https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5343-5388
![Sample our Education journals, sign in here to start your access, latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5932/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Education.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This case study of the Russian Empire, based on the analysis of more than 100 primary sources in the form of textbooks on domestic history (uchebniki otechestvennoi istorii) and archival documentation, is intended to help understand the evolution of the formation of domestic history as a school subject as an integral part of the imperialist state’s historical policy. The essence of the work was an attempt to periodise the development of the educational narrative as one of the components influencing the mentality of the Russian population – or rather, certain segments of it – and the extent of this phenomenon from the point of view of postcolonial studies. Special attention was also paid in the text to considerations based on discourse analysis of how the history of rulers-tsars gradually became the history of the people-Russians.
Acknowledgements
The author is grateful for the constructive comments from the two article’s anonymous reviewers in helping to shape and improve the final text.
Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
Notes
1. On the topic of how nation-building is supported by national narratives in education systems, see Cummings, “The Institutions of Education,” 413–37.
2. Among these exceptions, it is impossible not to mention Berger, “The Power of National Pasts,” 30–62; Nathalie, “Learning to See the Nation-State” 41–55; D. Tröhler, T. S. Popkewitz and D. Labaree, eds., Schooling and the Making of Citizens in the Long Nineteenth Century (London: Routledge, 2011) and case studies presented by the Introduction and first three texts of Eugenia R. Vera and Eckhardt Fuchs, eds., Textbooks and War: Historical and Multinational Perspectives (London: Palgrave, 2018), 1–96.
3. Of course, there are few exceptions. However, existing works cover only the selected time periods. For example, see Dmitrii A. Sosnitskii, “Uchebnaia literatura kak istochnik konstruirovaniia kollektivnoi pamiati ob otechestvennoi istorii v Rossii vtoroi poloviny XVIII v.” Genesis: istoricheskie issledovaniia 10 (2020): 133–40; Caroli, “Educational Institutions, Curricula and Cultural Models in the Higher Education of the Nobility and Intelligentsia at the Turn of the 20th Century in Russia,” 341–88.
4. Peter Seixas, “History in Schools,” in The Palgrave Handbook of State-Sponsored History after 1945, ed. B. Bevernage and N. Wouters (London: Palgrave Macmillan 2018), 273–4.
5. Daniel Tröhler, “National Literacies, or Modern Education and the Art of Fabricating National Minds.” Journal of Curriculum Studies 52, no. 5 (2020): 620–35.
6. Abramkin, “Kontseptsii russkoi istorii po materialam shkol’nykh uchebnikov dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii,” 23; Nicole Gotling, “National Textbook Narratives and Historiography: Presenting a Same That is Never the Same.” Croatian Journal of Education 22, no. 2 (2020): 66.
7. Or in the process of creating it. For the German case, see, Daniel Tröhler and Stefan Berger, The Search for Normality. National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Germany Since 1800 (London: Berghahn Books 1997).
8. It is important to note that the study was conducted on the basis of textbooks on domestic history (istoriia otechestva) and not on global history (vsiemirnaia istoria). These two disciplines have traditionally been distinct subjects in Russia – at least since 1786. Besides these, there was also the subject of divine law, on which some historical topics could be presented to the pupils.
9. Nevertheless, Mihail T. Studenikin’s and Aleksandr N. Fuks’s monographs deserves special attention in this context. Mihail T. Studenikin, Stanovlenie i razvitie shkol’nogo istoricheskogo obrazovania v Rossii XVI – nachala XX vv. (Moscow: Prometei, 2011); Aleksandr N. Fuks, Shkol’nye uchebniki po otechestvennoi istorii kak istoriograficheskii fenomen (konets XVIII v. – vtoraia polovina 1930-kh godov) (Moscow: MGOU, 2010).
10. For example, in relation to the British, Austrian and German Empires.
11. Information on which is available in the archives, as well as in the secondary literature.
12. See, Ingo H. Warnke and Jürgen Spitzmüller, eds., Methoden der Diskurslinguistik. Sprachwissenschaftliche Zugänge zur transtextuellen Ebene (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2008), esp. 3–57. Also, Achim Landwehr, Historische Diskursanalyse (Frankfurt: Campus, 2018); Czachur, “Dyskursywny obraz świata. Kilka refleksji,” 79–97.
13. The scattering mentioned earlier is due to certain difficulties in the general calculation of the number of school textbooks published in the Russian Empire. Relatively unambiguous figures can only be determined in relation to texts published since the second half of the nineteenth century. But even such imprecise data can reveal the basis of the conclusions. Due to the limited space for the article, a list of all the sources studied is not provided. Nevertheless, the main text mentions the most important of them in the notes.
14. Some of the specialised topics are presented in Boridczenko, “Pan, znachit vrag?,” 70–81; Stanisław Boridczenko, “Obraz stosunków polsko-rosyjskich w literaturze szkolnej Imperium Rosyjskiego (1721–1917)” [The portrayal of Polish–Russian relations in the school educational literature of the Russian Empire (1721–1917)] (PhD diss., University of Szczecin, 2022).
15. For example, in already classical fundamental works, such as Sergei V. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia. 1802–1902 gg. (Saint Petersburg: Gosudarstvennaia tipografiia, 1902); Igor’ A. Aleshintsev, Istoriia gimnazicheskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii (v XVIII i XIX veke) (Saint Petersburg: Gerol’d, 1912); Nikolai I. Serbov and Sergei A. Kniaz’kov, Ocherk istorii narodnogo obrazovaniia v Rossii do epokhi reform Aleksandra II (Moscow: Tipografiia russkogo tovarishchestva pechatnogo i izdatel’skogo dela 1910). References to contemporary works, mainly represented by highly specialised articles, will be presented in the main text.
16. See, Aleksandr N. Fuks, Shkol’nye uchebniki po otechestvennoi istorii kak istoriograficheskii fenomen (konets XVIII v. – vtoraia polovina 1930-kh godov) (Moscow: MGOU, 2010).
17. Although there are no separate works on this topic, the problem is covered in the above-mentioned texts on the topic of the system of secondary and primary education in the Russian Empire.
18. On the topic of Catherine II’s educational policy (and the Catherine II’s educational reform), see, Mikhail P. Starodubtsev, Obrazovatel’naia politika Ekateriny II (Saint Petersburg: Nedra, 2012); Isabel de Madariaga, Russian in the Age of Caterina the Great (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1981), 488–503.
19. Mikhail P. Starodubtsev, “Teoriia i praktika rossiiskogo vospitaniia i obrazovaniia v XVIII veke.” Izvestiia Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gertsena 150 (2012): 249–61; Studenikin, Stanovlenie i razvitie, 16–41.
20. Natal’ia V. Poliakova, “Skladyvanie rossiiskoi sistemy obrazovaniia,” Sotsial’no-politicheskii zhurnal 3 (1998): 163–78.
21. This was already noted in the second half of nineteenth century by Petr P. Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom. T. 1, (Saint Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia pol’za, 1862).
22. Sinopsis ili Kratkoe opisanie ot razlichnyh letopiscev, o nachale slavenskogo naroda, o pervyh kievskih knjazeh, i o zhitii svjatago, blagovernogo i velikogo knjazja Vladimira vseja Rossii pervejshago samoderzhca, i o ego naslednikah, dazhe do blagochestivejshago gosudarja carja i velikago knjazja Feodora Alekseevicha samoderzhca vserossijskago: Vpol’zu ljubiteljam istorii (Saint Petersburg: pri Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1762).
23. See, Victoriia V. Tkachenko. “‘Sinopsis’ i prepodavanie istorii Rossii v XVIII v.: ob odnom istoriograficheskom mife,” in Istoriia Rossii s drevneishikh vremen do XXI veka: problemy, diskussii, novye vzgliady. Sbornik statei uchastnikov V Vserossiiskoi nauchno-prakticheskoi shkoly-konferentsii molodykh uchenykh (9 noiabria 2017 g.) (Moscow: Institut Rossiiskoi istorii RAN, 2018), 41–9.
24. Studenikin, Stanovlenie i razvitie, 16–41.
25. On this topic, see, Zinaida I. Vasil’eva, ed., Istoriia vospitaniia i obrazovaniia v Rossii XVIII v. (Moscow: Pedagogika, 1992).
26. This is perfectly described in such classic works as Aleksandr I. Pisarev, “Konditsii dlia naima uchitelia. 1776 g.” Golos minuvshego 3 (1915): 228–30; Konstantin V. Sivkov, “‘Russkii uchitel’ v dome pomeshchika kontsa XVIII veka; Shugurov M. F. Uchenie i ucheniki v XVIII veke (Po povodu biografii A. Ia. Polenova).” Russkii arkhiv 3 (1866): 304–24.
27. Based on my own estimates, in turn based on available data from the archives.
28. Genrikh A. Fal’bork and Vladimir I. Charnoluskii, Nachal’noe narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossii (Saint Petersburg: Narodnaia pol’za, 1900–1905), 2–15; Marina P. Voitekhovskaia and Iurii V. Kupert, “Zarozhdenie gosudarstvennoi sistemy obrazovaniia v Rossiiskoi imperii.” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta 2, no. 117 (2012): 39–45.
29. Fonvizin’s play, The Minor, is just a small example of this in eighteenth-century Russian mass culture. Moreover, the verification commissions of Catherine II reported that most of the young people who received a certificate of maturity barely knew how to read and write (e.g. Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov, f. 10. op. 1. d. 432–5. Л. 1–2). The question of the level of education of the Russian elites was also described in Feofanov, “‘Uroven’ obrazovannosti vysshei rossiiskoi biurokratii vtoroi poloviny XVIII – pervoi poloviny XIX v.,” 17–27.
30. Aleksei Miller, “Istoriia poniatiia natsiia v Rossii,” in “Poniatiia o Rossii”: K istoricheskoi semantike imperskogo perioda, Vol. II (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012), 7–49.
31. Ibid.
32. On the topic of evolution of the lexemes poddanyj and grazhdanin, see Lor Erik, “Grazhdanstvo i poddanstvo. Istoriia poniatii,” in “Poniatiia o Rossii”: K istoricheskoi semantike imperskogo perioda, Vol. I (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2012), 197–225.
33. On the topic of transformation of the language in the context of self-descriptions of Romanov’s subjects, see Il’ia Gerasimov, Jan Kusber and Aleksandr Semyonov, eds., Empire Speaks Out: Languages of Rationalisation and Self-Description in the Russian Empire (Leiden: Brill, 2009).
34. Which, according to the Russian chronicle tradition, was founded by Prince Rurik, who was the Varangian leader of Rus in 862 invited to reign in Novgorod.
35. Nikolai I. Serbov and Sergei A. Kniaz’kov, Ocherk istorii narodnogo obrazovaniia v Rossii do epokhi reform Aleksandra II (Moscow: Tipografiia russkogo tovarishchestva pechatnogo i izdatel’skogo dela 1910), 182–7.
36. Mikhail P. Starodubtsev, “Reformy obrazovaniia Petra i i Ekateriny II.” Izvestiia Rossiiskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo universiteta im. A. I. Gertsena 148 (2012): 141–50.
37. Igor’ V. Kurukin, “‘Dlia vpereniia v iunoshestvo liubvi k Otechestvu’: Ekaterina II i izuchenie istorii v russkoi shkole kontsa XVIII – nachala XIX vv.” Istoricheskii vestnik 5, no. 85 (2013): 74, 81, 85–7.
38. And their predecessors were specialists from Western Europe, e.g. Fedor Iankovich. On Iankovich’s vision of educational process, see, Iankovich de Mirievo, “Rukovodstve uchiteliam pervogo i vtorogo klassa narodnykh uchitelei,” 248–52.
39. This is evidenced, for example, by the personal correspondence of Catherine II to Baron Grim; see Sosnitskii, “Uchebnaia literatura,” 139.
40. This trend is well described in the following article, Tat’iana I. Pashkova, “Predpisannoe neznanie: kakie siuzhety i personazhi ne popadali na stranitsy dorevoliutsionnykh shkol’nykh uchebnikov po russkoi istorii.” Detskie chteniia 17, no. 1 (2020): 205–33.
41. Malovichko, “Uchebnaia kniga po russkoi istorii v sisteme prezentatsii natsional’no-gosudarstvennoi istorii rossiiskoi imperii kontsa XVIII – 40 gg. XIX veka,” 282–99.
42. The tradition of direct borrowing could be found in almost all school subjects, even those that relate to the humanistic field of knowledge. See, Bezrogov, “K voprosu o rannih perevodah ‘Orbis sensualium pictus’ Yana Amosa Komenskogo na russkii yazyk,” 11–30.
43. Goncharov, “Stanovlenie gosudarstvennoi sistemy svetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii,” 131–6.
44. Leshchilovskaia, “Fedor Ivanovich Iankovich de Mirievo (Mirievskii),” 36–44.
45. That is, [Fedor I. Iankovich de Mirievo], Kratkaia Rossiiskaia istoriia (Saint Petersburg: Tipografiya Kommissii ob uchrezhdenii uchilisch F.Brunkova, 1799).
46. Ivan M. Stritter, Istoriya rossiyskogo gosudarstva. T. 1–3 (Saint Petersburg: pri Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1800).
47. Pavel M. Stroev, Kratkaia rossiiskaia istoriia: V pol’zu rossiiskogo iunoshestva (Moscow: Tipografiia S. Selivanovskogo, 1814).
48. Malovichko and Marukhin, “Uchebnaia kniga,” 288–90.
49. As noted by Fuks, “Shkol’nye uchebniki,” 68–9.
50. Nikolai G. Ustrialov, Nachertanie russkoi istorii, dlia srednikh uchebnykh zavedenii (Saint Petersburg: Tipografia Imperatorskoj Rossijskoj Akademii, 1839). He also published a textbook for elementary schools, Nikolai G. Ustrialov, Rukovodstvo k pervonachal’nomu izucheniiu russkoi istorii (Saint Petersburg, 1840).
51. It is important to note that all these elements have appeared before. However, he became the first author to succeed in combining them all in one publication.
52. The state began to support this trend in the first half of Stage Y. See, “Ob pravilakh chinoproizvodstva,” in Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii. T. XXX (Saint Peterburg: Tipografia II Otdeleniia sobstvennoj Ego Imperatorskogo Velichestva Kanceliarii, 1830), 1054; “O pravilakh proizvodstva v chiny po grazhdanskoi sluzhbe i ob ispytaniiakh v naukakh dlia proizvodstva v kollezhskie asessory i statskie sovetniki,” in Sbornik postanovlenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia. T. 1. Tsarstvovanie imperatora Aleksandra I. 1802–1825 (Saint Petersburg: v tipografii Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk, 1865), 511.
53. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor, esp. 5–21, 30–1.
54. At least, this followed from the foundations of the Department of Education, Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv, according to which the estates mentioned were designated as fully covered by the school system and treated as the main source of stability of the empire. F. 733: Departament narodnogo prosveshcheniia. Op. 20. D. 12. D. 102. Moreover, this tendency was identified by Studenikin, Stanovlenie i razvitie, 121–32.
55. Kalinina, “Shkol’naia reforma Aleksandra i i ‘Polozhenie ob uchilishchakh’ 1804 goda,” 192–201.
56. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor, 24, 31–2, 51–6.
57. For the history of evolution of the concept of state within Russian culture see, Oleg Kharkhordin, Osnovnye poniatiia rossiiskoi politiki (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2011). On the history of transformation of the concept of Russia in the eighteenth-century Russian Empire, see Ingrid Shirle, Poniatie “‘Rossiia’ v politicheskoi kul’ture XVIII veka,” in V. M. Zhivov, ed., Evoliutsiia poniatii v sfere istorii russkoi kul’tury (Moscow: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2012): 207–33.
58. The content of the educational literature reflected the general direction of the changes in popular discourse. See Kohut, “A Dynastic or Ethno-Dynastic Tsardom?,” 17–30.
59. On the development of the concept of state in Russian culture, see Fan, “Politicheskaia ontologiia rossiiskogo grazhdanina,” 66–93.
60. Sdvizhkov, “Poniatiia o Rossii,” 50–99.
61. Vsepoddanneishii otchet ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia za 1913 god (Saint Petersburg, 1916): Senatskaia Tiporafia, 4–6, 11–12.
62. Saprykin, “Obrazovatel’nyi potentsial Rossiiskoi Imperii,” 57–8.
63. The statement refers only to a portion of the educational institutions mentioned, in which teachers gave lessons on national history. At the level of the empire, Russian history was not present as a compulsory subject.
64. In other words, about 0.5 to 1.5 rubles.
65. Ilovaisky’s textbooks phenomenon is very well described in Fuks, Shkol’nye uchebniki, 72–103.
66. Shakhanov, “‘v moikh rabotakh nichego ne mozhet ustaret’,” 96.
67. On the topic of the really difficult living conditions of the Russian subalterns see Ilya Gerasimov, Plebeain Modernity: Social Practices, Illegality, and Urban Poor in Russia, 1906–1916 (Rochester: University of Rochester Press, 2018).
68. In this case, with certain reservations; the best evidence of this is the memoir and classical Russian literature.
69. All data are taken from the Centralʹnyj Statisticheskij Komitet, Statisticheskii ezhegodnik Rossii. 1915 g. (god dvenadtsatyi) (Saint Petersburg: Tsentral’nyi Statisticheskii Komitet MVD, 1916).
70. On this topic, see Kapterev, “Istoriia russkoi pedagogii,” 289–556.
71. Vasilii Smorodinov, a school inspector in the Polish provinces of the Russian Empire, offers an interesting look at the learning process. See Wasilij G. Smorodinow, Moja służba w Warszawskim Okręgu Naukowym i zdarzenia ze szkolnego życia. Wspomnienia pedagoga, trans. B. Drozdowska (Kielce: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Jana Kochanowskiego w Kielcach, 2003).
72. Viktoriia Iu. Fertser, “Problemy sotsializatsii lichnosti v otechestvennoi pedagogike vtoroi poloviny XIX – nachala XX v.” (PhD diss., Moscow, 2005).
73. At least in the gymnasiums, see, Ol’ga N. Shaparina, “‘Istoricheskoe obrazovanie v russkikh gimnaziiakh v nachale XX veka. 1901 – fevral’ 1917 gg. (na materialakh Moskovskogo uchebnogo okruga)” (PhD diss., Moscow, 2004).
74. Sergei M. Solov’ev, Uchebnaia kniga russkoi istorii (Moscow: Tovarischestvo I. N. Kushnereva i Ko, 1859–1860).
75. Dmitrii I. Ilovaiskii, Kratkie ocherki russkoi istorii (Moscow: Tipografiia Gracheva i Ko, 1860); Dmitrii I. Ilovaiskii, Rukovodstvo k russkoi istorii (Moscow: Tipografiia Gracheva i Ko, 1862).
76. Moisei I. Ostrogorskii, Uchebnik russkoi istorii (Saint Petersburg: Tovarischestvo A. Transhel, 1891).
77. Sergei F. Platonov, Uchebnik russkoi istorii dlia srednei shkoly (Saint Petersburg: Tipografija M.A. Aleksandrova, 1909–1910).
78. SeeFuks, Shkol’nye uchebniki, 73–81.
79. Saprykin, Obrazovatel’nyi potentsial, 57–8.
80. Vera A. Ishchenko, Shkol’noe istoricheskoe obrazovanie v Rossii v kontse XIX – nachale XX vv. (PhD diss., Stavropol’, 1997).
81. Anna V. Pletneva, “Kritika uchebnikov D. I. Ilovaiskogo v kontse XIX – nachale XX v.,” Vestnik Tambovskogo universiteta. Seriia: Gumanitarnye nauki 4, no. 144 (2015): 196–202.
82. However, there are different opinions on the question of when this identity began to manifest itself. For example, see Serhii Plokhy, The Origins of the Slavic Nations: Premodern Identities in Russia, Ukraine and Belarus (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006).
83. On this topic, see the monumental work by Aleksei Miller, Imperiia Romanovykh i natsionalizm: esse po metodologii istoricheskogo issledovaniia (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2006).
84. On the topic of the development of a linguistic and conceptual apparatus for the expression of nationality in the period up to the mid-nineteenth century in the Russian Empire, see Knight, “Ethnicity, Nationality and the Masses,” 41–65.
85. The study of Ostrogorsky’s narrative is presented in Stanisław Boridczenko, “Obraz relacji polsko-rosyjskich w podręcznikach szkolnych Mojżesza Ostrogorskiego.” Historia Slavorum Occidentis 4 (2021): 68–88.
86. This statement applies to almost all textbooks from Stage Z, starting with the book by Ustrialov.
87. Cf. Wortman, Scenarios of Power …, 334–47, 377–97.
88. For example, the concept of “pan.” See Boridczenko, “Pan, znachit vrag?,” 70–81.
89. On the topic of the importance of the Polish question and the conflict behind it, see Mihail D. Dolbilov and Aleksey I. Miller, eds., Historia Rossica. Zapadnye okrainy Rossiyskoy Imperii (Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2007).
90. Dolbilov, “Poliak v imperskom politicheskom leksikone,” 292–340.