home Medicines from A to Z Education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. Organization of public education in the second half of the 18th century

Education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. Organization of public education in the second half of the 18th century

The development of education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century was influenced by the enlightened absolutism of Catherine II, which determined not only the growth of the network of educational institutions, but also the priority of the class principle in their recruitment. Catherine II carefully studied the experience of organizing education in the leading countries of Western Europe and the most important pedagogical ideas of her time. It was based on the humanitarian ideal that originated in the Renaissance: it proceeded “from respect for the rights and freedom of the individual” and eliminated “from pedagogy everything that is in the nature of violence or coercion” (P.N. Milyukov). On the other hand, Catherine’s educational concept required maximum isolation of children from the family and transfer of them into the hands of a teacher. However, already in the 80s. the focus was again shifted from education to learning. The Prussian and Austrian education systems were taken as a basis. It was supposed to establish three types of secondary schools - small, medium and main. They taught general education subjects: reading, writing, knowledge of numbers, catechism, sacred history, and the rudiments of Russian grammar (small school). In the middle, an explanation of the Gospel, Russian grammar with spelling exercises, general and Russian history, and a brief geography of Russia were added. The main one contains a detailed course in geography and history, mathematical geography, grammar with exercises on business letter, foundations of geometry, mechanics, physics, natural history and civil architecture.

Comenius's class-lesson system was introduced, attempts were made to use visual aids, and in high school it was even recommended to encourage independent thought in students. But basically didactics came down to memorizing texts from the textbook. The relationship between the teacher and the students was built in accordance with the views of Catherine: for example, any punishment was strictly prohibited.

In 1764, in Moscow, on Solyanka, a state-owned “Educational Home for Foundlings and Street Children” was opened - the first Moscow specialized institution for orphans. This institution was supposed to receive the bulk of its funds from charitable collections. The Empress herself donated 100 thousand rubles for the foundation of the building and allocated 50 thousand annual income from her funds, calling on her subjects to follow her example. Education took place according to the method famous teacher I.I. Betsky, who sought to create a “new breed of people” through closed educational institutions - educated and hardworking. Level educational process in the Orphanage he was tall; The institution was popular in the city, so it is no coincidence that it was under it that “French classes” were opened to train future governesses.

In 1764, a decree was issued on the founding of the Educational Society of Noble Maidens for 200 people at the Smolny Convent in St. Petersburg - the Institute of Noble Maidens.

Girls from the age of 4-6 were taken from home for 15 years. Education was mainly humanitarian, but mathematics and physics were also taught; pupils were intensively taught foreign languages, music, home economics, and handicrafts. The graduates of the institute turned out to be educated teachers, wives and ladies-in-waiting. In 1765, the first public school for women in Russia, the Smolny Institute, was opened in St. Petersburg. Before this, girls were raised in families, monasteries or private boarding schools.

In 1779, with the money of Prokopiy Akinfievich Demidov, the Moscow Commercial School was opened for the children of merchants and commoners.

In 1786, the Charter on public schools was issued, according to which two levels of public schools were established in each provincial city. The first stage was represented by “small schools” with a two-year period of study, the second by “main” schools, consisting of four classes. In the “small” schools literacy, reading, arithmetic and the Law of God were taught. “The main schools were intended to train teaching staff for “small” schools. The first “main” public school was opened in Moscow on October 5, 1786. Teachers had to be trained for the secondary school system. For this purpose, in 1783, the Main Public School was opened in St. Petersburg, from which three years later a teacher’s seminary, the prototype of the pedagogical institute, was separated. Until the end of the 18th century, there were no pedagogical educational institutions in Russia. Only at the end of the century, in 1786, the Main Public Schools were established in provincial cities, in which teachers for district schools were trained. Catherine's reform was not completed, but, nevertheless, it played a significant role in the development of Russian education. The school reform of the 1780s was the first attempt to create a state system of public education. The new school was based on the principles of universal class and free education. But there were not enough necessary funds to create an education system and, most importantly, there was still no need for education among the general population.

Development of pedagogical thought in Russia in the second half of the 19th century (N.A. Korf, Bunakov, Tikhomirov)

The most significant development of pedagogical thought in modern Russia occurred in the second half of the 19th century. The government is seriously engaged in restructuring the school system. Pedagogical journalism is being formed, scientific pedagogical societies and pedagogical journals are being created.

In November 1855, new rules for admission and study at universities were adopted, where restrictions on the number of applicants to universities were abolished. However, they did not suit students and teachers. Students insisted on the right to create independent corporations. In 1856, the Academic Committee was restored, which began preparing new school charters. The work of the committee was influenced by the activities of N.I. Pirogov and K.D. Ushinsky. In June 1863, a new university charter was approved. Universities received greater autonomy, and university management was transferred to the Councils of Professors. The charter rejected class and estate discrimination in education. The determining condition for admission to gymnasiums is financial status. Students were required to pay tuition fees.

Children of low-income parents were exempt from fees. In Russia at the end of the 1850s. Sunday schools, schools for children from the people, schools based on new pedagogical ideas and principles appear. D.A. Tolstoy Minister of Education from 1866 to 1880 was the head of the Holy Synod. He curtailed the autonomy of universities, seeking to establish tight government control over universities and other educational institutions. Changes took place that served as an impetus for the development of women's education in Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kyiv, and Kazan. In the second half of the 19th century, both in Russia and a number of Western countries, there was an intensive development of pedagogical thought.

In Russia, with the abolition of serfdom, various laws were issued on free education for peasants and social elements of the lower class. In addition, the rules for teaching in schools and universities are being developed, regarding the rights of pupils, students and teachers. A number of laws are also being adopted regarding the power of management of educational institutions. A number of improvements in the education system allow us to judge the high level of development of leading teachers who developed these improvements.

N.F. Bunakov is a teacher who shared the principles of an organic connection between school work and people’s life, attention to the student and trust in the personality and work of the people’s teacher. A characteristic, “indisputable motive of the life of a modern person is his national peculiarity: to recognize oneself as a citizen of a well-known country and to strive for the benefit of one’s fatherland as a personal benefit is one of those respectable qualities that no one will dispute. “The school... must maintain a sense of nationality in its students,” the scientist formulated, emphasizing the importance of teaching native nature, national geography, history, native language and literature in nurturing the national feeling. It is possible to influence the souls of children with an ideal, and there is nothing bad or unreasonable in this, the educator believes. Student and teacher in a public school. These problems interested N.F. Bunakova. From the very first days of admitting students, school should be made a “serious,” “interesting, entertaining” affair for them. The student not only works, absorbing new experience, but works independently. Reflecting on the existence of a student and a teacher at school, N.F. Bunakov comes to the view of the public school, already noted in domestic pedagogy, as something holistic and moral - living at the same time. A condition for maintaining the moral “structure of school life” is the teacher’s knowledge of the life of each of his students. Let us conclude by addressing the legacy of N.F. Bunakov with his thought about the unnecessary or even harmful use of “punishments and rewards” in school. Punishments and rewards have a bad effect on both the student and the teacher. With the “sublime” and “beneficent” ideal (fatherland, goodness, conscience, work, people, and this is the whole human universe) the comprehension and development of children’s spirituality, the cultivation of a sense of conciliarity in the human soul (conciliarity, preserving the right of the individual to question and answer God with his will ), presenting life to children as a serious, independent spiritual action-feat (teaching as an analogue of such life), trusting and following the child’s soul in its desire to joyfully, with interest, peer into the world created by God; the existence of the school as a living communal spirituality (teachers and children), which follows the rules, but obeys only the heart - the teacher and the child; a view of the teacher as a living phenomenon of Russian culture (and science, in particular); understanding a student’s education through the prism of absolute values - these ideas were introduced into domestic pedagogy by N.F. Bunakov.

The education system in Western Europe during the Reformation and Counter-Reformation. Jesuit education system

In the 16th century In Western and Central Europe, a broad social movement of the Reformation unfolded, which took the form of a struggle against the Roman Catholic Church. The Reformation formulated its understanding of the nature and ways of human education, which differed from the views of Renaissance humanists and Catholic orthodoxy. The religious anthropologism of the reformist teachings ran counter to the secular humanism of Renaissance pedagogy. Unlike the Roman Catholic Church, which professed truth as an unchanging reflection of divine providence, the Reformation intended to complement truths that were divine in origin.

The Reformation proclaimed the principle of individuality, the “self” of a person bearing personal responsibility before God. The critical and humanistic spirit of the Reformation had important consequences for school and pedagogy. In essence, the Reformation merged with the Renaissance in its desire to move the human personality to the center of education, to introduce it to the national culture, language, literature, and to encourage secular education.

The Reformation movement featured moderate and radical currents. The leader of the latter, Thomas Münzer (1490 - 1525), advocated the destruction of the old school, which impeded the people's access to education. The Catechism in German was declared the main teaching aid for the public school. Luther himself translated the Catechism. Education in educational institutions of elementary education took place within the framework of religious dogmas (Roman Catholic or Protestant). Clericalism was a significant obstacle to the development school education.

There was no hint of physical education in schools. The children were constantly being hit. They flogged everyone without exception. Verbal mnemonic teaching reigned in elementary schools.

There were virtually no teaching aids designed specifically for children until the 16th century. The spread of elementary education was slow and difficult. Elementary education could only be obtained in cities. Ignorance reigned in the countryside. Complete primary education was available only to the top of society. A significant part of the children did not even receive the rudiments of education. Educational institutions of advanced general education of the 15th - first third of the 17th centuries. genetically, in one way or another, were connected with previous city and church schools.

The struggle for the unity of faith increased interest in school as an apparatus for educating the masses not only in the Protestant reform movement, but also in the Catholic one that replaced it, from the late 50s of the 16th century. The Counter-Reformation emerged as a force opposing Lutheranism. The Catholic reaction was directed not only against reformation religious movements, but also against secular humanistic culture. The founder of the Jesuit order, a well-educated Spanish religious figure, former officer Ignatius of Loyola (1491-1556), based on the practice already existing in history, believed that success in the cause he championed could be achieved through comprehensive educational activities. The Counter-Reformation began to create European countries public free primary schools. And in order to attract the ruling classes, she launched active activities in the direction of secondary and higher schools. The Jesuit education system, having gained great popularity, lasted for quite a long time. Many of its elements are preserved in schools in Western countries today. Of interest in their system of education and upbringing were such methods as inter- and intra-class competition, competitions, theatrical performances, school self-government and much more. The Jesuits combined all this with a sophisticated system of lying down and playing on human passions, authoritarianism and formalism. Developing fanatical devotion to the Roman Catholic religion, the Jesuit education system, despite certain achievements in the field of education, turned out to be essentially reactionary, leading a person away from the ideal of a self-developing creative personality.

In its own way, only the Renaissance became the most unique of eras, raising man to unprecedented heights. In its own way, interpreting the ancient view of human development and education, Renaissance humanism had a significant influence on determining the type of education in modern times. Within the same historical period, the Renaissance and the Reformation defined the relationship between the individual and society in different ways. If humanism preached the harmonious development of a free personality, through which it sought to transform society, which the Age of Enlightenment later inherited from it, then the Reformation was based on the ideal of a community subjugating the individual. And if the humanists sought to dominate the minds of people through education, then the reformers of the church managed to dominate the people themselves with the help of education. By the end of the 16th century. The humanistic worldview was almost completely pushed aside by the ideology of the Reformation and was revived only during the Enlightenment.

The Jesuit Order (“Society of Jesus”) became the fighting body of the Counter-Reformation. This order was founded by Ignatius of Loyola in 1540. Jesuits, unlike monks of other orders, lived in the world, often being politicians, diplomats, courtiers, educators and teachers, and doctors.
The fight against the Reformation in Spain was led by King Philip II himself.

A prominent figure in the field of Russian state pedagogy was Fedor Ivanovich Yankovic de Mirievo (1741 -1814).

Under Catherine II, an attempt was made to develop education for the people. The public education system was borrowed from Austria, and Fyodor Ivanovich Yankovic, a Serb by birth, who knew Russian, was invited to implement it in Russia in 1782. In the same year, a commission was created to establish public schools. Yankovic translated various statutes and instructions for teachers into Russian, and also translated, revised and published textbooks: Primer, Abridged Catechism, Manual of Arithmetic», "Sacred History" "Guide to Russian calligraphy", etc. He worked in the field of public education in Russia for more than 20 years.

The main theoretical principles of his views on education are set out by Yankovic in “Guide to teachers of the first and second grades of public schools of the Russian Empire”(1783), compiled under the influence of the pedagogy of Ya. A. Komensky. Briefly, they boil down to the following recommendations: students must be taught collectively, those. together all at once to the same thing; To do this they should be separated for classes; when one student reads or answers, the whole class follows the answer; Everyone should have the same books, and the children read aloud together from time to time.

Combined instruction and reading reformed schooling. Previously, each student studied on his own, he was given special lessons, the teacher listened to each student in a special way, each had his own educational book. For example, in the Ryazan numerical school in 1727, 11 students learned numbers, 5 addition, 1 subtraction, 1 geometry techniques, 1 decimal fractions, etc.

Have been developed teaching methods.

The Guide spoke at length about the virtues that a teacher should have: be peace-loving and decent, patient, diligent, have constant vigor of spirit and body; Treat students fairly and be attentive to them. Punishment for students can only consist of deprivation of pleasant things, but corporal punishment is prohibited.

In 1786 it was approved The charter of public schools, according to which two types of public schools were established - the main ones (5 years) and small (2 years). It was planned to open a main school in every provincial city, and small public schools in every district, as well as in villages.

The reasons for the extremely limited application of the broadly conceived system of public education were that no funds were allocated from the state treasury, the state took control of schools into its own hands, and provided the expenses for schools to the population. Besides, there were no teaching staff- in all of Russia there was only one teachers’ seminary in St. Petersburg, and even that was soon recognized as unnecessary and closed. The responsibility for training teachers was assigned to the main schools. When did people with initiative appear and develop vigorous and varied activities, such as II. I. Novikov, they were not only not encouraged, but also imprisoned as politically unreliable. The clergy were poorly educated. For example, in 1786 in the Kazan diocese, 380 clergy could barely read, and others could neither read nor write at all. But still, the clergy represented a relatively educated layer.

Finally, we should not forget the general root cause which made it difficult to carry out all the educational reforms of that time - the absence in society awareness the need for education and schools. There were still too many people convinced that school only distracted the boy from direct practical work - from the counter, from the plow, from the craft, from the factory. For example, the Kozlov merchant, caretaker of the local school, found, that all schools are harmful and that it is useful to close them everywhere. And many were closed, and those that remained were recruited by force. Thus, in Tambov, children were taken to school with the help of the police, in Vyatka - also “by the power of the authorities.”

For these reasons, educational reform proceeded very sluggishly. The teachers were persons sent by the diocesan authorities from among the theological seminarians.

Due to all these reasons, Yankovic’s ideas were not accepted by his contemporaries, his guidelines were not followed, learning turned into mechanical learning of a textbook by heart.

Despite all the shortcomings and difficulties, by the end of the 18th century. There has been progress in the development of the school. Although with great difficulty, new initiatives began to penetrate the school, as the following table eloquently demonstrates.

Statistical data on educational institutions in Russia at the end of the 18th century. 1

Note. We are talking about public schools; data on class and departmental educational institutions are not included in the table.

Questions and tasks for self-control

1. What new trends in education appeared in the 18th century. and what are the reasons for their occurrence?
2. What new types of schools were created and what was their purpose?
3. What role did the Academy of Sciences and the university, academic gymnasiums play?
4. How did the activities of M. V. Lomonosov contribute to the development of education in Russia?
5. What are the merits of I. I. Betsky in the development of education?
6. What was the first class (for nobles) educational institution - the cadet corps?
7. How did the development of women's education begin?
8. What was characteristic of a public school?
9. Work in groups: make a list of pedagogical events and dates for one of the topics and a test for other groups.

Kanterev P.F. History of Russian pedagogy. P. 255.

We invite you to read the article by Jan Kusber "What knowledge does a nobleman need for life? Provincial and metropolitan educational discourses of the second half of the XVIII and the beginning of the 19th century." The article talks about the preferences of the capital and provincial Russian nobility in the field of education in the second half of the 18th century.

Jan Kusber. What knowledge does a nobleman need to live? Provincial and metropolitan educational discourses of the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries

The history of the Russian nobility has long been a description of its backwardness 1 . The responsible editors of this volume refer to Mark Raeff, who more than four decades ago believed that the nobility of the Russian Empire was unable to form an estate that would define itself through common rights and group identity 2. One might add: unable, unlike noble societies in Western and Central Europe. Of course, in other regions and states of Europe, the noble class was diverse and heterogeneous. However, the history of the nobility in the Russian Empire is described as a history of shortcomings. Research following this tradition is unlikely to bring new discoveries. The “route to the province” and the view of regional lifeworlds (Lebenswelten) with their significant differences in economic sphere, cultural practice, with ethnic stripes while simultaneously forming imperial identities is undoubtedly an alternative to the often used interpretive clichés 3 .

Interest or immunity to education?

M. Raeff's view, as presented in his review work, was not focused on the "provinces". In turn, the concept of “province”, although associated with a certain image, is difficult to define unambiguously. One involuntarily imagines an idyll far from reality, called Oblomovka by Ivan Aleksandrovich Goncharov, and in the novel Demons by Fyodor Mikhailovich Dostoevsky, it is a place of conflict, the deep roots of which Raeff also explored in his works. Nevertheless, we are dealing with an imaginary province of the 19th century, the image of which Raeff transfers to the 18th century. For the 18th century, “province” is an even more vague concept. During the period when, as a result of Peter’s reforms and the transfer of the capital from Moscow to St. Petersburg, new values and norms were established and a geographically new center of the empire was created 4, the problem of the “province” appeared more clearly 5. At the end of the 18th century, a stay in Moscow for “nobles” could already be associated with a stay in the provinces 6 . However, using the “center-periphery” model it is hardly possible to come closer to understanding the phenomenon of the province, especially if it is viewed through the prism of life worlds.

Raeff connects the emergence of the so-called intelligentsia in Russia with the problem of a powerful state and a passive society. Her distinctive features were both education and opposition to the state. At the same time, Raeff speaks of a certain distance between the nobility and education in the 18th century 7 . To implement its increasing tasks in the second half of the century, the state needed officials integrated into the Table of Ranks. For their official and social advancement, as well as for the qualified performance of official duties, it was necessary, in the opinion of Catherine II and - during the reign of Alexander I - Mikhail Mikhailovich
Speransky 8, appropriate education. That the nobility, and especially the provincial nobility, even in the 19th century looked at it differently, or rather had their own idea of what knowledge they needed for service and what education corresponded to noble life, was clearly shown by Susanne Schattenberg in her recently published study 9 .

Schattenberg analyzes the autobiographies of government officials of the first half of the 19th century, who felt backward against the background of the Great Reforms and felt the need to reflect on their careers. The researcher managed to create a collective biography by reconstructing the self-awareness of noble officials: decisive role For them, the “sense of honor” of a representative of power in the province, the chances of promotion, and the idea of the need for education to perform the service play a role. The generational factor was also of key importance: the earlier the memoirs were written, the more clearly they reflected the officials’ satisfaction with their service. Schattenberg managed to revive the society of the Russian province of those years. The hopes and fears, mindsets and life worlds of her protagonists become tangible.

Here it is worth returning to the starting point - the era called by Reinhart Koselleck "the turning point" (Sattelzeit), the threshold of eras that occurred in the century between 1750 and 1850 10 - and asking the question of how the nobility imagined education in the second half of the 18th century . What knowledge, from his point of view, was necessary and how could it be acquired? In this case, one should take into account the difference between the benefits for the service and the nobles’ ideas about themselves. The fundamental interest of the state in the 18th century, especially in the context of the policies of Catherine II, was to attract the nobility into the service. Legislation moved towards the nobility, whose fragmentation it had previously contributed to. On the one hand, compulsory service was abolished, and on the other, in the Charter of the Nobility of 1785, the rights and privileges of the nobility were consolidated and expanded.

Thus, the state tried to support the interest of the nobles in voluntary service, which was an economic necessity for many of them. All this has repeatedly become the subject of research and discussion. For a long time in historiography, in relation to the province, the characteristic of Dietrich Geier dominated, who designated it with the formula “society as a state institution” 11. Research based on cultural-historical concepts and studying both the political sphere and the communicative spaces within which the search for compromises took place showed not only the simplification of Guyer’s assessment, but also the futility of the search for a local society in the 18th century. These searches were concentrated in the sphere of noble meetings or the work of public charity orders, 12 limited to a certain extent by descriptions of gaps and shortcomings that played into the hands of the old paradigm of backwardness. Nevertheless, it seems to me appropriate in this connection to refer to the “special time dimension” Russian history 13 .

On the other hand, not only historians who studied the Russian nobility of the 18th century used diachronic and synchronic comparisons, but contemporaries themselves resorted to them. They looked at their life worlds and tried to determine what was required of them in changing conditions and what noble life should look like. At the same time, they turned their gaze back to the history of their families, to the region in which they lived and where their estates were located. When going to war or to the imperial court, they compared their previous surroundings with the new spaces, landscapes and ways of life that they encountered in new circumstances. However, even knowing only from hearsay about noble life in St. Petersburg or Moscow, they compared information - rumors, orders, manifestos - in order to integrate them into their everyday life. Focusing on the theoretical principles of cultural history, which emphasizes that communication is a process of finding a compromise and a form of representation, this process can be attributed to the fundamental constants of human activity.

Dialogue between the autocracy and the nobility on the benefits and needs of education

Historiographers have repeatedly addressed the problems of the stability of traditions in the noble way of life throughout the 18th century. The state’s challenge to these traditions and the need to somehow respond to it, which arose among the provincial nobility, became obvious at the latest with the convening of Catherine’s Statutory Commission. Now, unlike Peter’s times, the nobles were gathered and listened to. The “dialogue” into which the empress 14 entered was not conducted by her unilaterally, and historians should be interested in the ways of representing the noble self-consciousness presented in its course. The same applies to the discourses of noble education, which were almost simultaneously formulated by the empress and the metropolitan nobles close to the imperial court 15.

Nevertheless, if you ask the question of what place education and training occupied in the thoughts of the provincial nobility in the second half of the 18th century about what the personal education of a nobleman should look like, then to a first approximation the answer can be found in the orders received by the deputies of the Commission on the drafting of a new Code . The orders of the local elites were a reaction to the Great Order of Catherine II, and the issue of education, in comparison with other thematic complexes, was not central to them.

It is hardly possible to determine to what extent the elected deputies were familiar with the Great Order of Catherine II and who in the Russian Empire had any idea about it. Although in 1767 the Empress ordered that her Great Order be sent to all provinces and read out loud on certain days 16 (a procedure that was also practiced for other decrees), we know nothing at the moment about the implementation of this order in the provinces. Nevertheless, it can be argued that a certain reception took place: the deputies sent to the Commission received orders from their voters, in which concerns, complaints and wishes were formulated. Some of the orders contained direct references to certain sections of the Empress's Order.

In total, the deputies of the Commission had at their disposal more than 1,600 orders - and these are only those that we know about. There is no complete critical edition of the orders. Education issues were closely considered in approximately 80 orders, which indicates the low importance of this topic compared to other problems. It is not surprising, given the numerical superiority of the nobles in the Commission, that the topic of upbringing and education figured primarily in the orders of the noble deputies. A total of 223 representatives of the nobility were elected to the Commission, followed by 168 representatives of the merchant class, 42 representatives of the nobles, 20 representatives of state peasants - the last two groups were given the right to represent more than 90 percent of the population of the Russian Empire belonging to the agricultural sector of the economy (excluding serfs ). The Commission also included 42 deputies from foreigners - non-Russian peoples of the Volga region and Siberia, 35 representatives from the Cossacks and 29 representatives from central government institutions. In addition, it is striking that 35 representatives from a large group of commoners participated in the Commission. The clergy was represented by only two bishops, who were members of the Synod 17.

Along with the Commission itself, which received serious attention in the literature, deputy orders were often considered in historiography as sources on the social history and cultural history of the Russian Empire. Central themes These studies were primarily questions about the role of the nobility and townspeople in the economy and public administration, as well as the relationship between landowners and peasants, which were considered mainly retrospectively in connection with the abolition of serfdom in 1861 18 . The Empress almost completely excluded the problems of serfdom from the Great Mandate, thus indicating the undesirability of discussing this topic within the Commission. However, deputies constantly turned to it in their discussions. Against the background of other topics considered worthy of research, the issue of education has so far been touched upon only in an article by Maya Dmitrievna Kurmacheva 19 . Following the tradition of Soviet historiography, the author believes, in particular, that the nobility, as a reactionary ruling class, sought to block discussion of the issue of access to education for the sake of its class privileges.

Deputies sometimes received several orders. However, the composition of the deputies clearly shows that the number of orders from the nobility significantly exceeded the number of orders from the townspeople, despite regional differences in the deputy corps.

Although the lack of educational facilities was rarely addressed, the topic of education was discussed in other contexts. 25 orders for noble deputies contain indications that some nobles could not even sign the order itself, since they could neither read nor write 20. Even greater was probably the number of those for whom authorized representatives signed, or the so-called functional illiterates, that is, those who could only write their own name 21 . At the same time, in the orders of the nobility the importance of education, training and upbringing was not questioned; on the contrary, their necessity and validity were recognized. However, opinions differed on the issue of the forms of future educational institutions and the content of education. The orders of the Pskov nobility expressed optimism regarding education, which was not inferior in its pathos to the projects of the enlighteners and Ivan Ivanovich Betsky, who drew up for Catherine the most advanced training and education plans for that era, which were then published and accessible to contemporaries 22 . The Pskov nobility expressed a desire to establish gymnasiums in every city at the expense of the nobles themselves. In such an institution, the children of the nobility would receive, despite all the expenses, training that would encourage them to further military or civil service as “good and enlightened people.” As a result, “knowledge would develop in Russia in a very short time” 23 and would compensate for its backwardness in the field of education. The demand of the Pskov nobles to open gymnasiums as secondary schools can be explained by their proximity to the Baltic provinces, which, although they belonged to the Russian Empire after the Peace of Nystadt (1721), had different educational traditions. Here, in all the big cities, gymnasiums already existed, so the Baltic deputies, for example the Livonian nobles, insisted on opening new ones 24 .

In general, we can say with confidence that the cadet corps in St. Petersburg was the ideal to emulate in the eyes of the nobles 25 . What had previously been evidenced by increased demand and an increase in the number of cadets (also in comparison with other corps) was now expressed openly. For example, the Moscow nobility, instructing its deputy Pyotr Ivanovich Panin, announced their desire to have not only a cadet corps, as in St. Petersburg, but also a closed state educational institution for young noblewomen 26 following the example of the Smolny Institute. This order remained, however, the only one of its kind. If we trace how the orders of the nobility were distributed territorially, in which education was mentioned in one context or another, it turns out that Moscow and Little Russian provinces predominated among them 27 . In their orders, the nobles of these regions presented general arguments consistent with state interests, and also appealed to local traditions. The order from Sumy emphasized that the creation of educational institutions not only for children of the nobility, but also for children from other classes would benefit the fatherland: ignorance, moral corruption, superstition and schism (!) - all these dangerous phenomena for people would disappear 28. Education for the benefit of the state as a whole and for the benefit of each individual person was intertwined into a single whole. The schism mentioned in the order, which, in all likelihood, meant confessional stripes in the Ukrainian regions, was left without explanation. Enlightenment rhetoric was accompanied by condemnation of the negative qualities of an uneducated person. The drafters of the order from Akhtyrka demanded that the Kharkov collegium, which adopted the Jesuit-Latin educational tradition of the Kyiv Academy, would educate not only the children of the local nobility, but also expand academic disciplines at the expense of civilian and military items 29. The orders from the Ukrainian regions expressed not only the desire to have local schools for nobles who did not have the funds for expensive private or public education 30, but also the requirement to open a university. The nobility of Nezhin and Baturin proposed to establish a university in precisely the region where Kirill Grigoryevich Razumovsky and Grigory Nikolaevich Teplov were already planning to open it 31 . The need for higher education was justified by the need to apply scientific achievements in public administration. In modern language, the nobles of Nezhin and Baturin derived their argument from the fruitful combination of science and teaching. In addition, they used key concepts of educational discourse: the need to improve morality and explain to the younger generation that without education there cannot be a brave soldier, a wise government official, a fair judge and a prudent head of the family 32.

Unambiguous in the orders of the nobles was the requirement to establish exclusive noble educational institutions not only in the form of corps, but also in the form of local schools, which, as indicated in the order of the Kaluga nobility, should be subordinated to the courts of the nobility 33 . Financing of education was proposed both from own funds and from the state 34 . Contents of the proposed educational programs depended on the ideas of the drafters of the orders. In cases where the authors were guided by the ideals of universal education, as can be seen, for example, in some orders from the Moscow province or Ukraine, preference (if the educational canon was outlined at all) was given to a curriculum that was close to the program of the cadet corps and made it possible to study in it in further. They talked about languages, arithmetic, geography and geometry, as well as fencing and dancing 35. Other orders provided for items necessary for attending university or studying abroad 36 . Proposals were often made according to which the acquired knowledge should ensure immediate entry into service at least in the rank of officer. Similar proposals were taken into account by educational institutions that were already operating at that time. However, here education, intended, according to the idea, for moving up the social ladder 37, acquired, due to the class exclusivity of the educational institutions offered, the function of a social barrier that protected the noble class from “upstarts.”

The heterogeneity of ideas was manifested in the question of which groups of the population, in the opinion of the nobility, could generally gain access to education. The orders of the Serpukhov nobility spoke about schools both for the nobility and for clerks and merchants' children, who were supposed to be taught at least arithmetic, geometry, German and French 38 . The Sumy nobles mentioned above spoke out for the creation of separate educational institutions for children of non-noble origin, by analogy with the schools that already existed in other cities. The educational institutions of Moscow University 39 were specifically mentioned, which indicates the recognition of the university and its gymnasium as educational institutions for children of non-noble origin.

Convinced supporters of the establishment of peasant schools among the nobility of the Dmitrov district. Their order stated that it was necessary to convince landowners to finance one teacher for every 100 households in order to teach peasant children reading, writing and arithmetic, from which the landowners themselves would ultimately benefit - including in terms of social discipline 40. The issue of teachers' social affiliation was not specifically discussed. Obviously, their role was played by the clergy, which was clearly mentioned in the order of the Yamburg nobility of the St. Petersburg province: it proposed to establish schools for peasant children at churches 41. I note that the establishment of such schools on a voluntary basis was already planned in the Spiritual Regulations of Peter I of 1721. Similar proposals were contained in the orders of the Krapiven and Pskov nobles, who at the same time drew attention to the fact that representatives of the clergy did not have the prerequisites to provide a good education. Before the clergy began to teach elementary knowledge to peasant children, they should have turned into good teachers 42. This "snapshot" shows that in most cases the provincial nobility was interested in exclusive class-based educational institutions.

If we take into account the number of noble orders in which the issue of education (for their own or other social groups) was not raised at all and where even general ideas about the school system did not appear, then it becomes obvious that the government received from the nobles specific considerations and wishes for its legislative activities, but there were no innovative ideas among them.

Of course, this was due to the fact that at the beginning of the reign of Catherine II, education and educational ideals as special topics were represented in provincial discourses to a lesser extent than in the capital. In the capitals, initiatives have already emerged that were the result of the reception of Enlightenment ideals and aimed at overcoming class barriers in education. Plan I.I. Betsky, which provided for the education of “children of both sexes,” was ambitious and utopian in its goals 43 . In practice, it turned out to be unrealizable, as the experience of the social security and educational institutions he led showed. It can be assumed that, by inviting the provincial nobility to participate in the work of the Commission, Catherine set the bar too high. The terminology, as the work of Ingrid Schirle 44 and others showed, was largely new, and along with it (even if not in all cases) the content was new. In this regard, the work of the Commission also meant a search for mutual understanding regarding who is talking about what and in what connection. Thus, in the dialogue between the empress and the noble society there were elements of misunderstanding and misunderstanding. However, in the voices of the nobility briefly presented above, the moment of establishing differences is clearly visible. The desire of the nobles to socially dissociate themselves from other classes of the empire was important for the self-perception of the nobles 45 regardless of whether it was intended to extend the privilege of education to others social groups in the empire or not. Consequently, Catherine II, as a legislator, should have been aware of the prejudices of the nobles regarding the secular education system, built on the all-class principle.

Interest in education and forms of training in the province

An indicator of the interest of the nobility in the area of knowledge and erudition that was provided for them by the state was the support of the upper class for the established schools. As part of the provincial reform of 1775, public charity orders were allocated a starting capital of 15,000 rubles, the proceeds from which were to be used for the construction and maintenance of schools. Historian Janet Hartley, having examined the activities of the public charity order of the Vyborg province, found that the financial resources allocated to it were often used to “stimulate the development of the local economy” and, as a result, were only indirectly invested in the maintenance of schools and other public care institutions, contrary to the financing system provided for by the provincial reform 46 .

The exception from the very beginning was the capital St. Petersburg with its function as an “experimental laboratory”. Here Catherine personally contributed to the success of the organization of schools, placing at the disposal of state secular schools part of the income received from port duties 47. This example was paradigmatic in the sense that the funding of small public schools was increasingly transferred to individual cities and their communities. Participation could be expected both from the Dumas and from city governments, merchant guilds or local nobles, since small public schools were located directly on the ground, and not in a provincial city several hundred kilometers away. On the contrary, the financing of the main public schools was carried out primarily through orders of public charity 48. These funding models varied depending on the economic strength of the community groups concerned and the size of the schools 49 . In the Tver province, for example, thanks to the rich order of public charity and the relatively wealthy nobility, the main public school with its small number of students did not experience financial needs. In 1800-1801, the nobility and merchants of the city of Tver collected 27,398 rubles in favor of state secular schools. The volume of collected amounts was almost twice as much as the receipts from the Tver order of public charity (15,000 rubles) during the specified period 50 . According to the charter of the school, its budget provided for the allocation of 1,500 rubles for salaries, materials and operating expenses for the main public school, 210 rubles for a one-class public school and 500 rubles for a two-class public school. In 1801, in the Tver province there was one main public school and 12 one-class public schools, the maintenance of which thus required 4,020 rubles per year. Accordingly, even from the sums of money allocated by order, the necessary repair work could be carried out. Of course, the nobility and merchants did not demonstrate such generosity everywhere. In the Ekaterinoslav province (Novorossiya) in 1791, an order of public charity appealed to local elites to donate to the establishment of schools. While the nobility of Poltava managed to collect 11,000 rubles, in the cities of Elizavetgrad and Yekaterinoslav the result was negative. The nobility of these cities referred to the impossibility of providing financial assistance, justifying their refusal by the economic damage caused to them by the war with the Ottoman Empire 51 . On the initiative of the Vyatka public charity order, donations in the amount of 3,000 rubles were collected to purchase a house for the main public school. A year later, only two-thirds of the required funds were collected, and therefore the governor decided to introduce a special tax in the amount of 2 kopecks for each male audit soul. However, despite these additional measures, in 1794 the Vyatka order published a repeated appeal to the nobility, calling for donations to support schools 52. As a rule, donations came from individuals 53 .

The exception was the noble assembly of the Kazan province, which took over voluntary commitment- all landowners to donate 10 kopecks for each male serf soul to the benefit of provincial schools. As a result of this action, almost 3,000 rubles were collected 54.

Another, much more significant indicator compared to financial support for schools was the actual attendance of educational institutions by noble children. The funding of schools by the nobility could directly depend on Catherine's expectations, clearly outlined by the Empress and communicated to the nobles. Nevertheless, the decisive factor for personal career or sense of self was the willingness of the nobility to educate their younger generation in mixed-class schools. To a certain extent, this made it possible for the nobility to resist in a form common in the provinces of the Russian Empire - not to comply with decrees and act contrary to the expectations of the empress. For example, noble boys, not to mention girls, were rarely found in the schools established by Catherine II after 1786, both in the capitals - Moscow and St. Petersburg - and in the provinces 55. Their share even decreased during the existence of these schools and remained low until the next reforms under Alexander I, while the number of children of the merchant class, clergy and others increased. Only a certain (small) part of imperial society saw these schools as an opportunity to move up the social ladder. The provincial nobility could hardly resist the creation of such schools and often acted as their sponsors 56 . However, the nobles did not consider these schools an appropriate place to raise their own children.

When publishing the Charter of Public Schools 57 in 1786, Catherine personally introduced an addition to it, emphasizing the goals of this provision - universal education and all-class training. In the preliminary draft developed by the Commission, the Empress made a fundamental change concerning the teaching of foreign languages. According to the amendment, French was relegated to the sphere of home education, since Catherine did not consider it compulsory for civil service. If the nobles absolutely wanted their children to master the French language, then they had to pay for the education from their own pockets.

In contrast to the French language, the empress considered taking into account the ethnic specifics of her multinational empire to the state interests: Greek was to be taught in the Kiev, Azov and Novorossiysk provinces, Chinese in the Irkutsk province, and Arabic and Arabic in the territories where Muslims lived. Tatar languages 58. The schools established under the Charter of 1786, apart from their socially disciplinary aspect, were clearly not schools for the nobility.

The nobility, in turn, needed knowledge that would facilitate career advancement in the provinces or, even better, in large cities. It also needed knowledge befitting its status and distinguishing it as such. These interpersonal skills, essential to the noble lifestyle, took on new forms during the 18th century. The processes of the second half of the 18th century, during which court customs changed in the capitals and a complete reorientation to the French model took place, were also observed in the provinces. However, to some critics, the outdated customs of their ancestors seemed more appropriate than the way of life of the capital's nobility. Perhaps the most famous denouncer of “damaged morals” was Mikhail Mikhailovich Shcherbatov 59 . However, even in works so active in the literary field statesmen, like Gavrila Romanovich Derzhavin, one can perceive changes in the life world of the nobility - with all the inherent elements of inertia and adaptation 60. The life of “secular society” - St. Petersburg nobles or families from ruling class(rulingfamilies) 61 - found a response in the provinces, they tried to copy it - at least partially - or reject it.

Not only simple considerations of benefits for service were decisive for the nobility on the issue of education. In their specific way of life, the provincial nobility was oriented, on the one hand, to St. Petersburg, and on the other, to a special regional and local identity. Certain aspects of this ambivalence also affected the work of the Commission.

However, where could a nobleman receive an education that seemed to him consistent with his status and the spirit of the times? Here we should mention, first of all, home education 62. For a provincial nobleman, hiring a home teacher was often the only opportunity to give his children a modern education. Andrei Timofeevich Bolotov clearly described this in his memoirs 63. The distance from the capital, as well as the wealth of the family, affected the quality of education and the competence of the home teacher. Bolotov shows that in the middle of the 18th century, his father’s wealth was enough to hire a home teacher 64. Both boys and girls were equally taught French, and in some cases German or English 65 . However, subjects such as geography and history were taught mainly to young men. Even if in St. Petersburg they laughed at the fact that applicants for the position of home teacher often did not have the necessary qualifications, the home education system could not do without this group, supposedly numbering several thousand people. Historians are only approaching the study of this specific form of education, widespread among the provincial nobility, who certainly sought to use the acquired knowledge in their local life. An example of such research is the monograph by Olga Yurievna Solodyankina 66. If, however, we want to understand what knowledge was considered necessary, then the instructions for home teachers 67, which were translated or compiled in the second half of the 18th century according to German or French models, can be of little help here. Much more important and informative sources are written contracts concluded with home teachers. In the examples of such agreements known to me, educational material was recorded that was recognized as mandatory for study 68 .

Along with the foreign languages already mentioned, not only mythology, history, and natural science, but also military science could be taught. In rare cases, large families have dance and fencing teachers. In addition, “moral teaching”—lessons of good manners—was taught almost everywhere. At the end of the 18th century, a cheap version of this type of education also spread: both boys and girls were sent to boarding schools for several years, which seemed to be the best alternative to secular public school education 69 . Catherine's educational commission was aware of this problem and sought to regulate both the quality and content of education, conducting inspections of schools from time to time and closing certain unsatisfactorily functioning institutions, which were headed, as a rule, by foreigners 70. For home teachers, state exams at Moscow University or the St. Petersburg Academy were provided as a condition for teaching. However, only a few of the home teachers had the appropriate certificate.

Only in the initial period of Catherine's school reform - in September 1784 - did the school commission decide on systematic audits of all private educational institutions in Moscow and St. Petersburg in order to prevent their uncontrolled growth 71. An audit of 23 boarding schools with 720 students (501 male and 219 female) and 17 private schools with 159 students, undertaken in the same year in St. Petersburg, revealed serious shortcomings in the conditions of placement of students and the quality of teaching. As a result, all schools and boarding schools (in some cases, however, only temporarily) were closed 72. A year later, an audit of all private educational boarding houses in Moscow was carried out. Although the commission created for this purpose recommended first suspending the activities of all Russian-language private boarding houses and schools, only the French school boarding house was closed 73 . More stringent actions in St. Petersburg are explained, on the one hand, by the status of the metropolis, whose educational institutions served as a model for the province, and on the other hand, by the clearly limited influence of the commission on the implementation of educational programs in the province 74.

To summarize what has been said, we note that this educational sector, due to the fragility of boarding houses and rare inspections, was not subject to state control. One might assume that noble children received exactly the education that their parents provided for them. However, this assumption should also be treated with caution. Parents, like government inspectors, were very rarely interested in the quality of education. Children “disappeared,” as a rule, for several years in a boarding school in provincial towns, and little was known about their educational success.

A prerequisite for a successful career in the service was literacy. Where, however, it was purchased was left to the nobleman to decide for himself. Catherine's public schools, with their standardized curricula, remained unattractive. All-class schools turned into schools without nobles, while the nobles preferred to educate their younger generation informally. As for women's education, Catherine's concept - to give general educational skills to children of both sexes - was not destined to come true. The nobility - and here we can refer to the example of the Smolny Institute for Noble Maidens, which served as a model for the provinces - preferred to teach future wives and mothers literature and needlework 75 .

Cadet corps 76 were promising in career terms and eagerly attended. Their establishment was also envisaged in the provinces, which increased the chances of the younger generation from less wealthy noble families to receive an education. The Land Noble Cadet Corps (established in 1732), as well as the Marine Noble Corps (1752, from 1762 - the Naval Cadet Corps) and the Page Corps (1759), opened in the era of Elizabeth Petrovna, were followed by the founding of additional cadet corps in provincial cities at the end of the 18th century. - beginning of the 19th century 77. The degree of popularity of these institutions even at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I is evidenced, in particular, by the history of the establishment of Kharkov University: Vasily Nazarovich Karazin managed to obtain donations from the Kharkov nobility for a new university in the amount of 100,000 rubles under the pretext of establishing a cadet corps in Kharkov 78 . The corps, despite the harsh atmosphere that reigned in them, was considered among the nobles to be a suitable place for receiving a proper education 79 . In turn, graduates of the corps largely contributed to the spread of the French “noble model”: if in 1732 and a few years later, of the first 245 Russian students of the cadet corps, 237 studied German and 51 French, then soon this ratio became exactly the opposite 80.

Reconstructing the historical life-worlds of the provincial nobility in the 18th-century Russian Empire remains a difficult undertaking, the success of which can only be achieved through microhistorical research. The problem of the impact of education on the development of individualism among the provincial nobility at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries 81 needs further study. The answer to the question of what education was considered appropriate from the point of view of the nobility seeking to position itself in the imperial space of the 18th century depends on different contexts. If a noble landowner was looking for a worthy position for himself and his family within the framework of the district noble assembly, then his answer would certainly be different from those that would have been given by nobles who moved in the provincial city or sought to get into the service in St. Petersburg. All of them were guided by the situation and chose educational models taking into account dignity, benefit, group social norms and state requirements, while following the logic of subjective rationality. The latter certainly did not coincide with the rationality of the enlighteners, headed by Catherine II in Russia. In turn, the adaptation of “Western” models of noble life and noble education was not a straightforward and uniform process at the level of the entire empire 82. Nevertheless, until the beginning of the 19th century, all this was of considerable importance for the stability and further development of the educational traditions of the nobility. In conclusion, I hope that my brief overview of noble ideas about the patterns and meaning of education in the 18th century will serve as an impetus for further research in these areas.

Translation by Natela Kopaliani-Schmunk

1 See, for example, the socio-historically oriented review by Manfred Hildermeier: Hildermeier M. Der russische Adel von 1700 bis 1917 // Wehler H.-U. (Hrsg.) Europäischer Adel 1750-1950. Göttingen, 1990. S. 166-216.
2 See the introductory article in this collection.
3 Gerasimov I., Kusber J., Glebov S., Mogilner M., Semyonov A. New Imperial History and the Challenges of Empire // Gerasimov I., Kusber J., Semyonov A (Ed.)
Empire Speaks out? Languages of Rationalization and Self-Description in the Russian Empire. Leiden, 2009. P. 3-32; Vierhaus R. Die Rekonstruktion historischer Lebenswelten. Probleme moderner Kulturgeschichtsschreibung // Lehmann H (Hrsg.) Wege zu einer neuen Kulturgeschichte. Göttingen, 1995. S. 7-25.
4 Raeff M. Transfiguration and Modernization: The Paradoxes of Social Disciplining, Paedagogical Leadership, and the Enlightenment in I8th Century Russia// Bödeker H.E. (Hrsg.) Alteuropa, Ancien regime und frühe Neuzeit. Probleme und Methoden der Forschung. Stuttgart, 1991. S. 99-116.
5 Hughes L. Russian Culture in the Eighteenth Century // Lieven D. (Ed.) The Cambridge History of Russia Vol. 2: Imperial Russia Cambridge, 2006. P. 67-91 here p. 88-90.
6 Lotman J. Rußlands Adel. Eine Kulturgeschichte von Peter I. bis Nikolaus I- Köln, 1997.
7 Raeff M. The Origins of the Russian Intelligentsia The Eighteenth Century Nobility. New Haven (Conn.), 1966.
8 Speransky M.M. Projects and notes. M., 1961. S. 274-279; Gooding J. The Liberalism of Michael Speransky // SEER. l. 64. 1986. P. 401-424.
9 Schattenberg S. Die korrupte Provinz? Russische Beamte im 19. Jahrhundert. rankfurt a. M., 2008.
10 Koselleck R. Einleitung // Brunner O., Conze W., Koselleck R. (Hrsg.) Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe. Bd. 1. Stuttgart, 1972. S. 15.
11 Geyer D. Gesellschaft als staatliche Veranstaltung. Bemerkungen zur Sozialgeschichte der russischen Staatsverwaltung im 18. Jahrhundert // Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas. Bd. 14. 1966. S. 21-50.
12 For example: Hartley J. The Boards of Social Welfare and the Financing ol Catherine II "s State Schools // SEER. Vol. 67. 1989. P. 211-227; Eadem. Katharinas Reformen der Lokalverwaltung - die Schaffung städtischer Gesellschaft in der Provinz? // Scharf C. (Hrsg.) Katharina II., Rußland und Europa Beiträge zur internationalen Forschung. Mainz, 2001. S. 457-477.
13 Schmidt Chr. Russian Geschichte, 1547-1917. München, 2003. S. 2.
14 Isabel de Madariaga speaks in her fundamental monograph on Catherine II about “national dialogue” - see: Madariaga I. de. Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great. New Haven (Conn.), 1981. P. 137 (Russian translation: Madariaga I. de. Russia in the era of Catherine the Great. M., 2002. P. 229). 8, in turn, Cynthia Whittaker, speaking about elites, uses the more cautious expression “political dialogue” in the title of her new book: Whittaker S. Russian Monarchy: Eighteenth-Century Rulers and Writers in Political dialogue. DeKalb (III.), 2003. About Catherine II, see: Ibid. P. 99-118.
15 Wed. about this: Marasinova E.H. Psychology of the elite of the Russian nobility in the 2nd third of the 18th century (based on correspondence). M., 1999; Kissel W.St. Europäische Bildung und aristokratische Distinktion: Zum Habitus des russischen Hochadels im 18. Jahrhundert // Lehmann-Carli G., Schippan M., Scholz W.. Brohm S. (Hrsg.) Russische Aufklärungs-Rezeption im Kontext offizieller Bildungskonzepte (1700-1825 ). Berlin, 2001. S. 365-383.
16 Chechulin N.D. (Ed.) The order of Empress Catherine II given to the Commission on the drafting of a new code. M., 1907. S. CXLV1I.
17 For more details on the class-legal composition and economic status of deputies, see: Belyavsky M.T. The peasant question in Russia on the eve of the uprising of E.I. Pugacheva (formation of anti-serfdom thought). M., I S. 72-85.
18 A common place for research on the second half of the 18th century is references to the Statutory Commission. An example of unsuccessful research is the monograph: Sacke G. Die gesetzgebende Kommission Katharinas II. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des Absolutismus in Rußland. Breslau, 1940. Of the fundamental and interesting works, it should be mentioned: Omeyachenko O.A. “Legitimate Monarchy” of Catherine the Second: Enlightened absolutism in Russia. M., 1993. The influence of the Commission’s work on the formation of noble identity in Russia is discussed in the article: Kamensky A. B. Russian nobility in 1767 (to the problem of consolidation) // History of the USSR. 1990. No. I. P. 58-87. On the nobility, see also: Dukes R. Catherine the Great and the Russian Nobility. Cambridge, 1967; Jones R.E. The Emancipation of the Russian Nobility, 1762-1785. Princeton (N.J.), 1973, pp. 123-163; and also a good review: Madariaga I. de. Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great. P. 139-183 (Russian translation: Madariaga I. de. Russia in the era of Catherine the Great. P. 230-300). 19 Kurmacheva M.D. Problems of education in the Statutory Commission of 1767 // Nobility and serfdom in Russia in the XVI-XVII centuries. M., 1975. pp. 240-264.
20 This was stated in orders from Kostroma, Sudislavl, Medyn, Kaluga, Lublin, Yuryev, Maloyaroslavets, Zaraysk, Serpukhov, Tarusa, Obolensk, Vereya, Suzdal. Mozhaisk, Vladimir, Beloozero, Dorogobuzh, Parfenyev, Galich, Arzamas, Akhtyrka, Usman, Kozlov, Insar, Kasimov. Temnikov, Rylsk and Ufa. Robert Jones pointed out this problem in his time, but he did not pay much attention to issues of education, cf: Jones R. The Emancipation. P. 59.
21 Sat. RIO. T. 14. St. Petersburg, 1875. S. 253, 258. 443, 444, 466; T. 93. St. Petersburg, 1894. P. 10.
22 Kusber J. Eliten- und Volksbildung im Zarenreich Während des 18. und in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts. Studien zu Diskurs, Gesetzgebung und Umsetzung- Stuttgart, 2004. S. 118-136; Eroshkina A.H. Administrator from culture (I.I. Betskoy) // Russian culture of the last third of the 18th century - the time of Catherine the Second. M., 1997. P. 71-90.
23 Sat. RIO. T. 14. P. 401. The argumentation in the order of the nobles of the Novgorod district was built in the same vein (cf.: Ibid. P. 346).
24 Sat. RIO. T. 18. St. Petersburg, 1876. P. 257. It was about the need to establish “a larger number of socially useful gymnasiums” (Ibid. T. 68. St. Petersburg, 1889. P. 72). The orders of the townspeople of the Baltic provinces contained a demand to revive gymnasiums and academies in the form in which they existed before the age of 21 (see: Rozhdestvensky S.V. Essays on the history of popular petition systems in the 18th-19th centuries. St. Petersburg, 1912. P. 287 ).
25 For example, in the orders of nobles from Belev (Belgorod province), Dorogobuzh and Smolensk (Smolensk province), Kashin (Moscow province) and Ryazhsk (Voronezh province) - see: Sat. RIO. T. 8. St. Petersburg, 1871. P. 484; T.14 pp. 327, 422, 433; T. 68. P. 388, 610.
26 Ibid. T. 4. St. Petersburg, 1869. P. 231.
27 For requests from nobles to establish schools and universities, see: Ibid. T. 68. S 130, 150, 176, 193.
28 Ibid. P. 276.
29 Sat. RIO. T. 8. St. Petersburg, 1871. P. 484; T. 14. P. 327, 422, 433; T. 68. P. 257
30 In particular, the Kursk (Ibid., p. 549) or Chernigov (Ibid., p. 236) nobility.
31 [Teplov G.N.] Project for the establishment of Baturin University // Readings in the Society of Russian History and Antiquities. M., 1863. Book. 2. pp. 67-68
32 Sat. RIO. T. 68. P. 137.
33 Ibid. T. 4. P. 289.
34 The solution proposed in one of the orders of the nobles of the Arkhangelsk province can be called almost Solomonic - to give the “high authorities” the right of final determination (see: Ibid. T. 14. P. 490, 495).
35 Sat. RIO. T. 4. P. 362-364; T. 14. P. 275, 346. The solution to the question of teachers was proposed in only one order: it was about “suitable individuals”, see: Ibid. T. 68. P. 549.
36 Ibid. pp. 130, 150-153. The order of the Tula nobles spoke about the opportunity to attend a university or academy (Ibid. T. 4. P. 406).
37 The wishes of the officers of the Samara Hussar Regiment were similar: after graduating from the university or cadet corps, their children should receive all the rights of hereditary nobility (Ibid. T. 93. P. 54).
38 Ibid. T. 4. P. 63.
39 Ibid. T. 68. P. 276.
40 Sat. RIO. T. 8. pp. 500-507.
41 Ibid. T. 14. pp. 244, 249. The establishment of schools was intended to improve virtues and (which also corresponded to the interests of landowners) to improve knowledge of laws.
42 Ibid. T. 8. P. 557; T. 14. P. 395.
43 Along with the Russian edition, there is a German translation by August Ludwig Schlözer, as well as a French edition: Les plans et les Statuts, des differents etablissements ordonnes par sa majeste imperiale Catherine II Pour l "education de lajeunesse. 2 vols. Amsterdam, 1775.
44 Schierle I. Zur politisch-sozialen Begriffssprache der Regierung Katharinas II. Gesellschaft und Gesellschaften: "obscestvo" // Scharf C. (Hrsg.) Katharina II., Rußland und Europa Beiträge zur internationalen Forschung. S. 275-306; Eadem. "Otecestvo" - Der russische Vaterlandsbegriff im 18. Jahrhundert // Pietrow-Ennker B. (Hrsg.) Kultur in der Geschichte Russlands. Räume, Medien, Identitäten, Lebenswelten. Göttingen, 2007. S. 143-162.
45 See: Lotman J.M., Uspenskij B.A. The Role of Dual Models in the Dynamics of Russian Culture // Lotman J.M., Uspenskij B.A The Semiotics of Russian Culture. Ann Arbor (Mich.), 1984, pp. 3-35.
46 Hartley J. The Boards of Social Welfare and the Financing of Catherine II's State Schools // SEER. Vbl. 67. 1989. P. 211-227, here p. 211-213, 215.
47 Ibid. P. 214, 217; Le Donne J. Absolutism and Ruling Class. The Formation of the Russian Political Order. New York, 1991. P. 249.
48 Collection of materials for the history of education in Russia, extracted from the archives of the Ministry of Public Education. T. I. St. Petersburg, 1893. pp. 255-278, 287-296, 299-310.
49 Data for 1802, see: Rozhdestvensky S.V. Essays. pp. 598-600.
50 Ibid. P. 602. Tver society showed greater generosity than Moscow society during the same period.
51 Chernyavsky I.M. Materials on the history of public education in the Ekaterinoslav governorship under Catherine II and Paul I, 1784-1805. Ekaterinoslav, 1895. P. 3.
52 Yuriev V.P. Public education in the Vyatka province during the reign of Empress Catherine II. Materials on his centenary (1786-1886). Vyatka, 1887. P. 17, 28-31,33, 36.
53 For example, the main public school in Voronezh received 100,000 rubles from the Crimean Khan Shagin-Girey, who lived there in exile - see: Pylnev Yu.V., Rogachev S.A. Schools and education of the Voronezh region in the 18th century. Voronezh, 1997. P. 36.
54 Unfortunately, we do not have data at our disposal on whether all landowners participated in this action, see: Rozhdestvensky S.V. Essays. pp. 602-604.
55 For data on Moscow, see, for example: Lepskaya L.A. The composition of students in Moscow public schools at the end of the 18th century. // Vestn. Moscow un-ta. Ser. 9. 1973. No. S. 88-96, here p. 92; Gobza G. Centenary of the Moscow First Gymnasium, 1804-1904. M., 1903. P. 12; RGIA. F. 730. Op. 2. D. 101. L. 45.
56 Kusber J. Eliten- und Volksbildung. S. 239-275.
57 Charter of public schools in the Russian Empire, laid down during the reign of Empress Catherine II. St. Petersburg, 1786; RGIA. F. 730. Op. 1. D. 27 L. 1-67.
58 Catherine allocated 5,000 rubles for the preparation of appropriate teaching aids (cf.: PSZ. Collection 1st. T. 21. No. 15523. P. 685).
59 Shcherbatov M.M. About the damage to morals in Russia. M., 1858; Raeff M. State aßnd Nobility in the Ideology of M.M. Shcherbatov // Slavic Review. Vol. 19. 1960. 363-379.
60 Derzhavin G.R. Notes. St. Petersburg, 1872; Bauer A. Dichtung und Politik. Gavriil Derzavin als Repräsentant der Aufklärung im Zarenreich an der Wende vom 18. zum 19. Jahrhundert: Magisterarbeit. Mainz, 2007.
61 Le Donne J. Ruling Families in the Russian Political Order // Cahiers du monds russe et sovietique. Vol. 28. 1987. P. 233-322. See also: Lotman Yu.M. Conversations about Russian culture. Life and traditions of the Russian nobility (XVII - early XIX century). St. Petersburg, 1994.
62 On this, see first of all: Röbel G. Kärner der Aufklärung. Hauslehrer im Russland des 18. Jahrhunderts // Lehmann-Carli G., Schippan M., Scholz ß Brohm S. (Hrsg.) Russische Aufklärungs-Rezeption im Kontext offizieller Bildungs-konzepte. S. 325-343; Raeff M. Home, School and Service in the Life of an 18th Century Nobleman // SEER. Vol. 40. 1960. P. 295-307.
63 The life and adventures of Andrei Bolotov, described by himself for his descendants. 1738-1793: In 4 volumes. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1870. Stb. 38.
64 Ibid. Stb. 55-56.
65 Röbel G. Kärner der Aufklärung. S. 330.
66 Solodyankina O.Yu. Foreign governesses in Russia (second half of the 18th century - first half of the 19th century). M., 2007. See also: Roosevelt P. Life on the Russian Country Estate: A Social and Cultural History. New Haven (Conn.), 1995 (Russian translation: Roosevelt P. Life in a Russian estate. Experience in social and cultural history / Translation from English. St. Petersburg, 2008).
67 See, for example: Büsching A.F. Unterricht für Informatoren und Hofmeister. 3- Aufl. Hamburg, 1773.
68 Bemerkungen über Esthland, Liefland, Rußland, Nebst einigen eiträgen zur Empörungs-Geschichte Pugatschews. Während eines achtjährigen Aufenthaltes gesammelt von einem Augenzeugen. Prag; Leipzig, 1792. S. 175; Juskeviu A.P (Hrsg.) Der Briefwechsel Leonhard Eulers mit Gerhard Friedrich Müller, 1735-1767. Berlin, 1959. S. 277.
69 Sergeeva S.B. Formation and development of private school education in Russia (Last quarter of the 18th century - first half of the 19th century): Dis. ... Dr. ped. Sci. M., 2003. pp. 233-323.
70 RGIA. F. 730. Op. 1. D. 70. L. 1-111; Op. 2. D. 3. L. 150-190; Otto N. Materials for the history of educational institutions of the Ministry of Public Education: Vologda Directorate of Schools before 1850. St. Petersburg, 1866. P. 15-18.
71 Rozhdestvensky S.V. The significance of the Commission on the establishment of public schools in the history of public education policy in the 18th-19th centuries // Description of the files of the Archive of the Ministry of Public Education. Pg., 1917. T. 1. P. XXXI-LI, here p. XLIX.
72 RGIA. F. 730. Op. 1. D. 70. L. 1-111; Op. 2. D. 3. L. 150-190. For a description of individual pensions, see: Stolpyansky P.N. Private schools and boarding schools in St. Petersburg in the second half of the 18th century // ZhMNP. 1912. Dept. 3. pp. 1-23
73 See instructions to Moscow Governor Ya.A. Bruce (PSZ. Collection 1st. T. 22. No. 16275. P. 464). For a description of Moscow boarding houses, see: Sivkov K.V. Private boarding houses and schools in Moscow in the 80s of the 18th century. // Historical archive. 1951. No. 6. P. 315-323.
74 For example, private schools, financed by funds from subscriptions to the magazine “Morning Light” published by Nikolai Ivanovich Novikov and distributed in the provinces (for example, in Tver, Irkutsk and Kremenchug), were integrated as public schools into the public school system. At the same time, however, it was expected that private donors would continue to participate in the financing of these schools (see: Jones W.G. The Morning Light Charity Schools, 1777-80 // SEER Vol. 56. 1978. P. 47-67, here p. 65).
75 Likhacheva E. Materials for the history of women's education in Russia. T. 1. St. Petersburg, 1890. P. 159, 171, 210; see also memoirs: Schoolgirls. Memoirs of students of the institutes of noble maidens. M., 2008. See also: Nash S. Educating New Mothers: Woman and Enlightenment in Russia // History of Education Quarterly. Vol. 21. 1981. P. 301-316; Eadem. Students and Rubles: The Society for the Education of Noble Girls (Smol"nyj) as a Charitable Institution // Bartlett R., Cross A.G., Rasmussen K. (Ed.) Russia and the World in the Eighteenth Century. Newtonville (Mass. ), 1988. P. 268-279.
76 Hoffmann P. Militärische Ausbildungsstätten in Russland als Zentren der Aufklärung // Lehmann-Carli G., Schippan M., Scholz V., Brohm S. (Hrsg.) Russische Aufklärungs-Rezeption im Kontext offizieller Bildungskonzepte. S. 249-260, here S. 256-259.
77 For example, in Grodno (1797/1800), in Tula (1801) and in Tambov (1802) - see: Krylov I.O. Cadet corps // Domestic history. M., 1994. No. - P. 434-437.
78 Bagalei D.I. Educational activities of Vasily Nazarovich Karazin. Kharkov, 1891; Flynn J.T. V.N. Karazin, the Gentry, and Kharkov University // Slavic Review. Vol. 28. 1969. P. 209-220.
79 Aypopa H.H. Ideas of enlightenment in the 1st Cadet Corps (end of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th century) // Vestn. Moscow un-ta. Ser. 8. 1996. No. 1. P. 34-42; It's her. The system of teaching in military educational institutions in the 18th century. // Research on the history of Russia in the 16th-18th centuries. M., 2000. P. 105-114.
80 Beskrovny L.G. Military schools in Russia in the first half of the 18th century. FROM. T. 42. 1953. pp. 285-300.
81 Marasinova E.H. Psychology of the elite of the Russian nobility. pp. 158-202, etc.; It's her. Power and personality: essays on Russian history of the 18th century. M., 2008.
82 Doronin A.B. (Compiled) “Introducing European morals and customs into the European Family,” to the problem of adapting Western ideas and practices in the Russian Empire. M., 2008.

Realizing her idea of enlightenment and continuing to implement Peter's plan, Catherine II attached paramount importance to the creation of a modern European education system.

She borrowed the school education system from Austria, and he was invited to implement it Jankovic de Mirievo. When he arrived in St. Petersburg in August 1782, he was 40 years old. He lived in Russia for 32 years.

First of all, Yankovic created and headed the Teachers' Seminary in St. Petersburg. Over the years of its existence (1782 – 1804), more than 400 students were trained. For the first time in Russia, there were teachers who had undergone special pedagogical training.

Yankovic prepared and published over 70 textbooks in five years, including 10 of his own: a primer, a handwriting manual, a catechism, a textbook on Russian history, rules for students, etc.

In August 1786, Catherine II approved the most important document of the entire school reform, “The Charter of Public Schools in the Russian Empire.” The drafter of this document was Yankovic. In provincial and district towns, as well as in rural areas, general education schools, public schools, accessible to all, were created.

For the first time, along with special education, general education appears. A unified school education system is being created. According to the charter, two types of public schools were established: main (training period 5 years) and small (2 years). Classes in schools began at 8 a.m. in winter (at 7 a.m. in summer) and lasted until 11 a.m., followed by a break and from 2 to 4 p.m. classes again.

For the first time, teaching was conducted in Russian. It was Yankovic who gave the school the look that it has essentially retained to this day.

Previously, the teacher worked not with the class, but with each student individually, which is why there was a constant buzz in the room: everyone was cramming his own. For the first time, there was one large blackboard in the classroom. For the first time, they began to organize a roll call before classes with the indispensable answer “here.” It was established that whoever wants to ask or answer must raise his left hand. From the 18th century, the class magazine, mandatory exams, and vacations came to us - and all this was invented by Yankovic.

In addition to the state ones, at that time there were also private educational institutions, including foreign ones, opened by the Germans and the French. In 1784, there were 22 foreign private boarding houses and 4 schools in St. Petersburg. The total number of students is 500 people (100 girls). 17 private schools in St. Petersburg were Russian, with 159 students studying there.

Private school teachers were required to have a certificate of knowledge of the sciences they intended to teach. The head of the boarding house or school had to draw up a complete training and education plan.

In addition to general education schools, accessible to all, a network of closed educational institutions was created in St. Petersburg. The initiator of its creation was I.I. Betskoy- one of the most educated people of his time. “The good or bad morals of every person depend on a good or bad upbringing,” he asserted. In his opinion, the family could not give anything good in raising children, so they must be fenced off “from the spoiled environment of their parents” and raised from them into “ideal people” according to the educational model. According to the reports and charters developed by Betsky, the following were opened in St. Petersburg: an educational home for orphans and foundlings; a school at the Academy of Arts for boys of all ranks, excluding serfs, from 5 to 6 years old (1764); the same school at the Academy of Sciences (1765); educational society for noble maidens at the Smolny Monastery (1764); Land Noble Cadet Corps (transformed into a closed school in 1766), etc.

Catherine II paid special attention to the creation of special women's educational institutions. In 1764, by a personal decree of the Empress, the Society of Noble Maidens was created in the Smolny Monastery (Smolny Institute of Noble Maidens). The "Department of Noble Maidens" was supposed to provide society with highly intelligent women; the “philistine department” - to replenish the “third estate” with workers and housewives; it trained teachers and educators (later transformed into the Alexander Institute).

This was an unheard of innovation - a program for creating female citizens, especially if we remember that quite recently these female citizens were locked up in towers and upper rooms. The reforms of Peter and Catherine opened the way for a radical change in the fate of women in all spheres of life. By the end of the century, 1,316 girls were educated at the Institute for Noble Maidens - half “noble”, half “philistine”. We can talk about clear progress in the education of women between the beginning and end of Catherine’s reign, which was expressed in the appearance of “reading” and even “writing” women.

The Smolny Institute was conceived as an educational institution with a very broad perspective. The curriculum for it was developed by D. Diderot. It was assumed that Smolensk students would study at least two languages (besides their native language, German and French; later Italian was included in the plan), as well as physics, mathematics, astronomy, economics, history, geography, poetry, dancing, architecture, drawing , music, sewing, knitting. Studying at the institute was considered an honor. Education lasted for nine years from the age of 5–6 years. During these years, the students were practically never at home.

The principle of isolation was consciously used as the basis for teaching: by this they sought to isolate the pupils from the family, the bearer of old, outdated traditions. Much time was devoted to the moral education of students, which included the acquisition of “secular virtues”: meekness, courtesy, modesty and generosity; physical education - compliance with hygiene standards, walks in the fresh air, healthy food.

Diagnostics and diseases. Medicines from A to Z

Education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century. Organization of public education in the second half of the 18th century

Jan Kusber. What knowledge does a nobleman need to live? Provincial and metropolitan educational discourses of the second half of the 18th and early 19th centuries