The main sources on students of the 19th century. The legal status of students in the late XIX - early XX century. Wirtshafter E.K. Social Structures: Raznochintsy in the Russian Empire…

Commentary by Academic Supervisor Marina Fadeeva, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor, Dean of the HSE Faculty of History Alexander Kamensky

In the mass consciousness, a Russian student of the late 19th and early 20th centuries usually appears as an eternally hungry consumptive youth with a feverish gleam in his eyes and with a soul filled with the most benevolent revolutionary impulses. However, one has only to seriously think about how, even without resorting to specialized literature, it becomes clear that, like many other stilted images that make up mass ideas about the past, this one also does not withstand criticism. After all, if all Russian students of that era were dying of consumption and were preoccupied not with their studies, but only with plans to fight the autocracy, in Russia at the beginning of the last century there would not have been brilliant scientists, engineers, lawyers, doctors and people of all other professions who were trained Russian universities. And during the period of revolutionary upheavals and the Civil War, for some reason, Russian students turned out to be by no means on the side of the Bolsheviks.

The organization of higher education in tsarist Russia, the university as a scientific corporation, and many other topics related to this issue, of course, have recently become one of the most prominent areas of historical research for a reason. What today is often called a crisis in national education and science has deep and by no means only economic roots. Researchers are concerned about the organization of the scientific community, its structure, the system of internal relations, and the norms of scientific ethics. In this context, Marina Fadeeva's appeal to the history of Russian students seems quite logical and natural. However, as her supervisor, I dare say that she came to her completely independently. Having become a history student at the Higher School of Economics herself, she, apparently, and perhaps even without realizing it herself, experienced curiosity about the phenomenon of students, which, ultimately, led her to this topic. Curiosity, as is well known, is the main driving force of science. Having once begun to study Russian students a hundred years ago, Marina, of course, discovered many far-from-resolved issues in this topic and became seriously carried away by it.

The history of Russian pre-revolutionary students is provided, though not too voluminous, but quite representative historiography. In particular, in recent decades, a significant contribution to it has been made by several monographs by A.E. Ivanov, who is rightly considered the best expert on this topic. The work of Marina Fadeeva, however, once again proves that in science there are no “closed” topics once and for all, and each new generation of historians asks the past new questions and receives new answers to them.

Marina Fadeeva, as a researcher who is just starting her career in science and belongs to the youngest generation of Russian historians, is distinguished at the same time by respect for her predecessors, whose works she actively uses, and a healthy distrust of everything she finds in them, the desire to double-check every "historical fact, to document it. Her term paper presented here bears little resemblance to a regular student term paper, significantly exceeding it not only in volume (more than 120 pages!), but also in the variety of subjects covered in it and the methods used. Not to mention the fact that in the coursework written in the second year you will not often find references to archival sources! Another distinguishing feature of the presented work is its consistency.

The author began with an attempt to understand what students are as a social group, what place they occupied in Russian society, what distinctive characteristics were provided by his contemporaries and subsequent historiography, then moving on to its formal characteristics (number, social origin), and from them - to recreate the reality of everyday life, which she rightly and in full accordance with the ideas of modern science considers as the basis for the formation of a worldview. To the reader, who is not too versed in the peculiarities of modern historical knowledge and expects to find, first of all, information about the number of students inspired by the works of Lavrov, Bakunin, Mikhailovsky and Marx, this approach may seem strange, and the abundance of tables and other digital material and completely avert from careful reading. But as soon as you read it, you discover with pleasure how the next historical stereotypes begin to crumble. In addition, let's remember: we are only an intermediate stage on the way to big science, although not devoid of certain stylistic and compositional shortcomings, but representing a very serious and thorough application.

Formation of the worldview of the Moscow students of the end XIX - start XX century

1. The concepts of "raznochintsy", "intelligentsia»

The concept of "students", like any definition, cannot be unambiguous. The related concepts are just as diverse. The raznochintsy component of students in the understanding of contemporaries and the minds of researchers often overshadows other parts of the student body, many students are defined as young intelligentsia, and therefore, in our opinion, on the eve of discussions about students, we should define what “raznochintsy” and “intelligentsia” are.

Pre-revolutionary historiography already understood the raznochinets in different ways: if B. Frommet defines the raznochintsy as “people without a family, without a tribe, sometimes associated with the lower ranks of the people, always cut off from all classes of society, with high hopes and without a penny in their pocket, with dreams of a marshal rod and without any social status ", then S. Svatikov, on the contrary, calls the main qualities of a raznochinets" a high understanding of the individual and a sharply expressed sense of self-worth ".

The definition of B. Frommett is similar to the ideas about raznochintsy that prevail in culture. As E. Wirtshafter writes, non-nobles and educated commoners were called raznochintsy - initially to belittle or condemn demeanor. For example, raznochintsy at A.N. Ostrovsky - these are half-educated students, non-nobles.

In Soviet historiography, the concept of "raznochintsy" is closely intertwined with the criterion of education. According to V.R. Leykina-Svirskaya, by the 19th century, “those who received a rank or title by the right of education began to be called raznochintsy”.

Modern researchers emphasize the fact that categories of the population that often fall under the criteria of raznochintsy did not use this term for self-determination. E. Wirtshafter also writes about the 19th century as a turning point in the definition of raznochintsy: initially being a transitional category of ignorant strangers, they become part of the educated elite.

If by the period of interest to us, raznochintsy are often defined through the presence of higher education, then it will be interesting to look at how they correlate with the intelligentsia in the research literature.

Modern historiography pays attention to this issue. Researchers such as S.G. Stafeev, V.V. Bocharov, E.I. Shcherbakova and L.G. Sukhotin either distinguish "raznochintsy" as part of the intelligentsia, or identify these concepts. For example, L.G. Sukhotina writes about the intelligentsia as "raznochinny in terms of social composition."

There are many definitions of the intelligentsia in historiography, each of the authors strives to give his own, the most complete and accurate, but no one has succeeded in this endeavor. K.B. Sokolov, considering the established definitions of the intelligentsia, identifies three main criteria by which one or another part of society is singled out into a single group called "intelligentsia": an intellectual as a person with an appropriate level of education, or as a "good person", a valiant knight, "conscience people", educator, defender, or as a dissident.

Most of the definitions of the intelligentsia in the historiography we have examined can be divided into these three groups: V.V. Bocharov, B.I. Kolonitsky and V. Zhivov. The image of a “good person” was mostly liked by Soviet researchers (in their works, N.G. Chernyshevsky and N.A. Dobrolyubov formed intellectuals as people of the highest spiritual qualities), V.R. Leikina-Svirskaya, M.N. Tikhomirov and A.N. Maslinny. Both pre-revolutionary and modern authors believe in the "dissidence" of the intelligentsia. This is P.B. Struve, I.A. Ilyin , P.I Novgorodtsev , E.I. Shcherbakova , E. Wirtschafter , S.M. Usmanov and L.G. Sukhotin.

K.B. himself Sokolov criticizes all three common approaches. In his opinion, “there is no doubt that the intelligentsia is not just a category or not only a professional one. These are not just people of “intellectual labor”, but also, for example, representatives of the village intelligentsia, and therefore the first criterion is not suitable. The author proposes to represent the concepts of "intelligentsia" and "educated class" in the form of two concentric circles, then the intelligentsia is an internal initiative, creative circle.

Also, the intelligentsia is only in a fit of narcissism, according to K.B. Sokolova, could position herself as the "conscience of the people." In addition, the defined group itself never identified itself with the revolutionaries, and the revolution did not position its intelligence.

Thus, the selected criteria, according to K.B. Sokolov, are not true. However, he himself despairs of the possibility of ever once and for all ending the dispute about the intelligentsia and, it seems, comes to a certain agreement with the philologist V.S. Elistratov, who claims that anything can be found in the meaning of this word, but any definition will imply the best part of Russia.

What are the distinguishing features of the intelligentsia? Researchers of different generations and views single out in it detachment (V.M. Zhivov, P.B. Struve, E.I. Shcherbakova, P.I. Novgorodtsev), isolation, alienation (P.B. Struve, I.A. Ilyin , E. Wirtshafter, L.G. Sukhotina), radicalism (E.I. Shcherbakova, S.M. Usmanov), skepticism, criticality, nihilism (I.A. Ilyin, L.G. Sukhotina, E.I. Shcherbakova ).

“Beggars, unarmed people throw kings off the throne out of love for their neighbor. Out of love for the motherland, the soldiers trample on death with their feet, and she runs without looking back. Wise men ascend to heaven and dive into hell itself - out of love for the truth. The earth is being rebuilt out of love for beauty." The intelligentsia appeared to researchers to be just as versatile, and, perhaps, it was just as diverse in reality, not representing a homogeneous mass. We agree with K.B. Sokolov and, recognizing that “in general, it is already obvious that none of the known definitions of the intelligentsia is able to cover and explain the entire phenomenon as a whole” and we are talking about a concept that “does not have a clear detonation and includes an element of interpretation already when it is used ”, let us turn to the definition of students and highlighting the characteristic features of its Russian part.

2. Definition of students, its characteristics in Russian realities

Student - a student of a higher educational institution, university or academy.
V. Dahl. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language

Students are considered as a special society that was formed around this educational institution and makes an independent contribution to public life.
Feofanov A.M. Students of Moscow University in the second half XVIII - first quarter XIX in.

As epigraphs for this part, we took two definitions of students: given in the Explanatory Dictionary of a contemporary of the period we are considering - V.I. Dahl and formulated in the work of a contemporary researcher. According to these statements, it is clear that over two centuries, ideas about the subject of interest to us have not undergone significant changes.

The research literature tends to oppose the student body and its characteristic features depending on the geography of study: they do not see much similarity in Russian and foreign students, except for the fact of receiving higher education. An exception is the position of B. Frommet, who at the beginning of the 20th century disputed the widespread contemporary statements to him, “as if only in Russia alone, studying youth dares to claim active participation in the political life of the country, [which] without any doubt, is not true, or at least , greatly exaggerated."

Most researchers who have addressed this issue tend to oppose Russian students to foreign students. This tradition begins with pre-revolutionary authors. For example, G.B. Sliozberg sees the answer to the question of whether revolutionism is a specific feature of Russian students in the “difference in the composition of students”: in Europe, higher education was the lot of the elite, and therefore the material issue that played such a big role in the life of students in Russia did not stand there at all.

Our contemporaries V.V. Ponomarev and L.B. Khoroshilov, the explanation for such a significant difference is found in the very culture of universities. The Russian path “was a path opposite to the Western European one, where the experience, traditions, culture accumulated in society completely determined the lifestyle of educational institutions, but in our country it is in many respects the opposite - educational institutions created according to someone else's model themselves, sometimes by touch, created traditions, and culture, shaped the experience that decades later will form the basis of the traditions of the next generations of educational institutions.

Let us turn to questions closer to our topic and, on the basis of the censuses of Moscow (1882 and 1902), we will look at the share of students in the total mass of the Moscow population and at the quantitative changes taking place with this group. First, we present data that allow us to judge the percentage of the male population of the age we need (from 18 to 30 years old - the most common student age) to the entire mass of the population of Moscow, and then we correlate these men with the number of students.

Let's make a reservation in advance that we are interested in the age from 18 to 30 years and only students from the variety of all students, so in the tables we will provide only data on these ages and categories.

Table 1. Age distribution of the male population (1882) .

Age	Husband.	Total
15–20	7,00%	12,00%
20–25	8,00%	12,00%
25–30	7,00%	11,00%
Total	57,00%	100,00%

The table shows that out of the entire population of Moscow in 1882, we will be interested in 22% of men. We correlate them with the number of students.

Table 2. Distribution according to the degree of education of the male population (1882)

	windows.	Not OK.	Total
Universities	2785	703	3488

So, in total, in 1882, 432,447 males lived in Moscow, of which 22% were men aged 18 to 30 years, i.e. 95,138 people. Of these, 3488 people were listed as students at the university. This means that 0.8% of men in Moscow were students in 1882.

Let us now look at the changes that had taken place by 1902.

Table 3. Age distribution of the male population (1902)

Age (years of age)		born
	In Moscow	Outside Moscow	Total
18	3148	15 374	18 522
19	2722	14 637	17 359
20	2524	16 025	18 549
21	2288	15 829	18 117
22	2180	17 723	19 903
23	2045	16 506	18 551
24	1937	15 037	16 974
25	2038	16 730	18 768
26	1992	14 754	16 746
27	2022	16 275	18 297
28	2079	16 332	18 411
29	1765	12 346	14 111
30	2080	16 725	18 805

According to these data, out of the entire population of Moscow in 1882, we will be interested in 38% of men. We correlate them with the number of students.

Table 4. Distribution according to the degree of education of the male population (1902)

Age (years of age)	Total number [students in higher education]	Universities
18	1742	173
19	1488	474
20	1430	800
21	1389	962
22	1146	902
23	969	776
24	719	602
25	536	418
26	324	250
27	197	145
28	101	59
29	58	35
30 or more	158	76
Total	43981	5690

In 1882, 613,303 males lived in Moscow, of which 38% were men aged 18 to 30, i.e. 233,113 people. Of these, 5690 people are listed as students at the university, which means that in 1902, 0.92% of men in Moscow were students.

Thus, over the 20 years from 1882 to 1902, the number of university students increased: from 3488 to 5690 people and grew from only 0.8% to 0.92%.

“What is the appearance of a Russian student? There is no doubt that the Russian students were a group of young people, imbued in the vast majority with the desire to develop principles for future activities - a group that had its own common features and was imbued with a special mood, ”wrote G.B. Sliozberg.

Based on the studied historiography, memoirs of students and professors, as well as information from official reports, we will try to determine these common features and highlight the distinctive features of Russian students.

There are no less disputes regarding the definition of students than in the case of the intelligentsia. So, according to S. Kassov, the students were distinguished by a "clear sense of corporate identity", as well as a "sense of a student family". According to A.M. Annenkov, “as a distinctive feature in the student environment of the first third of the 19th century. freedom of opinion and speech can be singled out, and G.B. Sliozberg - "the presence among students of heterogeneous, alien in upbringing and habits to elements" . V.R. Leikina-Svirskaya insists that "Russian students had a democratic character." “The expectations of beneficial changes in Russian society, typical for the students of that time [the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century,” notes A.E. Ivanov. V.E. Baghdasaryan is sure that "the departure of students to the revolution was a manifestation of the crisis of youthful socialization." “Professors, as well as a significant part of the so-called educated society [in fact, the intelligentsia], educate the younger generation, in short, a revolutionary spirit,” Professor N.P. states with indignation. Bogolepov. “The growth of the student movement gave rise to a powerful impulse for self-knowledge among the students of universities,” writes Yu.D. Margolis, “as far as society is concerned, in this era the student’s blue band was a patent for trust,” emphasizes S. Svatikov.

From this variety of striking characteristics, it becomes clear only that the main features of the student body were its diversity and heterogeneity. What are the inalienable qualities of a Russian student of the late 19th - early 20th century?

We have formulated the following ten distinctive features: community and solidarity; the desire to develop ideals and norms of behavior; transition and heterogeneity; democracy; search for yourself; corporatism; own ideas about the future; state of political views; commitment to certain ideas and, finally, interaction with society.

The selected features of the students are understood differently by historiography and the authors of the sources: some are noted only by the authors of a certain era, others are accepted by the majority, many turn out to be controversial. Let's consider them sequentially.

Let us first turn to the features of the student body, understood in a similar way. All authors note, firstly, the desire of students for community and solidarity (data from the “Report of the Moscow University Commission of 1901 on the causes of student unrest”, works by S. Melgunov, S. Svatikov, S. Kassov, P.V. Grishunin, A .M. Feofanov and E. Vishlenkova, R. Galiullina, K. Ilyina). Secondly, their desire to develop ideals and norms of behavior that proclaimed freedom, morality, and ideological life as ideals is noted (information provided by S. Melgunov, “Report of the Judicial Commission for 1893/1894”, S. Svatikov, A.E. Ivanov, G.I. Shchetinina, S. Kassov and A.M. Annenkov). Thirdly, the transition and heterogeneity of the students, who came out of different social strata and at the university transformed into something, on the one hand, completely new, and on the other hand, retaining traces of the original estate and class affiliation (data from G.B. Sliozberg, V R. Leikina-Svirskaya, A. E. Ivanov, N. G. Georgieva, S. Kassova, V. N. Simonov and A. M. Feofanov). Fourthly, it is the democracy of students in various spheres of life (representations by S. Svatikov, V.R. Leikina-Svirskaya, A.E. Ivanov and N.G. Georgieva). And, fifthly, students' search for themselves (beliefs of S. Melgunov, B. Frommet, S. Kassov, Yu.D. Margolis and N.G. Zavadsky).

Other five features are controversial in the interpretation of researchers. This is, firstly, the corporatism of students, which most people call one of the main features of the student body (R. Vydrin, A.E. Ivanov, S. Kassov, O.A. Vakhterova, P.V. Grishunin, I.V. Zimin and E. Vishlenkova, R. Galiullina, K. Ilyin), while others, on the contrary, write about the destruction of corporatism by the charter of 1884 (information from the “Report of the Moscow University Commission of 1901 on the causes of student unrest” and S.I. Mitskevich). Secondly, their ideas about the future: uncertain (in the interpretation of G.B. Sliozberg and S. Kassov) and confidence in change (A.E. Ivanov). Thirdly, the state of political views is assessed by researchers in different ways. They were almost equally divided in their opinions: some speak of the uncertainty and heterogeneity of student ideas (R. Vydrin, A. Saltykov, V.B. Elyashevich, M.V. Sabashnikov, S. Kassov, V.N. Simonov and A.M. Annenkov), others write about political differentiation and activity (G.B. Sliozberg, V. Lind, G.A. Veselaya, A.E. Ivanov, S.I. Radtsig, N.G. Zavadsky, V.E. Baghdasaryan). Fourthly, the commitment of Russian students to certain ideas: we learn either about the inclination of students to liberal ideas (A. Saltykov and Yu.K. Rachkovskaya), or about their revolutionary worldview (N.I. Khudyakov, G.I. Shchetinina, S D. Speshkov and N. G. Zavadsky). And, finally, fifthly, the interaction of students and society is also regarded ambiguously: if the majority tends to their mutual trust (Commission of the Moscow University of 1901 on the causes of student unrest, S.D. Speshkov, B. Frommet, V. Kurbsky, S. Svatikov, G.B. Sliozberg and A.S. Izgoev), then the rest write about students outside of society (S. Melgunov) or about society's distrust of students (in the submissions of the Judicial Commission [student]).

This is how the image of Russian students of the late 19th - early 20th century appears in the sources and works of researchers.

3. Correlation of the concepts of students, intelligentsia and raznochintsy

Above, we talked about the intelligentsia, its definitions and characteristics, as well as the definition of the Russian student body and its inherent features. Now consider how these concepts are combined from the point of view of researchers from different eras.

Regardless of the time of creation of their works, various authors are unanimous in their assessments. S. Svatikov, G.B. Sliozberg , A. Saltykov , N.G. Georgiev, G.I. Shchetinina, N.G. Zavadsky and B.I. Kolonitsky.

Some researchers separately emphasize that the students were "the quintessence of the Russian intelligentsia." We find such statements, in particular, in the works of R. Vydrin, A.E. Ivanov and K.B. Sokolova.

Thus, we have shown how historiography evaluates raznochintsy, intelligentsia and students, what characteristic features stand out in each case, and how these concepts are combined with each other. To understand the relationship between these three concepts and to understand the essence of the student body, we expressed this relationship with a diagram.

Scheme 1

Let us briefly explain the structure of the circuit. Let us first explain the inclusion of the intelligentsia in the educated population only as a part. This is explained by our agreement with the ideas of S.G. Stafeev, who defines the intelligentsia in such a way in Russian realities. He is convinced that “unlike Western intellectuals, for whom the main criterion for attributing them to this stratum was professional mental work, in Russia people began to be called intelligentsia, differing primarily in two characteristic features: the desire to selflessly serve the people, to express and protect its interests and irreconcilable opposition to political power. Thus, in Russian realities, along with the level of education, one of the main criteria for the intelligentsia is its opposition. Further, according to E.K. Wirtshafter, raznochintsy are fully included in the intelligentsia, tk. were its most radical part. As for the students, it seemed important to us to emphasize their heterogeneity not only in social terms, but also in terms of beliefs. After all, even the pre-revolutionary researcher S. Svatikov emphasized that "the hegemony of the intelligent commoner was so strong in the students that his appearance overshadowed other types of youth." Therefore, on the diagram, students are represented, on the one hand, as part of the intelligentsia and, accordingly, part of the raznochintsy, and on the other hand, as part of the educated population, i.e. holders of higher education loyal to the government.

4. The origins of the student body (XVIII- StartXIXcentury)

The chosen chronological framework of this work is the middle of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century (1860-1904), therefore, the time preceding this period can be spoken of as the origins of students. On the basis of historiography, we will show how students were understood in the era of its inception, and look at the evolution within this process, so that later, when analyzing students of the period we have chosen, it would be possible to trace the causes and evolution of certain ideas of students and its perception by society, the authorities and the students themselves of the Moscow university.

Let us first follow the quantitative changes in the number of students.

Table 5. Changes in the number of students in Russia (1808–1894)

Year	Number of students, pers.
1808	150
1830	1996
1850	3368
1860	5453
1865	5453
1872	7251
1894	8193

Table 6. Changes in the number of students at Moscow and St. Petersburg Universities (1850–1894)

Year/University	1850	1880	1885	1890	1894
Moscow	821	1881	3179	3492	3761
Petersburg	387	1675	2340	1815	2676

What are the changes in the number of students in Russia? From 1808 to 1894, the number of students increased from 150 to 8193 people, i.e. 55 times. The number of students also increased at Moscow University: from 1850 to 1894, the number of students increased 4.5 times (from 821 to 3761 people).

Let us divide the time of the origins into two periods - the 18th century and the beginning of the 19th century - and consider them sequentially.

The 18th century is presented in historiography as follows. One of the pre-revolutionary researchers of the student movement emphasizes at this time the fact that “university education, accessible only to one nobility, did not open up especially tempting prospects for students, because. the conditions of the serf regime hindered any cultural undertaking.

Modern authors narrate in detail about the time of the birth of Russian universities. In the book “Higher Education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917" it is reported that "all types and types of higher educational institutions were created at the initiative of the state and at the expense of the state" , and therefore "the state hampered any manifestation of public goals if they did not pursue pragmatic tasks" . V.A. Zmeev notes that “universities began to really influence changes in the social class composition of the population of St. clothes."

With regard to the beginning of the 19th century, the collection "Higher Education in Russia ..." characterizes changes in government policy in the field of education as follows. “Autonomy and authoritarianism were changing; Recognition of intrinsic value for higher education was given with difficulty both in the sphere of government and in a slowly evolving society.

A.M. Annenkov dwells in detail on the characteristics of the students of this period. He writes that “at the beginning of the 19th century. young people who entered the university saw it as the main means for realizing their abilities and desires ", noting that" most of the students studied willingly and seriously "," however, with all the "thirst for knowledge", the general educational level of students remained low due to the rather low qualifications of the teaching staff and imperfect forms of education” . Speaking about the life of pupils of Moscow University, he reports that students read willingly and a lot, and "books and magazines banned by official censorship were especially popular", the theater was also a form of leisure. “As a distinctive feature in the student environment of the first third of the 19th century. freedom of opinion and speech can be singled out,” the researcher concludes. The theme of student life is continued by N.V. Makarov, emphasizing that "students of Moscow University were distinguished by frequent visits to taverns, of which Moscow had enough" . In addition to the theater, in her opinion, “a characteristic feature of student life in the first half of the 19th century was student “gatherings”. Young people gathered informally, discussed university life, professors, and various issues of Russian life. At these "gatherings" there were occasional drinking bouts. In general, “students of the first universities were not distinguished by good manners,” the researcher concludes. E. Vishlenkov, R. Galiullina and K. Ilyin complete the characterization of the students of the early 19th century. They emphasize the fact that "in the 1830s, the Russian student acquired clear identification marks", became more educated and older.

Notes

1. Frommet B. Essay on the history of students in Russia. SPb., 1912. S. 27.

2. Svatikov S. Students before and now // Way of students. Sat. articles. Private collection of proceeds to the fund of the Moscow student house. M., 1916. S. 1–19 (hereinafter: Svatikov S. Students before and now...).

3. Wirtshafter E.K. Social structures: raznochintsy in the Russian Empire. Per. from English. T.P. Party. Ed. A.B. Kamensky. M.: Logos, 2002 (hereinafter: Wirtshafter E.K. ).

4. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. Intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. Moscow. 1971. S. 25 (further: Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. Intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century ...).

5. Stafeev S.G. Russian intelligentsia and its role in the social movement (second half of the 19th century) // Person, culture, society: interuniversity. Sat. scientific tr. / Editorial staff: N.V. Dulin (responsible editor) and others / VolgGTU. Volgograd, 2005. Issue. 2. P. 67–76. (Further: Stafeev S.G. The Russian intelligentsia and its role in the social movement (second half of the 19th century) ...).

6. Bocharov V.V. Intelligentsia and violence: socio-anthropological aspect // Anthropology of violence. RAN. Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology. Miklouho-Maclay. Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography. Peter the Great (Kunstkamera). St. Petersburg State University. Rep. Ed. V.V. Bocharov, V.A. Tishkov. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 2001, pp. 39–85 (hereinafter: Bocharov V.V. Intelligentsia and Violence: A Socio-Anthropological Aspect…).

7. Shcherbakova E.I. Raznochinskaya intelligentsia of the 60s of the XIX century as a potential opponent of political detectives // Historical readings on the Lubyanka. Russian special services at the turn of the era: the end of the 19th century - 1922. Moscow, Veliky Novgorod, 1999, pp. 48–55 (hereinafter: Shcherbakova E.I. Raznochinskaya intelligentsia of the 60s of the XIX century as a potential opponent of political detective agencies ...).

8. Sukhotina L.G. Russian intelligentsia and social thought. Publishing House of Tomsk University, 2008 (hereinafter: Sukhotina L.G. ).

9. Ibid. S. 14.

10. Sokolov K.B. Russian intelligentsia of the 18th - early 20th centuries: a picture of the world and everyday life. SPb., 2007 (hereinafter: Sokolov K.B. ).

11. Bocharov V.V. Intelligentsia and Violence: A Socio-Anthropological Aspect…

12. Kolonitsky B.I. Intelligentsia in the late 19th - early 20th century: contemporaries' self-awareness and research approaches // From the history of the Russian intelligentsia. Collection of materials and articles dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the birth of V.R. Leikina-Svirskaya. SPb., 2003. S. 181–201 (hereinafter: Kolonitsky B.I. Intelligentsia in the late 19th - early 20th century: contemporaries' self-awareness and research approaches...).

13. Zhivov V. Marginal culture in Russia and the birth of the intelligentsia. // New literary review. 1999. No. 37 (hereinafter: Zhivov V. Marginal Culture in Russia and the Birth of the Intelligentsia…).

14. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. The intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century ...

15. History of Moscow University. Volume I. Rep. ed. M.N. Tikhomirov. M., 1955.

16. Maslin A.N. Materialism and revolutionary-democratic ideology in Russia in the 60s of the XIX century. M., 1960.

17. Struve P.B. Intelligentsia and revolution (1909) // Russian sources of modern social philosophy. Intelligentsia. Power. People. M., 1993. S. 190–204 (hereinafter: Struve P.B. Intelligentsia and revolution ...).

18. Ilyin I.A. On the Russian intelligentsia (1927) // Russian sources of modern social philosophy. Intelligentsia. Power. People. M., 1993. S. 275–281 (hereinafter: Ilyin I.A. About the Russian intelligentsia ...).

19. Novgorodtsev P.I. On the Ways and Tasks of the Russian Intelligentsia (1918) // Russian Sources of Modern Social Philosophy. Intelligentsia. Power. People. M., 1993. S. 225–241 (hereinafter: Novgorodtsev P.I. About the ways and tasks of the Russian intelligentsia ...).

20. Shcherbakova E.I. Ethics of revolutionary action (60s of the 19th century). Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 1996 (hereinafter: Shcherbakova E.I. Ethics of revolutionary action (60s of the XIX century) ...).

21. Wirtshafter E.K. Social Structures: Raznochintsy in the Russian Empire…

22. Usmanov S.M. Hopeless dreams. Russian intelligentsia between East and West in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. Ivanovo, 1998 (further: Usmanov S.M. Hopeless dreams. Russian intelligentsia between East and West in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries ...).

23. Sukhotina L.G. Russian intelligentsia and social thought ...

24. Sokolov K.B. Russian intelligentsia of the 18th - early 20th centuries: a picture of the world and everyday life ...

25. Zhivov V. Marginal culture in Russia and the birth of the intelligentsia ... S. 39.

26. Struve P.B.

27. Shcherbakova E.I.

28. Novgorodtsev P.I. About the ways and tasks of the Russian intelligentsia ... S. 237.

29. Struve P.B. Intelligentsia and revolution ... S. 192.

30. Ilyin I.A. About the Russian intelligentsia ... S. 277.

31. Wirtshafter E.K. Social Structures: Raznochintsy in the Russian Empire…

32. Sukhotina L.G. Russian intelligentsia and social thought ... S. 14.

33. Shcherbakova E.I. Ethics of revolutionary action (60s of the XIX century) ... S. 53.

34. Usmanov S.M. Hopeless dreams. Russian intelligentsia between East and West in the second half of the 19th - early 20th century ... S. 5.

35. Ilyin I.A. About the Russian intelligentsia...

36. Sukhotina L.G. Russian intelligentsia and social thought ...

37. Shcherbakova E.I. Ethics of revolutionary action (60s of the XIX century) ... S. 53.

38. Schwartz E.L. Ordinary miracle: plays, fairy tales. Moscow: Eksmo. 2011, pp. 559–560.

39. Sokolov K.B. Russian intelligentsia of the 18th - early 20th centuries: a picture of the world and everyday life ... S. 38.

40. Ibid. S. 39.

41. Dahl W. Explanatory dictionary of the living Great Russian language. M., 1956. T. IV. Explanatory Dictionary of the Living Great Russian Language by Vladimir Dahl. Second edition, corrected and greatly enlarged from the author's manuscript. Volume four. SPb., M., 1882. S. 347.

42. Feofanov A.M. Students of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th century. Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 2006 (hereinafter: Feofanov A.M. Students of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries ...).

43. Frommet B. Essay on the history of students in Russia ... S. 1.

44. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students // In memory of Russian students. Paris, 1934, pp. 82–95 (further: Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ...).

45. Ponomareva V.V., Khoroshilova L.B. University Noble boarding house. 1779–1830 Moscow: New Chronograph, 2006, p. 63.

46. ​​Census of Moscow in 1882. Issue. II. Population and Occupations. M .: City Printing House, 1885 (hereinafter: Census of Moscow in 1882. Issue II. Population and Occupations ...).

47. Ibid. S. 77.

48. Ibid. S. 77.

49. Census of Moscow in 1902. Part I. Population. Issue. 1. Population by sex, age, field, length of stay in Moscow, marital status, estates, literacy and degree of education. Publication of the Statistical Department of the Moscow City Council. M., 1904 (hereinafter: Census of Moscow in 1902. Part I. Population. Issue 1. Population by sex, age, field, length of stay in Moscow, marital status, estates, literacy and degree of education ...).

50. Ibid. S. 38.

51. Ibid. S. 106.

52. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 82.

53. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia. L.: University of California Press, 1989. P. 54 (hereinafter: Kassow S.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia…).

54. Ibid. pp. 48–49.

55. Annenkov A.M. Russian students in the first third of the 19th century in the memoirs of contemporaries // Culture of historical memory. Proceedings of the scientific conference (September 19–22, 2011). Petrozavodsk, 2002, pp. 106–113. S. 112 (further: Annenkov A.M. Russian students in the first third of the 19th century in the memoirs of contemporaries...).

56. Sliozberg G.B.

57. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R.

58. Ivanov A.E. Student corporation of Russia in the late 19th - early 20th century: experience of cultural and political self-organization. M., 2004. S. 288 (hereinafter: Ivanov A.E. Student corporation of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century: the experience of cultural and political self-organization ...).

59. Bagdasaryan V.E. Motives for deviant behavior of students in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. // Russian students: conditions of life and life (XVIII-XXI centuries). All-Russian scientific conference. Collections of scientific articles. M., 2004. S. 83 (hereinafter: Bagdasaryan V.E. Motives for deviant behavior of students in the late 19th - early 20th centuries. // Russian students: conditions of life and life (XVIII-XXI centuries) ...).

60. From the notes of Professor N.P. Bogolepov. A page from the life of Moscow University. M., 1911. P. 55 (further: From the notes of Professor N.P. Bogolepov. A page from the life of Moscow University ...).

61. Margolis Yu.D. Student censuses in Russia 1872–1912 // Medieval and new Russia. Collection of scientific articles. To the 60th anniversary of prof. AND I. Froyanova. SPb., 1996. S. 658 (hereinafter: Margolis Yu.D. Student censuses in Russia 1872–1912…).

62. Svatikov S.

63. Materials on the university issue. Issue. 2. Report of the commission of the Moscow University in 1901 on the causes of student unrest. Stuttgart, 1904. P. 59 (hereinafter: Materials on the university issue. Issue 2. Report of the commission of Moscow University in 1901 on the causes of student unrest ...).

64. Melgunov C. Student organizations in the 80s–90s at Moscow University (according to archival data). M., 1908. S. 3 (hereinafter: Melgunov C. Student organizations in the 80s–90s at Moscow University (according to archival data) ...).

65. Svatikov S.

66. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 22.

67. Grishunin P.V. Students of metropolitan universities: structures of everyday life. 1820s–1880s Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. SPb., 2005. S. 18 (hereinafter: Grishunin P.V. Students of metropolitan universities: structures of everyday life. 1820–1880s...).

68. Feofanov A.M. Students of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries ... P. 25–26.

69. Russian professors. University corporatism or professional solidarity. M.: NLO, 2012. S. 59 (hereinafter: Vishlenkova E., Galiullina R., Ilyina K. Russian professors. University corporatism or professional solidarity…).

70. Melgunov C. From the history of student societies in Russian universities. M., 1904. S. 1 (hereinafter: Melgunov C. From the history of student societies in Russian universities...).

71. Report of the judicial commission for 1893/1894 // From the notes of Professor N.P. Bogolepov. A page from the life of Moscow University. M., 1911. S. 109.

72. Svatikov S. Students before and now ... S. 10.

73. Ivanov A.E. Russian university students on the eve of the first Russian revolution. Socio-political appearance // Revolutionary movement of the democratic intelligentsia of Russia in the period of imperialism. Collection of scientific papers. M., 1984. S. 123 (further: Ivanov A.E. Russian university students on the eve of the first Russian revolution. Socio-political appearance ...).

74. Shchetinina G.I. Students and the revolutionary movement in Russia. Last quarter of the 19th century Abstract for the degree of Doctor of Historical Sciences. M., 1988. S. 42 (hereinafter: Shchetinina G.I. Students and the revolutionary movement in Russia. Last quarter of the 19th century...).

75. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 52.

76. Annenkov A.M.

77. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 94.

78. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. The intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century ... S. 27.

79. Ivanov A.E. University policy of autocracy on the eve of the first Russian revolution of 1899–1904. Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 1975. S. 14 (hereinafter: Ivanov A.E. University policy of autocracy on the eve of the first Russian revolution of 1899–1904…).

80. Georgieva N.G. IN AND. Lenin on the place of students in the bourgeois-democratic revolution // Intelligentsia and revolution. XX century. Rep. ed. d.h.s. K.V. Gusev. M., 1985. S. 90 (hereinafter: Georgieva N.G. IN AND. Lenin on the place of students in the bourgeois-democratic revolution ...).

81. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia. P. 401.

82. Simonov V.N. Pupils of Moscow University are active participants in the political movement in the late 19th - present. 20th century Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 1995. S. 13 (hereinafter: Simonov V.N. Pupils of Moscow University are active participants in the political movement in the late 19th - present. XX century ...).

83. Feofanov A.M. Students of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries ... P. 25.

84. Svatikov S. Students before and now ... S. 15.

85. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. The intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century ... S. 27.

86. Ivanov A.E. University policy of autocracy on the eve of the first Russian revolution of 1899–1904… P. 13; Ivanov A.E. Russian university students on the eve of the first Russian revolution. Socio-political appearance ... S. 113.

87. Georgieva N.G. IN AND. Lenin on the place of students in the bourgeois-democratic revolution ... S. 91.

88. Melgunov C. Student organizations in the 80s–90s at Moscow University (according to archival data) ... S. 103.

89. Frommet B. Essay on the history of students in Russia ... S. 58.

90. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 399.

91. Margolis Yu.D. Student censuses in Russia 1872-1912 ... S. 658.

92. Zavadsky N.G. Student body and political parties in 1901–1914 SPb., 1998. S. 31 (hereinafter: Zavadsky N.G. Students and political parties in 1901-1914...).

93. Vydrin R. Highlights of the student movement in Russia. M., 1908. S. 28 (further: Vydrin R. The main points of the student movement in Russia ...).

94. Ivanov A.E. Russian university students on the eve of the first Russian revolution. Socio-political appearance ... S. 123; Ivanov A.E. Student Corporation of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century: the experience of cultural and political self-organization ... S. 389.

95. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 54.

96. Vakhterova O.A. Students and authorities in Russia in the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries // Power and Society. Interuniversity collection of scientific papers. SPb., 2000. S. 60.

97. Grishunin P.V. Students of metropolitan universities: structures of everyday life. 1820–1880s… S. 17.

98. Zimin I.V. Student uniform and badges in Russia in the 19th - early 20th centuries // Facts and Versions. Historical and cultural almanac. Book. IV. Methodology. Symbolism. Semantics. SPb., 2005. P. 112 (hereinafter: Zimin I.V. Student uniform and badges in Russia in the 19th - early 20th century...).

99. Materials on the university issue. Issue. 2. Report of the commission of the Moscow University in 1901 on the causes of student unrest ... S. 13.

100. Mitskevich S.I. Notes of a public doctor. 1888–1918 M.-L., 1941. S. 7.

101. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 83.

102. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 403.

103. Ivanov A.E. Student Corporation of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century: the experience of cultural and political self-organization ... S. 288.

104. Vydrin R. The main points of the student movement in Russia ... S. 14.

105. Saltykov A. Moscow University in 1890–1895 // In memory of Russian students. Paris, 1934, p. 96 (further: Saltykov A. Moscow University in 1890-1895...).

106. Elyashevich V.B. From the memoirs of an old Moscow student (1892–1896) // In memory of Russian students. Paris, 1934, p. 107 (further: Elyashevich V.B. From the memoirs of an old Moscow student (1892-1896) ...).

107. Sabashnikov M.V. Memoirs // Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries (1755-1917). M., 1989. S. 580 (hereinafter: Sabashnikov M.V. Memories…).

108. KassowS.D. Students, Professors and State in the Tsarist Russia… P. 196.

109. Simonov V.N. Pupils of Moscow University are active participants in the political movement in the late 19th - present. XX century ... S. 22.

110. Annenkov A.M. Russian students in the first third of the 19th century in the memoirs of contemporaries ... S. 112.

111. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 84.

112. Lind W. Memories of my life. Moscow University ... S. 250.

113. Veselaya G.A. Mass public performances of Moscow students in the late XIX - early XX century. (1896–1904). Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. M., 1974. S. 11.

114. Ivanov A.E. Russian university students on the eve of the first Russian revolution. Socio-political appearance ... S. 121.

115. Radtsig S.I. Pages from memories ... S. 597.

116. Zavadsky N.G. Students and political parties in 1901–1914… S. 37.

117. Bagdasaryan V.E. Motives for deviant behavior of students in the late XIX - early XX century ... S. 83.

118. Saltykov A.

119. Rachkovskaya Yu.K. Students of St. Petersburg and Moscow in the light of the authors of the liberal trend (the end of the 19th - the beginning of the 20th century). Abstract for the degree of candidate of historical sciences. SPb., 1999. S. 17.

120. Khudyakov N.I. Notes of Karakozov. Moscow University (1859–1860) ... S. 438.

121. Shchetinina G.I. Students and the revolutionary movement in Russia. The last quarter of the 19th century ... S. 35.

122. Speshkov S.D. A note compiled on behalf of the Minister of Public Education by a member of the Council, Privy Councilor Speshkov, about various organizations among students and students in various educational institutions ... S. 19.

123. Zavadsky N.G. Students and political parties in 1901-1914 ... S. 37

124. Materials on the university question. Issue. 2. Report of the commission of the Moscow University in 1901 on the causes of student unrest ... S. 23

125. Speshkov S.D. A note drawn up on behalf of the Minister of Public Education by a member of the Council, Privy Councilor Speshkov, about various organizations among students and students in various educational institutions ... P. 17.

126. Frommet B. Essay on the history of students in Russia ... S. 29.

127. Kurbsky V. Essays on student life (from the diary of a former student) ... S. 53.

128. Svatikov S. Students before and now ... S. 15.

129. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 94.

130. S. 205 [According to: Izgoev A.S. About intelligent youth (Notes about her way of life and moods) // Milestones. From the depth. M., 1991, S. 112].

131. Melgunov C. Student organizations in the 80s–90s at Moscow University (according to archival data) ... S. 88.

132. Report of the judicial commission for 1893/1894 ... S. 131.

133. Zavadsky N.G. Students and political parties in 1901-1914 ... S. 161.

134. Svatikov S. Students before and now ... S. 15.

135. Sliozberg G.B. Pre-revolutionary Russian students ... S. 94.

136. Saltykov A. Moscow University in 1890–1895… S. 96.

137. Georgieva N.G. IN AND. Lenin on the place of students in the bourgeois-democratic revolution ... S. 90.

138. Shchetinina G.I. Students and the revolutionary movement in Russia. The last quarter of the 19th century ... S. 41.

139. Zavadsky N.G. Students and political parties in 1901–1914… P. 9.

140. Kolonitsky B.I. Intelligentsia in the late 19th - early 20th centuries: contemporaries' self-awareness and research approaches ... S. 188.

141. Sokolov K.B. The Russian intelligentsia of the 18th - early 20th centuries: a picture of the world and everyday life ... [According to: Izgoev A.S. About intelligent youth (Notes about her way of life and moods) // Milestones. From the depth. M., 1991.].

142. Vydrin R. Highlights of the student movement in Russia ... S. 42.

143. Ivanov A.E. Student Corporation of Russia in the late XIX - early XX century: the experience of cultural and political self-organization ... S. 286.

144. Sokolov K.B. Russian intelligentsia of the 18th - early 20th centuries: a picture of the world and everyday life ...

145. Stafeev S.G. The Russian intelligentsia and its role in the social movement (the second half of the 19th century) ... S. 67 [For: History of Russia in questions and answers. Rostov-on-Don, 1999, p. 303].

146. Svatikov S. Students before and now ... S. 15.

147. Chinenny A., Stoyan T. Students of Russian universities (XIX century) // Higher education in Russia. Scientific and pedagogical journal of the Ministry of General and Vocational Education of the Russian Federation. 1999. No. 5. P. 141 [According to: Brockhaus F.A., Efron I.A. Encyclopedic Dictionary T. XXXIV. SPb., 1899. S. 754] (hereinafter: Chinenny A., Stoyan T. Students of Russian Universities (XIX century)…).

148. Ibid. P. 142 [S. 142 - By: Higher education in Russia. Essay on history until 1917. NII VO. M., 1995. S. 117].

149. Vydrin R. The main points of the student movement in Russia ... S. 11.

150. Higher education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917. Ed. prof. V.G. Kinelev. M., 1995. S. 260 (hereinafter: Higher education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917. Edited by Prof. V. G. Kinelev ...).

151. Ibid. S. 260.

152. Zmeev V.A. Russian students of the XVIII century // Russian students at the turn of the century. Materials of the All-Russian Student Forum. Ed. Yu.V. Kovrizhinykh, G.V. Kupriyanova. Scientific editor T.E. Petrov. M., 2001. S. 5.

153. Ibid. S. 16.

154. Higher education in Russia. Outline of history until 1917. Ed. prof. V.G. Kinelev ... S. 261.

155. Annenkov A.M. Russian students in the first third of the 19th century in the memoirs of contemporaries ... S. 107.

156. Ibid. S. 108.

157. Ibid. S. 109.

158. Ibid. S. 111.

159. Ibid. S. 112.

160. Makarova N.V. Students in the 19th century: life and customs // Russian students: conditions of life and life (XVIII-XXI centuries). All-Russian scientific conference. Collections of scientific articles. M., 2004. S. 61 (hereinafter: Makarova N.V. Students in the 19th century: life and customs ...).

A.M. Feofanov

UNIVERSITY AND SOCIETY: STUDENTS OF MOSCOW UNIVERSITY OF THE XVIII - BEGINNING OF THE XIX CENTURY (SOCIAL ORIGIN AND LIFE)

UNIVERSITY AND SOCIETY: STUDENTS OF MOSCOW UNIVERSITY IN XVIII -ARLY XIX CENTURY (BACKGROUND AND MODE OF LIFE)

Keywords: history of Russia in the late 18th - early 19th century, Moscow University, social composition of the population, students, social composition of the population of the Russian Empire.

Key words: history of Russia of late XVIII - early XIX century, Moscow University, social membership of population, students, social membership of population of the Russian Empire.

annotation

The article talks about the existence of the Moscow Imperial University in the first decades of its existence, the end of the 18th - the beginning of the 19th century. Such a little-studied issue as the life of students, its social composition, way of life, cultural life, participation in public life is touched upon. The conditions of life and education at Moscow University are compared with the conditions that existed in Western, primarily German, universities.

The article tells about Moscow Imperial University in the first decades of its existence (late XVIII - early XIX century). There is touched upon such an insufficiently known problem as students’ life, its social membership, mode of life, cultural life, participation in public life. The conditions of life and education in Moscow University are compared to those of European ones, first of all of German universities.

The formation and development of Moscow University took place with the direct participation of the state, which needed trained personnel. University graduates joined the ranks of officials, the military, became writers, scientists and courtiers, i.e. constituted the elite of society. But university education did not immediately acquire value in the eyes of society. Namely, the attitude of society to education and determined the number of students. Of course, society's view of the university also changed depending on the policy pursued by the state, and not only in the field of education, but also in social policy. The university itself, as a scientific and social center, had a cultural impact on society.

Number and social composition. The social composition reflects the degree of connection with the university of various strata of society. So far, historiography has not received adequate coverage of the issue of the number and social composition of students at Moscow University in the period under review. Everything was limited to general phrases about the "raznochinsk character" of Moscow University in the second half of the 18th - first quarter of the 19th centuries, in order to emphasize its "democratic" direction.

Several epochs are distinguished in the dynamics of the number of students at Moscow University. Surges in receipts are associated with an increase in public attention to

university. A surge was (sometimes) followed by a fall. The sharp increase in the number of students is associated with the renovation of the university Muravyov, when there was a tripling of the number of students.

In the initial period, which lasted until the end of the 1770s, the maximum number of students admitted did not exceed 25 people, and the average value was 15 students per year.

Since 1780, in the dynamics of the number of students at Moscow University, the results of the impact of the “Novikov decade” that began in 1779 have been felt. In 1780-1784. The number of students entering the university increased sharply and fluctuated from 17 to 54 people, with an average number of 37 people. A significant number of students in these years were accepted for the maintenance of the Friendly Scientific Society.

Beginning in 1785, student enrollment fell again. Moscow University, as the center of the Masonic circle, caused concern and distrust of the government of Catherine II, Novikov's public initiatives were suppressed, and the university itself could not yet independently provide for itself a wide influx of students.

A new period in the dynamics of the number of students opened in 1803, when one of the results of the university reforms was to attract public attention to Moscow University. From that moment on, the number of applicants has been steadily growing: in 1803-1809 it was from 28 to 61 people, in 1810-1820 - from 70 to 117 people. All this indicates a qualitative change in the social status of Moscow University after the adoption of the Charter of 1804 and the new role of students in society, when studying at the university began to be considered necessary for further entry into life. The clear boundary between 1809 and 1810 is connected with the same change. under the influence of the decree adopted on August 6, 1809 on examinations for the rank. This decree established a direct link between education and promotion to rank, requiring all those wishing to receive the ranks of the 8th and 5th grades to present a certificate received from the university and indicating that they had passed the exams. After the adoption of the decree, the number of people wishing to become students increased dramatically.

Starting with a modest figure of 30 students and about 15 applicants per year, Moscow University by 1812 reached the milestone of 300 students (students and students), which brought him into a number of the largest universities in Europe.

Moscow University was an all-class educational institution. The low number of students at Moscow University in the second half of the 18th century was explained primarily by the insufficient influx here from the leading Russian service class - the nobility. In the eyes of the Russian nobles of that time, studying at the university was not a value in itself, studying university sciences was considered a luxury that was not necessary for further service, and “the very word student sounded something not noble.” The nobles willingly studied at the gymnasium, but instead of continuing their studies at the university, they preferred to enter the cadet corps or directly into military service. Raznochintsy, on the other hand, more often entered religious educational institutions, because they did not have the means to study at the university at their own expense.

In Europe, in the same way, the nobles preferred to pave the way to the highest government positions through a military career. Representatives of the noble class "had an irresistible aversion to examinations and diplomas, because, unlike commoners, they did not need to document what was due to them by birthright." You can remember M.M. Speransky, who spoke sharply about exams for rank, offering to accept any nobleman into military service as an officer, demanding from them only knowledge of the beginnings of mathematics and the Russian language.

Since the beginning of the XIX century. a steady trend is formed, according to which the nobles accounted for at least half of the applicants. These conclusions make it possible to significantly correct statements about the “raznochinsk” nature of Moscow University.

In total, for the period from the founding of Moscow University to the beginning of the Patriotic War of 1812, we identified, according to various data (indication of class when enrolling in a university gymnasium, title, biographical data), about 500 nobles and more than 400 commoners, out of a total of about 1,400 people who studied at the Moscow university of that time. From this we can conclude that the number of nobles made up more than a third of the total number of all students in the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries, but hardly more than half. It should also be taken into account that many graduates of the Noble Boarding School, who were nobles and became visitors to university lectures, remained under the jurisdiction of the boarding authorities, i.e. actually students, were not included in the published lists of students.

Let us now consider the main social groups of students in the second half of the 18th - early 19th centuries. more. Raznochintsy. This group includes the children of soldiers, philistines, merchants, petty officials (clerks, copyists, clerks), less often children of secretaries (boards, departments and spiritual consistories), doctors (head physicians, healers and assistant doctors), pharmacists, teachers. The main part of the raznochintsy were children of the clergy, mostly rural priests, less often deacons, as well as sextons, psalmists and other clerks.

Sometimes people from the clergy could have a close relationship with other social groups: they were the children of priests, whose ancestors were nobles, but for some reason they took the rank. For example, the father of Fyodor Petrovich Lubyanovsky was from a noble family, descended from a Polish native, but he himself served as a priest. From a noble family was Anton Antonovich Prokopovich-Antonsky, whose father became a priest in the Chernihiv province.

Peasants practically did not study at Moscow University during this period (although the “Project on the Establishment of Moscow University” of 1755 gave them such an opportunity): only the example of Gavrila Zhuravlev, a former serf, is known.

University Director Prince M.I. Argamakova. Some serfs could study at Moscow University with the permission of their masters, but did not receive freedom and, accordingly, were not students. This is how the serf Nikolai Smirnov, who was a servant of the Golitsyn princes, studied at the university.

Nobles. Among the students of Moscow University in the second half of the XVIII century. the entire spectrum of the Russian nobility is represented - from the capital to the provincial, from titled persons to small estate families. The first titled nobles appeared among the students of Moscow University as early as 1760. These are princes Leon Gruzinsky and Timofei Gagarin. We also meet representatives of such families as the Shikhmatovs, the Salagins, the Kasatkin-Rostovskys, and the Diveevs. At the same time, the famous memoirist, poet and playwright, Prince I. M. Dolgorukov studied at Moscow University.

Of course, among the nobles who studied at Moscow University, there were representatives not only of aristocratic families, but also of the broad mass of the service nobility. In 1779, to attract nobles to study, the Noble Boarding School was opened, created on the initiative of M.M. Kheraskov. Soon the boarding house gained a reputation as the leading elite educational institution in Moscow. Pupils of the upper classes received the right to attend university lectures. Thus, for the students of the Noble boarding school, the production of students at the turn of the 18th-19th centuries. did not contradict the fact that they continued to be in the boarding house itself: we find such examples in the biographies

brothers Turgenev, Grammatin, Odoevsky. At the same time, the nobles willingly studied at the boarding school, but rarely continued their studies at the university itself.

As a result of the activities of the trustee M.N. Muravyov at Moscow University and government reforms in the field of education at the beginning of the 19th century. not only did the number of students increase sharply, but the social composition of the student body also changed. From 1807 to 1812 titled nobles entered the university every year. The lists of students included the names of not only Russian princes, but also German Baltic barons, such as Engelhard, Ridiger, Bistrom, Budberg, and others.

In Europe, for representatives of the third estate, a university diploma opened the way to state (royal or princely) service1. In response to competition from educated commoners who served in the state apparatus, the need for education also arose among the nobility. In the XVIII century. “the ruling class, in order to maintain its position, was forced to receive a university education”2. The lectures of professors are listened to by the aristocracy, including princes, counts, barons and princes of the royal house. The titled nobility was in the XVIII century. in the universities of Würzburg, Tübingen, Strastburg and Jena about 5%, in Leipzig, Heidelberg and Halle about 7%, and in Göttingen it even reached 13%3

Russian nobles of the second half of the 18th century. considered the university as a stepping stone to start a future service career, and for this they mainly used the gymnasium (where they received the certificates necessary for promotion to the rank, which was not the case in Europe), and students were rarely enrolled. Therefore, initially the students of Moscow University, indeed, had a raznochin character, although the share of the nobility in it was about one quarter and was quite tangible. Gradually, the social composition of students changed in favor of an increasing proportion of the nobles, which indicated the strengthening of the public recognition of the university and its role in the education of the service class.

Age of students enrolled in the university. An exact answer is much more difficult due to the imperfection of our source data. In the absence of an archive for the second half of the 18th - the first decade of the 19th century. in our reconstructed lists of students, we can establish the year of their birth only if there is any additional data. These are, firstly, the statements about the successes of students who studied in 1764-1768, preserved in the RGADA, in which, along with other data, the age of students was given. Also, the year of birth is known for those students who have become writers, statesmen and public figures, and then student lists can be supplemented with data from biographical dictionaries.

The majority of students entering Moscow University were between 15 and 19 years of age. An absolute record for the second half of the 18th century. recorded in the case of Yevgeny Syreyshchikov (in the future - a teacher at a university gymnasium, who received the title of extraordinary professor of philosophy there): he was promoted to students from the gymnasium at the age of 11 in 1768, when the student body was significantly weakened after the removal of several dozen students for work in the Legislative Commission. At the beginning of the XIX century. such cases were somewhat more common: at the age of 11, Alexander Lykoshin entered the students and, apparently, his comrade Griboedov (if we assume the later of the two possible dates of the writer’s birth), and at the age of 13 Griboyedov had already graduated from the verbal department of his university with a degree candidate, and later continued to listen to lectures of the ethical and political department.

In general, in the XVIII century. students were older (16-18 years old) than at the beginning of the 19th century, and even older (as a rule, 19 years old and above) were graduates of seminaries entering the university (as D.N. Sverbeev wrote, they already “shaved their beards” ). In connection with the desire of noble families to accelerate the advancement of their offspring through the ranks at the beginning of the 19th century. there was such a phenomenon as "students-boys".

It was the Charter of 1804, which secured the right to the rank of class 14 for the title of university student, that stimulated noble families to send their children to students as early as possible (a phenomenon akin to how in the 18th century noble children from infancy

were in the regiments). The fact that when enrolling in a university at the beginning of the 19th century. in noble families, the title of a student was valued primarily, and not the opportunity to comprehend science, the diary of S.P. perfectly conveys. Zhikhareva. “My title is not a trifle and will please my

home,” writes Zhikharev, who became a student in 1805 at the age of 16. “I foresee,” he continues, “that it will not be long for me to listen to my good professors. Father, delighted with my 14th grade, hurries the service.

1 Khavanova O.V. Merits of fathers and talents of sons. S. 12.

Paulsen F. German universities. S. 110.

3 A History of the University in Europe. P. 321.

Thus, the "rejuvenation" of the students of Moscow University in the early XIX

in. associated with the influx of students of young nobles.

The main problems of organizing student life are: did students stand out as a separate group, and with the help of what attributes did this happen. According to paragraph 21 of the "Project for the Establishment of Moscow University", the ultimate goal of a student's studies is to receive a certificate. This certificate performed a certain social function (which, as a rule, did not exist in Western universities) - it provided "protection" when entering the service. Noble students in the 18th century sought to obtain a certificate that gave the right to production in the next rank. For raznochintsy, the university had to specifically "petition" for their rank-and-file production.

Initially, the university was considered by the state almost exclusively as an educational institution for the training of officials, who can be taken away without waiting until the end of their period of study. A significant number of students who did not complete the course were appointed to serve in the Senate and other state institutions, and were appointed teachers. So, in 1767, 42 students were taken to the Legislative Commission, which disrupted the normal course of education, since after that only 5 students remained at the “higher” faculties: 4 in law and 1 in medicine.

The Patriotic War of 1812 interrupted the normal course of study for many of the students, during which many of them dropped out of school, joined the militia or went to provide medical care to the army. Among the reasons for the dismissal of students during this period, there is already a desire to continue education in other educational institutions. For example, Vasily Matveyevich Chernyaev in 1812 moved to the medical faculty of Kharkov University.

The rules of conduct at the university were quite strictly regulated. The first of the intra-university acts regulating the life of students was adopted in 1765. Students were forbidden to quarrel and fight, especially duels and seconds. This project was published in 1765 under the title "Charter, to the observation of which all university students undertake in writing." For admission to students, a certificate of "good manners" was required. Students had to "dress in a decent manner, avoiding cynical infamy, as well as excessive panache", "live modestly and in proportion to their incomes, without entering into any debts."

Uniform was the corporate sign of the university. “The university had its own uniform, similar to the uniform of the Moscow province,” crimson with a blue velvet collar and white buttons. The first mention of the introduction of a uniform at the university dates back to 1782 and is associated with the celebration of the 20th anniversary of the accession to the throne of Empress Catherine II. The uniform of the Moscow province, which both professors and students had to wear, then consisted of a red cloth camisole, knee-length pantaloons, stockings, shoes and a black triangular hat.

But not all students wore such a uniform. The only exceptions were the days of university-wide celebrations. From the notes of Timkovsky it is known that “the students did not have any specific uniform in their attire”, even “not everyone had a university uniform. Everyone, even those on a salary, was dressed as he could and as he wanted. Ilya Fedorovich himself wore a "Novgorod blue and black" uniform.

“Forms,” recalled Poludensky, who studied at the university in the 1790s, “as now, self-styled students did not have, as for the state students, they had

coats and uniforms. There was a difference in uniforms between the raznochintsy and the nobles, and, as was said before, they lived separately. “At first, the raznochintsy had a blue uniform with red cuffs, and the nobles had a red one with blue cuffs.” In fact, the difference in uniforms between raznochintsy and nobles was only among high school students. “When raznochintsy gymnasiums were promoted to students,” P.I. Strakhov, - they exchanged a crimson dress for a green noble one.

On October 14, 1800, Moscow University's own uniform was officially approved, different from the uniforms of other departments - a dark green caftan, "the collar and cuffs on the caftan are crimson, the buttons are white, in one half with the coat of arms of the Empire, and in the other with the attributes of learning." On April 9, 1804, a new student uniform was approved by the decree “On uniforms for Moscow University and subordinate schools”: “a single-breasted caftan of dark blue cloth, with a standing collar and crimson cuffs”, decorated with gold embroidery. But even during the reign of Alexander I, students, especially those of their own kind, continued to wear their own dress. According to the memoirs, "students, both state-owned and private, went in particular dresses, of course, almost all in frock coats and rare in tailcoats." And even in the 1820s, according to Pirogov's memoirs, "uniforms did not yet exist."

The situation changed only in the reign of Nicholas I. When examining the university, it was noticed that students "do not have a uniform and defined uniform in all respects." On May 22, 1826, a decree was issued “On allowing state students of Moscow University to have shoulder straps on their uniforms” “to distinguish them from their own”, and on September 6, 1826, a decree “On uniforms for students of Moscow University and for pupils of a noble boarding school and gymnasium” . According to him, a blue single-breasted student uniform was adopted. The uniform was needed so that "students, having a uniform dress, accustomed to order and to their future appointment for public service."

No less, and even more important sign of a student than a uniform, was a sword. In § 23 of the Draft on the Establishment of Moscow University, it was indicated that the sword was given to students "for encouragement", "as is the case in other places." The sword was a symbol of personal dignity; it was worn by the nobles. Thus, non-nobles, receiving the title of students, were, as it were, equal in rights with the noble class. In addition, in accordance with the Charter of 1804, a university student entering the service was immediately enrolled in the 14th grade, which gave the rights of personal nobility. Therefore, after 1804, the handing over of the sword already had not only a symbolic, but also a real meaning of a change in the social status of the former commoner. THEM. Snegirev recalled how, after his graduation in 1807 as a student, “with childish admiration he put on a student uniform, a three-cornered hat and hung a sword, which he put on his bed with him ... It seemed to me that not only relatives and neighbors, but also counter and the transverse ones looked at my sword, and what flattered my childish vanity most of all, the guards and soldiers saluted me.

Here we see a clear resemblance to German universities. Paulsen notes that if in the Middle Ages “university statutes forced the scholastic to wear spiritual dress, from the middle of the 17th century the student, both in dress and manners, considers himself a model of a nobleman. And along with the sword, this necessary accessory of a noble costume, the duel also penetrated into the university world. It is characteristic that at the same time fencing teachers appeared at the universities (in the Middle Ages, students were forbidden to carry weapons). So “the forms of life of the nobility acquire the value of an ideal; the place of the medieval scholar, the cleric-seminarian, is occupied by an academic student of the 17th century, who plays the role of a cavalier.

According to § 24 of the "Project for the Establishment of Moscow University", a university court was established. The appearance of such a university court confirmed

corporate nature of the first Russian university: after all, for any

of the European University, such a court was an inalienable property and exercised the right of "academic freedom" of the members of the corporation, according to which none of them (a professor, a student or even an employee of the university) was under the jurisdiction of the city authorities, but could be tried only by the same members as him. corporations, and only in accordance with the laws issued by his university. True, at Moscow University this norm did not take root well and acted without fail only in relation to students, while gymnasium teachers in the second half of the 1750s. had several clashes with the Moscow magistrate, trying to prove that they did not have the right to arrest them for misconduct (in particular, for debts). The University Charter of 1804 confirmed the corporate law of the university court.

On the conduct of cases in the university court in the XVIII century. give a presentation of excerpts from the minutes of the University Conference. The court was carried out by the director of the university together with other members of the Conference. The punishments for students who violated discipline (mainly due to fights) were deprivation of the sword, imprisonment for several days in a punishment cell, dismissal from state scholarships, and finally, expulsion from the university.

A special kind of violation of university regulations were cases of student marriage. Although there was no direct prohibition of a student from marrying in any university laws, however, the curator Adodurov wrote: “I was informed that student Yudin married among those who were on state support ... And as it does not happen in any Academy and university, and students not only is it indecent, but it also creates a great obstacle in teaching the sciences. Student Yudin was deprived of his scholarship.

Some students have fled the university. In the order of the curator Adodurov about the "runaway student" Ivan Popov dated October 30, 1768, just such a case is described. For his act, student Popov was expelled from the university and sent to the office of the Synod, since he came from a clergy class. Thus, the expelled student was deprived of the increase in social status he had achieved, returning back to his estate.

Students in the 18th century begins to realize his own identity, to realize himself as a kind of community, different from other inhabitants of the city. This manifested itself, in particular, in clashes between representatives of the university and city dwellers. Such skirmishes begin from the very first years of its existence. Already in 1757

in the city, a fight between high school students and “titular junkers” (students of colleges) was recorded. Its instigator Pyotr Argamakov, the son of the university director, along with other participants was arrested and punished with rods.

“The city police,” recalled Pirogov, who studied at Moscow University in 1824-1828, “did not have the right to dispose of students and the guilty had to be delivered to the university.” This privilege was abolished by decree of Nicholas I dated

September 4, 1827 "On the assignment of students of Moscow University, living outside the university, to the supervision of the city police."

Students who were unable to study on their own allowance were admitted to the state kosht on the basis of a petition, subject to good academic performance, good behavior and presentation of a certificate of poverty, signed by several persons of noble birth. The first state students received 40 rubles a year. In 1799, their salary, which was paid out in thirds, was already 100 rubles. in year. If the number of state students exceeded the established number, they could be paid a student stipend, i.e. the same as received by state-owned high school students. Since 1804, the state kosht was 200 rubles a year, and in the medical department - 350 rubles. First of all, those students whom the government was preparing to serve as doctors or teachers were admitted to state-owned hospitals. After graduating from university, they were to

as compensation to the state for education, serve at least 6 years under the Ministry of Public Education.

Some students lived in apartments with friends or relatives. M.A. Dmitriev lived with his uncle. By kinship with Professor Barsov, Poludensky lived in his apartment. Without the help of acquaintances or relatives, it would be quite difficult for self-sufficient students to support themselves.

A favorite place for student meetings was the tavern "Great Britain", where comradely drinking parties were sometimes held. In general, students often visited taverns. “It happened very often,” recalled Dmitriev, “that, returning at one in the afternoon from lectures, I had to go on foot back either to Tverskaya or Kuznetskaya Most to dine with a restaurateur.”

In a letter from Göttingen to his brother, A.I. Turgenev, Nikolai, responding to the reproach of A.F. Merzlyakova, who “was hurt to see his friend’s brother often in the coffee shop and with Chebotarev,” writes: “I went there not for pranks, not to drink and fool around there, but for pleasure, completely allowed. There I often found acquaintances, friends, talked with them, drank tea, coffee, read newspapers and nothing more.

“According to the formidable saying of Sandunov at that time: “The samovar is a tavern tool and is not suitable for school”, this tool was vetoed, and therefore some had copper teapots and thus consoled themselves with tea drinking. Others fled for this business to the taverns Tsaregradsky (in Okhotny Ryad) and Znamensky (not far from the present Treasury Chamber). In these bright establishments (now there are no traces of them), some of the students were regular patrons. In taverns, students drank not only tea, but also stronger drinks. “It happened like this: the sex served tea, after a few seconds the spoon knocks, the sex rushes in. They say to him: “Give more hot water”, he grabs a kettle, in which there is still a lot of water (and no water is needed) and brings the same kettle, as if with water, but it contains aqua vitae. It can be seen that at that time the conditions of tavern establishments did not allow trading in precious moisture, and the owners were afraid of spies, who no doubt were everywhere. State-owned students managed to visit the tavern even in the morning before lectures.

Zhikharev preferred dinners and balls to other entertainment, he often attended opera and ballet. Pupils of the university with less demanding requests had fun in a different way: they participated in fistfights on Neglinnaya, where, according to the memoirs of I.M. Snegirev, “bursaks of the theological academy and students of the university converged, wall to wall: the little ones started, the big ones ended. The Neglin patchworkers helped the university students.”

Many students liked to walk in Maryina Roshcha or Sokolniki on holidays. Lyalikov recalls that the students “did not miss the so-called monastic festivities on their temple holidays. Once, I remember, the three of us hired a boat at the Moskvoretsky Bridge (Aug. 6) and sailed to the Novospassky Monastery. They also swam to the Sparrow Hills, ate milk and raspberries in Maryina Roshcha and Ostankino.

The students also visited the theatre. The University Theater was one of the first in Russia. Students and high school students took part in the preparation of the performances. The theater had an educational mission, bringing the university closer to Russian society. In addition to theatrical performances, masquerades were also given at Christmas time or Shrovetide, and "on Sundays and holidays, evening dances or concerts sometimes took place."

Since 1760, the student troupe has become professional and is called the Russian Theatre. Such Russian actors as Troepolskaya, Lapin, Mikhailova and others began their activities in the university theater. In 1776, the entrepreneur Medox created the first permanent public professional theater in Moscow, for which in 1780 Medox built a large building on Petrovka Street - Petrovsky theatre. It was in it that in 1783 the comedy "Undergrowth" by Fonvizin was shown for the first time in Moscow. The troupe included outstanding actors, among them - Peter

Alekseevich Plavilshchikov, who graduated from Moscow University in 1779. In 1825, a new building was built on the site of the Petrovsky Theater (now the Bolshoi Theatre).

Students spent the money saved from tuition fees, as well as earned by translating books and private lessons, to visit the theater and buy books.

An important role during the stay of students at the university was given to their church life. When the university was located in the building of the Apothecary House, students went to services in the Kazan Cathedral. After the university acquired Repnin’s house, “next to this place, standing nearby along Nikitskaya Street, was the parish stone church of the Assumption of the Mother of God, or St. Dionysius the Areopagite, was renamed university and attached to it. On April 5, 1791, she was consecrated in the left wing of the university building under construction at Mokhovaya Church in the name of St. martyr Tatiana. In September 1817, the church of St. George on Krasnaya Gorka, and in 1820 a chapel was consecrated in honor of St. martyr Tatiana.

According to the memoirs of Poludensky, at the end of the XVIII century. At that time, there was no special church at the university, and students were taken in turn to different parish churches.

As Lyalikov recalled, students “usually fasted during the first week of Great Lent. Vespers were listened to in the large dining room in the constant presence of Sandunov and both sub-inspectors. The choir was one of their own." “We communed the Holy Mysteries,” he recalled, “in St. George’s Church on Mokhovaya. Imagine (even now it surprises me): during the entire time, quite a long time, the communion of students (there were 40 of us, and three times as many medical students) Sandunov and Mudrov were holding a veil in front of those approaching the chalice, like inspectors. Students visited not only the university church, but also other Moscow churches. “In general, we were often told to go to services in our parish (George on Krasnaya Gorka) church; but everyone constantly went to the neighboring Nikitsky Monastery or in groups somewhere far away, for example, to Donskoy, Novodevichy. The reasons for choosing this or that church were both beautiful singing and a good sermon in this temple. Zhikharev was a lover of church singing. After mass, however, he can go to see an art gallery (of the late Prince Golitsyn) or horse races.

Students also showed themselves as part of the literary space of Moscow. In the XVIII century. The university included a whole complex of institutions. It operated a library, a printing house and a bookstore. It was in the university printing house that the newspaper Moskovskie Vedomosti began to be printed, around which lovers of literature united. Gymnasium students and students of Moscow University were involved in the work on the issue of this newspaper. “Literary and typographical activity at the university,” Shevyrev writes, “every year revived more and more. The newspapers aroused the attentive participation of the public. In 1760 it was impossible to find a complete copy of the previous year's newspapers in a bookshop.

In the early 1760s, a new group of periodicals appeared at Moscow University - literary magazines. University publications were conceived as a plan to educate society through cultural impact on it.

The first four magazines (“Useful Amusement”, “Free Hours”, edited by Kheraskov, “Innocent Exercise” (published by I.F. Bogdanovich), “Good Intention”), published at Moscow University in the early 1760s, were literary publications. Well-known writers participated in them - Sumarokov, Kheraskov, Trediakovsky and a large group of young people who began to try their hand at creativity.

In 1771, on the initiative of curator Melissino, Moscow University formed its first official scientific society - the Free “Russian” Assembly. It was founded "to correct and enrich the Russian language, through the publication of useful, and especially for the instruction of the youth of need, writings and translations,

verse and prose." Melissino himself was the chairman of the meeting, he was replaced by the director of the university

M.V. Priklonsky. The members of the society included many "noble persons", such as Princess Dashkova, historian M.M. Shcherbatov, Sumarokov and Prince Potemkin himself. The meetings of the Assembly were held very solemnly and magnificently. According to the descriptions of contemporaries, Potemkin sat at the table, "exhibiting the diamond buckles of his shoes, flaunting them in front of the students who, in uniforms, standing around, were present at these meetings." The Free Russian Assembly attracted the Russian elite to the cause of education, which made it possible to exert a significant influence on society and generate many supporters, including Novikov and M.N. Muraviev.

Societies of a somewhat different nature appeared at Moscow University in the 1780s. Their appearance is associated with the activities of Freemasons, primarily Novikov and Schwartz. Novikov himself was a pupil of the Moscow University; Kheraskov attracted him to work at the university. On May 1, 1779, the university concluded a contract with Novikov, according to which the university printing house was leased to him for ten years. Novikov's main goal was to spread enlightenment, "which he understood only as based on religious and moral principles, mainly in a mystical spirit." To translate foreign books, he attracted students, thereby providing them with significant material support. Since 1779, he has been publishing the Morning Light magazine in Moscow.

In 1779 Novikov met Schwartz, a professor of German at the university. Their common goals were "the training of teachers in the spirit of Masonic ethics, the introduction of new rules of education." Thanks to their labors, in 1779 the Teacher's (Pedagogical) Seminary was opened, and in 1782 - the Translation (Philological) Seminary. The first of them was intended to prepare students for teaching, and the second - to translate foreign works into Russian. On March 13, 1781, at the university, on the initiative of Schwartz, the first student society was opened under the name "Assembly of University Pupils". The goal of the society was to "improve the Russian language and literature" through writings and translations. Many students were active participants in the meeting. M.I. Antonovsky “composed a charter for this society, the rules of which, considering the members of this society, were so well educated that, upon leaving the university and entering the public service, they then turned out to be the most capable people for it, so that a rare one of them now serves without distinction ( except for those persecuted by envy and malice), less than the 4th grade.

In 1782, on a Masonic basis, a Friendly Scientific Society was formed around the university. It brought together more than 50 people. More than 20 students studied under his supervision, including the future metropolitans Seraphim (Glagolevsky) and Mikhail (Desnitsky), professors P.A. Sokhatsky, A.A. Prokopovich-Antonsky and P.I. Strakhov. It was the circle of Novikov's comrades in the Friendly Scientific Society that produced literary publications at the university in the 1780s.

In 1781, Novikov published the "Moscow Monthly Edition", in 1782 the journal "Evening Dawn" began to be published, and from 1784 - "The Rest of the Worker". The content of these magazines mainly consisted of poems or "discourses" written by students on moral and philosophical topics. "The Rest of the Worker" had a pronounced occult-mystical orientation, as evidenced by the fact that articles such as "On the Science Called Cabal" were placed there, and the well-known mystic Swedenborg was also given a positive assessment.

Such an obvious propaganda of mysticism could not fail to attract the attention of the authorities. In a decree dated December 23, 1785, Catherine II wrote that “many strange books” were being printed in Novikov’s printing house, and Archbishop Platon was ordered to examine them and test Novikov in the law of God. As a result, Novikov's circle was persecuted:

in 1786 the Philological Seminary and the Friendly Learned Society were closed. As a result, student literary activity froze for several years.

Students of Moscow University took an active part in the social and literary life of Russia. Many of them were talented writers, poets; some of them became publishers. Thanks to the translation activities of students, Moscow and all of Russia got acquainted with Western literature. The process of education and upbringing continued outside the walls of university classrooms, in private apartments. Student circles formed new views, laid down a system of values, thus, the process of the student's entry into public life took place. This is how the “cultural colonization” of urban space by the university took place.

Thus, the transfer of European university realities to Russia took place, although the local soil created certain specifics. Moscow University, like European ones, was a corporation, the signs of which were relative autonomy, its own court, uniform and some other privileges.

The everyday life of students at Moscow University still bore the imprint of the estates they came from, and the formation of a single "corporate" denominator in the period under review is out of the question. At the same time, communication brought young men from different social groups together and formed a common space of ideas. Ultimately, the initial history of the students of Moscow University at that time testifies to the ongoing process of the formation of a student corporation, awareness of common interests and life tasks, which in many ways became characteristic of students in the middle of the 19th century.

The university brought together representatives of different classes by organizing common forms of life. Although raznochintsy prevailed among students and professors at the university for a long time, it was closely associated with the culture of the nobility.

Introduction

Chapter I

University education and students in Russia in 1850 - early 1860s

Chapter II

Legal status of Russian students

Chapter III

The material and everyday aspect of the situation of students in the second half of the XIX century

Conclusion

Introduction (excerpt)

Russian universities have always been islands of secular culture, education and creativity, which is impossible without some “freedom from”…. Freedom to some extent from power, ideology, freedom from isolation and class. Students have always been a special group of people, which had their own customs, traditions, their own culture and identity. It is the relationship between students and universities, which acted as conductors of state order and politics, that is and was the subject of research by domestic scientists both before the 1917 revolution and after.

The relevance of studying these relations has not disappeared to this day, because the authorities have always sought to put universities under control in order to be able to educate a loyal generation of young people. However, the paradox of such an attitude of power is that it almost never succeeded. Students at all times, even the most severe reaction, were aware of their unity, their interests and defended them in every possible way.

The purpose of this work is to try to solve a difficult dilemma: was the tsarist government the factor that determined not only the development of Russian students, but also predetermined its historical fate? Did the political weakness of the government, expressed in its dictatorship and authoritarianism, create conditions for development that predetermined the role of the Russian intelligentsia in the future? That is, the purpose of this work is an attempt to answer the question about the role of autocracy in the formation of a special type of intelligentsia, active in student years and passive during the crisis of power, unable to do anything and somehow turn the situation around.

Conclusion (excerpt)

The role of post-reform universities in social and political life was determined by deep objective prerequisites. Not only university problems proper lay at the basis of the university crisis, which became especially aggravated by the beginning of the 20th century. The unresolved contradictions of a society in which the development of capitalism was held back by feudal remnants, the absence of political freedoms at that time created a tense political climate in Russia in the last quarter of the 19th century. Even during the reforms of the 1960s, the government cut off any legal path to freedom, because it responded with repressions even to simple petitions, because it never even allowed to speak freely about freedom.

Literature

SOURCES

1. Kovalevsky M.M. Moscow University in the late 70s and early 80s of the last century. Personal memories / Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries. 1755-1917. M., 1989

2. Lebedev V.A. Educational memories. / Russian antiquity 1908. No. 7 - 10

3. General Charter of the Imperial Russian Universities in 1863/ w*w.lib.r* - Library of Maxim Mashkov.

4. Pisarev D.I. Works in 4 volumes. M., 1955 - 1956. T2

5. Full Code of Laws of the Russian Empire /under. ed. A.A. Dobrovolsky. SPb 1911., book 2

6. Sechenov I.M. At Moscow University (1850 - 1856) / Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries. 1755-1917. M., 1989

7. Sorokin V. Memoirs of an old student / Russian antiquity 1888 No. 12

LITERATURE

1. Andreev A.Yu. Lectures on the history of Moscow University. 1755-1855. M., 2001

2. Borodzin I.N. Universities in the era of the 60s - In the book History of Russia in the XIX century. SPb. 1908 - 1909. T4

3. Great reforms in Russia 1856 - 1874 / ed. L.G. Zakharova et al. M., 1992

4. Georgievsky A.I. Brief outline of government measures and plans against student unrest. SPb. 1890

5. Janilyaev G.A. University autonomy / From the era of great reforms. 1893. 10th ed. SPb., 1907

6. Elenev F.P. Student riots. SPb.1888.

7. Ikonnikov V.S. Russian universities in connection with the course of public education / Bulletin of Europe, 1876. No. 9 - 10

8. Klyuchevsky V.O. Course of Russian history / Electronic book. IDDK.2005

9. Leikina-Svirskaya V. R. Intelligentsia in Russia in 1901-1917. M., 1981

10. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. Intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. M., 1971

11. Litvak B.G. Coup of 1861 in Russia: why the reformist alternative was not implemented. M., 1991

12. Moscow University in the memoirs of contemporaries. 1755-1917. M., 1989

13. Pokrovsky M.N. Russian history since ancient times. M., 1934

14. The revolutionary situation in Russia in the middle. XIX century / Ed. M.V. Nechkina M., 1978

15. Rozhdestvensky SV Historical review of the activities of the Ministry of Education. 1802-1902. SPb. 1902

16. Firsov N.A. Student stories at Kazan University 1855 - 1863 / Russian antiquity 1889. No. 3,4, 6 - 8

17. Shchetinina GI Students and the revolutionary movement in Russia. M., 1987

18. Shchetinina G. I. Universities in Russia and the charter of 1884, M., 1976

19. Eymontova R.G. Russian universities on the path of reform: the sixties of the XIX century. M., 1993

20. Eymontova R.G. Russian universities on the verge of two eras. From serf Russia to capitalist Russia. M., 1985

When starting to study the topic, students should remember that in the second half of the 19th century, important changes were taking place in Russian culture. This was largely due to the major historical events that took place in Russia. The most important factor that had a huge impact on the development of all aspects of society was the abolition of serfdom and the bourgeois reforms that followed it. Thanks to these transformations, capitalism developed rapidly in Russia, which changed the entire old economic system of the country, led to a change in the social and spiritual image of the population, its way of life, mores, and to an increase in cultural needs.

The development of education should be considered on the example of the transformative policy of the Minister of Public Education A.V. Golovnin. The rise of science and technology was also associated with educational reforms. It is necessary to consider the scientific activities of the Russian Academy of Sciences, university professors, numerous scientific and scientific and technical societies that arose in Russia in the second half of the 19th century.

The education reforms also resulted in a noticeable growth of libraries and museums, periodicals and book publishing.

The development of Russian literature in the second half of the XIX century. was caused by the crisis of relations between the authorities and society after the Crimean War, therefore, the ideas of public service, citizenship, and exposure of the existing reality were put forward in a central place in it. Considering in general terms the work of N. A. Nekrasov, I. S. Turgenev, F. M. Dostoevsky, L. N. Tolstoy and others, students should try to formulate the main line of development of Russian literature in the period under consideration and the degree of its influence on the spiritual development of society.

The issue of the development of Russian art must be considered, paying attention to the new social processes that took place in the country. In particular, the appearance of a diverse intelligentsia, thanks to which the attitude of cultural figures to their place and role in society has changed.

In the second half of the 19th century, a national art school was finally formed in Russia, the achievements of which embraced not individual types of art, but precisely artistic culture as a whole, embracing various types of art, and the entire system of their interaction, and the relationship of art with society.

Considering the question of the development of architecture, it should be noted that as a result of the rapid development of capitalist relations after the abolition of serfdom, the number of cities, especially large centers, grew.

New methods of building were born, new building materials were used.

The main artistic trend in the architecture of this time was eclecticism. Among the Russian architects of the post-reform era there were many outstanding masters. Students should get acquainted with the work of A.E. RezanovA, A.M. Gornostaev, V.O. Sherwood and others.

The question of the development of Russian painting requires knowledge that the leading center for the training of professional architects, sculptors, and artists was still the Academy of Arts of Russia. It should not be denied that the Academy trained specialists of the European level. However, the restriction of freedom of creativity by academic dogmas caused discontent among the part of her students who shared democratic convictions. Dissatisfaction with the academic teaching system among some students of the Academy of Arts in the 60s. 19th century led to the first organized action against the academic order. In the history of Russian culture, this event is known as the "Riot of the Fourteen". Students need to understand the reasons for the protest of young artists, study materials about the activities they created in 1863. "The First St. Petersburg Artel of Free Artists".

It is especially important to analyze the reasons for the creation, the composition of the participants, the ideological guidelines of the Association of Traveling Art Exhibitions.

Considering the work of masters of fine arts, it is necessary to single out the main directions in the development of painting: everyday genre, historical painting, portrait and landscape painting

Students should study the biographies of such famous painters of the second half of the 19th century as V.G. Perov, I.E. Repin, V.I. Surikov, A.K. Savrasov, I.I. Shishkin and others.

The development of sculpture in the period under study was associated with the work of sculptors of the academic direction - M.O. Mikeshin and A.M. guardian. The realistic direction in sculpture was expressed in the work of M.M. Antokolsky.

The democratization of the country's artistic life, which took place in the early 1860s, led to qualitative, radical shifts in the entire way of musical life. This is confirmed by the development of musical criticism and theoretical thought about music; organization in 1860 of the Russian Musical Society (RMO). Its goal was to "develop musical education and a taste for music in Russia and encourage domestic talent." In 1862, in St. Petersburg, and in 1866, in Moscow, on the initiative of the famous pianists and conductors brothers A. G. and N. G. Rubinshten, conservatories were opened. For the first time, the profession of musician acquired a legal status; the title of "free artist", assigned at the end of the course, meant a certain civil status.

The successor of the creative tradition of M. I. Glinka was P. I. Tchaikovsky, whose name is associated with the development of Russian musical culture of the era under study. The realistic traditions of M. I. Glinka were further developed in the work of the members of the circle of composers of the realistic direction - “The Mighty Handful”, which included M. A. Balakirev, M. P. Mussorgsky, N. A. Rimsky-Korsakov, A. P. Borodin and Ts. A. Cui. Students should study their biographies, know the main musical works. Theatrical life in the 1860s-1890s was represented by opera houses - the Bolshoi and Mariinsky, as well as drama theaters. The leading role was played by the Maly and Alexandrinsky theatres. Students must study dramaturgy, directing features, theatrical education system; get acquainted with the history of the creation of the capital's theaters, as well as the work of the leading artists who worked in them (M. S. Shchepkin, P. M. Sadovsky, P. A. Strepetova, G. N. Fedotov, M. N. Yermolov - at the Maly Theater; V. V. Samoilov, P. V. Vasiliev, K. A. Varlamov, M. G. Savina - at the Alexandrinsky Theater.

It is important to note that after the abolition of the monopoly of the Imperial Theaters in 1882, the creation of theaters in the Russian provinces began. Students must prepare performances about the theaters of the Don.

Abstract topics:

1. New trends in Russian culture in the post-reform period.

2. "Wanderers" and their social significance.

3. Provincial theater in the second half of the 19th century (on the example of the development of theaters in Rostov-on-Don, Taganrog, Novocherkassk).

Sources and literature:

1. Botkina A.P.M. Tretyakov in life and art. M., 1960.

2. Minchenkov Ya.D. Memories of the Wanderers. L., 1961.

3. Tenisheva M. K. Impressions of my life. L., 1991.

1. Allenov M.M. and others. Russian art X - early XX: Architecture. Sculpture. Painting. Graphic arts. M., 1989.

2. Aronov A.A. World art culture: Russia: the end of the 19th - 20th centuries. Study guide. M., 1999.

3. Gordeeva E. M. Composers of the "Mighty Handful". M., 1986.

4. Zezina M.R. Koshman L.V., Shulgin V.S. Culture of Russia in the IX-XX centuries. - M., 1996.

5. Kondakov I.V. Culture of Russia. M., 1999.

6. Kuleshov V.I. History of Russian literature of the 19th century. M., 1997.

7. Culture and art of Russia in the 19th century. M., 1985.

8. Leikina-Svirskaya V.R. Intelligentsia in Russia in the second half of the 19th century. M., 1971.

9. Lisovsky V. G. Academy of Arts. L., 1988.

10. Likhachev D.S. Russian art from antiquity to the avant-garde. M., 1993.

11. Nikitin V.S. Tchaikovsky: old and new. - M., 1990.

12. Organization of science in post-reform Russia. L., 1987.

13. Essays on Russian culture in the second half of the 19th century. \ edited by N.M. Volynkin. M., 1982.

14. Petrovskaya I.F. Theater and audience of Russian capitals. 1875-1917. - L. 1990.

15. Petrovskaya I.F. Theater and audience in provincial Russia. Second half of the 19th century. - M., 1979.

16. Plotnikov V.I. Folklore and Russian fine arts of the second half of the 19th century. L., 1987.

17.

18. Poznansky V.V. Essays on the history of Russian culture in the second half of the 19th century. M., 1976.

19. Russian artistic culture of the second half of the 19th century. M., 1991.

20. Ryabtsev Yu. S. History of Russian culture: Artistic life and life of the XVIII-XIX centuries. M., 1997.

21. Sarabyanov D.V. History of Russian art of the second half of the 19th century: a course of lectures. M., 1989.

22. Soboleva E.V. The struggle for the reorganization of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences in the middle of the XIX century. L., 1971.

23. Soboleva E.V. Organization of science in post-reform Russia. L., 1983.

24. Sternin G.Yu. Russian artistic culture of the second half of the 19th - early 20th centuries. M., 1995. Shchetinina G.I. The ideological life of the Russian intelligentsia. Late XIX - early XX century. M., 1995.

25. Shchetinina, G.I. The ideological life of the Russian intelligentsia. Late 19th-early 20th century M., 1995.

26. Eymontova, R. G. Russian universities on the verge of two eras: From serf Russia to capitalist Russia. M., 1985.

27. Yakovkina N. I. History of Russian culture: XIX century. SPb., 2000.

Tests

to the topic: "Russian culture in the second half of the nineteenth century".

The development of bourgeois relations in Russia in the second half of the 19th century made special demands on higher education - in connection with the reforms of this period, it was necessary to increase the educational qualification of a large army of officials. The question arose of training specialists with technical education, expanding the research work of universities, and creating new higher educational institutions. Already in the 60s, a number of technical educational institutions were transformed into higher ones: the St. Petersburg Institute of Technology (1862), the Mining Institute (1866), the Moscow Higher Technical School (1868), etc. Along with this, new higher technical educational institutions were opened, so that their number increased from 7 to almost 60.

Without touching on the formation and activities of the country's technical universities as a field of special education, we will later turn to the history of Russian universities in the second half of the 19th century.

By the middle of the last century, there were six universities in Russia: Moscow, St. Petersburg, Kazan, Kharkov, Derpt and Kyiv. Universities were the largest scientific and educational centers of the country. They trained teachers for secondary and higher schools, doctors, and scientists. Universities were the focus of scientific thought, they became widely known thanks to outstanding scientist-professors: at Moscow University they were historians T. N. Granovsky and S. M. Solovyov; in St. Petersburg, the mathematicians P. L. Chebyshev and V. Ya. Bunyakovsky, the physicist E. Kh. Lenz, and the zoologist S. M. Kutorga; in Kazan - mathematician N. I. Lobachevsky, chemist N. N. Zinin. In addition to scientific and educational work, university scientists consulted on national economic issues, being members of various committees and commissions, conducted educational work, gave public lectures, etc.

Universities, in addition to purely scientific profiling, also provided applied knowledge. Medicine, mechanics, etc. were studied at the corresponding faculties. Clinics, laboratories, and scientific libraries were created at the universities. The most famous in the first half of the 19th century was the old Russian university - Moscow. The youngest was the University of St. Vladimir in Kyiv, founded in 1833 after the defeat of the uprising in Poland and the closure of the Vilna and Warsaw universities.

The activities of universities were determined by statutes. The charter of 1835 effectively eliminated the autonomy that had previously existed, and the entire life of the universities began to be completely controlled by the trustees of the educational districts, who were appointed almost exclusively by the military.

The routine of student life was also paramilitary in nature - military activities, discipline close to that of the army; strict regulation of behavior, including a ban on wearing long hair, beards and mustaches; obligatory uniform, the violation of which was punishable by expulsion from the university. This was also emphasized by some external accessories of university buildings. So, at St. Petersburg University, until the end of the 50s, in the middle of the main corridor, “a rather large copper cannon continued to flaunt, indicating that the university did not escape the invasion of the military regime of the last years of the reign of Nicholas, and while in the gymnasiums they taught gun techniques , students practiced cannon shooting.

The research work of teachers was also subjected to strict control. Professors were required to submit their lecture programs for approval to the rector, and if their “reliability” was in doubt, they were submitted to the trustee of the educational district for consideration. The program for courses in state law, political economy and all historical disciplines was subject to approval by the Ministry of Education.

The state law of "European powers, shocked by internal sedition and riots" was generally excluded from university teaching. Thus, a law professor could not only refer to English institutions, but even refer to the Russian Code of Laws. Philosophy was also excluded from the curriculum of universities, which was recognized as useless "with the modern reprehensible development of this science by German scientists."

Naturally, such changes lowered the level of teaching. In order to avoid scientific trips abroad to prepare for the title of professor, according to the charter of 1842, the institute of associate professors was introduced, designed to replace this internship.

At the same time, administrative ministerial control over the internal life of universities was strengthened. According to the regulation of 1849, the rector of the university was not elected by the council with the subsequent approval of the minister, but simply appointed by him. In addition, the Minister of Education received the right to remove and dismiss deans of faculties.

Political reliability was recognized as the ideological basis of university education. Kyiv Governor-General Bibikov during a visit to the University of St. Vladimir said in a public speech, addressing the students: "Remember: I will condescendingly look at your revelry and the like, but a soldier's cap threatens anyone who is seen in freethinking." Police censorship not only hindered the development of research thought in the works of scientists, but negatively influenced the worldview and psychology of the students, giving rise to social and mental apathy, directing young energy not at all to scientific affairs. A student of those years recalled: “... It was necessary to put somewhere an excess of young forces in the complete absence of public interests and the languishing boredom and apathy that reigned in society ... there was an uncontrollable desire to somehow especially original and boldly feign and surprise the universe. And so, they broke restaurants or other entertainment establishments, then, walking in a drunken gang along the Nikolaevsky bridge, knocked down and threw hats from passers-by into the Neva, then outweighed shop signs ... Such scandals did not always work out safely and often ended in fierce, and sometimes bloody clashes with the police."

At the same time, such cases for the most part did not entail any punitive measures on the part of the university authorities, since his vigilant observation turned mainly to the political reliability of the students. The same goal was pursued by the regulation of the composition of students. Introduced in 1839, the tuition fee at the university for 10 years has been constantly increasing, limiting the entry of young men from poor and unprivileged families, only persons of noble origin were enrolled in the “state kosht”.

The new political trends of the late 1950s and early 1960s had a noticeable effect on the life of universities. Already at the end of the 50s, civilians began to be appointed trustees of educational districts instead of generals - Nazimov, Kokoshkin, Vasilchikov: Senator E. P. Kovalevsky became the trustee of the Moscow educational district, Prince G. A. Shcherbatov of St. Petersburg, and a well-known medical scientist of Kyiv N. I. Pirogov.

Great changes have also taken place in the teaching staff of universities. “50% of the teachers who worked at the universities in 1854 dropped out by the end of 1862. By the fall of 1861, 47.5% of the faculty were new. The changes affected all universities. They were especially great in St. Petersburg and Kazan, where 58.3 and 61%, respectively, left and 59 and 58.8% of the entire staff re-entered. The old conservative professors were replaced by young, progressive scientists. Professor of Russian history N. G. Ustryalov, one of the leading historiographers of the Nikolaev era, was voted out at St. Petersburg University, and N. I. Kostomarov was elected in his place, shortly before returning from exile, to which he was convicted in the trial of the Cyril and Methodius Society. The educator D. I. Moyer and K. D. Kavelin, a lawyer, historian and sociologist, and a prominent public figure of the liberal trend, were admitted to the Faculty of Law. At the natural department of the Faculty of Physics and Mathematics of St. Petersburg University, the future great scientist, then a young assistant professor D.I. Mendeleev, a highly gifted chemist N.I. became rector of the university.

Gradually, the nature and content of university lectures began to change. Professors informed students about modern achievements of European science, new scientific theories. In 1864, a translation into Russian of Charles Darwin's book "The Origin of Species" appeared, which made a revolution in science. A greater place in the lecture courses began to be given to the coverage of Western European literature, history, and law. Scientific publications also became more active - in the early 60s, new volumes of Solovyov's History of Russia from Ancient Times, Kostomarov's Historical Monographs and Researches, and Beketov's botany course came out of print. There was an opportunity for foreign internships for students and scientific trips for university professors. Scientific discussions have become a new phenomenon in university life.

In 1860, a public dispute between Kostomarov and Pogodin took place at St. Petersburg University. The reason was the speech of the first against the Norman theory. A supporter of Pogodin's theory gave the scientific dispute an open character and initiated a discussion that aroused great public interest. The assembly hall of the university during the debate was overcrowded with young people.

A contemporary recalled: “They sat two by two on the same chair ... they sat on each other’s knees, on the windows, on the floor.” The sympathy of the listeners was mostly on the side of Kostomarov. The desire of university scientists to disseminate scientific knowledge was also manifested in the reading of public lectures, which were previously subjected to administrative persecution. Under the Free Economic Society, from the end of the 1950s, public lectures on a broad program were resumed, Professor of St. Petersburg University S. S. Kutorga gave a whole course “On Man and Nature” there. In Kazan, university professors Eshevsky, Babst, Bulich and Pakhman gave lectures on the humanities. In St. Petersburg, the association "Public Benefit" even opened a hall for public lectures in the Passage. The best university professors read there:

Lenz, Zagorsky, Khodnev, Tsonkovsky. Tickets were snapped up. Lectures were held in a crowded green. Each was attended by at least 300, often up to 500 or more people.

There were also changes in student life. The spirit of barracks discipline and police control gradually disappeared. According to a contemporary, “a series of liberation actions began,” as a result of which the students felt freer: “they began to smoke within the walls of the university ... The authorities no longer stuttered about wearing cocked hats and swords; they were archived even by dandies-white-summers… At the same time, students with shaggy manes and mustaches began to appear at the university… All these were trifles, but they unspeakably lifted the spirit and strengthened…”.

The poverty of the majority of students, the lack of privileges of the social position: people from the small landed nobility, the clergy, the philistinism, they, cut off from their estate, were essentially raznochintsy - all this brought up in them the independence of actions and judgments, the habit of relying only on their own strength, intolerance to injustice .

The curiosity of such young men was manifested not only in science, but also in an active interest in public life. Along with this, aspirations arose to discuss university problems, their position. Thus, students of St. N. Ya.), orders of elders ... satires on professors and students. However, soon the editors and employees of the leaflets were summoned to the trustee, Prince Shcherbatov, who ordered them to present the texts of the leaflets to him. Naturally, their further distribution stopped. This and similar administrative measures aroused the indignation of the students, which was intensified by everything that was happening in the country. “A number of liberal measures were taken from above,” a contemporary wrote. - Society expressed great sympathy for them, at the same time grumbled, worried, protested about the abuses and lawlessness that were encountered at every step. The satirical leaflets, with Iskra at the head, denounced them; protests with dozens of signatures were printed in the newspapers…”. Mass gatherings of students began, which the authorities tried to prevent. At Moscow University, “when a very crowded gathering wanted to gather in the large assembly hall of the old university, the authorities ordered that the doors of this hall be locked; but this only led to the fact that the crowd broke down the doors and, entering the hall, arranged a meeting for them ... ". Gradually, student meetings began to take on a political character. “... Undoubtedly,” a participant in the meeting testifies, “that among the speakers who spoke at the meetings and in general the leaders of the movement there were also directly political speakers who were in connection with the secret society“ Land and Freedom ”, which at that time spread its activities throughout Russia ” .

Student gatherings and speeches began to cause alarm in government circles. “The Sovereign,” wrote A. V. Nikitenko, a professor at St. N. Ya.) and announced to him that such disturbances as now agitate the universities could not be tolerated, and that he intended to proceed with a drastic measure - to close the universities. Honest and intelligent, according to the same Nikitenko, Kovalevsky objected to these extreme measures, but, unable to calm the student unrest, was replaced in the post of Minister of Education by Mr. Putyatin, who tried to influence the movement by force. When a grandiose student demonstration took place at Moscow University on the day of memory of Professor T. N. Granovsky, the next day 24 of its participants were arrested.

In May-June 1861, the government adopted decrees banning student gatherings and meetings, as well as exempting no more than two students from each province from tuition fees, which closed the doors of universities to the poor. But these measures only added fuel to the fire. “To excite university unrest,” wrote a student of Kyiv University, “there was a new reason in the rules that had just been issued for students, the application of which in almost all universities was met with grumbling and even resistance.” In response to these government decrees, major student unrest broke out at many universities. In Kiev University, in connection with the arrest of the student Penkovsky, mass gatherings began. Particularly significant were the performances of students in Moscow and St. Petersburg, where a street demonstration was dispersed by the police. “The prevailing mood among the students was the most extreme: hatred of power ... protest against the existing order of things, reaching the complete denial of any compromise with them,” recalled a participant in these events.

In response to student unrest, the authorities closed St. Petersburg University until the "special order", which followed only in 1863.

The student unrest evoked widespread public sympathy. The university issue acquired political significance, since the attitude of the government to education also determined the general direction of domestic policy. The rise of the student movement had a direct impact on the development of a new university charter, the preparation of which lasted from 1858 to 1863. In the course of its discussion, the most extreme proposals were made, up to the transformation of universities into exclusively noble educational institutions. Minister Putyatin showed complete incompetence in this matter. "Obviously," wrote Nikitenko, "he himself is unable to grasp either the tasks of universities, or their needs, or the means of how to transform and improve them."

Nevertheless, the public sentiments and speeches of the students predetermined the generally progressive nature of the charter of 1863. According to him, universities were recognized as self-governing institutions. Government control was weakened. University councils received the right to resolve all methodological issues, determine the curriculum, distribute funds for teaching aids, assign scholarships to students, recommend scientific papers for publication, and award awards and medals. The charter of 1863 established the election of the rector and deans with their subsequent approval by the trustee of the educational district or the minister of education.

The charter of 1863 also secured the stable structure of the universities. They included four faculties: physics and mathematics, with departments of physics, mathematics and natural sciences; medical; historical and philological, with departments of historical, Slavic-Russian philology and classical philology; legal. Petersburg University did not have a medical faculty, since the Medical and Surgical Academy operated in the city, but there was a faculty of oriental languages. Tomsk University was opened in 1888 as part of one medical faculty, in 1898 a law faculty was added to it. At Derpt University there was also a theological, Lutheran faculty.

The lecture method was combined with practical exercises in teaching. The curriculum was expanded to include special subjects, while fencing, music, and drawing were excluded from it. The term of study was extended to 5 years.

Upon graduation from the university, students received the title of candidate. The most able could continue their studies in graduate school. After two years of study, graduate students took the exam for a master's degree and prepared a master's thesis.

The implementation of the provisions of the charter of 1863 contributed to the progressive development of university education and scientific activities.

Numerous scientific societies began to be created at universities and with the participation of university teachers, their activities covered vast regions of Russia and were very fruitful. For example, in 1868, the Society of Doctors was created in Kazan, chaired by Professor Vinogradov of Kazan University. The "Society" carried out "a medical study of the Kazan region in order to improve the level of public health in it." Among other cases, measures were developed to eliminate the "harmful influence of various industries on the lives of workers." Employees of Kharkiv University studied local mineral springs, took preventive measures against epidemics (in particular, cholera), took part in the activities of the local literacy society. In 1868 in St. Petersburg, and then in Kazan, Kyiv and other cities, "Societies of Naturalists" arose, their activities proceeded in close connection with university scientists. Famintsyn, a professor at St. Petersburg University, took an active part in the work of the Society; in Kazan, the university council provided an auditorium and a museum at the disposal of the Society. Societies of archeology, history and ethnography were created at many universities, studying local monuments of antiquity and collecting ethnographic material.

Despite the development of university education and science in the second half of the 19th century, there was still a shortage of both scientific personnel and people with higher education. In the mid-60s, A. V. Nikitenko wrote in his “diary”: “... out of 80,000 officials of the empire, 3,000 vacancies open annually. Over the course of 2 or 3 years ... from all universities, lyceums and schools of law 400 people graduated annually, except for doctors. The conclusion from this is: how small the number of educated people we have to occupy positions in the public service.

This situation continued in subsequent years as well. The lack of scientific personnel prompted the involvement of university professors to discuss various projects, participate in state administrative and financial commissions. For example, Professor A. I. Voeikov was the chairman of the meteorological commission of the Russian Geographical Society, V. V. Dokuchaev was a member of the commission for higher agricultural education and the commission of the Ministry of State Property. At the same time, the economic situation of universities in the 1960s and 1980s continued to be difficult. The regular amounts did not cover the actual costs of the salaries of teachers and employees of universities. In the early 80s of the XIX century, they amounted to St. Petersburg University - 311,050 rubles ... Moscow - 409,570 rubles ... Kazan - 342,820 rubles ... Kharkov - 327,190 rubles, Kyiv - 332,070 rubles. 2,907,722 rubles were allocated for educational and auxiliary institutions of six universities. Due to lack of funds, the laboratories lacked the necessary preparations and instruments, the libraries and university museums were poor. Universities experienced great difficulties because of the unsuitability and tightness of the premises. So, at the opening of Kharkov University, he was placed in the former governor-general's house, naturally, not adapted to the needs of the educational institution. V. A. Zhukovsky, who visited it in the late 1930s, characterized the position of the university in two words: “poverty and overcrowding”. This condition worsened in the second half of the 19th century. In the 70s, with the growth of departments, the need for premises increased even more - they were needed for a clinic at the Faculty of Medicine (with 75 beds), astronomical and meteorological observatories, rooms for mechanics, physical geography and forensic medicine. Thanks to a large donation from the wealthy Sumy sugar producer Kharitonenko (100,000 rubles for construction and 50,000 rubles for scholarships in his name), a building for the medical faculty was built, but the problem as a whole was not resolved.

Other universities experienced similar difficulties. Thus, the rector of Kazan University, Professor N. N. Bulich, complained about the overcrowding of classrooms, crowdedness at the medical faculty, and the terrible situation of the library: halls ... at the present time ... so cluttered with scales and covered with a thick layer of dust, books lying on the floor, that there is hardly an opportunity to pass in it, and not to study quietly.

The position of professors was also unenviable, especially in provincial universities. In 1875, 387 professors and associate professors worked at six universities in Russia. A contemporary described the living conditions of professors at Kazan University in the early 1970s as follows: “Strongly constrained in funds, since life became more and more expensive every year, being unable not only to acquire books that constitute an urgent need for every scientist, but even to satisfy their current daily necessities of life. And, continuing to describe the plight of the provincial professors, the author added: “From this circle of mental activity during the whole academic year, the conscientious professor, in essence, did not even have to use rest, since, on the one hand, he had a year-long course that required preparation, on the other - Attachment to science and the technique of scientific research required continuous studies. But, nevertheless, despite this non-stop work, which has always made and makes the professorial position perhaps the most difficult of all the pedagogical positions of the state, the majority of professors - true workers - never regretted their time and labors and gave them with full readiness. cause of the common good."

Despite all the difficulties, the creative activity of university scientists during this period was embodied in a number of outstanding scientific works: mathematician P. L. Chebyshev, physicist A. G. Stoletov, mechanics N. E. Zhukovsky. Historical science was enriched by the final volumes of “The History of Russia from Ancient Times” by S. M. Solovyov (1878–1879), at the same time, “Communal Land Ownership ...” by M. M. Kovalevsky, “Boyar Duma in Ancient Russia” by V. O. Klyuchevsky and others.

The general democratic upsurge of the late 1970s and early 1980s had a huge impact on universities. Under the influence of growing public excitement, the intensification of the revolutionary activities of the populists, students began to take an increasingly active part in various kinds of public events: anniversaries of progressive writers, petitions, funerals of leading public figures, then gatherings and demonstrations. Since the spring of 1878, progressive students have been taking an active part in public protests against the arbitrariness of the authorities. Numerous gatherings at the country's universities were held in connection with the political "trial of the 193s." “The press and higher education have always been among us the most sensitive and gentle barometers for determining the political weather,” wrote the remarkable Russian historian A. A. Kizevetter in his memoirs.

In the autumn and winter of 1878, students of St. Petersburg, Kharkov and Moscow universities petitioned the heir to the throne, Grand Duke Alexander Alexandrovich (future Emperor Alexander III). The petition contained requests for corporate rights, permission for mutual funds, gatherings, and other "human rights." Similar petitions were filed by students of the St. Petersburg Medical and Surgical Academy. Kharkov Veterinary Institute and other higher educational institutions of the country. In a number of cases, student demonstrations were dispersed by the police and Cossacks.

The academic conflict began to acquire a political character.

In response to student unrest, the government, in the “Temporary Instructions for the University Inspectorate” and “Rules for Students” published in 1879, decided: student gatherings, meetings, performances, as well as the filing of addresses and petitions to prohibit, strengthen police supervision of students. The duties of the inspector now included monitoring students during extracurricular time - visiting their apartments, parties, studying the character, interests, friendships of each student.

However, the further escalation of the revolutionary situation in the period 1879-1881 slowed down subsequent repressive measures against universities and the publication of the upcoming new university charter.

Only in August 1884 was the new university charter promulgated, which was the "brainchild" of D. Tolstoy, and later I. D. Delyanov was appointed Minister of Education, who "was a resolute enemy of all liberal trends and was the constant squire of Pobedonostsev and Tolstoy."

The new charter of 1884 was adopted without prior approval by the Council of State, many of whose members raised strong objections. The charter approved by the emperor, in the words of B. N. Chicherin, decapitated the universities and “turned them upside down”. It is significant that the reactionary press gave a highly positive assessment of the charter of 1884. Moskovskie Vedomosti wrote that in the new charter “no compromises distorting the matter were allowed, no concessions were made to tyranny ... now its completion ... The guiding and controlling supervision of the state power extends over everything. Indeed, the new charter practically abolished the autonomy of universities - the strictest control of the ministry over the teaching activities, curriculum and curricula of universities was introduced; the ministry promoted and dismissed professors on the recommendation of the trustee, "elected" the rector and deans of the faculties. The historian A. A. Kizevetter subsequently assessed the significance of the charter in the following way: “The university charter of 1884 established some useful innovations ... completely overthrew university autonomy, nullified the independence of the council of professors, destroyed the elective principle in the management of the university, canceled the election of the rector and deans and turned the rector and deans as officials appointed: the rector - by the Minister of Public Education, deans - by the trustee of the educational district.

The “Considerations on the Enforcement of the Decrees of the New Charter” emphasized the political significance of universities: “as a state institution, the university cannot but have a political goal”, therefore “...university education ... must be in the service of state interests and government power.” Hence the requirement that "professors politically recognize themselves as organs of the government and are obliged to follow its types." The election of professors cannot be left to "accidents and biases", but must be the result of "attentive and detailed discussion with the decisive voice of the central authority." During such "elections" of professors and associate professors, the main attention was paid to their "reliability" and way of thinking. At the same time, along with the unfortunate cases of the dismissal of capable scientists and teachers, there were also oddities. So, one associate professor at Kharkov University (later a prominent scientist) was “left behind the staff”, that is, not hired, because, “according to private information”, one of his reports at the archaeological congress in Odessa was recognized as not corresponding to the official concept. However, later it turned out that the mentioned report was made by a completely different person.

The inspector had a decisive influence on the life of the university. Not being a lecturer, he, nevertheless, could now, together with the dean, discuss the distribution of hours, the content of lectures, and even scientific issues.

Since one of the main goals of the statute was to make student unrest impossible, the inspector's supervision of students was "so intensified that, in essence, it approached police surveillance.

“Investigation and espionage reigned in the universities,” wrote a later researcher. - In Kazan, they appeared, it seems, in especially rude forms ... There, to introduce the charter of 1884, a new trustee was appointed from the zealous directors of gymnasiums, a certain Maslennikov - a gentleman, as they said, who made a career under the patronage of some influential nun ... Among the seditious, Maslennikov found himself a good assistant in the person of ... Inspector Potapov, who considered almost every student a personal enemy.

The chairman of the scientific committee of the Ministry of Public Education, A. Georgievsky, who made an inspection trip, also positively assessed the activities of the Kazan inspector, his "careful monitoring of the students", emphasizing that "the inspection in Kazan was put in the right relationship with the general police and the gendarme department."

The charter of 1884 made changes to the curricula of universities, while historical and philological education suffered great damage. The division of the historical and philological faculties into historical, Slavic-Russian and classical departments was destroyed. The main subjects for students of this faculty were ancient languages, ancient history and mythology.

A former student of this faculty, later Academician S. A. Zhebelev, wrote: “Of all the university faculties, the faculties of history and philology were most sensitively affected by the charter of 1884. Strictly speaking, these faculties, as such, were abolished... Only classical philology was preserved in them, understood, again, not scientifically, but from a certain point of view...“. “The Minister of Education,” the memoirist continued ironically, “convinced that classical philology is the alpha and omega of all humanitarian disciplines, that it is the guarantee of the good and salvation of Russia ... he decided ... to nurture the largest possible number of classical philologists, as the most reliable stronghold of the fatherland ... “.

As a result of such a curriculum, a student of the Faculty of Philology could graduate from it without attending such lecture courses as the history of Russia, Russian language and literature, Slavic linguistics, and others recognized as “optional”. Fortunately, most of the classical professors who taught courses in classical philology understood it as a scientific discipline, and not as a special kind of pedagogical device, which meant not so much to teach, but to “curb” and “humble”.

In any case, they did not take advantage of the "privileged position" in which the statutes of 1884 were supposed to place the classical professors. Moreover, they, apparently, were embarrassed by this privileged position, and soon the first ones took up arms against him with fervor.

The system of so-called fees did not justify itself. With the existence of "optional" and "mandatory" courses in the curriculum, professors who taught the first courses received half as much as their colleagues who taught "mandatory" courses, regardless of the erudition and abilities of the lecturer. In addition, such a financial system was extremely difficult for students.

The Charter of 1884 provoked numerous protests both from the public and from the "universitarians" themselves, especially since its reactionary significance was strengthened by subsequent government circulars. The "Regulations" of 1884 prohibited students from expressing approval or disapproval of professors and from marrying while studying at the university. In 1885, by order of the Committee of Ministers, uniforms were introduced at universities. Students were required to salute members of the imperial family and the university authorities. Student meetings and gatherings were prohibited. Punishment systems were established for violations of discipline.

The prominent historian of Russian culture P. N. Milyukov, recognizing the main trend of the statute of 1884 as “the subordination of professorial teaching and service to the university authorities and the ministry”, as well as “strengthening inspectorial supervision of students”, wrote about its consequences in the 90s: “In In the field of higher education, the struggle goes against the academic conditions created by the charter of 1884. The government responds to student unrest, first of all, by intensifying repression. The highest point it reaches in this direction is the rule of July 29, 1899, on the surrender to the soldiers of the rioters. 183 students of Kyiv University were actually given to the soldiers by virtue of these rules. The answer was the assassination of the Minister of Public Education Bogolepov by a student (Socialist-Revolutionary) Karpovich. Only after this was the Ministry of Education invited the councils of the universities to express their opinion on the desired changes in the charter of 1884. The Soviets demanded the restoration of autonomy and the return of rights to student organizations.

The charter of 1884 and subsequent government measures had a negative impact on the financial situation of the students.

Since the bulk of the students of the second half of the 19th century were raznochintsy, it is natural that the property status of this group was insufficient. Moreover, for a number of years, tuition fees have steadily increased. If in the 60-70s students of metropolitan universities contributed 50 rubles a year, and provincial universities - 20 rubles, then according to the charter of 1884, the fee was increased to 60 rubles, and after 1887 (that is, after the assassination attempt on Alexander III 1 March 1887, a student of St. Petersburg University Alexander Ulyanov - N. Ya.) the fee increased to 100 rubles. in year. In addition to tuition fees, students were supposed to pay 20 rubles. to the commission for passing the final exams and obtaining a graduation certificate. State scholarships were used by no more than 15% of the students of each faculty. Getting it was due to a number of requirements: the submission of a certificate of poverty, a positive review of the inspector about the student's behavior and, finally, the successful passing of the so-called "competitive tests". In addition to state scholarships, there were scholarships from funds of public and private donations. Students preferred to turn to them for help.

But neither government stipends nor charity could do much to meet the needs of the poor student body, whose existence was constantly poisoned by an excruciating lack of funds and a constant search for work. Subsequently, the prominent scientist Professor I. I. Yanzhul recalled that, as a student at Moscow University, “I used the last pennies for publications in the Police Vedomosti, looking for any kind of income and giving bribes to newspaper peddlers and typesetters so that they would notify me before anyone else about polls to work ... Nothing good came of all these measures ... I was left without income and ruffled my old and already full of holes for nothing ... I sold out absolutely everything that could be sold, and pawned everything that was more necessary. The memoirist carefully reproduced the budget of a student who has 25 rubles a month. In addition to the room fee (11 rubles), the largest expenses are for food. Most students enjoy half-hearted and unhealthy lunches in the kitchen. The minimum charge for lunch in these canteens is 7 rubles. 50 kop. The same price is in the paid canteen of the "Society for Assistance to Needy Students." In addition, morning and evening tea with sugar cost 1 ruble per month. 30 kop. Bread in the morning and in the evening for 5 kopecks, a total of 3 rubles per month. Lighting with a small lamp (kerosene) - 50 kopecks, laundress 1 ruble, minor expenses (soap, bath, tooth powder, paper) - 50 kopecks. As a result - 24 rubles. 80 k. “And 20 kopecks. stays for tobacco or the theatre.”

Housing conditions for the majority of poor students were difficult. They settled mainly in the poorest quarters, where the rooms were cheaper. A description of one of these places is given in his memoirs by a former student of Moscow University: “Narrow, very narrow streets (Bronny, Kozikhinsky).

Nondescript wooden houses with faded paint, dirty, disgusting ... Small colonial (that is, petty, selling various goods, including tea— N. Ya.) benches with unwashed windows. Repulsive gate. Ugly yards are unsanitary to the last degree. And everywhere the stench, the stinking stench of cellars, latrines and garbage pits. Poisonous fumes are in the air... The population consists entirely of people with no specific occupations, petty office workers, widows and women of various types... Drunken fun lives hand in hand with eternal need, interrupting from bread to kvass. In such old wooden houses in Moscow or 4–5-storey tenement houses in St. Petersburg with well-yards, students rented rooms. If the room was rented to one student, then it cost 11 rubles. a month with servants, that is, cleaning and a samovar in the morning: "... This will be a room where you can sleep and occasionally study, if the neighbors allow and the cold - these constant companions of student apartments." But often the budget of students was less than 25 rubles. - 18 or 15 rubles. monthly living wage. Then the room was rented by three or four people. Here is how the well-known publicist V. Gilyarovsky draws the life of such poor fellows: “In each room of student apartments ... usually four people lived. Four miserable beds - they are chairs; a table and a shelf of books, behind the bindings of which bugs moved from apartment to apartment. They dined in canteens (kukhmisterskie) or ate tea with bread. During austerity, instead of tea, chicory was brewed, "a round stick of which 1/4 pound cost 3 kopecks, and it was enough for four days for 10."

Particular material difficulties arose among poor students with clothes, especially uniforms. “And so many buy coats and jackets somewhere on occasion: from comrades, junk dealers. There is no need to argue whether it is customary or not customary to wear a dress from an unknown person’s shoulder - perhaps sick or dead from a contagious disease, ”recalled the former student.

In general, the compulsory form caused students not only new expenses, but also ridicule. V. Gilyarovsky in his memoirs cites poems that went from hand to hand among students: “Alexander III had two weaknesses: a passion for dressing everyone in uniform and a passion for playing the trombone ... Our young Tsar is a musician. He trumpets on the trombone. Only the regal talent does not like Notu "re". As soon as the minister brings a new reform, "Re" he instantly crosses out. And leave the form.

Of course, not all students were in such great need, there was a category of middle-income and well-to-do students who did not feel the need for additional earnings and did not know the full severity of poverty. Parental "assistance" gave them the opportunity not only to study quietly, but also to have a good time. However, most of the university students belonged to the first category.

Despite all the difficulties that university education experienced in the second half of the 19th century, its development proceeded progressively. The number of universities increased: in 1863 Novorossiysk University was opened in Odessa, in 1888 - in Tomsk, which became the largest scientific and cultural center in Siberia. Accordingly, the number of students increased: in 1864 there were 4,328 of them in all universities of Russia, in 1875 - 5,679, in 1885 - 12,939, in 1894 - 13,944.

By the end of the 19th century, Russia occupied one of the first places in the world in theoretical developments in many branches of science, and above all in chemistry, physics, natural science, and mathematics. A significant contribution to these achievements was made by university scientists - D. I. Mendeleev, A. G. Stoletov, I. I. Sechenov, A. A. Markov and others.

Russian universities have become true cultural centers of the country, contributing to the creation of many scientific societies, the popularization of scientific knowledge, giving hundreds and thousands of students not only high professional training, but instilling respect for science, broad-mindedness and striving for progress. D. I. Pisarev wrote: “The best hopes of the Fatherland are concentrated in the universities.”