Michael Pozdnev: Pedagogy in the Service of the State: Causes of the Failure of Dmitrii Tolstoy’s “Classical System”
Pozdnev State Classicism.docx (36.8 KB)
Dear Michael, thank you very much for your presentation!
I have some questions and remarks.
(1) There seems to be a twist in the ideological background of the school-classicism in Russia that I cannot grasp in full measure. So, after the revolutions of 1948-1949 (and, possibly, Droysen’s activities) Nicolaus I is terrified and turnes down Uvarov’s gymnasiums (Latin is thought of as a hotbed of frivolous ideas and “nihilism” – probably, because of European state of things at the moment). After the Crimean War Alexander II starts liberal reforms and Golovnin (minister of education 1861-1866) restitutes classical gymnasiums with “mild” classicism, which is perceived as a liberal policy. But in 1866, after Karakosov’s assassination attempt the reforms, albeit continuing, take a “conservative turn”, and Tolstoy, a conservative minister, fosters “hard classicism” based on Prussian model, which is then perceived as conservative.
It is somehow puzzling. 15 years earlier Latin (the more so Greek) was regarded as liberal pest, and now, in 1866, as the stronghold of conservatism. Above all, how come in 1861 the restitution of classical gymnasiums is perceived as liberal and in 1866 intensified Latin and Greek that occupy almost all the curriculum, with extemporalia etc., is put forward as radical conservative measure? What provided this change of attitude?
As far as I understand, you tend to explain it by accidental circumstances and Tolstoy’s resourcefulness that adjusted the (compulsory) change in educational policy to political conjuncture: Tolstoy had to make a quick turn in educational policy, saw an opportunity in turning to “hard classicism” and advocated it as a truly conservative measure that would protect the youth from “nihilism”. Yet, I wonder if there was more than that in establishing this ideological pattern: after all, this view, though not quite popular even in leading circles (the State Council at first voted against it), found a number of adherents who seem to take this concept seriously, not as a purely opportunistic, politically expedient argument in favour of the reform invented “ad hoc”. Could there still be additional ideological ground for this view?
(I do not know if it is relevant that in Austria there seems to have been a similar reform of gymnasiums in 1849-1850…)
(2) In public debates during the Great Reforms (at least in 1870-s) the concept of a classical Gymnasium of a Prussian model still had adherents, despite the growing fury and irritation at the difficulty of mastering classical languages. Katkov’s paper, “Moskovskie vedomosti”, that pleaded for the school reform, was among the most popular ones. One can hardly confine the relative tenacity of these views to “silencing the opposition press”.
I wonder if the reason and motive for introducing the Prussian model might have been a banal and primitive desire to take over a Western institution that was considered successful (in this case, the Prussian gymnasiums) and implant it in Russian soil by force? “Prussian gymnasiums are notably successful, let us exert all our strength and do it as in Prussia” - if so, political associations and ideological motivations are not relevant. Such tendencies of mechanical transferring of western practices are typical for Russia since Peter-the-Great. Recently we saw the American practice of citation metrics being introduced in Russian academy and High School with much energy, despite the officially claimed disgust towards everything American.
(3) Apart from Karakosov’s attempt, that obviously was a trigger, was the Polish Uprising of 1863 an important factor in turning to conservatism, not only in the ruling circles, but also in the public opinion? It seems that many liberals corrected their views towards conservatism after that.
(4) A small particular remark: I used to think (though I cannot find the exact reference where I have seen that) that Nikolaus I’ remark on “Luxury” was referred to Ancient Greek (~ “Latin is OK, but Greek is perhaps a luxury”): did it in fact refer to both classical languages?