The Science Work
Site is for sale:
Category: History

Ekaterina's reform: contours of the state system of national education

UDK 373 (091)

A.V. Kalachyov


In article top trends of development of national education in Russia in the second half of the 18th century are considered. The contradictory nature of the state educational policy during Catherine II's era is traced. The attempt of creation of "new breed of people" through opening of the closed class educational institutions is analyzed. The important part is assigned to various projects of reforming of national education. Characteristic features of creation of the all-Russian state system of school education in the 80th of the 18th century which had obviously expressed democratic character are revealed.

It is aware of the Russian history of a lecture, devoted to an Ekaterina's era, V.O. Klyuchevsky begins with such words: "The age of our history begun by the tsar-carpenter came to an end with the empress-writer" [1, page 501]. However, the original ideas in works of crowned "writer", according to the historian, there was a little. Even its well-known "Order" is "the compilation made according to several works of literature of that time of the educational direction" [1, page 520].

However carried out by Catherine II, the woman clever, well educated, the policy of the educated absolutism undoubtedly contained also some original, new lines. It was formed on maneuvring, use for masking of the pro-noble, pro-serf policy of the educational ideas, emasculating their anti-feudal orientation.

In the first manifesto on accession to the throne the new queen spoke about desire "build the people to the highest degree of welfare" and "to facilitate a burden national". But in three years after ascent the decree granting to landowners the right extrajudicially to banish the peasants on penal servitude was issued. And in 1767 Catherine issued, perhaps, the most serf decree for all history of a serfdom in Russia. Under this decree any, even the most fair, the complaint of peasants to the landowner appeared high treason. It was supposed that the people filing complaints already owing to this fact are "villains and disturbers of the general rest".

The divergence between was in word and deed peculiar also to educational policy of Catherine II, it with inevitability arises where the person says one thing and think another. For example, in its "Order" we read: "Do you want to enrich the people, to create to it welfare, to improve its work, to increase performance? - Arrange schools everywhere, educate the people" [2, page 27]. And the fact that the empress really thought of education of the people

we learn from her private letter to the count N.S. Saltykov: "Should not educate common people: as will know as much how many you yes I, will not begin us to obey in such measure as will obey now" [2, page 58].

After such words it is difficult to believe that Catherine is that person who took real steps on the way of creation of mass national school in Russia. But steps on the way of democratization of education is not someone's whim or a whim, they carry not accidental, but natural character. Education development, steady expansion of number of competent, educated people is the objective, not depending on subjective intentions of any given historic figures process determined by objective requirements of constantly becoming complicated material (economic) and spiritual life of society.

First in educational activity of Catherine the influence popular then in Europe of the educational ideas is considerably felt. The ideas of improvement of society by means of its education, "correction of customs" seemed to the young queen very attractive. Especially she liked thoughts Zh. - Zh. Russo and D. Diderot about education of "new breed of people". If since childhood it is correct to bring up the person, then it is possible to create "new breed of people" - the educated and humane noblemen, merchants, industrialists, handicraftsmen. And then the educated noblemen would not embitter excessive cruelty of the peasants, merchants, industrialists and handicraftsmen diligently would work. Entirely devoted to a throne, not inclined to "harmful philosophizings", they would be society which it would be quiet and pleasant to the educated monarch to operate.

It is no wonder that on this background the realistic project of Lomonosov already familiar to us - Shuvalova, as well as another, appeared in the 60th years educational projects, at Catherine were not of particular interest. But the ideas of the president of Academy of Arts I.I. Betsky about education of children in the closed educational institutions of residential type pleased her.

To give the correct education, considered I.I. Betska, it is possible, having only isolated children from harmful influence of society. Creation of the closed "educational schools" where children would arrive was provided 5-6 years are not more senior until they are not spoiled by bad influence and the wrong education yet. Being in school up to 18-20 years, they even have to meet the immediate family only in certain days and in the presence of tutors.

The class principle was strictly carried out. Exclusive cadet cases, "schools for noble maidens" intended for noble children. For commoners - school at Academy of Arts, educational houses in all provinces. Having left school, commoners had to make new estate - "the third degree of people" - scientists, artists, teachers, doctors, handicraftsmen (the first two degrees - noblemen and peasants). Nothing was told about education and education of country children. Serfs to one school were not admitted.

Not much time was required to understand that the conceived creation of "new breed of people" was a utopia that the class closed schools were not able to provide preparation of necessary number of educated people whom both the huge government, and the noble ancestral lands, and the changed way of city life, and the developing national science and culture needed.

Life demanded wider system of national education, and the best confirmation to it was that, according to P.F. Kapterev, "public pedagogical excitement" which reigned in the 6070th and was expressed "in a set of private projects concerning the structure of education of the people" [3, page 219]. Many their these projects differed in original democratism, contained the ideas of universal, public education.

Issues of national education became the noticeable direction of public work in the cities, and not only in capital. So, at the beginning of the 60th in Arkhangelsk the secretary of provincial magistrate V.V. Krestinin prepared the first project "Institution of a Civil Gymnasium in the City of Arkhangelsk". In it the deplorable condition of commerce and welfare of posadsky inhabitants was stated and for its overcoming it was offered to follow, in particular, to the example of the educated nations which "try about sciences and not tokmo in all cities and suburbs keep open schools, but also in villages" [4, page 123].

V.V. Krestinin offered that in a gymnasium not only "the highest free of charge studied and the lowest" groups of the posadsky population, but also country boys of the Pomor counties. The author represented the state gymnasium as available to all average obshcheob-

razovatelny and at the same time special torgovomorekhodny educational institution. The first purpose of a gymnasium is to bring up the citizen, the second - the kind merchant and the navigator. That could come to it and the children of poor parents who do not have necessary house preparation, Krestinin suggested to open at a gymnasium free preparatory school at the expense of magistrate. The gymnasium had to contain at the expense of "state revenues of commerce" and be operated by bodies of city self-government. All important issues of life of school had to be resolved with active participation of city magistrate, and some of them even to be discussed at a general meeting of all citizens.

In 1764. The Arkhangelsk magistrate approved and sent to the Senate one more project developed by V.V. Krestinin - the Plan of general education by means of opening of small schools for training of any rank of children of both sexes. Senators were to the project kindly favorable disposed, well thought over, concrete plan of universal establishment in the cities of elementary schools which had to be on care of municipalities of domicile fell of them into hands. To these bodies it was imputed a duty to keep account of children of school age, to strictly watch attendance them schools and to fine those parents who do not teach the children. It was especially offered to care that someone from children "did not lose the doctrine behind poverty and an osiroteniye". The senate sent the project for the approval in court office of Catherine II, but had no further course. Probably, having put forward the most important democratic principles of generality and obligation of elementary education of city children, Krestinin too outstripped the time. There will pass hundred more years before conditions for the first attempts of realization of these principles in life ripen.

Even more premature can estimate the project of the organization of country education which is put forward in 1766 by the prominent representative of the Russian Education A.Ya. Polenov. Creation in Russia of Free economic society on which competition Polenov presented work "About bondage of peasants in Russia" became one of the liberal undertakings of the educated empress. In the section which is called "Establishment of country education" he acts as the defender of free, universal and compulsory education of peasants. In the conditions of serf Russia of that time these ideas had radical democratic character.

In the offers A.Ya. Polenov seeks to come off severe reality of country life not too. He understands what difficulties he can meet, for example with realization of the idea of obligation of education of country children. Writes that it is necessary to find such forms of this obligation, to -

tory will not be for peasants of "otyagotitelna" who "would correspond to simplicity of their life and a state" [5, page 33]. At country schools, according to Polenov, children should learn to be read, written, considered, to supply them with the elementary information in the field of religion. Rural sextons under observation and the guide of priests have to carry out a duty of teachers.

Continuing to create persistently a legend of himself as about the educated monarkhena, Catherine II in 1767 approved the Commission for drawing up the new Code. It was declared that its main task - replacement of the outdated Code of 1649 with the new code of laws. And though as well as convocation of the Laid commission, and all its activity had ostentatious, declarative character and had no practical consequences, its materials are of great interest to characteristic of the Russian life, a condition of public consciousness of that time.

Issues of education in materials and activity of the Laid commission received rather broad reflection. So, from 760 orders given to deputies of the Commission, issues of national education are touched in 62, besides, they actively were discussed at 16 of its meetings. Of course, each class group had own idea of training of children, but in general orders demonstrated that in society there was a belief about advantage of education, and not only for its the highest, but also a lower class. Even in noble orders it is possible to meet offers on opening of schools for peasants. It was talked, first of all, of country schools on a church basis. Noblemen of one of counties of the St. Petersburg province suggested "to sextons and sextons to train country a muzhesk of a sex of children of seven years in the diploma and to write", thereby training them "for a sermon and a statement in confession of faith of the law God's and in disgust of deeds of evil, takozh and in knowledge of laws of your imperial majesty" [5, page 44].

Special attention the order of the Dmitrovsky nobility, it only in which the question of secular country school is brought up deserves. "It is necessary to persuade everyone, - we read in the second point of this order, - and in that the yards on hundred, in other place one landowner, in another different landowners, slozhas, supported the skillful teacher, for training on some country children in the diploma and simple arithmetic rules. To this very it is necessary to decline each landowner, interpreting anything how many more advantage he can hope from the competent peasant. Not for one plow the peasant is necessary to the state, but also for different other exercises; the diploma will not prevent to plow, the it is more that those summer in which children can be trained in the diploma vanish almost without any advantage" [5, page 42-43].

The thought that from the competent peasant there can be more advantage both for the landowner, and for the state sounded also at meetings of the Laid commission. But it did not get broad support. Hostility of most of noblemen towards a question of the organization of country schools was behind the erupted disputes. Moods of this majority, his argument are more frank than others the deputy from Penza S. Lyubavtsev expressed: "To the farmer that and school to train children from the early childhood in arable farming and we designate to house works. And if they from the early childhood will be used in sciences, any more to agriculture and other work it will be impossible to incline in any way... because they have no to agriculture and to work of accessory, press in many not requirements: in deception, in prodigality, laziness and theft, and the lands given them are left without arable farming and lie let in" [5, page 50].

The public discussion of problems of training and education developed with the consent of Catherine, certainly, became the new and bright phenomenon in the history of Russia. But, unfortunately, its real policy in the field of education was hypocritical, and the liberalism had ostentatious character. Behind loud phrases about national education and humanity the consistent pro-noble policy, aspiration not to allow penetration of education into a wide people at large is accurately looked through. So, admission in all educational institutions, except soldier's schools was forbidden soldier's children whose of ranks in the 18th century there were many outstanding scientists and cultures. The decree of 1766 was "most strong" forbidden to accept "soldier's children in office attendants". In the 70th years, dismissals of heads and teachers of various educational institutions, officials of the government agencies which left petty bourgeoises and commoners followed. All government agencies had to submit "detailed right sheets" on all bureaucrats "with an explanation of all their origin" [6, page 257-261].

Catherine II finally said goodbye to the liberal hobbies after suppression of a pugachevsky revolt. But also cooled with bitter experience, disappointed monarkhinya did not refuse the idea of the organization in Russia of comprehensive school. It's not just that such school in many European countries already existed and Catherine did not want from them to lag behind.

The main reason as was already emphasized, was that education of a general population became the urgent state need. Let's add here those concerns which were caused to the queen by the democratic movement for the organization of national schools arising in the cities. The outstanding Russian educator N.I. Novikov who in published

him the Utrenny Svet magazine directly urged to give "the firm grounds to national education at the initiative of society and on public means" [7, page 281] was his mastermind. But the power did not want business of education of children to be independent of government guardianship. It is not excluded also that after "Pugachev's Rebellion" Catherine with great attention began to treat opinion of those noblemen who considered that "from the competent peasant there can be more advantage both for the landowner, and for the state".

The tsarist government saw one of the main reasons for broad scope of peasant war of 1773-1775 in weakness of the government on places. The measures directed to strengthening of this power and the organization of a new control system of citizens followed. In 1775 there was a decree "Institution about Provinces" in which, in particular, the section "About National Schools" was introduced. Development of the legal framework for creation of a general education school system also begins with it, in fact.

According to the decree, school business was entrusted to Orders of public contempt, headed by the governor who was considered as the trustee of all schools and educational institutions of the province. It was recommended to establish schools on all cities, and then and in populous settlements for all those, "which will voluntarily wish to study in it in what however not to repair to anybody coercion, but to give on will of parents to send children to school or to leave at home" [7, page 86]. It was especially specified that poor could study without payment, and haves for a moderate payment. For the first time the program of training and also an academic load and the schedule of school day was legislatively defined. To teachers it was forbidden to apply corporal punishments; certain sanitary and hygienic requirements were imposed to school rooms. New schools had to open on the basis of democratic principle of placement of school network at the place of residence of the population.

It is obvious that realization of the innovations provided by the decree would become significant advance on the way of development of Russian education. But in practice this advance was almost imperceptible. The trouble was that the state was discharged of the contents and providing schools, having taken in hand only management, and provided expenses on schools to do to the population. Catherine hoped to base school business on the become obsolete charitable and philanthropic beginnings, urging to rely first of all on "dobrokhotny donations" and the funds raised from parents of pupils. The empress took under personal control creation of national schools in St. Petersburg, but with great difficulty by the beginning of 1782 it was succeeded to organize work only of 7 elementary schools at which there were no 500 pupils also.

However what was difficult in the capital was even more difficult to be carried out in provincial and the more so in the district cities, and about villages and villages the speech could not go at all. The problem of broad development of comprehensive schools remained unresolved.

And then it was decided to address foreign experience, but not the pedagogical ideas of the French educators any more, and pedagogical experience of congenial European monarchy. Within 17821786 the reform on a sample of the Austrian system of national education was undertaken. The big role was played in this case by the Serbian teacher F.I. Jankovic recommended to Catherine by the Austrian monarch. He also made the plan which was the basis for the Charter of national schools approved in 1786. On all empire the opening vsesoslovny, free and general education "national schools" of two types was supposed: main - in the provincial cities and small - in district. Small schools were two-cool, their curricula coincided with curricula of the 1st and 2nd classes of the main schools which were four-cool. The elementary education provided with small schools and the first two classes of the main schools consisted in reading, the letter, arithmetics, a catechism.

Ekaterina's reform became a noticeable step in development of Russian education, its democratic trends. It was talked not of separate schools in some cities any more, and of creation of the all-Russian state system of city schools. Access to education was got by averages and even lower urban population. Here is how the class list of pupils of small national schools of Moscow in the first decade after adoption of the Charter of 1786 (a little unexpectedly) looks: children of noblemen - 9%, clergy - 8%, children of merchants, petty bourgeoises, mandative - 30%, soldier's children - 6%, children domestic - 47% of pupils [8, page 94].

In the Charter of national schools of 1786 contours of a uniform system of secular school from small national school to the university are planned. Graduated from small school could continue study in high school of the main thing. And the pupils of the main school having an opportunity and desire to study further, having in addition studied Latin and one of the European languages, could enter the university.

At the same time in the class list of pupils of the Moscow national schools given above not only the high percent of pupils from city bottoms, but also low attracts attention - from privileged estates. It demonstrates that the principle of a bessoslovnost of school was proclaimed only on paper. Fully purely class educational institutions remained and developed: cadet and pazhesky cases, the state and private noble boards - for noblemen; seminaries - for clergy.

The announced "vsesoslovny", national schools actually remained a peculiar appendage of a class system of schools which not only remained throughout all the XVIII century, but also continued to extend and become stronger in the subsequent time. Eloquently tells such, for example, fact about the valid relation of the power to national schools: in the 90th years of the 18th century on the maintenance of national schools in all provinces and counties of the country less means, than were provided for one Smolny Institute of noble maidens [9, page 358].

But the most serious discredit of the principle of a bessoslovnost of education consisted in ignoring of its indissoluble communication with the principles of generality and obligation of training. The same Austrian, become a role model, an education system provided creation of elementary schools in all cities and villages, obligation of training for boys and girls from 6 to 12 years. Our schools were called national, but were open only in the cities. Therefore the people bulk, i.e. an overwhelming part of country estate, could not teach in them the children already for this reason, without speaking about others.

It would seem, in these conditions the government had to keep at least those forms of education of country children which historically developed on places. But instead the Charter demanded to stop activity of all public and private schools, to forbid any private and home schooling by the persons who do not have the official teacher's certificate.

Among forbidden there were also parish schools; all clergymen under the threat of a penalty were not allowed to conduct training in the houses. P.F. Kapterev comments on current situation the following words: ".sobstvenno national education rural country Luda, living on villages, at Catherine even did not begin, and meanwhile at the same time former dyachkovsky schools as absolutely unsatisfactory, were closed. The Dyachkovsky school was, of course, not high analysis, but it was Liouba that it was free, nobody violently drove to it and dragged, military teams did not catch for it pupils. And she taught expensive, dushespasitelny subject - the divine writing" [3, page 202, 213].

According to Kapterev, Catherine II made a serious mistake, without having listened to those projects of national education in which it was offered to charge training of country children to clergy. It is deeply necessary "to regret that Catherine II wrote off the systems of national education for Russia from foreign samples, turning vnima-a little

ny on what expressed on this matter the Russian figures. We believe that enormous nevoznagradimy damage by rejection of projects about distribution of church and public schools was caused to spiritual culture of the Russian people. Let's remember that these projects were noted by two extremely important lines: generality of tserkovnoobshchestvenny schools and their obligatory visit by boys within 4-5 years. These are significant and serious lines, and the project of such church and public schools cannot be considered impracticable for those times. Such projects based on the previous history of the Russian education and aimed at organic and its powerful development were not adopted. Took some sagansky system, put some Serbian for its implementation, wrote off and translated from German endlessly. And as a result - lack of national education and attempt to spread church and public school hundred years later" [3, page 227-228].

The sharp criticism of educational policy of Catherine II P.F. Kapte-rev who is perfectly owning a word makes a strong impression. Whether but in everything it is fair? Perhaps, "the sagansky system" and not the most perfect, but it is better, than lack of any system. Meanwhile quite so the situation in Russia till 80th of the 18th century was. Not numerous secular schools existing since the beginning of Petrovsky transformations had class and professional character, and, above all, all existed in itself, irrespective of others. There was no uniform school legislation, management, financing, there was no accurate division of educational institutions on types and levels, and educational process did not differ in any systemacity. There were neither classes, nor lessons, there were no programs, plans, academic year, the schedule, standard textbooks, etc.

Kind of we estimated motives and results of activity of the empress in the field of national education, but have to recognize that at it in Russia the system of uniformly arranged educational institutions with uniform curricula, cool and fixed training, with a uniform technique was for the first time created. Such is there was Catherine's reply to requirements of time, her idea of what has to be rather mass education system allowing to carry out not only education of privileged, but also all main estates of the state (except for serfs whose education was left on care of landowners). And though really mass national school was not created, the next steps on the way of democratization of domestic education were taken.

List of references

1. V.O. Klyuchevsky. About the Russian history. M, 1993.
2. E.P. Titkov. Educational policy of Catherine II. M, 1999.
3. P.F. Kapterev. History of the Russian pedagogiya. SPb., 2004.
4. A.E. Chekunova. V.V. Krestinin and his project of creation of "small" schools//Questions of history. 2007. No. 7.
5. G.E. Zhurakovsky. From the history of education in pre-revolutionary Russia. M, 1978.
6. M.M. Strange. The democratic intellectuals in Russia in the 18th century. M, 1965.
7. N.I. Novikov. Chosen pedagogical compositions. M, 1959.
8. L.A. Lepskaya. The list of pupils of national schools of Moscow at the end of the 18th century//Messenger of the Moscow university. History series. 1973. No. 5.
9. The history of the USSR since the most ancient times until the end of the 18th century: the textbook / Under the editorship of B.A. Rybakov. M, 1983.

A.V. Kalachyov, candidate of pedagogical sciences, associate professor.

Volgograd state pedagogical university.

Lenin St., 27, Volgograd, Volgograd region, Russia, 400131.

of E-mail:

Material came to edition 22.01.2010

A. V. Kalachev


In the article considered the main tendencies in the development of people’s education in Russia in the second half of XVIII with. Traced the contradicted character of state educational policy in the epoch of Catherine II. Analysed the attempt to create "new bread of people" through opening of locked all-layed educational schools. The important part belongs to various projects dedicated to reforming peoplees education. Discovered the characteristic features of creation the all-russian state system of school education in 80 years XVIII with., that carried out evidently democratic character.

Volgograd State Pedagogical University.

Ul. Lenina, 27, Volgograd, Volgogradskaya oblast, Russia, 400131.


Richard Taylor
Other scientific works: