Historians and Historical Societies in the Public Life of Imperial Russia
416
Historians and Historical Societies in the Public Life of Imperial Russia
416Hardcover
-
PICK UP IN STORE
Your local store may have stock of this item.
Available within 2 business hours
Related collections and offers
Overview
Product Details
| ISBN-13: | 9780253023988 |
|---|---|
| Publisher: | Indiana University Press |
| Publication date: | 02/27/2017 |
| Pages: | 416 |
| Product dimensions: | 6.20(w) x 9.10(h) x 1.00(d) |
| Age Range: | 18 Years |
About the Author
Read an Excerpt
Historians and Historical Societies in the Public Life of Imperial Russia
By Vera Kaplan
Indiana University Press
Copyright © 2017 Vera KaplanAll rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-253-02398-8
CHAPTER 1
From Associations of the Educated to Societies for Education: Historical Background
The earliest associations of the educated emerged in Russia during the first half of the eighteenth century. These nascent voluntary organizations appeared at a stage in Russian history when voluntary activity would hardly seem to have a place in a society characterized by immobility and serfdom. Half of the country's peasantry lived as serfs who belonged to private owners. The other half were state peasants and were no freer to manage their own lives. Like private serfs, they were tied to an obshchina. The urban population was subject to the controls of the city administration. Even the nobility could not be called free since, until 1762, it was subjected to compulsory state service. This combination of dependence and compulsory obligation on the part of all groups in the Russian population resulted in a system of control that would not appear to offer any opportunity for voluntary initiative. "In Russia at the beginning of the eighteenth century the only free man was the tsar, and every one [sic] else was in bondage in one degree or another," as Boris Mironov described the country's distinctive conditions during this period.
But the military and administrative reforms launched by Peter the Great at the beginning of that century, which were initially driven by the aim of strengthening the army, gradually evolved into a grand effort to create what Marc Raeff has termed a "well-ordered" state. The result was a new social dynamic. The reforms extended the obligations of the nobility and increased the burden on other groups in society, but they also stimulated a great deal of social mobility. The introduction of the Table of Ranks provided commoners with the possibility of acquiring noble status. New demands and conditions for service created a system of meritocracy and the rational organization of state structures. Administrative changes based on the principles of cameralism, which sought to reform society and promote economic development, regularized the duties of officials. Chancery work became specialized. Staffing and salaries were standardized, and a new element of collegiality was introduced into decision-making processes. A new mode of service required a new kind of education. The establishment of secular institutions of education based on "European" (principally German) models led to the appearance of eighteenth-century Russia's first men of letters, who, at this early stage, consisted mostly of foreign specialists. It also contributed to the consolidation of educated strata among the Russian population and transformed education into an important tool for climbing the social ladder. In the long run, "Western" education became one of the defining characteristics of the Russian elite.
As Raeff explained, the ideal of a well-ordered state also rested on a "shift" in the traditional concept of government from one based on "the passive duty" of maintaining law and order and defending the realm against foreign enemies to the dynamic, activist goals of "fostering the productive energies of society." This new definition meant that the state began to intervene in a range of spheres of its subjects' lives that were once regulated by church, family, or the common law. Such state policy, described as social disciplining, involved a series of legislative steps by which the early modern state sought to "civilize" the behavior of its subjects. In Russia's case, the state's vision of what constituted proper behavior was first of all directed toward the nobility. The newly prescribed conduct marked a sharp departure from existing norms and manners. Ranging from the notorious decrees (ukazy) mandating the wearing of "German" garments and the removal of beards (which radically altered the nobility's appearance) to the promotion of a "Western" mode of entertainment for the elites, this social disciplining generated new, and initially coerced, forms of sociability. These served the goal of a well-ordered state while also facilitating the rise of new conventions and values that replaced old frames of reference. The members of the elite had little choice but to accustom themselves to these new norms and codes.
It was state activity, therefore, that introduced elements of mobility, rational organization, and collegiality — characteristics typical of modern voluntary associations — into Russian life. State-sponsored social activity also gave rise to new forms of interaction and communication within the country's elite. Hence it is not surprising that the ethos of voluntary initiative so essential to the formation of such associations first appeared within the educated strata consolidated in the course of the reform. Indeed, the chief reformer, Peter the Great himself, took a personal role in that initiative.
Beginnings: Did the Neptune Society and the Brotherhood of Learning (Uchenaia Druzhina) Ever Exist?
It seems that the first Russian quasi-learned society (which was also the very first voluntary association to appear in Russia) was the Neptune Society (Obshchestvo Neptunovo), about which very little is known. According to the sparse information provided by the few scholarly sources that have addressed the subject, the Neptune Society operated like a secret club and was associated with the Moscow School of Mathematics and Navigation, whose headmaster, Henry Farquharson, was among its members and on whose premises, in Sukharev Tower, it is reported to have held its meetings. Little is known about the society's actual activities, and it is hard to determine even the exact period when it was active. It may be assumed that the foundation of the Moscow School of Mathematics and Navigation in 1701 marks the earliest possible date of its appearance, and there is no evidence of its existence after Peter's death in early 1725. Popular legend has connected it with black magic. Scholarly accounts have assumed that this was evidence of experiments in alchemy conducted by the society, similar to the kind then popular in England; it has also been suggested that this was a Masonic lodge." All sources note that Peter himself served as the society's supervisor (nadziratel') and that his close associates, Franz Lefort and Feofan Prokopovich, served as its chairman (predsedatel') and orator (vitiia), respectively, while some of Peter's protegés, such as Alexander Menshikov, Fedor Apraksin, the astronomer Jacob Bruce, and Princes Cherkassky and Golitsyn were also members of the society. Twentieth-century researchers have thus relied on the evidence provided by the nineteenth-century historian of the Navy Cadet Corps, who published this membership data.
However, there is a problem with the chronology. The purported chairman of the society, Franz Lefort, died in 1699, two years before the Moscow School of Mathematics and Navigation was even established. Feofan Prokopovich was still studying in Rome between 1698 and 1702, after which he began to teach in Kiev at the Ecclesiastical Academy. He was only summoned to St. Petersburg by Peter in 1715. At the same time, several sources use vague evidence to tie the Neptune Society to Jacob Bruce's studies in astronomy. The top floor of Sukharev Tower housed an astronomical observatory that was established by Bruce, who is regarded as one of the first practitioners and promoters of the study of astronomy in Russia. This hypothesis is supported by the fact that scholars of education have noted the excellent quality of the scientific equipment at the Moscow School of Mathematics and Navigation. Moreover, a survey of amateur astronomical studies in Russia referred to the life-long interest in astronomy shared by the alleged members of the Neptune Society, Alexander Menshikov and Feofan Prokopovich. In addition, the most recent scholarship on alchemists in Russia points to Peter's personal interest in the field and emphasizes Jacob Bruce's active involvement in chemical experiments, as well as Prokopovich's favorable attitude toward scientific experimentation and alchemy in general. All in all, certain apocryphal elements notwithstanding, the story of the Neptune Society suggests that this was a kind of secret association, oriented toward the acquisition of knowledge understood in both rational and esoteric terms. As such, the society stimulated a mode of interaction among its members that was distinct from both the "old" patriarchy and the new "regular" forms of sociability. Another way of interpreting the phenomenon of the Neptune Society is to see it as a form of entertainment, to be compared to such a notorious and well-studied Petrine institution as the Most Comical All-Drunken Council (Sumasbrodneishii, Vseshuteinyi i Vsep'ianeishii Sobor). While the latter constituted a parody of traditional practices, the Neptune Society would seem to have introduced a new, educationally oriented kind of entertainment, creating a link to the European tradition of learned societies.
The next association of the educated emerged in the late 1720s and was also connected to Feofan Prokopovich. This was the literary and philosophical circle known as the Brotherhood of Learning (Uchenaia Druzhina), in which Prokopovich played a leading role. S. M. Solov'ev briefly mentioned the existence of such a group, but later historians of Russian literature have described the Brotherhood of Learning as an organized circled According to G. A. Gukovskii, this was a group of enlightened figures who subscribed to Peter's state ideology. He identified Prokopovich as one of the founders of this circle and listed Prince Antioch Kantemir, a son of the former ruler of Moldavia, and Vasilii Tatishchev, the author of the first comprehensive History of Russia, as members. Iu. M. Lotman suggested that the Brotherhood of Learning should be considered an "early literary organization" that exemplified the notion of a "nonstate" and "nonofficial" institution. It was, he claimed, "a rather consolidated and coherent group" which, in addition to Prokopovich, Kantemir, and Tatishchev, included among its members Nikita Iurievich Trubetskoi, who was a friend of Kantemir's and to whom Kantemir dedicated some of his poetry. According to Lotman, literature served the Brotherhood of Learning as an instrument of propaganda on behalf of Peter's state ideal after the tsar's death, which implied an element of opposition to the actual post-Petrine state.
Historians of ideas have been more cautious in defining the triumvirate of Prokopovich, Kantemir, and Tatishchev as an organized body. G. V. Plekhanov employed the phrase Uchenaia Druzhina to depict them as adherents of the Enlightenment within the post-Petrine Russian elite, describing them as representatives of eighteenth-century "Westernizers." He also observed that the expression Uchenaia Druzhina was, in fact, coined by Prokopovich in one of his poetic addresses to Kantemir. Soviet historians were uncertain whether to define the Brotherhood of Learning as a formal organization with a fixed political agenda or as an expression of a vague ideological program that was shared by the "fledglings of Peter's nest." A compromise was proposed by P. P. Epifanov, who argued that Prokopovich, Tatishchev, and Kantemir constituted a group of like-minded persons who were united not only by a common worldview but also by personal ties expressed in the support they gave each other in both the literary and political spheres. A closer reading of the poetic dialogue between Kantemir and Prokopovich actually reveals that the latter used the term "Brotherhood of Learning" in reference to Kantemir's first satirical poem, "To those reviling learning, or to my mind" (Na khuliashchikh ucheniia: K umu moemu), written in 1729. This poem depicted a colorful array of ignoramuses, including one who dismissed the possibility of devoting himself to learning for fear that he would consequently lose his friends and that he would be left with "ink, pen, and paper" as his only "brotherhood" (sodruzhestvo). Prokopovich, in support of Kantemir (who at that time was an unknown young poet), was apparently adopting the image of a brotherhood of ink and pen when he attacked "those who dislike the brotherhood of learning." Kantemir and Prokopovich only became personally acquainted in 1730. A year later Kantemir was appointed ambassador to London and left Russia for good on January 1, 1732. The circumstances of service to the state also framed the meetings between Kantemir and Tatishchev. While Kantemir served as a young guard officer in the Preobrazhenskii regiment in the capital, subsequently moving with the court to Moscow in 1728, Tatishchev was in Sweden until 1727. Upon his return to Russia, he was assigned to the monetary office in Moscow. Hence, the two could not have been personally acquainted before 1728. Actual evidence of personal cooperation between Kantemir, Tatishchev, and Prokopovich appears only in relation to the succession crisis of 1730. Prokopovich was active in the political efforts to save the autocratic nature of the Russian monarchy. Tatishchev authored documents that justified this position and represented the opinions of the rank-and-file nobility. When the material was ready, Tatishchev and several of his collaborators approached Kantemir and requested that he pen a declaration calling on Anna Ioannovna to assume autocratic powers. Some Soviet scholars interpreted this cooperation as evidence that the Brotherhood of Learning took part in the events of 1730 as a political organization.
Nonetheless, this version of events is undermined by the absence of testimony regarding the active involvement of any other organized body except for the Supreme Privy Council in these events. It is more likely that there was temporary political cooperation among those who considered themselves an opposition to verkhovniki (members of the Supreme Privy Council). During the following two years, from 1730 to 1731, when the Russian court was in Moscow and Tatishchev served as its master of ceremonies (ober-tseremonimeister), the connection between Prokopovich and Kantemir, and between Prokopovich and Tatishchev, continued. Kantemir's satire and poem of thanks dedicated to Prokopovich, as well as his "Epodos Consolatoria" written in response to Prokopovich's elegy "A Shepherd Weeps in the Long Period of Foul Weather" (Plachet pastushok v dolgom nenast'i), reveal the intense intellectual exchange that existed between them. At the same time, as Tatishchev's biographers have noted, his essay "A Conversation between Two Friends on the Usefulness of Sciences and Schools," composed in 1733, was inspired by his actual conversations with Prokopovich and with members of the Academy of Sciences. Tatishchev, according to his biographer, also consulted with Prokopovich while writing Istoriia Rossiiskaia (The Russian History). Kantemir's extensive correspondence of the 1730s included exchanges of letters with both Prokopovich and Tatishchev although neither the subject nor even the name of the Brotherhood of Learning was ever mentioned. The association among Prokopovich, Kantemir, and Tatishchev therefore seems to have been based mainly on common political ideals as well as on the sense of solidarity and shared mission of an "educated minority." As such, it can be defined as a kind of embryonic Russian republic of letters. The connection among these three distinguished personalities was strengthened by the patronage that Prokopovich bestowed on both Kantemir and Tatishchev. It is also significant that during the same years, 1730–1731, Kantemir and Tatishchev became connected to the Russian Academy of Sciences. The Academy, founded in 1725, was the focal point of the Enlightenment in Russia, making an important contribution to the institutional consolidation of the country's emerging educated strata. In fact, the Academy was the first institution in Russia to be later officially declared the "primary learned society of the Empire."
The Academy of Sciences as the Primary Learned Society of the Empire
The idea of creating an Academy of Sciences in Russia took shape in the course of an exchange between Peter and Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, the most famous polymath of the time, who served as Peter's scientific advisor from 1711 until Leibniz's death in 1716. In accordance to Leibniz's views, the academy was to function as a learned society comprising "those who are advanced in their studies and are concerned with the improvement [of knowledge]." He believed that it should be at the top of the country's hierarchy of educational institutions, which were to include primary and secondary schools as well as universities. Leibniz envisioned a worldwide network of such learned societies contributing to the advancement of science and education. Russia would be an extremely important link in this proposed network. Tsarist patronage would guide the proper development of scientific institutions while the systematic "construction" of educational institutions would help prevent the errors of piecemeal, spontaneous development that plagued other European countries.
(Continues...)
Excerpted from Historians and Historical Societies in the Public Life of Imperial Russia by Vera Kaplan. Copyright © 2017 Vera Kaplan. Excerpted by permission of Indiana University Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.