the Ministry of Public Education was founded and the Public School system of Catherine as well as a l l the boys* schools came under i t s jurisdiction. By 1804 the coedu-cational public schools were divided into Gymnasia, d i s t r i c t and parish schools, a l l of which now, with the exception of the parish schools, catered mainly to the male population of the empire. In the same year the coeducational boarding schools and private schools were also forbidden, and the edu-cation of women through the f i r s t half of the nineteenth 1Paul I, Catherine's son, was mentally unbalanced and reigned only five years. 2 Sophia-Dorothea of Wurttemberg, second wife of Paul. ^Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskikh (Complete Collection of Laws), Vol. XXIV, p. 17543. cited by Likhacheva, op. c i t . , Vol. 2, p. 1. ^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , Vol. 2, pp. 264-265. Istoricheski  obzor deiatelnosti ministerstva narodnogo obrazovanie (Historical Survey of the Activities of the Ministry of Public Education), (St. Petersburg! Ministry of Public Education, 1902), pp. 4-10. 59 60 century and especially after 1828 was completely separated from the education of men. For the f i r s t thirty-two years i t was under the direct control of the Empress Mother 1—Maria Feodorovna; the rest of the time i t was under the jurisdiction of the Fourth Section of his Majesty's Own Chancellery. The changes introduced by Maria Feodorovna into the 2 organization of the Educational Society were not only admi-nistrative in nature; i n fact, they basically changed the s p i r i t of the whole system and the educational ideals and goals upon which the Society was founded. Catherine'te aesthetic ideal and all-round education of the good man and good citizen were dropped in favour of almost wholly u t i l i t a r i a n and practical, purely 'feminine' goals. J Maria Feodorovna's new system of education was perhaps as much different in i t s s p i r i t and goals from Catherine's educational aims as Maria Feodorovna was from Catherine. Maria Feodorovna grew up in a small German town in a large family with strong ties of affection between its members. She had trust in parents and their a b i l i t y to educate the child morally and emotionally. She believed in the importance of the family and the necessity for the child to stay as long as possible with the parents. She also believed that a woman should be educated 1The Department of Maria Feodorovna has been referred to also as the Department of the Empress Mother. 2 The same as mentioned Under Catherine. -'The Book on the Duties of Citizens and Men was replaced by Campe's Advice to My Daughter, see text, pp. 66-70. f i r s t and foremost to be a mother and wife. Unlike Catherine she had no intellectual inclinations, grandiose thoughts or flights of imagination. She was meti-culous, orderly, hard-working and her ideals or goais never extended beyond her capacity to f u l f i l l them.1 On the f i r s t page of her notebook where she wrote a l l important thoughts, hers and those of others, under the headings "Philosophic des Femmes" she wrote: II n'est pas honnete, et pour beaucoup de causes, Qu'une femme etudie et sache tant de choses. Former aux bonnes moeurs l'e'sprit de ses enfants, Faire a l l e r son menage, avoir l ' o e i l sur les gens Et regler l a defense avec economies Doit etre son ^tude et sa philosophie. Although Maria Feodorovna had shown no interest in the education of women or Catherine's Educational Society when Catherine was alive, the very second day after Paul I's Ukaz she, with the help of her five daughters, launched herself into the administrative and financial details of the Educational Society's institutes. She arranged for 15,000 rubles each year to be donated to the Educational Society. The loss of 7 2 , 6 l l rubles incurred by the society during the last years of Catherine's reign were covered by the Emperor Paul I himself, who gave an additional 22,000 rubles for the upkeep of the Society each year. 1E. S. Shumigorski, "The Biographynof Maria Feodorovna," Russkii Arkhiv, 1889, No. 9, pp. 5-59. p Ibid., p. 9. (No mention is made by Maria Feodorovna or the author himself that the above is an extract from Moliers's Femmes Savants). 62 Under Maria Feodorovna's auspices and direct control, the Educational Society and other institutes and training schools founded by her flourished and did not have too many financial problems, for they were well organized with s t r i c t l y controlled expenditures. They were also a l l organized according to the 'class-principle', to which Maria Feodorovna s t r i c t l y adhered, believing that each g i r l should be exposed only to such educa-tion as would help her to adapt to the society and the demands i of the environment and class from which she came. To ensure the above, on December 30, 1796, she wrote a letter to the Committee in charge of the Educational Institute, i t s organization and programmes, asking to arrange for l i s t s of a l l the new noble and middle class g i r l s accepted in the Society to be given to the inspectors and class-teachers of the Insti-tutes. These l i s t s were to include the Christian and family names, the name of the father, his class and chin and place of origin of the parents. "In this way," she claimed, "the gi r l s w i l l gradually and indirectly be introduced to their origins and family position and w i l l learn what is expected of them when 2 they return home after graduation." The Project of January 1797 After two months of study of the Educational Society and its administrative and financial problems, Maria Feodorovna sent a proposal concerning the reorganization of the Society to 1 Likhacheva, op. c i t . , II, pp. 1-20. 2 Protokol of 30th December, 1796, cited by Likhacheva, II, p. 6. 63 the committee-in-charge. Attached was a letter written to the Committee and dated January k, 1797» where she expressed her ideas on the kind of education which the Society should provide, the aim i t should serve and the methods to attain the outlined educational goals. The arguments concerning the necessity to separate the education of gi r l s according to classes and the stress upon the u t i l i t a r i a n character of this education, i.e. educating women to f i t and accept their social position, set the tone and s p i r i t in which the Russian women were educated for the next sixty years. 1 The suggested reorganization concerned five basic points through which the 'class-principle' of Maria Feodorovna was to be introduced into the institutes of the Educational Societyj - The change of admitting age. - The change in the number of gi r l s admitted; more nobles, less middle-class g i r l s . - The change in the number of years of study for each group. - The complete separation of the noble class g i r l s from the middle class g i r l s . - The change in the programme of study for each group. The admitting age for the noble g i r l s was to be changed from five to eight or nine; for the middle class g i r l s from five to eleven or twelve. Both groups were to graduate at seventeen or eighteen. This drastically cut short the time of study for the middle-class g i r l s from the twelve to thirteen years at the time of Catherine to five or six years under Maria Feodorovna. 1"Uchreizhdenia vospitatelnogo obshchestva, 1797-1820," (The Foundations of Educational Society, 1797-1820), XII (Archives of the fourth Department), cited by Likhacheva, II, op. c i t . , p. 7. 2 2Ibid., The complete letter is available in Appendix VII. 6> In her letter Maria Feodorovna argued that between the ages of five and eight or nine the child needed much physical care which the institutes could not give properly. Furthermore, the child needed very much her mother—the only person who could provide the child with the necessary individualized and personal care so important for emotional and physical development. The limitation of the years of study for the middle-class g i r l s rested upon the argument that these g i r l s needed only to learn the Russian language, some home-economics and handi-crafts! these s k i l l s being necessary for the proper care of accounts, for home book-keeping, home-care and the correct way of expressing themselves. Thus the years alloted to the middle class g i r l s were, according to Maria Feodorovna, sufficient to educate them for their needs and environment. Nevertheless, she did allow for a few talented middle class g i r l s to be more educated and trained to become teachers. Under no condition were the middle class g i r l s to study with the noble g i r l s or vice versa, for each group had separate duties and different functions in society. Their, attitudes are completely different and the acqui-sit i o n of talents and arts pleasant to the society, which is a part of the education of the noble g i r l s , becomes not only harmful, but also deadly for the middle class, because such an education removes the g i r l out of her environment and forces her to search for dangerous benefactors in the society. If, on the other hand the noble g i r l s are exposed to the limited education of the middle class, the loss incurred on the former is evident. 1 Maria Feodorovna further suggested that the number of the Ibid., p. 9. (cited by). 65 middle class g i r l s be reduced by f i f t y and thus make i t possible for the number of noble g i r l s to be increased by f i f t y . She argued that although the two classes had to be differentiated s t r i c t l y from each other, each class had an equal right to the attentions of the Monarch and an education provided by Him. Hence she offered to organize other institutes and schools which would cater to the specific needs of the middle class g i r l s . On January 11, 1797. Paul I confirmed Maria Feodorovna's i proposal with the exception of the decrease in the number of the middle class g i r l s . He ordered their number to be doubled rather than reduced by half and provided for the sum of 16,769 rubles to be paid for their yearly education from the 2 state treasury. With the approval of her proposal, Maria Feodorovna was given the f u l l power over the education of women. She imme-diately set out to change the Educational Society and carried out to the minute detail her suggested reforms. In the s p i r i t of her convictions expressed in her letter, an extensive pro-gramme was worked out. Special institutes with limited courses and structure were founded for the daughters of each class, profession and rank (chin) of the parents. Thus the daughters of the nobility were mainly taught French, dancing and manners, while the middle class g i r l s were initiated into the professions of teaching and housekeeping. 1Likhacheva, II, op. c i t . , p. 11. 2Protokol of January 15, 1797. (cited by Ibid.). 66 For the g i r l s of the lower classes "semi-professional" schools i were founded where the g i r l s learned d i f f e r e n t trades. In addition to the above there were also i n s t i t u t e s of the 2 P a t r i o t i c Society and other humanitarian s o c i e t i e s of the same kind which were f i r s t founded i n 1812 to help war orphans of the Napoleonic wars. These s o c i e t i e s i n the beginning founded schools only for the children of the f i e l d and s t a f f o f f i c e r s , but l a t e r they also founded schools of vocational t r a i n i n g f o r the childr e n of other classes.-' J . H. Campe*s Fatherly Advice to My Daughter At the turn of the nineteenth century a book c a l l e d k Fatherly Advice to My Daughter, authored by J . H. Campe, was translated into Russian and dedicated to the Empress Mother, Maria Feodorovna.^ The ideas set f o r t h i n t h i s book, which, "Zhenskoe Obrazovanie," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg! 1894), Vol. X, p. 867. Some of these schools or i n s t i t u t e s were f o r examples the Orphan Institutes (Mariis-k i e ) , Institutes of the Order of Catherine i n St. Petersburg and Moscow, the Female Inst i t u t e of War-Orphans Home (Pavlovski I n s t i t u t e ) , Midwifery Institutes i n Moscow and St. Petersburg, the Gatchinskii Rural Educational Home, Schools f o r the children of the sold i e r s of the Black Sea Fleet, Institutes for the daughters of the chins of the Black Sea Fleet, Homes of Industry (Trudoliubia) i n St. Petersburg, Moscow and Simbirsk. 2 "Patrioticheskie Obshchestva," Ents. Slovar, Vol. XXIII, p. 38. 3 I b i d . \Joachim Henrich Campe (1746-1818), was a German educa-t i o n a l reformer and writer. ^According to Likhacheva the book had i n many places added corrections and remarks which were done by the tran s l a t o r and also by Maria Feodorovna. (Likhacheva, op. c i t . , I I , p. 173). 67 according to P. Kapterev, was read every day and learned by heart in a l l the institutes, illustrate clearly in what s p i r i t the g i r l s were educated in the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century. 1 After Catherine's death, as already mentioned, the aesthe-t i c ideal was superseded by the u t i l i t a r i a n ideal, which combined with Maria Feodorovna*s class principle, became the core of the educational philosophy of the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century. According to the u t i l i t a r i a n ideal of education, the goal of a l l education for women was to prepare them to be expert 2 house-keepers, wives and mothers. But at the different levels of the society the needs and standards were different: hence the class-principle in devising specific programmes for the different classes of g i r l s . In Campe's book the u t i l i t a r i a n ideal of education was also strongly emphasized and further supported by a philosophy of the inferiority of women to men. Since Campe's book was extensively used in the schools of the Department of Maria Feodorovna, i t must have not only influenced general opinion regarding the status of women but i t also reflected to a large extent the views of the authorities regarding the aim of the 1P. Kapterev, "Ideali zhenskogo obrazovania," Obrazovanie, (St. Petersburg, 1898), No. 3, pp. 5-6. Kapterev was a well-known Russian theoretician and historian df education. He taught psychology and pedagogy at the St. Petersburg Female Pedagogical Courses and was one of the active editors of the journals Obrazovanie, Vospitanie and Obuchenie. ("Kapterev," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, Vol. XIV, p. 216). Kapterev, op. c i t . , p. 14. 68 education of women. Campe thus claimed that: God and human society desired women to be weaker than men, God and human society desired women to depend on men, and their sphere of action to be limited to their home. Both desired that man be the protector of his wife; that she lean on him and feel and admit her weakness and the superiority of her husband; that she be worthy of his_ love and good w i l l through her meekness and humility. Where the education of women was concerned, Campe believed that women should be educated to be: . . . wives for the happiness of their husband, mothers for the education of their children and wise organizers of the house.3 According to Campe there were three kinds of knowledge that g i r l s had to acquire. F i r s t l y , religious knowledge through reading of the religious books: "nothing else should be read as the aesthetic arts such as literature or poetry are immoral".' Secondly "astrological knowledge", i.e. that knowledge which w i l l help a woman in dealing with people, for i t w i l l teach her to forsee their actions, understand their behaviour and avoid antagonizing them. Combined with natural history, universal history and logic, "astrological knowledge" would be This claim may be supported by some Russian novels and c r i t i c a l literature of the period. According to Princess Kropotkin, "The Higher Education in Russia," Nineteenth Century, (London: 1898), Vol. 43, pp. 119-122, one should refer to Turgenev, Goncharev, Herzen, Mme. Hahn and especially Pisarev*s Muslin Young Lady where women with Campe's mentality are r i d i -culed but nevertheless described as the current prototype of women. See also E. Elnett, Historic Origin and Social Develop-ment of Family Life in Russia, New York, Columbia University Press, 192b, pp. 75-76. ^Cited in Kapterev, op. c i t . , p. 2. ^Likhacheva, op. c i t . , II, p. 174. ^Ibid., p. 179. (cited by). 6 9 a guide to character and personality study and lead to a better understanding of man's physical and sp i r i t u a l nature. 1 In other words "astrological knowledge" was what today is taught as 'general psychology'. Thirdly, "knowledge which shapes womanhood" through the study of history and geography, but mainly in general terms, omitting a l l details for a housewife would not have any need or use for them. Sciences, such as physics were also to be taught only to such an extent as they could be used in every-2 day household duties. Campe also tried to prove that a l l learning brought more harm than good to a woman^—even art and foreign languages, for such "knowledge could be of no use to the husband or the household". Art, for example, made the nerves weak and the woman then became sensitive to discord and lack of harmony. This in turn rendered her incapable of bearing common, every-day household noises. If she learned a l i t t l e music or painting, she was to use i t to amuse her husband and children only. She had to learn to dance for serious occasions, but not too much, for dancing aroused unhealthy passions.-' 1 I b i d . 2 I b i d . ^Learning was not good for men either; according to Campe i t weakened the health. (Ibid.) Here a correction was made by either'the translator or Maria Feodorovna claiming that Russian literature was so poor that another language had to be learned. Likhacheva, loc. c i t . ^Kapterev, op. c i t . , pp. 12-13. ?o In vivid colours Campe painted the picture of what would happen to a family stricken by the learned 1 housewife and mother who having learned too much would become disillusioned with her husband, then become a hypochondriac, restless, sorrowful and f i n a l l y even insane. And the poor husband, humiliated and ashamed, would either try to hide his calamity and thus wither away before his time, or would search for distraction outside the home. Having seen his children aban-doned, his home neglected, and later humiliated by debts i n -curred by the poor management of the household; ashamed of his deliquent children and haunted by the pity of honest people, his suffering would exceed a l l limits and eventually lead him to the grave. With great authority Campe then concludedJ "Nature did not give women the right to be among the ranks of authors I " 2 V. G. Belinsky-' perhaps best summed up the general s p i r i t of the Russian woman's education during the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century» The Russian woman from the very f i r s t day of her l i f e is told that she is a bride—not a person—and she grows up that way. A l l her ideals, prayers, hopes, are directed towards a husband. •••Seemingly, to Campe the learned woman was necessarily an authoress, poetess or novelist. 2Likhacheva, op. c i t . , II, pp. 177-178. 3V. G. Belinsky, (1810-1848), a radical Russian social and literary c r i t i c . See also text, pp. 87-89. ^Cited in Ibid., p. 6. Although Belinsky may be a radical c r i t i c of the Russian society of the time, his views on this point are in agreement with those of Ushinsky, Izbrannye Pedago-71 The Department of the Fourth Section of  His Majesty's Own Chancellery A f t e r the death of Maria Feodorovna i n 1828, the d i r e c t i o n of the educational i n s t i t u t e s for women was transferred to the departments of the Fourth Section of His Majesty's Own Chan-c e l l e r y . 1 No changes i n the system, programmes or structure of the schools were made u n t i l 1857, but many other i n s t i t u t e s organized along the same l i n e s appeared i n Odessa, Astrakhan, Kiev, Kazan, Warsaw, Saratov, T i f l i s and Irkutsk. Most of these i n s t i t u t e s were financed at least i n part by the l o c a l n o b i l i t y . In 1843 an E c c l e s i a s t i c a l Institute (Dukhovnoi) f o r women was established i n Tsarskoe Selo. Its aim was to raise the standards, moral and i n t e l l e c t u a l , of the daughters and future wives, and mothers of the clergy as well as the g i r l s who were gicheskie Sochinenia, (Moscowi Uchpedgiz, 1945), pp. 250-260, and N. V. Shelgunov, Sochinenia, (St. Petersburg! 1891), pp. 541-55. Both authors l i v e d i n the nineteenth century. •^The Fourth Section of His Majesty's Own Chancellery was often even a f t e r the death of Maria Feodorovna, referred to as the Department of the Empress Mother or the Department of Maria Feodorovna, The Fourth Section was opened on October 26, 1828. It not only administered the schools f o r g i r l s but also a number of other i n s t i t u t i o n s such as the Educational Homes f o r infants and children, i n s t i t u t e s for b l i n d children, f o r deaf-mute c h i l -dren, a l l of which were coeducational. For further d e t a i l s see "Sobstvennaya Ego Imp. Velichestva K a n t s e l a r i i a , " Ents. Slovar, (St. Petersburg! 1900), Vol. XXX, pp. 656-657. 2 . With a few exceptions, the term Institute f o r Women, (Zhenskii I n s t i t u t .) i n the f i r s t h a l f of the nineteenth century referred to 'closed' boarding schools, i . e . the g i r l s could not go home even during vacations and had to stay the s i x or nine years i n complete i s o l a t i o n from parents and the outside world. The term Inst i t u t e not only referred to the schools i n the Department of the Empress Mother, but also to private boarding schools founded at the time of Peter the Great and Catherine and s t i l l functioning i n the f i r s t h a l f of the nine-teenth century. 72 planning to enter convents. By 1854 other such institutes were i opened in Yaroslavl, Kazan and Irkutsk. In 1844 the schools in the department of the Fourth Section were re-classified into three distinct categories, once again, as a function of the g i r l s ' classes and social background. The institutes of the First Category were the Smolny Institute, Patriotical Institutes, Institutes of the Order of Catherine in Moscow and St. Petersburg, a l l provincial institutes for the daughters of the nobility. Those of the Second Category, for the middle classes, were the Pavlovskii Institute, Alexandrovskii Institute i n Moscow and St. Petersburg, Homes of Industry in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Simbirsk and institutes in Astrakhan and Simbirsk. To the Third Category belonged the Schools of the Patriotical and other humanitarian societies in Moscow, St. Petersburg and Odessa. They catered to the poor, homeless or orphans.2 For each of these categories a special programme, geared to the class of the g i r l s attending, was worked out. Both, the f i r s t and the second categories, comprised the teaching of social etiquette and drawing along with foreign languages, but in the second category the main stress was on handiwork, crafts, or teaching of a trade combined with a very elementary prepa-1 , ,Eparkhialnye Shkoly," Bolshaya Entsiklopedia, (Moscow: 2nd ed., 195*0. Vol. 15, p. 5^. "Zhenskoe Obrazovanie,*" Entsklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1890), Vol. X, p. 868. ration in arithmetic and the Russian language. 2 Dobrolyubov in an article printed in Russkii Vestnik in 1858 examined and c r i t i c i z e d the 'closed boarding schools. 3 According to him the g i r l s learned only such things with which they could show off in the society, but nothing which could help them get successfully through l i f e and solve practical l i f e problems. For years they saw no one outside the teachers, administration and the inmates of the boarding school. Not only did they lose the habits of family l i f e , but they also learned to judge l i f e by textbook c r i t e r i a . Boarding schools then, according to Dobrolyubov, isolated g i r l s from real l i f e . One of the students of such a boarding school, the Radianovsky Institute at Kazan, claimed in her memoirs that at the end of the six years at the Institute she had "a knowledge of l i f e and people acquired only from the novels and tales which (she) had read. The facts of reality did not enter the walls of the boarding schools.'"^ 1 I b i d . 2 Although Dobrolyubov was a radical publicist and his views may well be biased, other sources, such as memoirs of the g i r l s support his criticism of the pre- I856 school system. Dobrolyubov was also one of the important educators of the nineteenth century. See text p. 91. •'Reference here is made mainly to the schools of the f i r s t and second category. k N. A. Dobrolyubov, Pedagogicheskie Sochinenia, (Moscow: Uzhpedgiz: 19 k9), pp. 94-95. ^Vera Figner, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, (New York: International Publishers, 1927), trans. G. C."Daniels and G. A. Davidson, p. 33. 74 In the same article Dobrolyubov outlined the study pro-grammes of such schools. The g i r l s , in addition to foreign languages, manners and dancing, were taught history with a large section devoted to chronological and genealogical details about mythological times. The same student mentioned above, thus claimed^in history they were kept "for a whole year on i dry mythology of the Greeks and the Romans". They were also taught geography with great stress on cosmography, and much Russian grammar with complicated tables and l i s t s of exceptions. Where methods were concerned, according to Dobrolyubov, g i r l s were asked to learn facts by heart and be able to pass examinations. What mattered to parents and teachers, alike, was not education but the prizes received at the end of each 2 year. It was "formal, dry, dead" education. As far as sci e n t i f i c knowledge or intellectual training were concerned "these years at school not only gave almost nothing, but even retarded (the girls' ) s p i r i t u a l development, not to mention the harm caused by unnatural isolation from l i f e and people." 3 Such education was not only offered at the Institutes of the Fourth Section but also at the private i n s t i -4 tutes and at home. In the same year, in an article called "About the Estab-1Ibid., p. 27. 2 Dobrolyubov, op. c i t . , p. 243. ^Figner, op. c i t . , p. 27. 4 Princess Kropotkin, op. c i t . , pp. 118-119. 75 lishment of Open Schools for Women," in a review of existing schools for g i r l s , Dobrolyubov claimed that, although the goals of these schools (the Institutes) seemed to have been the pre-paration of g i r l s for family and social l i f e , they accomplished neither. Having lived for six, eight or nine years behind the closed gates of the Institutes, the g i r l s had no idea about l i f e 2 outside the walls of the Institute. Even to funerals of their close relatives or parents they went accompanied by a governess and had to return immediately to the boarding school after the funeral. Only once a year, on Easter Sunday, were they allowed to drive in a long procession of carriages through the streets 3 of the city.-' Hundreds of g i r l s who received an id e a l i s t i c and senti-mental European education in a shielded institution, were thrown into barbaric, half-literate, libertine, drunken, cruel society which at i t s very best roused their indig-nation by i t s organic incompatibility with the kind of feelings and wise rules unalterably impressed upon them by the institute teachings.** The Education of Girls for Patriotism and Adoration of the Autocracy By their very nature and organization, the boarding institutes, as well as other schools for women in the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century, prepared the g i r l s to be com-panions of men with no independent position in the family or society. Although no distinction was made legally between ^Dobrolyubov, op. c i t . , pp. 218-232. 2 Princess Kropotkin. op. c i t . , pp. 118-119. See also Elnett, op. c i t . , pp. 61-69. 3 k •'Ibid. Elnett, op. c i t . , p. 76. 76 women's and men's rights, as far as social opinion was concerned, discrimination was made and a woman's education was a function of the conviction, both, on the part of the administration of the Institutes as well as the public at large that a woman should be trained f i r s t and foremost to be a companion to her husband. Economic independence, with the exception of an inheritance, from husband or family was not even envisaged, mainly because of the above mentioned convictions, but also because of the total absence of suitable employment for women other than teach-ing (this only in the case of the middle and lower classes). Women could not join the c i v i l service, and as far as teaching was concerned, not only were they not prepared to teach but also the marked lack of elementary schools where they could eventually teach made the profession obsolete. 1 The pre- 1856 school system, thus, stressed the class-principle and i t s s t r i c t observance led to an almost total absence of any interaction between the different social classes, and possibly to an absence of a consciousness of the problems and ways of l i f e of other classes besides one's own. Institutes, like the Smolny Institute, "became a real laboratory for femi-nine monarchical ecstasy, to bring up the future generation of ladies of the house and mothers saturated with patriotism and 2 grateful adoration of the autocracy." •1 Some g i r l s did become home tutors or governesses, but these were only one category of girls--the lower middle classes. Elnett, op. c i t . , p. 75. 77 The Education of Girls Under the Ministry of  Public Education The Statutes of 1804 Alexander I's reforms in education, as implied by the Statutes of 1804, are said to have represented 'the most complete and satisfactory plan' for the organization of public education in pre-Revolutionary Russia. 1 According to Nicolas Hans, even though the original principles upon which the Statutes of 1804 were based, were in a later period reversed "the framework of his system survived a l l the fluctuations of Russian educational policy and is recognizable even at present after the most radi-2 cal Revolution in history." The Statutes of 1804 followed closely Condorcet's scheme presented i n his essays on "Sur 1"Instruction publique" in 1792 and a report to the Assemblee Nationale in the same year. 3 The Statutes of 1804 thus stressed two basic i d e a s — u t i l i t y and equality. The Statutes established a ladder system of education where each grade prepared students for the next higher grade, and each school for the next higher school: from parochial schools which were to be opened in every village through Di s t r i c t Schools in e 1N. V. Chekhov, Tipy russkoi shkoly (Types of Russian Schools), (Moscow: MIR, 1923). p. 28. 2Hans, History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 35. The Statutes of 1804 are f u l l y explained by Hans in Ibid., pp. 32-60. Since the educational reforms implemented by the Statutes served in practice mainly the males of the empire, they w i l l not be discussed here. ^A comparison is presented in Hans, loc. c i t . , see also Appendix IX. 78 every d i s t r i c t town to provincial schools (gymnasia) in every provincial town and f i n a l l y to the Universities in the six largest c i t i e s in Russia. Each school was also to give a "complete and useful education to every group of the nation". 1 Thus the principle of u t i l i t y dominated a l l the pro-grammes of the different schools. The village schools were to be taught elements of agriculture, the town schools elements of the local industries and the provincial schools were to give instruction in state af f a i r s . The Statutes furthermore, established complete equal opportunities to a l l children regardless of sex, creed or so-c i a l status and origin of the parents. Thus in Clause 123 of the Statutes i t was stated that "the parochial schools are open to a l l children of a l l classes irrespective of their sex or 2 age." Clause 90 stated that a l l those who completed the pa-rochial schools or other elementary schools could enter the Dist r i c t Schools. Clause 14 claimed that a l l children who graduated from the District Schools or other schools answering the required standards could enter the gymnasium. No allusion 1Ibid., p. 45. 2 According to Likhacheva, op. c i t . , II, p. 264, this Clause 123 is the only one where direct mention of sex is made in the Statutes of 1804. ^Istoricheskii obzor ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenia, (St. Petersburgs 1902), pp. 82-86. The schools were to be free, and although in 1819 fees were introduced in St. Petersburg, orphans and the children of poor parents were exempted from fees. In addition a system of state scholarships was also established. 79 anywhere was made to the exclusion of g i r l s . Furthermore, since this ladder system necessarily led to the University and no allusion i n the University Statutes was made to sex or social position, then according to the Statutes of 1804 gi r l s could enter the public educational system and 'climb' a l l the way into the universities. 1 Girls in the Public Schools under Alexander I One may argue that g i r l s were accepted in the Ministry's gymnasia and studied together with the boys at least t i l l 1808 when the last s t a t i s t i c s refering separately to boys and g i r l s are recorded; twenty g i r l s in the Vitebsk Gymnasium, thirteen 2 in Mogilev, three in Novgorod, and seven in Pskov. Most of the g i r l s i n the Ministry's Public Schools were i n the lower schools. Thus in 1802 there were in total 2,007 g i r l s i n the Ministry's schools, out of which only 334 were in Major Schools (in transition to become District Schools): in 1824 there were 5,835 g i r l s i n the schools of the Ministry and only 338 gi r l s were in District Schools. According to N. Hans, there may have been more g i r l s in the gymnasia after 1808 since the sta-t i s t i c s refer to 'pupils' without stating their sex. 1 I b i d . According to N. Hans, he has not been able to find anywhere any law during the reign of Alexander I which forbids g i r l s to enter Universities. (Hans, op. c i t . , p. 57). 2 Hans, op. c i t . , p. 56. Likhacheva, op. c i t . , II, p. 264. 3Ibid., p. 57. The Ministry of Public Education also opened several Di s t r i c t Schools for g i r l s . There were 19 such schools at the end of Alexander I's reign. 4 I b i d . 80 Alexander I's Statutes of 1804 could have been considered the Great Reforms in Russian education i f they had been carried out successfully, but the government not only lacked funds to establish schools, but the very principle of equality in educa-tional opportunities could not survive in a system based upon the principle of serfdom. For Alexander's reforms to succeed, i t was evidently necessary to abolish serfdom, but Alexander died before he solved the problem and his successor opted for the retention of serfdom and the establishment of a class-principle in education. Education Under Nicolas I Nicolas I decided to rebuild the whole educational system on a new basis. By the Statutes of December 8, 1828 he adopted the old Prussian system of education where the general aim of a l l schools was to "give a moral education and furnish the youngsters with the means of acquiring the kind of knowledge • j which would suit most the pupil's status." Nicolas I also forbade g i r l s to enter District and Pro-vincial schools. The education of g i r l s was relegated to the department of the Fourth Section of His Majesty's Own Chancellery and for the next twenty years the Ministry of Public Education took very l i t t l e interest in the education of g i r l s . On the whole, education under Alexander I and under Nicolas I, i.e. throughout of the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century, whether for g i r l s or boys, was recognized as a social *Ist. Obzor, op. c i t . , p. 205. 81 need, not for the individual and his (her) own self-realization, but as a need of the society i t s e l f . This new concept according to W. H. E. Johnson was expressed in 1804 by a Russian philoso-pher and journalist, Ivan Petrovich Pnin (1773-1808), as followst Education, as accepted in the present sense, consists in that each member of society, no matter what profession he finds himself in, knows and f u l f i l l s thoroughly his responsibilities; that is to say, when the superiors on their part sacredly carry out the obligations of the power entrusted to them and when the l&mer class people invio-lately live up to the responsibilities of their obedience. If these two classes do not transgress their bounds but preserve the proper equilibrium in their relations, then education has attained the desired aims.1 Towards the end of Alexander I's reign and especially during the reign of Nicolas I, with the r i g i d governmental control over private schools, private tutors and a l l agencies of educa-tion, regarding their 'character and p o l i t i c a l trustworthiness', i t became evident that the aim of the government was educating boys and g i r l s as the true sons and daughters "of the Orthodox Church, loyal subjects of the State, good and useful citizens of the Fatherland." 2 Under Nicolas I education, especially that of women, by r i g i d l y applying the class-principle, meant preparing and con= ditioning young g i r l s to be satisfied with their status in l i f e . This viewpoint is well illustrated by the claim made by Count S. S. Uvarov, the Minister of Education (1833-1849), W. H. E. Johnson, Russia's Educational Heritage, (Pittsburg i Carnegie Press, 1950), p. 74. (cited by). 2 "Decree No. 374 of Jan. 17. 1820," Sbornjk postanovlenii  ministerstva narodnogo prosveshchenia, Vol. I, pp. 1199-1209. (cited by Johnson, op. c i t . , p. 81). For further details see Hans, loc. c i t . , and Johnson, loc c i t . 82 in a report to Nicolas I in 1832» The younger generation can be turned into useful and zealous instruments of the Government i f thoughtful guidance be brought to bear on the development of their s p i r i t and attitude of mind. . . . They can be led into a mood of devoted and humble love for the existing order. The basic principles of the 'existing order' Uvarov defined as Orthodoxy, Autocracy and Nationalism—the very principles which were revived a hundred years later, under Stalin. S. S. Uvarov, "Regulations for Educational Establish-ments,** Article 136, (cited by Johnson, op. c i t . , p. 96) . P A R T II THE EDUCATION OF WOMEN BETWEEN 1856 AND 1917 CHAPTER IV THE GREAT RUSSIAN PEDAGOGUES OF THE NINETEENTH CENTURY The loss of the Crimean War and the humiliating Treaty of Paris of I 8 5 6 were severe blows to Russian national pride and self-esteem. Russia's defeat In the war was a clear indi-cation of her failure to keep up with European economic and social development. With the accession of Alexander II to the throne and the introduction of a series of important internal reforms, the year I 8 5 6 may well be considered a turning poaint in Russian history, for in the next f i f t y years that followed Russia underwent a complete social reconstruction. In I857 on the i n i t i a t i v e of Alexander II a secret 1 Committee on Peasant Reform was set up and was followed by the organization of provincial committees of the nobility in the different provinces. The work of the committees revised by specialyreommissions?:culmlnated in the Decree of February 19,  I 8 5 6 . By the Decree of February 19 and the accompanying legis-lation, serfdom was abolished and Russia was provided with a new socio-economic foundation. The agrarian reforms were soon followed by administrative, judicial and military ones. Old institutions were transformed and old forms of feudal l i f e - s t y l e began to disappear. 84 85 Education was perhaps affected most by such changess A l l oyer Russia people were talking of education. As soon as peace had been concluded at Paris, and the severity of censorship had been slightly relaxed, educational matters began to be eagerly discussed. The ignorance of the masses of the people, the obstacles that had hitherto been put in the way of those who wanted to learn, the absence of schools in the country, the obsolete methods of teaching, and the remedies for these evils became the favorite themes of discussion in educated circles, in the Press, and even in the drawing rooms of the aristocracy. 1 This was a wonderful period, a period, when anyone wanted to think, read and study, and when everyone, who had something to say, wanted to say i t out loud. Until then the slumbering mind, fluttered, moved and started to work. Its impulse was strong and i t s task gigantic. The concern was not about today,—the fate of future generations, the fate of Russia's future were being con-sidered and decided . . . . The socio-economic reforms not only inaugurated a period of reform in education but also a period imbued with a new s p i r i t in educational philosophy. With the emancipation of the serfs another kind of emancipation took place; a revival of an idealism and the faith in man's essential goodness along with the belief in the power of education to change man and make him more humane—an educational philosophy strongly reminiscent of Catherine the Great and Betski's General Plan of the Moscow Imperial Educational Home.3 As i t (the l860's) was also a period in which theoretical propositions were given definite form, i t f u l l y deserves to Peter Kropotkin, Memoirs of a Revolutionist, New York, Houghton, M i f f l i n and Co., 1899, p. 83. 2 N. V. Shelgunov, Izbrannye pedagogicheskie sochinenia, (Selected Pedagogical Works), (Moscowt Akademia Pedagogicheskikh Nauk, 195 k), p. 7. 3See text, pp. 31-35. 86 be knovm as the classical period in the development of education in Russia. . . . The movement . . . should be recognized as the period, in the history of Russian educa-tion in which were developed the ideas which inspired a l l later movements, not only down to the time of the Revolu-tion, but also under the Soviet Union. 1 In the 'new Russia* of the 1860's two distinctive trends, two forces of historical tradition can be discerned: the revolutionary or materialistic trend led by N. G. Chernyshevsky and the l i b e r a l or bourgeois-democratic trend, used in the broadest sense of the term, based upon the ideals of universal humanitarianism, neutrality in religion, freedom and nationalism. The present chapter, is in no way an attempt to present 2 or discuss the educational philosophies of the two trends. The aim of this chapter is only to isolate the philosophy con-cerning the education of women in the works of the different philosophers—pedagogues, or publicists belonging to the above mentioned trends. The two trends may be considered to have started i n the 1840's and continued together t i l l the 1860's when they sepa-rated. The ideals of educational goals and methods proposed by either group were not new in the sixties, many of them could 0. Kaidanova, Ocherki po i s t o r i i narodnogo obrazoyania  y Rossii i S.S.S.R. na osnovie litshago opita i nabludenia (Sketches of the History of Public Education in Russia and U.S.S.R. based on personal Experience and Observation), (Bruxelles: E. Zhelezniakoff, 1938), Vol. I, op. c i t . , p. 171. (cited by Johnson). 2 Much work to great depth has been carried out by different writers. See for example N. Hans, The Russian Tradition in  Education, (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963). Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 118. "87 be traced back to the time of Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, to Pososhkov and Novikov, and f i n a l l y to V. G. Belinsky who at least in his educational philosophy seems to be the common beginning and in a way the 'father of Russian education'. 1 V. G. Belinsky (1811-1848) entered Moscow University i n 1829 during the reactionary reign of Nicolas I. At the Uni-versity, as a student, Belinsky became one of the founders of a 'Literary Society of Number 11', a society inspired by the ardent love of Russia combined with the ideals of humanity and the emancipation of mankind from social injustice. The members of the group were to dedicate themselves to the service of 'mankind and Russia', and love was to become the underlying principle in the relationship of man to his surroundings—na-ture and people. According to N. Hansj At last the Synthesis of 'universal' (European) and 'national' (Russian) which the Russians had sought since Peter the Great had been found. Belinsky thus combined the concept of universal humanity with the particular individual nationality: Nationality is a great object both in politics and literature: yet taken in i t s e l f i t is onesided. . . . The opposite side of nationality is universal humanity (obshche-chelovecheskoe). . . . A nationality which is not conscious of i t s livi n g membership of mankind as a whole is not a nation, but simply a tribe or a l i v i n g corpse. . . . Without national character, without na-Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, pp. 13-14. Hans, The Russian Tradition . . ., op. c i t . , p. 35. _88 tional features, the State is not a l i v i n g organism, but a mechanical appliance. To be an actual historical phenomenon, a people has to possess i t s nationality only as a form of the idea of mankind, but not as the idea i t s e l f . . . Every i n d i v i -duality actually exists insofar as i t touches the universal, which is i t s content, and of which i t is only an external form. 1 Belinsky's conception of education was based upon this synthesis of the universal and the particular, of the human and the Russian. The moral training of the youth, according to Belinsky, was bound closely with the love of one's country and universal freedom.. There could be no citizens, no patriots, without free human beings. Children, therefore, should be trained for freedom and the love of universal humanity. By humanity we understand the livi n g creation of those general features of the s p i r i t , which are necessary for a l l men, whatever their nation, whatever their social origin, in a l l their ages, in a l l their circumstances— those general features which have to form man's innermost l i f e , his most treasured wealth, and without which he is not a 'man'. The main aim of a human being in every vocation, on every rung of the social ladder, is to be a 'man' (chelovek). Humanity means love of children, which should permeate education. Respect for the name of "man', infinite love of the human being because he is a 'man', without any reference to your own personality, or to his nationality, creed, or social status, even his personal qualities, in one word—infinite love and inf i n i t e respect for mankind, even in i t s worst representative .3 1M. Polyakov, Vissarion Belinsky, (Moscow: i 9 6 0 ) , p. 50. (cited by Hans, op. c i t . , pp. 3^-35)» 2 I b i d . Ibid., p. 36. (cited by). 89 The aim of education according to Belinsky was the train-ing of 'man'* "not a future c i v i l servant, a poet, nor a crafts-man". Training "should assist nature" and the child should not be forced into moulds in the image of the parents. Belinsky disagreed with Locke that the child's mind is a tabula rasa and claimed that "the soul of the infant is not a tabula rasa, but a plant in a germ, a human being in his potentialities." Belinsky thus believed that f l e x i b i l i t y in educational methods was important, that neither punishment nor reward should be used i n teaching, that religion should be taught as love and the practice of educating women as the ornaments of the society rather than as human beings in their own right should be changed. Belinsky, like Rousseau, also claimed that a l l moral training should be negative: Moral training should remove a l l bad examples and develop in children love, justice, and humanity through habit (by liv i n g moral behaviour) and not through dogmatic rules of morality.3 Belinsky's ideals of freedom, humanity and nationalism became the very basis of the Russian educational tradition of the second half of the nineteenth century as expressed in the educational philosophies of Pirogov, Ushinsky, Stoyunin and Tolstoy. 1Ibid., p. 35. (cited by). 2 Kaidanova, loc. c i t . 3Ibid., p. 36. (cited by). 9A The Revolutionary or Materialistic Trend Pisarev, Herzen, Chernyshevsky, Dobroliubov, and Shelgu-nov are usually considered as the representatives of the re-volutionary or materialistic trend. Most of them were either socialists and populists, or sympathizers. D. I. Pisarev (1841-1868) stressed freedom in education, the respect for the rights of children and spoke of the importance of work and love: When a l l workers of the world w i l l love their work, then there w i l l be no unemployed, no rich, no poor. 1 Pisarev thus stressed the importance of the connection between l i f e and knowledge, and education and work. There could be no knowledge or education i f i t did not derive i t s roots from everyday practical l i f e situations and i f in turn i t could not be applied to the solution of everyday problems. According to Pisarev, education, i f i t was to be a meaningful and complete education, could not be separated from l i f e and i t s everyday activities—-work—a concept which was revived under Communist rule in the theory of 'polytechnical education'. N. G. Chernyshevsky (1828-1889) also spoke of education as a l i f e process and a function of the structure of the society and general conditions of l i f e . Thus any changes in the educational system had, necessarily, to be preceded by changes in the socio-political structure of the country. The basic problems in Russian education were neither the educational institutions nor their administration, but the very conditions Ibid., p. 16. .91' of Russian l i f e and society. N. A. Dobroliubov (1836-1861) stressed the importance of safeguarding the child's individuality and teaching him to think and reason c r i t i c a l l y , he further stressed thati . . . there is no need to train the child, like a dog, to do this or that trick according to this or that signal from the teacher. We want an education where reason would reign and where this reason would not only be evident and clear to the teacher but also to the child. We insist that a l l measures taken in education should be presented in such a way that they may be f u l l y and clearly j u s t i -fiable to the child. We demand, that a l l educators would show more respect to human nature, would care for the development, and not the s t i f l i n g of the inner man in their students, and that educators would aspire to make the child act morally not out of habit but consciously and out of conviction. It is not surprising then that Dobroliubov strongly c r i t i c i z e d the existing schools of g i r l s where the g i r l s were trained rather than taught. 3 Most of the philosophers or publicists who followed the materialistic trend stressed mainly the social aspect of educa-tion and spoke of 'integral education', i.e. a combination of 'general s c i e n t i f i c and technological' education. k They also advocated equality of women to men in education up to and through university. In i t s essence their argument for the education of women followed the line of Shelgunov's reasoning as he applied his educational philosophy to the education of women. Konstantinov, op. c i t . , pp. 142-143. Ibid., p. 144. 3See text, pp. 73-75. Hans, The Russian Tradition . . ., op. c i t . , p. 127. N. V. Shelgunov (1824-1891) believed in educating the masses and examined a l l educational questions in terms of socio-political conditions of the Russian society. He there-fore saw the role of women to be the socio-political prepara-tion of children to serve the society, to be independent, and 11 to "think and act on their own and create their own environment." His main thesis concerning the education of women was educating women as the educators of humanity. Here he stressed, like many of the other radicals the importance of psychology: A woman, who is deprived of the capability to understand the human soul, does not have the right to be a mother, nor a teacher. For, Shelgunov believed that the education of a child, especially in the early years is a function of the mother's social status, health, diligence, education and family status. Thus the development of the child in the f i r s t years is orga-nically bound with the social position of the woman—mother: with her physical, mental and moral development. And the woman and the child become two inseparable factors of the f i r s t 3 stages of development. Shelgunov deplored the fact that, for the ten years the 'Woman Question' had taken on such a ' t r i f l i n g and sad* aspect ""•Shelgunov, Izbrannye . . ., op. c i t . , p. 25. 2 Shelgunov, "Chego ne znayut zhenshchiny," (What Women do not know), Izbrannye . . ., op. c i t . , p. 58. •'Shelgunov, "Rabotaiushchii proletariat v Anglii i Frantsii," (Working Proletariat in England and France), Sovremenik, l86l. (cited by Ibid., p. 19). -tt with i t s exclusive stress on economic independence. The •Woman Question' had become, according to Shelgunov a 'question of bread'—frivolous and commonplace in character, boring everyone. Nevertheless, according to Shelgunov, one thing remained clear throughout the years: that . . . women want to learn and that the energy with which they pursue their goals forces us to bow with admiration to the moral force of women, which no one expected them to have.* But, according to Shelgunov, i f this rush of women for knowledge is objectively examined, then one can clearly see that i t was not based on any clearly defined principles or goals. It was a rush at random, where women studied anything they could lay their eyes on. Often they were sadly comical, for they studied a l l sorts of things scarcely knowing why and hoping to use what they learned to earn a living: We study midwifery, mathematics, physics, languages, shorthand, Italian, book-keeping, telegraph-signals, and lately we have even launched into jurisprudence and Roman law—knowledge which is commendable, useful. But which one of us fceads and studies history, physiology, psycho-logy; which one of us reads and studies the science of man, of society? No one. We only want to be specialists and craftsmen, but we do not want to be people, or members of a citizens' community, nor independent moral i n d i v i -duals contributing ideas to the treasury of the social mind. Shelgunov further regretted the fact that general edu-cation was neglected and during the fifteen years of the move-•"•Shelgunov, "Chego ne . . .," op. c i t . , pp. 55-56. 2Ibid., p. 57. ,94 merit of women for higher education the stress had always been on specialization: 'Mankind in general' does not exist for you (women), as i f the conception of mankind were beyond your mental capacities. You choose only boring specialities, without broadening your views and ideas. Be whatever you choose, physicians, midwives, signal-women, chemists, teachers, but f i r s t of a l l be human beings and women: and be prepared to be mothers. I am speaking of the mother as a woman-citizen, steeped in ideas of a higher order, understanding that the family is the basic c e l l of the whole civic community and train-ing her children for membership of this community. Study man, study the society, think in terms of citizenship and you w i l l educate your children to be such people as l i f e needs; and you yourself w i l l mount to a higher and more influential position in society. 1 Pew of the above mentioned 'revolutionaries' can actually be considered as educators, most of them were publicists, journa-l i s t s or writers interested in polemical work. Many took up the question of education and wrote lengthy treatises on the subject because education was one of the main concerns of the sixties and seventies. They were also involved in the pole-mics concerning the question of the education of women because basically the authorities resented the demand of women for higher education. The 'revolutionaries* thus wrote articles against dicipline, formalism, classical gymnasia, specialization and the whole Tsarist system of education. They also clamoured openly for the higher education of women and entered into many fi c t i t i o u s marriages to help the women leave Russia for Zurich. 2 1Ibid., pp. 57-58. 2See details in Part II, Chapter VII. Women could not tra-vel abroad unless they had the permission of their parents or husbands. 35 When Turgenev's Fathers and Sons was published in the l860's many c r i t i c s saw in one of his female characters, Kukshina, the prototype of the emancipated 'learned' women-students of the sixties. A score of articles were published defending or accusing Turgenev for his portrayal of Kukshina. Herzen (1812-1870), like a l l revolutionaries who believed in the emancipation of women and their rights to higher studies came to the defense of Turgenev and the women-students« i That a woman who studies embryology may be very peculiar and disagreeable—is true; but i t is also true that in many of the comedies of Ostrovskii one can find women who are even more peculiar and disagreeable, and who never studied theoretical embryology. If someone has to be punished, i t is not theoretical or practical embry-ology, but women in general. Herzen then suggested with his well-known cynism that there was only one way to solve the problems f i r s t by "deleting the female sex" and then by dividing the human species " i n the manner of the cavalry into a. The Heavy male sex and b. The Light male sex (former female)." Then women w i l l not be deprived to move forward from their position of mothers—females 2, even though through Kukshinas, to the status of human beings; then they w i l l not altogether be forbidden to study, or allowed to read only certain chapters—as used to be the case when the governesses decided how far in the text their student could read.3 Kukshina studied embryology and spent the 'intimate' hours with her lovers discussing this science. The actual word used—Samka—implies a purely animal female (in terms of reproduction only). 3 He rzen, "Pismo k budushchemu drugu" (Letter to a future Friend), Izbrannye pedagogicheskie vyskazyvaniia (Selected Peda-gogical Citations), (Moscows Akademia Pedagogicheskikh Nauk, 1951, pp. 393-394). _96 While the 'revolutionary' intelligentsia did most of the c r i t i c i z i n g and kept the society alert to educational problems and their implication, the actual work in the f i e l d of education was carried out by the group of the 'liberal'-minded intelligentsia. It was this group of physicians, scientists and teachers 1 who formulated the basic problems of public education and i t was their educational philosophy that influenced the educational reforms of the l860's and l8?0's and laid the foundations of the last educational reforms of the Tsarist government in the second decade of the twentieth century. The :'Liberal' Trend The 'liberals* were and remained the philosophers of the middle classes and the 'bourgeois' intelligentzia. They welcomed the emancipation of the serfs but were afraid of revolution or mass movements that would overthrow the Tsar. They were willing to cooperate as long as i t was possible with the governments and many served as inspectors, directors or teachers in the government schools only to find themselves later deprived of their rights to teach or sent for a 'research period* of several years to European countries. The 'liberals' basically a l l believed in a school system which would be open to a l l classes, which would educate boys and g i r l s equally and provide the child not with formalistic knowledge but teach him (her) about r e a l - l i f e situations and above a l l educate human beings rather than train specialists. N. I. Pirogov, D. K. Ushinsky, P. P. Lesgaft, V. Ia. Stoyunin, V. I. Vodovozov, D. P. Semenov, L. N. Tolstoy and others. Within this group of educators there were different trends, some stressing nationalism more than secularism, or classical training more than practical. N. Hans classifies Pirogov as the representative of the humanist trend, Ushinsky of the national trend, Tolstoy of the moral trend and Stoyunin, Vodovozov, Lesgaft and Korf as i the representatives of the l i b e r a l trend. N. I. Pirogov (1810-1881) was the most influential of the group. Although a famous physician-surgeon and professor of medicine he did not confine his interest and activities to the f i e l d of medicine but was keenly interested in the f i e l d of education and took active part in the educational reforms of the 1860's. Pirogov's idealism, belief in the inherent goodness of man and the possibility of cultivating his goodness through education became the keynote of the educational philosophy of the second half of the nineteenth century. In one of his letters written in April, 1850, Pirogov spoke of the goal of education as the transformation of each child into a human being who would be capable of l i v i n g f i r s t of a l l and most of a l l for others and who would be capable of seeing his own happiness in the happiness of others: To be happy with the happiness of others—this is rightful happiness, this is l i f e ' s rightful ideal. •^Hans, The Russian Tradition . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 45-106. 2 "Pisma Pirogova," (Pirogov's Letters), Russkaya shkola, 1914, No. 11, p. 33. 9 8 In 1856 Pirogov published his essay on "Problems of Life" (Voprosy Zhizni) in the periodical of the Ministry of Naval Affairs, the Morskoi Sbornik (the Journal of the Admiralty). The essay immediately became the focal point of a great num-ber of articles written by liberals and radicals alike dis-cussing itssmerits. The article also impressed the govern-ment and opened the way for Pirogov to get involved in the educational reforms of the sixties. In his "Problems of Life" Pirogov claimed that education determined the future of each person and that the success of the society and public l i f e depended on education. Education then, was to be the concern of the society as a whole and each individual in particular. He strongly c r i t i c i z e d class-oriented education and believed that a l l , regardless of sex, creed or class should be given equal opportunity for education—an education which would teach children not to become specialists but human beings: "What vocation are you educating your son for?" Some-one asked me. "To be a human being." I answered. "Don't you know," he asked me, "that there are no human beings in this world; i t s an abstraction, useless to our society. We need teachers, soldiers, mechanics, sailors, doctors, lawyers, not human beings." Is that true? 1 The essay was the answer to the above conversation. Pirogov's humanistic ideals were not reserved for males N. I. Pirogov, "Voprosy Zhizni," ( 2 n d ed.), Izbrannye  pedagogicheskie sochinenia (Selected Pedagogical Works), (Moscow: Akademia Nauk, R.S.P.S.R., 1 9 5 2 ) , p. 6 5 3 . 99 only, he Relieved in the a b i l i t y of women to study and occupy responsible positions in.science, art or public l i f e . He organized the f i r s t nursing society in Russia and his insistance on the importance of giving women the same opportunities in education as men became instrumental in the establishment of g i r l s ' gymnasia and medical and other higher education courses, for women. The last part of the "Problems of Life" was devoted to the question of the status and education of women: , . . let women understand their high appointment in the whirlpool of human l i f e . Let them understand, that they, who take care of the human infant, organize his childhood games, teach him the f i r s t words, the f i r s t prayer, are the chief architects of the society. The cornerstone is laid with their hands.1 And If women—pedants, clamouring for emancipation, under-stand i t only as the education of women,—then thay are right. But i f they understand emancipation in terms of the social rights of women, then they themselves do not know what they want. Women are already emancipated in the latter sense, and perhaps even more than men, although according to our laws a woman cannot be a soldier, a c i v i l servant, a mi-nister. But can a man nurse a child and become—the mother--educator of children up to the age of eight? Can? man be the bond of the society, i t s flower and ornament? Hence, according to Pirogov, not the position of women but their education needed change. He divided women into two kinds ''Marys? and Marthas'. The Marthas are engulfed in every-day l i f e and enjoy comfort and luxury, and live well regard-less of whether the problem of emancipation is resolved or not. Their road in l i f e does not overlap with the road taken by Ibid., p. 678. 2 I b i d . 100 Marys. For Marys are idealists, inspired with the s p i r i t of struggle and sacrifice and know that emancipation l i e s i n education. 1 Twenty years later, in 18?6, Pirogov admitted that the problem was not in the kind of emancipation he thought of years ago, but a problem of assigning the right values to the importance of women and their a b i l i t y to organize and take decisions—a fact which he learned when he worked with the nurses and women-doctors in the war. . . . women, thus, must occupy in the society a place more f i t t i n g to their human dignity and intellectual a b i l i t y . . . for even in the administration of many social establishments women are more talented than men. According to Pirogov the idea of emancipation held by him and others was the f r u i t of a materialistic world-view that considered women f u l l y equal to men. But, according to Pirogov, this materialistic trend considered learning to be the highest order of things and neglected the role of intuition and talents. But i f women and men have equal capacity to learn, then women by their higher capacity for intuitive learning ( i f intuition is a source of knowledge), should be con-sidered a step higher than men.3 Where the question of the position of women is concerned, there has been a tendency to forget, or rather ignore, a group of natural phenomena, through which "the human being" is a colle c t i v i t y , consisting of men and women, and one should deal with each sex according to its d i f -1Ibid., pp. 678-679. 2"0 krestovozdvizhenskoi obshchine sester miloserdia. 0 zhenskom voprose." (Letters to Baroness Raden), Ibid., PP. 551-552. 3Ibid., p. 553. t o * ferences and characteristics. What our forefathers took  away from women, we must return with interest. This is just and w i l l not cost much. But we also must not forget that the goal of l i f e and the road to the goal—are one and the same for men and women, but the manner in which the road is travelled must dif f e r for each, i f we want to be useful to and agreeable to each other. 1 Pirogov also defended the agressive attitude of the women towards the society. Their disregard of social mores and cus-toms, their imitation of males in dress and manner, he claimed to be reactions to the society and i t s refusal to assign women a place more suited to their dignity and their mental a b i l i -2 t i e s . That women deserved to be trusted with positions of re-sponsibility was, according to Pirogov, clearly shown by their activities in the Crimean War: The results, (of the work of nurses in the Crimean War) in any case, prove, that u n t i l now we have completely  ignored the wonderful talents of our women. These talents  clearly prove, that the present 'Woman Question' even then  was f u l l y justified in i t s raison d'-etre. The facts that the enemies of the reasonable emancipa-tion of women unt i l today claim to be true, such as the great difference between the organization of the sexes, — f o r example the smaller weight of brain, etc.—should not be taken into consideration, for they w i l l never sur-vive serious criticism. A woman, i f she received an adequate education and training, can pursue culture in science, art and public l i f e , as well as a man. There is only one condition, that a woman should always preserve her physiological and moral femininity and should learn not to part with i t . This, of course, is not easy, and is what both the de-fenders and the enemies of the 'Woman Question' ignore. A woman, with a man's education and even in men's clothes,  should always remain feminine and never scorn the develop-ment of the superior gifts of her feminine nature. And I definitely do not see how should an equal social status be-tween women and men stand in the way of such development.3 1Ibid., p. 554. 2Ibid., p. 555. Ibid.. p. 568. 102 Pirogov's essay and the ensuing polemics in the press concerning the education of women necessarily led to a re-evaluation of the u t i l i t a r i a n , class-oriented educational tradition of the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century. K. D. Ushinsky combined Pirogov's humanitarian values with a strong national sentiment. Like Pirogov he believed in the necessity of educating 'human beings', but insisted that such an education must be based upon the principle of nationality and the mastery of the mother tongue. According to Ushinsky: Education must enlighten man's consciousness and clearly show him the road to good. In the heart of each human being there are unselfishly good emotions, by which edu-cation can be guided, but these emotions are sometimes hidden so deeply, that not always are they easy to find. There is though one, common to a l l , and inborn tendency, on which education can always count—this is the so called 'nationality'. The love for the fatherland, inherent in everyone, provides the true key to the heart of human beings and upon this assumption, then, education should be guided by nationality; i t should i t s e l f be national. . . . Only a national education can become the li v i n g organ in the historical process of national development.1 Ushinsky's aim was to serve the Russian people and diffuse knowledge and education among the masses. This neces-sar i l y implied involving women in the process of education. As a democrat he believed in free thought and individual de-velopment and had no patience with etiquette, manners and the li k e . In 1859 he became the inspector of the Smolny Institute and for three years the Institute became a veritable laboratory of pedagogical experiments. Ushinsky reorganized the cu r r i -Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 27. (cited by). 103 culura, introduced natural sciences and tried to modernize the school in i t s structure and administration. 1 The Smolny Institute which for almost a century was the prototype of an educational establishment which educated * ladies' or ornaments for the fashionable salons of the upper classes, under Ushinsky with i t s seven year programmes, a broad range of subjects and lectures in pedagogy, became the 2 prototype of the g i r l s ' gymnasia of the sixties. Ushinsky's influence in the different fields of educa-tional methodology and philosophy can be easily traced in the writings of such educators of the late nineteenth century as V. Ia. Stoyunin, L. N. Modzalevski, D. P. Semenov, V. P. Ostragorskii, V. I. Vodovozov, N. F. Bukanov and others. Of these the most influential in the f i e l d of the edu-cation of women was Stoyunin (182681888), who along with Vodovozov, Lesgaft and Korf is considered by N. Hans to repre-sent the truly l i b e r a l trend. According to N. Hans Stoyunin believed that: Education can develop normally only i f i t is dominated by one general idea—that of training the pupil for actual l i f e . And because in actual l i f e every man is also a citizen of his country and a member of his society, the school has to remember these aims.3 Stoyunin summarized this philosophy in a statement on the 1D. D. Semenov, "Dieatelnost K. D. Ushinskago v Smolnom Institute," (The Activities of K. D. Ushinsky in Smolny Insti-tute), Pamiati D. K. Ushinskogo, (Memories of K. D. Ushinsky), (St. Petersburg: 1896), pp. 67-104. 2 I b i d . 3Hans, The Russian Tradition . . ., p. 133. (cited by). ic4 role of the school as follows* - The school should educate citizens, inspire them with respect for the law. - The school must raise public morality. The drive to live only for oneself or on the account of the public, reckoning only one's own gain, turning away from charitable work, shameless l i e s — i s what characterizes many of us in our public sphere; and even worse is the fact that a l l this e v i l is acceptable with no protest as i f there is no other way.1 The school must fight this e v i l and the school must not taach facts but educate and enliven teaching with ideals not of specific philosophical schools but general ideals of family and public l i f e . The school must be truly Russian to be able to satisfy the needs of Russian public l i f e and provide the government and the society with the necessary elements of such l i f e . The school must not indoctrinate the students with a philosophy of l i f e but provide them with a sufficient world-view to enable them to formulate their own ideals after they leave school and enter l i f e . He also stressed the close ties 2 necessary between the school and the family. Stoyunin was also greatly interested in the education of women and strongly c r i t i c i z e d the superficial education provided for women in the Institutes and private schools. He was in favour of the gymnasia for g i r l s established in the 1860's which were open to a l l g i r l s regardless of class or creed and which, according to him, not only removed the class 1 , 1 Stoyunin," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1901), Vol. XXXI, p. 714. (cited by). 2 I b i d . 103 barriers but also the 'sex barriers' between men and women by providing a l l children with equal opportunity to learn. Stoyunin understood the term '"human" as a term which did not admit of any moral and intellectual excellence of one sex over the other. 1 Thus to Stoyunin the ideal enlightened or educated human being, male or female, was not one who stored a mass of disconnected knowledge, or one who was specialized in one specific f i e l d of knowledge, but one . . . who transcends the facts of knowledge and develops in himself a higher understanding of facts, which determine human l i f e and i t s relationship to the environment, i.e. to nature and society. Education, arouses in man a l l the inherent drives for honesty, truth, goodness and beauty and further supports them. As a result education combines a l l spheres of action, of the professor, the administrator, the judge, the physician, the philantropist, independent of their specialized knowledge which they need for their practice. Only one of the great Russian educators of the nine-teenth century, L. N. Tolstoy (1828-1910), did not seem to agree with the drive, of .'women for higher education and their movement for emancipation. Although he believed in the brotherhood of a l l men and mankind? in science and u t i l i t a r i a n values as well as Providence and the special qualities of the Russian people; in democratic principles and self-government, he nevertheless subscribed a certain well-determined status to women—that of wives and Ibid., (cited by). His ideas were put into practice when his wife founded a gymnasium for g i r l s in St. Petersburg. See Part II, Chapter VI. > Ibid.. (cited by). 106 mothers.1 Although his experimental school, in Yasnaya Polyana, which earned world renown, was open to both sexes he always separated the g i r l s from the boys even at an early age. Whether humanist, national, moral or materialist, most of these trends in Russian education through the nineteenth century stressed the education of human beings f i r s t and Russians next. Most, as we have seen, drew from the Western ideals of freedom, secularism and universal humanism. Their influence on the general public's attitude toward the women and on the women themselves must have been considerable, especially in the educated circies of the Russian upper and middle classes where the works of these educators were read in the daily, weekly or monthly periodicals. Most of these philosophers or educators wrote copiously on their educational theories around the middle of and the f i r s t two decades of the second half of the nineteenth century. As the Russian intellectual had always been exposed to s t r i c t censorship he was accustomed often to read between the lines and this may have added even more meaning to some of the claims of the educators, mdst>.of whom were eventually, at least temporarily, exiled and some were even imprisoned. 2 This added even more to their prestige. 1Especially as expressed in Anna Karenina. 2 D. J. Pisarev was imprisoned between 1862 and 1866, N. G. Chernychevsky was exiled, N. V. Shelgunov was arrested but released, A. Herzen was exiled, Ushinsky was "exiled" to do research in Europe, P. F. Lesgaft and V. Ia. Stoyunin were con-sidered 'disloyal' and their activities were supervised. 10? It was during this second half of the century that women, in great numbers demanded equal opportunity in education and access to the universities and medical schools. During the same period the Ministry of Public Instruction after almost half a century of inactivity in the f i e l d of the education of g i r l s decided to take over a l l the existing g i r l s * schools and establish new gymnasia under the supervision of the ministry. To claim that a l l these changes were the direct result of the educators and their writings of the period may be an exaggera-tion, nevertheless to deny that they were instrumental in many ways in bringing the changes about and preparing the general atmosphere for the changes would be unfair. CHAPTER V ELEMENTARY EDUCATION 1856-1917 Education Under Alexander II It was Pirogov*s essay "Problems of Life" (Voprosy Zhizni) published in the Journal of the Admiralty in 1856 (Mogskoi  Sbornik, No. 9 ) 1 which set the s p i r i t of the reform movement in education. "The influence of this single essay on follow-ing generations was unparalleled," for Pirogov's ideas became the basis of the new 1864 legislation concerning elementary 2 and secondary schools. The f i r s t years of the reform movement were characterized by heated public discussions and polemics in the press. At f i r s t essays on education and the problems of establishing a public system of education could be found in almost any daily newspaper and journal. By 1857 "two pedagogical journals appeared—Jurnal Vospi-tania (The Journal of Education) and Russkii Pedagogicheskii The essay in i t s original form is also available in Pirogov, Izbrannye pedagogicheskie sochineniia (Selected Pedago-gical Works), (Moscow: Akademia Pedagogicheskikh Nauk, 1952), pp. 55-84. 2Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 98. (The influence of the essay on the reorganization of the g i r l s secondary education was especially important—see text, Chapter v i of Part II. 108 109 Vestnik (Russian Pedagogical News). In i860 the Journal of the  Ministry of Public Education was reorganized to become a special pedagogical organ. In l 8 6 l the journal Uchitel (Teacher) was f i r s t published followed in 1862 by Yasnaya Polyana of L. N. Tolstoy and in 1864 by the Pedagogicheski Sbornik (Pedago-gical Collection). In 1869 Narodnaya Shkola (The Public School) began i t s publication. The need to educate the masses and to reorganize Russia was strongly f e l t among a l l classes of the Russian Society and especially among the long s t i f l e d intelligentzia and students. Thus, while the Ministry of Public Education was occupied with the administrative and legal problems of the projected reforms, the public took upon i t s e l f the pedagogical side of the question. The task of educating the serfs and establishing a public education system throughout the empire drew the best minds into active participation. Among the many educators and philosophers who made important contributions were, just to mention a few, Ushinsky, Modzalevsky, Vodovozov, Stoyunin, N. A. Korf, L. N. Tolstoy and Pirogov. After January 17, 1857 the law forbidding the founding of schools by individuals or private organizations was repealed and permission was given to any individual, organization or society to found schools of any type as long as the Ministry was n o t i f i e d . 1 As a result a great number of schools were founded. These schools were of a l l kinds—Sunday Schools for 1Decree of Jan. 17, 1857. (1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 377). 110 adults or children, gymnasia or parish elementary schools. Most of these schools were staffed by volunteers from the student ranks. 1 The general attitude of those who were educated and went out to the country to teach the peasants may well be represented by L. N. Tolstoy's claim: It is not us who need to learn, we have to teach Marfitka and Taraska a l i t t l e of what we know.2 The Sunday Schools Of the newly founded schools the most interesting perhaps 3 and the most numerous were the Sunday Schools. The f i r s t Sunday School was opened i n April 1859 in St. Petersburg by, the daughter of an Active State Counsellor, Maria Shvilivskaya. The school was at her home and catered to poor g i r l s , who were taught on Sundays reading, writing, arithmetic and handiwork. In October 1859 a group of students from the Kiev University under the guidance of Pirogov opened another Sunday l "Nachalnoe narodnoe obrazovanie," Entsiklopedicheskii  Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1897), Vol. XX, p. 758. By the end of 1857 there were 39 private boarding schools in St. Peters-burg; in Moscow there were 14 private boarding schools and 21 private schools. (1st. Obzor . . .) op. c i t . , p. 377. o Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 120. (cited by). -'All through the reign of Nicolas I, when Sunday Schools f i r s t appeared, permission was given to open only 3 Sunday Schools—in Valk, Bezenberg and Beisenstein. (Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, pp. 285-289). "Voskresnya Shkoly," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1892), Vol. VII, p. 2 5 5 . I l l School. 1 These f i r s t Sunday Schools were so successful that the Kiev students contacted the students of the Kharkov, Moscow and St. Petersburg universities and within a year a whole net-work of Sunday Schools was established. In a l l schools reading, writing, religion, and arith-metic were taught and in some drafting and basic trades were sometimes added. A l l of these schools were free. The teachers were mainly students who volunteered their time. The Ministry of Public Education by the circular of September 21, i860 placed governmental premises such as gymnasia and other public 2 buildings at the disposal of the Sunday Schools. Between April i860 and January l 8 6 l , twenty Sunday Schools were opened in St. Petersburg. Of these six were for women and two were coeducational. In the province of St. Petersburg there were sixty-eight schools of which ten were for women.3 By 1862 4 there were 274 Sunday Schools in the Empire. The most famous c5f the Sunday Schools was a private Sunday School for women i n Kharkov, It was opened in the beginning of i860 by Kristina Danilovna Alcheska, the wife of a local merchant. Notwithstanding the Decree of 1862-* when Sunday Schools were closed by the government this school continued f i r s t for eight years at the home of its founder and f i n a l l y was o f f i c i a l l y opened on March 22, 1870 and continued to 1 I b i d . 2Ibid., pp. 255-256. 3 I b i d . 4 Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 121. -*Ist. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 379, (Decree of July 10, 1862). 112 flourish t i l l the Revolution of 1917.1 In 1870 there were 450 students and 80 teachers in Alcheska's school. The school had free use of the premises and the teachers were volunteers. The total expenses of the school in the l890's were only 300-400 rubles a year and at the time i t was considered to be the best organized school in Russia. The school was open to g i r l s of a l l ages over ten. The school had a library and a demonstration room of visual aids. The direction of the school was in the hands of a pedagogical com-2 mittee formed by the students. Many women thus took an active part in the Sunday School movement and a great number of them,, coming from different social backgrounds, young and old, married or single, founded 3 schools not only in the towns but also in distant villages. Alletter written by one of the teachers of such a Sunday School is significant in i t s s p i r i t : I am now neither a mother, nor a wife, or a s i s t e r — I am a citizen of my fatherland and w i l l be happier above a l l earthly happiness, i f I could give, even only a bit of myself, to the common cause. Interesting also is the correspondence in 1859 between an eighteen year old g i r l and A. Herzen signed 'Ukrainka', asking him to show her how to teach in Sunday School: l MVoskresnya Shkoly," op. c i t . , p. 257. 2Ibid., pp. 257-258. JQ. Kaidanova discusses in detail many of these schools. (Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, pp. 273-354). kM. K. Lemke, Ocherki osvoboditelnogo dvizhenia, (Sketches of the Emancipation Movement), (St. Petersburg: 1908), p. 284. 113 Alexander! We are waiting f o r instructions from you from which we could learn to be greatly useful to our nation which has suffered f o r so long and s t i l l i s suf-f e r i n g from ingorance . . . T e l l us Alexander, we are waiting f o r a word from you, as drought awaits r a i n , as the anchored ships await the wind. 1 The same 'Ukrainka' i n another l e t t e r to Herzen described her methods of teaching and how each day more and more students came to her school. She explained her success by saying that she never forced the young or old to learn or gave homework. She taught c h i l d r e n and adults a l i k e by playing games with them and by teaching them to think. She ended her l e t t e r by saying: Show us g i r l s the way to understand the mentality of the muzhiks (peasants-serfs) and be able to bring them up to our l e v e l . Teach us to work with children, to work with love, to inte r e s t them while they are s t i l l fresh in i n t e l l e c t , unspoiled, with a l e r t minds, and help them to discover the best aspects of t h e i r existence, to de-termine the difference between themselves and the animals — a difference which our forefathers had for so long t r i e d to a n nihilate. Is t h i s not our r i g h t f u l duty? The above mentioned g i r l ' s attitude towards teaching, her enthusiasm and readiness for s e l f - s a c r i f i c e was not an i s o l a t e d case. There were many others l i k e her—young men and women who believed that the future of Russia lay i n the educa-t i o n of the muzhiks. They adopted the humanitarian philosophies of education of the nineteenth century educators. They i n t r o -duced into the Sunday Schools humane methods of teaching and discarded corporal punishment. Their schools did not f r i g h t e n Ibid. 2 I b i d . , pp. 122-123. •^Corporal punishment i n schools was abolished by the Decree of 1863 (Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 99) . 114 the muzhiks away but attracted them instead and thus lai d the basis of the beginnings of mass literacy in Russia. Along with the Sunday Schools, many schools of the •extreme progressive' and rather 'experimental' type arose. In these schools too, the university students and women took an active part. Two of the best known of these schools in St. Pe-tersburg were the Tavricheskaya and Vasileostrovskaya schools. One of the St. Petersburg University students who visited the Tavricheskaya school wrote that they saw: Young teachers, officers, students and women teachers from the fashionable society who sacrificed their whole being to teach the values of ggod and love and 'humanize' the humble people who came from hungry and crude environments.1 The Governmental Reforms Enthusiasm and idealism were not only confined to the students and the intelligentzia but affected also some of highest functionaries of the state, many of the nobles and even some of the clergy. Among the most active in pushing the implementation of the projected educational reforms were Alexander II's brother, Grand Duke Konstantine Nikolaevich, A. C. Norov, Minister of Public Education in 1856 and A. V. Golovnin who became Minister of Public Education in 1862. The Report of March 5, 1856 made by A. C. Norov, was perhaps the best example of the government's new attitude towards education—an attitude of great optimism and idealism in educational philosophy. Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 173. (cited by). 11$ Admitting that Nieolas I's class-policy in education was wrong, Norov claimed: The unification of nationalities and classes can be achieved not by administrative decrees, but only by moral measures, which would bring together different minds, nationalities and classes by a unity of aims obtained by a common system of education. Finally, after four years of debate and polemics, in i860 the "Project on the Statutes for Lower (elementary) and Intermediary (secondary) Schools Under the Direction of the 2 Ministry of Public Education" was ready. For the f i r s t time in Russia the public was consulted on a projected governmental measure and the project on the public schools was presented to the public through the press for criticism and evaluation and copies were sent to competent specialists. Early in 1862 the revised i860 project was once more presented to the public and in i t s new form i t was not only sent to the trustees of the educational districts to be presented to the universities, the pedagogical councils of the gymnasia and to a large number of citizens and clergy, but i t was also translated into German, French arid English, and copies were sent to foreign educators to evaluate and c r i t i c i z e the V. Birnshtok, "Iz i s t o r i i zhenskogo obrazovania," (From the History of the Education of Women), Obrazovanie, (St. Petersburg: 1 8 9 6 ) , No. 1 0 , p. 5 1 . (cited by). 2 Actually the Resolution "On the Establishment of a General Direction of Schools" was issued on May 2, 1856 and the Educational Gommittee appointed by the Ministry of Public Education was asked to work out a project on the establishment of elementary schools and gymnasia. (1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 435t also Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 128). 116 i project. Towards the end of 1 8 6 2 the amended project and the evaluation and criticism of the Russian pedagogues were printed in six large volumes. In 1 8 6 3 the opinions of the foreign 2 specialists were published and made available to the public. The outcome of the project was a series of laws promul-gated at different dates: June 1 8 , 1 8 6 3 the Statutesoof the Universities; 3 July 14, 1864 the Statutes of the Elementary Schoolss^ November 19» 1864 the Statutes of the Progymnasia and Gymnas i a . ^ Between 1 8 6 2 and 1 8 6 4 the "Project on the Statutes for Lower and Intermediary Schools" had undergone many changes. To illustra t e how progressive i t was in 1 8 6 2 i t suffices to quote the explanatory note which stated the object of the Statutes of 1 8 6 2 regarding both the elementary and the intermediate (secondary) schools. The main task of the Statutes is to ensure that the aim of the lower and intermediary schools is the education 1 I b i d . 2 Ibid. (The complete collection of the opinions and criticism of both the local and foreign pedagogues was published as "Svod zamechanii na proekt ustava obshchikh uchebnykh zavedenii"; see also "Nachalnoe narodnoe obrazovanie," Ents.  Slovar, op. c i t . , p. 7 5 9 ) . 3 I s t . Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 4 1 3 - 4 3 0 . ^Ibid., pp. 4 5 0 - 4 5 6 . Ibid., pp. 4 3 0 - 4 4 4 . 117 (vospitanie) of man, i.e. the all-round and even develop-ment of a l l the mental, moral and physical forces in the pupils, for only with such an education is i t possible to acquire a wise attitude towards l i f e , in harmony with human dignity, and the ensuing a b i l i t y to enjoy l i f e . . . . To be able to enjoy wisely the rights of men, i t is necessary to develop in the masses the consciousness of these rights, to awaken in them the love to intellectual work and incul-cate in each the respect to himself and to men in general. Only in such circumstances can the present divisions between the classes be annihilated and the wise distribution of occupations between the different members of the Society established. The F i r s t Clause of the Statutes readt Education is the main basis of the State and the source of i t s well-being, therefore the profits of education ought to be enjoyed by a l l persons, irrespective of their  sex or origin. The Second Clause described the ladder system consisting' 3 of three consecutive steps\ J a) the elementary school—with a two years course for seven to nine year olds, mostly coeducational. b) the Progymnasia—with four year programmes for nine to thirteen year olds with provisions made for a corres-ponding system for g i r l s . c) Gymnasia—again with a four year programme for thirteen to seventeen year olds with provisions made for a corresponding system for g i r l s . Each stage was to follow the other a l l the way to the University and higher education up to now accessible only to Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 129. (cited by). 2 Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . . p. 101. (cited by), (emphasis mine). •'Ist. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 435. 118 the priviledged few was to be enjoyed by a l l . In clause thirteen of the 1862 project the aim of the elementary schools was defined as follows: The aim of the elementary schools is to provide the nation with a moral and intellectual education to such a point that each person should be able to understand his rights and perform his duties rationally, as a human being. 1 The claims of the amended 1862 project, i.e. the 1864 Statutes were more sober: The main aim of the elementary public schools is to confirm among the people religious and moral ideas and disseminate the essentials of useful knowledge. The Statutes of 1864 united a l l elementary public schools 3 of the different departments, with the exception of those of the Holy Synod, under the Ministry of Public Education and provided them with the same programmes and common administra-4 tive organs. According to the Statutes of the Elementary Schools of July 14, 1864 a l l elementary schools were open to children of a l l classes irrespective of their religion. The schools could either be separate or coeducational. They were not compulsory Konstantinov, op. c i t . , p. 129. (cited by). Clause 2 of 1864 Statutes on Elementary Schools, (1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 451). 3 ^Those of the Ministries of Finance, of State Lands, of War, of Naval Affairs, Zemstvos and a l l private elementary schools, as well as Sunday Schools. (Ibid., p. 451). 4 For further details see 1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 449-456. Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 131-138. 119 and theoretically not free, for fees were to he charged. 1 In the elementary schools religion, Russian reading, Church Slavonic, writing, the four rules of arithmetic, singing 2 and sometimes a trade were taught. The schools could be established by the Government, the local authorities (Zemstvos) or private individuals, but had to conform to the programmes and aims of the Ministry of Public Education. In fact, the Ministry controlled the use of text-books and the teachers were hired through the Special District -a and Provincial School Councils. J The Zemstvos played a very important part in attracting and employing women teachers in elementary schools--a practice which was never done before in Russia, but through which teaching at this level came to be a predominantly female occu-pation in the last few decades of the Empire and especially in the post-Revolutionary period. Although Alexander II's legislation was considerably altered in practice, for neither the democratic ladder system was established nor the class policy of Nicolas I was completely abolished, nevertheless, i t must be admitted that the 1 8 5 6 - I 8 8 I period of his reign was one of the greatest 1 I s t . Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 4 5 1 . (According to N. Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 1 0 5 , in practice the elementary schools were free of charge almost everywhere). 2 I b i d . 3"Nachalnoe obrazovanie," op. c i t . , p. 7 6 0 . Ibid., see also Kaidanova, op. c i t . , p. 1 10 . 120 periods of Russian education with great progress made in the fields of elementary education and the education of g i r l s . 1 . . . the most valuable contributions of the educational movement (of 1860-1890) were its idealism and i t s deep faith in man and his essential goodness. As i t was also a period in which theoretical propositions were given definite form, i t f u l l y deserves to be known as the clas-s i c a l period in the development of education in Russia. . . . The movement . . . should be recognized as the period in the history of Russian education in which were developed the ideas which inspired a l l later movements, not only down to the time of the Revolution, but also under the Soviet Union. Changes under Alexander III (1881-189*0  and Nicolas II (1894-1917) In 1880 the f i r s t s t a t i s t i c a l survey of the elementary public schools of a l l departments was carried out in the sixty di s t r i c t s of European Russia by the Ministry of Public Education. The results showed that in the year 1880 the total number of elementary schools (excluding Jewish and Muslim schools) was 22,770 with a total of 1,140,915 students attend-ing. Of these 235,997 were g i r l s and 904,918 boys. The total number of teachers employed in these schools was 36,955» of which 19,511 were men, 4,478 were women and 12,566 were cler-gymen. Furthermore 77'perrcent of the schools were coeducational, 21 per cent were boys' schools with 4,728 students, and 2 per -""See Chapter VII, Part II. 2 Kaidanova, loc. c i t . , cited by Johnson, op. c i t . , p. 171. 121 cent were g i r l s ' schools with 6 l l students. 1 The number of schools established before l 8 6 l was 4,622 (22 per cent) as compared to those established between 1861-1863 which was 1,984 (9.4 per cent): between I863-I88O i t was 14,466 p ( 6 8 . 6 per cent)—a considerable increase. In the same period (I863-I88O) from the total number of school-age children (seven to fourteen) there were 13.8 per cent boys and 3«3 per cent g i r l s in the public schools. J Although the public elementary schools were open to a l l g i r l s without restriction and were free, only a very small fraction of g i r l s attended (3«3 per cent). The only plausible explanation for such limited attendance is the unwillingness of the parents to sent g i r l s to school, for g i r l s could be well used at home for housework and the parents saw no need for them to learn anything else but the s k i l l s needed to run a home. Such an attitude towards the education of g i r l s was not primarily Russian but was characteristic among the common folk elsewhere in Europe as well. Stagnation Under Alexander III The Laws of June 13, 1884 and May 1, 1891 provided for the establishment of church-parish schools and schools of literacy, both to be under the direction of the Holy Synod and independent of the Ministry of Public Education. These "Nachalnoe obrazovanie," op. c i t . , pp. 761 and 7 6 5 . 2Ibid., p. 7 6 1 . 3 I b i d . 122 schools were to receive support from private bodies, local authorities and / or the Treasury. The creation of these schools eventually led to the existence of two competing systems of elementary schools—those of the local authorities (Zemstvos), and those of the Holy Synod. This did not always have positive effects upon the natural growth in the number of schools of the Zemstvos. Never-theless, the rate of growth of the total number of schools increased from the year 1884, and by 1897 the rates of increase, from l86l more than quadrupled. (See Table 4) TABLE 4 NUMBER OF ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OPENED YEARLY BETWEEN 1861 AND 1897 Years Number of schools opened per year 1861-1863 648 1864-1868 7 6 6 I 8 6 9 - I 8 8 3 9 5 0 to 1,000 1884-1893 1,800 to 1 , 9 0 0 1894 2,36l 1895 2,482 1896 , . 2,962 1911 3.162 While the Zemstvos opened on the average around 800 public 1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 6 5 1 - 6 5 2 . The Schools of the Holy Synod were elementary coeducational schools mainly in villages. 2 I. M. Bogdanov, Gramotnost i obrazovanie v dorevolutsion-noi Rossii i S.S.S.R. (Literacy and Education in Pre-Revolutionary Russia and U.S.S.R.), (Moscow: Statistika, 1 9 6 4 , p. 6 9 . 123 schools each year, a f t e r 1863, between 1880 and 1894 t h i s norm f e l l by almost double. The number of students on the other hand attending the Zemstvos schools increased. 1 Thus i n 1880 to one school of the Zemstvo there was an average of 52.6 stu-2 dents? i n 1894 the average was 70.6. Also rather i n t e r e s t i n g i s the growth i n the number of g i r l s attending these public elementary schools and the r e l a t i v e increase i n the number of the women teachers. Thus i n 1880 there were 235»997 g i r l s attending the public elementary schools of a l l the departments as compared to 904,918 boys. In 1891 the number of g i r l s had almost doubled to 439,537 (an increase of approximately 86 per cent), whereas the number of boys had increased to 1,376,322 (an increase of approximately 52 per cent). Where teachers were concerned, i n 1880 there were 19,511 lay male teachers as compared to 4,878 women teachers. By 1891 the number of lay male teachers increased to 23,892 and the number of women teachers increased to 13,117* i . e . almost t r i p l e d . 3 (See Table 5) ,** Although the assassination of Alexander II i n 1881 marked i n many ways a return to many of the p o l i c i e s of Nicolas I and the ' t r i n i t y ' of Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism, whereby "^"Nachalnoe obrazovanie," op. c i t . . pp. 766-767. 2 I b i d . 3 T h i s was not related to the increase i n ' a l l - g i r l s ' schools because more than 77 per cent of the schools were coeducational. Ibid. TABLE 5 RESULTS OF STATISTICAL SURVEY CARRIED ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS OF ALL DEPARTMENTS IN THE 60 DISTRICTS OF EUROPEAN RUSSIA Total Number Total Total Year of Elemen- Number of Boys Girls Number of Men Women Clergy tary Schools Students Teachers 1880 22,770 1,140,915 904,918 235.997 36.955 19,511 4,878 12,566 1891 27.101 1.815,859 1.376.323 V39.537 56,829 23,892 13.117 19,920 125 educational matters were transferred to the Department of the Holy Synod and into the hands of i t s chief Procurator, K. Pobedonostsev, elementary education did not suffer too serious a setback. 1 WMile there were only 1,102 new schools established under the Ministry of Public Education between 1881-1894, the schools under the Holy Synod increased considerably more (by 27,431) in number during that period than any other period. (See Table 6 ) . 2 TABLE 6 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (WITHOUT POLAND AND FINLAND) Year Under the Ministry of Public Education Under the Holy Synod Total Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students 1881 1891 1894 22,781 1,207.435 23.836 1,636,064 23.883 1.576,062 4,404 104,781 21,840 626,100 31.835 981,676 27,185 1,312,216 45,676 2,262,164 55.718 2,557.138 The figures representing the schools of the Ministry of Public Education in Table 6 include a l l the schools of the Ministry of State Lands, as well as Protestant and Catholic Schools. In addition to the numbers cited i n Table 6, there s t i l l were the schools which belonged to some other Ministries. XThe effects of Alexander I l l ' s (1881-1894) policies on secondary and higher education was much more serious. See text, Chapter VI. 2 Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 233. 126 (The Ministries of Finance, State Lands, Commerce, War). In 1892 there were 2,891 such schools with 157,872 stu-dents and in 1894 l , 44 l with 7k.355 students. 1 Further details on the number of different kinds of elementary schools and the number of g i r l s studying in the schools by 1893 are given in Table 7. "The period 1894-1904 may be regarded the second great period of progress in education, the f i r s t being, 1860-1880," for during this decade 15.260 new elementary schools were founded by the Ministry of Public Education only and by the end of the decade the number of students had nearly doubled. By 1915 these numbers had doubled once more. (See Table 8) . 3 Thus between 1855 when the total number of elementary schools was 9.064 with a total of 325,032 students and 1915 with 116,236 schools and 8,039.987 students, the average number of schools built per year was 1,786.2! Furthermore the total number of schools in the U.S.S.R. in 1927-28 was 118,600 (number x4 was given in thousands) — a n increase of approximately 2,364 schools within a period of twelve years. Even though i t must 1 I b i d . Most of the schools of the other departments were being gradually transferred to the Ministry of Public Education. 2Ibid., p. 192. 3Ibid., p. 233. For further st a t i s t i c s on schools in other departments and breakdowns according to provinces, di s t r i c t s and sexes see Appendix XII. Figures for 1915 are not o f f i c i a l and include Poland. ^Tsentral'noe Statisticheskoe Upravlenie p r i Sovete Ministrov S.S.S.R., Narodnoe kho zyaistvo S.S.S.R.jS tatis t iches-k i i sbornik (Moskva: Gos. Stat. Izd., 1956), p. 223. §ee Appendix XIX for complete table. 127 TABLE 7 Districts ELEMENTARY PUBLIC EDUCATION IN RUSSIA (DATA COLLECTED BY JANUARY .1, 1893) Elementary Schools in the Department of Ministry of Public Education Non Orthodox Schools Schools of Literacy under the Direc-tion of Orthodox Clergy Other Lower Schools Church Parish Schools Number of Schools Number of Students Boys Girls Total Number of Schools Number of Students Boys Girls Total Number of Schools Number of Students Boys Girls Total Number of Schools Number of Students Boys Girls Total Number of Schools Number of Students Boys Girls Total Zemstvos Districts 16,500 951.001 264,080 1,215.081 1 1 4.55^ 144., 093 77,343 221.436 8.649 173.763 40,592 214,355' 1.447 54,482 19.058 73.5' '•• 6.919 234,154 57»??6 291.930 Non Zemstvos Districts 717 31.382 11.837 49,219 207 8,168 1*533 9.701 637 12,614 3.937 16,551 598 12,742 11,4?6 34,218 455 15.709 4,676 20,385 North Western Regions 1.507 78,787 11.958 90,745 1.917 30,935 4,383 35.318 3,619 55.774 6,723 62,497i 75 2,842 1,921 4,763 751 22,603 3,886 26,489 South Western Regions 787 46,757 10,357 57.114 I .650 24,275 6.304 30,579 1,904 59.037 7.942 I 65,9?6 154 3.739 1.188 4,92? 2,102 92,978 13,043 106,021 Baltic Region 130 7.265 4,795 12,060 2,042 49,004 43.622 92,626 284 4,113 3.116 7.229 520 18,046 14,740 32,786 181 7,21? 2,562 9,779 Source: "Nachalnoe narodnoe obrazovanie," op. c i t . , pp. 769-770, (Tables I, II). V 1 128 be admitted that between 1915 and 1921/22 schools were rather being destroyed than built because of the World War and the C i v i l War, nevertheless the increase was minimal. The increase in the total enrollment was also insignificant! from 8,039,98? in 1915 to 11,500,500 (app.) in 1927/28. TABLE 8 ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (WITHOUT POLAND AND FINLAND) Under the Ministry of Public Year Education Under the Holy Synod Total Schools Students Schools Students Schools Students 1894 23,883 1,576,062 31.835 981,076 55.718 2,557.138 1896 30,955 2,223,152 33,817 1,076,707 64,772 3.299,859 1898 31,418 2,241,209 39.3^5 1,425,036 70,763 3,666,245 1900 32,980 2,348,273 42.589 1,633.651 75.569 3.981,924 1902 3^.916 2,565,206 43.588 1.770,703 78,504 4,335.909 1904 39,143 2,920,219 43.407 1,902,578 82,550 4,822,797 1906 ^2,753 2.983,749 41.233 1.998,32? 83,986 4,982,076 1911 54,986 3,848,590 37.460 1.783.403 92,446 5,631.993 1915 80,801 5.9^2,046 (34,000) (1,900,000) 116,236 8,039.987 Source! K N . Hans, The History of Russian . . P. 233. , op. c i t . , Democratization of Education After the Revolution of 1905 The revolution of 1905 was followed by considerable changes, both, in the structure of the society and the govern-ment and the introduction of the principles of constitutional 129 government through the Duma.1 Although the government systema-t i c a l l y tried and in the beginning succeeded to frustrate constitutional measures, the rapid p o l i t i c a l and economic changes which followed the revolution of 1905 and precipitated the revolution of 191? could not be stopped. The whole period was thus characterized by a significant democratization of education and the introduction of universal elementary education. On May 3» 1908 the Third Duma passed the law on universal 2 elementary education. By 1911 about thirty per cent of the Zemstvos and a l l elementary schools in the larger ci t i e s had 3 introduced four-year courses. On June 25» 1912 the same Duma passed a law on Higher Elementary Schools with four-year pro-grammes, separate or coeducational, and maintained either by the Treasury, local authorities or private persons. The curriculum included Russian, Arithmetic, Algebra, Geometry, Geography, History, Religion, Natural Sciences and Physics, Drawing, Etching, Singing, Physical Education, Needlework (for girls) and foreign languages (optional) The creation of the Higher Elementary Schools was the f i r s t step in an attempt to introduce the ladder system, for the elementary schools now became preparatory grades for the *The Manifesto of October 17, 1905 issued by the govern-ment promised constitutional government and civic l i b e r t i e s . Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 77. 3Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 217. kIbid., p. 211. It was the Urban Schools and Girls' Pro-gymnasia that were mainly transformed into Higher Ele-mentary Schools. 130 Higher Elementary Schools and the pupils of the second year of the Higher Elementary Schools could pass to the third year of a l l secondary schools provided they passed an examination in foreign languages. Girls from the fourth year of the Higher Elementary Schools could pass into the f i f t h year of the Girls' Gymnasia after a similar examination.1 (Figure 1) . In 1915» the Duma-A introduced the B i l l on "New Statutes of Primary Schools". The B i l l for the f i r s t time in the history of Russian legislation recognized the principle of compulsory education for a l l . But the B i l l did not become an Act owing to the Revolution of 1917 and the dissolution of the Duma.2 Also in 1915 almost a l l d i s t r i c t Zemstvos (4l4 out of 426) entered into negotiations with the Ministry of Public Education concerning the introduction of universal education up to the age limit of fifteen. By then universal education had already been introduced in fifteen Zemstvo di s t r i c t s and thirty-three towns. Between 1911 and 1916 20,1?2 new school buildings were built from the grants given by the government for this purpose.3 According to Hans, "several more years of progress at the same pace would have brought Russia to universal elementary 4 education and to a democratic ladder system." 1 I b i d . 2Ibid., pp. 219-220. -'Kaidanova, op. c i t . . I, p. 77. Hans, The History of  Russian . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 213-215 has a detailed discussion on the financial grants, etc. kHans, op. c i t . . p. 221. See also Appendix XI for literacy s t a t i s t i c s . FIGURE 1 PUBLIC EDUCATION FOR GIRLS DURING THE DECADE PRECEDING THE REVOLUTION OF 1917 GYMNASIUM FOR GIRLS/ COEDUCATIONAL PRIVATE PEDAGOGICAL GYMNASIUM 7-8 YEARS CLASSES HIGHER h YEAR . COURSES ELEMENTARY » , PRO-GYMNASIUM 1 . .-1 1 FOR SCHOOLS HIGHER ELEMENTARY1 1 i WOMEN OR FAMILY SCHOOLS 1 j _ k YEARS J ,k-5 YEARS TRAINING DIOCESEAN SCHOOLS 7-8 YEARS ' PEDAGOGICAL CLASSES PEDAGOGICAL . INSTITUTES FOR YOUNG GENTLEWOMEN CLASSES ' 8 YEARS 132 Thus, when the Soviet regime took over in 1917, i t was presented with a basic network of elementary schools, and B i l l s and Projects on universal, compulsory education waiting to be r a t i f i e d . The foundations had been laid and elementary education was accessible to the daughters and sons of peasants and workers in the remotest corners of the Russian Empire. CHAPTER VI THE SECONDARY EDUCATION OF WOMEN (1856-1917) By the middle of the nineteenth century the Russian g i r l s were s t i l l educated mainly i n private boarding schools and the closed Institutes of the Department of Maria Feodorovna.1 A large number of these Schools or Institutes did not provide the gi r l s with more than the rudiments of elementary education. Most of the schools which provided secondary education were concentrated in Moscow, St. Petersburg and other University towns and the Ministry of Public Education, throughout the f i r s t f i f t y years of i t s existence seldom showed any interest in the secondary education of women. With the new era in educational philosophy and the policy of a unified and public educational system under one Ministry, the secondary education of women had to be reorganized and incorporated into the realm of the Ministry of Public Education. The guidelines set by the Ministry with regard to the secondary education of gi r l s were again, as in the case of elementary education, greatly influenced by Pirogov*s "Problems of Life", of which a section was devoted to the question of the education of g i r l s . 1See text, Part I, Chapter III. 133 134 In his essay Pirogov tried to show the importance of allowing women to learn and realize themselves through know-ledge : It is not the position of women in the society, but their training,—including that of the whole humanity— which needs reform . , . and early development of c r i t i c a l thinking and willpower are as important for a woman as for man.1 A. C. Norov in the Report of March 5» 1856 echoed Pirogov's claims: The vast system of education in Russia has had up to the present only one half of the population in view—i.e. the males. It would be of the greatest benefit to our country to establish schools for women in provincial and d i s t r i c t towns and even i n larger v i l l a g e s . 2 The opening of such day schools for a l l classes of g i r l s , according to Norov*s Report: . . . would be a great act for the fatherland—and would satisfy the needs of the nation.3 On the same day Alexander II in his Resolution of March 5» 1856 proclaimed that schools for g i r l s organized like the boys' gymnasia in the provincial towns should be estab-lished. These schools were to be open to a l l g i r l s regardless of class or religion. Both, the nobles and cit y societies (Gorodskie obschestva) were asked to cooperate in financing 1Pirogov, op. c i t . , p. 83. 2 Birnshtok, op. c i t . , p. 51. (cited by). -'Hans, The Russian Tradition . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 62-63. (cited by). 135 the schools. 1 These schools were to be under the direct control of the^Ministry of Public Education and their programmes d i f -fered considerably from the Schools in the Department of Maria Feodorovna. The Schools of the Ministry of Public Education The Decree of May 30, 1858 By the Decree of May 30. 1858 new rules for g i r l s ' schools were established! The g i r l s ' schools were to remain quasi private, financed by donations and contributions from the different local social classes, societies and individuals, and by their organization and direction they were to unite a l l the social classes in their contribution to the support and development of these institutions. 2 The Ministry of Public Education was to take the i n i -tiative and direction in founding these schools and thus insure that these schools for women would enjoy the same privileges as any other governmental schools. The schools were to be day schools divided into Schools of the First Order in the likeness of the boys' gymna-sia, and Schools of the Second Order corresponding to the •"•Ministry of Public Education, "The Presentation by the Ministry of Public Education of the 'Project of the Regulations concerning gymnasia and progymnasia for Women' to the State Council," Sbornik deistvuiushchikh postanovlenii i rasporia-zhenii po zhenskim gymnasiam i progymnasiam, (Collection of Resolutions and Decrees i n Force Concerning Gymnasia and Pro-gymnasia for Women), (St. Petersburg! 1884), Part IV, p. 10. (cited by). See Appendix XIII for weekly distribution of subjects and hours. Ibid., p. 11. 136 d i s t r i c t schools. 1 The Schools of the F i r s t Order had a six year programme with religion, Russian language, arithmetic, geometry, physics, geography, natural history, history of Russia, calligraphy, drawing, and handiwork as required subjects? modern languages (French or German), music and singing as electives. The Schools of the Second Order had a three year pro-gramme with religion, Russian grammar, shortened Russian history and geography, beginners arithmetic, calligraphy and 2 handiwork as required subjects. No electives were offered. The educational goals for both groups of schools were the same: . . . to provide religious, moral and intellectual edu-cation which every woman, and especially the future mothers of the family should have.3 To encourage the establishment of such schools the Ministry of Education promised grants to a l l private i n d i v i -duals or groups who would follow the 1858 rules and establish k schools of the First Order and the Second Order for g i r l s . •""Ibid. In 1870 these two orders were reclassified by the Ustav of May 2k, 1870 into gymnasia (six-year programme) and Day Girls' Schools with six-year programmes founded under the Empress Mother were referred to as gymnasia. The d i s t r i c t schools were 'higher' elementary schools of three-year pro-grammes . 2 "K voprosu vytstshogo zhenskogo obrazovamu v Rossii," (To "The Question of Higher Education of Women in Russia"), Jurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Erosveshchenia, August 1912, Part III, p. 153. 3 I s t . Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 373. (cited by). Ibid. 137 In the same year Mariinski Zhenskie Uchrezhdenia, (Marian Schools)^—Girls' Day Schools were established. These schools were under the direct control of the Fourth Section of the Chancellery. They had more funds at their disposal and were said to have fared much better at the beginning than the schools of the Ministry of Education which too often had to depend on the charity of different societies or individuals. 1 Notwithstanding the many d i f f i c u l t i e s in their i n i t i a l founding stages, g i r l s ' gymnasia and progymnasia were estab-lished in large numbers and the general enthusiasm is well exemplified in the following report of the Ministry of Education for the year 1858 referring to the growth of the number of g i r l s ' gymnasia and progymnasia* If the present situation continues, education in Russia w i l l be greatly strengthened, for, no one and nothing can have such beneficial influence on the primary education of the youngsters as an educated mother.2 By the Decree of July 17t 1859 a l l g i r l s ' schools of the f i r s t and second order, whether established by private or public funds, with grants from the Ministry of Education, or established by the Fourth Section of His Majesty's Own Chancel-lery were to be transferred into the department of the Ministry of Education and remain under i t s direct supervision. 3 The Decree did not affect the autonomy of the Private Institutes, although they were encouraged to adjust their programmes to the 1 I b i d . 2 Ibid. For s t a t i s t i c a l data see Appendix XII. 3Ibid., p. 374. 138 g i r l s ' gymnasia of the Ministry of Education. This they did and by 18?0 they were referred to no more as Private Institutes but as Private Gymnasia for G i r l s . 1 The New Regulations of i860 In the following year several changes were made in the internal organization of the administration of the schools and on May 10, i860 the New Regulations Concerning the Schools of F i r s t and Second Order of the Ministry of Education were con-2 firmed by the Tsar. In the f i r s t section of the Regulations the 'General Foundations' of the schools were statedt (1) The schools for g i r l s are under the general direction of the trustees of the educational d i s t r i c t s and can be established with their permission, only in those towns where means to finance these schools can be provided by societies' of individuals* contributions. (2) The established schools are exclusively open schools, i.e. for day students only. (3) According to the subject matter taught in the schools, they are divided into schools of the F i r s t Order and schools of the Second Order. (4) The schools of either order, although differing in the scope of studies offered, have the same goal—to pro-vide the students with a religious-moral and intellectual education, which should be required of every woman, and especially of those who w i l l become wives and mothers.3 Although the Regulations of May 10, i860 were confirmed by the Tsar for an experimental period of three years, the "Gymnasia zhenskie," Bntsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg! 1893). Vol. VIII, p. 706. 2 1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 37 k« -^"Regulations Concerning the Schools of F i r s t and Second order of the Ministry of Education, "Sbornik . . . Posta-novlenii . . ., op. c i t . , Part IV, p. 1. 139 term was extended in 1863 for two more years, and in 1865 yet for another year u p t i l l May 10, 1866. A further extension carried the proposal to 1870. 1 Throughout the ten years that the Proposal of May 10, i860 was in operation, several changes were made mainly in the admi-nistrative organization and the financing of the schools. There was constantly a lack of funds due to an absence of public i n i t i a t i v e in raising money. The public and private funds alone could not bear the financial responsibilities. Funds from the Treasury were needed and not always available. Problems also arose in the administrative and educational councils and committees of the gymnasia regarding memberships and chairmanships. There were also problems concerning the teachers who came for the most part from the male gymnasia and taught almost for no salary. As far as the programmes were concerned, they were not well worked out and no equivalence with the male gymnasia programmes could be established. Nevertheless, the ten years of t r i a l between i860 and 1870 clearly indicated that the gymnasia of the f i r s t and second order were becoming well established i n the educational system of the Ministry of Public Education. Thus in 1853 the total of a l l secondary schools was less than 100. In 1859 there were only in the department of the Ministry of Education 99 Secondary Schools (27 of the First Order and 72 of the Second *Ist. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . , p. 456. 2Ibid., pp. 456-457. 140 Order). 1 By 1864 there were 29 gi r l s * schools of the First Order and 91 of the Second Order in the department of the Ministry with a total enrollment of 9,000 g i r l s . 2 By 1869, 32 more schools of both orders were founded by the Ministry, and by 18?0 there was a total of 246 'classical gymnasia'.for g i r l s 3 as compared to 198 boys' 'classical gymnasia . The Regulations of 1870 On May 24, 1870, Regulations Concerning Gymnasia and Progymnasia for Women of the Ministry of Public Education were 4 confirmed by the Tsar. Clause I of the Regulations stated that the Gymnasia and Progymnasia of the Ministry of Public Education have the great furtune to be under the Royal patronage of Her Imperial Highness the Tsarina. 5 Clause II stated thatt The Gymnasia and Progymnasia for women are schools opened to serve students of a l l classes and creeds. 6 ^•"Regulations . . . ."com, c i t . . p. 11. 2Hans, The History of Russian . . .» op. c i t . . p. 63. 3Johnson, op. c i t . , p. 146. (The number given here for the g i r l s ' gymnasia refers probably to gymnasia and progymnasia in the departments of the Ministry, Maria Feodorovna, and those of the foreign churchesJ as well as the private institutes, for, the figures given for the same year with the above specification in "Gymnasia zhenskie," Ents. Slovar. Vol. VIII, p, 706, is 247. These 'Regulations* with some amendments remained i n force t i l l 1916. The term gymnasia now referred to the schools of the Fi r s t Order and progymnasia to the schools of the Second Order. 5"Regulations . . .," op. c i t . , Part I, p. 3 . 6 I b i d. , p. 4. 141 There were no fundamental differences between the Regu-lations of i860 and 1870. Most changes made were of a financial and administrative nature. In the structure of the schools and their programmes a few changes were made (Clauses IV and V), 1 whereby attempts were made to raise the standards of the g i r l s ' gymnasia to those of the boys' by adding a seventh year. A few years later by the Resolution of August 13. 1874, classical 2 languages as electives were introduced into the programmes. Although no such changes as the above were made in the progymnasia, the programmes, i n both the gymnasia and progym-nasia received a more practical bias 3 and were now directed more specifically to the preparation of the g i r l s for a teaching career. For this purpose an eighth class was added to the regular gymnasium course by a Resolution of 1874. This eighth class was referred to as the Pedagogical Class (Pedagogicheskii  Klas).^ Girls who graduated from the seventh class of the gymnasia with a prize (medal or book) received the certificate of home tutor (Domashnaia Nastavnitsa) and were allowed, without entrance examinations, to enter the eighth year. On the com-pletion of this class they received the certificate of teacher 1Ibid., pp. 6-8. 2 I b i d . . p. 6, Clause IV: Part I, pp. 177-178. 3 -'For example arithmetic as applied to book-keeping methods; natural sciences and physics as related to home econo-mics, (cited by Tissot, op. c i t . , pp. 62-63). 4 1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . . p. 570. ^"Regulations . . .," op. c i t . . p. 6, Clause IV. 142 (Uchitelnitsa). The programme of this class comprised required subjects such as religion, methodology of Russian language, arithmetic and practice teaching? and electives such as history or mathematics, literature or modern languages.1 Such one year courses were available in almost a l l the g i r l s * gymnasia of the Ministry of Education, the gymnasia and Institutes of the Department of Maria Feodorovna, and a l l the 2 Diocesan Schools which prepared g i r l s to teach in the lower classes of the mixed public schools of the villages. In some of the private Institutes the courses were of a two year duration. 3 Changes after Alexander II By 1893 the programmes of the g i r l s ' gymnasia were very much like those of the boys' gymnasia and standards had been considerably raised. By 1895* in the department of the Ministry of Education there was a total of 337 Girls' Secondary Schools in Russia with 71.781 students.-* The number of schools grew steadily and by 1914 the Ministry had 978 secondary schools 1"Gymnasia zhenskie,** op. c i t . , p. 705. 2 Diocesan Schools are discussed on pp. 145-146. -"•Pedagogicheskie kursy," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1898), Vol. XXIII, p. 83. 4 For comparison of programmes of Boys' and Girls' Gymnasia see Appendix XIII. -*For detailed s t a t i s t i c a l breakdown see Appendix XII. "Rossia," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Petersburg: 1899), Vol. XXVII, p. 397. 143 (gymnasia and progymnasia) with a total of 323*577 students. On July 3f 1916 the Duma passed a law on Girls* Gymnasia. The law introduced changes not only in the programmes of the schools but also in their general structure. The f u l l course of the Boys* Gymnasia or Real Schools could be introduced into the Girls* Gymnasia which then were eligible for a l l the p r i -vileges and rights the boys' schools granted upon graduation with the exception of state ranks (Chin). The fact that Girls' Gymnasia could be established with only the upper three classes with added higher pedagogical or special courses fa c i l i t a t e d 2 the founding of such schools. The Law of 1916 on Girls* Gymnasia did not only concern the gymnasia of the Ministry but a l l the gymnasia i n the depart-ments of other ministries and the Holy Synod as well as the private gymnasia, a l l of which by the Regulations of 1870 were under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Public Education. Secondary Schools in other Departments The Department of Maria Feodorovna The f i r s t g i r l s ' day school in Russia, open to a l l classes and offering a general, secondary education programme was 1Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . . p. 235. 2 "Vseobshchee obuchenie i zemskia finantzy," Jurnal  Ministerstva Narodnogo Erosyeshchenia, Sept. 1913, Part III, pp. 45-93. See Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , pp. 208-210, for further discussion of the 1916 Law on Girls'  Gymnasia. It must also be mentioned that the Higher Elementary Schools (Law of June 25. 1912) now played the role of the pro-gymnasia and the g i r l s of the fourth year could pass into the f i f t h year of the Girls* Gymnasium after taking an examination in foreign languages. 144 actually founded by N. A. Vyshnegradsky1 in 1858 under the Department of Maria Feodorovna. The f i r s t school, the Marian Gymnasium, was established in St. Petersburg and in 1862 the general Statutes of this school became the basic Statutes of a l l the Marian Gymnasia founded under the Department of Maria Feodorovna in St. Petersburg and other larger towns. A l l of these schools were financed by and under the direct control 2 of the Department of Maria Feodorovna. Besides the gymnasia in the Department of Maria Feodorovna, the different Institutes also offered programmes at the secondary level, but were open only to the privileged classes. 3 By the end of the l8? 0's most Institutes and gymnasia i n the Department of Maria Feodorovna had adjusted their programmes to those of the g i r l s ' gymnasia i n the Ministry of Education. In 1894 in the Department of Maria Feodorovna there were 30 Girls' Gymnasia with 9.9^5 students and 31 Institutes with 1N. A. Vyshnegradsky was known for his work in the educa% tion of Russian women and his pedagogical articles on the necessity of establishing secondary education for women of a l l classes i n the Russian Pedagogical Journal in I 8 5 7 . (^Vyshne-gradsky," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (StT Petersburg! 1 8 9 2 ) , Vol. VII, p. 601]. < 2 Ibid. V. Gregoriev, Istoricheski ocherk russkoi shkoly 5 (Historical Sketch of the Russian School), (Moscow: 1900}, pp. 542-567. 3 •The Institutes had not basically changed in form or structure. See text, Chapter I. 4 Ibid., (Gregoriev gives a f u l l l i s t of names of these Institutes and Gymnasia, pp. 5 ^ 3 - 5 ^ ) . "Gymnasia," op. c i t . , p. 705. 145 8,000 students. 1 In 1912 there were 35 Gymnasia with 17.166 p students and 34 Institutes with 9.562 students. The Schools for the Daughters of the Clergy (Zhenskia Eparkhialnye Uchilishcha or Girls* Diocesan Schools) In 1843 the f i r s t school for the Daughters of the Clergy was founded in Tsarskoe Selo and by an Imperial Ukaz the Holy Synod was ordered to establish schools i n which the daughters of the clergy were educated so as to becomei . . . deserving wives of the servants of God's Altar and trustworthy mothers who would educate their children according to the rules of p&6ty and order.-3 In the beginning the schools were of six years duration and considerable stress was put on embroidery and home economics. In 1868, the schools received new statutes and were brought into 4 line with the lay Girls* Gymnasia. Most of the schools had experimental elementary schools attached to them for practice-teaching training.-' d In 1895 there were 51 Diocesan Schools with 13.186 stu-dents of which l l , l 4 l were the daughters of clergy. Most of the students were boarders (10,492).^ In 1913-1914 there were 1"Rossia," op. c i t . , p. 397. 2 Johnson, op. c i t . , p. 196. (Hans gives the same numbers for years 1913-1914 in The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 237). ^Gregoriev, op. c i t . , p. 363. Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 124. ^"Rossia," op. c i t . . p. 397. 6 I b i d . (for further st a t i s t i c s see Appendix XII). 146 73 schools with 23,24l students. 1 Schools of other Ministries Throughout the nineteenth century different Ministries namely the Ministry of War, the Ministry of Naval Affairs, the Ministry of Agriculture and State Lands, and the Ministry of Finance established schools, at f i r s t at the elementary level to educate their c i v i l servants and recruits, and after the middle of the nineteenth century schools of secondary and higher education. Most of these schools were better financed and staffed than the schools of the Ministry of Public Education and enjoyed excellent reputations. The schools of the Ministries of War and Naval Affairs at the secondary level as might be expected were boys' schools, whereas those of the Ministries of State Lands, and Finance were often either coeducational or separate for boys and g i r l s . The schools of the Ministry of State Lands were founded with the aim "to impart practical and technical education, necessary for the efficient administration of agriculture 2 establishments." The f i r s t Agricultural School for women was founded in 1888 and was probably more at the elementary than secondary level. By January 1898 there were three such schools with a total of 173 g i r l s studying and in 1902 there were eight 1Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . , p. 237. 2 Decree of May 30, 1878, "Shkoly selskokhozaistvennya," (Agricultural Schools), Ents. Slovar, (St. Petersburg* 1904), Vol. 78, pp. 630-631. 147 schools. 1 The schools had two-year programmes and offered courses in specialized fields of home and farm economics. The schools of the Ministry of Finance received their Statutes on April 15# 1896. The Statutes provided for four kinds of commercial establishments, namely« Commercial Schools proper, Trade Schools, Trade Classes and Commercial Courses, a l l under the Ministry of Finance. The schools or courses could be established by any private individuals or groups, local 2 authorities or merchant guilds, as well as the State. The Commercial Schools were either seven-year courses (like gymnasia) with a broad general education programme along with special commercial courses, or three-year programmes with specialization in commerce only. The Trade Schools offered two to three year courses and prepared students for positions of lower functionaries in business. The Trade Classes and Commercial Courses were open to a l l students of any educatio-3 nal background or age.^ According to Hans, although the aim of the Commercial Schools at f i r s t was to educate intelligent business men, in practice these schools became places of general education and 4 provided many boys and g i r l s with a general education. In June 1901 a resolution was adopted by the Congress of 1 I b i d . (In 1902 there was a total of 200 boys* schools with 8,000 students). 2"Rossia," op. c i t . , pp. 39^-395. 3 I b i d . Hans, The History of Russian . . ., op. c i t . . p. 183. 148 Directors of Commercial Schools in which the aim of the schools was to . . . impart a complete general education, sufficient for practical purposes in industry and trade, as well as for the continuation of education in the Higher Institutions. 1 In the model curriculum of the seven-year commercial schools of a total of 208 hours 181 hours were devoted to general education subjects and 27 only to special subjects 2 relevant to commerce. In 1904 there were fourteen g i r l s ' Commercial Schools, six Trade Schools, one Trade Class and eight Commercial Courses. According to Hans the Commercial Schools, being more li b e r a l i n s p i r i t than the schools of the Ministry of Public Education, attracted a large number of students as well as many experienced teachers and in their methods and s p i r i t 4 influenced the other secondary schools. The best example of this 'liberal s p i r i t ' was perhaps the Commercial School in Moscow. It offered a course of 'general education preparing students for l i f e and graduates for i n s t i -tutions of higher learning'.^ 1Ibid., p. 183. (cited by). 2Ibid., p. 184, for detailed programme see appendix XIII. •^Further stat i s t i c s are available in Appendix XII. ^Ibid., p. 185. In 1904 the total number of students in a l l commercial institutions was equal to 32,316 students of both sexes. In 1905 there were 51*632 students. ^Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 258. 149 The school was well built and equipped with laboratory f a c i l i t i e s , natural science collections and a library as well as a physical-education h a l l . Next to the boys' building the g i r l s ' building was built and provisions in the structure were made for an eventual joint coeducational institution. Both schools had identical programmes and shared many of the teachers. Having visited the school Kaidanova claimed that this was a school* . . . actualizing the most progressive pedagogical ideas of the world, a school founded by the private means of Russian pedagogues with the support of the Russian society. 2 The Private Gymnasia Most private Institutes or private boarding schools were transformed into private gymnasia during the last two decades of the nineteenth century. 3 They a l l had the same programmes as the gymnasia of the ministry and were a l l responsible through the local educational d i s t r i c t to the Ministry of Public Edu-cation. Some of these gymnasia had been founded by private individuals, others by societies or non-orthodox church parishes (Lutheran, Catholic or Baptist). They were few in number and catered to about 100-200 students each. Around 1890 there were 1Ibid., pp. 258-260. 2Ibid., pp. 259-260. 3 -'There was a number of private schools or institutes which did not adjust their programme and were not recognized by the Ministry as gymnasia. 150 seven such gymnasia in St. Petersburg, five in Kharkov, four in Moscow and one i n each ©rl, Voronets, Odessa, Kiev, T i f l i s , Omsk and Irkutsk. 1 Towards the end of the nineteenth century a new kind of private gymnasium or secondary school appeared, mainly as a result of dissatisfaction with the gymnasia of the Ministry. These schools were founded with the help of parents' committees and often by well known pedagogues who wanted to introduce 'new' progressive methods of teaching into the schools. In many ways these schools and their success influenced the state gymnasia. They experimented . . . with coeducation, introduction of physical education, manual work, student self-government, experimental methods, excursions, and school celebrations as elements of general education and the founding of relationships between the family and school. 2 Most of these schools started independently of each other, each experimenting in i t s own f i e l d , but each contributed to the eventual establishment of the 'new' secondary school in the f i r s t decade of the twentieth century when in 1906 a l l private schools united and established the Union of Secondary Schools. 3 The Gymnasium of M. N. Stoyunina Among the most important and influential of these schools was the Gymnasium for Girls of M. N. Stoyunina in St. Petersburg opened in 1881 by the wife of V. Ia. Stoyunin who along with P. P. Lesgaft took an active part in organizing 1mGymnasia," op. c i t . , p. 706. 2 3 Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 219. ^Ibid. 151 the gymnasium and applying their own pedagogical principles. Stoyunin was greatly in favour of the education of women. He believed that women were as capable as men and could, as well as should, become important and educated members of the society. With the help of this school Stoyunin planned to raise the standards of women's education in Russia. 1 The School was founded upon two basic ideals« The school and family must be in close organic contact . . . the school must be a l i v i n g organism, developing in connection with the development of social l i f e and science. 2 The underlying principles of the school were to be the following! (1) Correspondence between physical and mental develop-ment so that mental development would not s t i f l e physical development. (2) Safeguarding the individuality of each student. (3) Development of interior self-disciplines by subordi-nating the s e l f to the society's interest not out of fear of punishment, but out of the understanding of the neces-si t y of such subordination for the sake of justice and common good. (4) Where the question of intellectual development was concerned, preference should be given to mental develop-ment over formal knowledge, hence the negative attitude to the use of textbooks, factual learning.3 The above principles led to the following in practice! - No grading system to evaluate students' work. - No rewards or punishment. - No examinations—just practice revisions. - Games as means of physical development and roads to moral education. - Installation of perfect ventilation in the building to safeguard the health of the students. - Periodical physical examination of the students by women-doctors. - Constant contact and closer ties with the family. - Organization of walks—excursions and the organization Ibid., p. 224. 2Ibid., p. 225. 3 3 I b i d . 152 of clubs of self-education, literary- musical evenings, meetings with writers, spring f e s t i v a l s . 1 Stoyunina*s Gymnasium grew larger and flourished u n t i l 1917 when i t was changed by the Soviet regime to Soviet School 2 Number 51» and accommodated by the 1930's 2,000 children. It is also of some interest to mention here that N. K. Krupskaya who became the o f f i c i a l theoretician of Soviet peda-gogical principles was a graduate of Stoyunina's Gymnasium of which, in her autobiography, she speaks as the school which taught her to work with the community and deal with i t s prob-lems . 3 Besides Stoyunina's Gymnasium, there were coeducational gymnasia such as that of A. V. Zhekulina opened in 1902 i n Kiev and the gymnasium of E. A. Kirpichnikova, founded in 1906 in Moscow.-* A l l of these 'progressive gymnasia' adhered to the same basic principles as that of Stoyunina. In E. A. Kirpichnikova*s gymnasium additional stress was put on physical education and self-government where " a l l 1 I b i d . 2Ibid., p. 229. 3Ibid., p. 227. (cited by). Ibid., pp. 249-250. (Zhekulina organized Higher Courses for Women i n Kiev in 1905). ^Ibid., pp. 256-258. Kaidanova cites a number of other 'progressive' gymnasia most founded by women, but does not specify whether they were boys' or g i r l s ' gymnasia* The gymna-si a of Vargina, Repman and Sfeetnitskaya in Moscow, the Commer-c i a l Gymnasia in Moscow and St. Petersburg and the Tenishevski School in St. Petersburg. (Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 219). 153 suggestions (within reason) were tried out". 1 Furthermore, in 1917 during the two months of summer holidays the school orga-nized a 'school republic* at one of the estates offered for this purpose. The students worked out a scheme of 'Life and Labour*'. The experiment is said to have been successful and the game continued throughout the two months. The Educational Philosophy of the Private Progressive Gymnasia Although the above mentioned private schools were rela-tively few in number, according to Kaidanova, they played an important part in the gradual democratization of the secondary school and had a great influence on town councils and the zemstvos, which soon followed the examples of these private schools and founded themselves schools based upon the same underlying principles. 3 The basic educational philosophy of the private 'progres-sive* gymnasia may be summarized in the following points: - The school must be alive, and not a dead and frozen in i t s form establishment, i t must go out of i t s way to answer children's questions and i t s whole structure must answer the needs of the children. 1Ibid., p. 257. 2 I b i d . 3Ibid., pp. 260-262. These were the Public Secondary Schools f i r s t founded in Moscow in 1907 by the Society of Public Universities upon the i n i t i a t i v e of yet another woman, M. N. Astanova. The schools were evening schools for student of over sixteen years of age who did not have the opportunity to attend regular secondary schools. They offered general education courses at the secondary level and served as a bridge between Sunday or elementary schools and the Public Universities. They were two to three year courses and 25-30$ of the students attending were women. The slogan of the Public Schools was "Knowledge is Power". I5 k - The school must attract children; there must be no place for coercion* this does not mean that the school should not teach the habits and s k i l l to respect a certain order and carry out certain school rules and regulation. - The school must not only be a preparation for l i f e , but also a way of l i f e for the children as the future elements of the society. - The school must develop and excite the mind, i t must develop strength and adroitness, esthetic as well as moral feelings and also the habits of social l i f e . Learn-ing at school must not be mainly 'bookish', provision must be made for a l l kinds of different forms of activity and exercise; there must be opportunity for creative work. - The school must take into consideration the individu-a l i t y of each child and allow each to express this indi-viduality. - The school must be as close to l i f e , nature and family as possible. Between the parents, the children and the school a close union must be established in order to allow each to partake in the normal development of the school and the child. - The school must not develop i n the children a passive obedience to adults, but active, independent and conscious relationship to their studies and duties. 1 The educational philosophies of the mid-nineteenth century Russian educators were thus put into practice and transmitted to future generations through these private schools. Furthermore, the impact these ideals had on the educational philosophies of the f i r s t decade of the Soviet school reform can hardly be denied when a comparison is made between the two sets of ideals and principles—those of the "progressive gymna-sia" and the 1920's educational practices. Thus another tra-dition of Russian education yet was to survive the Revolution of 1917. The Gymnasia and the drive for Higher Education The merits of the educational reforms embarked on by the Ministry of Education in the l860's and carried on through the 1Ibid., pp. 219-220. (cited by). 155 last part of the nineteenth century, culminated by the middle of the second decade of the twentieth century in the establish* ment of a network of secondary schools not only founded and directed by the Ministry of Public Education, but also by other Ministries, the Holy Synod, societies and individuals. Although the Ministry of Public Education, i t s e l f , often wavered in the execution of i t s more progressive and democratic reforms many of which remained on paper, i t could not, or at times would not, stop others i n carrying on with the i n i t i a l educational philosophies launched by the Projected Reforms of 1862. The general s p i r i t of democratization and liberalization which followed the reforms of the sixties must have had an important influence on the women of that period. Having been exposed to this s p i r i t and the general climate through their reformed educational system, i t was not unlikely that also women f e l t the need to do something, to help in the rebuilding of Russia. This they could do, as they understood, only through higher education, but as a large sector of the public and the government understood only by being good mothers. In such an atmosphere the new generation was growing in the schools and returning to their homes, but they were coming back with different ideas. It is true that the school did not give them very much knowledge and did not even train them in logical thinking, but the students readily learned what they could from magazines, from private meetings, and from conversations.! This was a generation of women who became practically obsessed with the idea of becoming useful members of the society and developed in themselves a capacity, want and readiness for Elnett, op. c i t . , p. ?8. 156 social work by far surpassing in their s p i r i t of sacrifice and passion their male counterparts. They provided the N i h i l i s t , Populist and other revolutionary groups of the sixties and seventies with a whole contingent of active members often more radical and ruthless than the men. Hundreds of them were imprisoned or exiled to Siberia. 1 This was a generation of women who wanted to be equal to men i n work, activities and education. They rejected the f r i v o l i t i e s of social l i f e i n fashionable salons and turned away from art, music, dancing or luxury in dress which they regarded as f u t i l e and demeaning. They wanted to break with the past at a l l cost, and launched themselves into a radicalism which surpassed by far that of the young men in i t s resolution and cynism. They went to the extremes of dressing like men and 2 adapting masculine manners. Many ran away from home and went, almost penniless, to the larger c i t i e s and university towns in the quest for further education. They not only sacrificed comfort and luxury but in many cases social status, reputation, even families. 3 The sixties changed the Russian woman. She became quite democratic, much more r e a l i s t i c , prosaic, and acquired practical tact, but she lost a good deal of elegance and womanliness.1* P. Venturi, Roots of Revolution, (New Yorki Knopf, I 9 6 0 ) , pp. 220-231J 525-526; 532-53*1 586; ? 2 0 . Princess Kropotkin, op. c i t . , pp. 122-123. 3Nekrasova, op. c i t . , pp. 834-837. kElnett, op. c i t . , p. 79 . 157 The secondary schools for g i r l s by the proposals of 1858 and 1870 were devised to provide religious, moral and i n t e l -lectual education to future mothers well adjusted to their environment and family. Instead, these schools seemed to have nurtured a generation of women totally different from their predecessors in s p i r i t and ideals. The gymnasia failed to achieve the educational goals set by the Proposal of May 10, i860—educating good mothers. That they had failed, at least, from the point of view of the government cannot be doubted. For, already a few years after the resolution of 1870, probably aware of the problems posed by the system, the commission in charge of the yearly report of the Ministry of Education repeatedly stated that there was a need to establish female institutes which would "provide the majority of the g i r l s from the middle classes an education f u l l y corresponding to their l i f e needs and wants without 1 alienating them from their own social milieu." y In 1885, when a commission was formed to look into the shortcomings of the gymnasia and progymnasia of the sixties, i t s attention was brought to the Doklad (Report) of Graff Delianov? Starting with the sixties, the establishment of a large number of female gymnasia and progymnasia in the depart-ment of the Ministry of Education, without the opening at the same time of schools with terminal elementary courses, and also schools of professional character, has had an unwholesome effect on the education of g i r l s who yearn, after graduation from the intermediary schools, towards the various higher female courses in Russia as well as 1st. Obzor . . ., op. c i t . . p. 660. (cited by). 158 across the borders, in the countries of the west. Most of these g i r l s are not so much keen on learning as f u l l of false yearning and hope to leave their family environ-ment and their social milieu. They abandon their respon-s i b i l i t i e s and set out to acquire rights l i t t l e becoming a woman.1 The reforms in the educational system, in the programmes of the Ministry's gymnasia as well as the economic changes i n the Russian society combined, inspired the g i r l s with a yearning for higher education. For, unlike the 'closed' boarding school system which isolated the g i r l s from r e a l - l i f e problems and the world outside, narrowing down their interests and concerns to a world of their own—a world within the walls of the school and thwarted by often false ideals, the gymnasia and the progym-nasia were open day schools. As far as the private institutes were concerned, or the schools i n the Department of the Empress Mother, they, too, had relaxed their rules and the g i r l s could go home for feasts, and had long Christmas and Easter holidays. The g i r l s now, unlike those before 1856, were exposed to the outside world and r e a l - l i f e situations. They became conscious of their own importance and a b i l i t y to act and were perhaps ashamed of their ignorance and inactivity of the past years. The class-principle coupled with u t i l i t a r i a n ideals of education in the f i r s t half of the nineteenth century not only led to an almost total absence of an interaction between the different classes, but also excluded a large portion of the middle and lower classes from any kind of education. The very nature of the gymnasia and progymnasia—open to Ibid, (cited by). 159 a l l regardless of religion or c l a s s — l e d to an interaction between the classes, a consciousness of social problems, and above a l l , an access to education for many middle and lower class g i r l s . Although many of the g i r l s from the upper classes, or at least those who could afford the fees, s t i l l attended the private institutes, through the agrarian reforms of the sixties a large number of the nobility became impoverished and many of their daughters now joined the gymnasia.1 2 The different classes were thus exposed totthe same education and to each others this must have led to a certain democratization and leveling, but above a l l , i t could have opened new horizons accompanied by hopes for a better future through education to many of the g i r l s . It was this faith i n learning, as the only true way towards a better l i f e , for both the individual and the society, which had become the prime force behind the movement for higher education. Furthermore, there was also a change i n the programmes for the g i r l s . Fact-learning for examination purposes, no opportunity or demand for c r i t i c a l analysis or thinking, and stress on dancing, singing, manners and conversation on one hand, or handicraft and manual dexterity on the other, in the pre-1856 period produced a specific kind of woman. Such women were interested i n worldly things, in external appearances, 1Princess Kropotkin, op. c i t . , pp. 131-132. See also Appendix XIV. 2 The peasants, the middle classes as well as the im-poverished nobility. 160 and the f r i v o l i t i e s of mundane l i f e . The g i r l s could think of nothing hut the termination of their courses and p a r t i c i -pation in balls, luncheons and other social a c t i v i t i e s . In the sixties and the seventies the i n i t i a t i o n of the g i r l s into natural sciences, geometry and logic, the attempts to teach them to think and analyze, the stress on history and literature, and the relegation of foreign languages, dancing and singing into the f i e l d of e l e c t i v e s — a l l led to a change in attitude towards learning and the world in general. Some g i r l s at least could have become conscious of the different fields of knowledge and their value. Although much of the learning s t i l l was rote-memorization, and many of the g i r l s may s t i l l have been as uninterested in learning as their predecessors, one cannot deny that at least those g i r l s who were interested were given the opportunity to be initiated into the different fields of knowledge. These g i r l s , dissatisfied with what the gymnasium could offer, wanting to know more, rushed to private lectures given by various professors and scientists in the capitals and university towns. With the same enthusiasm and passion that their predecessors had used to launch themselves into the f r i v o l i t i e s of salon l i f e , these g i r l s now applied themselves to serious studies and rejected a l l the values of the pre-1856 educational system.1 Where previously education was a part of a dowry, a pre-paration for married and social l i f e , now i t came to have an 1Kropotkin, Memoirs . . ., op. c i t . , p. 262. L. P. Panteleev, Vospominania (Memoirs), (Moscowt Gos. Iz. L i t . , 1958), p. 215. Tissot, op. c i t . . pp. 64-65. l 6 l economic value, and i n some cases just a value in itself—know-ledge for the,sake of knowledge. Previously, education was regarded as an asset in attracting a husband, now i t became, to many, a symbol of possible economic independence from family as well as husband, and to some i d e a l i s t i c a l l y minded women a means to serve their country. Before, the schools trained g i r l s to accept their environment and social class by learning to f i t into i t andllive with i t , now education removed class barriers and ignited in many of the g i r l s a spark of revolt against the existing social order and in j u s t i c e . 1 Furthermore, claims like those made in the f i r s t clause of the 1864 Law for the foundation of gymnasia and progymnasia along with the attempt to equalize gi r l s * gymnasia with those of the boys', were another factor inspiring the g i r l s to ask 2 for more and higher education. There were also some purely practical results of the educational system of the sixties and the seventies which led women to demand higher education. Many g i r l s went to the gymnasia in order to acquire a diploma and thus be able to support themselves. To their great surprise, not only did they have to face great d i f f i c u l t i e s to find employment, but when they did find employment they often became aware of how unpre-pared they were to do the work.3 1Elnett, op. c i t . , p. 78. 2See text, pp. 116-117. 3Birnshtok, op. c i t . , pp. 55-56. 162 Since teaching was one of the main positions—for a long time practically the only one with the exception of dentistry and nursing—available for women, and there were not too many elementary schools and vocational schools which could employ these g i r l s as teachers, the gymnasia graduates had no choice but to ask for more education and preparation so as to be able to teach in the g i r l s ' gymnasia and progymnasia in the place of the male teachers. When their opportunity and hopes in teaching were hampered, they turned to other outlets, namely: higher courses, medicine, pharmacy, and later, more technical and s c i e n t i f i c f i e l d s . CHAPTER VII HIGHER EDUCATION1 (1856-1917) The Movement of the Emancipation of Russian Women The drive of Russian women for higher education in the second half of the nineteenth century was closely linked to the movements of emancipation of women elsewhere in Europe and Ame-ri c a . Although the beginnings of the emancipation movement can be traced back to the French Revolution and the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Women, only in the mid-nineteenth century did this movement take on more r e a l i s t i c and practical trends. The basic characteristics of the femininist movements in Europe and U.S. could be summarized under two main headings* the struggle for complete p o l i t i c a l and social equality of women with men? and the struggle for equal educational opportu-nities which could eventually, under the fulfilment of the f i r s t demand, l^ eid to the complete economic independence of women from men. To the Russian women of the early sixties of the nine-1 I n this chapter not only Higher Education in the proper sense of the term w i l l be discussed but also professional education which in Russia was often at the level of secondary education; and adult education in terms of university extension courses and others claimed to be post secondary. 163 164 teenth century the question of social and p o l i t i c a l equality was no problem, for what other European women were asking for in terms of p o l i t i c a l and social equality the Russian women to a large extent had. In Russian laws there were no legal restrictions limiting women's activities i n social or p o l i t i c a l l i f e with the exception of two casest (1) Women could not sign I.O.U.'s without the agreement of their husband i f they did not own their own business. (2) Women could not hire out themselves for service or work without the permission of their husband.1 They could be the trustee, guardian or tutor of persons unrelated to them—a right which women in other European countries had only when related as mothers or grandmothers to the person in question. They could witness will s , a l l kinds of acts and at the time of serfdom, feudal acts, while in Austria women could do neither and in France women could not even witness marriage or birth acts. In Russia women could act as experts and judges of courts of arbitration, a privilege 2 they did not have in France. Although in most European countries the father had f u l l control over the fate of the children as long as he lived, i n Russia this right was questioned and i n case of disagreement between the spouses the right to the children was arbitrated. In case of the death of the father the mother and not the father's relatives had f u l l rights over the children. This 1"Zhenshchina," Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar, (St. Peters-burg: 1894), Vol. XI, p. 883. Paragraph (2) may have been the reason why so many Russian women worked in charitable organiza-tions and especially in the fields of adult education and Sunday schools. 2 I b i d . 165 held true even i f the mother was not the legal spouse.1 Only in the case of inheritance equality between the sexes was not attained by the end of the nineteenth century. Although only sons inherited the father's estate, they were obliged i f they had sisters to give them financial assistance, 2 marry them out and give them a dowry. Although there were hard-core militant feminists in the Russian movement of the emancipation of women, basically the movement in Russia concentrated upon the question of education. The women were willing to 'behave' and actually to go a step backward in the eyes of the feminists, i.e. not to take part in strikes, not to mix with male students, dress properly, etc. in order to retain their rights to higher education and keep their schools open. With the liberalizing laws and the great hopes of the sixties the question of p o l i t i c a l and social freedom was con-sidered by most women not as their own problem but as a common social problem. It was in the f i e l d of education that they f e l t inferior and searched for remedies. 1 I b i d . (Only in the l890's in some of the states of the U.S. did women attain equal rights with men in the f i e l d of child custody.) Ibid., p. 884. (For a comparison of the rights of Russian women in p o l i t i c a l and civic affairs to other European women see Appendix XX.) -'See speech made by A. P. Philosophova at the f i r s t Women Congress in Moscow i n 1909 where she rejected 'agressive' femi-nist attitudes and stressed the importance of educational prob-lems over the preoccupation with the antagonism towards the male sex. (Kaidanova, op. c i t . , I, p. 373). 166 Emancipation now meant the approach of the woman to the man, the mastering by the woman of everything that was considered the domain of man and which supported the cultural and moral inequality. 1 In the f i e l d of education, women f e l t that they should follow in the footsteps of men. They took up sciences and attended lectures at the universities, so long as they were permitted. They indulged in a l l kinds of sci e n t i f i c and l i t e -rary readings. Those who could, engaged teachers and students as tutors in mathematics, physics, philosophy, economics and other 'manly' subjects. A great number of the g i r l s and young women went out to professional schools—medical, pedagogical or 2 stenographic. When the higher courses for women opened in Russia, the number of women who joined these courses was quite high compared to the number of French, English, Swiss or other European women attending their own national universities or institutes of higher learning. Indeed? the number of Russian women attending foreign universities in the 1860's and 1870*s by far exceeded the local women's participation. For example in 1872 at the Zurich University and Polytechnical Institute of sixty-seven womennstudents sixty were Russian. 3 Up to 1883 only two Swiss 1E. Elnett, op. c i t . , p. 79. 2 Nekrasova, op. c i t . , p. 808. JZ. A. Evteeva, Vy-sshie zhenskie kursy (Higher Courses for Women), (Moscow* Kniga, 1966), p. 8. 167 women studied at Zurich University. 1 At the Paris Medical Faculty out of sixty-seven women students thirty-three were 2 Russian and only thirteen French. Although the medical schools were open to women in Denmark, by 1882 there was not one woman in the medical school} the same was true of Belgium.3 Although i n the beginning most Russian women studied medicine, which incidentally remained in the tradition of Russian medical education where today in a l l U.S.S.R. the medical profession i s mainly in the preserve of women, many went into the sciences, physics, mathematics, zoology, botany and chemistry. The f i r s t woman lawyer ever to graduate from the Paris h law school was a Russian woman—Bolokovskaya. There was also the famous mathematician Sonia Kovalevskaya who studied mathe-matics under Weierstrass at Berlin and became the f i r s t woman lecturer in mathematics at the University of Stockholm. A similar influx of women from one particular country into higher institutions of another can be found nowhere in Europe during that period. *K. Shokhol, "Vyshshee zhenskoe meditsinskoe obrazovani