Yoko Aoshima (Tokyo University)
The Emergence of Professional Elites during the Great Reforms: the Teachers
Collectives in Universities and Gymnasia

Introduction
In the 1990s, the study of Russian professionals began to attract the attention of
Russian history scholars as a means of reevaluating Russian civil society in Late
Imperial Russia. In these studies, professionals were regarded as a main component of
the “middle class,” the social basis of civil society. The contributors of these studies,through studying professionals, attempted to reveal various aspects of the civic networkand the characteristics of “a new public culture,” instead of just repeating the traditionalview that Imperial Russia failed to create “a strong, autonomous civil society.”1
The most notable feature of the new studies on professionals was that thestrong power of the Russian state was no longer regarded as simply an obstacle forprofessionals. These studies indicated that the state might also be an “important partner”
and “an opportunity”2 for Russian professionals seeking to perform their services.
Furthermore, some scholars even argued that the state was “the parent of occupationalgroups”3 and “the major agent of social transformation.”4 Therefore, the real issue was1

Clowes, W., Samuel D. Kassow and James L. West. Between Tsar and People: Educated Society and theQuest for Public Identity in Late Imperial Russia. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1991; Balzer,
Harley D. Russia’s missing middle class: The Professions in Russian History. Armonk: M.E.Sharpe, 1996.
With regard to the traditional image of Late Imperial Russia, it is enough to remember the following
Raeff’s comment: “Civil society fell apart before it had a chance to develop an autonomous corporate
structure.” Raeff, Marc. Understanding Imperial Russia: State and Society in the Old Regime. Trans.
Arthur Goldhammer. New York: Columbia University Press, 1982. 223-225.
2
Balzer. “Introduction.” Russia’s missing middle class. 6, 10.
3
Orlovsky, Daniel T. “Professionalism in the Ministerial Bureaucracy on the Eve of the February1now not any longer political oppression and liberation of professionals from the state.
Rather, what was important was that Russian professionals were faced with a dilemma.
They wished “to free themselves from the tutelage of the state, while still using the state
for their own ends.”5 This dilemma, called the “Janus-faced relationship,” was an
essential element which led to both the development and stagnation of Russian
professionals in Late Imperial Russia.
These studies, however, have not made clear the origin of this “Janus-faced
relationship,” because they focused on professional activities mainly in the Late
Imperial period. In point of fact, the framework for the status and activities of Russian
professionals was formed during the Great Reforms. At the same time, a complicatedrelationship among professionals, state, and society correspondingly was being
generated. This paper will show how the government and professionals were making up
the fundamental framework for the status and activities of Russian professionals, taking
the example of teachers collectives in universities and gymnasia under the Ministry of
Public Instruction (the MNP).
Teachers were one of the most important professional groups, because they
were large in quantity, and played an important role in spreading new knowledge andnew culture within Russian society. There have already been prominent studies ofRevolution of 1917.” ibid. 268.
4
Kassow, Samuel D. “Russia’s unrealized civil society.” Between tsar and people. 368.
5
Bailes, Kendal E. “Reflections on Russian Professions.” Russia’s missing middle class. 45.

2

teacher collective such as those of Kassow, Roune, Seregny, and Eklof.6 These studies
clearly explained social conditions, as well as the professional and political activities ofteachers in Late Imperial Russia. In particular, they highlighted conflicts between thegovernment and teachers collectives, and among teachers themselves in the Revolutionof 1905. Kassow and Roune, through the study of university and city (secondary level)
teachers respectively, focused on the mingled and strained identities of teachers
collectives between those of state servants and professionals. The conclusions from thisanalysis, however, were divided between Kassow and Roune; Kassow stressed failure todevelop a stable university system owing to the ambiguous position of the professorate,
while Roune argued that city teachers created “a new work ethic” from the traditional
state service ethic. At any rate, their studies indicated that their dual identity andinterwoven relationship with the state had decisive meanings, either positive or negative,
for the professional activities of teachers collectives. Little attention, however, has yet
been given as to how this fused relationship between the state and professionals wascreated. In relation to this problem, when we remember that Seregny underlined
politicization and radicalization of village (elementary level) teachers against the
government, it is worthwhile asking if their situation was fundamentally different from

6

Kassow, Samuel D. Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press, 1989; Ruane, Christine. Gender, Class, and the Professionalization of Russian City
Teachers, 1860-1914. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1994; Seregny, Scott J. Russian Teachers
and Peasant Revolution: The Politics of Education in 1905. Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1989;
Eklof, Ben. Russian Peasant Schools: Officialdom, Village Culture, and Popular Pedagogy, 1861-1914.
Berkeley: University of California Press, 1986.

3

teachers collectives of higher and secondary education.7 To answer these questions, weshould turn attention to the Great Reforms.8
The first decades of the Great Reforms were the crucial period for the Russianteachers collectives. Firstly, in this period, the government started creating a full-scale
educational system in earnest, and reformed all the existing laws on educational
institutions. In this process, the government produced clear divisions between higher,
secondary, and elementary education. Correspondingly, teacher’s statuses were divided.
Secondly, the teachers themselves took part in this reform process by providing
opinions on educational legal bills. In doing so, teachers expressed their desires for how
to secure a basis of their professional activities.
The main strategy of teachers collectives under the MNP was, above all, to geta guarantee of their social status and salary from the state. The reason they desired state
support was that they could not expect support other than that of the state. The MNP
was established in the first years of the 19th century by Alexander I, who attempted to
introduce a new general education system based on Enlightenment thought. This general
7

Seregny’s analytical framework was “village teachers,” while Roune’s was “city teachers.” In this paper,
teachers are classified according to educational hierarchy: higher (university level), secondary(gymnasia/pro-gymnasia level), and elementary school (narod school level). In this structure, we canconsider secondary school teachers as being analogous to the city teachers on which Roune writes, while
elementary school teachers are analogous to Seregny’s village teachers.
8
Several studies have been made on the educational reform process of the Great Reforms. The focus of
the studies, however, was on the confrontation between the state and educational professionals. See, forexample, the following; Mathes, W.L. “The Struggle for University Autonomy in the Russian Empire
during the First Decade of the Reign of Alexander II.” Ph.D.diss., Columbia University, 1966; Eimontva,
R.G. Russkie univrersitety na putiakh reformy: shestidesiatye gody XIX veka. M. 1993; Smirnov, V.Z.
Reforma nachal’noi i srednei shkoly v 60-kh godakh XIX v. M. 1954; Kohls, W.A. “The State-sponsored
Russian Secondary School in the Reign of Alexander II: The First Phase: Search for a New
Formula(1855-1864).” Ph.D.diss., University of California, 1967.

4

education, which was open to all estates, was in contrast to the traditional practicaleducation, which was closely connected with the Russian estate system.9 The new
education system, therefore, was not easily accepted in society because it wasincompatible with the existing social order. Due to this situation, teachers were forced to
be exclusively dependent on the state.
The reason, however, was not only that they preferred stable salary and status
as state servants. They also required special status as professionals different from mere
officials. The general education system itself was newly introduced by the state in orderto change Russian society, and teachers collectives were an important corps foraccomplishing this aim of the state. Teachers, becoming aware of their professional
consciousness, demanded guarantee of the firm status as this important corps, that is tosay, professional elites. They thought they were performing a significant task for society,commissioned by the state. And as such, they claimed they should be supported andprivileged by the state.
They even tried to create a basis for their professional activities in the stateadministration, avoiding influences from social estates. This was supposed to be doneby changing the form of the administrative organization from a bureaucratic (hieratical)
to a collegiate (nonhierarchical) one. In order to secure their autonomous activities inthis collegiate body, they also required nonintervention from other officials. By
9Vradimirskii-Budanov, M.F. Gosudarstvo i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossii XVIII-go veka. Iaroslavl’,
1874.

5

avoiding such influences, they tried to create a quasi-professional corporation within thestate administration.
Therefore, a mingled relationship between the state and professional teachers
was created as a result of the desire of teachers collectives to found a basis for theirprofessional activities within the state administration, independent from the traditionalsociety. The groups which actually got this status of professional elites were teachers
collectives of universities and gymnasia. The following chapters will examine these twogroups. In addition, to clarify the status of these two groups, the last chapter will refer toelementary school teachers, a group which lost the status of professional elites.

1. University teachers as “the scholarly estate”
The foundation of the professional consciousness of university professors wascreated in the formative process of the new university law of 1863. The professorate
started to regard itself as an autonomous corporation called “the scholarly estate”, which
was privileged by the state.
The model that the professors in the Great Reforms sought for was an original
status of the Russian university in 1804. The Russian university system was establishedby laws of 1804, through which new universities were founded at Khar’kov and Kazan(later in St. Petersburg in 1819), and Moscow University was renewed10. At the same

10

Polnoe Sabranoe Zakonov (PSZ) I, no.21497, 21498, 21499, 21500(1804/11/5); no.27675(1819/2/8).

6

time as the new laws, special charters to the universities were promulgated from
Alexander I. There the universities were defined as “an estate of scholarly men (soslovie
uchenykh myzhei)” under the direct auspices of the Emperor. The charters gave to this“estate” privileges and rights, such as the right to elect their rectors, to decide personnel
affairs and internal rules, and rights of publication and censorship. The mainorganization of this “estate” was a collegiate university council of all teachers. These
teachers, comprised of professors and assistant-professors, were regarded as stateservants with 7th and 8th ranks respectively.11
These autonomous rights of the universities were based on the German
university model,12 but also closely connected with the administrative role in the newly
introduced general educational system. Each university was built in the central city of agiven educational district (originally six), and in addition to the management of its own
affairs, was supposed to manage educational and administrative matters concerning all
secondary and elementary schools in the district. 13 In other words, the Russian
university was established not only as a privileged estate to spread the new general
education, but also an administrative organization under the MNP.
In practice, the management of a whole district was next to impossible; both

Prior to this 1804 law, Derpt (Tartu) University and Vil’no University were reorganized. PSZ I,
no.20551(1802/12/12), no.20701(1803/12/4), no.20765(1803/5/13).
11
PSZ I, no.21502, no.21503, 21504(1804/11/5).
12Flynn, James T. The University Reform of Tsar Alexander I, 1802-1835. Washington, D.C.: The
Catholic University of America Press, 1988. 16-21.
13
PSZ I, no.20407(1802/9/8), 20597(1803/1/26), 21501(1804/11/5).

7

because the number of professors was not nearly great enough and many of them were
non-Russian. Therefore, the MNP started to install its own administrators—curators ofeducational districts—and undertook the management of given districts by itself
beginning in the 1830s. This “bureaucratic centralization” freed university teachers
from the heavy burden of the district management, but partially reduced autonomousrights concerning internal university problems, as well.14 In addition, in the 1830s and1840s the MNP promoted the training and creation of new Russian professors, andresultantly the number of professors gradually increased.15 In the second half of the1850s, the professorate started to become a substantial group in terms of being able toperform autonomous activities.
It was the MNP that stimulated the professorate to awake their professional
consciousness. In the first years of the Great Reforms, the MNP called for an active roleof the professorate in the educational administration. In this period, the MNP set about
uniting all educational institutions under the jurisdiction of the ministry. The minister
Norov explained that the unification of all educational systems was critical for merging
a multiplicity of differences between “the moral and social beliefs and interests, [as well

14

Whittaker, Cynthia H. The Origins of Modern Russian Education: An Intellectual Biography of Count
Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855, DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984. 156-160; Flynn. The
University Reform of Tsar Alexander I. 217-241; PSZ II, no.8262(1835/6/25), no.8337(1835/6/26).
15
There were 285 teachers and administrators in universities (Moscow, Petersburg, Kazan, Khar’kov,
St.Vradimir [Kiev]) in 1865, but 222 posts were still vacant. “Prilozheniia.” Obzor deiatel’nosti
ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia i podvedomstvennykh emu uchirezhdenii v 1862, 63, i 64
godakh. SPb., 1865. 227-229.

8as] all local and territorial patriotisms and attachments” in the Russian state.16 For thisreconstruction of the education system, the MNP needed the help and participation of
professors. In fact, the MNP invited professors to the inquiry commission in the ministry,
which was charged with the revision of the existing educational laws. Also, the elected
professors from the university councils came to participate in the council under the
curator of the educational district.17
The need of partnership with the professorate grew stronger by riots ofuniversity students in 1861.18 The MNP thought that the cause of the student riots lay inthe inactivity of the professors and their lack of a sense of responsibility regarding
university matters. For the purpose of improving the university condition, the 1862 bill
set the principal “to strengthen autonomous activity (samodeiatel’nost’) of the scholarly
university estate.” According to the MNP, this principal was meant to impose on
universities “more positive duties,” that is, not only “all purely-scholastic activity” butalso “administrative” activity, closely related to university matters. For, “to impose newduties on the universities will doubtlessly encourage increasing enthusiasm of theirrespective members.” Consequently, the increasing enthusiasm of teachers would have adesirable influence on students.19 The MNP intended to motivate vigorous activity and

16

RGIA, f.733, op.37, d.69, l.8-12.
PSZ II, no.30594(1856/6/15), no.35578(1860/3/20)
18
Miliutin, D.A. Vospominaniia, general-fel’dmarshala grafa Dmitriia Alekseevicha Miliutina 1860-1862.
Moskva, 1999. 157-170.
19
The main change of the existing law in this bill was to set the inspector of the students under theuniversity council from under curator. Zamechaniia na proekt obshchego ustava imperatorskikh
Rossiiskikh universitetov. V.1. SPb., 1862. 45-50.
17

9

consciousness of the responsibility of the professorate for university matters. To this end,
it tried to widen authority of the university council by calling it a “scholarly estate”.
The professorate, in turn, welcomed this policy of the 1862 bill. They took
advantage of the offer by the MNP, and tried to further enlarge the authority of theuniversity council. Above all, they insisted on the nonintervention of the curator of theeducational district into university matters. They complained that intervention of thecurator was the main obstacle to universities charting the right course. The professorate,
conceding that it was inactive, ascribed the cause to the bureaucratization after the
1830s. This was not necessarily, however, to say that they demanded independence fromthe state and the ministry itself. For example, Moscow University and Petersburg
University professors suggested that the university council be permitted to makeproposals directly to the minister as their “chief superior,” passing through the curator
as an intermediary administrative power. To put it another way, their goal was to have “avoice of their own” as a collegiate body within the educational administration.20
Khar’kov University professors justified these opinions by referring to the1804 laws. They argued that the 1804 laws defined the university as an estate, whichwas “a college, that is to say, corporative body,” acknowledged by the state andpursuing a “definite civic purpose.” It was thought, therefore, that the government
should return to this guiding principal for the Russian university system, and protect

20

Ibid. 83-87, 98-99, 244, 251-252, 392-393.

10

“the scholarly college and its dignity” by weakening the bureaucratic power of thecurator.21
A figure who gave one of the most comprehensive arguments on this issue was
Kachenovskii from Khar’kov Univreisty. According to him, the Russian university wasestablished as an “autonomous organization for offering civic education,” and given
plentiful rights and privileges from Alexander I. “University in Russian society has been
the institution of the state, at the same time, of narod.” Because the university was astate institution, it could have had “civic meaning,” different from an “estate spirit”.
This “civic spirit” in university implied the concept, “in front of which all classes wereequal, and in which talents could find defense and support.” He insisted, therefore, thatthe government should restore the autonomy and dignity of “the scholarly estate” andprotect it from “alien influence from outside,” in order that Russian universities could
offer proper “civic education.” On the other hand, he pointed out that “the scholarly
estate” would not be “states in state” as in the medieval age. For, the Russian
universities “had received capital, laws and privileges exclusively from the government;
the tie between them and the supreme power hasn’t be cut off.” Hence, it was quite
natural for Russian university to be placed under certain governmental control.22 Suchideas as Kachenovskii’s became an ideology connecting between the governmental
policy and the professorate requests.
21
22

Ibid. 281, 297-300.
Ibid. 345-361.

11

The MNP principally accepted the requests from the professorate and protected
them as an honorable corporation. To this policy of the MNP, the minister of Internal
Affairs Valuev was strongly opposed. He suggested reducing the support to theprofessorate from the state, and opening the university to society by introducing asystem in which professors would receive payment from students for each lecture.23 In
spite of his opposition, the MNP insisted on protecting the professorate, and allowed
professors to be independent from society. The new law in 1863 actually gave backample rights to the university council, such as decision making authority over financial
problems and student matters. Also, the salary of professors was doubled and the stateservice rank was raised from 7th to 5th rank. Moreover, in the commentary of the 1862
bill, the MNP, borrowing from Kachenovskii, admitted based on the 1804 law that theRussian university was as an autonomous corporation. The MNP had explained that theuniversity should “be the resource of enlightenment in the state”. In order to accomplish
this task, the university should have the possibility to develop “according to motives of
their own,” not “as a result of alien influences from outside.” At the same time, theministry used Kachenovskii’s words and stated that it was not society, but the
government that made Russian universities, and that the university should be under“certain governmental control.” These basic principals were settled in the new law of23“Zamechanie na proekt universitetskogo ustava, predstavlennyi ministrom narodnogo prosveshcheniia
pri vsepoddanneishem doklade 15 dekabria 1862 g.” Proekt obshchego ustava imperatorskikh rossiiskikh
universitetov. SPb., 1862-1863. 4-10.

12

1863.24
On the other hand, the new law did not give them complete independence fromthe curator and the right to propose directly the minister. However, this was, to somedegree, an inevitable consequence of the professors’ desire to be under state protection.
The university council certainly remained an administrative body inside educational
administration, but by doing so, they secured themselves as a corporative body
independent from “alien” powers, such as traditional estate groups or other officials
outside the MNP. This ambiguous status of the professorate caused conflict between
them and the government in later years. For all that, one may also say that thisprotection maintained the privileged status of the professorate in society and encouraged
them to develop not only self-regulated activities, but also the consciousness andresponsibility of their profession.

2. Secondary school teachers—searching for the university model
The ideal model for secondary school teachers in the Great Reforms was theRussian university. They tried to get autonomous collegiate power of the pedagogicalcouncil in gymnasium, similar to that of the university council. Despite their desires,
however, the pedagogical council did not attain the rights on personnel matters or the24“Ob’iasnitel’naia zapiska k proektu obshchego ustava Imperatorskikh Rossiiskikh universitetov.” ibid.
1-32; “C proektami obshchego ustava i shtatov Imperatorskikh Rossiiskikh Universitetov.” ibid. 1-22;“Po povodu novogo universitetskogo ustava.” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia(ZMNP)CXIX (1863). 333-404.

13

honorable status of organization to the same extent as the university council.
There was no tradition in Russian gymnasia of having autonomous councils
like those of universities. When the gymnasium system was established in 1804,
teachers were supposed to have a meeting once a month under the director. This
meeting, however, was not regarded as a collegiate body to have decision-making
authority of its own. In 1828, this meeting was raised to the status of “the council ofgymnasium,” which consisted of a director and senior teachers. But the council still did
not have the right to elect its chairperson by itself; the director, as “the master ofgymnasium,” was nominated by the university. In 1835 the right to select directors andteachers shifted from the university to the curator. As a result, the bureaucratic
centralization strengthened.25
When the Great Reforms started, the MNP tried to foster vigorous support forsecondary education from both teachers and society. In this period, the most urgent
issue for the MNP was reform of the secondary education system. Because theuniversity was thought to be relatively well-developed, the ministry focused on
secondary education as the next stage.26 In order to revitalize secondary schools, the
MNP gave a great deal of weight to teachers and petitioned Alexander II to grant former

25

PSZ I. no.21501(1804/11/5); PSZ II, no.2502(1828/12/8), no.8262(1835/6/25).
The Ministry thought that the reintroduction of classicism into gymnasia was especially important for
creating firm general education system. “Izvlechenie iz otcheta ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniiaza 1857 god.” ZMNP XCVIII (1858). 141-145; “Izvlechenie iz otcheta ministerstva narodnogo
prosveshcheniia za 1858 god.” ibid CIII (1859). 138-139. There were 409 teachers and administrators (54schools) in 1808, 775 (56 schools) in 1825, 2337 (86 schools) in 1863. Materialy dlia istorii i statistiki
nashikh gimnazii. SPb., 1864. 16-23, 74-75.
26

14

pension privileges to teachers as early as 1855. Also, in 1859 the MNP gained aconsiderably higher budget for the salary of gymnasia teachers.27
Decentralization of educational administration was also thought as a means todraw out the active participation of teachers and society in secondary education. As
early as the first bill of 1860, the MNP changed the council of gymnasium to “thepedagogical council.” This new council was composed of all gymnasium teachers andgiven decision-making rights including selecting school books, as well as all otherdecisions regarding student related issues, etc.28 According to the commentary of thebill of 1862, the previous system, in which the council consisted only of senior teachers
under the strong control of a director, was against the fundamental educational principalthat “all teachers and tutors of educational institutions should work collectively andseek one goal harmoniously.” As a result, the previous system engendered apathy for
their work and maintained intellectual stagnation among them, which, in turn, had a
harmful influence on students. In order to change this passive attitude on the part ofteachers, the 1862 bill gave the pedagogical council “the possibility to develop freely,[and] autonomously.” The rights which the 1862 bill granted the council were greaterthan those of the 1860 bill: the rights to make teaching plans, to give remarks andreprimand to teachers, and to decide if a teacher should stay in the post after 25 years

27

PSZ II, no.29195(1855/4/5); Ministerstvo finansov, “Gospodinu ministru narodnogo prosveshcheniia.”
Materialy (Gosudarstvennyi sovet, Departament zakonov). V.27. SPb., 1864.
28“Proekt ustava nizshikh i srednikh uchilishch, sostoiashchikh v vedomstve ministerstva narodnogo
prosveshcheniia.” ZMNP CV (1860). 129-132.

15

service, to name but a few. The power to appoint and dismiss teachers was also moved
from the curator to the director in line with the decentralization policy.29
On the other hand, the 1860 bill created a new organization, “the trustees’
council (popechitel’nyi sovet),” comprised of representatives from each estate group,“for bringing schools closer to society.”30 The 1862 bill gave the council substantial
power, such as the right to inspect financial matters of gymnasia and to select thestudents to be exempted from fees. What the MNP hoped for from this council was toestablish a “moral relationship between educational institutions and communities.” It
was thought to be able to be accomplished by allowing “direct participation ofrepresentatives from society in management of educational institutions” through thiscouncil.31
At the same time, the 1862 bill suggested one more organization to breathe newlife into teachers: the provincial school council (after the model of the teachers’
congress in Germany). This provincial school council was supposed to be held in eachprovincial city once a month, by gathering all administrators and elected teachers of thesecondary schools (including girls’ schools) from the entire province. Moreover, any
people who wanted to participate were able to take part in the council, even if they were“outsiders.” The aim of this council was to maintain the “relationship and unification of29

Zamechaniia na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego
plana ustroistva narodnykh uchilishch. V.1. SPb., 1862. 134-142.
30“Proekt ustava nizshikh i srednikh uchilishch.” 103.
31
Zamechaniia na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego
plana ustroistva narodnykh uchilishch. V.1. 143-144

16educational principals among individual educational institutions” in a given province, inview of the widening decision-making power of each pedagogical council. The MNP
also hoped to develop “healthy pedagogical ideas among people dealing with nurturing
the young, or generally people sympathizing with educational work”.32
Judging from these measures, the MNP tried to transfer administrative powers
equally to local administrators, teachers, and society so as to arouse their interests andcooperation for secondary schools. Teachers, however, were interested only in thepedagogical council. What they demanded most was authority for the pedagogicalcouncil as a collegiate organization, similar to the university council. The pedagogicalcouncils of Volyn’ Gymnasium and Kazan Gymnasium, for example, strongly insisted
that managerial positions such as ‘director’ should be mutually elected in thepedagogical council. Otherwise, they said, the pedagogical council would not be “agenuine entity of college as a legal organization,” but rather just “a sewing factory,
where a chief cutter gives out each fixed work, demanding it be executed without any
thinking.” What is more, Nemirov Gymnasium criticized that the 1862 bill did not grant
them the power to select their own colleagues. For, so long as the director had an
arbitrary influence on the fate of teachers, they would be led into being divided andconfronting each other, and could not work in a body in society. For that reason, they
hoped to entrust personnel affairs to the pedagogical council, following the university

32

Ibid. 77-81, 140-142.

17

model. If not, they preferred restoring the curator’s rights, rather than giving rights tothe director, who was their direct superior.33 In response to these requests, some local
administrators condemned them, remarking that there was no precedent in Russia orabroad for the elective system in secondary schools; “this desire comes from a less thancorrect comparison between the rights of the gymnasium council and those ofuniversity.”34
Teachers, along with administrators, thought that the trustees’ council was anorganization which would violate their rights. The director of the Second Moscow
Gymnasium asked why “representatives of various estates” were necessary just because
gymnasia were open to all estates and offered general education. Teachers also felt thetrustees’ council “inflicted a loss on the importance and significance of the pedagogicalcouncil,” and “infringed on the even autonomy of the pedagogical council.” Forexample, the Fourth Moscow Gymnasium and Dinaburg Gymnasium insisted that theinviting of outside powers into schools brought conflicts between various powers anddisorder into educational institutions, and that therefore, the government would do wellto trust in the goodwill and honor of teachers, and rely on their education and pride.
They maintained that financial inspection rights and authority over student fee
exemption decisions should be returned to the pedagogical council, and the trustees’

33
34

Ibid. 290-296; ibid. V.6. 5; ibid. V.3. 518-524.
Ibid. V.1. 166-168, 320-331.

18

council should focus strictly on the raising of school funds.35
Meanwhile, teachers generally showed little interest in the provincial council.
Some expressed their approval and added that more teachers should be able toparticipate in the council, while others negatively remarked that the provincial council
would be just a bureaucratic or formalistic organization. 36 In general, they rarely
mentioned the council. A teacher of Dinaburg Gymnasium asked if Russian pedagogues
showed an aspiration to get mutually closer and to exchange their observations andexperiences. He continued that “this aspiration, which is totally natural among otherpedagogues, does not exist among us.”37
The new law of 1864 resolved these problems in keeping with the views of theteachers. Firstly, the range of autonomous activity of the pedagogical council was
enlarged. Secondly, the trustees’ council was given up and the only remaining position
was that of “honorable trustee,” whose duty was simply to provide funds for schools.
Thirdly, the provincial council dissolved completely. 38 In the end, the interest ofgymnasium teachers was in keeping their status within the administrative organization.
In response to their desires, the MNP raised their salary, heightened their status as stateservants (from 9th to 8th), and protected the authority and independence of thepedagogical council from estate groups. The MNP, however, did not grant a corporative

35

Ibid. V.3. 372; ibid. V.4. 429-430; ibid. V.2. 279.
Ibid. V.1. 377; ibid. V.2. 113-114, 160, 179, 326; ibid. V.5. 71.
37
Ibid. V.4. 284-285.
38"S proektom ustava gimnazii i progimnazii." Materialy. V.27; PSZ II, no.41472(1864/11/19).
36

19

status to the pedagogical council, not wanting to weaken the director’s authority onteachers. In this sense, their autonomous rights were fewer than those of theprofessorate, and the pedagogical council became more a mere accumulation of officials.
For all that, they still achieved higher status as well as greater and more numerous
autonomous rights as professionals than they had previously had.

3. Elementary school teachers—independence from the state
Having examined the cases of two elite groups, we will turn our attention to thecase of elementary school teachers who in the Great Reforms lost their rights and status.
Elementary school teachers were deprived of protection from the state and left
vulnerable individuals in society, though the necessity to expand an elementary school
network became recognized by everyone in government as well as society.
The schools which can be categorized as elementary schools under the MNP in
the pre-reform period were parish schools and county schools. These schools, however,were very few and almost exclusively concentrated in and around cities.39 The main
reason for the underdevelopment of elementary schools under the MNP was that, theministry was creating the educational system beginning with the university level, which
39

In the 1862-1863, elementary schools under the MNP were only 692. There were 16,907 ecclesiasticalelementary schools, the Ministry of Internal Affairs had 4,961 schools, the Ministry of State Domains had
5,492, and the Ministry of Imperial Household had 2,127. Compared with other institutions, the MNP had
only about a 2 % share of all elementary schools. “Pakazaiushchaia chislo nachal’nykh narodnykhuchilishch raznykh naimenovanii i vedomstv i chislo uchashchikhsia v onykh v 1862-1863 g. v tekh
guverniiakh, na kotorye predpolozheno rasprostranit’ novoe polozhenie o sikh uchilishchakh.” Materiali(Gosudarstvennyii Sovet Departament Zakonov). V.24. SPb., 1863.

20

was supposed to manage schools of all other levels; elementary schools were the lastundertaking to be founded. Accordingly, the number of teachers at that time was very
few. Because of the scarcity of elementary school teachers, however, the MNP could
afford to guarantee their status. Teachers of county schools were regarded as stateservants with 12th rank in 1804. In 1828 parish school teachers were given the right ofstate service with 14th rank as well.40
In the first years of the Great Reforms, with the thought of the connection withsecondary schools in mind, the MNP set about reforming elementary schools. At first,
the ministry just tried to extend the previous elementary school system.41 However, thesituation was changed after the emancipation of 1861, which faced the government withthe problem of educating the sudden influx of peasants. The government requested the
MNP to make a plan for the issue. In response to this request, though the MNP did nothave a clear policy on this issue, the ministry insisted that all elementary schools undervarious ministries should be integrated under the MNP. Although all schools were nottransferred immediately to the MNP, the range of the elementary schools which the
MNP would manage in the future increased considerably. In addition, the task of
preparing elementary school teachers was entrusted exclusively to the MNP.42

40

PSZ I, no.21501; PSZ II, no.2502.
“Izblechenie is otchota ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia za 1858 god.” 141-142; “Proekt ustava
nizshikh i srednikh uchilishch.” 85-116.
42“Ob’izsnitel’naia zapiska k proektu obshchego plana ustroistva narodnogo uchilishch.” Zamechaniia
na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego plana ustroistva
narodnykh uchilishch. V.1. 18-25; PSZ II, no.41068(1864/6/14).
41

21

In keeping with this, the MNP was forced to change the policy on theelementary school system. They would have to manage numerous elementary schools,
but the budget allocated to the MNP was still far from sufficient. Moreover, the MNP
had to use the budget for higher and secondary schools as well. Therefore, the ministry
adopted two main measures in the 1862 bill. Firstly, the MNP legally abolished county
schools and divided them into pro-gymnasia and narod schools. Secondly, the ministry
cut off narod schools and deprived narod school teachers of the state service right.
They justified these two measures with the same reason: decreasing the numberof “chinovniki (officials)” for reducing the burden on the Treasury. According to the
MNP, county schools had become mere a specialized educational institution for
producing “chinovniki,” and therefore, the school lost the trust of society. The ministryemphasized the burden of Elementary school teachers on the Treasury as well. The
ministry explained that, though the state service right could be used as “bait” to attract
people of talent, their sons were destined, like their fathers, to be “chinovniki,” which
would further increase the burden on the Treasury.43 The MNP had created a legal
framework for elementary schools, by which any private person or group could open
schools freely.44 At the same time, the ministry gave up supporting elementary schools.
The elementary school problem attracted a great deal of attention from teachers

43

Zamechaniia na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego
plana ustroistva narodnykh uchilishch. V.1. 98-100, 130-133.
44
Obzor deiatel’nosti ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia. 204-214.

22

and administrators. In the discussion on the 1862 bill, the problem was treated most
livelily. In general, many people insisted that the MNP’s policy on elementary school
teachers was too flawed and that teachers needed greater guarantees from the state.
County school teachers hoped to change their county schools into
pro-gymnasia, which were closely connected with gymnasia. If they became
pro-gymnasium teachers, they could receive almost the same level of treatment as thatof gymnasium teachers. Though one teacher said he would be anxious if made a
pro-gymnasium teacher as he did not have enough educational background, mostteachers seemed optimistic for reorganizing their county schools into pro-gymnasia.45
Teachers of parish schools, on the other hand, were offended by the policy. For
example, a teacher of Novgorodsever Parish School implored that state service rankshould be given elementary school teachers as “a reward.” He insisted that theelementary school teacher was an official, and that such a concept was already in theirblood. The point he stuck to was the hereditary rights of state servant. If he lost thestatus as a state servant, even though the government compensated them with practicalrights, such as the status of personally honorable citizens, the rights were not applied tohis children. He worried that he would lose the trust of his family.46
A teacher of Sergiev Lancaster Parish School regarded divesting of state

45

Zamechaniia na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego
plana ustroistva narodnykh uchilishch. V.4. 358-360, 437; ibid. V.5. 414-416, 420, 429, 440-442, 443-444,
446-447.
46
Ibid. V.4. 199.

23

service rank as an “insult” to elementary school teachers. He rhetorically asked what thereason was that the government regarded the elementary school teacher, who wasessential to the state, as “a petty official, who is a burden to the Treasury.” He insisted
that teachers of elementary schools should be protected by the state in order to heighten
their status and authority in the eyes of student parents. Because elementary school
teachers were so humbled and vulnerable, there was no interest in trying to be a teacher
other than from a person of lower class such as a townsperson. But “a townspersonteacher” could not be accepted and trusted in society. The government, therefore, had tomake them “an official-teacher.” According to the teacher, “society in our country has
not had independence which constructs self-consciousness apart from rewards and titles
endowed by the state”. For these reasons, he claimed that the support from the state wasindispensable.47
In spite of their desperate opinions, the new law of 1864 did not guarantee thestatus of elementary school teachers at all, not even mentioning a teacher’s minimum
wage. Though the MNP widely touted the importance of elementary schools andinsisted that all elementary schools should be under the jurisdiction of the MNP, theministry refused to help elementary schools. The ministry responded with a cold attitude
towards reports from local administrators which requested financial support forelementary schools. The MNP said that it could not afford to, and added that to maintain47

Ibid. 98-101, 455-466. See also; ibid. V.5. 375-390.

24elementary schools was the work of the Zemstvo.48
In this reform era, everyone in government and society became aware of thenecessity to expand the elementary school system. Discussion about the problem insociety became active. Spontaneous movements to teach peasants and other lower
classes began as well. Nevertheless, because the MNP focused on making a firm basis
for the higher and secondary school system, it could not allocate a sufficient budget for
the elementary schools. In the end, the MNP was forced to cut off the elementary school
teachers from state protection. On the other hand, however they still belonged to thegeneral education system under the MNP, and shared with higher and secondary
education teachers a sense of mission to enlighten estate society from above. They wereregarded as “a member of a divine brotherhood for devoting one’s self to the great taskof educating narod.”49 Despite this strong sense of mission, they were abandoned by
the state, and left severely humbled and vulnerable within society.

Conclusion
The educational reforms in the middle of the 19th century molded the essenceof teachers collectives. Beginning in the middle of the 1850s, the MNP intended tointegrate, reorganize, and expand the general education system. In order to create and48

Obzor deiatel’nosti ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia. 230-263.
Zamechaniia na proekt ustava obshcheobrazovatel’nykh uchebnykh zavedenii i na proekt obshchego
plana ustroistva narodnykh uchilishch. V.5. 397.
49

25

carry out this new system, the MNP had a keen need of professional groups. For thisreason, the ministry, of its own accord, attempted to boost professional consciousness
among teachers. Teachers, in turn, having had an opportunity to express their collective
voices for the first time in Russian history, aimed at forming a foundation formaintaining their status and activities as professionals.
What all the teachers demanded for performing their professional work wasstate protection, which allowed them to be independent from social groups and otherofficials. Teachers collectives in universities and gymnasia attempted to create the basisof their professional activities in administrative organizations, such as the university
council and the pedagogical council. They tried to change these organizations to thecollegiate body, which had autonomous power, independent from their superiors andsociety. The MNP largely accepted these requests. The ministry protected them as stateservants with high ranks, and gave sufficient rights to the councils. These measurespermitted them to promote their professional activities and to nurture their professional
consciousness in society.
The MNP, however, did not grant status of an autonomous corporation to thecollegiate bodies completely. The professorate nearly attained the status of a corporation,
but the university council was still not entirely free from the curator. The pedagogicalcouncil was still less autonomous. The council did not have the right to regulate theirmembers or their chairperson. In the end, they were positioned inside the administrative26

hierarchy under the MNP. The result was, however, inevitable, to some degree, sinceteachers themselves desired to be in the administrative order and protected by the state.
For teachers, the merit which they achieved from being protected by the state was far
greater than that of being independent from state administration.
On the other hand, the MNP decided to cut off elementary school teachers
from state service. The ministry preferred firmly establishing higher and secondary
educational systems, and protecting teachers collectives of higher and secondary
education. The state could not afford to employ all the teachers of elementary schools,
which would expand enormously in the future. As a result, elementary school teachers
were left humbled and vulnerable in society. This situation, however, led elementary
school teachers to seek for other ways to protect themselves and develop theirprofessional activities. As the number of elementary school teachers increased, they
started to create mutual-aid associations at a local level by themselves. These
organizations, nurturing their professional consciousness, developed into the basis of thenationwide teachers’ movement in the first years of the 20th century. 50 The
radicalization of elementary school teachers was caused from their loss of state service
rights and independence from the state.
Teachers collectives in universities and gymnasia were tightly fixed in themingled relationship with the state, simply because their desires were realized, and they50

Zolotarev, S. “Ocherk po istorii uchitel’skogo ob’edineniia v Rossii.” Professional’nye uchitel’skiie
organizatsii na Zapade i v Rossii. Petrograd, 1915. 231-293.

27

were acknowledged as professional elites. In later years, this mixed status of theteachers collectives caused both fruitful partnership and serious confrontation between
the state and professionals. The status of elementary school teachers, which lost state
protection in order to protect two elite teachers collectives, added more complexities
between the state and professionals. The “Janus-faced relationship” between the stateand professional elites, with more independent activities of non-elite professionals,
would produce stress and dynamism in the transforming Russian society. It was thereform process during the Great Reforms that created the foundation of the complicatedrelationship, which led to a new civic network and new public culture in later years.

28