University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Between literary training and literary service: school writing instruction in the Russian Empire, 1780-1860

(USC Thesis Other)

Between literary training and literary service: school writing instruction in the Russian Empire, 1780-1860

PDF

Download a page range

Download transcript

Copy asset link

Request this asset

Transcript (if available)

Content BETWEEN LITERARY TRAINING AND LITERARY SERVICE:
SCHOOL WRITING INSTRUCTION IN THE RUSSIAN EMPIRE, 1780–1860
by
Ekaterina Shubenkina
A Dissertation Presented to the
FACULTY OF THE USC GRADUATE SCHOOL
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(SLAVIC LANGUAGES AND LITERATURES)
August 2024
Copyright 2024 Ekaterina Shubenkina

ii
Acknowledgements
I believe that good research can only be done in those academic environments where
professional and human qualities are celebrated equally. I was fortunate to find myself exactly in
such a place. At USC, I have been surrounded by wonderful experts who are also wonderful
people.
First and foremost, I would like to thank my dissertation committee. My work owes a lot
to my advisor, Kelsey Rubin-Detlev. Her passion for the eighteenth-century studies has been
truly inspirational and greatly influenced my approach to nineteenth-century literature and
culture. I cannot remember how many times Kelsey’s questions and comments helped me to
generate new ideas and unpack new analytical possibilities. I am also deeply grateful to Thomas
Seifrid for his fascinating courses, his interest in my dissertation project, and his invaluable
feedback on my writing. My heartfelt thanks go to Natania Meeker who has encouraged me to
think beyond the field of Slavic studies, given me amazingly helpful reading suggestions, and
shown exceptional kindness.
I also want to thank other professors. I am particularly grateful to Greta Matzner-Gore
who advised me to dig into the history of writing and enthusiastically supported my dissertation
project at its earliest stages. Sally Pratt has always given me so much credit that I had to improve
my work—simply to match her perception of it, if not for other reasons. I have learned a lot from
Alik Zholkovsky and Lada Panova, and their flattering remarks often gave me courage to keep
going. I am very grateful to Colleen McQuillen whose comments have helped me to get unstuck
and move on with my work. My writing has improved thanks to James Polk who proofread many

iii
of my earliest drafts. Our email exchanges about work and life beyond it always brightened my
day.
I will never forget how cordially Susan Kechekian greeted me on my very first day at
USC. From that moment on, her advice on various matters, her warmth, her wonderful sense of
humor made the Slavic department my second home. I am also grateful to Deborah Russo who
made my life so much easier by helping me to navigate different bureaucratic procedures.
I also would like to express my gratitude to USC, the USC-Huntington Early Modern
Studies Institute, and the Josephine de Karman Fellowship Trust. Their generous support has
given me the luxury of fully focusing on my dissertation.
My special thanks go to USC Libraries. I am particularly grateful to Gabe Vincent and
his team, who have patiently fulfilled dozens of my requests for books, articles, and microfilms.
Most importantly, I wish to thank my husband Dominik. This dissertation would have
never been completed without his love and support, every minute of every day. Kocham Cię.

iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................... ii
Abstract........................................................................................................................................... v
Introduction..................................................................................................................................... 1
Chapter 1. Student Writers as Contributors to State Ideology...................................................... 23
1.1. From a Declamation to a Public Act: Institutionalization
of Students’ Performances........................................................................................................ 29
1.2. Russia in School: Students’ Performances as a Pedagogical Instrument
for Children and Adults ............................................................................................................ 53
2.2. “To Bear Witness to the Monarch’s Philanthropy, and as Evidence of Mercy
Towards Us of All the Benefactors”: Wards’ Speeches of Gratitude....................................... 93
2.3. Heroes and Saints of Benevolence: Patrons of Learning as Models of Behavior
for Students and the Public ..................................................................................................... 104
Chapter 3. Student Writers as Advocates of Russification......................................................... 128
3.1. Replacing “the Polish Spirit” with “the Russian Spirit”: Literary Training
as the Core of Civic Education and an Instrument of Cultural Conversion............................ 133
3.2. “Children’s Dreams,” “Thoughts,” and “Purely Russian Feelings”:
Russianness on Display........................................................................................................... 143
3.3. “The Seeds of Famous Writers”: Students’ Literary Debuts as Proofs of Russia’s
Superiority............................................................................................................................... 170
Conclusion .................................................................................................................................. 188
Bibliography ............................................................................................................................... 200

v
Abstract
My dissertation argues that students’ exercises in poetry and prose formed a significant
part of public discourse in imperial Russia. Recited at school public ceremonies and widely
published (often by the Ministry of National Education), students’ texts helped to promote the
official ideology, stimulated public discourse about civic participation (charity), and popularized
imperial language policies as well as the idea of Russia’s cultural superiority. As they learned
how to write, adolescents from St. Petersburg to Vilnius helped the state to educate the rest of
society. At the same time, I demonstrate that despite the state’s efforts to regulate public speech,
the system of literary education provided young people with the means to become independentminded writers and poets. It literally taught them how to produce texts, gave them a chance to
recite their works at public events and be noticed by potential patrons and/or mentors, and
allowed them to debut in print. Paradoxically, the government compromised its own efforts to
control its subjects through education: by teaching juveniles how to write, it gave them
instruments to shape public discourse and potentially challenge official views of the country and
its fate.

1
Introduction
In the story “My First Visit to an Editorial Office” (1929), the Russian émigré author
Teffi described her early experiments in writing, with her usual dose of self-irony: “By the age of
thirteen, I already had some literary works under my belt. I had written some verses on the
arrival of Tsaritsa and on the anniversary of the founding of our school. These latter—hastily
composed in the form of a high-flown ode—contained a stanza for which I was later made to
suffer a great deal:
And may for future generations
The light of truth shine, like a sun,
In this great shrine of education
For many, many years to come.
My sister tormented me for a whole year over that ‘great shrine of education.’ If I
pretended to have a headache and wasn’t going into school, she would immediately start up a
chant: ‘Nadya, Nadya, why aren’t you going to the great shrine of education? How can you bear
the light of truth to shine without you?’”1
This passage contains more than an amusing incident from Teffi’s childhood and even
more than a starting point of her individual literary career. By mentioning the occasions (“the
arrival of Tsaritsa” and “the anniversary” of the school’s founding), the poetic genre (“a highflown ode”), the clichéd metaphor (“the great shrine of education”), and even her sister’s
1 Teffi, “My First Visit to an Editorial Office,” in Tolstoy, Rasputin, Others and Me. The Best Of Teffi, ed. Robert
Chandler and Anne Marie Jackson, trans. Robert and Elizabeth Chandler, Rose France, and Anne Marie Jackson,
26–27 (New York: New York Review Books, 2016). The original title of the story is “Pervoe poseshchenie
redaktsii.” Teffi also describes this episode in her story “Kak ia stala pisatel’nitsei” (1934), which along with “Moi
psevdonim” belong to the genre of writers’ reflections on their literary debut (compare, for instance, to Babel’s “Moi
pervyi gonorar”).

2
reaction (mocking), Teffi encapsulated a more than two-century-long tradition of what can be
defined as students’ literary production. To trace the development of this tradition and analyze
key functions of juvenile literary exercises in late eighteenth and nineteenth-century Russian
culture will be the main goals of my dissertation.
Students’ writings have enjoyed attention of both literary scholars and historians of
education. Curiously, while the former have mostly explored school literature before the late
eighteenth century, the latter have concentrated on the period after the middle of the nineteenth
century, which has created almost a century-long gap in between. Thus, numerous specialists in
Russian literature have considered rhetoric and poetics courses as well as students’ literary
exercises in the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. 2 Many have focused on school
2 Petr Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reform 1808 goda (Kazan’, 1881); Ierofei Tatarskii, Simeon
Polotskii (ego zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’). Opyt issledovaniia iz istorii prosveshcheniia i vnutrennei tserkovnoi zhizni vo
vtoruiu poloviny XVII veka, (Moskva, 1886); Aleksandr Vereshchagin, “Viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka.” [1]. In
Kalendar’ i pamiatnaia knizhka Viatskoi gubernii na 1897 god, 71–160 (Viatka, 1897); Aleksandr Vereshchagin,
Viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka. [2] (Viatka, 1898); Pavel Berkov, “U istokov dvorianskoi literatury XVIII veka:
Poet Mikhail Sobakin,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 9/10 (1933): 421–32; Aleksandr Panchenko, Russkaia
stikhotvornaia kul’tura XVII veka (Leningrad: “Nauka,” 1973); D.A. Ialamas, “Privetstviia uchenikov Slavianogreko-latinskoi akademii moskovskomu patriarkhu Ioakimu,” in The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev
and Moscow. Proceedings of the International Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to
Christianity. Thessaloniki 26–28 November 1988, 513–19, ed. by Anthony-Emil N. Tachiaos (Thessaloniki, 1992);
Sergei Nikolaev, “Rannii Trediakovskii (k istorii ‘Elegii o smerti Petra Velikogo’),” Russkaia literatura 1 (2000):
126–32; Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh (Sankt-Peterburg:
“Nauka,” 2005); A.A. Vakhrushev, “Viatskaia dukhovnaia seminariia i viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka,” Vestnik
Iaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P.G. Demidova 4, no. 14 (2010): 133–37; Andrei Kostin,
“Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet),”
in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike
Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010); Iulia Shustova,
“Slova ‘Privetstvii’ v moskovskikh izdaniikh Bukvarei 60-kh godov XVII v.,” in Uchebniki detstva. Iz istorii
shkol’ni knigi VII–XXI vekov, edited by N.B. Barannikova, V.G. Bezrogov, G.V. Makarevich, 47– 57 (Moskva:
Rosskiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2013); Silina, Alina. “Stikhotvornye opyty viatskikh
seminaristov serediny XVIII veka,” in XVIII vek. Volume 28 (Moskva; Sankt-Peterburg: Al’ians-Arkheo, 2015);
Nikolaos A. Chrissidis, An Academy at the Court of the Tsars: Greek Scholars and Jesuit Education in Early
Modern Russia, (DeKalb, IL: NIU Press, 2016); Alina Silina, “Poet-seminarist I.I. Oraevskii i ego rukopisnyi
sbornk,” in XVIII vek. 29, edited by N.D. Kochetkova, S.I. Nikolaev, 95–111 (Moskva–Sankt-Peterburg: Al’iansArkheo, 2017); Alina Silina, “Seminarskie stikhotvornye pozdravleniia carmina gratulatoria,” Chteniia otdela
russkoi literatury XVIII veka 8 (2018): 155–64; Alina Silina, “Svoe i chuzhoe: mekhanizm zaimstvovanii v russkoi
seminarskoi poezii vtoroi poloviny XVIII veka (po materialam Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii),” Acta Universitatis
Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Rossica 12 (2019): 25–35; Olga Kuznetsova, “Carmen echicum: razgovory s ekhom v
shkol’noi poezii kontsa XVII v.,” Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Rossica 13 (2020): 9–15.

3
drama,3
including the genres of dialogues and declamations—a crucial element of Jesuit
education, which was transplanted to the Russian soil in the late seventeenth century by Westerntrained literati, primarily Simeon Polotskii. 4
For example, declamations have often been
interpreted as occasional literature,5
prepared by the school for religious ceremonies which in
Russia also framed the tsar’s power.6 However, what happened to the tradition of students’
literary exercises from the late eighteenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century
(especially in non-religious educational institutions) remains largely overlooked.7
3 The works on school drama have appeared from the late nineteenth century to the present day. To name just a few:
Petr Morozov, Ocherki iz istorii russkoi dramy XVII–XVIII stoletii (Sankt-Peterburg, 1888); Vladimir Rezanov,
Shkol’nye deistva XVII-XVIII vv. i teatr iezuitov : iz istorii russkoi dramy (Мoskva, 1910); Vladimir Rezanov, “K
voprosu o starinnoi drame. Teoriia shkol’nykh ‘deklamatsii’ po rukopisnym poetikam,” Izvestiia Otdeleniia
russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorkoi Akademii nauk 18, kn. 1 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1913): 1–40; Varvara
Adrianova-Perets, “Stsena i priemy postanovki v russkom shkol’nom teatre XVII–XVIII v.v.,” in Russkii teatr
(Leningrad: Academia, 1928), 2: 7–63; Pavel Berkov, “Shkol’naia drama ‘Venets Dimitriiu’ (1704 g.),” Trudy
otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 16 (Мoskva; Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1960): 323–57;
Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.:
predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. … kand. Isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia,
2019).
4
Igor Eremin, “’Deklamatsiia’ Simeona Polotskogo,” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 8 (1951): 354. For the
connection between the genre and further development of declamation as a part of oral literary culture in Russia,
especially in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, see: Peter Brang, Zvuchashchee slovo: Zametki po teorii i istorii
deklamatsionnogo iskusstva, trans. M. Sokol’skaia and P. Brang (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2010), esp.
104–11.
5 For occasional literature in Russia, see, for instance: Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova,
eds., Okkazional’naia literature v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka (Sankt-Peterburg:
Filologicheskii fakul'tet SPbGU, 2010).
6 See, for example: Dmitrii Rudnev, “Prazdnichno-ritoricheskaia kul’tura v kadetskikh korpusakh,” in
Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch,
and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010). For a more detailed discussion
on the rituals of the Russian court, see: Boris Uspenskii, Tsar’ i patriarch (Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1998);
Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1995–2000).
7
I am using the term “non-religious” primarily to separate the educational institutions which did not specifically
train students to become members of the clergy. By doing so, however, I do not assume that the religious element
completely disappeared from education in the eighteenth century, even in “secular” institutions. On the contrary, in
my analysis, I follow Gary Marker who has argued that the religious and the secular interacted in pedagogical
practice decades after Peter the Great’s reforms. For a reassessment of the traditional views on secularization in
education, see Marker’s article: “Paradigms of Eighteenth-Century Russian Education, or is It Time to Move beyond
Secularization?” European Education 52, no. 3 (2020): 193–205. A very few scholars have touched on religious
connotations of academic rituals in Russian culture, see primarily: Sergij Posokhov,“Traditsii propovedi v aktovykh

4
Admittedly, dozens of works have addressed the earliest attempts in writing made by
Zhukovskii, Pushkin, Lermontov, and Gogol,8
their “literary schools” (Moscow Boarding School
for the Nobility, the Imperial Lyceum, and Nezhin Gymnasium) and their teachers,9
students’
literary networks,10 and half-clandestine handwritten journals.11 Yet, official writing instruction
in this period of time has not received much attention. For example, mentioning how
rechakh professorov universitetov Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia tret’ XIX veka,” Dialog so
vremenem 66 (2019): 154–75.
8 Works of this kind have appeared since the middle of the nineteenth century: Pavel Annenkov, Materialy dlia
biografii Aleksandra Sergeevicha Pushkina, ed. A. Karpov (Moskva: Sovremennik, 1984), the first edition appeared
in 1855; Iakov Grot, Pushkin, ego litseiskie tovarishchi i nastavniki: neskol’ko statei Iakova Grota s prisoedineniem
i drugikh materialov (Sankt-Peterburg, 1887); Karl Grot, ed., Pushkinskii Litsei (1811–1817). Bumagi 1-go kursa,
sobrannye akademikom Ia. K. Grotom (Sankt-Peterburg, 1911). See also: Alina Bodrova “(Ne)akademicheskii
Lermontov: tezisy k izucheniiu ‘iunkerskikh tekstov’,” in Dundukovskie chteniia. Materialy konferentsii pamiati
Akademii nauk (26 oktiabria 2013 g.), ed. B.V. Orekhov (Moskva: Labirint, 2014).
9 Literary training of the famous authors has often been seen as the initial stage of their great literary career. For
example: Vadim Vatsuro, “Literaturnaia shkola Lermontova,” in Lermontovskii sbornik, ed. I.S. Chistova, V.A.
Manuilov, V.E. Vatsuro, (Leningrad: Nauka, 1985), 49–90; Vadim Vatsuro, “Litseiskoe tvorchestvo Pushkina,”
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v dvadtsati tomakh (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1999), 1: 417–38. For the more recent
works, see, for instance: Alina Bodrova, “(Ne)akademicheskii Lermontov: tezisy k izucheniiu ‘iunkerskikh
tekstov’.” In Dundukovskie chteniia. Materialy konferentsii pamiati Akademii nauk (26 oktiabria 2013 g.), 66–78,
ed. by B.V. Orekhov (Moskva: Labirint, 2014). Also see: T. Levit, “Literaturnaia sreda Lermontova v Moskovskom
blagorodnom pansione,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 45/46 (1948): 225–54; Iurii Mann, “M.V. Lomonosov v
tvorcheskom soznanii N.V. Gogolia,” in Lomonosov i russkaia literatura, ed. A.S Kurilov, 351–71 (Moskva: Nauka,
1987); Oksana Suproniuk, Literaturnaia sreda rannego Gogolia (Kiev: Akademperiodika, 2009). Also see the
recent project Poeziia Moskovskogo universiteta, the platform which offers information about poets who have ever
been related to the university: http://www.poesis.ru/o-servere.html.
10 Curiously, even the studies of the literaturnyi byt has not paid much attention to school literary circles. For
instance, Sobranie vospitannikov Moskovskogo Universitetskogo Blagorodnogo Pansiona has made it only to the
appendix of the classic Literaturnye kruzhki i salony (1929): Solomon Reiser, and Mark Aronson, comps.,
Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, with a foreword by Boris Eikhenbaum (Leningrad: Priboi, 1929), 301.
11 S. Smirnov, “Uchenicheskie zhurnaly i sborniki,” Vestnik vospitaniia 5–6 (1901): 83–115; Vladimir Kallash,
“Shkolnyia literaturnyia obshchestva 20-kh g.g. XIX v.” In Pomoshch evreiam postradavshim ot neurozhaia, 455–
58 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1901); Nikolai Ianchuk, “Literaturnye zametki,” Izvestiia otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i
slovesnosti Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 12, kn. 4 (1907): 199–255. All three of them have been mentioned before
in T. Levit’s article as “авторы, специально занимавшиеся школьной словесностью,” see: Levit, T.,
“Literaturnaia sreda Lermontova v Moskovskom blagorodnom pansione,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 45/46 (1948):
232. See also: N.I. Kraineva, “Rukopisnye zhurnaly i gazety uchebnykh zavedenii Rossii (Po materialam otdela
rukopisei i redkikh knig GPB im. M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina),” in Narodnoe obrazovanie i pedagogicheskaia mysl’
Rossii kanuna i nachala imperializma (Maloissledovannye problemy i istochniki). Sbornik nauchnykh trudov, edited
by E.D. Dneprov, 223–238 (Moskva: NII Obshchei pedagogiki APN SSSR, 1980); Iurii Lazarev, “Rol’ publitsistiki
v razvitii rossiiskogo shkol’nogo literaturngo obrazovaniia” (diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii
gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2017); M.Iu. Lapteva, “Ippokrena i Irtysh: u istokov klassicheskogo obrazovaniia v
Zapadnoi Sibiri,” Mnemon. Issledovaniia i publikatsii po istorii antichnogo mira 20, no. 1–2 (2020): 207–19.

5
Zhukovskii, Pushkin, or Lermontov recited poems at their graduation ceremonies,12 scholars tend
to present these facts as early manifestations of the future great talents, and almost never—as a
common educational practice of that period, that in reality affected not only the big authors, but
every young nobleman. Although some have mentioned the vital role of literary education in the
first half of the nineteenth century,13 only a very few have looked into concrete aspects of it, still
placing the evolution of a canonized writer in the center of the discussion—the tendency that has
prevailed in scholarship since the late nineteenth century.14 For instance, Iakov Grot has
12 Pushkin’s recital of his poem “Vospominania v Tsarskom sele” (1814) has, of course, remained the most popular
example and has been cited, probably, in each version of his biography. For Zhukovskii’s recitals of his own works
over several years, see, for example: Vladimir Rezanov, Iz razyskanii o sochineniiakh V.A. Zhukovskago (SanktPeterburg, 1906), 14. In 1829, Lermontov has also recited a poem at the solemn act— it was not his own, but
Zhukovskii’s “K moriu,” see: Leonid Grossman, “Stikhovedcheskaia shkola Lermontova,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo
45–46 (1948): 263.
13 For example, P.V. Mikhed has noted that “важной частью гуманитарного образования в Гимназии
[Bezborodko – E. Sh.] была литературная подготовка,” without specifying how exactly this training looked and
what functions it had. See: P.V. Mikhed, “N.V. Gogol v Gimnazii vyshikh nauk kn. Bezborodko (problemy
izucheniia),” in Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva N.V. Gogolia: nezhinskii period (1820–1828), ed. N.M. Zharkevich,
Z.V. Kirilliuk, Iu.V. Iakubina, 3–10 (Nezhin: OOO: Vidavnitstvo “Aspekt-Poligraph,” 2009). Similar observations
can be found in the works not devoted specially to juvenile literature. For example, as Richard Wortman has argued,
“the most prominent representatives of the new noble civil servants were the young officials who led the literary
society Arzamas. […] the Karamzinians […] represented a whole new official mentality. […] The diplomatsentimentalist type was part of a culture of literary expression, and simple and elegant writing was his specialty.”
See: Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press,
1976), 93–94. In her book with a very characteristic tittle How Russia Learned to Write, Irina Reyfman has stated
that “in post-Petrine Russia, as in France a century earlier, being able to write—and to write well—gradually
become one of a Russian nobleman’s necessary skills. Perhaps in response to this new expectation, the curriculum at
the first educational institution for children of the nobility, the Noble Infantry Cadet Corps, established in 1732, was
predominantly humanistic. The cadets also often occupied their leisure time with literary pursuits.” See: Irina
Reyfman, How Russia Learned to Write: Literature and the Imperial Table of Ranks (Madison, Wisconsin: The
University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), 11.
14 Moreover, some scholars have dismissed official exercises in writing as old-fashioned or scholastic. Some
memoirists depicted their teachers of Russian letters as “old believers” for whom literature “ended” with
Lomonosov, Trediakovskii, or Kheraskov. For example, Kurganovich has noted that “хотя до 30-го года лет
десять прошло, как имя Пушкина и его сочинени приобрели громкую известность и в понятиях
литературных произошел решительный переворот, тем не менее преподаватели словесности оставались
верными прежним писателям и устаревшей теории.” See: A.V. Kurganovich and A. O. Kruglyi, Istoricheskaia
zapiska 75-letiia S.-Peterburgskoi vtoroi gimnazii. Chast’ vtoraiia (1831-1880 g.) (Sankt-Peterburg, 1894), 12.
These pedagogues expected students to use neoclassical poetic principles in writing assignments. Textbooks on
Russian letters also offered mostly neoclassical examples to imitate. Many students, however, chose different
models such as Zhukovskii or Pushkin and treated formal school exercises with irony. By ignoring official literary
training, some scholars seem to uncritically assume the position of the younger literary generation.

6
described how Nikolai Koshanskii corrected students’ poetic works at the Imperial Lyceum,
paying attention to Pushkin and his circle.15 Leonid Grossman has analyzed how the prosodic
theories of Lermontov’s pedagogues (Aleksei Zinov’ev, Aleksei Merzliakov, Semen Raich,
Aleksei Kubarev, Nikolai Nadezhdin, and others) influenced versification of the young poet and
determined the later development of his unique “melodic” style.16 Iuliia Iakubina has examined
how writing the ode was used in literary education at Nezhin Gymnasium, foregrounding the
writer Nestor Kukol’nik and yet justifying her research by referring to “Gogol’s literary
surroundings” and “Nezhin literary school.”
17 Moreover, these works have not connected
nineteenth-century literary exercises to the tradition of writing instruction in the previous two
centuries. As the result, the gap in the scholarship has created an erroneous impression that in the
period between the1800s and the 1860s the previous school literary practices were either
insignificant or simply disappeared without a trace.18
15 Karl Grot, ed., Pushkinskii Litsei (1811–1817). Bumagi 1-go kursa, sobrannye akademikom Ia. K. Grotom (SanktPeterburg, 1911).
16 Leonid Grossman, “Stikhovedcheskaia shkola Lermontova,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 45–46 (1948): 255–88. We
can see that literary education interests Grossman to the extent that it reflects Lermontov’s poetic evolution. When
Grossman talks about Merzliakov, for instance, he says: “[…] в Мерзлякове преобладал ‘профессор поэзии.’ Не
станем только придавать этому званию одиозного значения и обратим нашу благодарную память к этому
‘искусному учителю пения,’ которому выпала на долю почетная задача ставить голос молодому
Лермонтову” [the Italic is mine—E.Sh.] (260).
17 Iuliia Iakubina, “Zhanr ody v obrazovanii Nezhinskikh gimnazistov,” Literatura ta cul’tura Polissia 80 (2015):
126.
18 Most of the time scholars interpret earliest literary experiences of great writers with a certain dose of admiration,
especially when it comes to Pushkin. That makes Pushkin’s own view of juvenile writings all the more curious.
Paradoxically, in his note “O narodnom vospitanii” the poet, who spent a lot of time in his youth versifying, did not
see any good in literary exercises at school: “Во всех почти училищах,” he said, “дети занимаются литературою,
составляют общества, даже печатают свои сочинения в светских журналах. Все это отвлекает от учения,
приучает детей к мелочным успехам и ограничивает идеи, уже и без того слишком у нас ограниченные.”
Aleksandr Pushkin, “O narodnom vospitanii,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR,
1949), 11:46, also qtd. in: Abram Reitblat, “Moskovskie ‘al’manashniki’,” in Kak Pushkin vyshel v genii. Istorikosotsiologicheskie ocherki o knizhnoi kul’ture Pushkinskoi epokhi (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001), 83.

7
Historians of education, in turn, have also considered juvenile writing but only as long as
it concerned literary pedagogy, often starting with the period no earlier than the 1840s–1860s,
when many famous teachers of Russian Letters (slovesniki) began their career, such as Vladimir
Stoiunin, Vasilii Vodovozov, or Viktor Ostrogorskii.19 This approach has been the most
characteristic of the so-called “Golubkov school”—a tradition formed by the disciples of the
Soviet metodist Vasilii Golubkov (1880–1968).20 Within this school, researchers have described
official regulations in literary education, the main textbooks on rhetoric, poetics, and Russian
Letters, as well as such activities as school essays (sochineniia) and literary discussions
(literaturnye besedy), focusing on how they corresponded with the problems of general
education and most of the time completely ignoring the contemporary literary process or the
ideological aspect of education.
21 Andy Byford’s works on literary scholarship in Imperial
Russia, in which he has conceptualized the development of the profession, seem to be among
19 For the biographies and bibliographies of slovesniki, see: Vadim Baevskii, ed., Russkie metodisty-slovesniki v
vospominaniiakh (Moskva: Prosveshchenie, 1969); Chertov, V.F., A.M. Antipova, E.I. Belousova, V.P. Zhuravlev
et al. Metodika prepodavaniia literatury. Personalii: bibliographicheskii slovar’, ed. V.F. Chertov (Moskva:
MPGU, 2018). For the history of literary scholarship in the Russian empire, see: Andy Byford, Literary Scholarship
in Late Imperial Russia: Rituals of Academic Institutionalization (London: Modern Humanities Research
Association: Maney Publishing, 2007).
20 A metodist is a developer of educational programs.
21 To name just a few works: Viktor Chertov, Russkaia slovesnost’ v dorevolutsionnoi shkole, 2nd ed. (Moscow:
Izdatel’stvo “Prometei”, 2013); Elena Getmanskaia, Literatura v srednei i vysshei shkole: Razvitie i preemstvennost’
(konets XVII—nachalo XX veka) (Moskva: MGPU, 2015); Iurii Lazarev, “Rol’ publitsistiki v razvitii rossiiskogo
shkol’nogo literaturngo obrazovaniia” (diss. … kand. ped. Nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi
universitet, 2017); Aleksandr Reut, “Literaturnye besedy v rossiiskoi shkole XIX–nachala XX veka kak
pedagogicheskii phenomen” (diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi universitet,
2017); Aleksandra Samsonova, “Pis’mennye uprazhneniia v ruskkoi gimnazii: istoriia voprosa,” in Slavianskaia
kul’tura: istoki, traditsii, vzaimodeistvie. XX Kirillo-Mefodievskie chteniia. Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchnoprakticheskoi konferentsii (v ramkakh Mezhdunarodnogo Kirillo-Mefodievskogo festivalia slavianskikh iazykov i
kultur), edited by M.N. Rusetskaia (Moskva: Gosudarstvennyi institut russkogo iazyka im. A.S. Pushkina, 2019).
For the history of the Golubkov school itself see: V.F. Chertov, S.A. Zinin, I.A. Podrugina, E.V. Getmanskaia, A.M.
Antipova, and E.I. Belousova. Nauchnaia shkola V.V .Golubkova: Istoriia i napravleniia issledovanii, ed. by V.F.
Chertov (Moskva: Ekon-Inform, 2018). Another big name in the Soviet history of teaching literature is Iakov
Rotkovich, see, for instance: Iakov Rotkovich, Ocherki po istorii prepodavaniia literatury v russkoi shkole (Moskva,
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Pedagogichesjkikh nauk RSFSR, 1953).

8
very few exceptions in the history of literary education.22 Other scholars who are leading the
discussion on the history of literary pedagogy in relation to the literary process have not touched
on education in writing; reading and the formation of school literary canon remain in the center
of their attention.23 The existing scholarship thus either creates a binary opposition with the
officially approved school program on the one side and non-official students’ literary initiatives
on the other side, or, alternatively, presents those as two isolated realms, focusing on one of them
only.
Moreover, some literary historians have implied or even openly stated that school
administration frowned upon juvenile literary activities as such or those activities which were led
by students’ themselves. Before this view became established in scholarship, starting from the
1860s a new generation of teachers had expressed their negative opinions on pedagogical
methods of the past, which often concerned literary matters. An example can be found in the
22 Andy Byford, “Between literary education and academic learning: the study of literature at secondary school in
late imperial Russia (1860s–1900s),” History of Education 33, no. 6 (2004): 637–60; Andy Byford, Literary
Scholarship in Late Imperial Russia: Rituals of Academic Institutionalization (London: Modern Humanities
Research Association: Maney Publishing, 2007). Some earlier observations on the interaction between literature and
educational system in Russian empire can be found in the article by Lev Modzalevskii: Lev Modzalevskii,
“Lomonosov i ego uchenik Popovskii (o literaturnoi preemstvennosti),” In XVIII vek 3 (1958): 111–69.
Modzalevskii though mostly aimed to “проследить на фоне еще мало изученной биографии Поповского
основные этапы его творческого пути как студента Академического университета и как талантливого
поэта—ученика Ломоносова” and “показать значение Поповского как поэта — преемника Ломоносова и его
художественно-эстетической системы” (112). Another earlier work is the collective monograph Vozniknovenie
russkoi nauki o literature (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo “Nauka,” 1975), the authors of which have considered a lot of
educational materials but only as theoretical works. In reality, however, many of these textbooks were used for
practical purposes.
23 These scholars mostly focus on reading, the formation of the school literary canon, and educational materials
(particularly, chrestomathies). To name just a few: Anna Sen’kina, “Kniga dlia chteniia’ kak vid uchebnogo
posobiia dlia nachal’nogo obucheniia: voprosy tipologii I istorii izdaniia (konets XVIII-pervaia polovina XIX vv.),”
(avtoreferat dissertatsii … kand. filol. nauk, Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet kul’tury i iskusstv,
2010); Anna Sen’kina, “Iziashchnaia slovesnost’ kak didakticheskii material: k istorii russkoi literaturnoi
khrestomatii (pervaia polovina XIX v.),” in Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii.
Literaturovedenie IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon, ed.
A. Vdovin, R. Leibov, 35–54 (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013); Aleksei Vdovin, and Kirill Zubkov,
“Genealogiia shkol’nogo istorizma: literaturnaia kritika, istoricheskaia nauka i izuchenie slovesnosti v gimnazii
1860–1900-kh godov,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 164 (4) (2020): 161–76.

9
memoirs of the above-mentioned Vladimir Stoiunin. Stoiunin, who studied at the Third
Petersburg Gymnasium in the 1830s, recalled how his classmate got his poem published in a
local newspaper. The publication became known to the school administrators and was followed
by a public physical punishment of the young author. “[…] in the 1830s,” Stoiunin commented
bitterly, “poetry was not regarded with favor in the official spheres, and the institution would not
consider itself honored to be known as Parnassus.” 24 What popularized such a perception were
the works of Soviet scholars. Highlighting evidence like that of Stoiunin, they often built their
argumentation on the proximity between literary and political coteries in the first half of the
nineteenth-century, i.e. the Decembrists secret societies. Unsurprisingly, they concluded that
students’ literary activities were seen by educational administrators as suspicious at best. For
instance, analyzing the so-called “case of dangerous thinking” (delo o vol’nodumstve) at Nezhin
gymnasium that took place not long after the Decembrists’ failed uprising, Semen Mashinksii
emphasized that about forty students’ poems and essays were confiscated by the authorities to
prove that some professors propagated liberal ideas at the gymnasium.25 Although such events
are significant and definitely deserve analysis, it is the selective attention to them that has limited
juvenile literary activities to the struggle between young talented authors and progressive
pedagogues on the one side and reactionary teachers, “censors,” and “persecutors” in education
on the other side. What also might have contributed to this tendency is the Formalist
“generational” metaphors of literary evolution such as “grandfathers” or “grandchildren,” and
24 “[…] в тридцатых годах поэзия не очень жаловалась в официальных сферах, и заведению не
представлялось особенной чести прослыть Парнасом.” Vladimir Stoiunin, “Iz vospominanii V. Ia. Stoiunina,” in
Za sto let: Vospominaniia, stat’i i materialy. Peterburgskaia byvshaia tret’ia gimnaziia, nyne 13-ia sovetskaia
trudovaia shkola (Petrograd: Izdanie 13-i Sovetskoi Trudovoi shkoly, 1923), 22.
25 Semen Mashinskii, Gogol i “delo o vol’nodumstve” (Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1959). What also strikes in this
example is the belief that a literary text is an extension of one’s political position—the belief ironically shared both
by the nineteenth-century authorities and the Soviet scholar who criticized them.

10
their general perception of the literary process as an antithesis between younger and established
authors.26 Although Soviet interpretations are not actively reproduced nowadays, but the views
inspired by the Formalists are still rather popular. Overall, there have been only a very few
attempts to rethink the relationship between juvenile writers, their tutors, and officials.27
An impartial and inclusive look at various sources—official documents, actual students’
works, memoirs, and diaries—challenges the longstanding perceptions of literary training.
Juvenile literary exercises cannot be limited either to the debuts of great writers, taken separately
from school curricula, or to formal writing assignments which pursued solely pedagogical
purposes. When it comes to the late seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, we easily and naturally
assume that literature and education were almost inseparable: after all, rhetoric and poetics were
taught at educational institutions as slovesnye nauki (literally: “verbal sciences”).
28 Most
textbooks of that time emphasized that writing was a skill developed through study rather than an
artistic endeavor, for example, Mikhail Lomonosov’s A Short Guide on Eloquence, Book One,
[…], Composed for the Lovers of Verbal Sciences (1748), A Way in Which One Can Teach and
Learn Verbal Sciences (1774, a translation of Charles Rollin’s book), Archbishop Amvrosii’s A
26 See, for instance: Il’ia Kalinin, “Istoriia literatury kak Familienroman (russkii formalizm mezhdu Edipom i
Gamletom), Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 4 (2006): 64–83.
27 For instance, Oksana Suproniuk has analyzed the list of the confiscated students’ works in her book Literaturnaia
sreda rannego Gogolia (Kiev: Akademperiodika, 2009), 27–106. However, when she talks about “literary education”
at the gymnasium, she mostly consider reading. When she talks about writing, she traditionally presents students’
works more like extracurricular activities rather than a part of official education.
28 That is evident, for example, in the assessment received by the future writer and professor Nikoliai Popovskii after
his exam: “[…] в словесных и философских науках такой опыт искусства оказал, что на все вопросы изрядно
ответствовал, а сверх того сообщил своего сочинения стихи на российском и латинском языках, которые с
немалою его похвалою читаны. В словесных науках и философии далее простираться желает, которые по
нашему рассуждению надлежит ему продолжить таким образом, чтобы со временем быть стихотворцем или
оратором Академии, […].”Qtd. in: Lev Modzalevskii, “Lomonosov i ego uchenik Popovskii (o literaturnoi
preemstvennosti),” in XVIII vek 3 (1958): 118.

11
Short Guide on Russian Rhetoric, […], Composed for Youth Studying Eloquence (1791).
29
However, the situation in the nineteenth century was not that different. Writing poetic and
prosaic works remained a crucial part of the official school curricula. Textbooks still stressed the
academic nature of composing poems and speeches, from Vasilii Podshivalov’s Russian
Versification, or Rules on Writing Russian Verses (1808) to Mikhail Chistiakov’s Practical
guide on Step-by-Step Exercises in Writing (1847).
30 All students had to write, following the
rules from textbooks and imitating model texts from chrestomathies. Producing a poem, not to
mention an essay, in many cases had nothing to do with expression of one’s literary talent
(though gifted students completed writing assignments as well). As the Ukrainian writer and
pedagogue Stepan Geevskii mentioned in his autobiography, students wrote poems “not at all
because of [their] poetic inspiration, but because at the time when [they] studied at the
gymnasium, [their] teacher always demanded poems […].”31 For some social groups, being able
to write poetry and prose was comparable to having a basic literacy skill, and Vladimir Zapadov
hardly exaggerated when he said that “any half-literate nobleman could for an occasion scrabble
29 Lomonosov, Kratkoe rukovodstvo k krasnorechiiu, kniga pervaia, v kotoroi soderzhitsia ritorika
pokazuiushchaaia obshchie pravila oboego krasnorechiia, to est’ oratorii i poezii, sochinennaia v pol’zu
liubiashchikh slovesnyia nauki (Sankt-Peterburg, 1748); Charles Rollin, De la manière d'enseigner et d'étudier les
belles-lettres: Par rapport à l’esprit et au cœur (Paris, 1726–1728); Sposob, kotorym mozhno uchit’ i obuchat’sia
slovesnykh nauk. Sochinen G. Rollenom, a S Frantsuskago iazyka na Rossiiskoi pereveden Ivanom Kiukovym
(Sankt-Peterburg, 1774); Archbishop Amvrosii (Serebrennikov), Kratkoe rukovodstvo k oratorii rossiiskoi,
sochinennoe v Lavrskoi seminarii v pol’zu iunoshestva, krasnorechiiu obuchaiushegosiia (Moskva, 1791).
30 Vasilii Podshivalov, Russkaia prosodiia, ili pravila kak pisat’ russkie stikhi, S kratkimi zamechaniiami o raznykh
Rodakh Stikhotvorenii. Dlia vospitannikov Blagorodnago Universitetskago Pansiona (Moskva, 1808); Mikhail
Chistiakov’s Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo k postepennomu uprazhneniiu v sochinenii (Sankt-Peterburg, 1847).
31 “[… ] вовсе не по вдохновению поэтическому, а потому, что в те времена, когда мы учились в гимназии,
учитель непременно требовал стихов […].” Stepan Geevskii, “Avtobiografiia Stepana Lukicha Geevskago,”
Kievskaia starina 9 (1893): 383. This note is followed by Geevskii’s story about his unfortunate classmate who did
not display any poetic talent, but still was expected to versify, see: Stepan Geevskii, “Avtobiografiia Stepana
Lukicha Geevskago,” Kievskaia starina 12 (1893): 428–29.

12
several poetic lines using poetic clichés.”32 While scholars have noted that literary interests were
common among nobles and students,33 not many have taken into consideration that such
“semiliteracy” was obtained, among other ways, through formal school education in writing.
At the same time, education in writing between the 1780s and the 1860s was not just a
series of formal school assignments isolated from the literary process. Many university
professors and secondary school teachers actively participated in the literary scene, for example,
Aleksei Merzliakov, Semen Raich, Stepan Shevyrev, Petr Pletnev, Petr Ershov, and Nikolai
Chernyshevskii, to name just a few. Many educational materials, such as textbooks and
especially chrestomathies, were literally based on the texts of famous Russian authors.
Textbooks used in nineteenth-century pedagogical practice stressed the practical aspect of
learning poetics as if they aimed to turn young people into “professional” writers. Universities
and schools were the major centers of literary life, providing “venues” for literary coteries and
societies. Educational institutions published almanacs, anthologies, journals, and newspapers,
thus contributing to the development of Russian literature.
Moreover, interaction between student writers and schools was much more complicated
than a simple confrontation, even when confrontations occurred. Contrary to the popular belief,
schools and the state itself not only encouraged young people to write but also ensured that
32 “любой мало-мальски грамотный дворянин по случаю мог скропать несколько стихотворных строк с
помощью устойчивых поэтических штампов.” Vladimir Zapadov, “Derzhavin i poetika russkogo klassitsizma.
Shuvalovskaia epistola Derzhavina,” in Problemy izucheniia russkoi literatury XVIII veka (Lenigrad: Izdatel’stvo
LGPI, 1985), 54.
33 As Mark Aronson has pointed out, in early nineteenth century literature dominated in Russian culture, “Russian
society was […] impregnated with literature,” and people’s interests were “saturated with literature,” see: Mark
Aronson, “Kruzhki i salony,” in Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, ed. Boris Eikhenbaum (Leningrad: Priboi, 1929), 21.
For students’ interest in literature, both as readers and writers, see: Abram Reitblat, “Moskovskie ‘al’manashniki’,”
in Kak Pushkin vyshel v genii. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki o knizhnoi kul’ture Pushkinskoi epokhi (Moskva:
Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001), 82–83.

13
students’ works appeared in the public space. First of all, starting from the middle of the
eighteenth century, students’ works were regularly recited at the so-called “public acts” or
“solemn acts”—school public events which resembled a present-day graduation ceremony. In
addition to that, between the 1820s and the 1860s, in several educational districts the Ministry of
Education introduced such an activity as literary discussions (literaturnye besedy), during which
young people were supposed to present their writings in front of their classmates, teachers,
school officials, and sometimes, broader public.34 Moreover, starting from the late eighteenth
century or even slightly earlier, students’ works were consistently published, in special
anthologies and in periodicals. Thus, one of the first historians of school periodicals Nikolai
Ianchuk pointed out: “In good old times there was a commendable tradition to print students’
best writings in special anthologies, at the expense of the school, educational district, or, the
Ministry.”35 Moreover, Ianchuk emphasized how widespread the tradition was: it involved not
only universities, but also secondary schools, gymnasia, and boarding schools, not only in big
cities, but in provinces as well.36
Curiously, Ianchuk commented on the approximately the same
period of time that Stoiunin mentioned in his memoirs, i.e., the 1830s–1840s, but Ianchuk’s
observations went unnoticed by scholars. If various schools, educational districts, and even the
Ministry of National Education troubled themselves with publications of students’ poems or
essays, they must have had a good reason to do so. So, why was the state so invested in literary
34 For the most detailed discussion of literaturnye besedy, see: Aleksandr Reut, “Literaturnye besedy v rossiiskoi
shkole XIX–nachala XX veka kak pedagogicheskii phenomen” (diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii
pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2017).
35 “В доброе старое время существовал похвальный обычай печатать лучшие сочинения воспитанников того
или иного учебнаго заведения в особых сборниках, издаваемых на счет самого учебнаго заведения, или
учебнаго округа, или, наконец, министерства.” Ianchuk, Nikolai. “Literaturnye zametki,” Izvestiia otdeleniia
russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 12, kn. 4 (1907): 201.
36 Ibid.

14
training overall and especially in distribution of students’ works in the public space? How
exactly did juvenile writings work? How different were the functions of juvenile writings in
comparison with the works of their “grown-up” counterparts? These are the main questions that I
aim to answer in my work.
My dissertation is the first to argue that students’ exercises in poetry and prose formed a
significant part of public discourse in imperial Russia, in the period between the 1780s and the
1860s—the period of major reforms in the sphere of education and professionalization of
literature.37 Recited at school public ceremonies and widely published (often by the Ministry of
National Education), students’ texts contributed to the formation of the state ideology, stimulated
public discourse about civic participation (philanthropy), and popularized imperial language
policies as well as the idea of Russia’s cultural superiority.38 As they learned how to write,
adolescents from Moscow to Vilnius helped the state to “educate” the rest of society.39 At the
same time, I demonstrate that despite the state’s efforts to regulate public speech, the system of
literary education provided young people with the means to become independent-minded writers
and poets. It literally taught them how to produce texts, gave them a chance to recite their works
37 In my use of the term “public discourse,” I follow Jan Kusber who, as he himself says, “pragmatically”
understands it as the forms of communication and expression of the public opinion, which have been formed since
the second of the eighteenth century thanks to such “factors of publicity” as periodicals, the state initiatives (the
Legislative Commission), and public initiatives (learned societies, literary salons, Freemason lodges), see: Jan
Kusber, Vospitanie elit i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII—pervoi poloviny XIX veka: Diskurs,
zkonodatel’stvo, real’nost’ (Moskva: Rosspen, 2018), 28–33.
38 In my understanding of the word “civic,” I follow the argumentation of Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter. Analyzing
social relationships in the eighteenth-century Russia through theatrical plays of the time, Wirtschafter has explained
her choice of terminology as the following: “[…] the ‘civic society’ […] did not add up to a politically organized
‘civil society’ independent of the state. When eighteenth-century playwrights advocated civic engagement for the
good of society, they assumed not the autonomy of society needed to be protected from the state, but rather that the
power of the state needed to be enhanced through the mobilization of society.” See: Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter,
The Play of Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003), IX.
39 For a detailed discussion, see: Igor Fedyukin, “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in Post-Petrine
Russia” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009), 29.

15
at public events and be noticed by potential patrons and/or mentors, and allowed them to debut in
print. Paradoxically, the government compromised its own efforts to control its subjects through
education: by teaching juveniles how to write, it gave them instruments to shape public discourse
and potentially challenge official views of the country and its fate.
The assumption that literature and education in the period between the 1780s and the
1860s were closely linked has determined my approach to the functions of juvenile literary
production. My understanding of literary training as a set of cultural practices, which helped to
create state ideology but, at the same time, stimulated the development of the public sphere in
Russia, has been primarily inspired by Jeremy Caradonna’s work on the concours académique as
the foundation for public discussion in eighteenth-century France.40 I would go as far as to argue
that while the Academy of Sciences in Russia did organize some academic prize contests like
those in France,41 literary training that took place at nineteenth-century Russian schools was a
practice that had more in common with the French contests because it encompassed a much
larger part of the society. The very existence of public sphere in Russia in the eighteenth and the
first half of the nineteenth century has been debated for decades. Although some forms of public
gatherings and periodicals existed in Russia, the traditional Habermasian definitions cannot
describe Russian reality. Public discourse was largely controlled by the state, and free, open
expression of individuals’ views on social issues and political matters remained limited until the
40 Jeremy Caradonna, The Enlightenment in Practice. Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual Culture in France,
1670–1794 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2012). The focus on the practice in Caradonna’s work and in my
own dissertation is coming from cultural history. See, for instance, the classical works of Roger Chartier: Cultural
History: Between Practices and Representations, trans. Lydia G. Cochrane (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
1988).
41 Some announcements can be found in periodicals such as Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti and Ezhemesiachnye
sochineniia i izvestiia ob uchenykh delakh. In Russia, such announcements were known under the name of “tasks”
(zadachi). See, for instance, Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia i izvestiia ob uchenykh delakh 1 (1763): 72–73.

16
second half of the nineteenth century.
42 But at the same time, public discussions, which became
especially loud since the 1860s, did not appear out of nowhere. A phenomenon that can
demonstrate how the public sphere evolved between the 1780s and the 1860s is literary training.
Of course, students’ exercises in writing did not create the public sphere right away. Given that
they were taught what and how to write, the majority of young people hardly expressed original
ideas and/or strong personal opinions in their works. Yet, the entire educated society in the
Russian Empire went through the literary instruction at their young age, which could have a
delayed effect on the formation of the public sphere even decades later.
43 Even though
adolescent authors did not necessarily “prompted intellectual argumentation and plurality” on the
spot,
44 as they grew up, they could develop independent thinking and expressed their opinions.
In addition to that, I also share Caradonna’s intention to shift the scholarly focus from big
literary names to the mechanism that could and sometimes did produce writers, more or less
prominent. As he has put it, his book is “an attempt […] to reveal Rousseau’s relatively
42 See, for instance, Kusber’s comments: Jan Kusber, Vospitanie elit i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossiiskoi imperii
XVIII—pervoi poloviny XIX veka: Diskurs, zkonodatel’stvo, real’nost’ (Moskva: Rosspen, 2018), 28–33. Some
scholars, such as Timur Atnashev, Mikhail Velizhev, and Tatiana Vaizer, talk about the “regimes of publicity” and
“effects of publicity” to discuss the specificity of the public sphere in Russia. Borrowing the term “regimes of
publicity” from the works of Lynn A. Staeheli, Don Mitchell, and Caroline R. Nagel, the Russian authors have
considered it through specific historical conditions that determine the weight of a public statement (for example,
censorship mechanisms or institutions like universities) and the different mechanisms that actors use to influence
each other through public statements, see: Timur Atnashev, Mikhail Velizhev, and Tatiana Vaizer, “Dvesti let opyta.
Ot burzhuaznoi publichnoi sphery k rossiiskim rezhimam publichnosti,” in Nesovershennaia publichnaia sphera.
Istoriia rezhimov publichnosti v Rossii (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2011).
43 About public participation as the main difference between academic prize contests and pedagogical practices
based on emulation (disputations at Jesuit schools), see: Jeremy Caradonna, The Enlightenment in Practice.
Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual Culture in France, 1670–1794 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press,
2012), 20–21. Caradonna has noted that “it would be difficult to argue that the concours académique simply carried
a baton handed off by the Jesuits. (However, it is true that nearly all of the academicians in this period were trained
in institutions run by the Jesuits and the Oratorians.).”
44 Jeremy Caradonna, The Enlightenment in Practice. Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual Culture in France,
1670–1794 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2012).

17
unexceptional literary beginnings” and draw attention to “many other shining lights in the
Enlightenment who climbed the literary ladder with a victory in an academic prize competition:
[…].”45 To borrow his words, my study of literary training in nineteenth-century Russia is an
attempt to reveal the “relatively unexceptional literary beginnings” of Zhukovskii, Pushkin,
Gogol, and many other famous writers of the Russian Empire.
My interpretation of education in writing as a tool that the state used to “instill” necessary
values and beliefs in young subjects is based on the notion of “internalization,” which has been
previously discussed by several scholars in different fields—within the studies of educational
and social policies, social functions of poetry, ego-documents and emotional culture, and cultural
import. First of all, my understanding of education in writing which shapes a state subject’s way
of thinking and feeling relies on the argumentation of Igor Fedyukin who has explored how
eighteenth-century Russian education interpreted the theories of governing the “inner man,” as
opposed to outward (bodily) conformity.46 Given that students learned many texts by heart to
recite them at a public act, I also rely on the work of Mikhail Gronas who, analyzing the social
functions of poetry memorization, has commented on how it could be used in pedagogy,
particularly, for indoctrination.47 I have also taken inspiration from Andrei Zorin’s book
Poiavlenie geroiia, in which he has applied the concept of internalization to analyze how the
early nineteenth-century poet Andrei Turgenev adopted literary models of behavior and
45 Jeremy Caradonna, The Enlightenment in Practice. Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual Culture in France,
1670–1794 (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2012), 2.
46 Igor Fedyukin, “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in Post-Petrine Russia” (PhD diss., University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009), 28.
47 Mikhail Gronas, “Mnemonic Lines: The Social Uses of Memorized Poetry,” in Cognitive Poetics and Cultural
Memory: Russian Literary Mnemonics (New York: Routledge, 2011), 71–96.

18
emotional reactions by keeping a personal journal (a popular instrument of self-education and
self-improvement).48 Given that students’ works were presented at school public events which
were theatrical in nature, I am also guided by Andrei Zorin’s and Andreas Schönle’s
observations on theater as an instrument of “instilling” emotional patterns and models of
behavior into viewers.
49 In addition to that, my work echoes the theory of cultural import
introduced by Joachim Klein. 50 Although Klein does not use the term “internalization” as such,
his book factually explains writing through this process: it explores how certain genres or literary
motifs were “transplanted” from Europe to Russia and eventually were made a part of Russia’s
own literature. Klein’s study is especially important for my dissertation because the entire system
of literary education in Russia was imported from the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
Furthermore, school curricula included a lot of translations—an exercise which was meant to
“instill” the meanings of the original text into students and shape their way of thinking.51
Building on the works of Fedyukin, Zorin, Schönle, and Klein together, I apply the concept of
internalization to demonstrate how the state utilized literary exercises to form truly loyal,
48 Andrei Zorin, Poiavlenie geroia: Iz istorii russkoi emotsional’noi kul’tury kontsa XVIII-nachala XIX veka
(Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016).
49 Andrei Zorin, Poiavlenie geroia: Iz istorii russkoi emotsional’noi kul’tury kontsa XVIII-nachala XIX veka
(Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016); Andreas Schönle and Andrei Zorin, On the Periphery of Europe,
1762-1825: The Self-Invention of the Russian Elite (DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2018), 158–
62. In addition to that, my work also echoes Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter’s argument on eighteenth-century Russian
theater as a public space which “articulated social ideas and provided models of social behavior.” Elise Kimerling
Wirtschafter, The Play of Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press,
2003), 4.
50 Joachim Klein, Puti kul’turnogo importa. Trudy po russkoi literature XVIII veka (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi
kul’tury, 2005).
51 “[…] переводя хорошую пиесу, они [students] по необходимости должны несколько раз прочитывать оную
и в подлиннике и в переводе; и чрез то неприметно могут, так сказать, напитать ум свой мыслями Автора,—
которыя в последствии сделавшись как бы их собственными, примут и другой свойственный им характер.”
Opyty v slovesnosti vospitannikov Blagorodnago pansiona g. Kovalenkova, v Khar’kove (Khar’kov, 1823), III–IV.

19
virtuous, patriotic subjects, who would wholeheartedly love the Emperor, dream about serving
the Fatherland, and unquestionably recognize themselves as imperial (Russian) subjects.
The concept of internalization entails the question of how exactly students were exposed
to the governmentally approved values and beliefs, how they adopted them through education in
writing, and how they were expected to further distribute the “appropriate” worldview. My
answer to this question draws on the studies of the literary canon, primarily on the now classic
work of John Guillory who has shown how the canon formation—the process which reflects
ideologies—resulted from teaching literacy skills by using the collections of model texts.52 For
example, talking about how Standard English had been taught since the eighteenth century,
Guillory has argued that “literary texts were offered as paradigms for the speaking and writing of
grammatical English.”53 Although many Russian scholars have been inspired by Guillory and
discussed the formation of anthologies (which in Russian tradition are called “chrestomathies” or
“books for reading”), they limit the pedagogical practice to reading.54 My work, on the contrary,
will bring attention to other, overlooked part of Guillory’s statement—writing. I will show how
students not simply absorbed but actively imitated model texts in their own works and thereby
furthered the state ideological messages translated through chrestomathies and/or by their
teachers. Given that juvenile writers reproduced only a part of the canon and did it at a relatively
52 John Guillory, “Canon,” in Critical Terms for Literary Study, ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin
(Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1995), 239–48.
53 Ibid., 241.
54 For the school literary canon in Russia, see, for example, the works of Alexei Vdovin, Roman Leibov, Anna
Sen’kina, and others in this volume: Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii.
Literaturovedenie IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon.
Edited by A. Vdovin, R. Leibov. (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013).

20
large scale, these messages were especially loud and clear, which, of course, motivated the state
to support juvenile literary activities.
Finally, analyzing how students’ recitals at school solemn acts and the publications of
their works contributed to public discourse, I also build on the traditional analysis of occasional
literature within “imperial court performances.”55 I especially indebted to those few works which
stressed the role of juvenile participants in the late seventeenth- and eighteenth-century court
rituals, such as Elena Pogosian’s and Nadezhda Alekseeva’s analyses of odes.56 At the same
time, my shift from the “purely” literary analysis of certain genres to the analysis of public
discourse and, especially, school public ceremonies, at which students presented their writings,
has been shaped by Richard Wortman’s famous study of “scenarios of power”—the narratives
which defined the public images of Russian monarchs.57 In addition to that, the works examining
academic rituals (school public acts) and educational institutions as major sites of publicity, such
as those of Jan Kusber, Sergij Posokhov, and Andrei Kostin, have also significantly influenced
my research.58 For example, following Sergij Posokhov’s observations on how closely school
55 The scholarly tradition itself can be traced to the Russian Formalists and the so-called junior Formalists, Iurii
Tynianov and Grigorii Gukovskii who coined the term “imperial court performance,” as well as to the
representatives of the Moscow-Tartu School of Semiotics, namely, Boris Uspenskii.
56 Elena Pogosian, “Vostorg russkoi ody i reshenie temy poeta v russkom panegirike 1730–1762 gg.” (PhD diss.,
University of Tartu, 1997); Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh
(Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2005).
57 Richard Wortman: Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1995–2000).
58 Jan Kusber, Vospitanie elit i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII—pervoi poloviny XIX veka:
Diskurs, zkonodatel’stvo, real’nost’ (Moskva: Posspen, 2018); Sergij Posokhov, Universitet i gorod v Rossiiskoi
imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX vv.) (Khar’kov: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2014); Andrei
Kostin, “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii
universitet),” in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by Petr
Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010).

21
public events were related to court ceremonies,59 I show how the late seventeenth-century
tradition of juvenile writings continued into the nineteenth century. Synthesizing all these
scholarly approaches, my work centers students’ literary performances at public acts (often
followed by publications of the recited texts) and “presentations” of their works in print as a
widespread and systematic practice that formed a significant part of public discourse.
The primary materials I analyze in my dissertation can be divided into three groups. First
of all, it is juvenile writings published separately and in special brochures (factually, “playbills”
of public acts) as well as in school almanacs, anthologies, and various periodicals. To reconstruct
the context in which adolescents’ texts functioned, I work with personal histories of students and
pedagogues (memoirs, diaries, biographies) and the histories of educational institutions (the socalled “historical notes” and schools’ jubilee editions); I also analyze numerous descriptions of
public acts in journals and newspapers. The third group of materials, which provides even bigger
context for students’ works, consists of sources produced by lawmakers and established literati.
It is official documents that regulated the sphere of education in general, donations to
educational institutions, and language policies; texts of “grown-up” authors and educators who
explained, supported, and popularized governmental initiatives, including through educational
materials such as textbooks and chrestomathies. The analysis of these texts allow to observe the
main motifs in the wider public discourse and to trace how students advanced these ideological
messages in their own texts.
This dissertation consists of three chapters. In the first chapter, I will show how the state
institutionalized the tradition of school declamations and turned it into a public act. Tracing
59 Sergij Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy,” Res historica 39 (2015): 178–79.

22
juvenile texts from the late seventeenth century to the nineteenth century, I will explain how and
why students became the ideal speakers for the government, and how a school public act turned
the entire country into a big classroom. In the second chapter, I examine how juvenile writings
supported governmental initiatives on charity in education, thereby bridging the gap between
top-down ideologies and civic participation. Focusing on the speeches delivered by the wards at
the Imperial Foundling Home, as well as poems and speeches by students at Moscow Boarding
School for the Nobility, St. Catherine Order School, and the Mining Corps, I demonstrate how
the young authors presented school patrons as ideal benefactors. Combining Christian and
classical motifs and negotiating between hierarchical and participatory models of public
behavior, students encouraged the public to follow model philanthropists by sponsoring schools.
In the third chapter, I argue that juvenile writings advocated for Russification. As a case study
for this chapter, I take Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga (Exercises in Russian Letters by Students at Gymnasia of the Belarusian
Educational District, 1839), the anthology of the works written in Russian by Belarusian and
Lithuanian students, and printed by the order of Minister of National Education Sergei Uvarov.
Considering the anthology within the bigger discussion of the official rhetoric and analyzing the
reviews of the book in periodicals, I demonstrate how Opyty was supposed to display the
intrinsic “Russianness” of the young authors and to justify Russia’s territorial expansion and
cultural assimilation.

23
Chapter 1. Student Writers as Contributors to State Ideology
While several scholars have noted that public academic ceremonies in the second half of
the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries shaped the image of an enlightened monarch as well as
public opinion on education in general,60 contributions made to them by students, especially
students at secondary schools, have been almost completely ignored.61 Discussing literary
elements of public rituals at educational institutions, scholars tend to focus on universities and on
the narratives formed by “grown-up” writers and academics.62 For example, in his famous book
on “scenarios of power,” Richard Wortman has pointed out how academic speeches prepared for
the coronation of Catherine the Great shaped her image as the protector of wisdom but only
briefly noted the hymn sung to the Empress by a group of seminarists at the Trinity Monastery.63
Analyzing how scholarly speeches stemmed from sermons, Sergij Posokhov has limited his
primary sources to professors’ texts only,64 and mentioned only several titles of students’ works
in his book on universities as centers of urban culture.65 Andrei Kostin has identified some
60 That fact has been noted by Sergij Posokhov who, in turn, followed the observations of Irina Kulakova, see: Sergij
Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy,” Res historica 39 (2015): 178–79.
61 By “secondary schools” in this dissertation I understand mostly public schools and gymnasia, although my
analysis sometimes includes lyceums, cadet corps, and similar institutions with the transitional status between the
school and the university.
62 Even when it comes to the eighteenth century, students’ participation often gets overlooked. For example, the
editors of Khronologicheskii katalog slov i rechei XVIII veka included only several speeches and poems written and
recited by students, see: Petr Bukharkin, ed., Khronologicheskii katalog slov i rechei XVIII veka (Sankt-Peterburg,
2011), 194, 233, 243, 245, 248, 253.
63 Richard Wortman: Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1995), 1: 119–21.
64 Sergij Posokhov,“Traditsii propovedi v aktovykh rechakh professorov universitetov Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia
polovina XVIII–pervaia tret’ XIX veka,” Dialog so vremenem 66 (2019): 154–75.
65 Posokhov, Universitet i gorod v Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX vv.) (Khar’kov:
KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2014).

24
important functions of students’ recitals at Petersburg Academy of Sciences and Moscow
University: for instance, a way for schools to demonstrate students’ academic achievements, and
for young people themselves—to be noticed by influential visitors and later make a successful
career in state service. 66 Yet, Kostin has not analyzed students’ works as such. Adolescent
authors and their literary production in the context of a public event at a secondary school have
thus remained almost invisible in the history of education.
In reality, however, the role of juvenile recitals was highly significant. As scholars have
noted, the very first public ceremonies in Russia sprang up exactly from students’
declamations—a Jesuit pedagogical practice which was introduced into Russian culture in the
late seventeenth century by the churchman and poet Simeon Polotskii.
67 Many valuable
reflections on juvenile recitals have also appeared in the works on the Russian ode—a genre that
66Andrei Kostin, “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i
Moskovskii universitet),” in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by
Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU,
2010), 417.
67 See, for instance: Aleksandr Panchenko, Russkaia stikhotvornaia kul’tura XVII veka (Leningrad: Nauka, 1973),
209–36; Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala
XVIII vv.: predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty”(diss. … kand. isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut
iskusstvoznaniia, 2019), 82. It is important to note that scholars have not reached a full consensus on what a
declamation was. For example, Vladimir Rezanov identified three main definitions of a declamation in Polish Jesuit
poetics: 1) a simple recital of a prosaic and poetic works in various genres (speeches, elegies, odes, etc.); 2) recitals
with some dramatic elements such as a prologue and an epilogue framing a dialogue between participants, often
with some decorations or other visual illustrations of a scene; and 3) a simple one-act play which, nevertheless, also
end with a moralizing epilogue, like the type 2. See: Vladimir Rezanov, “K voprosu o starinnoi drame. Teoriia
shkol’nykh ‘deklamatsii’ po rukopisnym poetikam,” in Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti
Imperatorkoi Akademii nauk XVIII, kn. 1(1913): 9–10, 39–40. Other scholars defined declamations as school
drama. For example, I. Badalich and V. Kuz’mina have noted that one of panegyrical school dramas, “Obraz
torzhestva rossiiskgo” (1742) devoted to Elizaveta Petrovna, had three acts, and each of these acts represented “a
small independent declamatory play” (nebol’shaia samostoiatel’naia deklamatsionnaia p’esa), consisting of
dialogues and panegyric canticles, see: I. Badalich and V. Kuz’mina, Pamiatniki russkoi shkol’noi dramy XVIII veka
(Moskva: Nauka, 1968), 44, 47–50. In a more recent work on Simeon Polotskii, Nadezhda Efremova called a
declamation a “proto-theatrical performance” and “a polylogue with a unified intonation” and distinguished it from a
dialogue which involved different characters. See: Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i
shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.: predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. … kand.
isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia, 2019), 19–20. My understanding of a declamation in
this dissertation is close to the type 2 identified by Rezanov.

25
was also a part of a ritual, namely, a part of “the imperial court performance.”68 Thus, Nadezhda
Alekseeva has identified the subgenre of the “school ode” and traced it to declamations divided
by Polotskii between his students to recite in front of the tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich. Alekseeva
has pointed out that the recitals orchestrated by Polotskii referred to the donkey walk—an
Orthodox ritual which symbolized Christ’s entry to Jerusalem.69 During this ritual, the patriarch
was riding a donkey led by the tsar, which was supposed to demonstrate that the tsar’s power
was given and sanctified by God.70 Most importantly, the donkey walk included children, thus
“enacting” the icon “The Entry of Jesus Christ into Jerusalem” which depicted children waving
palm branches and spreading their clothes on the road in front of the Savior.71 As Alekseeva has
argued, eighteenth-century “school odes” followed the performances of Polotskii’s students and
used exactly this imagery.72 Another author who made valuable but rather isolated notes on
juvenile performances was Elena Pogosian. Focusing on cadets’ odes written in the 1730s–
1740s, she has argued that to prove the sincerity of their literary praises, young authors
emphasized their age and refused to identify with professional (i.e., academic) poets. She has
also drawn attention to the collective authorship of the odes and the oscillation between “we” as
68 This expression was coined by Grigorii Gukovskii: Grigorii Gukovskii, Ocherki russkoi literatury XVIII veka:
Dvorianskaia fronda v literature 1750-kh-1760-kh godov (Moskva; Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk, 1936),
13–14. See also: Tatiana Smoliarova, Parizh 1928: Oda vozvrashchaetsi
︠a
︡
v teatr (Moskva: RGGU, 1999).
69 Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka,
2005), 60.
70 Boris Uspenskii, Tsar’ i patriarch: kharizma vlasti v Rossii (Vizantiĭskaia model’ i ee russkoe pereosmyslenie)
(Moskva: Shola “Iazyki russkoi kul’tury,” 1998), 445–46.
71 Boris Uspenskii, Tsar’ i patriarch: kharizma vlasti v Rossii (Vizantiĭskaia model’ i ee russkoe pereosmyslenie)
(Moskva: Shola “Iazyki russkoi kul’tury,” 1998), 446, fn. 35; also qtd. in: Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda.
Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2005), 60.
72 Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka,
2005).

26
cadets and “we” as people of Russia. Moreover, she has commented on the connection between
the authors’ age and the parental titles of Russian monarchs, such as “the mother of the
Fatherland” (mat’ otechestva). Curiously, even though Pogosian has noted how productive this
“children theme” (mladencheskaia tema) became in panegyrical literature, she has never
elaborated on her conclusions.73
Building on these observations, I argue that starting from the middle of the eighteenth
century the state intentionally employed young people through the developing system of
education to speak on the state’s behalf. On the one hand, it was beneficial for the state to
employ young authors because they evoked associations with the biblical “little ones,” which
made their words sound especially truthful.74 On the other hand, they could speak for the entire
Russian nation because their age made their use of popular parental metaphors, such as calling
the Emperor “the father of the Fatherland,” particularly justified.75 To utilize these effects, the
government institutionalized the tradition of school declamations and juvenile performances at
court as the official school practice called “a public exam” (otkrytye ispytaniia), a “public act”
(publichnyi akt), a “solemn act” (torzhestvennyi akt), or even a “public gathering” (publichnoe
sobranie)—a nearly theatrical ceremony which included such elements as recitals of students’
poems and speeches, disputations or dialogues (razgovory), and hymns or canticles sung by a
73 Elena Pogosian, “Vostorg russkoi ody i reshenie temy poeta v russkom panegirike 1730–1762 gg.” (PhD diss.,
University of Tartu, 1997), 65, fn.38. Surprisingly, commenting on the word mladentsy, Pogosian has never brought
up the religious connotations of the word in Russian culture.
74 Matt. 21:15–16; Matt. 18:3.
75 Starting from Peter the Great, governance was described in terms of parenthood. For Peter the Great assuming the
title “the father of the fatherland” (the equivalent of the Latin pater patriae), see, for example: Richard Wortman:
Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995),
1: 63.

27
school choir.76 In addition to that, the state encouraged and even initiated regular publications of
juvenile writings.
Turning declamations into a part of the official school program, the state engaged student
writers to realize the principle of governing based on enlightening the nation.
77 First of all, it
sought to indoctrinate young authors through textbooks and other materials. As young people
learned their lines by heart,78 established the truth in disputations/dialogues, and identified with
the virtuous characters, they were supposed to adopt both language models and models of
behavior.79 When students wrote their own texts to present at a public act, the internalization was
even more obvious; writing in itself or combined with translation was considered to be one of the
best ways to instill values and beliefs into a young person. But at the same time, young people
76 Although these terms do not mean exactly the same, they were often used interchangeably, especially by
memoirists, and I follow this usage. The term “public gathering” seemed to be more common in St. Petersburg, and
the term “solemn act” was used since the 1820s, apparently, to distinguish the public ceremony from an actual exam,
see: “Dekabria 8. Ustav Gimnazii i Uchilishch Uezdnykh i prikhodskikh, sostoiashchikh v vedomstve Universitetov:
S. Peterburgsdkago, Moskovskago, Kazanskago, i Khar’kovskago,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii Rossiikoi Imperii.
Sobranie vtoroe (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830) 3: 1112.
77 The idea got articulated in the epoch of Catherine the Great when the enlightened monarch became not only the
parent but also the pedagogue of the nation. Richard Wortman: Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian
Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995), 1: 147. Later, the main ideologist of Nicolas I and the
Minister of National Education Sergei Uvarov even argued: “The theory of governing […] is similar to the theory of
education” (“Теория правительства […] походит на теорию воспитания.”) Sergei Uvarov, “Rech’,” in Izbrannye
trydy (Moskva: Rosspen, 2010), 271.
78 It is important to emphasize that despite the general pedagogical movement against learning by rote and even
intentions of the state to eliminate this practice, in reality, students would still memorize a lot of texts, especially
when they prepared for a public act. For the summary of how memorization worked in pedagogy, see: Mikhail
Gronas, “Mnemonic Lines: The Social Uses of Memorized Poetry,” in Cognitive Poetics and Cultural Memory:
Russian Literary Mnemonics (New York: Routledge, 2011), esp. 77–79.
79 For the didactic potential of school drama, see, for instance: Philip A. Coggin, The Uses of Drama: a Historical
Survey of Drama and Education from Ancient Greece to the Present Day (London: Thames and Hudson, 1956), esp.
ch. 12 and 13. As Alison Shell has noted, school drama in general has had double purpose, that is, “to entertain, by
advertising pupils’ skills to interested parties, and to educate, by training pupils in memory skills, voice production,
and the other arts of appearing before an audience.” See: Alison Shell, “Autodidacticism in English Jesuit Drama:
The Writings and Career of Joseph Simons,” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 13 (2001): 34. See also
how at the First Cadet Corps, theatrical activities were meant to help students to learn foreign languages. Dmitrii
Rudnev, “Prazdnichno-ritoricheskaia kul’tura v kadetskikh korpusakh,” in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste
prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (SanktPeterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010), 405.

28
broadcasted the textbook ideological messages in their performances at solemn acts and in their
publications. Besides learning themselves, students used the didactic potential of school
performances to educate the public. Juvenile “actors” prompted the audience to emulate them in
their love for the God-like enlightened monarch and their desire to be(come) ideal citizens.80

While students’ works served to praise the ruler and advocate for the state “scenarios of
power,” the practice of writing and reciting works at a public act cannot be reduced to means of
state propaganda. Of course, school exercises were supposed to instill certain values in young
people. Yet, some of these exercises, especially dialogues, subtly encouraged critical thinking
and, in a way, even prepared students for public debates. In addition to that, when a student was
chosen to present his speech at a public act, it increased his chances to enter state service and get
a higher rank in the future and, therefore, a chance to have real influence over social and political
matters. All of these could allow those people who went through school literary training to
transform the state-dominated public discourse into the public sphere. However, what a concrete
person chose to say depended on many, sometimes random, factors. Not every adolescent who
was exposed to training in writing and public speaking decided to question the official views
later, as a grown-up person. Often, writers limited their opinions on politics to the realm of
manuscript culture, for example, to the pages of personal journals or letters, while their public
statements in print fully supported the governmental policies.
This chapter consists of two parts. In the first part, analyzing legal documents and the
earliest juvenile texts, I will explain how the state institutionalized the tradition of juvenile
recitals, relying on the common belief about children’s exceptional sincerity and their ability to
represent the entire country as, so to say, “sons of the Fatherland.” In the second part, I will show
80 See the more detailed discussion on emulation in ch. 2.

29
how students were to internalize the state ideology through educational materials such as “On the
Duties of Man and Citizen” (1783) and broadcast it to the public, thus turning school visitors and
readers into students as well. I will conclude the chapter with a brief analysis of the case of
Vasilii Zhukovskii to show how his literary activities at school (in particular, dialogues) affected
his thinking and his contributions to state narratives as a grown-up writer.
1.1. From a Declamation to a Public Act: Institutionalization of Students’
Performances
While originally students’ performances extended from school curricula and, aside from
pedagogical needs, were used in missionary work,81 in Russian culture, they were first applied to
the tsar’s glorification and only then were integrated in the system of education.82 In the late
seventeenth century and throughout much of the eighteenth century students’ writings circulated
within the system of patronage: young authors themselves and/or their teachers were rewarded
by the ruler for creating his or her public image. Starting from the 1750s or, if we look at
secondary schools only, from the 1780s, the state consciously employed young people as
especially trustworthy speakers to create the monarch’s personal myth. Panegyrics became a part
of the educational system and a part of the official school curricula. Literary praises were now
acknowledged with academic awards and, therefore, a possibility to become best students and
81 See, for instance, an account of Polotskii’s own education in Ukraine, at Kiev Collegium: Ierofei Tatarskii,
Simeon Polotskii (ego zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’). Opyt issledovaniia iz istorii prosveshcheniia i vnutrennei tserkovnoi
zhizni vo vtoruiu poloviny XVII veka, (Moskva, 1886), 38–39.
82 As Nadezhda Efremova has noted, school drama did not exist in Moscow before the arrival of Polotskii simply
because there was no “regular school,” see: Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi
teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.: predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. … kand. isskustvovedeniia,
Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia, 2019), 82.

30
rise through the ranks. The school with its pedagogues and administrators functioned as a
mediator between the state that ordered literary production and students who fulfilled this order.
This systematization of juvenile literary exercises not simply encouraged but required young
people to translate state doctrine to the public—all across the Russian Empire.
The precedent was created in 1656, when students at the Epiphany Monastery in Polotsk
greeted the tsar Aleksei Mikhailovich with panegyrical declamation “Metres” (“Metry”)
composed by the “fathers and monks of the same monastery,” one of whom was Simeon
Polotskii.83 Using factual details, such as the tsar coming from the East, the authors stated that he
brought the light of faith and compared him to the sun, which also evoked associations with
Christ—the Tsar of Tsars and the Sun of Righteousness. 84 Referring to the biblical episode of
children welcoming Christ at Jerusalem, “Metry” and other earliest declamations introduced the
set of motifs which would become crucial in juvenile texts for decades and even centuries to
come. It was the motifs of speakers’ imperfections, lack of skills, understanding, experience, but,
at the same time, their unique ability to see the truth and exceptional sincerity of their feelings—
all associated with their youth. In other words, from the very beginning, students emphasized
83 The majority of scholars state that “Metry” was composed by Simeon Polotskii and recited by his students, see,
for instance: N.I. Prashkovich, “Iz rannikh deklamatsii Simeona Polotskogo (‘Metry’ i ‘Dialog kratkii’),” in Trudy
Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury (Moskva; Leningrad: Nauka, 1965), 21: 29–38; Anna Eleonskaia et al.,
“Stikhotvorstvo i dramaturgiia. Tvorchestvo Simeona Polotskogo (1629–1680),” in Istoriia russkoi literatury XVII–
XVIII vekov (Moskva: Vysshaia shkola, 1969), 183. Others, for example, Nadezhda Efremova, stress that Polotskii
was only one of the authors, and the extent of his contribution is hard to evaluate. Nevertheless, Efremova argues
that it was exactly a “school” declamation that became the model for panegyrics dedicated to the tsar, see: Nadezhda
Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.:
predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. … kand. isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia,
2019), 96.
84 These observations have been made by Nadezhda Efremova, see: Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona
Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.: predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. …
kand. isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia, 2019), 99.

31
their tender age, which was supposed to stress the genuine nature of their praises.85 Thus, despite
mentioning the authors (fathers and monks), the lengthy title of “Metry” specified the actual
addresser: “[…] from youths, at the school of the Holy Epiphany Church in the brotherhood
monastery in Polotsk, sent to greet his most illustrious majesty.”86 Another declamation,
“Rhymed Verses” (“Stisi kraesoglasnye,” 1656) contained “Foreword by the Little Ones”
(Predoslov ot malykh), in which the young performers asked the tsar to excuse the shortcomings
of their praises: “[…] we also want to offer [our praises], but, [we], carrying the lyre, are not able
to sing for the Tsar pleasantly.”87 While the humility topos was typical of Medieval East Slavic
literature, in this case, the lack of mastery was explained not simply by the imperfect human
nature of the performers but by their age as well. 88 Forwarding children to greet the Tsar instead
of doing it himself, Polotskii made the praises sound especially sincere. Later, he managed to
move to Moscow, where he became a court poet and personal tutor of the tsar’s children.
85 That observation on juvenile literature has been previously made by Elena Pogosian. Elena Pogosian, “Vostorg
russkoi ody i reshenie temy poeta v russkom panegirike 1730–1762 gg.” (PhD diss., University of Tartu, 1997), 65.
86 “[…] от отроков, знайдуючихся во училище при церкви святых богоявлениъ монастыря брацкого
Полоцкого мовеные при привитаню пресвятлого его царского величества.” Qtd. by: N.I. Prashkovich, “Iz
rannikh deklamatsii Simeona Polotskogo (‘Metry’ i ‘Dialog kratkii’),” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 21
(Moskva; Leningrad: Nauka, 1965): 32.
87 “[…] их же [the praises] и мы содержати хощем, но немощни суще, лиру возяще, царския песни сладце
соплетати.” Ierofei Tatarskii, Simeon Polotskii (ego zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’). Opyt issledovaniia iz istorii
prosveshcheniia i vnutrennei tserkovnoi zhizni vo vtoruiu poloviny XVII veka (Moskva, 1886), 48; also qtd. in: Anna
Eleonskaia et al., “Stikhotvorstvo i dramaturgiia. Tvorchestvo Simeona Polotskogo (1629–1680),” in Istoriia russkoi
literatury XVII–XVIII vekov (Moskva: Vysshaia shkola, 1969), 199.
88 Iulia Shustova has claimed that both Polotskii and his students composed poems for Aleksei Mikhailovich in
1660, relying on Igor Eremin’s work, see: Iulia Shustova, “Slova ‘Privetstvii’ v moskovskikh izdaniikh Bukvarei
60-kh godov XVII v.,” in Uchebniki detstva. Iz istorii shkol’ni knigi VII–XXI vekov, ed. N.B. Barannikova, V.G.
Bezrogov, G.V. Makarevich, 48, (Moskva: Rosskiiskii gosudarstvennyi gumanitarnyi universitet, 2013). Eremin,
however, never stated that in his article: “В 1660 г. Симеон несколько месяцев прожил в Москве; он приехал
сюда вместе с группой учеников полоцкого Богоявленского училища,—очевидно, хлопотать о денежном
пособии училищу; на приеме у царя полоцкие ‘отроки’ выступили с приветственными Алексею
Михайловичу ‘стихами краесогласными’ сочинения своего наставника.” (Igor Eremin, “Simeon Polotskii—
poet i dramaturg,” in Simeon Polotskii. Izbrannye sochineniia, edited by I.P. Eremin, 225, (Moskva: Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1953). The italics in the quotation is mine—E.Sh.)

32
As the system of education slowly developed in Russia, juvenile performances got
established not only in court rituals but also in pedagogical practice, mostly thanks to educators
who, just like Simeon Polotskii earlier, made their students recite panegyrics to facilitate their
own career.89 Thus, students at the Slavo-Greco-Latin Academy, the first formal institution of
higher education in Russia opened in 1687, were trained in rhetoric and poetics, and, led by their
teachers (the Leichoudes brothers), regularly presented their orations at the Kremlin in front of
the tsar and the patriarch and were rewarded for these literary offerings.
90 Occasional poetry such
as various canticles, poetic declamations, salutations, and orations were among the most popular
genres studied in seminaries:91 for example, in the 1720s, the curriculum of religious school in
Kazan included “gratulations and various salutations.”92 Young people presented panegyrical
canticles during ceremonial entries, the celebration of victories, and festive dinners. For instance,
in 1728 about four hundred students at Novgorod school participated in the ceremony organized
by Feofan Prokopovich for Peter II’s coronation. In 1742, twenty students from the seminary of
89 As Igor Fedyukin has argued, “we ought to understand the introduction of new institutions and organizational
forms as having been animated by the efforts of individuals and groups to implement their personal initiatives:
projects driven by career, material, or ideational considerations, or, most often, by a mixture of these.” See: Igor
Fedyukin, The Enterprisers: The Politics of School in Early Modern Russia (New York: Oxford University Press,
2019), 3. Panegyrics played a crucial role in the system of education in imperial Russia at least until the middle of
the nineteenth century, which should be a topic for a separate research project.
90 The earliest comments on such gratulations can be found in the works of Ivan Zabelin, see: Ivan Zabelin,
Materialy dlia istorii, arkheologii i statistiki goroda Moskvy. Ch. 1 (Moskva: Moskovskaia gorodskaia tipografiia,
1884). Zabelin’s observations have been later developed by Dmitrii Ialamas and Nikolaos A. Chrissidis, see: Dmitrii
Ialamas, “Privetstviia uchenikov Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii moskovskomu patriarkhu Ioakimu,” in The
Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow. Proceedings of the International Congress on the
Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity. Thessaloniki 26–28 November 1988, ed. Anthony-Emil N.
Tachiaos (Thessaloniki, 1992), 514; Nikolaos A. Chrissidis, An Academy at the Court of the Tsars: Greek Scholars
and Jesuit Education in Early Modern Russia (DeKalb, IL: NIU Press, 2016), 111.
91 See, for example: Alina Silina, “Seminarskie stikhotvornye pozdravleniia carmina gratulatoria.” Chteniia otdela
russkoi literatury XVIII veka 8 (2018): 60.
92 “гратуляции и приветствия различные.” Petr Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reform 1808 goda
(Kazan’, 1881), 99.

33
Nevskii monastery sang “Come, our light Elizabeth” (“Griadi nash svet, Elisavet”) during the
Empress’s coronation.93 “Disposition during the Cortege of Her Imperial Majesty the Most
Gracious Sovereign Empress Elizaveta Petrovna to St. Petersburg” included an article, which put
special emphasis on the seminarists’ participation. While such ceremonies continued to take
place at monasteries and seminaries throughout the eighteenth century,94 the first non-religious
educational institutions also picked up the practice, preparing verses for special occasions, such
as the sovereign’s birthdays and the celebrations of the new year.95 Thus, in the 1730s cadets at
the Noble Cadet Corps wrote odes praising Anna Ioannovna,96 and on the 20th of January in 1735
93 Nadezhda Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh, (Sankt-Peterburg: “Nauka,”
2005), 58–59. The canticle “Come, our light Elizabeth” was written by Mikhail Lomonosov, see: Sbornik kantov
XVIII veka (Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’svo, 1953), 122. See also earlier observations by Petr
Znamenskii: “Сохранилось описание ея [Elizabeth—E.Sh.] торжественных встреч в семинарии, при чем по
обычаю в честь ея пелись канты, говорились речи и стихи.” Petr Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do
reform 1808 goda (Kazan’, 1881), 176. As Alina Silina has noted, seminarists’ literary productions were addressed
not only to the monarchs, but also to bishops and archbishops who usually supervised a seminary and attended the
events there. Besides salutations recited during the ceremony, a bishop would also receive special handwritten
volumes of students’ congratulatory writings, usually on his patron saint’s day. Similar works were also sent to other
institutions, for hierarchs of other districts. Moreover, even the curriculum itself corresponded with the practical
needs of schools and was oriented towards producing panegyrical literature. School poetry even developed its own
genres which were unknown in other contexts, such as gratulations (carmina gratulatoria)—a rather short
panegyrical poem which served as a preliminary exercise to the ode that apparently was the most advanced poetic
task at seminaries. See: Alina Silina, “Seminarskie stikhotvornye pozdravleniia carmina gratulatoria.” Chteniia
otdela russkoi literatury XVIII veka 8 (2018):155–64; Alina Silina, “Gratuliatsiia kak zhanr seminarskogo
panegirika v rukopisnykh sbornikakh vtoroi poloviny XVIII veka,” in Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo molodezhnogo
nauchnogo foruma “LOMONOSOV–2015” (Moskva: MAKS Press, 2015), https://lomonosovmsu.ru/archive/Lomonosov_2015/data/section_28_6890.htm; Alina Silina, “Stikhotvornye opyty viatskikh
seminaristov serediny XVIII veka,” XVIII vek 28, (2015): 52–53.
94 See, for instance, the canticle dedicated to Catherine the Great, “Come, the most beloved Mother…” (“Гряди,
желаннейшая мати…”) sung by students at the Trinity Monastery in 1762, in: Opisanie vseradostneishago
vshestviia Blagochestiveishiia Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Altkseevny Samoderzhitsy Vserossiiskiia v SviatoTroitskuiu Sergievu lavru i prochago, chto v ono lavre V vysochaishee prisutstvie Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva
proizvodimo bylo, userdnu eia k bogu i ugodnikam ego goriachest’ Predstavliaiushchee oktiabria 17 dnia, 1762
goda (Pechatano pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universitete), also qtd. in Petr Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v
Rossii do reform 1808 goda (Kazan’, 1881), 495.
95 Pavel Berkov, “U istokov dvorianskoi literatury XVIII veka: Poet Mikhail Sobakin,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 9/10
(1933): 421–32; Pavel Berkov, Lomonosov i literaturnaia polemika ego vremeni: 1750–1765 (Moskva; Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1936), 24.
96 Pavel Berkov, “U istokov dvorianskoi literatury XVIII veka: Poet Mikhail Sobakin,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 9/10
(Moskva: Zhurnal’no-gazetnoe ob’’edinenie, 1933): 421–32.

34
the cadets Olsuf’ev and Rosen recited their poem in Russian and in German, respectively.97 Just
as before, both students and teachers received rewards for such recitals.
In the first half of the eighteenth century, juvenile “actors” continued to use Christian
imagery that first appeared in Polotskii’s declamations, but also introduced Classical parental
metaphors in their texts, which turned the young speakers into the representatives of all Russia.98
The parental metaphors also emphasized the sincerity of the subjects’ feelings: the love and
gratitude which subjects felt towards the monarch was the natural feelings of children to their
parents. In addition to that, such metaphors endowed the texts with a specific ability to mobilize
and unite the listeners/viewers/readers, which the state would be actively employing later to
manipulate the public opinion. Certainly, the use of such metaphors was not exclusive of
students. Expressions such as “the father” or “mother of the fatherland” regularly appeared in
other texts which formed public discourse, namely, sermons.99 For example, in his “A Speech on
the Day of the Coronation of the Sovereign Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna” (1724) Feofan
Provopovich already called Peter I “the father of the fatherland” (otets otechestva) and
Catherine—“crowned by God mother and our Sovereign” (bogom venchannaia mater’ i
Gosudarynia nasha).100 However, unlike “grown-up” literati, by simply mentioning their youth,
97 Pavel Berkov, Lomonosov i literaturnaia polemika ego vremeni: 1750–1765 (Moskva; Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo
Akademii nauk SSSR, 1936), 23–24.
98 This fusion was typical of the East Slavic Enlightenment which, according to Elise Wirtschafter, was deeply
rooted in Orthodox Christianity. For example, as she has noted, church intellectuals (the first “agents” of
Enlightenment in Russia) “took European ideas and gave them Orthodox meaning.” Elise Wirtschafter, Religion and
Enlightenment in Catherinian Russia: The Teachings of Metropolitan Platon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press;
2013), 12.
99 For sermons as an important part of public discourse, see, for instance: Elise Wirtschafter, Religion and
Enlightenment in Catherinian Russia: The Teachings of Metropolitan Platon (Ithaca: Cornell University Press;
2013).
100 Feofan Prokopovich, “Slovo v den’ koronatsii Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Alekseevny. Govorennoe v
Moskve v Uspenskom pervoprestol’nom sobore Maia 7 dnia 1724 goda,” in Slova i rechi (Sankt-Peterburg, 1761),
2: 107.

35
juvenile performers endowed these parental titles with additional overtones and substance. For
example, in the ode composed by Aleksandr Sumarokov in 1740 and dedicated to Anna
Ioannovna, Anna appears as “the dearest mother of the entire Russia” (Rossii vsei mater’
predragaia) and also the cadets’ mother:
Anna, be, be our mother from now forth!
We are becoming people from nothing.
If you did not rule here, mother,
Our life would be wasted.101
While at first Anna’s motherly “roles” are distributed between two different stanzas, at the end of
the ode they almost merge into one, and thus cadets, noblemen, and the entire Russia also
become one: “You are mother to us, Anna, mother of all your subjects,/And, with your
benevolence, mother of all nobility!”102
The next stage in the evolution of juvenile performances began after the opening of
Moscow university in 1755, when the state realized that young people’s words, perceived as
sincere and “consolidating,” could play a significant role in the formation of the public opinion.
Therefore, the state started to institutionalize the existing tradition.103 A school declamation,
which first transformed into a juvenile performance at court, now inspired an official school
101
“Анна, нам и впредь матерь буди, буди!/Мы из ничего становимся люди./Ты ж бы здесь когда, матерь, не
владала,/Жизнь бы наших лет даром пропадала.”Aleksandr Sumarokov, “E.I.V. Vsemilostiveishei Gosudaryne
Imperatritse Anne Ioannovne, Samoderzhitse Vserossiiskoi, pozdravitel’nye ody v pervyi den’ novogo goda 1740,
ot Kadetskogo korpusa sochinennye chrez Aleksandra Sumarokova,” in Izbrannye proizvedeniia, ed. Pavel Berkov
(Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957), 50.
102 “Ты нам, Анна, мать, мать всего подданства,/Милостью же к нам мать всего дворянства!” Ibid.
103 Nonetheless, it is important to note that neither teachers nor students stopped using panegyrics to archive their
personal career goals.

36
practice which became known as a public act, a solemn act, or a public exam.104 Thus, the decree
“On the Foundation of Moscow University and two gymnasia” (1755) ordered Moscow
university to hold public disputations twice a year, “inviting to those all the lovers of sciences”
and to have “one of the students say a short speech in Latin before disputations begin, and the
other one [say a speech] in Russian, after disputations end, […].”105
Moreover, the same decree
emphasized the significance of students’ writings and their display to the public: the best
students were supposed to read their essays and were publicly rewarded for them. Formally, such
ceremonies were meant to encourage young people to study (molodykh liudei pooshchrit’ k
naukam).106 But in reality, timed to the dates like the Empress’s accession to the throne or other
occasions of similar kind, a university public act constructed the image of the monarch who now
brought not only the light of Orthodox faith but also enlightenment.
107 Professors were literally
instructed how to introduce students’ writings in order to shape the desired narrative. Thus, the
104 While some elements of academic public ceremonies could be seen as early as in the 1720s, when Russian
Academy of Science was founded, those gatherings could be hardly compared to the public acts at Moscow
university, where, as Andrei Kostin has noted, “торжества […], связанные с непрерывным учебным циклом,
носили регулярный характер, достаточно быстро выработали ритуал, год за годом на протяжении
десятилетий возобновляемый, и представляют, таким образом, в отличии от Академии наук, для XVIII века
подлинную традицию праздника ученого сообщества.” Andrei Kostin, “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh
sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet),” in Okkazional’naia literatura v
kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova
(Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010), 415.
105 “приглася к оным всех любителей наук; одному из студентов до начатия диспутов, говорить краткую
Латинскую, а другому по окончании оных на Русском языке речь, […].” “Ob uchrezhdenii Moskovskogo
universiteta i dvukh gimnazii. S prilozheniem Vysochaishe utverzhdennogo proekta po semu predmetu,” in Polnoe
sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830), 14: 290. Of course, Russian university events were
also modeled after their counterparts in Europe, see: Sergij Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na
Vostoke Evropy,” Res historica 39 (2015): 173.
106 “Ob uchrezhdenii Moskovskogo universiteta i dvukh gimnazii. S prilozheniem Vysochaishe utverzhdennogo
proekta po semu predmetu,” in Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830), 14: 290.
107 Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton
University Press, 1995), 1:119; Irina Kulakova, Universitetskoe prostranstvo i ego obitateli (Moskva: Novyi
Khronograf, 2006), 25–48; Sergij Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy,” Res
historica 39 (2015): 178–79.

37
decree said that “[…] one of the Professors, praising the Motherly care of Her Imperial Majesty
for the well-being of Her subjects in general and, in particular, [Her] infinite generosity to this
University and the Russian youth studying there, should name those [students], who […] earned
the award from the University. […] After that, each of them [the students] should take their
written work from the Professor, read it out loud, and then, one of the Messrs. Trustees, and if
they are absent, the Director gives him [a student] the medal, announcing that Her Imperial
Majesty, the Most Gracious Sovereign, is giving him this medal as a sign of Her August pleasure
for his diligence and achievements in sciences.”108
Whatever the theme of students’ essays were,
placed in this context, they inevitably supported the main argument: students’ achievements
illustrated the care of the enlightened Empress.109 Curiously, while the Empress was not
physically present (unlike she would be at usual court ceremonies), the university public act was
still supposed to create the illusion of her active participation in this “spectacle”: she herself was
giving the medal to a student, and the Director or a Curator acted only as the extension of her
omnipresent power. Moreover, the official rhetoric even predetermined the public perception of
students’ narrative. The decree assumed that the public could identify themselves with young
108“[…] один из Профессоров представя с достойными похвалами Высокоматернее попечение Ея
Императорскаго Величества о благополучии Ея подданных вообще и особливо неизреченныя щедроты к
сему Университету, учащемуся в нем Российскому юношеству, должен объявить поименно тех, которые
[…] удостоены от всего Университета награждения. […] После сего каждый из них должен принять от
Профессора свое сочинение, прочитать оное публично, и тогда один из господ Кураторов, а не в бытность
их, Директор вручает ему медаль, с таким объявлением, что Ея Императорское Величество,
Всемилостивейшая Государыня жалует его сею медалию в знак Высочайшего Своего удовольствия о его
прилежании и добрых успехов в науках.” “Ob uchrezhdenii Moskovskogo universiteta i dvukh gimnazii. S
prilozheniem Vysochaishe utverzhdennogo proekta po semu predmetu,” in Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi
Imperii (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830), 14: 291.
109 Andrei Kostin has earlier observed that in the eighteenth-century a professor’s speech was often sandwiched
between two panegyrics to the ruler. “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia
Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet),” in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii
XVIII veka, ed. Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii
fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010), 415.

38
people. Since the Empress’s care about her subjects was called maternal (vysokomaternee
popechenie), Russian youth (rosskiiskoe iunoshestvo) conveniently exemplified the entire
Russian society (poddannye voobshche). The material rewards of the past were now
supplemented by academic rewards which could help an author to enter state service later and
move up in the system of ranks. In addition to that, the reward ceremony sent a signal not only to
students but to the public as well: academic achievements and interest in education in general
was approved by the state, and a student now was almost a model citizen.
Students became active creators of this public narrative which was requested by the state
from the university. Their works formed an important part of a public act, just like a couple of
decades ago cadets’ odes were a part of court ceremonies. For example, only in 1762 the
Ukrainian student Vasilii Sankovskii wrote six odes (dedicated to Catherine the Great, Grand
Duke Pavel Petrovich, and the memory of late Empress Elizaveta), one of which was recited at a
public act.110 Four other odes were written in 1763, with one of them, again, recited at a public
act, followed by an ode presented in 1764,111 and another ode in 1765.112 The major periodicals
affiliated with academic institutions, such as Moskovskie vedomosti or Ezhemesiachnye
sochinenia, regularly informed the readers about public exams, including the recitals of students’
speeches and poems.113 For example, in 1763, Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia reported that at the
public gathering at Moscow university, the student Ivan Grachevskoi delivered a speech in
110 Natal’ia Mel’nikova, Izdaniia napechatannye v tipografii Moskovskogo universiteta. XVIII vek (Moskva:
Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1966), 40.
111 Ibid., 53.
112 Ibid., 58.
113 Initially, the journal was called Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia k pol’ze i uveseleniiu sluzhashchiia. Later it changed
its name to Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia i izvestiia ob uchenykh delakh. The journal was affiliated with the Academy
of Sciences, while Moskovskie vedosmoti was published at Moscow university.

39
Russian, “about education as the source of true blessing in this [earthly?] life.”114 In 1768,
Moskovskie vedomosti shared the news about festivities on the same occasion and did not
hesitate to mention students’ input: “After presentations, both the speeches and the ode
composed by the student Andrei Protopopov were handed out to all attendees.”115 Moreover,
periodicals announced students’ performances. Thus, in 1764, the invitation to the public act
advertised Sankovskii’s recital: “[…] university students Dmitrei Sin’kovskoi and Il’ia Fedorov
educated at government expense will present the results of their studies in mineralogy and
experimental physics, respectively; and Vasilei Sankovskii [will recite] Russian verses.”116
Typically, university public acts featured the literary production of university students, but
students of the gymnasia opened at the university in 1755 also participated in these ceremonies.
For example, in 1756, one of the best students Denis Fonvizin (the future famous playwright)
recited a panegyrical poem to the Empress Elizabeth in Latin, and his name kept appearing in the
newspaper for the next following years.117 Significantly, all these reports and announcements
started with implied praises to the monarch: the journals and newspapers never forgot to mention
that a public act took place on such occasions as Catherine the Great’s birthday.118 State
114
“о учении яко источнике истинного блаженства в сей жизни.” to Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia i izvestiia ob
uchenykh delakh [1] (1763): 461–62.
115 “По окончании речей, как речи так и ода на сей высочайший день сочиненная студентом Андреем
Протопоповым всем присутствующим в собрании розданы были.” Moskovskie vedomosti 35 (1768): [1].
116 “[…] студенты ж университетские казенного содержания Дмитрей Синьковской и Илья Федоров имеют
читать опыты знания своего первой в минералогии, второй в физике экспериментальной; а Василей
Санковской российские стихи.” Natal’ia Mel’nikova, Izdaniia napechatannye v tipografii Moskovskogo
universiteta. XVIII vek (Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1966), 52–53.
117 Natalia Kochetkova, “Fonvizin Denis Ivanovich,” in Slovar’ russkikh pisatelei XVIII veka (Sankt-Peterburg:
Nauka, 2010), 3: 306.
118
“о учении яко источнике истинного блаженства в сей жизни.” to Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia i izvestiia ob
uchenykh delakh [1] (1763): 461–62.

40
periodicals, therefore, doubled the propagating effect of a public act itself and exposed to it a
bigger part of Russian society.
As a crucial part of a public act, students’ works not simply unfolded in front of the
viewers but invited them to participate in the performance. They emotionally united the speaker,
the immediate audience, and the entire nation. For example, in one of his odes dedicated to
Catherine the Great and recited at a public act in 1762, Vasilii Sankovskii explored the popular
motif of the monarch’s parental care:
Russia has now reached perfection
Through difficult paths.
CATHERINE led Russian children
To prosperity.119
The maternal metaphor, which opens the poem, immediately creates the room for the double
interpretation. Although Sankovskii does not refer to his status of a student, it is obvious to
anyone who is attending the public act. Therefore, “Russian children” in his poem could be both
students (who were often called “youth” or, indeed, “children”) and, at the same time, all
Russian subjects. Moreover, the young author directly addresses the public, making the viewers a
part of the spectacle:
Now, tell, Oh! Russians, yourselves,
Is not my song truthful?
And with your truth-telling mouths
You will confirm my thought.
The inexpressible joy of your hearts
Is seen (nachertanno) in your eyes,
119 “Уже Россия к совершенству/Чрез трудные пути пришла:/ЕКАТЕРИНА к благоденству/Детей Российских
привела.” Vasilii Sankovskii, Oda na Vozhdelenneishii den’ Vysokotorzhestvennago Tezoimenitstva Eia
Avgusteishago Imperatorskago Velichestva, Vsepresvetleishiia Derzhavneishiia Velikiia Gosudaryni Imperatritsy
Ekateriny Vtoryia, Samoderzhitsy Vserossiiskiia, chitannaia v publichnom sobranii Moskovskago Universiteta, 1762
goda Noiabria 26 dnia, Sochinennaia togozh Universiteta Studentom Vasiliem Sankovskim, https://poesis.ru/poetipoezia/sankovskij/frm_vers.htm.

41
That God entrusted you in Her care, […].
120
The viewers appear silent and display only non-verbal signals, i.e., the joy in their eyes. These
non-verbal signals are supposed to emphasize the sincerity of feelings which are coming from
the hearts of the viewers. At the same time, that also proves the sincerity of the speaker’s words:
in a way, he is not really the author the poem; he is just “reading” the emotion that have been
already “written” (nachertanno) in the eyes of his viewers.121 In the following stanza, the lyrical
character “sees through” the attendees and continues to turn their feelings into his own words:
Oh! If it was only possible
To have the direct access to one’s heart,
And, whatever it conceals
Was visible to everyone:
Then Russians would rush,
And all would demonstrate their hearts,
Because all [of their hearts] are glowing equally.
All of them display the same obedience,
Same love, same respect,
And the same zeal.
122
The lyrical subject of Sankovskii’s poem thus becomes the speaker for the audience and,
eventually, for entire Russia. While the audience “provides” the silent proof of sincerity of his
120
“Скажите днесь, О! Россы, сами,/Не справедливу ль песнь пою?/И безпритворными устами/Вы
подтвердите мысль мою./На зраке вашем начертанно/Сердец веселье не сказанно,/Что Ей во власть вас Бог
вручил,/ […].” Ibid.
121 See also ch. 3 about children who represented other nations in the Russian Empire.
122“О! Есть ли бы возможно было/Отверстый к сердцу путь иметъ,/И, чтоб оно в себе ни крыло,/Возможно
было всем узреть:/Тогда бы Россы поспешали,/И все свои сердца казали,/За тем, что все горят равно./
Одно у всех повиновенье,/Одна любовь, одно почтенье,/Усердие у всех одно.” Vasilii Sankovskii, Oda na
Vozhdelenneishii den’ Vysokotorzhestvennago Tezoimenitstva Eia Avgusteishago Imperatorskago Velichestva,
Vsepresvetleishiia Derzhavneishiia Velikiia Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia, Samoderzhitsy
Vserossiiskiia, chitannaia v publichnom sobranii Moskovskago Universiteta, 1762 goda Noiabria 26 dnia,
Sochinennaia togozh Universiteta Studentom Vasiliem Sankovskim, https://poesis.ru/poetipoezia/sankovskij/frm_vers.htm.

42
words, the lyrical character gives them his voice. The boundaries are getting blurred, and the
speaker, his audience, and all Russians nearly form one mind and one body, all thinking and
feeling in unison.
But what made juvenile performances a truly standard part of school curricula and the
countrywide phenomenon was the creation of the first national public school system in 1786.
The university practice was applied at the secondary schools as soon as they opened.123 Just like
in the case of Moscow university, the government required schools to hold public exams.124
Guide for Teachers of The First and Second Class of the Public Schools of the Russian Empire
(1783) included the entire section dedicated to the subject,125 and The Statute on Public Schools
(1786) mentioned public exams at least several times.126 Regulating the program of the event, the
documents, again, made students the main participants. Moreover, even if/when texts for a public
act were composed by a teacher, they were still supposed to be delivered by a child: “Every
public exam should be started with an appropriate short addressing to the audience, which, if
there are no students capable of that, should be composed by a teacher and recited by someone
123 Over time, school public acts lost some of their initial splendor (for example, school did not offer refreshments
for the guests anymore), but their general structure (an introductory speech, students’ recitals, singing of a canticle
or the national anthem, etc.) remained essentially the same.
124 Andrei Kostin has previously observed that both the first public gatherings at the Academy of Sciences and the
public act at Moscow University were regulated by the officials. From his observations, we can see that while the
Academy of Science was literally ordered to structure their events around the image of the monarch, Moscow
University was supposed to hold public acts for pedagogical purposes, namely, to encourage students to compete
and thus achieve better results in their studies. Andrei Kostin, “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka
(Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet),” in Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi
kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg:
Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010), 413–14. In reality, however, both types of events clearly contributed to the
“scenarios of power,” and so did school public acts.
125 Rukovodstvo uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh uchilishch Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannoe po
vysochaishemu poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1783), 112–14.
126 Ustav narodnym uchilishcham v Rossiiskoi Imperii, ulozhennyi v tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II (SanktPeterburg, 1786), 24–25, 29, 35, 41.

43
of the children. […] In conclusion, another student delivers another short speech, in which they
thank the public for visiting their school.”127 Formally, the documents talked about the
pedagogical and social benefits of public exams. The official goal of such an event was “to
report to the public what children study at schools, and how they thrive in learning; and thus to
encourage children to be studious, when they see that they are the object of everyone’s
attention.”128 But in addition to that, a public exam became one of the most important ideological
instruments. While the documents regulating the work of schools did not require teachers or
students to express their gratitude to the Empress, events at schools, just like at the university,
were timed to the most important state occasions. To start with, the very openings of public
schools were ordered to be held on the same day—the day of the Empress’s coronation (the 22nd
of September), “so this day, known for the bliss of Russia, will be also known as the day of the
beginning of Russia’s public enlightenment.” 129 Moreover, school “orators” felt obliged to
praise the Empress even without any official instructions: “[…] whatever topic a speaker chose,
they would have to manage to insert in it fervent gratitude to the monarch, the mother of the
127 “Всякое открытое испытание начинать должно пристойною краткою речью к собранию, которую, есть ли
нет к тому такого способного ученика, сочинить должен учитель, а сказывать кто нибудь из детей. […] В
заключение всего сказывает другой ученик другое краткое слово, в котором между прочим благодарит
собрание за удостоение училища их посещением.” Rukovodstvo uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh
uchilishch Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannoe po vysochaishemu poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny
Vtoryia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1783), 113–14.
128“обществу дать некоторой отчет в том, чему дети в училищах обучаются и как успевают; а чрез то самое
поощрять детей к прилежанию, когда оне видеть будут, что оне составляют предмет общаго внимания.”
Rukovodstvo uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh uchilishch Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannoe po
vysochaishemu poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1783), 112.
129 “дабы сей день, в блаженстве России знаменитый, имел сугубую славу и по начавшемуся в нем
всеобщему народному просвещению.” Aleksandr Spitsyn, “Istoriia Viatskago glavnago narodnago ichilishcha.
(1786–1811 g.g.),” in Kalendar’ Viatskoi gubernii na 1891 god (Viatka, 1890), 3. A similar observation on
university public acts has been previously made by Sergij Posokhov: Sergij Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia
kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy,” Res historica 39 (2015): 178–79.

44
fatherland, […].”130 Another proof of how invested the government was in school public exams
was mandatory reports that were to be sent to the Commission for the Establishment of Public
Schools. One of them, coming from Irkutsk school in 1790, for example, stressed the effect that
the public act had on the audience. The author of this document pointed at how the public
connected the display of children’s academic success to the parental care of the Empress: “All
visitors were delighted and surprised by all the achievements of the little children, after the
recent opening of the school, and [these achievements] filled their hearts with particular pleasure
and deep gratitude to the initiator of these blessings.”131 Curiously, this report also developed the
common motif of children’s young age and contrasted it with the rapid progress in their studies,
which, in turn, made the deeds of the Empress look even greater.
In comparison with university students, school children advocated for the government
even more effectively—they were a better fit to play the role of “babes and sucklings,”132 simply
because they were younger. The set of motifs, associated with students’ young age, which
previously demonstrated the sincerity of their words to the immediate addressee (the
monarch),133 was now employed to influence the public, and the traditional parental metaphors in
students’ texts ensured that the audience could relate to their words. Using the humility topos,
young people curiously transformed it into the motifs of “poor” academic performance.
130 “[…] , какую бы тему ни избрал произносивший речь, он должен был суметь вставить в нее горячую
благодарность монархине, матери отечества, […].” Aleksandr Spitsyn, “Istoriia Viatskago glavnago narodnago
ichilishcha. (1786–1811 g.g.),” in Kalendar’ Viatskoi gubernii na 1891 god (Viatka, 1890), 28–29.
131 “Всеми таковыми по недавнему открытию училища младых детей успехами все посетители были в
восторге и удивлении, и наполнили сердца их особливым удовольствием и чуствительною благодарностью к
виновнице сех благ.” Istoricheskii ocherk Irkutskoi gubernskoi gimnazii (Irkutsk, 1910), 1: 32.
132 Matt. 21:16.
133 For example, in cadets’ odes.

45
Describing the results of their studies, one of the children mentioned their “insufficient answers”
(nedostatochnye otvety), “unsuccessful solutions” (neudachnye resheniia), and “questionable
words” (somnitel’nye slova). But, paradoxically, it was exactly students’ mistakes, shortcomings,
and imperfections that exposed their “true” nature and thus proved the trustworthiness of their
statements. Addressing the public, another young orator drew the viewers’ attention to students’
shortcomings to show that they had nothing to conceal: “Our work and our flaws are not hidden
from the examination by [your] perceptive minds. [Our] understanding, capacities, diligence,
zeal, but, above all, our failures, have now appeared before your clearsighted eyes.”134 While
the lack of academic success proved young participants’ sincerity, the parental metaphors
encouraged the viewers to make parallels between the young actors and themselves. For
example, in 1795, at Moscow public school, students sang canticles composed by their teacher
Nikanor Vinogradov, celebrating the school’s relocation to a new building given by the Empress.
The canticles aligned the gradual unfolding of the parental metaphor with the spatial expansion
and panoramic view typical of an ode.135 Thus, in the first stanza, the “new vineyard of sciences”
is the concrete school and the “young children” are students themselves:
Great CATHERINE
Is making the new vineyard of sciences
To revive
And enlighten
The minds of young Russian children.136
134 “Деятельность и недостатки каждого из нас ничем не утаены пред рассуждением проницательных умов.
Понятие, способности, старание, прилежание, а больше всего неудачи наши, вблизи предстали
дальновидным глазам.” “1790 ianvaria 3. O pervom publichnom ispytanii v Kievskom glavnom narodnom
uchilishche,” Sbornik materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii izvlechennykh iz Arkhiva Ministerstva
Narodnago Prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1893), 1: 82.
135 See, for instance, the classic work of Harsha Ram: Harsha Ram, The Imperial Sublime: A Russian Poetics of
Empire (Madison, Wis.: University of Wisconsin Press, 2003), 5.
136 “Великая ЕКАТЕРИНА/Наук нов зиждет вертоград,/Чтоб оживить/И просветить/Умы Российски юных
чад.” Nikanor Vinogradov, “Kanty,” in Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago Narodnago Uchilishcha, po sluchaiu

46
But in the following stanzas the school space is expanding to encompass the entire country, and
all Russian subjects are now called children of “the Most Generous Russian Mother”:
[…] Within the embrace of peace and serenity,
Russian sons are blessed,
Resting in the blaze of glory. 137
Given that the canticles were written in the first person plural, and every student spoke on the
behalf of their peers, it additionally blurred the boundaries between the speakers and the
audience. Students start by referring to their school choir (“Let our joyful choir resound!”),138
which then multiplies into many choirs and eventually merges into one single voice of all
Russians:
Let us join our choirs together!
Let us blend our voice with the voice of strings,
Let us praise CATHERINE.
[…]
May the entire universe listen to this sound,
May it hear the voice of all Russians, […].139
pereveshcheniia onago vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha
dom, chto u Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28 dnia 1795 goda (Moskva, 1795), 23.
137 “[…] В объятьях мира, тишины,/Покоются во блеске славы/Щастливы Росские сыны.” Nikanor
Vinogradov, “Kanty,” in Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago Narodnago Uchilishcha, po sluchaiu pereveshcheniia
onago vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha dom, chto u
Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28 dnia 1795 goda (Moskva, 1795), 24.
138 “Раздайся наш сей хор веселый!” Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago Narodnago Uchilishcha, po sluchaiu
pereveshcheniia onago vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha
dom, chto u Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28 dnia 1795 goda (Moskva, 1795), 24.
139 “Торжественны составим хоры!/Со гласом струн наш глас сольем,/ЕКАТЕРИНУ воспоем./[…]/Да
внемлет звуку вся вселенна,/Да слышит общий Россов глас, […].” Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago
Narodnago Uchilishcha, po sluchaiu pereveshcheniia onago vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim
Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha dom, chto u Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28 dnia 1795 goda (Moskva,
1795), 24. For the role of actual school choirs in promoting state ideology, see the section 1.3.

47
Just like university acts, school solemn acts became popular public events, and
performances of schoolboys formed a big part of public discussion on education. While attending
the events at Moscow university was possible only for those who lived in the city, solemn acts at
secondary schools across the country directly involved the local population. In fact, although the
information about attendance varies, several sources state that the public considered these events
to be one of the very few available forms of entertainment in provinces.140 The accounts of
public exams were sent to Moscow university and the Academy of Sciences so they would be
published in newspapers.141 Moreover, juvenile works, previously presented at public acts, also
started more actively circulating in print. If before students’ publications were mostly associated
with Moscow university, in the 1780s, some public schools also launched their own periodicals
which included students’ publications. Thus, St. Petersburg public school (Glavnoe narodnoe
uchilishche goroda Sviatago Petra)
142 issued the journal Rastushchii vinograd—the initiative
apparently supported by Catherine the Great herself.143 In 1786, the journal published the speech
recited at Narva public school by the student Mikhailo Alekseev, in which he routinely praised
Catherine as “our most beloved Mother,” who nourish children and all Russians with “the lifegiving power of enlightenment.”144 This example also illustrates how students’ recitals became
140 Aleksandr Spitsyn, “Istoriia Viatskago glavnago narodnago ichilishcha. (1786–1811 g.g.),” in Kalendar’ Viatskoi
gubernii na 1891 god (Viatka, 1890), 27.
141 Istoricheskaia zapiska o sostoianii Tobolskoi gimnazii za 100 let ee sushchestvovaniia. 1789–1889 (Tobol’sk,
1889), 12.
142 This public school was opened earlier than others, in 1783.
143 O. Barabanov, “Pervye publikatsii T.F. Osipovskogo. Zhurnal ‘Rastushchii vinograd’ 1785–1787 gg.,” in
Provintsiial’nyi gorod v istorii Rossii (Shuia: Politsentr, 2013), 45.
144 Mikhailo Alekseev, “Rech’, govorennaia pri otkrytom ispytanii v Narvskom Narodnom Uchilishche, v prisudstvii
Ego Prevoskhoditel’stva Tainago Sovetnika Senatora i Kavalera Petra Vasil’evicha Zavadovskago, i Ego Siiatel’stva
Tainago Sovetnika Senatora i Kavalera Mikhaila Vasil’evicha Dolgorukova, i mnogochislennago sobraniia, togo
uchilishcha uchenikom Mikhailom Alekseevym. Noiabria 18 dnia 1786 goda,” Rastushchii vinograd Dekabr’
(1786): 91–92.

48
popular at schools on the outskirts of the Russian Empire (Narva), and how they were brought to
the attention of the public in the capital.
In the nineteenth century, making exercises in writings and recitals a solid part of the
educational system ensured flowless literary production by juvenile writers. At every following
stage of educational reforms, the state confirmed the importance of a public act in school
curricula and, therefore, the role of students’ writings and/or performances in the formation of
public discourse. After the Ministry of National Education factually replaced the Commission for
the Establishment of Public Schools in 1802, the government did not forget to mention public
acts. Just as the regulations on the university and public schools, the Statute had a special section
on public exams at gymnasia and provincial schools (uezdnye uchilishcha).145 A couple of
decades later, The Statute on Gymnasia, Provincial and Parish Schools (1828) also included a
section describing public acts with a specific mentioning of students’ literary works: “After the
end of exams, one should set up the date for the solemn act, to which one specially invites
students’ parents and local authorities. Students, or teachers deliver appropriate speeches or
present their short written works, […].”146 The same applied to a public act at gymnasia.147 In
1828, Russian letters became a separate discipline in the official school curriculum, which
145 “Vysochaishche utverzhdennyi ustav uchebnykh zavedenii, podvedomykh Universitetam,” in Polnoe sobranie
zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, s 1649 goda (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830), 28: 634, 638.
146 “По окончании испытаний, назначается день для торжественного акта, к коему в особенности
приглашаются родители учеников и местные Начальства. Ученики, или Учители, произносят приличные
сему торжеству речи или читают небольшие сочинения, […].” “Dekabria 8. Ustav Gimnazii i Uchilishch
Uezdnykh i prikhodskikh, sostoiashchikh v vedomstve Universitetov: S. Peterburgsdkago, Moskovskago,
Kazanskago, i Khar’kovskago,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii Rossiikoi Imperii. Sobranie vtoroe (Sankt-Peterburg,
1830) 3: 1106.
147
“Dekabria 8. Ustav Gimnazii i Uchilishch Uezdnykh i prikhodskikh, sostoiashchikh v vedomstve Universitetov:
S. Peterburgsdkago, Moskovskago, Kazanskago, i Khar’kovskago,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii Rossiikoi Imperii.
Sobranie vtoroe (Sankt-Peterburg, 1830) 3: 1106.

49
required students to exercise in writing.148 Writing an essay was now an important step towards
graduation from school. Several educational districts (Kazanskii, Sankt-Peterburgskii, Odesskii,
Kievskii, Kavkazsckii) had mandatory literary discussions (literaturnye besedy), at which young
people recited and analyzed not only the works of established writers but also their own
works.149 Each of these districts included several provinces, and the total number of students’
works written and recited during these literary discussions was massive. Many of these works
were also presented at school public acts and/or published.
Just like before, a school public act was a performance which shaped the narrative on the
enlightened monarch and education as the foundation of citizenship. The events themselves were
still timed to the events of state importance, “in 1809 and 1810, for example, they took place on
the 15th of September—the day of Alexander I’s coronation, or in 1826 and 1828— on the 25th of
June—on Nicolas I’s birthday.” 150 The structure of students’ speeches also remained traditional:
according to memoirists, these texts inevitably contained “addressing to the sovereign and
expression of reverential gratitude to the August patron of enlightenment for [his] beneficence
and care about us.”151 Furthermore, even though the ruler did not attend a typical public act,
especially at a local school, his or her presence was substituted by the portrait which was usually
148 For Russian letters as a separate discipline at secondary schools, see: Andy Byford, “Between literary education
and academic learning: the study of literature at secondary school in late imperial Russia (1860s–1900s),” History of
Education 33, no. 6 (2004): 637–60.
149 Aleksandr Reut, “Literaturnye besedy v rossiiskoi shkole XIX–nachala XX veka kak pedagogicheskii phenomen”
(diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2017).
150 “чаще всего открытыя испытания приурочивались к каким- либо торжественным дням; в 1809 и 1810
годах, напр., они происходили 15-го сентября—в день коронации императора Александра I, или в 1826 и в
1828 гг.—25-го июня—в день рождения императора Николая I.” P. Strakhov, Istoricheskii ocherk Vladimirskoi
gubernskoi gimnazii (Vladimir na Kliaz’me, 1891), 88.
151 “обращение к государю и изъявление чувства благоговейной признательности августейшему
покровителю просвещения за попечение и заботливость об нас.” Ivan Panaev, Literaturnye vospominaniia
(Moskva: Pravda, 1988), 38.

50
displayed in every school hall. 152 Often students addressed the portrait while they delivered their
speeches and poems, just like they would address the real monarch.153According to the poet and
journalist Nikolai Sushkov, who wrote memoirs about the Moscow Boarding School for the
Nobility, the portrait was an important element of a public act at the school: “[…], students, from
the pulpit, under the portrait of the reigning patron of sciences, delivered appropriate ceremonial
speeches in Russian and in one or two foreign languages; then recited poetry and prose of
famous writers in different languages, and also their own exercises in poetry and prose; […].”154
In Sushkov’s text, the portrait frames the entire event. Furthermore, the expression “under the
portrait” (pod portretom) reveals the God-like features of the monarch: the spatial position of the
frame makes it look like he or she is watching the ceremony from above. The writer Ivan
Panaev, who studied at the Boarding School for Nobility in St. Peterburg, similarly described his
graduation ceremony as a performance in front of the emperor:
Rehearsals at the school hall started. […] The superintendent [of St.
Petersburg educational district] K.M. Borozdin showed up at one of
them […].
152 This tradition had apparently existed since the foundation of the Slavo-Greco-Latin Academy. “Средина второго
яруса занята была огромною залою, украшенною кафедрою и портретом Царя Федора. Эта зала назначена
для публичных собраний, для диспутов, а в XVIII веке в ней помещен богословский класс.” Sergei Smirnov,
Istoriia Moskovskoi Slaviano-Greko-Latinskoi Akademii (Moskva, 1855), 40.
153 That fact has been previously observed by Sergij Posokhov, in relation to public acts at Kazan university, see:
Sergij Posokhov, Universitet i gorod v Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX vv.)
(Khar’kov: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2014), 34.
154 “[…] воспитанники, с возвышенной кафедры под портретом царствующего покровителя наук, говорили
приличные торжеству речи на русском языке и на одном, или двух из иностранных; потом читали наизусть
стихи и прозу известных писателей на разных языках, а также и собственные опыты в стихах и прозе; […].”
Nikolai Sushkov, Moskovskii universitetskii blagorodnyi pansion i vospitanniki Moskovskago universiteta, gimnazii
ego, Universitetskago blagorodnago pansiona i Druzheskago obshchestva (Moskva, 1858), 50.

51
—It would be nice,—he noted,—if when you made concluding
remarks you would turn to the portrait of the emperor, raise your right
hand and try to shed a tear.155
A school public act, therefore, continued to construct the narrative requested by the
state. Besides that, even though no documents required young people to show emotions, some
officials, as we can see from the example cited above, instructed students to do so. It is unclear if
Borozdin expected Panaev to experience genuine emotions. The word “try” suggests that he did
not. Apparently, Panaev’s feelings just had to be believable enough, just like the those displayed
by a good actor who evokes them in the public.
Moreover, from the early nineteenth century, the Ministry of National Education started
to broadcast these narratives in print. Both state-owned and private periodicals, some of which
were loyal to the state and/or translated the official ideology—Moskovskie vedomosti, Vestnik
Evropy, Rossiiskii muzeum, Syn Otechestva, Blagonamerennyyi, Sorevnovatel’ prosveshcheniia i
blagotvoreniia, Damskii zhurnal, Molva—offered descriptions of public acts, listed the names of
student authors and the titles of their works, quoted these works, or just published them. For
example, in 1822, Moskovskie vedomosti reported on the public act which took place in
Ekaterinodar (now Krasnodar): “[…] when the exam for students at the provincial school ended,
the gymnasium student Mikhail Taranovskii read an allegorical narrative poem on how avoiding
useful activities always leads to regrets later, […].”156 But the most important publisher of
155 “Начались репетиции в публичной зале. […] На одну из репетиций явился и попечитель К. М. Бороздин
[…]. —Было бы недурно,—заметил он мне,—если бы вы при заключительных словах обратились к
портрету государя императора, приподняли правую руку и постарались бы прослезиться.” Ivan Panaev,
Literaturnye vospominaniia (Moskva: Pravda, 1988), 39.
156“[…] когда окончено было испытание учеников уезднаго училища, ученик гимназии Михаил Тарановский
читал аллегорическую повесть в стихах о том, что уклонение от полезных занятий всегда влечет за собой
позднее раскаяние, […].” “Iz Ekaterinodara, Iiulia 6,” Moskovskie vedomosti 62 (1822): 1914.

52
juvenile writings was the Ministry of National Education itself. Starting from 1803, the Ministry
launched its own journal, Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo
prosveshchenia,
157 which later appeared under the titles Zhurnal Departamenta narodnogo
prosveshcheniia (1821–1824), Zapiski Departamenta narodnogo prosveshcheniia (1825, 1827,
1829), and, eventually, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia (from 1834).
Distributing students’ works, the Ministry also guided the public perception of it. It drew
attention to the connection between juvenile writings and the progress of enlightenment in
general. Thus, the first issue of Periodicheskoe sochinenie said: “[…] since the success of public
education can be proved the best with the writings and other works of students themselves, who
will study at Schools founded by the generosity of the August Monarch; the editors of this
periodical hope that these Schools will help them by sending their [the students’] works.”158 In
the period between the late 1830s and early 1850s, Pribavleniia k Zhurnalu Ministerstva
Narodnago Prosveshcheniia even had a special section entirely composed of students’ works,
“Trudy vospitannikov uchebnykh zavedenii.” In addition to that, starting from the 1830s,
juvenile exercises in poetry and prose were regularly published in such official periodicals as
provincial gazettes (gubernskie vedomosti).
Thus, between the 1780s and 1860s the state institutionalized the practice of juvenile
writings and declamations. What started as educators’ individual attempts to facilitate their own
157 Later, the journal had the following titles: Zhurnal Departamenta narodnogo prosveshcheniia (1821–1824),
Zapiski Departamenta narodnogo prosveshcheniia (1825, 1827, 1829), and, eventually, Zhurnal Ministerstva
Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia (1834–1917).
158 “[…] как успехи народнаго просвещения наилучше доказаны быть могут сочинениями и другими
трудами самых воспитанников, которые обучаться будут в Училищах, щедротами Всеавгустейшаго
МОНАРХА учреждаемых; то издатели сего Периодическаго Сочинения ласкают себя надеждою, что
Училища сии спомоществовать им будут в издании онаго, сообщая свои произведения.” “Preuvedomlenie,”
Periodicheskoe sochinenie o uspekhakh narodnago prosveshcheniia 1803 (1): II.

53
career became a significant part of the educational system. Following the formal educational
program, teachers and school administrators fulfilled the governmental order for literary
production. Juvenile writers not only made their texts sound sincere and engaging but also were
much easier to control than grown-up writers. Teachers and school administrators made sure that
adolescents follow model texts and also immediately enforced censorship, even before the state
did. These factors made students ideal state “speakers,” which made writing and reciting
panegyrical texts mandatory and consistent, and, in addition to that, ensured its circulation in
public spaces (at schools) and in print.
1.2. Russia in School: Students’ Performances as a Pedagogical Instrument
for Children and Adults
Starting from Catherine the Great, the state had introduced unified school programs,
which implied the use of specific textbooks approved or even ordered for this purpose by the
government.159 Although such programs were aimed at children and adolescents, the grown-up
public was also exposed to these educational materials, and students’ writings played a crucial
role in this process. Using copybooks, textbooks, and chrestomathies to obtain penmanship skills
and to model their own texts after, students were supposed to internalize the state ideology, and
learning texts by heart to recite them at public acts additionally secured the results of this
internalization. However, by exhibiting their handwritten exercises and reciting poems and
speeches at school public acts, students translated the official views to the public. Given that in
159 J.L. Black, Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth Century
Russia (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1979), 130–
51.

54
their speeches students often addressed their peers and urged them to reinforce their patriotic/
academic efforts, and that the line between children and the audience was often blurred, grownup visitors at public act got involved in the learning process as well. Since public acts were a
widespread practice and had extensive coverage in periodicals, the number of grown-up
“students” was quite big. Exercises in writing turned the entire country into a huge classroom,
where subjects were prepared to become ideal citizens.
The first lists of approved educational materials appeared in the Statute of 1786. Major
public schools (glavnye narodnye uchilishcha) had four grades, and the materials varied
depending on the grade. But whether it was copybooks or textbooks, they all instructed children
on their civic responsibilities. The Statute did not specify which copybook exactly teachers were
supposed to use. However, we can assume that one of the manuals which could be used at the
time was Russian Primer with Greek Primer and Primary Civic Education for Instructing
Russian Youth in Penmanship (Rossiiskaia Azbuka s prisovokupleniem Grecheckoi i
Grazhdanskogo nachal’nogo ucheniia dlia obucheniia iunoshestva chistopisaniiu).
160 The
copybook was clearly based on the primer prepared by Catherine the Great herself in 1781,161
which, besides the standard set of religious texts, contained the section “Primary Civic
Education” (Nachal’noe grazdanskoe uchenie). The section included 138 maxims, some in
catechistic form, which described the behavior of a morally impeccable individual and different
ways in which he or she contributes to society. For example, the article no. 105 and no. 106 read
as follows: “105. Question: Who is a good citizen? 106. A good citizen is the one who accurately
160 The copy I accessed at the Russian National Library does not have the year of publication. However, according to
the Library, it could not be later than 1800, as the copy was printed on the paper with the watermark of this year.
161 I had access to a later edition: Rossiiskaia Azbuka dlia obucheniia iunoshestva chteniiu, napechatannaia dlia
obshestvennykh shkol (Sankt-Peterburg, 1782).

55
fulfills all his civic duties; domestic duties: as a son, as a brother, as a husband, as a father, as the
one who is served, or the one who serves, depending on his status; social duties: as the one who
lives in society; and the duties of friendship: as a friend and as a good neighbor.” 162 The
copybook included a somewhat shorter version of “The Primary Civic Education,” but,
importantly, cited these statements. These primer and copybook were essential in school
curricula, but what became the true foundation of Catherinian education was the textbook for
public schools—“On the Duties of Man and Citizen” (1783) based on the work of the Prussian
pedagogue Johann Ignaz von Felbiger.163 The book, in a way, elaborated on “The Primary Civic
Education” and carefully described the social order in Russia and the duties assigned to each of
the groups: clergy (dukhovenstvo), nobility (dvorianstvo), military (voennye liudi), common
people (prostyi narod, prostye liudi), and the middle class (meshchane).164 The book reflected
Catherine’s intention to create “quiet and useful citizens,”165 who would be performing their
duties determined by their social status and thereby contributing to the common good.
162 “105. Вопрос: Что есть добрый гражданин? 106. Добрый гражданин есть тот, который выполняет с
точностию все гражданские обязательства; домашния: яко сын, яко брат, яко муж, яко отец, яко
получающий услуги, или яко отправляющий служение по состоянию, в котором находится; общественныя:
яко в обществе живущий; и дружеския: яко друг и яко добрый сосед.” Rossiiskaia Azbuka dlia obucheniia
iunoshestva chteniiu, napechatannaia dlia obshestvennykh shkol (Sankt-Peterburg, 1782), 78.
163 J.L. Black’s English translation of the book. J.L. Black, Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and
Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth Century Russia (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly; New York: distributed
by Columbia University Press, 1979), 134–35.
164 O dolzhnostiakh cheloveka i grazhdanina, kniga k chteniiu opredelennaia v narodnykh gorodskikh uchilishchakh
Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannaia po vysochaishemu poveleniiu tsarstvuiushchei Imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia (SanktPeterburg, 1783), 125–42. Henceforth I am citing J.L. Black’s English translation of the book. J.L. Black, Citizens
for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth Century Russia (Boulder, Colo.:
East European Quarterly; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1979), 249–54.
165 Max J. Okenfuss, “Education and Empire: School Reform in Enlightened Russia,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte
Osteuropas 27, no. 1 (1979): 60.

56
Students were supposed to absorb these maxims in the process of learning. Public
schools provided basic education, and did not offer any training in rhetoric and poetics, so it
would be safe to assume that the majority of students’ texts were written by their teachers, and
the internalization of the state doctrine did not occur through composing texts.166 Most likely, it
was ingrained through penmanship lessons (chistopisanie) and rote learning. Chistopisanie
occupied an important place in school curricula. The Statute mentioned not only a copybook but
also a penmanship manual, and the Guide for Teachers described the subject in painful detail,
almost on twenty pages, with a note at the end: “All these rules, although they have been already
discussed in the penmanship manual; are repeated here again for better abidance.”167 Penmanship
was a crucial skill in state service, and the government, among other matters, was interested in
educating future officials who would be able to ensure the operation of the bureaucratic
apparatus. However, by learning to write, children absorbed the basic rules of citizenship as well,
even if it was only a side effect of chistopisanie. Moreover, despite all the criticism of rote
memorization, memoirs are full of evidence that this method was quite popular, and it was
definitely used to prepare students for demonstrations of their academic success in public.
Getting ready for a public exam, students memorized texts and endlessly rehearsed their
“lines.”168
166 At public schools, students did some exercises in writing, but they were limited to composing elementary texts
“used in social life” (v obshchezhii upotrebitel’nykh), namely, letters, notes, and the like. Ustav narodnym
uchilishcham v Rossiiskoi Imperii, ulozhennyi v tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II (Sankt-Peterburg, 1786), 7.
167“Все сии правила хотя уже показаны в руководстве к чистописанию; однако здесь нарочно повторяются
для вящшаго оных наблюдения.” Rukovodstvo uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh uchilishch
Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannoe po vysochaishemu poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia (SanktPeterburg, 1783), 69.
168 Aleksandr Spitsyn, “Istoriia Viatskago glavnago narodnago ichilishcha. (1786–1811 g.g.),” in Kalendar’ Viatskoi
gubernii na 1891 god (Viatka, 1890), 27.

57
Just as recitals, students’ handwritten exercises were a part of a typical public exam, and
as a part of a “school spectacle” they could have some didactic functions. According to the
official regulations, a teacher was required to place on the desk “in front of the school Director,
[…], […] handwritten exercises, letters and other results of students’ labors.” 169 Schools
followed this order. Thus, a report on the public act at Simbirsk school in 1799 stated that
“students presented their written assignments and drawings; […].”170 The verb “present”
(predstavliat’) used in this sentence was hardly accidental: having the same root as the word
“performance” (predstavlenie) it conveyed the idea of the theatrical aspect of the public act in
general. Unfortunately, we do not know which texts students copied but it would not be
unreasonable to assume that “The Primary Civic Education” was one of these texts. Perhaps,
when the public approached the desk to look at those students’ “labors,” they could see the
quotations from Catherine’s Azbuka. Although a quick glance at the lines was unlikely to change
one’s consciousness, it could probably make a school visitor to remember a sentence or two.
Recitals, however, were the core of a public act, and, without doubt, influenced the
audience. In some cases, students only alluded to Azbuka and “On the Duties of Man and
Citizen”; in other cases, they cited the texts almost word for word. For example, at a solemn act
which took place at Kiev public school in 1790, talking about the results of their studies, one of
the students used the expression “the first fruits of our first lessons” (pervye uspekhi pervogo
169 “пред Директором училища, […], […] списки, письма и другие опыты ученических трудов.” Rukovodstvo
uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh uchilishch Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannoe po vysochaishemu
poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1783), 112–13. The word spisok could
have at least two different meanings: a list (of students, presumably) and a handwritten copy of a text. The school
curriculum which included classes in penmanship as well as “chronicles” of school and memoirs clearly suggests the
second meaning. See also ch. 2, p. 40. About students’ written assignments prepared for demonstrations, see also:
Stoletie Tomskago uezdnago ichilishcha (Tomsk, 1889), 13.
170 “ученики представляли письменные упражнения и рисунки; […].” Simbirskaia gubernskaia gimnaziia, ed. I.
Bezgin (Sankt-Peterburg, 1888), 16.

58
ucheniia nashego). The expression could remind one of the popular primer written in 1720 by
Feofan Prokopovich, entitled The First Lessons to Youth (Pervoe uchenie otrokom, v nem zhe
bykvy i slogi).
171
However, students could refer to Catherine’s primer as well and, in particular,
to grazhdanskoe nachal’noe uchenie. Thus, talking about their learning goals, which were set
for them by the Empress, students listed the following: “to make us honest people, good citizens,
useful members of society and true sons of the Fatherland…”172 At the same time, students
quoted Felbiger’s textbook. Describing how Catherine built “this temple, the temple of
enlightenment,” one of the students said: “Here we, […], are learning to understand our duties
before God, the Sovereign, authorities, parents, our neighbor, and ourselves.”173 Of course, the
young orator was talking primarily about himself and his peers. Yet, the word “here” included
the audience who was present at the exam and listened to these speeches.
Sometimes the entire school event could be based on the textbook principles. To put it in
a different way, students “staged” the textbook for the public. That happened, for example, in
1792 at Viatka public school. Unfortunately, we do not know the entire program of that public
act, but even a couple of elements can shed light on how such an event functioned.174 Among
171 Feofan Prokopovich, Pervoe uchenie otrokom, v nem zhe bukvy i slogi (1720). According to Max Okenfuss, the
primer was reprinted more than twenty times and was still in print in 1812. Max Okenfuss, The Discovery of
Childhood in Russia: The Evidence of the Slavic Primer (Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1980), 57.
172 “устроить нас прямыми человеками, добрыми гражданами, полезными общества сочленами и истинными
отечества сынами…” “1790 ianvaria 3. O pervom publichnom ispytanii v Kievskom glavnom narodnom
uchilishche,” Sbornik materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii izvlechennykh iz Arkhiva Ministerstva
Narodnago Prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1893), 1: 81.
173 “Здесь мы, […], научаемся познавать должность нашу к Богу, к государю, к начальникам, к родителям, к
ближнему, и к самим себе.” “1790 ianvaria 3. O pervom publichnom ispytanii v Kievskom glavnom narodnom
uchilishche,” Sbornik materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii izvlechennykh iz Arkhiva Ministerstva
Narodnago Prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1893), 1: 80.
174 My analysis is based on the quotations from the documents of the Department of Public Welfare (Prikaz
obshchestvennogo prizreniia), generously quoted by Vasilii Iur’ev: Vasilii Iur’ev, Narodnoe Obrazovanie v Viatskoi
guberniiv tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II-i. Materialy k istorii Viatskoi gimnazii, po povodu eia stoletiia
(1786– 1886) (Viatka, 1887).

59
other parts, the act included a “hymn” which opened and ended the public exam, and a colored
engraving which was demonstrated to the audience. Together, these two elements of the
performance essentially instructed the audience in accordance with Catherinian rules. The hymn
(most likely sung by the students) contained lines which looked like if they were taken directly
from “On the Duties of Man and Citizen”:
The Russian [citizen] is enlightened now,
The unreasonable one has been taken away,
The way of thinking has changed,
The temple of sciences is open to everyone.
The military, the churchman and the nobleman,
The peasant and the commoner (meshchanin)
Are being educated [here] in subjects. 175
The engraving illustrated the hymn in the following way: “In the light which came from the
clouds spreading from the monogram of the hero of the day (Catherine), among the plain, there
was a globe, and there were children of various ranks surrounding it, each of whom had
instruments of learning: […]. In an outlying valley, the crowd of people are looking at the
studying youth with curiosity, and two peasants from the crowd, who reached a great age but
remained uneducated,176 seeing their young fellow countrymen, were envious of the blissful fate
of the Russian…”177

175 “Росс уж ныне просветился,/Суевер прочь удален,/Образ мыслей пременился,/Храм наук всем отворен./
Воин, жрец там с дворянином,/Земледелец с мещанином/Образуются в предметах.” Vasilii Iur’ev, Narodnoe
Obrazovanie v Viatskoi guberniiv tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II-i. Materialy k istorii Viatskoi gimnazii, po
povodu eia stoletiia (1786– 1886) (Viatka, 1887), 58.
176 It is unclear from the description though how exactly the artist portrayed the “ignorance” and “barbarity”
(nevezhestvo) of those old people who envied children.
177 “При сиянии, из облаков простирающимся от вензелевого имени виновницы (Екатерины), среди
склонившейся долу равнины, представлен был глобус и вокруг него разного звания дети, из которых
каждый имел при себе орудия наук: […]. В отдаленной несколько долине на обучающееся юношество с
любопытством взирает собрание людей, из коих двое поселян, достигнувшие глубокой старости, но будучи
невежественны, узрев молодых своих соотичей, завидовали блаженной участи Росса...” Vasilii Iur’ev,

60
Both the hymn and the engraving made children the model of behavior and encouraged
adults to learn from the “little ones.” What immediately strikes in the poem and in the
description of the image is the word “Russian” (Ross), which equated a child with an abstract
exemplary citizen. The engraving essentially portrayed a public act in an allegorical form:
students presenting the academic achievements and grown-ups in the audience watching their
performance. Children also appeared the object of envy for adults—that “gathering of people”
(sobranie liudei) who looked from a distance. The distinction between the adults and the children
also represented the past and the present of Russia itself, which was reflected in the inscription
right under the Empress’s name: “What the grandfather or the father considered a miracle,/His
grandson or his son learned in Catherinian age.” 178 Moreover, while children personified the
glorious present of Russia, their age also implied further development and even greater good for
the country in the future.179 Such images with poetic commentaries provided the viewers with an
explanation of the concrete event which they attended and the educational policy in general.
Even though some students’ performances did not adhere to every word in the textbook,
they still stayed within the limits of official ideology. We can see that in the dialogues presented
at Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility in the 1790s—the performances which utilized the
didactic power of drama and catechesis, targeting both the students and the public.
180 I would
Narodnoe obrazovanie v Viatskoi guberniiv tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II-i. Materialy k istorii Viatskoi
gimnazii, po povodu eia stoletiia (1786– 1886) (Viatka, 1887), 55–57.
178 “Что дед или отец за чудо почитал,/То внук иль сын в Екатеринин век узнал.” Vasilii Iur’ev, Narodnoe
obrazovanie v Viatskoi guberniiv tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny II-i. Materialy k istorii Viatskoi gimnazii, po
povodu eia stoletiia (1786– 1886) (Viatka, 1887), 55–57.
179 For a detailed discussion on how children symbolized the future of Russia and its unlimited potential see ch. 3.
180 As Wirtschafter has stated, “eighteenth-century theater represented one of the earliest forums in which Russians
self-consciously imagined themselves as members of a social collective.” Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, The Play of
Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 2003), 83.

61
like to focus on the text “On How One Should Strive to Acquire Knowledge and Skills for
Various Duties While Educating One’s Heart” (O tom, chto vo vremia vospitaniia, obrazuia
serdtse, dolzhno starat’sia o priobretenii znanii i navykov k raznym dolzhnostiam, 1795), which
stressed the themes of the collective social body, social connections, and even social mobility.
Largely resembling a typical eighteenth-century play, the dialogue presents the teacher Razumov
and his students—Slavoliub, Pravosudov, Zdravomysl, Zvezdon, Khitroum, and Sobin. Each of
the names has a meaning: for example, Pravosudov is formed by “righteous” (pravyi) and
“judgement” (sud), Zvezdon comes from “a star” (zvezda), and Sobin is reminiscent of the words
“isolated” or “aloof” (compare the name to the word obosoblennyi). The text starts with the
question that Sobin addresses to Razumov: why do students need to be educated in so many
subjects? To answer this question, the teacher invites other children to talk about their
“inclinations” (sklonnosti).
181 Each of them praises an occupation that attracts them the most and
questions others’ interests. The raisonneur Razumov approves of their preferences but urges the
children not to limit their studies to exploring their passions, because a “well-educated man is
like a musical instrument” that can make different “sounds” depending on what his fate and his
Fatherland require from him. Of course, unlike public schools in Kiev or Viatka, Moscow
Boarding School for the Nobility was an elite educational institution, and young noblemen had
more freedom when it came to their path in life than a young meshchanin or a zemledelets; the
latter would not be asking their teacher why they had to be educated in French, rhetoric, and
dancing. The obvious difference between students’ roles on stage and their actual social roles
could not go unnoticed by the public either. For example, while the character Zdravomyslov
181 The dialogue could also remind the audience about the religious origins of the genre. Razumov encourages
students to talk about their interests “sincerely” (chistoserdechno), and children admit their erroneous thinking as if
they were confessing their sins.

62
enthusiastically engaged in a game with his toy mill and granary, the student who played this
role would not plough the earth and grind grain by himself in real life.
However, the dialogue clearly translated to the public that an individual was limited in
choosing his occupation. Thus, replying to the children’s enthusiastic speeches about their
interests, Razumov tells them: “This is how every state (sostoianie), exalting itself above others,
consoles its captives so they could endure their duties! This is how our own pride, humiliating
others, strengthens the social connection and lead to joyful competition, when zeal and successes
of this striving power-seeker of our hearts [that is, pride] are justly rewarded; when one social
group, having a need in others, keep themselves in balanced dependency.”182 Although one’s fate
is not determined at their birth, an individual, according to Razumov, is nonetheless a “captive”
(plennik) who has to “endure” (snosit’) their fate in order to contribute to the common good.
Although not looking like direct quotations from “On Duties of Man and Citizen,”183 Razumov’s
argumentation could remind one about several paragraphs from the textbook, in particular, about
the section “On the Usefulness and Necessity of Various Occupations”: “8. Every occupation,
every craft, every art and every science contributes to human society; and therefore every
occupation and everyone who devotes himself to any occupation, deserves respect. […] 9. We
182 “Так-то всякое состояние, превозносясь выше другого, утешает своих пленников к снесению должностей
своих! Так-то собственное наше самолюбие, унижая перед нами всех других, подкрепляет связь
общественную и ведет к счастливому поревнованию, когда жар и успехи стремительного сего властолюбца
сердец наших награждаются правосудно; когда одно состояние, имея нужду в другом, держат себя в
равновесной зависимости.” “Razgovor O tom, chto vo vremia vospitaniia, obrazuia serdtse, dolzhno priobretat’
znaniia i navyki k raznym dolzhnostiam. Chitan blagorodnymi vospitannikami Imperatorskago Universitetskago
Pansiona v publichnom akte 1795 Dekabria 21 dnia,” in Rech’ pri otkrytii akta v Blagorodnom universitetskom
pensione [sic!], proiznesennaia Odnim iz vospitannikov 1795 goda, Dekabria 21 dnia (Moskva, 1795), 13.
183 I did not find evidence about teachers using the textbook at Moscow Boarding School. However, listing themes
of dialogues presented at the school, memoirists mention “on duties of citizen and man towards society” (ob
obiazannostiakh grazhdanina i cheloveka k obshchestvu), see: Nikolai Sushkov, Moskovskii Universitetskii
Blagorodnyi Pansion i vospitanniki Moskovskago Universiteta, gimnazii ego, Universiteskago Blagorodnago
Pansiona i Druzheskago obshchestva (Moskva, 1858), 50.

63
ought to be amazed and thank God for His kindness and wisdom, for He not only created
different things, […]; but He also gave people inclinations and talents to occupy themselves in
various ways and by this serve one another.”184 Interpreting the maxims from the textbook, the
students’ dialogue taught both young actors and the public about social hierarchy and,
effectively, the lack of social mobility or the actual freedom of choosing one’s occupation.
While the play stressed the interdependence and the need to serve each other, it did not,
however, go beyond supporting the existing social structure. Talking about civic society, young
actors do not mention any social initiatives independent from the state. The most significant
collective “action” that characters take in the play is creating a celestial globe with comets
named after Russian sovereigns: Zvezdon makes the globe, Khitroum colors it and inscribes the
names, Slavoliub decorates it with laurels, and then all children, except Sobin, merge their voices
in the song glorifying the monarchs.
185 This action gets praised by their teacher and also serves
to prove the advantages of sociability to Sobin, who is left out: “Well, was it good to hide from
them? You have not participated in this invention,” says Razumov.186 While the invention
(vydumka) made the scene look like a naive children’s game that Sobin has missed out, it clearly
184 “8. Всякое звание, всякое ремесло, всякое художество и всякая наука приносит пользу человеческому
обществу; и для того всякое звание и всяк, кто какому званию себя посвятил, почтения достоин. […] 9.
Надлежит нам удивляться, и благодарить за благость и премудрость Бога, что он не только многоразличные
вещи сотворил, […]; но и даровал людям склонности и способности столько различными образами
упражняться, и чрез то друг другу служить.” The English translation qtd. by: Joseph Laurence Black, Citizens for
the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth-Century Russia; with a Translation of
Book on the Duties of Man and Citizen (St. Petersburg, 1783) (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly; New York:
distributed by Columbia University Press, 1979), 259.
185 The text suggests that this sphere was a real item presented to the audience at the public act.
186 “Ну, хорошо ли вы делали, что прятались от них? Вы не имеете участия в этой выдумке.” Razgovory o
fizicheskikh i nravstvennykh predmetakh. Izdany dlia detei i v osobennosti dlia vospitannikov Universitetskago
Blagorodnago Pansiona (Moskva, 1800), 123.

64
conveyed the idea that social connection (svaiz’ obshchestvennaia) served first and foremost to
express loyalty to the ruler.
Analyzing these dialogues also allows us to see how students’ texts moved not only from
textbooks to public performances but also in the opposite direction. In 1800, “On How One
Should Strive to Acquire Knowledge and Skills…” was published by the teacher Mikhail
Bakkarevich in the anthology Dialogues on Physical and Moral Subjects (Razgovory o
fizicheskikh i nravstvennykh predmetakh), among a dozen of other dialogues also presented at
Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility. Four out of seven texts in the section “Moral
dialogues,” including the dialogue analyzed above, were devoted to education and citizenship:
“On Cyrus, or on Education” (O Kire, ili o vospitanii), “On Education as One of the Essential
Duties of a Nobleman” (O tom, chto uchenie est’ odna iz sushchestvennykh obiazannostei
Blagrodnogo cheloveka), and “On How Every Member of Society Needs to Serve It by Fulfilling
the Duties of a Citizen and a Man” (Razgovor o tom, chto vsiakii chlen obshchestva
neobkhodimo obiazan sluzhit’ emu, ispolniaia v nem obiazannosti grazhdanina i cheloveka).
Similar stylistics of these texts tells us that they were likely composed by Bakkarevich’s students
under his close supervision. In the introduction, the editor explained that he saw his anthology as
the first step towards publishing a real textbook: “[…], enlightened nations have books published
exclusively for children, and known under the titles of Chrestomathies: we still do not have
anything like that. […] […] with time, I will try to publish, […], a real Russian Chrestomathy,
that is, a book, in which I will include only selected Russian writings, in poetry and prose,
suitable for children.”187 The principles explained in Duties of Man and Citizen or other
187 “[…], у народов просвещенных—есть книги, изданныя единственно для чтения детей, и известныя
вообще под названием Христоматий: у нас до сих пор нет еще ничего подобнаго. […] […] я со временем
постараюсь издать, […], настоящую Русскую Христоматию, то есть, книгу, в которой помещены будут
одни отборныя Руския сочинения, в стихах и прозе, соразмерныя притом понятию детей.” Razgovory o

65
textbooks were thus interpreted and further disseminated in the public space. While the dialogues
themselves could influence only students at Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility and those
who attended public acts at the school, the publication of Razgovory greatly increased the
number of potential recipients. The cover of the anthology emphasized that the dialogues were to
provide literary and behavior models for young people beyond the particular school. Moreover,
the genre of the published texts implied that children could reproduce them on stage again and
again, therefore recreating the experience both for themselves and the public.188
An analysis of such dialogues can also show how, despite the governmental efforts,
school literary activities did not always turn young people into “quiet citizens.” Literary
exercises, especially dialogues, could stimulate the development of an individual’s critical
thinking. Thus, one of the young actors who participated in performances at Moscow Boarding
School for the Nobility was Vasilii Zhukovskii. In 1797, he played the role of Pravodum in the
dialogue “On How Every Member of Society Needs to Serve It…” and, possibly, even wrote the
majority of lines in this dialogue.189 The effect of such exercises on his manner of writing and
thinking lasted long after his graduation. When in 1804 Zhukovskii wrote a diary, he structured
the entries in the form of dialogues between “A.” and “B.”190 For instance, contemplating his
forthcoming trip to St. Petersburg, he wrote the following:
fizicheskikh i nravstvennykh predmetakh. Izdany dlia detei i v osobennosti dlia vospitannikov Universitetskago
Blagorodnago Pansiona (Moskva, 1800), III, VIII.
188 While I did not find evidence of these dialogues staged at other schools, using the same dramatic texts by
different institutions was not uncommon.
189 Vasilii Zhukovskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2011), 7: 744.
190 The connection between the performances at Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility and the structure of the
diary has been previously made by Aleksandr Ianushkevich: Vasilii Zhukovskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem
(Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004), 13: 449–50.

66
B. […] what will you do if you have a chance to enter state service successfully?
A. I need to think about it carefully. […].
B. Ask yourself, what you want to do in life, what you will seek and what you can find.
[…] First of all, what do you mean by: to serve?
A. I mean to act for the good of the Fatherland and my own, so that the latter would not
go against the former.191
Although Zhukovskii could be influenced by various sources, exercises he did at Moscow
Boarding School were definitely among these models. His diary demonstrates us how a dialogue
between several characters turns into a dialogical thinking, when the author is switching between
the role of a student and a teacher. Reflecting on his “duties” of a “man and citizen,” Zhukovskii
internalized the form a dialogue, but not the official ideology that school dialogues often
conveyed. To the last line of A. his inner raisonneur B. replies: “[…]; but the degrees of good
you can bring through service are not equal. […] Besides, even if you are lucky, what do you
need the high standing for? You will take up a duty which you, of course, will not be able to
fulfill without the abilities of a public person, the ability to influence society, to be useful in a
wide circle with your activity, […], with the ability to bring many individual benefits together
and make them into common good.” 192 In 1804, as a twenty-one year old young man,
Zhukovskii understood the difference between high and low ranks, and the way in which this
difference could affect his ability to “serve society.”
191
“Б. […] что ты сделаешь, если представится тебе случай войти выгодно в службу? А. Об этом надобно
подумать хорошенько. […]. Б. Спроси у самого себя, чего ты желаешь в жизни, чего будешь искать
и что найти способен. […] Первое — что ты разумеешь под словом: служить? A. Разумею действовать для
пользы отечества и своей собственной, так чтобы последняя была не противна первой.” Vasilii Zhukovskii,
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2011), 13: 11–12.
192
“[…]; но степени пользы, которую можешь делать служа, не одинаковы. […] К тому ж, если счастье тебе
и послужит, то на что тебе важное достоинство? Ты возьмешь на себя такую обязанность, которой, конечно,
не будешь уметь исполнить, не имея способностей публичного человека, способностей действовать на
общество, быть полезным в большом круге своею деятельностию, […], способностию обнимать множество
частных польз вместе и составлять из них общую пользу.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i
pisem (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 2011), 13: 11–12.

67
Ironically, his juvenile self-doubts proved to be unfounded. Zhukovskii became not
simply a public person but a very influential public person. He served as a personal tutor of
Grand Duke Aleksandr Nikolaevich (the future Alexander II) and actively participated in the
formation of the official ideology in the 1830s.
193 Curiously, Zhukovskii allowed himself to
make critical comments about the official narratives. For example, in 1827, after a meeting with
future Minister of Justice Dmitrii Dashkov who said that the individual good (chastnoe blago)
can be sacrificed for the common good, even if that is unjust, Zhukovskii noted that “this rule if
harmful,” and the government should always prioritize justice.194 However, such doubts
remained within the space of his diary.195 His public statements supported the government. In
fact, one of his major contributions was the national anthem “God, Save the Tsar,” the
composition which fully reflected the famous Uvarov’s formula “Orthodoxy-AutocracyNationality.” Furthermore, the earlier version of the lyrics—Zhukovskii’s poem “The Prayer of
Russian People”—became model texts for next generations of students. Included in textbooks
and chrestomathies, for example, in Russian Language Textbook (Uchebnik russkogo iazyka,
1853), it urged young people to absorb linguistic rules together with the idea about the
providential nature of state power, which was, therefore, not subject to real questioning.
196
193 For a detailed discussion on Zhukovskii’s contribution to state ideology, see: Timur Guzairov, “Zhukovskii—
istorik i ideolog Nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia” (PhD diss., University of Tartu, 2007).
194 Qtd. by: Ibid., 32.
195 Ibid., 14.
196 “Pesn’ Russkomu Tsariu,” in Uchebnik russkago iazyka, sostavlennyi Aleksandrom Smirnovym. God pervyi.
Tret’e, vnov’ ispravlennoe izdanie (Moskva, 1853), 161–66. Liubov’ Kiseleva has previously noted that unlike “The
Prayer,” “God, Save the Tsar” was not included in school literary canon because the anthem could not be subjected
to analysis or evaluation, see: Liubov’ Kiseleva, “’Nekanonichnyi’ kanonicheskii tekst (‘Bozhe, tsaria khrani’ V.A.
Zhukovskogo v dorevoliutsionnoi shkole),” in Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii.
Literaturovedenie IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon,
edited A. Vdovin, R. Leibov (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013), 102.

68
Chapter 2. Student Writers in Public Discourse on Benevolence and Their
Literary Production as an Instrument of Fundraising
Although the history of blagotvoritel’nost’ in Russia (benevolence, the calque from the
French bienfaisance) has been recently taking shape as a separate field,197 scholars seem to
overlook an important aspect of it, namely, how literary works facilitated and supported the
development of benevolence/charity/philanthropy.
198 The gap is especially noticeable when it
comes to the sphere of education, where benevolence was vastly more important than anywhere
else, because it was exactly education that could turn people into virtuous subjects of the state
and thus secure the prosperity of the country.199 Moreover, what has been completely overlooked
is the works of those authors who often were the object of philanthropic efforts themselves,
namely, students. In this chapter, I will explore how the state employed juvenile writers to shape
public discourse on blagotvoritel’nost’, which was supposed to lеlegitimize the power of the
benevolent monarch and encourage civic engagement.
197 The Russian term blagotvoritel’nost’ covers all forms of assistance: from helping the poor to supporting art
institutions. Moreover, unlike in France, where “bienfaisance” was a secular virtue, as opposed to the religious
“charity,” in Russia, the concept of benevolence never lost its Christian connotations, partly because it largely
revolved around the figure of the God-like monarch who was the main benefactor. For the difference between
“benevolence” and “charity” in France, see, for instance: Emma Barker, “From Charity to Bienfaisance: Picturing
Good Deeds in Late Eighteenth-Century France,” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 33, no. 3 (2010): 285–
311; Julia V. Douthwaite, “Is Charity for Schmucks?: The Legitimacy of Bienfaisance ca. 1760–82 and ca. 2013–
15,” The Eighteenth Century 57, no. 1 (2016): 2–3. For the development of bienfaisance in France, also see: Marisa
Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).
198 See, for instance: Blagotvoritel’nosti v istorii Rossii: Novye dokumenty i issledovaniia (Sankt-Peterburg: NestorIstoriia, 2008).
199 For the role of education in attainment of civic virtue in Europe, see: Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in
Enlightenment France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 121–24. For the significance of the concept in Russia, see, for
example: Igor Fedyukin, “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in Post-Petrine Russia” (PhD diss.,
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009), 27.

69
The governmental “benevolence project” was based on the idea of emulation—a crucial
concept in both pedagogy and governance.
200 Since the foundation of the Imperial Foundling
Home (Imperatorskii Vospitatel’nyi Dom) in the 1760s, lawmakers had introduced several
regulations on public support of educational institutions, which were meant to associate
philanthropy with social prestige. According to these regulations, donors were to be publicly
recognized in proportion to the scope of their involvement. The rewards varied from getting
one’s name mentioned in a newspaper to receiving a higher rank. This hierarchical system was
meant to involve Russians into somewhat of a social competition for the title of the best/most
virtuous citizen.201 But what encouraged this emulation even more was the images of model
benefactors—monarchs, influential courtiers, and even industrialists such as Prokofii Demidov.
The laws already implied producing such exemplary images as the bust of a donor or their
portrait, but the most important and consistent models distributed in the public space were
textual—produced by lawmakers, dignitaries, and writers.202 To create images of other model
benefactors, authors combined Christian and Classical imagery, relying on the common idea of
devotion and selflessness that distinguishes a true benefactor, and his or her educational or
200 Igor Fedyukin, “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in Post-Petrine Russia” (PhD diss., University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009), 29. Fedyukin borrows the concept of emulation from the book of Jay Smith:
Jay Smith, The Culture of Merit: Nobility, Royal Service, and the Making of Absolute Monarchy in France, 1600–
1789 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1996), 215–17.
201 Just like in France, benevolence in Russia was seen as a manifestation of virtue, see: Marisa Linton, The Politics
of Virtue in Enlightenment France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001).
202 In this sense, Russian writers followed the example set by the Académie Française. As Marisa Linton has shown,
French academicians wrote eulogies to promote virtue, including bienfaisance as its active realization, using this
genre that teaches “the value of good behavior by example.” Referring to the French writer Charles Duclos, Linton
has pointed out that eulogies encouraged people to emulate noble conduct by inciting one’s desire for glory and
prestige, see: Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 112.

70
inspirational role.203 Lawmakers and poets thus encouraged the public to follow all these
examples, appealing to one’s desire for social recognition and, potentially, social mobility.
However, this “educational campaign” was not carried out by grown-up authors only.
Perhaps, the biggest part of it was implemented by student authors. Ironically, the very existence
of the elaborated reward system for benefactors could contradict the idea of their selflessness in
the eyes of the public, and that is why it was beneficial for the state to employ juvenile speakers.
Traditionally perceived as pure and innocent, children could “guarantee” the sincerity and good
intentions of exemplary donors. Concrete rhetorical strategies and motifs used by students
depended on an institution. The earliest juvenile texts which offered the images of the ideal
benefactors were speeches of gratitude recited by the wards at the Foundling Home and primarily
depicting the Empress. Given that the state counted on truly mass support of the Foundling
Home, and Orthodox Christianity united different social groups in the Russian Empire,204 it is
not surprising that pupils’ texts resembled sermons and mostly elaborated religious motifs. These
juvenile performances presented Catherine the Great as the Savior who can perform miracles: the
wards, standing in front of the public alive and well, were such a miracle themselves. At the
same time, portraying Catherine as a model of benevolence, pupils referred to Jesus blessing
children and instructing his disciples to treat the little ones the same way they would treat
203 This fusion of Christian and Classical was typical of the East Slavic Enlightenment which, according to Elise
Wirtschafter, was deeply rooted in Orthodox Christianity. For example, as she has noted, church intellectuals (the
first “agents” of Enlightenment in Russia) “took European ideas and gave them Orthodox meaning.” Elise
Wirtschafter, Religion and Enlightenment in Catherinian Russia: The Teachings of Metropolitan Platon (Ithaca:
Cornell University Press; 2013), 12. Following Marisa Linton, who has noted that “the political ideas of classical
republicanism were imparted to young minds through the filter of the Catholic Church,” we could say that the
choice, the range and the use of neoclassical metaphors in the Russian empire were similarly determined by the
norms of Orthodox Christianity. Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France (Basingstoke:
Palgrave, 2001), 38.
204 Andrei Zorin, “Vo chto verili russkie dvoriane v XVIII veke?” Lecture at Russian State Library, March 24, 2019,
video, 42:20–42:47, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4g6fPkseSE&ab_channel=Arzamas.

71
Himself.
205 According to these speeches, by supporting the Foundling Home, one would follow
the norms of behavior set not only by Christian ethics but also by the state. At the same time,
since education at the Foundling Home was rather pragmatic (i.e., crafts and trades as opposed to
rhetoric and French at gymnasia), what also differed the wards’ narratives was that their
speeches could open the charity fair, which introduced utilitarian motifs into the predominantly
religious scenarios.
By contrast, students at gymnasia and lyceums, many of whom were young noblemen
preparing for the career in state service, were naturally predisposed to elaborate the civic virtue
motifs in their texts, although they never dropped religious connotations and references
completely.206 Many of their narratives were based primarily on Classical themes, especially in
the period from the late eighteenth century to the early nineteenth century, when Russian
republican tradition was formed.207 A school was likened in their writings to the temple of Muses
or the forum, and students themselves resembled young orators in training who gave a
performance in front of their fellow citizens. The patrons of the school appeared in their texts as
ancient deities, genii loci, or “heroes of virtue” who deserve everlasting glory for their
contributions to education.208 At the same time, the schools continued to appear in their texts as
205 Matt. 18: 1–6.
206 For the lasting presence of religious elements in seemingly secular education in eighteenth-century Russia, see:
Sergij Posokhov, “Traditsii propovedi v aktovykh rechakh professorov universitetov Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia
polovina XVIII–pervaia tret’ XIX veka,” Dialog so vremenem 66 (2019): 154–75; Gary Marker, “Paradigms of
Eighteenth-Century Russian Education, or is It Time to Move beyond Secularization?,” European Education 52, no.
3 (2020): 193–205.
207 For the history of republicanism in Russia, see, for instance: Viktor Kaplun, “’Zhit’ Goratsiem ili umeret’
Katonom’: rossiiskaia traditsiia grazhdanskogo respublikanizma (konets XVIII—pervaia tret’ XIX veka),”
Neprikosnovennyi zapas 5 (2007): https://magazines.gorky.media/nz/2007/5/zhit-goracziem-ili-umeret-katonomrossijskaya-tradicziya-grazhdanskogo-respublikanizma.html.
208 I am borrowing the term “heroes of virtue” from Linton: Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment
France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 114.

72
Christian temples, the speeches and poems, which abounded with biblical allusions, kept
resembling sermons, and benefactors were depicted as the righteous men (pravedniki). Although
it was implied that through such literary exercises young Russians could get inspired to become
virtuous subjects of the state themselves, their writings served other purposes as well. Presented
at solemn acts and in print, their speeches and poems, which depicted patrons of education as
distinguished citizens and righteous men, offered appropriate models of behavior for the public,
drawing on one’s desire for social recognition and encouraging people from different social
classes to be like those “great men.” In practice that, of course, meant to help academic
institutions to the best of one’s ability.209 Being educated themselves, young people also
educated others. Thus their exercises in writing helped the government to advance its agenda and
to increase public support of education, including financial support.
At the same time, the distribution of students’ texts in the public space could be beneficial
not only for the state but also for students themselves. By writing a poem or an essay for a school
event and addressing it to the model benefactor, a budding author could get an opportunity to
advertise his works in print, sometimes with the help of his teacher who acted as a student’s
“literary agent.”210 Literary training facilitated the change of an author’s status in Russian
209 Several observations on academic speeches delivered at public acts to promote enlightenment and raise the social
status of academics have been made by Sergij Posokhov and Andrei Kostin, see: Andrei Kostin, “Torzhestvennye
akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet),” in
Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka, ed. by Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike
Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova (Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010); Sergij Posokhov,
Universitet i gorod v Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia polovina XIX vv.)( Khar’kov: KhNU imeni
V.N. Karazina, 2014); Sergij Posokhov, “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy,” Res historica 39
(2015): 178–79; Sergij Posokhov,“Traditsii propovedi v aktovykh rechakh professorov universitetov Rossiiskoi
imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia tret’ XIX veka,” Dialog so vremenem 66 (2019): 154–75. In her article on
patriotic program in Catherinian Russia, Ingrid Schierle has also pointed out a significant role of a public speech (the
genre of “slovo”) as a “new medium” that created publicity, see: Ingrid Schierle, “Patriotism and Emotions: Love of
the Fatherland in Catherinian Russia,” Ab Imperio 3 (2009): 67.
210 My use of masculine pronouns is intentional. It is very important to remember that the mechanism I am
describing here was nearly inaccessible for female students.

73
culture: a writer was not the one who only lauded glorious individuals but also the one who
could be worthy of fame himself and, therefore, the one who could influence public opinion.
That does not mean that every student who recited his poetry at a public act eventually became a
celebrated writer and a major contributor to the public sphere. And yet, school literary activities
provided opportunities which a talented young man could use to his benefits.
This chapter consists of three sections. The first section will provide the broader context
for students’ literary works that popularized philanthropy: I will demonstrate how lawmakers and
grown-up writers shaped public discourse on benevolence based on the concept of emulation and
created images of model benefactors to stimulate public donations. In the second section, I will
examine the wards’ speeches of gratitude delivered at the public exams at the Foundling Home
to show how pupils “preached” benevolence, depicting the Foundling Home as a miracle
performed by the Empress and endowing the new civic virtue with the familiar religious
connotations. In the third section, I will focus on speeches and poems written by students at
Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility, the works by young writers at St. Catherine Order
School, and the Mining Corps to explain how creating the images of model benefactors in
literary exercises was supposed to educate young people as benevolent citizens and
simultaneously encourage the public to engage in philanthropy. I will conclude the chapter with
the case of the poet and mining engineer Fedor Baldauf, which will show how, by praising model
benefactors, young writers could attract readers’ attention, facilitate their entrance into literature,
and, potentially, contribute to the public sphere in the future as “professional” writers.

74
2.1. “For the Glory of the Merciful Lawmaker, for Our Own Benefit, and for
the Common Good”: Early Narratives on Charity211
As a part of religious life, charity in Russia had existed for centuries. However, only with
Catherine the Great it became a civic duty (as opposed to the church’s responsibility) and a
subject of the public discussion.212 Given the empress’s desire to transform the nation, it was
only natural that she paid special attention to the problems of education or, more broadly,
upbringing or even “nurturing” (vospitanie),213 and that benevolence in this sphere was one of
her major concerns. Even before Catherine initiated the reforms in secondary education, that is,
the opening of public schools (narodnye uchilishcha), her intention to instruct her subjects
resulted in such initiatives as the Imperial Foundling Home (Imperatorskii Vospitatel’nyi Dom).
The institution was supposed to be funded through donations, and the funding strategy was
largely based on the idea of emulation.
211 Here I am citing Betskoi’s letter in which he explained the goals of the project: “[…] для славы сей кроткой
Законодательницы, для пользы собственной, и для блага общественнаго.” See: Izvestii Imperatorskago
Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na mesiats Genvar’ 1778 goda, 3.
212 Charity was one of the most important elements of Catherine the Great’s policy. See, for instance: Adele
Lindenmeyr, Poverty is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, 1996), 32–36; Janet M. Hartley, “Philanthropy in the Reign of Catherine the Great: Aims and
Realities,” in Russia in the Age of the Enlightenment: Essays for Isabel de Madariaga, ed. Roger Bartlett and Janet
Hartley (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990), 167–202. For some earlier state regulations of charity, see: Ibid., 168–
171. Some earlier attempts to encourage charitable acts had been made since the 1730s. In particular, one could
receive the Order of St. Anne and then the Order of St. Vladimir, be promoted to a higher rank, receive hereditary or
personal nobility, etc. See, for example: Dmitrii Severiukhin, “Pochetnye zvaniia, znaki otlichiia i nagrady za
blagotvoritel’nost’ v starom Peterburge,” Vestnik SPbGUKI 3 (28) (2016): 6–9.
213 For a discussion on Catherine’s reforms in education, see, for instance: Max J. Okenfuss, “Education and Empire:
School Reform in Enlightened Russia,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 27 (1979): 41–68; Joseph Laurence
Black, Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical Ideals in Eighteenth-Century Russia; with
a Translation of Book on the Duties of Man and Citizen (St. Petersburg, 1783) (Boulder, Colo.: East European
Quarterly; New York: distributed by Columbia University Press, 1979); Isabel de Madariaga, “Catherine II and the
Foundation of the Russian Educational System,” in Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Collected
Essays by Isabel de Madariaga (London: Routledge, 1998), 168–91.

75
The first steps were already taken in the 1760s. Starting from the General Plan of the
Foundling Home, the officials promised various rewards to donors: “ […] nobles who donated
600r or more per year during their lifetime could become members of the council of guardians of
the homes, have their names inscribed in a special book and their portrait hung in the home;
benefactors from other classes also had their names inscribed and their portraits hung and could
enjoy the rights of the rank of college chamberlain (and the rank of komissar if they donated
1000r; chapter 6 of the general plan).”214 In the early nineteenth century, new legislative
initiatives continued promising public recognition in exchange for support of schools.
Preliminary Rules of National Education (Predvaritel’nye pravila narodnago prosveshcheniia)
(1803), which described the new educational system, stated: “[…] all well-intentioned citizens,
who will help the Government to establish schools with their patriotic offerings and donations of
private benefits for the common good, will obtain special and prerogative right for their fellow
citizens’ respect and for the solemn recognition of the established institutions, […].”215 The
“preliminary rules” did not specify how exactly the “solemn appreciation” would look, but the
following Decree on Rewards for School Benefactors (Postanovlenie o nagradakh dlia
blagotvoritelei uchilishch) did. Issued by Minister of National Education Aleksei Razumovskii in
1816, this document stated that benefactors were to be rewarded depending on the sum they
214 Janet M. Hartley, “Philanthropy in the Reign of Catherine the Great: Aims and Realities,” in Russia in the Age of
the Enlightenment: Essays for Isabel de Madariaga, ed. Roger Bartlett and Janet Hartley (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1990), 174–75.
215 “[…] все благонамеренные граждане, при устроении училищ вспомоществуя Правительству
патриотическими приношениями и пожертвованиями частных выгод общей пользе, приобретут особенное и
преимущественное право на уважение своих соотчичей и на торжественную признательность учреждаемых
ныне заведений, […].” “Predvaritel’nye pravila narodnago prosveshcheniia,” in Sbornik potanovlenii po
Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1864), 1:21. Also qtd. in: Stepan Shevyrev, Istoriia
Imperatorskago Moskovkago universiteta, napisannaia k stolentemu ego iubileiu Stepanom Shevyrevym. 1755–1855
(Moskva, 1855), 319–20; Galina Ul’ianova, “Blagotvoritel’nye pozhertvovaniia Moskovskomu universitety (XIX—
nachalo XX v.),” Ekonomicheskaia istoriia. Ezhegodnik (Moskva: Rosspen, 2004): 374.

76
donate and their (initial) rank: their names would appear in a newspaper, in a special gilt-edged
book, or on a board in the school hall; their portrait, or an urn, or monument honoring them
would be displayed in school; they would be given the imperial rescript or golden medals, and
even recommended for a decoration.216
Significantly, both this plan and the subsequent initiatives underscored the idea of
imitation. The plan said: “Great hopes are being set on generous public donations by the
example of Her Imperial Majesty and His Imperial Highness.”217 The Decree on Rewards for
School Benefactors, in turn, explained that inspiring emulation was the main reason to create the
reward system for potential patrons: “[…] in order to encourage these people and incite
competition for charity in others, it is needed to establish some honors and rewards for them,
[…].”218 To put it another way, it was expected that the public would not simply donate money,
but would do so by mirroring the behavior of model benefactors.219 The state fulfilled its
promises. Already in the 1770s, an official periodical, The News of the Imperial Foundling Home
regularly published the names of the benefactors, and the portraits of the most prominent donors,
216 “O nagradakh dlia blagotvoritelei uchilishch,” in Sbornik potanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago
prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1864), 1:781–85; also qtd. in: S.N. Zamakhaev, and G.A. Tsvetaev, Tobol’skaia
gubernskaia gimnaziia. Istoricheskaia zapiska o sostoianii Tobol’skoi gimnazii za 100 let eia sushchestvvaniia.
1789–1889 (Tobol’sk, 1889), 59.
217 “Возлагается упование на щедрыя подаяния публики по примеру Ея Императорскаго Величества и Его
Императорскаго Высочества.” Qtd. in: Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Vospitatel’nogo Doma
(Moskva, 1914), 1: 33.
218 “[…] дабы сих людей больше к тому поощрить и возбудить в других соревнование к благотворениям,
нужно предназначить для них некоторыя почести и награды, […].” “O nagradakh dlia blagotvoritelei
uchilishch,” in Sbornik postanovlenii po Ministersvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia, vol. 1, Tsarstvovanie Imperatora
Aleksandra I. 1802–1825 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1864), 783. The cursive in the quotation is mine—E. Sh.
219 Emulation was a crucial idea in modern governing which implied control over one’s consciousness as much as
over one’s body. For a detailed discussion, see: Igor Fedyukin, “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in
Post-Petrine Russia” (PhD diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009), 29. Fedyukin borrows the
concept of emulation from the book of Jay Smith: Jay Smith, The Culture of Merit: Nobility, Royal Service, and the
Making of Absolute Monarchy in France, 1600–1789 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1996), 215–17.

77
painted by the best artists of that time such as Fedor Rokotov and Dmitrii Levitskii, were
displayed at the Foundling Home.220 Later, numerous periodicals, from pedagogical journals like
Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia to the regional and national
newspapers (Moskovskie vedomosti, Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, and various gubernskie
vedomosti) abounded with endless lists of benefactors’ names. For instance, in 1829 Moskovskie
vedomosti published a long list of donors which, along with more powerful individuals and
generous sums, included people with rather modest titles and, accordingly, more modest
contributions: “[…] some of the Messrs. Visitors, guided by their zeal for the good of
enlightenment, made the following donations: Mr. Honorary Supervisor F.A. El’chaninov [gifted
a subscription?] for the Journal Messenger of the Natural Sciences and Medicine for 1829, at the
cost of 40 r., Praporshchik I.P. Smagin 4 r., City Mayor A.V. Kozhevnikov 10 r., Burgemeester
I.V. Vasil’ev 10 r., Uglich merchants of the second guild Zimins 20 r., Councilor M.A. Brattsov
10 r., Councilor I.A. Mekhov 5 rub., the merchant’s son G.I. Voronov 4 r. and the merchant
M.N. Chuksanov 4 rub.”221 The diversity of the titles and ranks were also supposed to create an
impression that the entire Russian society, from the city’s mayor to the merchant’s son, strived to
contribute to “the good of enlightenment.” The hierarchy of the benefactors sent a message to the
public: no matter how small the donation is, it would contribute to the great cause. One’s
generosity would be appreciated and recognized, such an announcement stated, bringing respect
220 Tat’iana Frumenkova, “Opekuny Moskovskogo Vospitatel’nogo Doma v Tsarstvovanie Ekateriny II,” in
Blagotvoritel’nosti v istorii Rossii: Novye dokumenty i issledovaniia (Sankt-Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2008), 160,
180.
221 “[…] некоторые из Г-д посетителей будучи движимы усердием к пользе просвещения, учинили
следующие пожертвования: Г-н Почетный Смотритель Ф.А. Ельчанинов Журнал под названием: Вестник
Естественных Наук и Медицины на сей 1829 год, ценою в 40 р., Прапорщик И.П. Смагин 4 р., Градской
Глава А.В. Кожевников 10 р., Бургомистр И.В. Васильев 10 р., Угличские 2й гильдии купцы Зимины 20 р.,
Ратман М.А. Братцов 10 р., Ратман И.А. Мехов 5 руб., купецкой сын Г.И. Воронов 4 р. и купец М.Н.
Чуксанов 4 руб.” “Iz Uglicha,” Moskovskie vedomosti 84 (1829): 3914.

78
to the donor. Coming across one’s name in a newspaper was perceived by many as a moment of
glory. The different sizes of donations were also disclosed to the public for a reason: like at an
auction, they were supposed to incite the “drive for competition” (“stremlenie k
sorevnovaniiam”). In a way, lists like that one, reflected the social hierarchy similarly to how it
was presented in On the Duties of Man and Citizen. One could even say that such reports had
didactic functions, because they translated the same ideology as the textbook.
But in addition to stating these privileges in official documentation and providing lists of
benefactors, lawmakers and established writers also created a narrative to advertise the project.
Their texts depicted model benefactors, setting the norms of behavior for an ideal citizen. As
early as in 1763, Mikhail Lomonosov wrote an ode praising the empress, in which he celebrated
the opening of the Foundling Home, and, eventually, promoted philanthropy. The poem “The
bliss of society is increasing every day…” (“Blazhenstvo obshchestva vsiadnevno vozrastaet…”)
portrayed the Empress as an exemplary person worthy of imitation or even the ideal pedagogue
who urges others to participate in her educational project. According to Lomonosov, vospitanie
(upbringing) forms the core of her governance:
Striving to bring us great delights,
She has the education of little children at heart;
[…].222
222 “Блаженство общества всядневно возрастает;/Монархиня труды к трудам соединяет./Стараясь о добре
великих нам отрад,/О воспитании печется малых чад;/ […].” Qtd. in: Petr Sheremetevskii, Istoriia osnovaniia i
otkrytiia Imperatrskago Moskovskago Vospitatel’nago doma (Moskva, 1836), 10.

79
But children are not the only ones who are educated by her; grown-ups become her “students” as
well. The didactic function of the text determines its composition, and the entire second stanza
reads as an instruction for the readers:
Those who are caring about the good of the young ones!
Be glad to follow this useful patronage:
[…].
Follow the importance of the monarch’s example:
[…].223
It is important to emphasize that Lomonosov stresses the utilitarian nature of the Foundling
Home and philanthropy in general.
224 Catherine cares about children
So what has been disregarded in our Fatherland
Would bring it priceless treasure;
[…].
225
And so should her subjects:
It is commendable to look after the poor ones,
But it is sheer praise to educate [them] for the common good;
The nature decrees that, the faith ordains that.226
223 “Рачители добра грядущему потомству!/Внемлите с радостью полезному питомству:/[…]./Внемлите
важности монаршего примера:/[…].” Ibid.
224 For the utilitarian grounds of charity, see: Emma Barker, “From Charity to Bienfaisance: Picturing Good Deeds
in Late Eighteenth-Century France,” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 33, no. 3 (2010): 285, 291, 299, 302.
225 “Дабы, что в Отчестве оставлено презренно,/Приобрело ему сокровище бесценно;/[…].” Qtd. in: Petr
Sheremetevskii, Istoriia osnovaniia i otkrytiia Imperatrskago Moskovskago Vospitatel’nago doma (Moskva, 1836),
10.
226 “Похвально дело есть убогих призирать,/Сугуба похвала для пользы воспитать;/Натура то гласит,
повелевает вера.” Ibid.

80
Importantly, while Lomonosov mentions these two motivations for philanthropy, religious and
non-religious, the main reason for being charitable, according to him, is displaying loyalty to the
Empress:
Catherine is elevating you to this honor,
Follow her with your generosity, just like you do with your loyalty.227
Benevolence therefore becomes respectable and, perhaps, even fashionable behavior: after all,
this is what the empress is doing herself. Describing Catherine’s actions, Lomonosov uses the
expression “elevate to honor” (prevodit’ k chesti) which can be roughly translated as “recognize
one’s efforts” or “raise one’s social status,” thus pointing at additional (although not necessarily
material) advantages of becoming a philanthropist.
While Lomonosov’s ode only hints at how potential donors should be learning from the
Empress, the following example demonstrates the actual process of this “education.” Although
Lomonosov’s ode was not aimed at the empress only, the audience in that case was rather
limited. What became a crucial instrument in advertising charity to a much bigger audience and
encouraging people from other social groups to become benefactors was the institution’s
newsletter, News of the Imperial Foundling Home launched in 1778. While this newsletter did
not contain literary works per se, its content was not restricted to dry reports either. To give a
general idea of how News of the Imperial Foundling Home advocated for philanthropy, I will
focus on the first three issues that published correspondence between the prominent government
official and educational reformer Ivan Betskoi, who became the chief trustee on the Foundling
227
“ Екатерина вас предводит к чести сей,/Спешите щедростью, как верностью, за ней.” Ibid.

81
Home Board of Trustees (Opekunskii sovet) and remained the one until his death in 1795, and
several prominent statesmen whom he persuaded to become the trustees as well. Seemingly
confined to the group of individuals, the correspondence nonetheless meant to involve the public
as well: the News was printed as a monthly supplement to Sankt-Peterburgskie and Moskovskie
vedomosti, the oldest regular newspapers in Russia, which had a comparably big audience.228
The newsletter exploited the double nature of correspondence oscillating between the private and
the public, as well as its didactic potential, making these letters work similar to epistolary
novels.229 Publication of the letters was supposed to increase public trust as the ego-documents
created the sense of authenticity and sincerity. The epistolary format of the first issues engaged
the readers and made them feel as if they also took a part in this letter exchange. That, in turn,
could encourage the readers to “try on” the role of benefactors themselves by identifying with
the correspondents, which must have also been flattering given the correspondents’ position in
the society.230 In other words, since philanthropy was associated with prominent individuals,
engaging in it allowed one to approach their esteemed ranks or at least to feel that they could. At
the same time, numerous religious references in the letters endowed the correspondence with
features of a sermon, lecturing the readers on the new understanding of philanthropy. The letters
were thus supposed to raise interest in charity as honorable and even prestigious activity and
involve not only the very limited number of trustees, but also the rest of the Russian society.
228 That has been previously observed by W. Gareth Jones. He has also noted that for the trustees the News were
printed separately: W. Gareth Jones, “The "Morning Light" Charity Schools, 1777–80,” The Slavonic and East
European Review 56, no. 1 (1978): 50.
229 For didactic functions of epistolary novels, see, for instance: Victoria Myers, “Model Letters, Moral Living:
Letter-Writing Manuals by Daniel Defoe and Samuel Richardson,” Huntington Library Quarterly 66, no. 3/4
(2003): 373–91.
230 The Board of Trustees was supposed to include six persons with a rank no lower than Collegiate Councillor (VI
class).

82
In what one might expect to be business communication, participants dedicated almost
full paragraphs to defining philanthropy and discussing what it means to be a benefactor, and
how respected and rewarding the title and the job are. Just like Lomonosov’s ode featured
Catherine the Great as the paragon of benevolence, the News created model benefactors as well:
God, the empress, Betskoi, and his correspondents, thus creating a hierarchy and uncovering the
mechanism of imitation. Of course, Catherine traditionally demonstrates God-like features
herself. Betskoi, for example, says about the opening of the Foundling Home and the choice of
trustees that this decision “affirmed by the Holy Right hand of OUR MONARCH […].”231The
empress, in turn, is followed by Betskoi. While he never explicitly states that he models his
behavior after the empress, his text reveals it through numerous quotations. Addressing one of
the future trustees, Betskoi says: “Do not think, My Dear Sir! that I would want to give you
instructions; I only explain what you feel and what, no doubt, would feel the bearers of this title,
which only benevolence can adorn itself with. I [only] repeat the life-giving voice of OUR
MONARCH, the voice of this elevated soul, crying: Be blessed!” 232
Saying that he did not want to lecture, Betskoi was not completely truthful: in reality, he
did instruct his immediate recipients, involving them into the formation of public discussion on
charity, and together they instructed the reading public. Betskoi became not only a model of
benevolence but also a model of speech for his recipients. He started his letter explaining the
moral advantages of being a benefactor: “As magnificent the title of the Honorary Benefactor is,
231
“утверждено Освященною НАШЕЙ МОНАРХИНИ Десницею […].”Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago
Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na mesiats Genvar’ 1778 goda, 2.
232 “Не мыслите, Милостивый государь! чтоб я хотел преподавать наставлении; я только изъясняю то, что вы
чувствуете, и что без сомнения будут чувствовать преемники сего имени, которым украшаться может
единая токмо добродетель. А повторяю оживотворяющий глас НАШЕЙ МОНАРХИНИ, глас сея души
Возвышенныя, вопиющий: Будьте щастливы!” Ibid.

83
so comforting the burden that it implies. For the noble heart, what inexpressible delight to say to
itself: I am doing a good deed!”233 The recipients readily echoed Betskoi’s statements,
reinforcing the effect of the initial message. For example, Count Ivan Chernyshev shared his
doubts about talking such a serious responsibility, which he eventually overcame thanks to
Betskoi: “If I ever doubted to accept the title of the Honorary Benefactor, in relation to the
burden which I am probably not even able to bear, Your Excellency’s letter would give me the
decisiveness.” 234
Aleksandr Glebov repeated not only Betskoi’s words, but also the words of
Catherine the Great which Betskoi himself cited: “[…] the title of the Honorary Benefactor is as
flattering as comforting, but it seems that it implies a union of all hearts thinking about the rules
of the unwavering commitment to the common good, which comes from benevolence […] to the
Foundling Home, which our wisest Monarch was pleased to establish by her divine statement:
and may you be blessed too.”235 Following Betskoi’s style of writing, the recipients also
collectively designed his image as an example of benevolence. Grigorii Teplov, for instance,
named Betskoi the reason he decided to become a trustee: “If I look at Your Excellency […],
then this example is enough for me, which encourages me, following you, to accept such a great
233 “Сколько великолепно наименование Почетнаго Благотворителя, столько утешительно есть бремя,
которое налагает должность сего звания. Для сердца благорожденнаго, какая неизреченная сладость, вещать
в самом себе: Я благодетельствую!” Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva
sluzhashchiia, na mesiats Genvar’ 1778 goda, 2.
234 “Ежели бы когда и раздумывал принять наименование Почетнаго Благотворителя, в разсуждении
принятия на себя такого бремя, которое может быть и снести не в состоянии, то бы почтенное Вашего
Высокопревосходительства письмо меня решило.” !” Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k
udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na mesiats Fevral’ 1778 goda, 9.
235 “[…] наименование Почетнаго Благотворителя сколь лестно, столь и утешительно, но к сему видится
необходимо нужно и потребно такое соединение вообще всех сердец мыслящих о правилах
непоколебимости всеобщаго блага, происходящего от благотворения […] к Воспитательному Дому, каковое
благоволила премудрая наша Монархиня утвердить божественным своим изречением: и вы будьте
счастливы.” Ibid., 12.

84
title as Benefactor is; […]”236
Count Ivan Chernyshev took the role of a pupil, saying that he
intended to “follow the example and the instructions of Your Excellency.”237 Count Ernst
Münnich depicted Betskoi as a model of behavior for the entire humankind, who obligates one to
follow him: “You, representing the model of compassion […] to the humankind […], oblige me
as well […] to accept such a great title as Benefactor.” 238
These letters did not simply adulate
Betskoi. They portrayed him as the ideal benefactor to project this image towards a much bigger
audience. Their most important function was to inspire imitation in the public. The
correspondence involved the participants not only in philanthropy but also in the creation of
public discourse on philanthropy.
Furthermore, the state meant to make the trustees themselves exemplary too. The
following issues of the newsletter published the list of “Privileges” (Preimushchestva) to which
the trustees were entitled. The list included panegyrics which were supposed to impress the
public and to awaken emulation as much as they were to recognize the patrons’ deeds. Creating a
model of behavior seemed to be the main goal of the privileges: “The Foundling Home […]
offered to them [i.e., the trustees—E. Sh.] the following privileges, which could make their
Patriotic deeds an example to the posterity (v primer potomstvu).”239 The list included two main
points: making a trustee’s bust “from marble and copper” (iz mramora i medi) and keeping a
236 “Ежели я посмотрю на самих Ваше Высокопревосходительство […], то сего уже примера для меня
довольно, который побуждает меня, уподобляясь вам, принимать не суетно на себя имя столько великаго
названия, каково есть Благотворитель; […].” Ibid., 8.
237 “следовать примеру и наставлениям Вашего Высокопревосходительства.” Ibid., 9.
238 “Вы представляя собою человечеству образ сострадательный […], обязываете и меня […] принять
название столь великаго имяни, каковое есть в самой вещи Благотворитель.” Ibid., 11.
239“Воспитательный Дом […] предложил им следующия преимущества, могущия их Патриотическия дела
представить в пример потомству.” Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva
sluzhashchiia, na mesiats Mart 1778 goda, 15.

85
special journal to record a trustee’s deeds which later would serve as a material for “encomium”
(pokhval’noe slovo) composed “by a person skillful in eloquence” (chrez iskusnago cheloveka v
krasnorechii) in order to “save their name for the posterity by printing such an encomium
(predat’ ego imia potomstvu v pamiat’ napechataniem takoi rechi).240 While the Privileges
stressed the need to memorialize the trustees’ deeds for the future generations, it was hardly
meant to be only posthumous. The busts and eulogies were, perhaps, even more important for the
present than they would be for the posterity: with them, the government hoped to inspire the
contemporaries to become patrons of education. The News indeed published information about
benefactors (not likely aimed only at the future generations, given the nature of periodicals):
their short biographies and their wills in which they established scholarships for the wards. These
governmental “informational campaigns” were quite successful.241 As Janet M. Hartley has
observed, “the evidence shows that considerable sums were received by the homes [both in
Moscow and St. Petersburg – E.Sh.], mainly from members of the nobility, but also from
merchants (including several foreign merchants), factory owners, members of the higher clergy
and a number of meshchane (artisans).”242 The narrative, therefore, managed to engage the wider
audience.
240 Ibid., 15.
241 Private individuals could employ literature for their charity enterprises as well, although these were extremely
rare, and it is hard to say how independent they really were. One, or perhaps the only one, was the journal Morning
Light (Utrennii Svet) launched in 1777 by the famous journalist, publisher, and freemason Nikolai Novikov.
Morning Light was essentially a fundraising project: all proceeds from the journal went towards financing St.
Catherine’s School (founded in 1777) and St. Alexander’s School (founded in 1778), which were modeled after
English charity schools. Although the journal discontinued in 1780, and editions intended as its continuation were
not successful, during the first years of its existence Morning Light managed to fulfill its purposes. Just like
Lomonosov’s ode and the newsletter of the Foundling Home, the journal promoted charity though its publications.
See: W. Gareth Jones, “The "Morning Light" Charity Schools, 1777–80,” The Slavonic and East European Review
56, no. 1 (1978): 47–67.
242 Janet M. Hartley, “Philanthropy in the Reign of Catherine the Great: Aims and Realities,” in Russia in the Age of
the Enlightenment: Essays for Isabel de Madariaga, ed. Roger Bartlett and Janet Hartley (New York: St. Martin's
Press, 1990), 174–75.

86
The following poem written by Mikhail Kheraskov also introduced several principal
motifs which were later elaborated by many writers, especially juvenile writers, and largely
shaped the thematic core of the charity discourse. Entitled “To the Most Honorable Gentlemen,
Members of the Boards of Trustees of the Imperial Foundling Home” (“Imperatorskago
Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta”), the text
was preceded by the comment “Sent by His Highness Councilor of the Chancellery and Director
of Moscow Imperial University Mikhaila Matveevich Kheraskov, A Composition Containing the
Following” (“Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago
Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova sochinenie
sleduiushego soderzhaniia”).243 That made the text look like a relatively private letter, and, yet,
just like the correspondence analyzed above, it is not very likely that it was aimed at the
members of the Board only. This four-page document ended with the report on the recent
donations to the Foundling Home, such as “from the recorder Grigorii Bykov for the christening
of a newborn no. 701 one ruble” or “from His Grace Prince Aleksandr Nikolaevich Zasekin two
poods of linen,” which were typical of the News.
244 The announcements indicated that the poem
could indeed be published there, and, therefore, could be read by the general public.
243 Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina
Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam
Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta (Moskva, no earlier than 1763). The document which I have accessed through the
National Electronic Library does not contain any other information, but looks like a part of a volume or a newspaper
issue.
244 “от регистратора Григорья Быкова при крещении новорожденнаго младенца под No. 701 один рубль” or
“от Его Сиятельства Князь Александр Николаевича Засекина льну два пуда,” Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia
Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha
Kheraskova Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta
(Moskva, no earlier than 1763), [3].

87
In the poem, Kheraskov conceptualizes benevolence and the image of the ideal benefactor
(in this case, Catherine) merging two main pretexts: “Exegi monumentum” 245 and the verses on
Jesus blessing the children in the New Testament.246 Drawing a distinction between the
Foundling Home on the one side and the pyramids and war trophies on the other side, Kheraskov
depicts the true glory of the modern benevolent monarch granted by her charitable acts, as
opposed to the fame driven by “ancient vanity” and military ambitions.247 Kheraskov’s
justification of Catherine’s greatness echoes the justification of a poet’s laurels in the famous
ode. Just like Horace juxtaposed the emperor’s pyramids and the memorial granted by his poetic
talent, Kheraskov contrasted pyramids and war trophies with the Foundling Home building:248
CATHERINE has raised the monument in Moscow
Which is more glorious than pyramids, and more useful than trophies;
[…]
What we are seeing here is not the fruits of ancient pride,
Not the wasteful labors of many centuries:
The exalted grand edifice is appearing in front of our eyes
Where the life of many infants will be saved; […].249
245 As Viktor Kaplun has noticed, the principles proclaimed in Horace’s ode shaped the republican ethos in Russia:
“[…] для российских “публичных интеллектуалов” конца XVIII — начала XIX века важны не только и не
столько тематическое и жанровое своеобразие или поэтика текстов Горация, сколько ситуация
горацианского экзистенциального выбора; это выбор гражданина, воина и одновременно человека
письменного слова, поэта, философа, политика, живущего в “Августов век”—эпоху установления царской
власти и гибели республиканских свобод и добродетелей.” Viktor Kaplun, “’Zhit’ Goratsiem ili umeret’
Katonom’: rossiiskaia traditsiia grazhdanskogo respublikanizma (konets XVIII—pervaia tret’ XIX veka),”
Neprikosnovennyi zapas 5 (2007): https://magazines.gorky.media/nz/2007/5/zhit-goracziem-ili-umeret-katonomrossijskaya-tradicziya-grazhdanskogo-respublikanizma.html. About the reception of the ode in Russia, see: Mikhail
Alekseev, Stikhotvorenie Pushkina “Ia pamiatnik sebe vozdvig…” (Leningrad: Nauka, 1967).
246 For instance: Matt: 18:1–6, 19:13–14.
247 The change in the concept of greatness has been earlier analyzed by Joachim Klein in his article on funeral poetry
in eighteenth-century Russia. In particular, he demonstrates how philanthropists became worthy addressees of
eulogies, see: Joachim Klein, “’Stichi na končinu…’ Russische Begräbnisdichtung im 18. Jahrhundert,” Welt der
Slaven 66, no.1 (2021): 141–77.
248 See the development of the same Horatian theme in the poem by Petr Sheremetevskii, “Zavetnyi den’,” in Istoriia
osnovaniia i otkrytiia Imperatrskago Moskovskago Vospitatel’nago doma (Moskva, 1836), 90–103.
249“Воздвигла монумент в Москве ЕКАТЕРИНА,/Славнее пирамид, полезнее трофей;/[…]/Не древней
гордости мы видим здесь плоды,/Не множества веков напрасные труды:/Является очам громада вознесенна

88
The Foundling Home thus becomes an alternative and also a Christian monument: it is material,
and, yet, not exactly built by human hands; it is “the exalted grand edifice” (“gromada
voznesenna”), almost a metaphysical object the ultimate goal of which is salvation of the
innocent children.
But, most importantly, Kheraskov integrated wards’ voices in the text, making their
words the ultimate monument. Interpreting non omnis moriar motif as everlasting praises of the
wards, he simultaneously refers to the empress as the Savior welcomed by children at the templethe Foundling Home:250
Not loud lyres will be needed for glory,
Not grand titles or external decorations;
Living voices are exclaiming here hourly,
And singing the song of gratitude to the Monarch,
They are and will be praising for the ages to come
The one by whom they were saved and became people. 251
Где будет множества младенцев жизнь спасенна; […].”Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i
Moskovskago Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova Imperatorskago
Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta (Moskva, no earlier than 1763),
[1].
250 Matt. 21:15–16.
251 “Не лиры громкия, для славы будут нужны,/Не титла пышныя и не красы наружны;/Живые гласы здесь
всечасно вопиют/И благодарну песнь Монархине поют,/Поют и будут петь во все грядущи веки/Ту, кем они
спаслись и стали человеки.” Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago
Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova Imperatorskago
Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta (Moskva, no earlier than 1763),
[1]. The motif of miraculous salvation was developed by the wards in their own speeches. See a more detailed
analysis in the following section.

89
Inviting readers to listen to this song of gratitude, Kheraskov also drew their attention to actual
children’s texts circulating in the public space and even predetermined readers’ possible
responses to these texts.
This depiction of Catherine who instructs the statemen to protect children resembles the
image of Christ who told his disciples that “whoso shall receive one such little child in my name
receiveth me.”252
[…]
The monarch’s mouth and everyone’s hearts are telling you:
Take care of these infants like you would of your own children
And be the example of virtue for them. 253
The biblical theme thus obtains another dimension: charity is not only a good deed, but also a
way for the patrons to express their loyalty toward the empress. Significantly, not only she could
attain glory, but her subjects as well, as long as they follow her Christ-like order.
Curiously, the final goal of benevolence, according to Kheraskov, is also educational.
The donors are urged to be “examples of virtue.” Moreover, by supporting the Foundling Home
they are not just being merciful but help the state to perfect its subjects, which was one of the
main goals of Catherinian “scenario of power”:
It is commendable to save an orphan from death,
But it is even more commendable to improve hearts and morals.254
252 Matt. 18: 5.
253
“[…] Монарши вам уста и всех сердца вещают:/Храните как своих детей младенцев сих/И в добродетели
примером будьте их.” Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago Imperatorskago
Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Domu
Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta (Moskva, no earlier than 1763), [2].
254 “Раченья вашего мы видим здесь плоды,/Неоцененные и важные труды!/Похвально сироту от смерти
злой избавить,/Еще похвальнее сердца и нравы править.” .” Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii
Sovetnika i Moskovskago Imperatorskago Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova
Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta (Moskva, no
earlier than 1763), [2].

90
While the poem was primarily addressed at the members of the Council, most likely, it reached
other people beyond this circle, and reading public was involved in this infinite, total process of
learning and teaching at various levels.
Gavriil Derzhavin’s “On the Death of the Benefactor” (“Na konchinu blagotvoritelia”,
1795), dedicated to the memory of Ivan Betskoi, 255 not only offered the image of the model
benefactor to the public256 but also became a model text on benevolence, later included in
textbooks to be further reproduced by young writers.
257 While the ode directly addressed the late
patron, a quotation from the Book of Sirach, starting and ending the poem, framed the entire text
as a didactic message aimed at readers as well. The epigraph cited the Book itself: “Do good to a
friend before you die, … and sanctify your soul, for there is no place in hell to seek delight.”
258
The final stanza of the poem contained a modified version of the quotation and repeated the
addressing in plural:
The sacred divine truth
Cries over your coffin:
“O mortals! do good deeds
And sanctify your souls
255 See also Joachim Klein’s interpretation of Derzhavin’s poem in the article mentioned above: Joachim Klein,
“’Stichi na končinu…’ Russische Begräbnisdichtung im 18. Jahrhundert,” Welt der Slaven 66, no.1 (2021): 155–57.
256 Although the ode did not enjoy such a wide readership as the newsletter, it was published in 1797 in the almanac
Aonidy, two years after Betskoi passed away.
257 Ivan Davydov, Uchebnaia kniga ruskago iazyka, soderzhashchaia etimologiiu, orfografiiu, sintaksis, prosodiiu i
kratskie pravila ritoriki. Dlia Blagorodnykh Vospitannikov Universitetskago Pansiona. Izdanie vtoroe (Moskva,
1823), 145–46.
258
“Прежде неже умреши ты, добро твори другу ...... и освяти душу твою, яко несть во аде взыскати
сладости.” Gavrila Derzhavin, “Na konchinu blagotvoritel’ia,” in Sochineniia Derzhavina s ob’’iasnitel’nymi
primechaniiami Ia. Grota (Sankt-Peterburg, 1864): 1: 701. The quotation from the Book reads slightly different:
“Do good to a friend before you die, […]. Give, and take, and beguile yourself, because in Hades one cannot look
for luxury.” Sirach 14: 13, 16.

91
Until you leave this world;
There is no bliss without good deeds.”259
Placed between these two quotations, the central part of the text, which describes Betskoi’s life,
became practically an illustration of the doctrine. It presents him as a perfect example of
benevolence, who himself was inspired by unlimited divine generosity:
[…] Your last breath
And your thought were—God was generous.260
At the same time, the poem makes a hero of virtue out of Betskoi. Referring to the Bible,
the text at the same time involves neoclassical imagery. In particular, Derzhavin compares
Betskoi to the mythological character Phaethon, presenting two models of behavior and two
different ways of achieving glory, similar to how Kheraskov modeled his opposition on the
Horatian one:261
[…] the wise, benevolent man,
Embracing the most peaceful glory,
Spending his entire life
On useful and noble labor,
Kisses orphans, sciences,
Offering more appropriate sacrifices to a deity
Than his vain dreams:
You were a beam of mercy, Betskoi!262
259
“Небесна истина священна/Над гробом вопиет твоим:/‘О смертные! добро творите/И души ваши
освятите,/Доколе не прешли сей свет;/Без добрых дел блаженства нет.’” Ibid., 708.
260 “[…] Последний вздох/И мысль твоя—щедрот был Бог.” Ibid., 707.
261 Phaeton drove the chariot of his father, Helios, but failed to control it, burned the earth as he was driving too
close, and was killed by Zeus.
262“[…] муж мудрый, благотворный,/Кротчайшу славу возлюбя,/На труд полезный, благородный/Свою всю
жизнь употребя,/Сирот, науки лобызает,/Приличней жертвы посвящает,/Чем горды божеству мечты:/Луч
милости был, Бецкой, ты!” Sochineniia Derzhavina s ob’’iasnitel’nymi primechaniiami Ia. Grota (SanktPeterburg, 1864): 1: 706.

92
The single “beam of mercy” is clearly favored by Derzhavin over the “radiant chariot” scattering
numerous “bloody sparks” and leaving the “whirlwind of smoke.” The poem features
philanthropy as a new type of heroic behavior, which, according to the poet, is much more
worthy of glory than traditional combat achievements driven by one’s vanity. This comparison is
supported by another neoclassical accent still combined with the religious idea of humility:
spending one’s life to improve the lot of the less fortunate and to support education becomes a
better sacrifice to a deity (posviashchenie zhertvy) than “conceited dreams” (gordy mechty). Only
a benefactor, this “benevolent man” (blagotvornyi muzh) is a good Christian and a true citizen
who deserves to be praised for his peaceful contributions to the common good.
The motif of a memorial also continues the heroic theme. Without referring directly to
“Exegi monumentum,” just like Kheraskov who presented the Foundling Home as an alternative
monument, Derzhavin points at the buildings founded under Betskoi’s supervision as the
statesman’s monuments preserving the memory about him:
Whether we look at edifices of buildings,
At the temples of Muses, at the temple of Pallas,
At the shore, at the garden:
Even the stones are talking about you!263
What also strikes in Derzhavin’s poem is that he makes readers think not only about the
ideal benefactor but also about the poet who creates encomiums and eulogies.264 In the poem,
263 “Воззрим ли зданий на громады,/На храмы Муз, на храм Паллады,/На брег, на дом Петров, на сад:/И
камни о тебе гласят!” Ibid., 703–704.
264 For status of the author in Derzhavin’s poetry, see: Anna Lisa Crone, The Daring of Derzhavin: the Moral and
Aesthetic Independence of the Poet in Russia (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2001).

93
Derzhavin interprets eternal memory as sounding voice/speech. On the one hand, it is the
philanthropist who deserves it, and what speaks for him is his good deeds: his “eloquent” grave
and ashes (grob and perst’) and the buildings founded thanks to him that are “telling” (glasiat)
the story of his life. But at the same time, Derzhavin reflects on his own writing: “My lyrical
voice is tuned,/To honor your heroism: […].”265 Thus Derzhavin subtly reminded the reader that
a poet can also be worthy of eternity and can reach it by praising the heroes of virtue.
2.2. “To Bear Witness to the Monarch’s Philanthropy, and as Evidence of
Mercy Towards Us of All the Benefactors”: Wards’ Speeches of Gratitude
Although the first students’ writings advocating for charity probably appeared soon after
the opening of the Foundling Home, apparently not many of them have survived. Those which
have were written, delivered, and published in the 1770s. These texts were speeches of gratitude
recited by the wards at their public exams in 1773 and 1774, traditionally timed to Catherine the
Great’s birthday. The main narratives played out by the young performers were rooted in several
episodes from the New Testament. Introduced by clergymen, wards nearly “preached”
benevolence to the audience thus developing the tradition of using sermons for ideological
purposes. They emphasized the role of the empress as their Savior, allowing the audience to
witness the results of this miraculous salvation. At the same time, they shaped the public image
of Catherine as Jesus who instructed His disciples to treat the little children as they would treat
Himself (a motif which was also explored by Kheraskov). Students therefore prompted the
public to follow the empress’s example and to make generous donations, so they would be
exercising benevolence in the practical way. But at the same time, their narratives had a
265 “Мой лирный глас тебе настроен,/Чтоб доблести воздать твоей: […].” Ibid., 703–704.

94
“pragmatic” dimension: opening a charity fair, their speeches demonstrated to the public that
their donations are spent effectively.
Descriptions of the events at the Foundling Home stated the instructional role of the
institution. It was meant not only to fulfill its immediate goals of looking after orphans and
educating them, but also to serve as “the first witness and preacher […] of revival and education
[…],” nearly a religious institution.266 Indeed, the wards’ speeches at the public exams were
accompanied by sermons delivered by the hieromonk Illarion (1773) and the hieromonk Porfirii
(1774), which propagated the word of the state as much as the word of God. Continuing the
tradition of using sermons in the interests of the empire, 267 clerics evangelized philanthropy as
the most important subject and a civic virtue: “[…] this one, I repeat, priceless virtue, that is,
benevolence, I have decided to make the foundation of my sermon,” said the hieromonach
Porfirii.268 Being a philanthropist, he continues, is the same as being a good citizen: “[…] to
fulfill the duty of love for our neighbour is nothing else but to be a loyal and true citizen,
[…].”269
Moreover, supporting the governmental project, the priests also talked about the
(spiritual) rewards for benefactors. Illarion, for example, cited the First Epistle of Peter, saying
266 “первый свидетель и проповедник […] оживотворения и воспитания […].” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena
pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia
Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, 3–4.
267 The significant role of sermons in the formation of the monarch’s public image has been discussed by Richard
Wortman in his now-classic book, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1995–2000), passim. For some specific examples, see, for instance, vol. 1, pp. 77–78,
81, 88. For the further development of the argument, see: Ekaterina Kislova, “Sermons and Sermonizing in 18thCentury Russia: At Court and Beyond,” Slověne 2 (2014): 175–93.
268 “[…] сию одну, повторяю я, бесценную добродетель, то есть, человеколюбие, предприял я положить за
основание нынешняго моего слова.” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom
Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia,
[8].
269 “[…] соответствовать долгу любви к ближнему, есть не что иное, как быть верным и истинным
гражданином, […].” Ibid.

95
that benevolence is something that opens for one “the gate to eternal glory.”270 Yet, placed in the
context of potential social advancement for benefactors promised by the government, such
statements were not free of hints at some earthly benefits. “The gate to eternal glory” might as
well have reminded one about less ephemeral glory, such as getting their name published in a
newspaper.
Just like in other texts, the clerics also created a hierachical structure of benefactors to
encourage emulation among the public. God himself was, of course, presented as a “true
example” of benevolence,271 and participating in charity meant, according to the sermons, to
“bring yourself closer to the image of your Creator, day after day […].”272 The second place in
this hierarchy was traditionally occupied by Catherine. The hieromonach Illarion ended his
sermon by urging the visitors to follow empress: “[…] florishing Russia is governed by great
CATHERINE, and populated by subjects who are following HER in her virtues, […].”273 Porfirii
also encouraged the public to follow the empress and to “follow the greatness of this
benelovelce.”274
Patrons of the institution, in turn, become models of behavior themselves. This
was implied by Illarion’s quotations from the First Epistle of Peter, as Apostle Peter urges the
elders to be “ensamples to the flock.”275 What was even more important is that both clergymen
270 “врата вечной славы.” Ibid.
271 Ibid., [9].
272 “подходить день от дня ближе к подобию Создателя своего […].” Ibid., [8].
273 “[…] благоденствующая Россия управляется великою ЕКАТЕРИНОЮ, и в добродетелях подражающими
ЕЙ подданными населена, […].” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom
Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda,
[12].
274 “подражать величеству сих благотворений.” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom
Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda,
Aprelia 23 dnia, [12].
275 1 Pet. 5: 3.

96
stressed the need of exercising charity by taking actions, referring to Saint James and Apostle
John.276 The governmental policy of bienfaisance and the existance of the Foundling Home was
thus substantiated by the authority of the religious texts.
But the most important role in “preaching” benevolence was assigned to children. Both
clergymen introduced the speeches of the wards, which were supposed to spread the word about
the empress’ kindness and generosity. In 1773 Illarion addressed children in the following
manner: “[…] children, I address my speech to you, […] be the preachers and witnesses of HER
grace.”277 Porfirii, in turn, stated that the wards are the ones who can do it more effectively than
anyone else, alluding to Christ’s words about children’s innocence and sincerity, their closest
proximity to the Kingdom of Heaven, and their immediate recognition of the Savior: “You will
explain to us even clearer, that before […]; […] you were breathing the same air, […] [you]
already enjoyed HER benevolence that revived you? […] Now what is left to you, blessed
children! [is] to be eternal expositors and immortal preachers of HER unprecedented
benevolence, […].”278 The wards’ speeches, nonetheless, were not limited to expressions of
gratitude or prayers for Catherine. The public was, perhaps, even more important recepient of
children’s performances. The words “iz’’iasniat’” as well as “tolkovateli” and “propovedniki”
276 Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [9].
277 “[…] вы дети, к вам я мою обращаю речь, […], будьте проповедниками и свидетелями милостей ЕЯ.”
Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [12].
278 “Вы точнее изъясните нам, что вы прежде, […]; […] нежели дышать начинали вы общим с нами
воздухом, […] уже вкушали оживляющее вас ЕЯ человеколюбие? […] Теперь остается вам, благословенные
питомцы! […] быть вечными толкователями и безсмертными проповедниками безпримернаго ЕЯ
человеколюбия, […].” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po
prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [11-12].

97
clearly indicated the didactic purposes of their performances. What became a sacred text to
interpret was not exactly the Bible, but the state narrative on benevolence. The wards were
expected to preach the state “teachings” like one would preach the teachings of Christ, they were
supposed to explain the meaning of philanthropy and to convice the audience to follow the
empress.
Despite being urged to speak, the wards rather illustrated the governmental narrative than
actively created it. Their texts were most likely written by their teachers. According to the
description of the public exam, their performance was seen as a demonstration of Catherine’s
good deeds: “[…] let there be a public exam for wards of both sexes, from which one could see,
what great benevolence Great CATHERINE bestows upon her subjects, and what one shall
expect in the future.” 279 Depiction of Catherine almost as the Savior, who redeemed the fallen
part of the humanity, likened the wards’ appearance in front of the public to a miracle. Their very
existence proved the empress’s benevolence: “How blessed we are,” says the ward Stepan
Simeonov, “is proved by our life, which was given to us by You at our unfortunate birth, and
which was saved from the deathly plague, as well as our current well-being, […].”280 The signal
words “proofs” and “witnessing” also appear in another Simeonov’s speech delivered in 1774, in
which he says that the wards want to demonstrate their achievements in order to “bear witness to
279 “[…] быть при публичном собрании ексамену обоего пола питомцам, из котораго бы усмотреть было
можно, коль великое благодеяние Великая ЕКАТЕРИНА изливает на своих подданных, и чего впредь от
сего ожидать должно.” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom
Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [2].
280
““Коль мы блаженны, то доказывает жизнь наша, как при самом нещастном рождении нашем, Тобою нам
данная, так и от пагубной язвы соблюденная, и нынешнее наше благополучие, […].” Ibid., [3]. Talking about
the deathly plague, the wards most likely refer to the Russian plague epidemic of 1770–1772.

98
the Monarch’s philanthropy, and as evidence of mercy towards us of all the benefactors, […].”281
Following Simeonov, the ward Aksin’ia Vasil’eva also says, addressing the empress: “[…] now
every moment of our lives is a new testament to Your unwavering inclination for
benevolence.”282 Vasilii Mikhailov pointed out that the public came to “witness our success in
our exercises.”283 In a way, the wards’ appearance in front of the public was much more
important than what they actually said.
The wards’ speeches also constructed the images of ideal benefactors. Moreover, students
“ranked” them as well, just like the grown-up authors did. The first in the hierarchy was,
naturally, God. Children presented him as an “the infinite benefactor” whom others, including
the empress, were expected to follow.284 Furthermore, some students referred to the empress as
God’s image on earth, which, placed within the discussion on benevolence, stressed her
following the Creator’s love for the humankind and his generosity. Catherine expectedly
becomes the paragon of this virtue, who makes everyone feel “heavenly delight of Her
philanthropy.”285 For example, both in 1773 and in 1774, Aksin’ia Vasil’eva addressed God
naming the empress “his image” or “his image on Earth.”286 Other students developed the
281 “для засвидетельствования Монаршаго человеколюбия, и для доказательства милости к нам всех
благотворителей, […].” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po
prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [3-4].
282 Ibid., [4].
283 “быть свидетелями успехов в наших упражнениях.” Ibid., [6].
284 Ibid., [4].
285“небесную сладость Своего человеколюбия.” Ibid., [7].
286 Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [4]; Opisanie torzhestva i
eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia
Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [4].

99
traditional representation of the monarch, drawing attention to Catherine the Great’s divine
features, foregrounding her unprecedented benevolence and love towards the humankind,
resembling God’s love and Christ’s sacrifices. Thus, Stepan Simeonov depicted the empress
exactly as the Savior. In his speech, she is not simply the chief patron of the abandoned children
who were destined to perish—she is “the Patron of the fallen humanity” (Pokrovitel’nitsa
poverzhennago chelovechestva). The description of her birthday reminds one about the birth of
Christ: “Nothing will be more precious and pleasant to us, than […], […] the celebration of your
birthday, August Monarch! with which our life began too.”287 By giving children a chance to
survive, she saves them from “the deathly plague” (pagubnaia iazva).288 Her benevolence is
unparalleled, almost like God’s love: children are enjoying their “happiness” thanks to the
empress’s “unprecedented benevolence.”289
While Catherine’s benevolence is called “unparalleled” and “unprecedented,”
Simeonov’s speech itself was constructed in such a way that it formed a hierarchy, assuming the
existence of other philanthropists. This seemingly paradoxical construction was, in fact, quite
understandable: being unable to match the level of God’s benevolence (or, in this case, that of
Catherine), one should nonetheless strive to become his (her) likeness. Starting from the appeal
to Catherine the Great, Simeonov proceeds to “benevolent gathering of our patrons”
(chelovekoliubiveishee sobranie blagotvoritelei nashikh) that became a case of “parallel”
287 “Ничего истинно в жизни драгоценнее нам и приятнее не будет, как только […], […] воспоминание сего
дни твоего рождения, Августейшая Монархиня! с которым и наша жизнь начало получила.” Opisanie
torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [3].
288 Ibid., [3].
289
“безпримерное человеколюбие.” Ibid., [3].

100
benevolence, because in their acts of charity the public followed the empress. Although the
orator does not explicitly state that, the structure of the text implies it. The following two
speeches—in German, by Aksin’ia Vasil’eva, and in French, by Ivan Nikolaev—addressed “the
Most Gracious Empress” and “Generous Benefactors,” respectively, which mirrored the same
hierarchy. The authors’ choice of vocabulary also made the actions of the public analogous to
those of the empress. For instance, Simeonov’s characteristic of Catherine as the patron of
“fallen humanity” corresponded with Nikolaev’s definition of benefactors as those who pulled
the children “out of the abyss.”
290 Authors talked about their happiness granted both by the
empress and by other patrons in a similar manner. Thus, Simeonov mentioned that empress’
benevolence “raises the happiness” of students,291 while Nikolaev states that benefactors’
“charitable actions now allow [children] to enjoy great happiness.”292
In some other cases, young preachers made the motif of emulation explicit, again,
evoking associations with Christ blessing children and treating them with kindness, thus setting
an example for others. For example, the ward Aleksei Evstrat’ev ended the public act in 1773 by
greeting “the most philanthropic assembly” (chelovekoliubiveishee sobranie) with such a speech:
“You, following the most benevolent Mother of the Fatherland, August Monarch, who took us
under her protection, incessantly revive with your benevolence those who are plunged into fatal
demise.” 293 While the expression “most philanthropic,” applied both to the empress and the
290“Vous nous avés tiré comme de l'abime.” Ibid., [5].
291 Ibid., [3].
292 Ibid., [5].
293 “Вы, подражая человеколюбивейшей Матери Отечества, Августейшей Монархине, которая прияла в
покров Свой нашу неповинность, непрестанно оживотворяете благотворениями Вашими смертоносной
гибели повергаемых.” Ibid., [6].

101
audience, which already created a parallel, Evstrat’ev did not hesitate to remind the audience that
they walked in the empress’s footsteps and praised them for doing so. In addition to that, the
words “subjected to deadly demise” (“smertonosnoi gibeli povergaemykh”) in Evstrat’ev’s
speech alluded to Simeonov’s expression “a part of the human race being cast into death” (“k
smerti poverzhennoi chasti roda chelovecheskago”) mentioned in the opening speech at the
public act, which, again, described the behavior of Catherine and the public in similar terms. A
year later, Simeonov continued with the same motif addressing the public as “our generous
benefactors, partaking in mercy of our benevolent MONARCH, […].”294 This characteristic
made the role of the benefactors even more important: not simply they followed the empress but
they were participants in her merciful initiatives, almost like Christ’s disciples.
What might have emphasized the effect was the empress’s portrait which created an
illusion of her actual presence at the Foundling Home. The summaries of both public acts, in
1773 and in 1774, mentioned portraits, indicating their position in the public space: “This exam
took place in the hall across from the portraits of HER IMPERIAL MAJESTY and His Imperial
Highness, […];”or “[…] in front of the portraits of HER IMPERIAL MAJESTY and His
Imperial Highness the ward Stepan Simeonov recited, […] the following speech […].”295 Having
monarchs’ portraits in school halls and addressing them, as we have seen in the previous chapter,
294 “великодушные благотворители наши, соучаствующие в милосердии человеколюбивейшей нашей
МОНАРХИНЕ, […].”Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom
Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [4]; Opisanie
torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia
rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [3].
295 “Оный ексамен происходил в зале против портретов ЕЯ ИМПЕРАТОРСКОГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА и Его
Императорскаго Высочества, […];”“[…] пред портретами ЕЯ ИМПЕРАТОРСКАГО ВЕЛИЧЕСТВА и Его
Императорскаго Высочества говорил питомец Степан Симеонов, […] следующую речь […].” Opisanie
torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva. 1773. goda, [2, 3].

102
was a universal practice: portraits substituted the presence of the sovereign during the wellorchestrated school events. There is no doubt that in 1773 students also addressed the portraits
the same way they would do the real imperial family thus creating a spectacle. But the portraits
of Catherine and Paul also served to encourage emulation among the public by illustrating
students’ narratives and visualizing these figures as exemplars of behavior, almost like icons
enable believers to connect with the divine, better imagine the episodes from the Holy Scripture,
and receive moral guidance. Facing the imperial portraits during the ceremony and listening to
the students’ speeches, the public was supposed to get inspired and to follow the August
standards in charity.
Students also discussed various rewards for those who contributed to the needs of the
Foundling Home. First, according to their speeches, rewards for exercising the truly Christian
virtue of benevolence would be coming from God. This is how Aksin’ia Vasil’eva put it in her
German speech: “Oh God, the Rewarder of all that is good, shower Your divine blessings upon
[…], our Most Serene Monarch, Catherine the Second.”296 In 1774 she repeated her plea: “Your
eternal justice shall reward all of this. […], You will shower upon her, […], with Your greatest
blessings, and for the general welfare, grant her the longest and most blissful of days.”297 Aleksei
Evstrat’ev, in turn, mentioned the public to be rewarded by God as well: “We pray to allmerciful God to reward you from heaven with His inexpressible grace for your benevolence to
us, the orphaned.”298 Vasilii Mikhailov has also mentioned God who would reward the
296 Ibid., [4].
297 Ibid.
298 “Просим всещедраго Бога, да наградить вас свыше Своими неизреченными щедротами за Ваши к нам
сирым всем благодеяния.” Ibid., [6].

103
benefactors: “[we are] only asking God to reward you, dearest Benefactors, with all what you
wish to receive from His goodness and mercy for Your well-being and for the good of the
Fatherland.”299
Yet, divine rewards were not the only ones. Students also played with the audience’s
desire for appreciation and glory, promising to “laud […] the mercy of our patrons.”300 Ivan
Nikolaev also uses a motif that, in a way, was previously used by Betskoi and Derzhavin:
namely, the view of charity as a reward in itself. The ward presents the benefactors’ deeds alone
as a distinction: “These are deeds befitting of you, befitting of your generosity, befitting of the
humanity that adorns a noble and magnanimous heart.”
301 Given the lawmakers efforts to
increase donations and their promises of social promotion for benefactors, such statements was,
of course, more of a rhetorical device than an accurate reflection of reality, but it assigned
sincerity and Christian selflessness to philanthropists’ actions, which must have been flattering
and, therefore, worked as an effective fundraising tactic.
It was not a coincidence that the clerics and the students stressed the practical aspect of
benevolence. The sermons and the wards’ speeches “warmed up” the audience for the final part
of the public act: the charity fair. Both exams, in 1773 and in 1774 included a demonstration of
students’ arts and crafts; the descriptions of the events mentioned tables “with different wards’
crafts” on display.302 On the one hand, these objects along with their good academic performance
299 “[…] просим только Всевышняго, да наградить Вас, дражайшие Благодетели, всем тем, чего от благости
Его и милосердия к благоденствию Вашему и к пользе Отечества получить желаете.” Ibid., [6].
300
“превозносить […] милосердие поспешествователей наших.” Ibid., [4].
301
“Voici des actions dignes de Vous, dignes de Votre générosité, dignes de cette humanité qui fait l'ornement d'un
cœur noble et magnanime.” Ibid., [5].
302
“с разными питомцов рукоделиями.” Ibid., [2].

104
were an additional proof of students’ accomplishments and, therefore, the empress’s
philanthropy: “Then, at the desk of Messrs. Trustees [students] were examined in different
exercises, […] after which crafts and penmanship exercises in different languages […] were
shown to everyone.”303 That was all the more important because the Foundling Home offered
craftsmanship training. Even “penmanship exercises” here are presented as handwork: they are
not read but looked at, as if they were drawings (rassmatrivaemy). On the other hand, students’
crafts were sold to the public, which supported the institution along with donations. That was
exactly what happened after each of the exams: “[…] the visitors, […], approached the desks
with children’s crafts again, […], and the quality and special skill in these crafts encouraged
many to have some of these items: so they bought them with great pleasure: […].”304 Students’
performances, introduced by the clergymen, were apparently quite convincing. They fulfilled not
only the needs of the state propaganda, but also the more immediate financial ones. The better
students’ rhetoric was the more money the Foundling Home could collect.
2.3. Heroes and Saints of Benevolence: Patrons of Learning as Models of
Behavior for Students and the Public
While wards at the Foundling Home presented themselves as witnesses to the miracles
performed by the Christ-like monarch, students at secondary schools tended to conceptualize
303 “Потом при столе Господ Опекунов по классам были ексаменованы в разных упражнениях, […], после
чего рукоделия и форшрифты разных языков […] показаны напоследок были всем присутствующим.” Ibid.,
[6].
304 “[…] посетившие гости, […], подходили еще к столам, на которых детския были рукоделия, […]; при чем
доброта и особливое искусство в сих мастерствах во многих возбудили желание, некоторыя вещи у себя
иметь: почему с великим удовольствием оныя покупали: […].” Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri
Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago
Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia 23 dnia, [6-7].

105
their performances through a fusion of both religious and Classical metaphors. On the one hand,
unlike wards, many of the pupils were young noblemen expected to enter the state service after
graduation, and it is no surprise that rhetoric and poetics were a crucial part of their studies,
which influenced their choice of tropes and figures.305 Ancient Greek and Latin were also studied
quite extensively, and students spent a lot of time translating texts from these languages to
Russian, which also helped them to transport the classical imagery into their own writings. On
the other hand, religious instruction remained an important part of school curricula and certainly
a part of one’s general upbringing. Many teachers at secondary schools graduated from
seminaries, which also affected their teaching style, their choice of educational materials, their
expectations from students’ works, and, eventually, the students’ texts.
The neoclassical and the religious very often (but not always) merged in young authors’
writings and performances, creating something like a double exposition. On the one hand,
schools in their texts looked like “the temples of Muses” or the forum, while their recitals at
school solemn acts in front of the audience, which represented the entire Fatherland, resembled
orators’ public performances in ancient Greece or Rome.306 In this context, students’ writings
305 For example, Irina Reyfman has noted that “in post-Petrine Russia, as in France a century earlier, being able to
write—and to write well—gradually became one of a Russian nobleman’s necessary skills. […] the curriculum at
the first educational institution for children on the nobility, the Noble Infantry Cadet Corps established in 1732, was
predominantly humanistic.” Irina Reyfman, How Russia Learned to Write: Literature and the Imperial Table of
Ranks (Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2016), 11. In his book on the development of
Russian legal consciousness, Richard Wortman has argued that writing skills were essential for a stateman.
According to him, “the most prominent representatives of the new noble civil servants were the young officials who
led the literary society Arzamas. […] the Karamzinians […] represented a whole new official mentality. […] The
diplomat-sentimentalist type was part of a culture of literary expression, and simple and elegant writing was his
specialty.” Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press, 1976), 93–94. The significance of rhetoric in the school program was not exclusive of Russia. In France, as
Marisa Linton has stated, it played an important role for those students who “was going to take up a public career.”
Marisa Linton, The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France (Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001), 38.
306 These tendencies, of course, corresponded with the general interest in the classical antiquity. See Lotman’s
frequently cited observations on the classical figures as models of behavior for children: “Cамым обаятельном в
глазах детей и подростков становится образ римского республиканца.” Iurii Lotman, Besedy o russkoi kul’ture.
Byt i traditsii russkogo dvorianstva (XVIII–nachalo XIX veka) (Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 1994), 63.

106
that advocated for benevolence and praised benefactors alluded to the classical encomium—a
part of progymnasmata (the preliminary rhetorical training of young men),307 an exercise which
glorified a worthy subject, often a (dead) virtuous citizen.308 Many of these writings were
eulogies which revolved around the theme of exegi monumentum, showing benefactors as the
(only) true heroes who deserved to be remembered in eternity. Alternatively, benefactors were
compared to genii loci, nearly deities or spirits who founded the educational institution or
contributed to its development, and took care of the students. On the other hand, “the temples of
Muses” also remained the temples where children would welcome the Christ-like monarch (just
as they appeared in the wards’ texts discussed in the previous section). Students’ recitals, full of
biblical references, were still akin to sermons or even, in some way, to hagiographic literature.
The exemplary philanthropists, in turn, were presented not only as civic heroes, but also as the
righteous men (pravedniki) or ascetics (podvizhniki). In addition to that, students likened their
patrons to guarding angels.
An officially proclaimed goal of such exercises at Russian schools was pedagogical: by
familiarizing themselves with heroic/righteous benefactors through writing about them, juvenile
authors were expected to internalize civic/Christian virtues, including benevolence.309 In many of
307 The completion of progymnasmata often coincided with the Liberaria—a ritual in the ancient Rome that took
place at the forum and celebrated the maturation of a young freeborn boy to manhood. A public act in imperial
Russia, which functioned as the rite of passage for young people, See: Amy Richlin, “Gender and Rhetoric:
Producing Manhood in the Schools,” in Roman Eloquence. Rhetoric in Society and Literature (London: Routledge,
1997), 75–76.
308 For a more detailed definition of an encomium, see: Donald Lemen Clark, Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education
(New York, Columbia University Press, 1957), 194–98, 214.
309 About writing (in particular, keeping a journal) and the process of internalization, see, for instance: Andrei Zorin,
Poiavlenie geroia: Iz istorii russkoi emotsional’noi kul’tury kontsa XVIII-nachala XIX veka (Moscow: Novoe
literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016), 43.

107
these writings young people addressed their peers, encouraging each other to follow the great
men’s path. However, the pedagogical effect was not limited to students themselves: like public
performances in the classical age and sermons, these recitals of juvenile authors similarly
contributed to the formation of the public discourse—in this case, the discussion on charity.
Delivered at solemn acts and printed in brochures, almanacs, and periodicals, these exercises
reached a much broader audience and often read like they were addressed to the public as well.
That way, adolescent writers inspired benevolence not only among their classmates, but also
among the potential patrons of schools, which in the case of the latter meant making donations.
By writing and presenting their literary works in front of the public, young people served as
convenient and rather productive mouthpieces of the government on its policy in education and
charity.
Dozens of texbooks instructed students how to produce the new encomiums. Thus, Ivan
Rizhskii’s On Rhetoric (Opyt ritoriki, 1796) provided a detailed explanation of “pokhval’nye
slova, ili Panegiriki,” the content of which he described as “encomiun to a famous dead person,
either dead or alive.”310 Importantly, according to Rizhskii, the grounds for praise included
“enlightnment and love for sciences,” “moral and civic virtues,” and “famous deeds.”311 The
patrons of learning, therefore, could easily fit into all of these categories at once. Other authors
chose model texts discussing benevolence to illustrate theoretical concepts. For example, Iakov
310 “похвала знаменитого или умершаго, или современнаго лица.” Ivan Rizhskii, Opyt ritoriki sochinennyi i
prepodavaemyi v Sanktpeterburgskom Gornom uchilishche (Sankt-Peterburg, 1796), 287. As model texts, Rizhskii
uses Lomonosov’s “slova”—dedicated to Peter the Great and Elizabeth (344–46). Rizhskii’s textbook was one of
many that mentioned pokhval’nye rechi or pokhval’nye slova. See, for example, also: Matvei Talyzin, Nachal’nyia
osnovaniia ritoriki i poezii s predvaritel’nym ob’’iasneniem neobkhodimykh logicheskikh pravil, sobrannye dia Igo
kadetskago korpusa Matveem Talyzinym (Sankt-Peterburg, 1818), 108.
311 “просвещение и любовь к наукам,” “нравственные и гражданские добродетели,” and “знаменитые
деяния.” Ivan Rizhskii, Opyt ritoriki sochinennyi i prepodavaemyi v Sanktpeterburgskom Gornom uchilishche
(Sankt-Peterburg, 1796), 289.

108
Tolmachev’s Rules of Rhetoric (Pravila slovesnosti, 1814) gave the following illustration of a
complex sentence, “soedinitel’nyi period”: “The glory of true benefactors of humnakind, […],
never dies; and even their ashes, kept with reverence, are consecrated by the gratitude of
virtue.”312 The statement on benevolence and the glory to which the benefactors are entitled thus
acquired the immutability of a grammar rule. Although Tolmachev did not specifically say that
benevolence meant “being a patron of a school,” students could easily pick up these details from
the context formed by other materials. Furthemore, choosing model texts for their textbooks,
some authors, such as Ivan Davydov, cited such literary pieces that praised famous benefactors.
Thus, offering the best examples of “nravstvennye ody” in his Russian Language Textbook
(Uchebnaia kniga ruskago iazyka, 1823), Davydov included Derzhavin’s poem “Na konchinu
blagotvoritelia”— the ode “na smert’ […] Betskago,” as he referred to it.313 In addition to that,
students not only learned the rules of grammar, rhetoric, and poetics that concerned benevolence
and patronage in one way or another, but also were introduced to historical examples of those.
Such editions as Plutarch for Youth (Plutarkh dlia iunoshei, 1808) provided young people with
biographies of the great men whose life stories illustrated the idea of virtuous existence, for
example, Maecenas who was called “the patron of sciences” (pokrovitel’ nauk) [and not a patron
of arts or culture—E. Sh.].”314 All these materials could help students to write and deliver their
own speeches and poems lauding the great deeds of the contemporary Maecenases.
312 “Слава истинных благотворителей человечества, […], не умирает вечно; и самый даже их прах,
благоговейно хранимый, святится из рода в род признательностию добродетели.” Iakov Tolmachev, Pravila
slovesnosti, rukovodstvuiushchie ot pervykh nachal do vyshshikh sovershenst krasnorechiia, v chetyrekh chastiakh
(Sankt-Peterburg, 1814), 152.
313 Ivan Davydov, Uchebnaia kniga ruskago iazyka, soderzhashchaia etimologiiu, orfografiiu, sintaksis, prosodiiu i
kratskie pravila ritoriki. Dlia Blagorodnykh Vospitannikov Universitetskago Pansiona. Izdanie vtoroe (Moskva,
1823), 145–46.
314 Plutarkh dlia iunoshei, ili zhizn’ velikikh liudei vsekh natsii, ot samykh otdalennykh do nashikh vremen. S 212
vygravirovannymi ikh portretami; Sochinenie mogushchee vozvysit’ dushu molodykh liudei i ukrasit’ onuiu

109
While discussing civic virtues and producing neoclassical “heroic” narratives were very
common at many schools, Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility was certainly the most
characteristic case.315 Students’ performances that took place at the public act in 1798 illustrate
this tendency especially well. What became a standout part of the entire event was the
installation of several portraits depicting the curators of Moscow university who were patrons of
Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility as well: the late Ivan Shuvalov, the late Ivan
Melissino, and Mikhail Kheraskov who was still alive and present at the act. The installation
process was accompanied by students’ reciting their works: poems by Semen Rodzianka and the
recent alumnus of the school Petr Kaisarov,316 as well as a speech on virtue by Vasilii
Zhukovskii.317 All these works presented the patrons as paragons of benevolence and patronage,
rendering the motif of true everlasting glory—the reward for their good deeds. This is exactly
how Semen Rodzianka pictured Shuvalov:
You were the joy of the suffering, the patron of Muses,
And you built their temple in Russia.
Your spirit lives in your deeds—and the next centuries
Will weave the immortal wreath for your heroic deeds.318
dobrodeteliami; izdannoe Petrom Blanshardom. Perevod so vtorago ispravlennago i peresmotrennago na
Frantsuzskom iazyke izdaniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1808), 4: 1–4.
315 Depicting heroic images of the patrons, the School naturally followed Moscow university. Thus, in 1786,
university students produced “Stikhi na smert’ deistvitel’nago statskago sovetnika Prokopiia Akinfovicha
Demidova” (1786), which were recited at the memorial service and published in Moskovskie vedomosti.
316 Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 5, 8–10.
317 Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798
goda (Moskva, 1798).
318 “Отрадой страждущих, покровом Муз ты был,/И храм в России их воздвигнув, утвердил./Твой дух живет
в делах—и веки отдаленны/Сплетут за доблести Тебе венец нетленный.” Semen Rodzianka, “No.1,” Akt,
byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 8.

110
By choosing the word “doblesti” (“merits”), usually reserved for military feats, Rodzianka
makes Shuvalov’s charitable acts and partonage of learning heroic. It is the support of education,
he states, that makes one deserving of the crown of eternal glory. Just like Kheraskov and
Derzhavin, Rodzianka points at the Horatian distinction between the brittle material monument
and the eternal monument of one’s benevolence which becomes more solid than any physical
object (“tverdyi pamiatnik”):
Alas! I see, Saturnus with his terrible scythe
Is trying to destroy Your solid monument…
But what? —he has raised his scythe—he struck—and the scythe broke,
And the strong muscle got tired for the first time.
Oh Cronos! You can destroy everything in this world,
But you are not capable of dimming the brightness of good deeds.319
Other patrons appear to be someone between a guarding angel and a genius loci who oversees
and protects the school and all students, such as Melissino:
Your were a caring Custodian, Trustee;
And our friend, and father, and our Guarding Angel.320

Finally, Rodzianka concludes the poems by emphasizing how the virtues personified by the
patrons, these “glorious men,” are getting internalized by students:
319 “Увы! Я зрю, Сатурн с ужасною косой/Стремится памятник разрушить твердый Твой.../Но чтож—
взмахнул косой—ударил—сокрушилась,/И мышца крепкая впервые утомилась./О Крон! Ты в свете сем все
можешь истребить;/Лишь блеску дел благих не силен помрачить.” Semen Rodzianka, “No.1,” Akt, byvshii v
Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 8–9.
320 “Ты был рачительный Начальник, Попечитель;/И друг наш, и отец, и Гений наш хранитель.” Semen
Rodzianka, “No.1,” Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva,
1798), 9. See Joachim Klein’s arguments on the cult of sentimental friendship in funeral poetry, and how it affected
the new concept of greatness: Joachim Klein, “’Stichi na končinu…’ Russische Begräbnisdichtung im 18.
Jahrhundert,” Welt der Slaven 66, no.1 (2021): 141–77. Picturing school patrons as friends emphasized the sincerity
and selflessness of their bond with the students, the sincerity of their contributions, and the sincerity of the young
authors (in a way, it worked much like the Biblical references on the role of children).

111
Oh, glorious Men! Your image is in these features;
But your virtues—are here, here, in our hearts! 321
The recent graduate Petr Kaisarov made the theme of emulation explicit, defining the
curators as exemplary individuals and connecting the themes of benevolence, patronage, and
patriotism:
A Friend of the Humankind, an example of a great soul;
A Dignitary, Maecenas, a Man loved by everyone,
Russia’s loyal son, who revived Muses,
Who built the temple of sciences, unforgettable Shuvalov.
322
Another poem by Kaisarov, dedicated to Melissino, displays the features of an epitaph and, in a
way, of a very compact hagiography, presenting the patron as a model of virtuous behavior:
A friend of Muses, Melissino, with sensitive soul,
He considered being gracious and kind his duty,
He lived for the common good, for his neighbor,
And thought of himself as blessed by spreading blessings.323
The expression “the lover of Muses” or “the friend of Muses” was very popular in the
eighteenth-century panegyrics addressed to patrons. At the same time, Melissino is not only a
321“О Мужи славные! Ваш образ в сих чертах;/Но добродетели—здесь, здесь, у нас в сердцах!” Semen
Rodzianka, “No.1,” Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva,
1798), 8–9.
322 “Друг человечества, пример великих душ;/Вельможа, Меценат, любимый всеми Муж,/России верный
сын, кем Музы оживленны,/Кем создан храм наук, Шувалов незабвенный.” Petr Kaisarov, “No. 2,” in Akt,
byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 10.
323 “Друг Муз, Мелиссино, с чувствительной душею,/Любезным, добрым быть, чтил должностью своею,/Для
пользы общества, для ближняго он жил,/И щастливым творя, себя счастливым мнил.” Petr Kaisarov, “No. 2,”
in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 10.

112
new Maecenas, but also a good citizen and a good Christian who lived for the common good and
for the good of his neighbor.
Zhukovskii who followed the recitals of their poems with his speech on virtue, also
combined the republican model of glory with Christian motifs. First, he further developed the
heroic and even sacred images of the curators. He refers to their portraits as if they were
depictions of ancient deities at this “temple of learning”: “[…] here, at the base of this sacred for
us images, […], we dare to repeat our solemn oath, that we will apply all our strength: may the
seed of good in our heart will grow its fruits; […].”324 Discussing various manifestations of
virtue, he portrays the ideal Benefactor, placing him in the context of an ancient ritual: “Look at
this Benefactor of humanity, […]! […] He is the noble being, who resides not in the temple
made by human hands, but in the temple of obliged hearts. Here, at this shrine, there is the altar
in his honor, where the pure sacrifice, the sacrifice of gratitude is offered, the altar which will not
be destroyed by the hand of time, neither the fall of earth will shake it.”325 Zhukovskii, as we can
see, explored the same exegi monumentum motif by using such details as the temple not built by
human hands, the powerlessness of time, eternal gratitude of the future generations, etc. The true
“monument” here is the “altar” in one’s heart.
324 “[…] при подножии сих священных для нас изображений, […], еще дерзаем мы повторить
торжественный обет свой, что употребим все силы: да семя добра, лежащее в груди нашей, произрастит
спасительные плоды свои; […].” The cursive is in the original. Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v
Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 21–22.
325 “Посмотрите на сего Благодетеля человечества, […]! […] Он есть благотворное некое существо,
обитающее не в рукотворном храме, но в скинии сердец обязанных. Здесь, в сем святилище, поставлен ему
олтарь, на коем курится чистая, неугасаемая жертва благодарности, олтарь, котораго рука времени не
скорушит, и падение земли не поколеблет.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom
blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 23–24.

113
Providing the definition of the concept, Zhukovskii illustrated it with concrete examples
and invited the audience to switch from mental images back to the more tangible ones—the
portraits of Shuvalov, Melissino, and Kheraskov. He exemplified the real patrons as the ideals of
benevolence to which one is supposed to live up by using parallel syntactic constructions, the
same formulae such as “the Friend of the Humankind” or “the crown of eternity”:326 “Look at
these images. This is the face (lik) of Shuvalov! The stern fate has taken him away from us;
but—our heart beats in our chest, and Shuvalov is alive there. The Friend of the humankind! You
deserve the crown of immortality; and the following ages will echo your name with reverence.
This is the image (obraz) of Melissino! —why cannot we throw ourselves on his coffin, […]!
Why cannot we drop our tears on it! Flowers would grow on it from our tears, and with their
smell would tell a wanderer: Here rests the Patron of Sciences.”327
The standard formulae
“Blagodetel’ chelovechestva” and “Drug chelovechestva” visually rhymed with the capitalized
“Pokrovitel’ Nauk.” That made all of these expressions synonymous, and sent a very clear
message to the audience: the patron of learning is the friend of the humankind, the true hero.328
At the same time, Zhukovskii’s speech was full of biblical allusions, which made it sound
not only like an encomium, but also like a sermon. He nearly preaches benevolence: “Sacred
326 The same strategy of illustrating the concept with concrete figures was used by Derzhavin in the poem analyzed
above and by B. …v (apparently, Petr Bogdanov, a student at Moscow university) who wrote his poem
“Blagotvoritel’nost’” (“Benevolence”) by the same principle, see: B…v, “Blagotvoritel’nost’,” Utrenniaia zaria
(1805): 31–36.
327
“Воззрите на сии изображения. Се лик Шувалова! Грозная судьба похитила его от нас; но—сердце еще
бьется в груди нашей, и Шувалов там живет. Друг человечества! ты достоин венца безсмертия; и грядущие,
отдаленные веки, с благоговением повторят имя твое. Се образ Мелиссина!—[…] почто не можем мы
повергнуться на гроб его, […]! почто не можем окропить его своими слезами! От них возрасли бы на нем
цветы, и благоуханием своим возвестили страннику: Здесь почиет Покровитель Наук.” Akt, byvshii v
Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 29–30.
328 Most likely, the audience could follow the speech as students’ texts were usually printed and handed out to the
attendees during a public act.

114
benevolence! […] blessed is the one who follows your sacred statues! Blessed is the one who
fights under your flag! Blessed! Because no opposing forces will shake him, no calamities or
sufferings will overcome him.”329 Despite the word “battles” (“voinstvuet”) which brings heroic
military connotations, these lines mimic the syntactic structure of the Beatitudes.
330 Virtue (or
benevolence), as Zhukovskii points out following the logic of the original text, is the highest
reward, even if the one who is devoted it, suffers. Virtue brings one true happiness and serenity.
Zhukovskii thus again uses this familiar to everyone in the audience pretext to enhance the
credibility of his own statements and to provide the audience with the moral guidance,
instructing them on how they are supposed to behave.
Describing the ideal Benefactor, who lives according to these doctrines and thus counting
him among the blessed, Zhukovskii literally calls him “the righteous man” (“pravednik”): “Look:
how clear, how divine his eyes are! A tear of admiration is shining on his cheek; peace and
tranquility rule in his soul. […] His sleep is sleep of the Righteous Man; […].”331 Drawing
attention to the patrons’ portraits, Zhukovskii similarly characterizes them as the righteous men:
“The blessed shadows! Rest in peace in the tabernacles of the Righteous; we will not disturb
your peace by turning from the path of virtue.” 332 “The tabernacles of the righteous” (“seleniia
329 “Священная добродетель! […] блажен тот, кто исполняет священные твои уставы! Блажен тот, кто
воинствует под победительным знаменем твоим! Блажен! ибо никакия сопротивныя силы не поколеблют
его, никакия бедствия и страдания не одолеют.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom
blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 22.
330 Matt. 5: 3–11.
331 “Посмотрите: как взоры его чисты, божественны! На ланите блестит слеза восхищения; в душе царствует
мир и тишина. […] Сон его есть сон Праведника; […].” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v
Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 23–24.
332 “Тени священныя! покойтесь в селениях Праведных; мы не возмутим тишины вашей уклонением от пути
добродетели.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14
dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 30.

115
Pravednye”) is a direct quotation from the Psalter: “The voice of rejoicing and salvation is in the
tabernacles of the righteous: the right hand of the Lord doeth valiantly.”333 Zhukovskii thus
suggests that philanthropic efforts applied to education is not simply moral, but also that such a
behavior is rewarding: it leads one to salvation.
At the end of his speech, Zhukovskii urges the public, firstly his peers, to be not only
educated, but also virtuous: “What is enlightenment without virtue? Sounding brass, a tinkling
cymbal, impure, poisonous stream. Enlightenment and virtue!—let us unite them inseparably;
may they rule together in our souls.”334 The source of this statement was easily identifiable for
the audience as well: “Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of
prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I
could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods
to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me
nothing.”335 Referring to the First Epistle to the Corinthians, Zhukovskii, again, modeled his text
after the well-recognizable and undisputed pretext, thus adding weight to his statements about
benevolence and education.
The main goal of the portraits installation, as the brochure stated, was supposedly
pedagogical: “[…] so thus these images, being all the time in front of the Students, would remind
333 Ps. 117: 15.
334 “Что просвещение без добродетели? Медь звенящая, кимвал бряцаяй, нечистый, заразительный источник.
Просвещение и добродетель!—соединим их неразрывным союзом; да царствуют оне совокупно в душах
наших.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia,
1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 28.
335 1 Cor. 13:1–3.

116
them, how much they owe to their benevolent Maecenases, and would evoke in them desire to
follow the example of these great Men, distinguished by their love for the Fatherland, for
sciences, for the good; […].”336 Zhukovskii confirmed the educational role of the benefactors in
his speech, both as “heroes” and as “the righteous men”: “The good they did for us is
immeasurable; but their deeds, their virtuous example that we got from them is precious.” 337

Curiously, setting up the example of virtuous behavior, in his view, can be even more important
than actual contributions to education.
Yet, as we have seen in the previous sections, portraits exhibited in the public space was a
form of official recognition of a benefactor and a way to promote charity among potential
patrons. Given that the portraits accompanied by students’ recitals constituted the central part of
the public ceremony, the expected effect was hardly limited to students themselves. Moreover,
even if the portraits of the model patrons hung on the walls of the school, the poems which
turned them into the “heroes of benevolence” and stressed their exemplary, educational role,
336 “[…] чтобы таким образом изображения сии, будучи всегда пред глазами Воспитанников, напоминали
им, сколько они обязаны благотворным своим Меценатам, и возбуждали в них ревность последовать
примеру сих знаменитых Мужей, отличившихся любовию к отечеству, к наукам, к добру; […].” Akt, byvshii v
Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 4. This explanation was
very typical. We can find similar reasoning in Plutarkh dlia iunoshei. The introduction to this book, for example,
said: “[…] чтение жизни великих людей […]. […] раждает в сердце молодых людей желание подражать
великим людям, представленным им в пример.” Furthermore, emulation was considered the only right reaction to
such a reading: “Молодой человек, который не почувствует в себе стремления подражать великим деяниям,
украсившим кого нибудь из подобных ему, должен почитаться или обиженным самою природою, или
презревшим все щастливые свои таланты.” The duties of pedagogues were to saturate the learning environment
with such models: “[…] должно представлять примеры, между коими он [i.e., a young person—E. Sh.] может
выбрать для себя любимой и сам остановится на том, которой по его мнению более всех достоин
подражания; и изследование великих его дел, безпрестанно будет возобновлять в нем желание сравниться с
обожаемым им предметом.” Writing and producing texts about the “heroes of virtue” could, in turn, help young
people to internalize these models of behavior. Moreover, in their writings, they openly encouraged their peers to
follow in the footsteps of the great men, which, again, was to serve the same purposes. Plutarkh dlia iunoshei
(Sankt-Peterburg, 1808), 1: IX–XI.
337 “Бесчисленны к нам их благодеяния; но дела их, но добродетельный пример их есть то, что мы
драгоценнаго от них получили.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom
pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 29.

117
circulated in a much bigger public space. Not only these students’ texts were immediately
published in the brochure describing the solemn act, but they were reprinted several times,
reaching the audience that was much bigger than the initial one. Semen Podzianka’s poems
appeared in the first issue of Utrenniaia zaria (1800),338 and in Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei
zari (1809), followed by Petr Kaisarov’s epitaphs,339 and some fresh poetic additions: a poem
composed by M. Milonov and dedicated to Count Aleksei Razumovskii,340 and a poem on the
death of Kheraskov written by Nikolai Grammatin (that one, in turn, was a reprint of the original
poem previously published in 1807 in the said almanac and as a separate brochure).341
But even within the relatively limited space of the school event, students’ works could be
perceived as if they aimed at the public. Although the young writers often explicitly addressed
their peers, their texts often contained expressions or even the entire paragraphs which would
erase the differences. For example, when Zhukovskii starts his speech, he emphasizes that virtue
is a subject “precious for all of us.”342 When referring to the Gospel of Matthew, he says
“blessed who…,” he is not specific about his listener. Zhukovskii makes his statements sound
universally valid and applicable to everyone in the audience, and only then mentions his “dear
338 Semen Podzianka, “Na sluchai postanovleniia portretov Ikh Prevoskhoditel’stv Gg. Kuratorov Universiteta v
novoi Pansionskoi zale,” Utrenniaia zaria 1 (1800): 179–81.
339 Petr Kaisarov, “Nadpisi k portretam, postavlennym v zale Universitetskago Blagorodnago Pansiona,” in
Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei zari (Moskva, 1809), 203–204.
340 M. Milonov, “Nadpisi k portretam, postavlennym v zale Universitetskago Blagorodnago Pansiona,” in Izbrannye
sochineniia iz Utrennei zari (Moskva, 1809), 204. Apparently, the poem was written on the installation of
Razumovskii’s portrait.
341 Nikolai Grammatin, “Na konchinu Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova, Osnovatelia Universitetskago
Blagorodnago Pansiona,” in Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei zari (Moskva, 1809), 209–12.
342
“драгоценный для всех нас.” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom
pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798), 23.

118
fellows” (“liubeznye tovarishchi”).343 His words “we have received the virtuous example”
(“dobrodetel’nyi primer […] my poluchili”), cited above, could read as “all of us have received
this example,” which would encompass the entire audience, including the visitors.
The poem by Nikolai Grammatin also reveals how students’ texts could speak to different
recipients. Addressing God, he says:
When the sacred love for the Fatherland, for the Tsar,
And pure faith, inspired by You
Must always glow in the hearts of Your children—
Why is it needed to deprive us from our Mentors, our Examples?—
They taught us to love You, to love the Tsar,
They were your representatives on earth, the advice of the wise! 344
Of course, by using the word “children” (“deti”) Grammatin referred primarily to the
fellow students. And yet, given that all believers in Christianity are called “children of God”
(“deti Bozh’i”), his choice of words did not prevent grown-up readers from identifying with
students, at least to some extent, and therefore it could not prevent them from seeing Shuvalov,
Melissino, and Kheraskov as exemplary in their patronage of education.
343 Vasilii Zhukovskii, “No.7,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14 dnia, 1798
goda (Moskva, 1798), 22. Moreover, since patrons, in the spirit of sentimentalism, were often called “friends” a
well, it blurred the lines between different groups of addresses even more.
344 “Когда к Отечеству, к Царю любовь священна,/И вера чистая, Тобою вдохновенна,/В сердцах детей
Твоих должны всегда блистать—/Но чтож Наставников, Примеров нас лишать?—/Они Тебя любить, любить
Царя учили;/Твой орган на земле, советы мудрых были!” Nikolai Grammatin, “Na konchinu Mikhaily
Matveevicha Kheraskova, Osnovatelia Universitetskago Blagorodnago Pansiona,” in Izbrannye sochineniia iz
Utrennei zari (Moskva, 1809), 210.

119
Promoting charity and creating the inspiring images of model benefactors, students’
writings could also remind the attendees at a public act as well as the reading public that anyone
can and even must become a benefactor, regardless their social status or financial abilities. Thus,
in an essay “Benevolence” (“Blagotvoritel’nost’”) translated from French, the student Nikolai
Islen’ev stated that benevolence is everyone’s duty: “The duty of a citizen— to be useful to the
society. It is not enough that they obey the law, are fair, and do not do any harm; it is necessary
that they do good deeds as much as they can and serve others.”345 Significantly, the young author
talks about benevolence not as a religious duty, but a civic obligation. “Who does have the right
not to be benevolent?” he poses the rhetorical question.346 At the same time, Islen’ev assures the
public that everyone is capable of fulfilling this obligation: “Everyone can be benevolent,
because everyone can be useful for the other.” 347
Although works like this did not mentioned
patronage of education or did not name benefactors, it still shaped the general discourse on
benevolence. Published in the almanac I otdykh v pol’zu, the essay could reach a bigger audience
and encourage the readers to follow the advice.
Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility was not the only institution where school poets
and orators created images of model benefactors. Thus, in 1808, the journal Periodicheskoe
sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia published a cycle of two poems, entitled
“Verses on the Death of Prince Aleksandr Mikhailovich Golitsyn” (“Stikhi na konchinu Kniazia
345 “Долг гражданина—быть полезным обществу. Не довольно, чтоб он повиновался законам, был
справедлив, не делал зла; надобно, чтоб он по возможности делал добро и оказывал другим услуги.” N.
Islen’ev, “Blagotvoritel’nost’,” in I otdykh v pol’zu (Moskva, 1804), 47.
346 “Кто же в праве не быть благодетельным?” N. Islen’ev, “Blagotvoritel’nost’,” in I otdykh v pol’zu (Moskva,
1804), 47.
347“Всякой может быть благодетельным, потому что всякой может быть полезным другому.” N. Islen’ev,
“Blagotvoritel’nost’,” in I otdykh v pol’zu (Moskva, 1804), 47.

120
Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna”). The poems were written by Liubov’ Kameneva and
Anna Rogova, two students at the school for girls from poor families, St. Catherine Order School
(Moscow).
348 Although this publication of female student authors was a very rare case, from the
texts themselves we can see that girls at this school were taught to write in essentially the same
manner as boys.349 Golitsyn appeared both as the true hero (velikii) who deserves to be glorified
and the righteous man, but, most importantly, as a model to imitate.350 Both authors used the
typical exegi monumentum motif, or, more accurately, the motif of an alternative monument of
one’s good deeds established in the hearts of others. Rogova traditionally contrasts philanthropic
deeds (blagotvoreniia) and military feats (brannye podvigi):
He earned glory without military feats,
And raised the eternal monument to himself in [our] hearts.351
Kameneva, in turn, nearly makes her poem itself the said monument by using the adverb “here”
(vot). By writing it she proves that Golitsyn’s deeds have not been forgotten:
The deeds of the great ones are unforgettable:
Prince will be saved here in our hearts.
These are his immortal monument!
348 This school was supervised by the Office of the Institutions of Empress Maria, the Imperial government office of
charity.
349 They even received the same rewards. Anna Kameneva and Liubov’ Rogova who wrote verses on the death of
Golitsyn in 1808, in 1810 received the “medium silver medal” and the “big silver medal,” respectively. Moskovskoe
uchilishche ordena Sv. Ekateriny 1803–1903 g.g. Istoricheskii ocherk sostavlen po porucheniiu Soveta Uchilishcha
Komissiei prepodavatelei pod obshchei redaktsiei inspektora klassov V.A. Vagnera (Moskva, 1903), 476.
350 Given the same subject and the same set of motifs, we can assume that to write these poems was a school
assignment. Possibly, these two poems were chosen as the best to be published.
351 “Без бранных подвигов прославился в делах,/И вечный памятник воздвиг себе в сердцах.” Anna Rogova,
“Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,” Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo
prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 358.

121
Rejoice, Golitsyn! in the heavens.352
This heroic image, however, reveals some religious overtones added by Rogova, who depicts his
entire life as nothing but a series of good deeds; it is the life of a pravednik or even a guardian
angel:
His entire life was just a sequence of benevolent deeds;
He was shining among us like a gentle, serene Angel,
[…].353
Both students portray Golitsyn as an ideal to follow. For Rogova, he was a model for young
people who inspired them to lead virtuous lives:
Was it a long time ago when he charmed us with his goodness,
And impressed children’s minds with his example?...
[…]
Now, having left his benevolence as the example for his friends,
Our benefactor chose the better dwelling.354
Kameneva takes this motif further by directly addressing other students and urging them
to model themselves on Golitsyn, which will grant them eternal life (apparently, both as heroes
and as pravedniki):
Friends, who are shedding the streams of tears!
Let us try to follow Prince’s example;
352 “Дела великих незабвенны:/ Князь сохранится здесь в сердцах./ Вот памятник его нетленный!/ Ликуй,
Голицын! в небесах.” Liubov’ Kameneva, “Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,”
Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 357.
353 “Вся жизнь его была лишь цепь благотворений;/Меж нами он блистал как кроткий, тихий Гений,/[…].”
Anna Rogova, “Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,” Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob
uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 358.
354 “Давноли благостью своею он пленял,/И детские умы примером восхищал?../[…]/Теперь в пример
друзьям оставя добродетель,/Жилище лучшее избрал наш благодетель.” Ibid.

122
We will be immortal like him,
Let us comfort ourselves with that.355
Published in the journal, Kameneva’s words, however, reached much bigger audience
and “let us try to follow Prince’s example” (potshchimsia kniaziu podrazhat’) could be read as
an appeal to any reader. Moreover, according to the author, immortal glory usually guaranteed to
great men could be awaiting any who follows Golitsyn’s path and also becomes a benefactor
and, therefore, a virtuous person.
The following poem also demonstrates how students created images of model benefactors
by merging religious and neoclassical metaphors and thus promoted charity. It was written in
1822 by Fedor Baldauf, a student at the Mining Corps and a budding poet.356 The poem was
recited at the public act by a cadet (not the author himself) who was accompanied by the choir. It
was also published in Blagonamerennyi, one of the most popular journals in the 1820s, together
with a description of the public act.357 Baldauf starts his text by unfolding the standard “a school
as a temple” metaphor, which in this case has clear Christian overtones set by the epithets
“humble” (smirennyi) and “holy” (sviatoi) as well as the word “the Truth” (istina):
Farewell, the humble temple of sciences,
The haven of love and care,
Where the Truth appeared before us
In the light of the sacred enlightenment.358
355 “Друзья, лиющи токи слезны!/Потщимся Князю подражать;/Мы будем вместе с ним безсмертны,/Себя
тем станем утешать.” Liubov’ Kameneva, “Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,”
Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 357.
356 The Mining Corps was an institution that prepared mining engineers.
357 Fedor Baldauf, [“Prosti, nauk smirennyi khram…”], Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 359–60. The poem was also
cited in full in: Ardalion Ivanov. “Vospominaniia o vospitanii v gornom kadetskom korpuse, 1815–1822.”
Sovremennik 8 (1859): 274–77.
358
“Прости, наук смиренный храм,/Приют любви и попеченья,/Где Истина предстала нам/

123
Addressing his peers in the second stanza (“Friends, why such a sad look?”), in the third one the
young poet instructs them how to behave. One should keep faith, be obedient to the virtuous
ruler, and express gratitude to benefactors:
Raise your eyes to the Heavens,
Give all the holiness of your Faith—to Providence;
Give your Obedience—to the righteous authorities,
And your Gratitude—to Benevolence.359
In the next stanza, Baldauf introduces the glorious heroic benefactor:
To whom our humble voice?
Who is the reason of our happiness?
Who enlightened us and took our worries away—
And gave us the glorious example to follow?360
Citing this poem in his memoirs, an alumnus of the Corps, Ardalion Ivanov commented: “the
cadet, who was singing this verse solo, took two steps forward and addressed Dmitrii
Aleksandrovich Gur’ev, who at that time was Minister of Finance.”361
After this point the poem turns into a panegyric. Gur’ev appears as the model patron of
learning (Maecenas) and an immortal genius, a glorious exemplary man (see “slavnyi primer”
above) who deserves to be praised by the future generations:
В лучах святаго просвещенья.” Fedor Baldauf, [“Prosti, nauk smirennyi khram…”], Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822):
359.
359 “С надеждой взоры к Небесам!/Вся святость Веры—Провиденью;/Покорность—праведным
властям,/Признательность—благотворенью.” Ibid., 360.
360 “К кому же наш смиренный глас?/Кто счастья нашего виною?/Кто просветил, спокоил нас—/И славный
дал пример собою?” Ibid.
361 “Кадет, певший соло этого куплета, сделал два шага вперед и обратился к графу Дмитрию
Александровичу Гурьеву, бывшему в то время министром финансов.” Ivanov, Ardalion. “Vospominaniia o
vospitanii v gornom kadetskom korpuse, 1815–1822.” Sovremennik 1859 (8): 274–77.

124
Vivat, vivat, our Maecenas!
You, immortal, wise genius,
Will be blessed
By the next generations in the ages to come.362
Just like many other students’ texts, Baldauf’s text was aimed at his fellow cadets. However,
recited and sang at the public act and published in Blagonamerennyi, the poem reached a
significantly bigger number of recipients. Moreover, the poem not simply portrayed Gur’ev as
the model of behavior but actively displayed him in front of the audience.363 This panegyric thus
employed educational potential of drama, involving the patron in the theatrical performance of
the public act.
In addition to that, the last stanza of the poem made it inclusive by stating something like
the universal truth:
Who did not shed sweet tears
For the sacred benevolence?
The deeds—are praiseworthy,
Deserved the memory of the universe!364
The rhetorical question sets up the norms (“who did not shed sweet tears in honor of sacred
virtue” reads as “everyone sheds sweet tears in honor of sacred virtue”) thus presenting
benevolence as socially validated, honorable behavior—and not only for students. Furthermore,
362 “Хвала, хвала, наш Меценат!/Тебя, безсмертный, мудрый гений,/Благословенья осенят/В веках грядущих
поколений.” Fedor Baldauf, [“Prosti, nauk smirennyi khram…”], Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 360.
363 The portraits of the benefactors mentioned earlier, obviously, had a very similar effect.
364 “Кто сладких слез не проливал/В честь добродетели священной?/Дела—достойныя похвал,/Достойны
памяти вселенной!” Fedor Baldauf, [“Prosti, nauk smirennyi khram…”], Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 360.

125
the unattributed “deeds” (dela) in the third line suggested that anyone’s good deeds could be
praiseworthy, not only the concrete charitable acts of Gur’ev. Thus, Baldauf’s poem invited the
public to follow the minister and to make donations within their power.
Fulfilling the governmental order for literary production that promoted benevolence,
students could also increase their chances to develop a literary career. The case of Baldauf
illustrates how school practices could help a young poet even if he already had some connections
in the literary world, or, more broadly, how secondary schools interacted with the literary
networks (i.e., literary societies, salons, etc.), as two mechanisms that could enable one to
become a writer. This interaction often occurred through educators. The teacher of rhetoric and
similar disciplines at the Mining Corps Andrei Nikitin was also a member of the Free Society of
Lovers of Literature, Science, and Arts. Most likely, Nikitin noticed Baldauf as a talented student
and that is why he recommended him to other members of the Society. That explains how
Baldauf came to participate in the Society’s gatherings and even had his works published in the
Society’s journal, Sorevnovatel’ prosveshcheniia i blagtvoreniia.
365 Apparently, this is also how
Baldauf became known to Aleksandr Izmailov, another member of the Society and the editor of
Blagonamerennyi—the journal which published “Farewell, the humble temple of sciences…”
in 1822. Baldauf’s teacher acted as the connecting link between the school and the literary
network, while the school public act served as a newsworthy event which prompted the
publication of his poem—the publication was not a standalone piece, but a part of a report on the
public act.
365 See, for example: Baldauf, Fedor. “Pevets. Romans.” In Ukazatel’ proizvedenii, rassmotrennykh na zasedanii
obshchestva. Vol’noe obshchestvo liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti (VOLRS), accessed July 2, 2024,
https://volrs.org/discussions/208081505.

126
Moreover, Baldauf’s example can also show us how Russian culture started to discover
the phenomenon of the literary celebrity, a new type of a public persona who relatively soon
would become no less important than the benefactor. The young poet’s case reveals that
sometimes school-related publications not only brought glory to model patrons, but also
advertised young authors themselves. Reporting in Blagonamerennyi on the public act at the
Mining Corps, the journalist A. Ochkin referred to Baldauf as “the Corps Bard” (korpusnyi
Bard). This expression suggests that Baldauf wrote occasional poetry with some regularity and
even that he performed the duties of the “official” poet of the Corps.
366 Korpusnyi bard also
implied some degree of fame, at least within the institution itself. Moreover, when one of
Baldauf’s former colleagues, the mining engineer A. Taskin commented on an earlier juvenile
work of the poet, which was presented to Dowager Empress Mariia Fedorovna, he added a
curious detail: “There could be no desire in the Corps director, Evgraf Il’ich Mechnikov, to boast
about some child prodigy, because Fedor Ivanovich [Baldauf] was already in his second to last
grade.”
367 Of course, Baldauf was not a child poet—in 1821 he was 21 years old. And yet, the
words of the memoirist cannot be read uncritically. What Taskin’s comment tells us is that even
if the Corps director did not use Baldauf as a prodigy, it was not unusual for other school
administrators to do exactly that. Such an arrangement could be beneficial for both a young poet
who would be employed to write panegyrics for school benefactors and a school which looked
366 A. Ochkin, “Ob ekzamene, byvshem v Gornom Kadetskom Korpuse, 27 Maia,” Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822):
359.
367 “Тут не могло быть со стороны тогдашняго директора Корпуса Евграфа Ильича Мечникова желания
похвастать каким-нибудь детским талантом, потому что Федор Иванович был уже в это время в […]
предпоследнем классе.” “Pis’mo Gornago Inzhenera A.N. Taskina k direktoru Gornago Instituta, akademiku N.I.
Koksharovu, o gornom inzhenere Fedore Ivanoviche Baldaufe,” in Vospominaniia byvshikh pitomtsev Gornago
instituta. Izdano ko dniu slotetniago iubileia instituta, 24 oktiabria 1873 goda (Sankt-Petergurg, 1873), 6–7.

127
better in the eyes of a patron and the public, given the growing prestige of literature and poetry in
the Russian society.
How beneficial it was for Baldauf to “serve” as a “Corps bard” we could see from the
footnote of the editor of Blagonamerennyi Aleksandr Izmailov. Commenting on the lyrics
written by Baldauf for the school choir, Izmailov said: “Many of the poems by Mr. Baldauf, born
in Nerchinsk and educated at the Mining Corps, were published in Blagonamerennyi and in
Sorevnovatel’ Prosveshcheniia, the Ed.[itor]”
368 By making the remark, Izmailov subtly invited
the public to read other poems by Baldauf (as well as the earlier issues of his own journal, of
course). The poem itself was not necessarily a pivotal moment in Baldauf’s literary career.
However, the public act and Gur’ev’s presence created a newsworthy event, which increased the
significance of Baldauf’s poetry and his presence in the public space. The journalist’s and
editor’s comments brought additional attention to the young author. Leveraging the opportunities
provided by the system of education and the development of the print, students thus could use
occasional literature not only to bring donations for their schools, but also to promote themselves
using the philanthropist’s social status and the school’s need in their literary services.
368
“Многие из стихотворений воспитывающагося в Горном Корпусе Нерчинскаго уроженца Г. Бальдауфа
помещаемы были в Благонамеренном и в Соревнователь Просвещения, Изд.” Aleksandr Izmailov, “Ob
ekzamene, byvshem v Gornom Kadetskom Korpuse, 27 Maia,” Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 359.

128
Chapter 3. Student Writers as Advocates of Russification
Imperial Russification policies in education and Russification in literature have been
actively but mostly separately studied topics for several decades.369 Recently, scholars have
begun to explore some intersections of the two fields, commenting, for example, on the
significance of “nation-focused” literary studies in Russification of nineteenth-century
academia370 or the use of school literary textbooks for the purposes of Russification.371 However,
what remains almost completely ignored is the role that student authors played in the process.
The first mention of students’ writings in relation to the imperial language policy appeared in
Nikolai Ianchuk’s article in 1907: he noted that the works written by students in the Belarusian
educational district were first presented to the Minister of National Education Sergei Uvarov to
prove the success of “the Russian word” in the region, and that later these works formed the
anthology Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga
(Exercises in Russian Letters by Students at Gymnasia of the Belarusian Educational District,
369 For example: Cynthia H. Whittaker on Uvarov’s Russification strategies in the outskirts of the Russian Empire:
Cynthia H. Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian education: An Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei
Uvarov, 1786-1855 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 189–212; Darius Staliūas on Nikolai
Ustrialov’s history textbook: Darius Staliūas, “Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian Version of the History of
the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Central Europe 8, no. 2 (2010): 146–57; Yuliya
Ilchuk, Nikolai Gogol: Performing Hybrid Identity (Toronto; Buffalo; London: University of Toronto Press, 2021).
Russification in general is one of the most widely discussed topics, see the works of Theodore Weeks, Edward C.
Thaden, Darius Staliūnas, Mikhail Dolbilov, Andreas Kappeler, Aneta Pavlenko, and Alexei Miller, to name just a
few leading scholars in the field.
370 Andy Byford, Literary Scholarship in Late Imperial Russia: Rituals of Academic Institutionalization (London:
Modern Humanities Research Association: Maney Publishing, 2007), 24, 26, 81, 161.
371 Anna Sen’kina, “Iziashchnaia slovesnost’ kak didakticheskii material: k istorii russkoi literaturnoi khrestomatii
(pervaia polovina XIX v.),” in Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii. Literaturovedenie
IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon, ed. A. Vdovin, R.
Leibov (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013), 42.

129
1839), printed by Uvarov’s order.372 A century later, Pavel Lavrinets also pointed out that the
Ministry of National Education rewarded the young contributors to Opyty with medals and ranks,
which was supposed to celebrate the success of Russification and encourage its advancement in
the Western provinces.373 Yet, the scholars have not considered how exactly students’ writings
contributed to Russification. Neither have they addressed how Opyty functioned in the public
space, even though Lavrinets has cited the introduction to the anthology which stressed that
sharing students’ writing with the public was one of the main reasons to print the book.374
Taking Ianchuk’s and Lavrinets’s observations as a starting point, this chapter will focus
on how students’ literary exercises gathered under the cover of Opyty were thought to enable
cultural assimilation, and how students’ texts shaped public discourse on imperial policy in the
late 1830s. 375 I argue that students’ writings in the Western provinces had several major
functions. As school exercises in writing, they were supposed to “convert” the new subjects to
“Russianness,” convincing the young people they were “true Russians” only temporary confused
by Polish influence. Given that Uvarov was inspired by German Romantics, it is not surprising
that Russian language and literature were believed to “contain” the national spirit,376 and that
372 Nikolai Ianchuk, “Literaturnye zametki.” Izvestiia otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi
akademii nauk 12, kn. 4 (1907): 206.
373 Pavel Lavrinets, “Pushkin v sochineniiakh gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838),” Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 4
(2007): 139–41, 151.
374 Ibid, 141.
375 As Yuliya Ilchuk has justly noted, while Russification has been studied quite extensively, scholars tend to focus
on the second half of the nineteenth century, yet many attempts of assimilation were taken throughout the first half
of the nineteenth century, see: Yuliya Ilchuk, “Gogol’s Hybrid Performance: The Creation, Reception and Editing of
Vechera na khutore bliz Dikanki (Evenings on a Farm near Dikan’ka) (1831–1832),” (PhD diss., University of
Southern California, 2009), 136, fn. 184. For a summary of Russification measures in the 1830s–40s, especially in
Ukraine, see pp. 134–37 in her dissertation.
376 Andrei Zorin has previously argued that Uvarov saw Russian history as a single “repository” of nationality, see:
Andrei Zorin, “The Cherished Triad: S. S. Uvarov’s Memorandum of 1832 and the Development of the Doctrine

130
exercises in writing were consequently applied to transform one’s national identity. The religious
overtones of the process were coming from Russian longstanding aversion towards Catholicism
and Polish culture in general377 as well as from the very nature of literary training: non-Russian
students were supposed to internalize canonical texts of Russian literature similarly to how one
had absorbed the fundamental principles of Christianity when studying religious texts to obtain
basic literacy skills.378
At the same time, published by the Ministry of National Education and advertised by
grown-up literati loyal to the government, students’ literary works were meant to support the
official ideology and to shape the public opinion on Russification. Building on the commonly
accepted Christian view of a child as a model of innocence and righteous behavior, critics and
journalists presented students’ literary exercises as unmediated feelings coming directly from the
pure children’s hearts, thus increasing the credibility of the young writers’ statements and
therefore the state ideology translated through their texts. Circulating in print, juvenile texts
actively demonstrated the authors’ successful conversion to Russianness and proved that the
“Orthodoxy—Autocracy—Nationality,” in By Fables Alone: Literature and State Ideology in Late Eighteenth- and
Early Nineteenth-Century Russia (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 356.
377 Thus, in his report to Nicholas I, Sergei Uvarov characterized Poles and Russians as “two hostile elements” with
“the long mutual hatred of one language towards the other, of the Roman church to the Orthodox, of Western
civilization to the Eastern […].” Qtd. in: Cynthia Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian education: An
Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984),
191.
378 As Viktor Zhivov has pointed out, learning to read and write was associated with one’s introduction into
Christianity: Viktor Zhivov, Language and Culture in Eighteenth Century Russia, trans. Marcus Levitt (Boston,
MA: Academic Studies Press; 2009), 8. For the interaction between religious and secular elements in language and
literary education, see also: M.V. Tendri
︠
a
︡kova and V.G. Bezrogov, eds.,“V Rossii nado zhit’ po knige”: Nachal’noe
obuchenie chteniiu i pis’mu. Stanovlenie uchebnoi knigi v XVI–XIX vv. (Moskva: Pami
︠
a
︡
tniki istoricheskoi mysli,
2015); Gary Marker, “Paradigms of Eighteenth-Century Russian Education, or Is It Time to Move beyond
Secularization?,” European Education 52, no. 3 (2020): 193–205.

131
territories in question were the so-called “Western Rus.” While the very use of the Russian
language by the new subjects was already a powerful statement, students’ texts also showed how
young people “reestablished” their Russianness by absorbing Russian literature. Imitating model
texts from textbooks and chrestomathies, student authors filled their exercises with various
references to classic and contemporary Russian authors, which signaled to the readers that the
young people in the Western provinces shared the same cultural code.379
Furthermore, the special status of the young authors allowed the state to depict their
exercises in writing as not just the children’s but also the Russian nation’s literary debuts.
Starting from the 1810s, Uvarov developed his concept of Russian history, which presented the
country moving from its “youth” towards “maturity.”380 These ideas were further developed by
such popularizes of Uvarov’s ideas as Nikolai Grech and shaped the reviews of Opyty v russkoi
slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga. Placed in this
“evolutionary” context, the “promising” poems and essays written by students epitomized
Uvarov’s concept: they literally were the works of budding writers. Both embodying and
379 For the role of schools in the formation of the literary canon, see, for example: John Guillory, “Canon,” in
Critical Terms for Literary Study, ed. Frank Lentricchia and Thomas McLaughlin (Chicago: University of Chicago
Press; 1995) 239–48. For the school literary canon in Russia, see, for example, the works of Alexei Vdovin, Roman
Leibov, Anna Sen’kina, and others.
380 Qtd. in: Cynthia Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian education: An Intellectual Biography of Count
Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984), 34. The expression “evolutionary
metaphor” was introduced by Andrei Zorin: Andrei Zorin, “The Cherished Triad: S. S. Uvarov’s Memorandum of
1832 and the Development of the Doctrine “Orthodoxy—Autocracy—Nationality,” in By Fables Alone: Literature
and State Ideology in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Russia (Boston: Academic Studies Press,
2014), 347. Uvarov’s literary views have been briefly analyzed in: Mikhail Velizhev, “S. S. Uvarov v nachale
nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia: Zametki k teme,” Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 5 (2011): 347.

132
promoting Uvarov’s ideas, young authors elaborated on his concept of Russian history, stressed
the importance of education for an enlightened state, and presented literature as the fundament of
enlightenment and the soul of a nation. Moreover, by imitating literary examples from textbooks
and chrestomathies (a very specific selection of texts which already translated the state
ideology), student authors not only reproduced the Russian literary canon but, in a way,
crystallized the ideological message in their own writings. Their choice and interpretation of the
model texts highlighted the idea of Russia’s civilizational and cultural superiority—a statement
that was especially important for the government to make in the Western provinces where Polish
culture and Polish literature, including juvenile literature, were predominant.
While the Ministry of National Education hardly aimed to prepare young people for
literary careers, their early exercises in writing helped some of them to become writers, scholars,
journalists, and publishers. The case of Adam Honory Kirkor (Adomas Honoris Kirkoras), who
debuted in the anthology in 1839, can illustrate how this mechanism worked in the Western
provinces of the Russian Empire. Trained to be “a true Russian,” Kirkor became a fairly
influential journalist and an editor who wrote in both Russian and Polish and was equally blamed
by Russians and Poles for his lack of loyalty. His biography reveals how literary training could
compromise the initial goals of the government. By learning how to write, young people
sometimes obtained the instruments to question the official ideology or, at least, not to radiate
unquestionable loyalty to the state.
This chapter consists of three sections. Focusing primarily on official rhetoric in the first
section, I will show how Russian authorities strived to turn local young people into Russian
subjects by replacing the system of both formal and informal literary education of the former

133
Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth with exercises in Russian Letters. In the second section, I will
explain how juvenile literary works were used to convince the public that the young writers
belonged to the Russian nation and that the territories of the former Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth were rightfully retuned to the Russian Empire. In this section, I will examine
reports and reviews advertising Opyty and analyze actual students’ writings. In the third section,
I will trace how students’ writings elaborated Uvarov’s ideas on the gradual maturation of Russia
and its cultural superiority among other European nations. I will interpret students’ writings in
the context of Uvarov’s own works and the works of grown-up literati who forwarded Uvarov’s
ideas, including textbooks and chrestomathies translating official ideology. I will conclude the
chapter with a brief analysis of Adam Kirkor’s literary career, which will illustrate how and to
what extent imperial plans for literary training worked in reality.
3.1. Replacing “the Polish Spirit” with “the Russian Spirit”: Literary
Training as the Core of Civic Education and an Instrument of Cultural
Conversion
Given that linguistic studies and literary activities had played a crucial role in the
formation of Polish nationhood,381
it is not surprising that imperial authorities used education in
Russian letters to enforce Russification in the Vilna/Belarusian educational district—the district
which included the territories acquired by the Russian Empire after the partitions of the Polish381 Barbara Jasińska, “Narodowa myśl w działalności Komisji Edukacji Narodowej,” Prosopon. Europejskie Studia
Społeczno-Humanistyczne 2(8) (2014): 51. See also quotations from Annals of the Warsaw Society of Friends of
Sciences (Roczniki Towarzystwa Warszawskiego Przyjaciół Nauk) collected by Aleksei Beletskii in: Istoricheskii
obzor deiatel’nosti upravleniia Vilenskago uchebnago okruga.1803 g.–1903 g. (Vil’na, 1903), I–XIII. For the Polish
nationhood in relation to the Polish Enlightenment, see, for instance: Andrzej Walicki, The Enlightenment and the
Birth of Modern Nationhood: Polish Political Thought from Noble Republicanism to Tadeusz Kosciuszko (Notre
Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1989).

134
Lithuanian Commonwealth.382 The introduction of Russian language and literature in the
Western provinces, which became forceful in the mid-1820s and especially rigorous in the 1830s
(the advent of the so-called “official nationalism”), was not limited to formal changes in school
curricula. By imposing exercises in russkaia slovesnost’, the imperial government strived to
reshape the very identity of the young generation by bringing them “closer to native Russians,”
particularly, in the territories of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was presented by
officials and loyal literati as “Western Rus’.”383 More than that, according to the officials,
Russian Letters not only “contained” the national spirit, but had nearly religious connotations.
By absorbing Russian language and literature previously “disoriented” Belarusian and
Lithuanian students were supposed to convert, or, in the governmental view, “revert” to
Russianness as if it was the true faith brought to the locals by the Emperor.384 The religious
connotations of Russification were additionally rooted in the nature of literary education.
Traditionally, children learned how to read and write through canonical texts. Now, what played
382 Geographically speaking, it was practically the same area. At first, the Vil’na educational district included the
Vil’na, Vitebsk, Grodno, Mogilev, Minsk, Volhynian, and Podolia provinces (now the territories of Lithuania,
Belarus, Poland, and Ukraine). By the mid-1820s, the district accounted for 33% of all students in the entire country,
see: Daniel Beauvois, Lumières et Société еn Europe de l’Est: l’Université de Vil’na et les écoles polonaises de
l’Empire russe 1803–1832 (Lille: Atelier reproduction des thèses Université de Lille III; Paris: diffusion Librairie
Honoré Champion, 1977), 2: 688–91, also qtd. in: Olga Kashtanova, “Iazykovaia politika v sfere obrazovaniia v
zapadnykh guberniiakh Rossii i Tsarstve Pol’skom v XIX v.,” Tsentral’noevropeiskie issledovaniia 2 (2019): 182.
After the Vil’na educational district was completely disintegrated in the 1830s, the territories were included in the
Belarusian education district created in 1829. Vil’na remained the center of the district, despite the new name.
383 “Bringing [the local population] closer to native Russians” (sblizhenie s prirodnymi rossianami) was stated as a
goal in the following document: “Aprelia 4. Otnositel’no vospitaniia iunoshestva v Zapadnykh guberniiakh,” in
Dopolnenie k sborniku postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803–1864 (Sankt-Peterburg,
1867), 327. For the development of the concept of “Western Rus’,” especially in historical education, see: Darius
Staliūas, “Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian Version of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the
Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Central Europe 8, no. 2 (2010): 146–57.
384 For later Russification policies in the Kingdom of Poland as well as Nicolas I’s personal antipathy towards
Poland, see: Boris Uspenskii, “Nikolai I i pol’skii iazyk (Iazykovaia politika Rossiiskoi Imperii v otnoshenii
Tsarstva Pol’skogo: voprosy grafiki i orforgrafii),” in Istoriko-filologicheskie ocherki (Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi
kul’tury, 2004), 123–55.

135
the role of such texts were the works of Russian writers carefully chosen by authors of officially
approved textbooks and chrestomathies.
Since the beginning of the Polish Enlightenment, Polish language and literature were
linked to the national identity,385 and it is only natural that language and literary education was
seen as a part of civic education. The Commission of National Education (Komisja Edukacji
Narodowej) actively incorporated Polish in school curricula, making it the main language of
instruction.386 Literary exercises, which had especially deep roots in the country thanks to Jesuit
pedagogical tradition, played an important role in the program. Thus, in 1783 the Commission of
National Education provided a very detailed and rather lengthy list of recommendations for a
nauczyciel wymowy (a teacher of eloquence or uchitel’ slovesnosti, as it was later translated in
Russian). The teacher’s duties included, for example, the following: “to provide students with
selected passages from Latin and Polish authors for free imitation,” or “to propose composing
letters, and thereby to develop, whenever possible, the judgment and taste in youth who have not
yet acquired knowledge of the world.”387 If a teacher noticed a poetic talent in one of their
pupils, “he [was] obligated to assist by suggesting means of cultivating refined taste.”388
385 T. Mizia, “Nauka języka ojczystego i łaciny w szkołach średnich KEN,” Przegląd Humanistyczny 2 (1973): 1,
also qtd, in: Barbara Jasińska, “Narodowa myśl w działalności Komisji Edukacji Narodowej,” Prosopon.
Europejskie Studia Społeczno-Humanistyczne 2(8) (2014): 51.
386 Barbara Jasińska, “Narodowa myśl w działalności Komisji Edukacji Narodowej,” Prosopon. Europejskie Studia
Społeczno-Humanistyczne 2(8) (2014): 51.
387 Sbornik administrativnykh postanovlenii Tsarstva Pol’skago (Varshava, 1867), 2: 134. This and other
translations in this chapter are mine, unless stated otherwise.
388 Ibid.,136.

136
Immediately related to moral instruction,389 literary exercises were a significant part of educating
an enlightened “young [Polish] citizen.”390
After the last partition of the country in 1795, the major figures of Polish Enlightenment
multiplied their efforts to support their culture, seeing scholarly and literary achievements
(especially those of the young generation) as the only way to preserve Polish nationhood. The
involvement of Adam Jerzy Czartoryski in the very creation and then administration of the
Russian educational system (between 1803 and 1823 Czartoryski oversaw the Vilna educational
district) allowed Poles to keep many elements of their original educational programs and
regulations in place.391 Not only Polish remained the main language of instruction but also
juvenile literary activities flourished in the Vilna district, both at gymnasia and the university.
Thus, the Volhynian Gymnasium (the Krzemieniec Lyceum), founded in 1805 by Tadeusz
Czacki and Hugo Kołłątaj, supported student literary societies. For example, in 1808–1809 and
in 1818, Czacki and Czartoryski helped to establish the Society of Youths of the Volhynian
Gymnasium (Towarzystwo Młodzianów Gimnazjum Wołyńskiego) and the Society of Students of
the Volhynian Gymnasium Practicing Proper Speaking and Writing (Towarzystwo Uczniów
Gimnazjum Wołyńskiego ćwiczących się w porządnem mówieniu i pisaniu), respectively.392
Moreover, students themselves organized literary societies, both public and secret. The members
of the Learned Society and the Moral Society at the Svislach gymnasium strived to “perfect the
389 Ibid.
390 Ibid.,160.
391 Andrzej Szmyt, “Wpływ idei Komisji Edukacji Narodowej na organizację szkolnictwa w Rosji w pierwszej
połowie XIX wieku,” Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana 19 (3): (2016): 55–78.
392 Ewa Danowska, “Życie codzienne w Gimnazjum Wołyńskim w Krzemieńcu (1805–1831),” Annales Academiae
Paedagogicae Cracoviensis 17 (2003): 153–54.

137
national language and to multiply the works of Polish eloquence” and to perfect themselves “in
pure Polish style.”393 The Philomath Society, the Filaret Association, and the Radiant Society at
the Volhynian gymnasium and at the University of Vilna were formed by young poets, such as
Adam Mickiewicz, Tomasz Zan, or Jan Czeczot, who would later represent Polish
Romanticism—the literary movement which was inseparable from the manifestation of national
consciousness.
The beginning of active Russification in the mid-1820s was associated exactly with
prohibitive measures against these scholarly, literary, and, of course, patriotic pursuits of Polish
students. In 1823, Alexander I ordered Count Nikolai Novosiltsev to inspect the Vilna province,
suspecting anti-government, that is, pro-Polish sentiments among local youth. Upon his
inspection, Novosiltsev discovered student societies and used their speeches and poems to
illustrate their “blameworthy way of thinking” (predosuditel’nyi obraz myslei). According to
Novosiltsev’s report, students’ writings contained “patriotic thoughts in the Polish spirit,”
“memories about the glorious men of the former Poland,” and “inspiration to follow them in
[obtaining] the glory for the Fatherland,”394 the desire to “restore Poland in its former shine” and
to “ignite Polish nationality.”395 The educators, in turn, were suspected of encouraging
“dangerous” thinking reflected in the young people’s literary statements. Thus, in his report,
Novosiltsev mentioned the teacher Pushkarevich who was questioned because his student
Kochalskii wrote an ode glorifying the Polish general Józef Poniatowski. As the result of
393 “Raport Senatora Novosiltsova,” in: K istorii tainykh obshchest i kruzhkov sredi litovsko-pol’skoi molodezhi v
1819–1823 gg. (Varshava, 1898), 4. More accurately, these societies were organized by the elder brother of one of
the students, Wiktor Heltman, who later became an active political figure.
394 Ibid., 5.
395 Ibid., 15, 45.

138
Novosiltsev’s investigation, many members of students’ societies were arrested, and Czartoryski
was dismissed from his position. Students’ literary exercises were officially recognized by
Russian authorities as a way to express Polish national identity which itself became almost
synonymous to an anti-government political statement.
Moreover, in Russian official rhetoric, Polish language and literary pedagogy was
presented as an instrument intentionally used to “convert” Belarusian and Lithuanian young
people into Poles, while in the imperial view, these people were essentially Russians. Thus,
reporting to the Emperor, Governor-General of Vitebsk, Mogilev, Smolensk, and Kaluga
provinces Nikolai Khovanskii stated that at local schools “disciplines are taught in Polish or
Latin; language and literary education consists of teaching Polish, Latin, some foreign languages,
while Russian remains absolutely neglected: […];”396 Observing those who lived and served in
Belarus, Khovanskii emphasized that they experienced difficulties in educating their children
because they witnessed “insufficient education in Russian Letters” and were afraid that the
young generation would be “saturated with the spirit of Polonism” (napitalis’ dukhom
polonizma).397 Moreover, in the same report to the Emperor, Khovanskii highlighted these
connotations by tracing the local system of education to schools at Catholic and Uniate
monasteries and claiming that the main goal of local pedagogues “consists of instilling the spirit
of Polonism in students, […].”398 The expression “spirit of Polonism” made Polish culture nearly
comparable to a religious doctrine. It signified that Polish identity could be internalized as a set
396 “Oktiabria 18. O predpolozheniiakh na schet uluchsheniia Belorusskikh uchilishch,” in Dopolnenie k sborniku
postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803-1864 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1867), 195.
397 Ibid., 196.
398 Ibid., 195.

139
of beliefs through learning language and literature.399
In officials’ view, these beliefs were
erroneous, almost like cultural heresy which had to be eradicated.
Unsurprisingly, replacing Polish language and literary pedagogy with education in
Russian letters became the main goal for Russian authorities in the process of converting young
people to “Russianness,” especially given that around the same time Russian letters (as a school
discipline) was firstly linked to the expression of Russian national character. Among the
measures suggested by Khovanskii was, for example, making Russian the language of instruction
for all disciplines,400 staffing schools with Russian teachers, and supplying school libraries with
materials in Russian, especially with those related to Russian Letters.401 Some suggestions of
other officials even included organizing learned societies at schools, which was, perhaps, a
counter-measure to the Polish learned societies and juvenile literary groups that existed before.402
Meanwhile, the newly appointed Minister of National Education and one of the most famous
“Archaists” Aleksandr Shishkov officially proclaimed that Russian language and literature were
to occupy an important place in school curricula. Significantly, he also connected the idea of
language and faith and stressed the role of the language and literary pedagogy as a unifying
factor: “III. All Russian youth of a different religion must learn our language and know it. [...]
VI. The Slavic, that is, the lofty language as well as classic Russian literature should be
399
Ibid., 195–96.
400 Ibid., 196.
401 Ibid., 197.
402 This initiative, proposed in 1825, was, however, declined, see: “Marta 14. O predpolozheniiakh na schet
uluchsheniia Belorusskikh uchilishch,” in Sbornik postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia.
Tsarstvovanie Imperatora Nikolaia I. 1825–1855 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1875), 2: 226.

140
universally introduced and encouraged.”403 Introducing the new language of instruction and the
new discipline in the Western provinces was, therefore, meant to change the national identity of
the local students.
Sergei Uvarov’s ideology of “official nationalism” and the new educational programs
which developed after the November Uprising in 1830–1831, furthered the use of Russian
language and literature in the “conversion” campaign.404 Rossiiskaia slovesnost’ became not only
a separate but nearly the most important discipline in the school curriculum which now was the
same for Belarus and Lithuania as it was for Moscow or St. Petersburg.405 According to the
“Distribution of Teaching Subjects at Provincial Schools and Gymnasia” (1832), students were
supposed to do “practical exercises in writing” (prakticheskie uprazhneniia v sloge) and exercise
“in translations and simple compositions” (v perevodakh i legkikh sochineniiakh), depending on
their grade.406 Recommendations to the heads of educational districts and their assistants issued
by Uvarov in 1833 also featured Russian language and literature. Moreover, Uvarov placed these
disciplines right next to general patriotic education. In particular, he instructed the officials to
403 By “Slavic,” Shishkov, of course, meant “Old Church Slavocnic.” “Dekabria 11. Predlozhenie Glavnomu
Pravleniiu Uchilishch Ministra Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia Shiskova,” in Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu
Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1866), 1: 535.
404 For Uvarov and imperial language policy, see: Cynthia H. Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian education:
An Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press,
1984), 189–212.
405 A. Arkhangel’skii, Zametki na programmu po istorii russkoi literatury i teorii slovesnosti, sostavlennuiu
Komissiei uchenogo komiteta (Sankt-Peterburg, 1906), 3, fn. 1; Andy Byford, “Between literary education and
academic learning: the study of literature at secondary school in late imperial Russia (1860s–1900s),” History of
Education 33, no. 6 (2004): 639.
406 “K st. 413. Raspredelenie prepodavaniia uchebnykh predmetov v uezdnykh uchilishchakh i gimnaziiakh,” in
Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia. 1802–1834 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1866), 1: 30.

141
monitor the following: “Is the youth being properly educated in the Russian language and
national literature? Is loyalty to the Throne and obedience to authorities being instilled in them at
every opportunity? Is love for the motherland and everything national being strengthened in the
hearts of our young ones?”407 Applied to students in the Western outskirts of the Empire, these
questions meant that for them exercises in Russian literature were transformative: not only they
had to write in Russian in “all genres,” but also to recognize this literature as “native”
(otechestvennaia slovesnost’). This is exactly what later was confirmed by Uvarov himself.
Observing the results of the Ministry’s work in the Western provinces, Uvarov listed “thorough
teaching of Russian language and literature” as one of three means to “transform” or even to
“improve” young people (sredstva k prepbrazovaniiu iunoshestva)—an expression that implied
the change of one’s self-image.408
Furthermore, this change of identity through literary education resembled religious
conversion. Historically, teaching language and literature was associated with one’s introduction
into Christianity. For centuries, obtaining skills of reading and writing required learning a
standard “set” of religious texts: for example, advanced students typically completed their
education in reading with the Psalter. While gymnasia and lyceums of the 1830s did not do
exactly the same, they used textbooks on rhetoric, poetics, and Russian letters as well as
407 “Maia 27. Stat’i, na kotoryia, po tsirkuliarnomu predlozheniiu Upravliaiushchago Ministerstvom, Popechiteli i
Pomoshchniki Popechitelei dolzhny obrashchat’ osobennoe vnimanie pri obozrenii Uchebnykh Okrugov,” in
Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia. 1802–1834 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1866), 1: 863–
64.
408 Sergei Uvarov, “Desiatiletie Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia. 1833–1843,” in Izbrannye trudy (Moskva:
Rosspen, 2010), 372.

142
chrestomathies for similar, ideological purposes, namely, the purposes of Russification. Of
course, these educational materials had been used to teach students all across the Russian
Empire. Yet, placed in the context of literary education in the Western provinces, the canonical
texts of Russian literature gained additional functions: they were not simply a part of a standard
curriculum but an instrument of cultural “conversion” for non-Russian students. By learning and
reproducing these texts, students were supposed to internalize the norms of the Russian language
and literature, to make the principles of Russian writing and thinking a part of their own speech
and their own system of beliefs.
These nearly religious connotations of exercising in Russian literature were evident in the
officials’ reports. Thus, in 1835, the superintendent of the Belarusian educational district Count
Nikolai Protasov reported on his inspection: “In conclusion, it remains my pleasant duty to
testify [...] about the sincere warmth with which several thousands of young people in this region
responded in Russian to my Russian greeting. I believed in this impulse, because there could be
no deceit in their innocent voices.”409 Although Protasov did not describe the circumstances in
detail, the scenes to which he is referring were most likely a series of typical welcomes prepared
by students for an influential visitor: from simple greetings to lengthy speeches and poetic
recitals. As we have seen in the previous chapters, such performances are traced back to the
earliest students’ greetings of the monarch, which, in turn, alluded to Christ’s triumphal entry
into Jerusalem.410 Protasov’s comment on the children’s innocent voices (nevinnye golosa)
409 “Noiabria 2. “Ob osmotre Grafom Pratasovym echebnykh zavedenii Belorusskago Uchebnago Okruga,” in
Dopolnenie k sborniku postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803–1864 (Sankt-Peterburg,
1867), 492.
410 Vladimir Rezanov, “K voprosu o starinnoi drame. Teoriia shkol’nykh ‘deklamatsii’ po rukopisnym poetikam,” in
Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorkoi Akademii nauk XVIII, kn. 1. (Sankt-Peterburg,
1913): 5, 26, 39; Boris Uspenskii, Tsar’ i patriarch, (Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1998), 446; Nadezhda
Alekseeva, Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh, (Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2005), 60,

143
makes these allusions especially visible. In the context of the imperial language policy, his
observation on students’ greetings renders “Russianness” almost as a synonym of the true faith,
while Russian language and Russian culture in this context become comparable to the gospel.
Brought by the Emperor (through the Ministry of Public Education and, in this case, also through
the superintendent Protasov) upon peoples in the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, the
Russian Word—according to the state—was meant to “save” people in the Western provinces
from the “heresy” of Polish culture and turn them into true subjects of the Empire.411
3.2. “Children’s Dreams,” “Thoughts,” and “Purely Russian Feelings”:
Russianness on Display
Using literary education as a crucial instrument of Russification, the Ministry did not
limit its efforts to “conversion” of young people by having them do exercises in writing. It also
strove to convince the public that locals in the Western provinces were inherently Russian,412 and
so were the territories. This is exactly why the Ministry decided to print students’ works under
the title Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga.
fn.17. For the history of juvenile literary greetings of the monarch and the patriarch or other churchmen of high
standing, see also: Pavel Berkov, “U istokov dvorianskoi literatury XVIII veka: Poet Mikhail Sobakin,” Literaturnoe
nasledstvo 9/10 (1933): 421–32; D.A. Ialamas, “Privetstviia uchenikov Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii
moskovskomu patriarkhu Ioakimu,” in The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow. Proceedings
of the International Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’ to Christianity. Thessaloniki 26–28
November 1988, ed. Anthony-Emil N. Tachiaos (Thessaloniki, 1992): 513–19; Alina Silina, “Seminarskie
stikhotvornye pozdravleniia carmina gratulatoria,” Chteniia otdela russkoi literatury XVIII veka 8 (2018): 155–64;
Nadezhda Efremova, “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa XVII–nachala XVIII vv.:
predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty” (diss. kand. Isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia, 2019).
For a detailed discussion on the rituals of the Russian court, see the classic work of Richard Wortman: Scenarios of
Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995–2000).
411 Yuliya Ilchuk has previously noted that Uvarov’s doctrine was “messianic,” see: Yulia Ilchuk, “Gogol’s Hybrid
Performance: The Creation, Reception and Editing of Vechera na khutore bliz Dikanki (Evenings on a Farm near
Dikan’ka) (1831–1832)” (PhD diss., University of Southern California, 2009), 135.
412 The public in this case was “domestic,” that is, the readers of the Russian Empire.

144
More than that, the anthology was broadly advertised in periodicals. Talking about juvenile
writings, critics and journalists not only highlighted the authors’ use of Russian language but
also referred to the texts as adolescents’ “thoughts” and “feelings.” These metonyms were
supposed to demonstrate that the young authors fully internalized Russianness, and now it came
from within, true and genuine. Students’ writings, in turn, elaborated this image with consistent
allusions to the Russian literary canon which, representing Russian literature as such, was
associated with the national self-consciousness. Imitating model texts from Russian textbooks
and chrestomathies, young people in the Western provinces signaled to the public that they spoke
the same language (literally and metaphorically) and thus gladly recognized Russia to be their
Fatherland.
The first instances of publishing Russian works produced by non-Russian students in the
Western provinces took place already in the 1810s, yet, compared to what would happen a
couple decades later, these cases looked more like the celebration of pan-Slavic brotherhood
rather than attempts at aggressive Russification. Thus, in 1811 the journal Ulei (a short-lived
project of the poet and the translator Vasilii Anastasevich, who aimed to popularize Polish
culture)413 published the essay “The Reflection on the Necessity of Knowing the Russian
language for the Volhynians. Composed by Aleksandr Savitsky, a Student at the Volhynian
gymnasium.”414 It was introduced by Savitskii’s teacher, Ivan Aleksandrovskii, who instructed
the readers of Ulei on how they are supposed to see the essay written in Russian by the Polishspeaking student. “The readers of your Ulei,” Aleksandrovskii said to the editor, “will look at
413 The journal was discontinued in 1812.
414 Aleksandr Savitskii, “Razsuzhdenie o tom, chto dlia Volynian poznanie Rossiiskago iazyka preimushchestvenn
nuzhno,” Ulei 7 (1811): 5.

145
this Reflection from the proper point [of view] (s nadlezhashchei tochki [zreniia]) and will
rejoice that the Russian language is spreading to its ancient borders.”415 Aleksandrovskii thus
promoted the concept of Western Rus’, which later would become crucial in discussions on
students’ texts in print.416 Yet, despite Aleksandrovskii’s pro-Russian introduction and the
didactic title of Savitskii’s assignment, the general attitude to the Polish language and culture in
the essay was rather positive. The texts propagated the unity of Slavic languages and Slavic
nations: “Coming from the same Slavic roots, Poles and Russians share something common in
their languages and writers. Their languages originated from a single root; their writers toiled in
the same field. [...] If it is true that all Slavic peoples are brothers to each other, then their
languages must share their concepts with each other.”417
Unlike in the case of Savitskii’s essay, introducing Opyty to the public was not an
isolated instance but an element of carefully thought-through imperial policy. In the 1830s–
1850s, the Ministry of National Education initiated and carried out a massive publishing project:
it printed dozens if not hundreds of students’ works, both as special anthologies like Opyty and in
Pribavleniia k Zhurnalu Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia. Apparently, it also supported
publications in other periodicals, mostly provincial newspapers (gubernskie vedomosti).418 While
the Ministry published the works of students from all educational districts, those written by
415 Ibid.
416 According to Berkov, Aleksandrovskii “took a distinct Russification standing”: Pavel Berkov, “K istorii russkopol’skikh kulturnykh otnoshenii kontsa XVIII i nachala XIX veka. I. I.T. Aleksandrovskii, professor rossiiskogo
iazyka i slovesnosti v Kremenetskom litsee,” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR 9 (1934): 737.
417 Ulei 7 (1811): 10, 12.
418 While students works had been published since the eighteenth century, only in the 1830s the process was
centralized and systematized.

146
students in the Western provinces made up a large percent. Moreover, the entire project
significantly began and ended with the works of non-Russian students: Opyty v russkoi
slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga (1839) and Opyty v russkoi
slovesnosti vospitannikov Varshavskago uchebnogo okruga (1851). The latter emerged in the
waning years of the project and, perhaps, for that reason barely got any promotion or public
attention. The former, however, marked the advent of the mission and was enthusiastically
backed with a media campaign, as we would nowadays say. Unfolding this campaign, the
Ministry aimed to guide the public in their perception of students’ works. A year before the
publication, the newspaper Litovskii vestnik already mentioned students’ works when covering
Uvarov’s inspections of schools in the Belarusian educational district.419 Immediately after the
publication, Opyty was discussed in Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia, as well
as several major periodicals which were rather loyal to the government and distributed its
messages: Biblioteka dlia chteniia, Severnaia pchela, and Otechestvennye zapiski. Some of them
cited works from the anthology, sometimes in full length, which greatly increased the number of
potential readers.
Most likely, the Ministry directed the newspapers on how to cover the subject because all
the reviewers used essentially the same themes. To show that students successfully internalized
the Russian spirit, journalists and critics stressed not only that the adolescents wrote in Russian
but also that their literary exercises expressed their thoughts and feelings. Moreover, many
419 That fact has been previously observed by Nikolai Ianchuk. He stated that Pribavlenia published students’ works
between 1839 and 1853, and that anthologies like Opyty of 1839 and 1851 were extremely rare already at the end of
the nineteenth century. He gives only one example of similar anthologies published at that time, Izbrannye
stikhotvoreniia uchenikov Vitebskoi gimnazii (1899), see: Nikolai Ianchuk, “Literaturnye zametki.” Izvestiia
otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 12, kn. 4 (1907): 202–203.

147
comments pointed out that students’ feelings were common.
420 Such emotional unity endowed
their supposedly subjective reactions with objectivity of facts, and therefore made the statements
more convincing: if all young people felt exactly the same way, their feelings seemed valid.
Thus, discussing Sergei Uvarov’s visit to the First Vilna Gymnasium, the newspaper Litovskii
vestnik reported how “after the speech, composed and delivered in Russian by the seventh-grade
student Liakhovich, [...] all other students, [...], sharing the feelings expressed by their peer, their
representative, unanimously exclaimed ‘hurrah’!”421 At the Second Vilna Gymnasium, “the pupil
of the Boarding School, Ignatii Porako, on behalf of his peers, greeted the Minister briefly in the
Russian language, while the pupil Iundzil read Russian poems composed for this occasion by the
seventh-grade student Osovetskii,” while Minister approved “the feelings expressed in these
greetings.”422 Later, discussing Opyty, the journal Otechestvennye zapiski similarly noted “an
excellent direction of thoughts and feelings common to all young writers.”423 Moreover, such
statements were typical of describing juvenile literary performances in general, all across the
Russian Empire. Used to describe the feelings of students in the Western provinces, this
hyperbolic unity of hearts and minds assured the public that the young people felt exactly the
same way as their peers in other parts of the country, and therefore, truly belonged to the Russian
society.
420 For the significance of emotions in politics, in particular, for the motifs of emotional unity during Nicolas I’s
reign, see: Richard Wortman, Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy (Princeton, N.J.:
Princeton University Press, 1995), 1: 271, 277–78, 285–88, 290–92, 294, 360, 364, 366, 367.
421 “Vnutrenniia izvestiia,” Litovskii vestnik 73 (1838): 570.
422 Ibid.
423 “Sovremennaia bibliograficheskaia khronika,” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839): 6.

148
Some materials did not conceal the active role of the government that “planted” these
thoughts and feelings. These reviews pointed out that exercises in writing provided direct access
to the young people’s consciousness—both to influence them and to display the results of this
influence. For example, reporting about Uvarov’s visits to schools in the Belarusian educational
district, Litovskii vestnik discussed students’ essays on the topic “The August Visit of the
Emperor to Vilna Last Year” (these essays were not included in Opyty). Uvarov, as the
newspaper said, found in these texts “[proper] way of thinking and […] instilled feelings of
loyalty to the throne in the students […].”424 Commenting on the publication of Opyty, some
magnified the contrast between the past and the present to show how successful the
internalization process was. For instance, the review in Biblioteka dlia chtenia exclaimed: “Just
look at how this youth, who not long ago was so alienated and estranged from all things Russian,
expresses their thoughts in Russian verse, Russian prose, pure Russian style, and even with
purely Russian feelings!”425
However, the majority of materials on juvenile writings highlighted the spontaneous
nature and students’ agency in the process of learning to write in Russian—to demonstrate how
willing the young people were to adopt the Russian identity. For example, the editor of the
anthology openly aimed to display such eager internalization of Russianness: “[...] by publishing
the collected exercises here, not only the Government but also the entire reading public are given
the opportunity to see and judge, [...] how the young generation [...] suddenly begins to recognize
424 “Vnutrenniia izvestiia,” Litovskii vestnik 73 (1838): 573. The reports in Litovskii vestnik were first mentioned by
Pavel Lavrinets: Pavel Lavrinets, “Pushkin v sochineniiakh gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838),” Pushkinskie
chteniia v Tartu 4 (2007): 138–151.
425 “Literaturnaia letopis’,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia 36 (1839): 1.

149
the language of their ancestors and internalizes it with their soul and heart.”426 The active voice
in the sentence made it look like learning Russian and producing literature in this language was
the students’ own decision: young people themselves recognized Russians to be their ancestors,
gladly embraced their “original” nationality, and expressed all that in their literary “sentiments”
which emanated directly from their hearts and souls.
More than that, critics and journalists used an additional set of interrelated motifs to
create the impression that these students’ thoughts and feelings were completely genuine
(even/especially if they were “indoctrinated”). Thus, many reviewers used the epithet “children”
(detskii) which alluded to the traditional Christian perception of a child as an example of
innocence and sincerity. While earlier such allusions appeared in official reports on education in
the Western Territory (see, for example, Protasov’s report cited above), now they were
broadcasted in periodicals. Talking about the essays on the Emperor’s visit to Vilna, Litovskii
vestnik noted that all fifty six authors “with children’s sincerity, expressed in their compositions
the feelings of fervent delight, born in them from the visit of His Majesty.”427 Using this typical
reference to children welcoming Jesus, the journalist showed that the candidness of children’s
writings was of a special kind: they translated the imperial and, therefore, nearly divine truth.
The message to the public could be reconstructed like the following: by expressing their “dreams
and thoughts” (detskie mechty i mysli) in Russian,428 these innocent children acknowledged that
they are Russians, and therefore others should see their words as the truth and their behavior as
426 Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), II.
427 “Vnutrenniia izvestiia,” Litovskii vestnik 73 (1838): 572–73.
428 Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), I.

150
the model. Otechestvennye zapiski, in turn, named students’ writings “the first babble in the
sacred, native language,”429 which likened their literary works to children’s literacy exercises,
highlighted the religious connotations of education in Russian letters, and stressed the innocence
and honesty of the young authors. The introduction to Opyty also defined the writings as “pure
and innocent sacrifice” they brought to the altar of their Fatherland.430 While the sacrifice
metaphor was common in discussions on juvenile literature, the editor accentuated the young age
of the authors, and, therefore, unquestionable sincerity of their literary offerings.
Another motif was young authors’ lack of experience and/or training in writing, and, as a
result, imperfections of their texts which were intentionally left unedited. The imperfect nature of
these texts signified the lack of pretense: the young inexperienced writers were incapable of
lying not only because they had pure hearts but also because they did not have the skills to
embellish the truth. The introduction to the anthology insisted that the flaws of these writings
were exactly what made them authentic and worthy of readers’ attention: “Of course, these
children’s attempts in native literature are far from perfection; and if they were the result of
many years of labor and strenuous efforts, they could even remain completely unnoticed; but
having appeared suddenly and poured out from the depths of their soul, these attempts
involuntarily attract the attention of the observer.”431 The reviewer in Severnaia pchela, claimed
that in these “works of young minds [...] there are mistakes, provincialisms, but they are
429 “Sovremennaia bibliograficheskaia khronika,” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839), 6.
430 Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), I, VIII.
431 Ibid., VIII.

151
abundantly compensated by liveliness; by the boldness of the style and by that sweet youthful
courage which, not seeing the difficulties ahead, successfully overcomes them with soulful
simplicity and joyful hope of its own strength.”432 Ungrammaticalities and provincialisms in
students’ writings, directly related to their innocence and “soulful simplicity” (prostota
dushevnaia), became another proof of the young authors speaking directly from their hearts and
telling the absolute truth. Some reviewers insisted on unaltered nature of students’ texts, which
was also supposed to create the illusion of ultimate sincerity and students’ patriotic dedication to
mastering the language regardless the difficulties they could experience. Commenting on
students’ writings, Litovskii vestnik assured the readers that all of the texts were left “without any
corrections from the teachers, in the very form as they were written by the students, with their
mistakes in the arrangement of the plan and in the language constructions.”433 The reviewer in
Severnaia pchela claimed that these “works of the young minds” were “not corrected by the
teachers at all (ni malo ne inspravlennyia uchiteliami),” that is, that students’ texts were
completely unaffected by any external influence, be it their teachers or the Ministry of National
Education.
Finally, what could also prove that the authors’ sentiments were genuine was the emphasis
on the students’ lack of literary ambitions. To demonstrate it, the introduction to the anthology
used a typical humility topos: “The compositions gathered here were written by the students for
432 “Russkaia literatura,” Severnaia pchela 183 (1839): 731.
433 “Vnutrenniia izvestiia,” Litovskii vestnik 73 (1838): 572–73.

152
their teachers alone, without any thought of publication. The highest glory for them was the
praise of their instructor and the hope of attracting the attention of the immediate Authorities.”434

Despite the intention to make juvenile literary exercises known to the public, the editor insisted
that the authors were just schoolboys, and their texts were simply school assignments aimed at a
very small group of readers—their pedagogues. Both the humility topos (typical of Medieval
authors) and some proximity of students’ texts to private documents emphasized the young
writers’ ultimate sincerity. Devoted to the goals higher than individual fame, they at the same
time were just schoolboys who strived primarily for academic excellence. Stating that students
did not even contemplate becoming authors, the editor implied that they should be trusted
because of how unbiased and selfless they were. Seeking the praise of their immediate superiors,
they did not seek the praise of the public.
Introduced in such a way by critics and journalists, Opyty was meant to further reassure
the public that local population was inherently Russian, and the Western provinces rightfully
belonged to Russia. On the one hand, students’ texts demonstrated that young people internalized
Russian language and literature, namely, that this language and literature became a part of their
writings and, therefore, a reflection of their own thoughts and feelings. On the other hand, their
poetry and prose were supposed to show that the young authors shared these thoughts and
feelings with all Russians. Largely, all that occurred as a side-effect of pedagogy in writing.
434 Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), I.

153
Imitation of model texts—the main instructional method—determined fundamentally derivative
nature of students’ writings.435 Reinterpreting the Russian literary canon, students’ works
displayed how young people integrated Russian language and literary standards into their own
speech which, in turn, reflected their own judgements and emotions.436 At the same time,
students’ exercises created something like an “imagined community” of Russians, representing
themselves as a part of this community.437 Based on the same literary examples which were used
to teach Russian letters across the Russian Empire and referring to popular Russian writers and
poets, the exercises in Opyty were highly formulaic, which made the students’ statements and
sentiments look universally Russian. Furthermore, given how significant literary interests and
activities were in forming social connections,438 these references additionally signaled that
student authors shared literary preferences of many Russians and therefore were an intrinsic part
of the Russian society.
435 Literary references were first observed by Pavel Lavrinets: Pavel Lavrinets, “Pushkin v sochineniiakh
gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838),” Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 4 (2007): 144–150.
436 Using the term “internalization” in the discussion on intertextuality, I also follow the precedent set by Anna Lisa
Crone: Anna Lisa Crone, “Derzhavin’s ‘Bog’: the Internalization of Lomonosov’s ‘Bozhie velichestvo’,” Russian
Literature XLIV (1998), 1–16.
437 When using the term “imagined community” I refer not only to the classic work of Benedict Anderson but also to
the numerous works which have demonstrated how literature “prescribed” certain types of behavior and thus
changed the Russian society. See, for instance, the article by Lina Bernstein, in which she has analyzed how the first
printed letter-writing manual in Russia was supposed to create a new, Europeanized Russian society: Lina Bernstein,
“The First Published Russian Letter-Writing Manual: Priklady, kako pishutsia komplementy raznye…,” SEEJ 46, no.
1 (2002): 98–123.
438 As Mark Aronson has noted, in early nineteenth century, literature dominated in Russian culture: “Russian
society was […] impregnated with literature,” and people’s interests were “saturated with literature,” see: Mark
Aronson, “Kruzhki i salony,” in Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, ed. Boris Eikhenbaum (Leningrad: Priboi, 1929), 21.

154
While some students openly referred to a classic or a contemporary author in a footnote or
even in the main text,439 the internalization effect was especially noticeable when young authors
used unattributed quotations or, furthermore, when they completely dissociated a quoted
fragment from its immediate context and initial meaning. This is exactly what the student
Bronskii did in his essay “The Passover” (“Evreeiskaia Paskha (Mogilevskoe predanie)”), when
he cited Pushkin and Benediktov. Although he mentioned Pushkin in the epigraph taken from
The Robber Brothers (Brat’ia razboiniki), he omitted the reference when he cited Poltava.
Neither Bronskii specified the author when he quoted Benediktov’s “Waterloo.” Although the
readers could likely recognize the quotations as Pushkin’s and Benediktov’s words, the lack of
attribution reinforced the illusion that these poetic lines were the words of Bronskii himself.
Moreover, whereas some students engaged with the general message of a model text (for
example, they used Zhukovskii’s elegy “Dreams” (“Mechty”) to illustrate a statement in an essay
on death), Bronskii detached all the quotations in his essay from their original contexts. “The
Passover” told an antisemite story about a seminarist chased by Jews who wanted his Christian
blood to make matzah.440 Narrating the chase scenes, Bronskii inserted the lines from Poltava to
describe the seminarist’s panic: “Suddenly, the Jews, letting out a plaintive cry that shook the
entire seminarian's being, rushed from all sides onto the road. At that moment, the unfortunate
439 For instance, the student at the Białystok gymnasium Dukhnovskii in his essay “Smert’” cited Zhukovskii’s elegy
“Mechty” and the lines from the thirty-eighth stanza of Pushkin’s Evgenii Onegin (the narrator’s elegiac reflections
on human mortality), stating both poets’ names in the footnotes: Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na,
1839), 226, 227.
440 The general antisemitic tone of this essay, of course, also reflected imperial policy towards Jews.

155
sufferer felt like: ‘The clatter, the neighing, the groans,/And death, and hell from all sides!’”441
Pushkin’s words here were thus disconnected from the battle scene and used to describe one’s
dismay. In the same fashion, the young author borrowed the lines from Benediktov: “Meanwhile,
the morning dawn gilded the east, and according to the words of one of our young poets: ‘The
light of the day, the delight of eyes,/Rises in a blood-red robe without rays’.”442 Whereas
Benediktov used this metaphor for Napoleon’s return from the exile in 1815, Bronskii applied it
to the description of an actual sunrise which the seminarist saw after the night of his “ordeals.”
The lines from Poltava and “Waterloo” lost their unique meaning; they obtained the universality
of language models to depict various events and situations. Their transformation in Bronskii’s
essay could show the public that the student not simply reproduced unchanged fragments of
model texts but processed them by connecting them to a different subject and therefore truly
absorbed Russian language and literature, and, of course, the Russian spirit.
At the same time, these references to Russian literary works—the “textual fund of
common knowledge”443—showed Russian readers how the author became one of them. While
Bronskii never named Benediktov when citing “Waterloo,” he introduced Benediktov’s lines in a
441 A. Bronskii, “Evreiskaia Paskha,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 400.
442 Ibid.
443 Anna Sen’kina, “Iziashchnaia slovesnost’ kak didakticheskii material: k istorii russkoi literaturnoi khrestomatii
(pervaia polovina XIX v.),” in Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii. Literaturovedenie
IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon, ed. A. Vdovin, R.
Leibov (Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013), 35.

156
very specific way, saying “according to the words of one of our young poets.” The pronoun
“our” (nash) included Bronskii in the Russian society: recognizing Benediktov as “our” poet
Bronskii simultaneously recognized himself as a Russian. Moreover, the expression “one of our”
(odin nash) implied that the student talked about an author who is so well-known that specifying
this author’s name is simply excessive. This expression strengthened the effect of togetherness,
indicating that the Russian society is the society united by their common knowledge of literature
and their shared interest in the same writers. By demonstrating this knowledge and this interest,
i.e., by quoting Russian authors without always naming them, Bronskii, just like many other
young authors of Opyty, “proved” that he perfectly fit in.
The selection of genres in which students wrote their works could also reinforce the
impression that young people internalized Russian language and literature and successfully
assimilated/reintegrated into the Russian society. Among the genres most frequently imitated by
students were spiritual odes, elegies, and friendly letters. While these genres were taught at
practically every secondary school in the Empire, students’ works written in these genres in the
Belarusian educational district obtained some extra meanings. Thus, students’ spiritual odes
demonstrated that the authors not only internalized the Russian spirit by absorbing language and
literary standards but also shared the same religious beliefs as Russians. Writing in this genre,
young people signaled to the public that they mastered the works of Russian literature almost
like one mastered religious texts: once acquired, these texts became the expression of their
profound inner “beliefs.” This effect can be illustrated, for instance, with the text “A Hymn to

157
God” (“Gimn Bogu”) modeled by the student R. Zatsvilikhovskii after Dmitriev’s canonical
poem. Zatsilikhovskii’s poem shows how juvenile literary exercises created the effect of the
authors’ assimilation: they were derivative enough for the readers to recognize the sources and,
yet, original enough to see that these sources were processed and absorbed rather than simply
reproduced:
Dmitriev: Zatsvilikhovskii:
I soar with my soul to you, most esteemed,
Eternal Word, thrice-holy!
I worship you, incomprehensible,
Almighty, beginningless, true!
I worship you and marvel with my heart,
Seeing innumerable miracles in your creation,
Wherever I turn!
You are equally great in an insect,
As in storms, roaring with thunder
From the unreachable heaven! 444
Shall I dare to praise, O Jehovah!
You in my weakness?
Trice-holy, Creator of heaven, earth, and seas!
Your greatness is incomprehensible,
But my heart speaks clearly to me
And so does the face of Your entire universe:
I am dust of the earth,—and You are Eternal!
I am a mortal creature; You are Infinite!
And as small as I am, so great You are. 445
The references to Dmitriev are obvious: Zatsvilikhovskii used the same title, the same
composition (three stanzas), the same iambic tetrameter, the same vocabulary, the same syntax,
444
“Парю душой к тебе, всечтимый,/Превечно слово, трисвятый!/Блажу тебя, непостижимый,/Всемощный,
безначальный, сый!/Блажу и сердцем восхищаюсь,/Зря тьмы, куда ни обращаюсь,/В творении твоем
чудес!/Велик равно ты в насекомом,/Как в бурях, к нам ревущих с громом/С недосягаемых небес!” Ivan
Dmitriev, “Gimn Bogu,” in Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1967), 94.
445“Дерзну ли славить, О Иегова!/Тебя я в слабости моей?/В лице едином Трисвятаго,/Творца небес, земли,
морей!/Твое величье непонятно,/Но говорит мне сердце внятно/И всей Твоей вселенной лик:/Я прах
земли,—а Ты Предвечный!/Я бренна тварь; Ты Безконечный!/И сколько я мал, столь Ты велик.” R.
Zatsvilikhovskii, “Gimn Bogu,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago
okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 1–2.

158
even the same punctuation. Yet, the differences from the original text were as important as the
similarities. For example, Zatsvilikhovskii replaced the series of adjectives “almighty,
beginningless, true!” (vsemoshchnyi, beznachal’nyi, syi!) in the fourth line with the series of
nouns “the Creator of heaven, earth, and seas!” (Tvortsa nebes, zemli, morei!), the word
“heaven” (nebes) in Zatsvilikhovskii’s poem corresponded with Dmitriev’s line “from the
unreachable heaven” (s nedosiagaemykh nebes), and the construction “you are equally great”
(velik ravno ty) turned into “you are great” (ty velik).
Moreover, the young author was clearly inspired by another model text which previously
influenced Dmitriev himself—Derzhavin’s ode “Bog.” Zatvilikhovskii learned Russian from
Derzhavin in a similar way, borrowing and transforming elements from the original. For
example, he took some expressions from Derzhavin almost without changing them:
Derzhavin: Zatsvilikhovskii:
O Thou, of measureless expanse, […].446
I am a mortal creature; You are Infinite!
He also placed some key words in a slightly different context or replaced them with synonyms:
Derzhavin: Zatsvilikhovskii:
No sooner does thought dare rise to Thee
Than it in Thy grandeur vanishes,
[…]
Death turns my Body into ashes,
Shall I dare to praise, O Jehovah!
[…]
Your greatness is incomprehensible,
[…].
I am dust of the earth,—and You are Eternal!
446 “О Ты, пространством бесконечный,[…].” Gavrila Derzhavin, “Bog,” in Stikhotvoreniia (Leningrad: Sovetskii
pisatel’, 1957), 114. The English translation qtd. by: Gavrila Derzhavin, “God,” in The Literature of EighteenthCentury Russia, trans. Harold Segel (New York: Dutton, 1967), 282.

159
[…].447
Finally, he altered separate words:
Derzhavin: Zatsvilikhovskii:
Теченьем времени превечный, […].448
[“Eternal through time’s constant passage, […].]449
Я прах земли,—а Ты Предвечный!
[I am dust of the earth,—and You are Eternal!”]
By not only modifying but also merging the two pretexts, the young author displayed that he
processed them to produce his own poem. Given that both poems were at the core of the Russian
literary canon and, therefore, were synonymous with Russian letters as such, Zatsvilikhovskii’s
poem signaled to the public that young people in the Western Territory truly absorbed
Russianness by integrating the most important works of Russian literature into their own text.
Furthermore, Zatsvilikhovskii reinforced the effect of internalization by imitating
Derzhavin’s representation of the lyrical subject through metonyms such as “soul,” “heart,” and
“mind.” Thus, addressing God in his ode, Derzhavin’s lyrical hero says:
My soul supposes Thy existence;
It penetrates, thinks, passes judgement:
I am—and therefore Thou must be!
447“Лишь мысль к Тебе взнестись дерзает,/В Твоем величьи исчезает,/[…]./Я телом в прахе истлеваю,/[…].”
Gavrila Derzhavin, “Bog,” in Stikhotvoreniia (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957), 114, 116. The English
translation qtd. by: Gavrila Derzhavin, “God,” in The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia, trans. Harold Segel
(New York: Dutton, 1967), 283, 285.
448 Gavrila Derzhavin, “Bog,” in Stikhotvoreniia (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957), 114.
449 Gavrila Derzhavin, “God,” in The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia, trans. Harold Segel (New York:
Dutton, 1967), 282.

160
Thou art!—declares the law of nature;
My heart proclaims to me the same,
My mind gives me assurance of it,
Thou art—and I cease being naught.450
In Derzhavin’s ode, the statements “I am—and therefore Thou must be,” “Thou art,” and “Thou
art—and I cease being naught” are clearly coming from the soul, the heart, and the mind of the
lyrical self. Although Zatsvilikhovskii does not reproduce exactly the same triad, it is the heart of
his lyrical subject that speaks in the poem as well:
But my heart speaks clearly to me
And so does the face of Your entire universe:
I am dust of the earth,—and You are Eternal!
These statements are both the words of Zatsvilikhovskii’s lyrical hero and the words of
Derzhavin and Dmitriev. Zatvilikhovskii’s “A Hymn to God” (Gimn Bogu”) thus displayed how
the Russian spirit was truly embraced by students in the Belarusian education district, that is,
how they made Russian literature the voice of their hearts.
In addition, these poems imitating spiritual odes made young writers appear as a part of
the Russian nation who was taught to write by following the same model texts. Spiritual odes
were extremely popular in literary training and, therefore, in the collective consciousness.
450 “Тебя душа моя быть чает,/Вникает, мыслит, рассуждает:/Я есмь—конечно, есь и Ты./Ты есь!—Природы
чин вещает,/Гласит мое мне сердце то,/Меня мой разум уверяет;/Ты есь—и я уж не ничто!” Gavrila
Derzhavin, “Bog,” in Stikhotvoreniia (Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957), 115–16. The English translation qtd. by:
Gavrila Derzhavin, “God,” in The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia, trans. Harold Segel (New York: Dutton,
1967), 284.

161
Another poem, “Sunrise” (“Voskhod soltntsa”), written by L. Ploshinskii can also illustrate how
such poems created the impression that Belarusian and Lithuanian students were essentially
Russian. “Sunrise” alluded to Lomonosov’s “Morning Meditation on God's Majesty” (“Utrennee
razmyshlenie o Bozhiem velichestve”):
Lomonosov: Ploshinskii:
This almighty colossus
Is but a single spark before You.
Oh what a bright lamp is lit by You, O God
For our daily work,
That You commanded us to do! 451
O sun, the heart of the universe,
Eternal banner of beauty,
Divine colossus of creation,
Lamp of free height!
Blaze, shine above me,
Illuminate the heavenly chamber.
Glow as an immortal star:
In your beauty shines—God! 452
The very fact of writing such a poem automatically made Ploshinskii similar to many other
students all across the Russian Empire. For example, reporting on the public act which took
place in Iaroslavl in 1829, the newspaper Moskovskie vedomosti informed the readers that
“between each of the subjects of the exam students of the gymnasium recited their own verses
451 “Сия ужасная громада/Как искра пред Тобой одна./О коль пресветлая лампада,/Тобою, Боже,
возжжена/Для наших повседневных дел,/Что Ты творить нам повелел!” Mikhail Lomonosov, “Utrennee
razmyshlenie o Bozhiem velichestve,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR,
1959), 8:118.
452 “О солнце, сердце мирозданья,/Предвечной знамя красоты,/Колосс божественный созданья,/Лампада
вольной высоты!/Пылай красуйся надо мною,/Водушный озаряй чертог./Гори бессмертною звездою:/В
твоей красе сияет—Бог!” L. Ploshinskii, “Voskhod solntsa,” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na,
1839), 57–58.

162
and speeches, namely: the Translation of the Psalm 41 by Bogoiavlenskii, verses to the honor of
brave Russian soldiers by N. Flage, the meditation of the greatness of God by A. Gubastov,
[…].”453 “Voskhod solntsa,” published in Opyty, therefore signaled to the public that students in
the Western provinces were just like other Russian students.
However, what also conveyed the governmental message that young people in the
Western provinces identified as Russians were religious connotations of spiritual odes. The most
quoted texts of Derzhavin, Lomonosov, or Dmitriev resembled prayers. By writing their spiritual
odes based on those of Russian writers, Belarusian and Lithuanian students demonstrated that
they not only went through the same literary education as every Russian did, but also had the
same religious upbringing. The latter was especially important given that the officials strived to
present the Western Territory as “the region of the same nationality and the same faith
(edinoplemennyi i edinovernyi […] krai).”454 Students’ spiritual odes published in Opyty thus
created an impression that young people adhered to the same faith, even though Orthodox
Christianity in this case was mediated through Russian literature.
453“между каждым предметом испытания были читаны учениками Гимназии своего сочинения стихи и речи,
а именно: Богоявленским Преложение 41 псалма, Н. Флаге стихи в честь храбрых Российских воинов, А.
Губастовым стихи: размышление о Божием величии, […].” “Iz Iaroslavlia,” Moskovskie vedomosti 91 (1829):
4251.
454 Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), III. According to Darius Staliūas, the official
historian Nikolai Ustrialov has argued that “the supremacy of the Lithuanian dynasty did not mean the victory of an
alien power since the Lithuanian princes were closely related to Russian princes and moreover, a considerable
number of them belonged to the Eastern (Orthodox) Church,” see: Darius Staliūas, “Imperial Nationality Policy and
the Russian Version of the History of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Central
Europe 8, no. 2 (2010): 146.

163
Another genre that displayed how students internalized Russianness and became a part of
Russian society was the elegy. Depicting one’s feelings, elegies not only looked particularly
sincere and authentic, but simultaneously demonstrated that young people in the Western
provinces belonged to the same emotional culture as Russians.455 First of all, students’ elegies,
often written in the first person, by definition depicted one’s reflections and emotions, which
made students’ poetic statements look personal. One of such elegies published in Opyty was
“Recollection” (“Vospominanie”) written by the student at Minsk gymnasium, F. Shablovskii.
This poem was likely inspired by Vasilii Zhukovskii’s “Evening” (“Vecher”), the text which
largely shaped the genre and was often included in chrestomathies.456 The meditative nature of
the poem and the accent on the lyrical subject’s feelings (both typical of elegies) created the
illusion that, even learning from Zhukovskii, Shablovskii expressed his own sentiments in his
own words:
Zhukovskii: Shablovskii:
I am sitting lost in thought; dreams are in my soul;
With memories, I fly to bygone times...
Oh, the spring of my days, how quickly you disappeared
With your bliss and your suffering!
Where are you, my friends, you, my companions?
[…]
Oh brothers! Oh friends! Where is our sacred circle?
Where are the passionate songs for the muses and freedom?
Abandoned by everybody, forgotten by friends,
Driven by fate, chased by the society,
How long will I be here, a plaything of people?
When will I bid farewell to earthly hospitality?
And you, my friends, with whom I lived,
Where have you gone? […]
[…] I am convinced by the cruel fate
That I am doomed to wander through life without you;
[…].
455 My analysis of literature as a source of “emotional repertoire” has been primarily inspired by the book of Andrei
Zorin: Andrei Zorin, Poiavlenie geroia: Iz istorii russkoi emotsional’noi kul’tury kontsa XVIII–nachala XIX veka
(Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016).
456 For example, it was included by Ivan Peninskii: Rossiiskaia khristomatiia, ili otbornye sochineniia
otechestvennykh pisatelei v proze i stikhakh. Izdanie vtoroe (Sankt-Peterburg, 1837), 346–49.

164
Where are the feasts of Bacchus amidst the roar of winter
storms?
Where are the vows made to nature,
To guard the fire in our souls together with the eternal bond
of brotherly ties?
And where are you, friends?
Or does everyone go their own way,
Deprived of companions, bearing the burden of doubt,
Disillusioned at heart,
Doomed to drag oneself to the abyss of the grave? 457
Happy were those past years,
When we met and feasted together;
When the beauty of nature captivated us, […].
Now alas! you are gone, vanished, everything has passed.
Since then my suffering without you has begun;
Happiness led you away into society long ago,
And all that remains for me is just the memory. 458
Writing his “Recollection,” Shablovskii reconstructs essentially the same narrative: just like the
lyrical persona of Zhukovskii, his lyrical character recalls his bygone youth with joyful
gatherings in the nature, addresses his absent friends (possibly also fellow poets), suffers in his
present loneliness, and foresees his own death. The seeming subjectivity of emotions expressed
in this first-person poem (poidu ia v blizhnii les s bezmolvnoiu toskoiu, moe by serdtsa vam
pechal’ svjiu otkrylo, moe stradan’e, etc.) maintains the illusion of sincerity, even though the
words of Shablovskii’s lyrical character are, essentially, the transformed words of Zhukovskii.
457 “Сижу задумавшись; в душе моей мечты;/К протекшим временам лечу воспоминаньем.../О дней моих
весна, как быстро скрылась ты/С твоим блаженством и страданьем!/Где вы, мои друзья, вы, спутники
мои?/[…]/О братья! о друзья! где наш священный круг?/Где песни пламенны и музам и свободе?/Где
Вакховы пиры при шуме зимних вьюг?/Где клятвы, данные природе,/Хранить с огнем души нетленность
братских уз?/И где же вы, друзья?.. Иль всяк своей тропою,/Лишенный спутников, влача сомнений
груз,/Разочарованный душою,/Тащиться осужден до бездны гробовой?..” Vasilii Zhukovskii, “Vecher.
Elegiia,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1999): 1: 76–77.
458 “Покинутый от всех, забытый от друзей,/Гонимый роком я, преследуемый светом,/Доколе буду здесь
игрушкою людей?/Когда оставлю жизнь, прощусь с земным приветом?/А вы, друзья мои, с которыми я
жил,/Куда сокрылись вы? […]/[…] я твердо в том уверен злой судьбой,/Что осужден без вас всю жизнь мою
скитаться; […]./Счастливы были те протекшие лета,/Когда познались мы и вместе пировали;/Когда пленяла
нас природы красота, […]./Теперь увы! вас нет, исчели, все прошло./С тех пор уж началось мое без вас
страданье;/Вас счастье в свет давно отсюда увлекло,/А мне осталось лишь одно воспоминанье.” F.
Shablovskii, “Vospominanie,” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga,
napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 67–69.

165
Moreover, elegies merged the typical lyrical hero (the young poet) and the real juvenile
author writing a poem, thus making students’ emotional statements sound especially true and
intimate. Shablovskii’s poem followed the principles of a specific elegiac subgenre, which
Vladimir Toporov described as “the young poet and the fleeting time.”459 A typical elegy of this
kind revolved around the young poet and transience of life or the poet’s untimely death.
Moreover, as Vladimir Toporov has shown, a distinctive feature of these elegies was their
grounding in real life: reflections of the poet’s untimely death often became inseparable from the
real death of the authors.460 Although Shablovskii did not die, his feelings could seem more
genuine to the readers of Opyty simply because the author himself was as young as his lyrical
subject.
What could also make Shablovskii’s thoughts and feelings appear especially authentic was
the so-called “ungrammaticalities” of his poem—at least, this was the term that the reviewers of
Opyty used to describe some departures from standard Russian grammar in students’ works.
Indeed, Shablovskii’s poem contained several expressions which could sound unusual to the
Russian readers, for instance, when his lyrical subject wondered:
Abandoned by everybody, forgotten by friends,
Driven by fate, chased by the society,
How long will I be here, a plaything of people?461
459 Vladimir Toporov, “Mladoi pevets i bystrotechnoe vremia: (K istorii odnogo obraza v russkoi poezii pervoi treti
XIX veka),” in Russian poetics (Columbus (Oh), 1983), 409–38.
460 Ibid, 421.
461 “Покинутый от всех, забытый от друзей,/Гонимый роком я, преследуемый светом,/Доколе буду здесь
игрушкою людей?”

166
The first line does not comply with Russian grammar. The standard phrasing would be pokinutyi
vsemi or zabytyi druz’iami—the construction requires the Instrumental case instead of the
Genitive. Curiously, in the second line Shablovskii used the right case: he did say gonimyi rokom
and presleduemyi svetom. Another “ungrammaticality” can be found in the following lines:
Happy were those past years,
When we met and feasted together;
[…].
462
The verb poznalis’ (‘met”) could also sound wrong to the Russian public; the correct version
would be kogda my vstretilis’ or, perhaps, kogda my poznakomilis’. But what the critics and the
public could see as mistakes were, in fact, elements of Polish grammar. The preposition ot
(“from”) came from Polish “od” in the phrases like “od przyjaciół opuszczony” (“abandoned by
friends”), the word poznalis’ was Polish “poznaliśmy się” (“we met”).463 Presented as it is, the
work of Shablovskii displayed the very process of Russification happening right in front of the
reader: namely, how a Polish-speaking student mixed up his native language with Russian, and
how grammatically correct Russian sentences ended up prevailing in the text, reflecting the
author’s “true,” that is, Russian thoughts and emotions.
462 “Счастливы были те протекшие лета,/Когда познались мы и вместе пировали;/[…].”
463 It is hard to assume how well particular Russian reviewers were familiar with the Polish language, but calling
such elements “ungrammaticalities,” they implied that Russian was the only right, “grammatical” language, and
measured against this standard, Polish was considered “wrong.”

167
At the same time, as one of the most formulaic genres of that epoch, elegies made such
students’ statements look almost stereotypical. Russian poems written in this genre by students in
the Western provinces supported the illusion that the adolescent authors followed not only
Russian language and literary standards, but also Russian models of experiencing and expressing
emotions. Many Russians exercised in poetry not only at school but also in their spare time, and
many chose elegies to document their feelings in their everyday life. To see that, we can compare
Shablovskii’s “Recollection” to juvenile poems of his contemporaries who studied in other parts
of the Russian Empire, for instance, to the poems of the pedagogue Aleksandr Smirnov,464 who
was a student at Kostroma gymnasium between the mid-1830s and early 1840s. Although
Smirnov did not exactly call his poems “elegies,” they contained characteristic elegiac motifs,
such as memories of one’s joyful youth or the past, present solitude, lost dreams and hopes, and
thoughts about death. For example, in the poem “Grust’” (“Sadness”) Smirnov’s lyrical subject
wonders:
My dreams did not come true,
They dispersed like light smoke,
Only memories
Ignited in my sorrowful heart.
[...]
Where is my youth?
Like an unclear, ominous dream,
The daring youth flew away
Through mysterious obstacles.465
464 Aleksandr Smirnov, Vospominaniia, mysli, Trudy i zametki Aleksandra Smirnova. Chast’ vtoraia (Moskva,
1860), 9.
465 “Не сбылись мои мечтанья,/Легким дымом разнеслись,/Лишь одни воспоминанья/В сердце горестном
зажглись./[…]/Где же юность молодая?/Как невнятный, грозный сон,/Улетела удалая/Сквозь таинственных
препон.” Ibid., 33.

168
Citing and commenting on his numerous “sentimental” (as he called them) poems in his
memoirs, Smirnov explained how elegiac formulae helped him to express his real emotions in
everyday life. For example, talking about his other poem, “Sadness Abroad” (“Grust’ na
chuzhbine,”) he noted: “Parting with my mother and sisters and loneliness involuntarily bred
sadness and idle dreams. The poem “Sadness Abroad,” dedicated to my sister, clearly attests to
this. And so, according to the custom of sentimental poetry of that time, the midnight, the moon,
and the coffin come onto the stage.”466 In addition to these poems, Smirnov cited similar texts of
his schoolmates,467 which shows how popular elegies were in juvenile literature and everyday
poetry. Potential readers of Opyty were likely aware of this phenomenon or even had similar
experiences and wrote elegies themselves. They could therefore perceive Shablovskii’s
“Recollection” as one of many poems produced by young writers, which made Shablovskii
himself look like a typical Russian adolescent.
The friendly letter was another genre that granted the public “access” to the author’s inner
world and, at the same time, reassured them that the author’s feelings were truly Russian, that is,
experienced by all and every Russian. Addressed to a friend but published in Opyty, such a letter
turned every potential reader into a young author’s correspondent, uniting “the sender” and “the
466 Aleksandr Smirnov, Vospominaniia, mysli, Trudy i zametki Aleksandra Smirnova. Chast’ vtoraia (Moskva,
1860), 39.
467 For example, poems of his friend, Teriaev: Ibid., 6.

169
recipient” within the epistolary space of celebrated Russianness. One of such letters, written by
the student S. Liakhovich, was centered around the death of Pushkin. It conveyed the student’s
most sincere emotions, yet, presented these emotions as common and omnipresent: “My dearest
friend! With tears in my eyes and profound sorrow in my heart, I must inform you, if you are not
yet aware, of what has cloaked the whole Russia in mourning, what has brought a tear to the eye
of the Sovereign, what, like an electric spark, has shaken the heart of all Russians, and resounded
like thunderous echoes throughout the vast expanse of the Empire, from the Baltic to the Black
and Arctic Seas.”468 Interestingly, Liakhovich used the single form of the word “heart” (sertdtse)
instead of the plural “hearts” (serdtsa), which depicted all Russians suffering as one. By referring
to his own tears and his own grief, the student joined the Russian nation in its mourning.
Moreover, he invited the reader into this space as well. To create the sense of togetherness,
Liakhovich used the pronouns “we” (my) and “our” (nash), for example, “this news [about the
death—E.Sh.] is reaching us too early” or “we have suffered a bitter misfortune.”469 Since the
feeling is shared by every person across the Russian Empire, including Liakhovich himself, he
becomes nearly clairvoyant and tells his friend/the reader how they exactly are feeling at the
moment of learning the terrible news: “Overwhelmed by the dreadful news, you cannot and are
not able to finish reading my letter. So, mix your tears with the tears of all Russia and pay
468 S. Liakhovich, “O smerti Pushkina,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 286.
469 Ibid., 287.

170
homage to the poet’s ashes, […]”470 Such friendly letters did not simply make students in the
Belarusian educational district look Russian. They also emotionally engaged the readers of the
anthology. The letters invited them to share the same feelings, to experience the sense of unity,
and to build the image of the student authors as fellow Russians.
3.3. “The Seeds of Famous Writers”: Students’ Literary Debuts as Proofs of
Russia’s Superiority
Besides displaying Russianness, students’ texts also supported the official image of the
adolescent-like Russian nation whose potential in the sphere of literature—one of the key
characteristics of an enlightened state471—would make it “grow” and eventually surpass other
European nations. While many intellectuals, led by Sergei Uvarov, did a lot to popularize these
theories, student authors arguably played even more important, twofold role in this process.472
Presented as promising literary debuts of young writers, Opyty was supposed to convince the
public that Russian literature and Russia itself were taking their first but quick and confident
steps towards “maturity.” The claims of students’ literary talents could enhance the value and
470 Ibid, 288–89.
471 Aleksandra Kovekh, “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v 1834–1836 gg.,”
Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 114–26.
472 In his theory, Uvarov synthesized the works of various European and Russian authors, including Bossuet,
Montesquieu, Herder, Friedrich Schlegel, François Guizot, Michael Speranskii, and Nicholas Karamzin. For the
analyses of his views, see, for instance: Cynthia Whittaker, “The Ideology of Sergei Uvarov: An Interpretive Essay,”
The Russian Review 37, no. 2 (1978): 158–76; Cynthia Whittaker, The Origins of Modern Russian education: An
Intellectual Biography of Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855 (DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984),
esp. chapter 3; Mikhail Velizhev, “S. S. Uvarov v nachale nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia: Zametki k teme,”
Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 5 (2011); Andrei Zorin, “The Cherished Triad: S. S. Uvarov’s Memorandum of 1832
and the Development of the Doctrine “Orthodoxy—Autocracy—Nationality,” in By Fables Alone: Literature and
State Ideology in Late Eighteenth- and Early Nineteenth-Century Russia (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014).

171
credibility of the ideological statements which were passed on through their works. At the same
time, young people promoted this view of Russia in their own texts. They built their writings
both on the works of the main ideologist Uvarov and the works of Russian writers included in
chrestomathies which, in turn, were often complied by Uvarov’s supporters. Adolescent writers
synthesized these pretexts in their literary exercises and thus produced a very clear ideological
“extract.” While many students across the Russian Empire developed such patriotic motifs in
their assignments, Opyty sent an additional message to the readers: it contrasted Russia’s cultural
and civilizational superiority not simply with other European nations but specifically with the
colonized ones in the Western provinces.
Starting from the turn of the nineteenth century, many public intellectuals had presented
Russia as a gifted young man, or, better, a student who learns by imitation and thus develops his
own talents, including literary ones. Introduced into Russian culture by Karamzin and
Speranskii, 473 this imagery was further developed by Sergei Uvarov and those writers,
journalists, and educators who shared his views.474 Thus, in his famous speech at Petersburg
Pedagogical Institute in 1818, Uvarov defined Russia as “the youngest son in the big European
family” (mladshii syn v mnogochislennom Evropeiskom semeistve), who “within one century
surpassed its brothers, and having saved in its establishments, in its morals, the trace of internal
youth, now is craving enlightenment and striving to steal from others the laurels of military glory
473 Nikolai Karamzin, “O liubvi k Otechestvu i narodnoi gordosti,” ..; Mikhail Speranskii, “O vozrastakh obshchestv
i o soobrazhenii s nimi mer zakonodatel’naukh,”…; both qtd. in Cynthia Whittaker, “The Ideology of Sergei
Uvarov: An Interpretive Essay,” The Russian Review 37, no. 2 (1978): 161.
474 About Uvarov’s organic terminology and the influence of Karamzin and Speranskii, see: Cynthia Whittaker,
“The Ideology of Sergei Uvarov: An Interpretive Essay,” The Russian Review 37, no. 2 (1978): 161.

172
and the palm of civil valor.”475 Around the same time, similar ideas, only with the emphasis on
literature, were explored by Nikolai Grech.476 For example, in his speech “Obozrenie russkoi
literatury v 1814 godu,” Grech used the same evolutionary metaphors (for example, “Russian
nation is like a young man”) 477 and factually argued that the development of a nation can be
judged by its literary achievements. 478 Several years later, when publishing his Russian Letters
Textbook (Uchebnaia kniga rossiiskoi slovesnosti, 1819–1822) Grech used these organic
metaphors to conceptualize his history of literature or, more accurately, to define the six “stages”
of development (stepeni literatury), from infancy to death. Russian literature, according to
Grech, has passed the stage of infancy (the stage of Serbian literature) but has not reached the
classic stage (the stage of seventeenth-century French literature). This classification effectively
made Russian literature juvenile, or even, as Grech points out, not yet real: “Some Writers (and
for a reason) say that a nation has Literature only when it is at the classic stage; in its infancy and
in its youth they do not consider it to deserve this name.”479 Yet, talking about French literature,
475 “в течение одного столетия превзошел своих братьев, и сохранив в своих учреждениях, в своих нравах,
след душевной юности, ныне алкает просвещения и стремится похитить у других у лавр воинской славы и
пальму гражданской доблести.” Sergei Uvarov, “Rech’,” in Izbrannye trydy (Moskva: Rosspen, 2010), 270.
476 Uvarov was Grech’s patron in the 1810s, which can additionally explain the similarity of their views. In
particular, Grech was able to launch Syn Otechestva thanks to Uvarov’s support. About their relationship, see:
Dmitrii Badalian, “N.I. Grech—zhurnalist i izdatel’ v sisteme patron-klientskikh otnoshenii,” Trudy SanktPeterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta kul’tury 226 (2022): 44–52.
477
“русский народ подобен юноше.” The expression “evolutionary metaphor” was coined by Andrei Zorin:
Andrei Zorin, “The Cherished Triad: S. S. Uvarov’s Memorandum of 1832 and the Development of the Doctrine
“Orthodoxy—Autocracy—Nationality,” in By Fables Alone: Literature and State Ideology in Late Eighteenth- and
Early Nineteenth-Century Russia (Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014), 347.
478 Nikolai Grech, “Oborenie russkoi literatury v 1814 godu,” in Sochinenia (Sankt-Peterburg, 1855), 3: 288.
479 “Некоторые Писатели (и не без справедливости) говорят, что народ только тогда имеет Литературу, когда
она находится на степени классической; в младенчестве же и в юношеском ея возрасте почитают они ее еще
недостойною сего имени.” Uchebnaia kniga rossiiskoi slovesnosti ili izbrannyia mesta iz ruskikh sochinenii i
perevodov v stikhakh i proze, s prisovokupleniem kratkikh prvail ritoriki i piitiki, i istorii rossiiskoi slovesnosti,
izdannyia Nikolaem Grechem (Sankt-Peterburg, 1822), 4: 276.

173
Grech does not go beyond the seventeenth century, and commenting on nineteenth-century
English literature, he states that it exhausted “the materials of imagination” and “solved all the
main questions.”480 He does not go as far as claiming that Russian literature is superior in
comparison with European, but the perceived absence of literature in France after the epoch of
Louis XIV and nearly declining English literature almost put Russian letters ahead of them,
despite its immaturity.
The concept of Russian letters as a young man was further elaborated in the 1830s, in
Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia.481 Petr Pletnev, Andrei Kraevskii, Ianuarii
Neverov,482 and other contributors to the journal furthered the idea that Russian literature,
compared to European, was only at its early stage of progress towards maturity but, at the same
time, unlike European literature, had unprecedently high potential.483
Unfolding these
metaphors, Kraevskii, for example, stated that “Russia is exactly a young man (iunosha),” and
Russian literature, therefore, is a product of this budding “author”: “We are complaining that we
have not had our own Literature, our Poetry, our Philosophy, etc. But are these complaints
justified? Can you really demand from a child not to imitate others? Can you demand from a
talented young man, who is completing the course of education that he create like Plato and
480 Uchebnaia kniga rossiiskoi slovesnosti ili izbrannyia mesta iz ruskikh sochinenii i perevodov v stikhakh i proze, s
prisovokupleniem kratkikh prvail ritoriki i piitiki, i istorii rossiiskoi slovesnosti, izdannyia Nikolaem Grechem
(Sankt-Peterburg, 1822), 4: 276.
481 Aleksandra Kovekh, “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v 1834–1836 gg.,”
Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 114–26.
482 Later, serving as the director of Stavropol’ gymnasium, Ianuarii Neverov would organize writing competitions
among students: their best essays were frequently published in Stavropol’skie gubernskie vedomosti as well as in
Pribavleniia k Zhurnalu Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia.
483 Aleksandra Kovekh, “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v 1834–1836 gg.,”
Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 114–26.

174
lecture nations? Let him to complete his studies, do not interfere with the natural development of
his talents, and this young man—will be a man with mature, enlightened, original mind […].”484
Thereby, in the 1830s, the adolescent-like image of Russia, constructed by writers, officials,
educators, and journalists, became a commonplace and, no doubt, was well-known to the reading
public.
Unsurprisingly, the publication of students’ literary exercises became a perfect way for
the Ministry of National Education to support this argumentation, because young authors simply
embodied such metaphors. Reviewing Opyty in print, critics and journalists used adolescents’
works to demonstrate the continuity of Russian literary tradition, making the anthology represent
not the present but the past and the future of Russian letters and thus increasing its significance.
Based on the works of the great Russian authors, students’ texts were supposed to prove that,
contrary to the popular opinion, Russia already had great writers in the recent past and will have
even more in years ahead, while the development of European literature was in question. The
imitative character of students’ works helped to validate this argumentation. Reviewers strived to
show that the young talents did not appear out of nowhere but learned from the best Russian
authors. For example, Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia noted that “all these
works prove that local youth is exercising in [Russian] Letters not under of the influence of some
ephemeral masters, but following the examples of our classic Writers, […].”485 Otechestvennye
484 “Мы жалуемся, что до сих пор еще не имели и не имеем своей Литературы, своей Поэзии, своей
Философии, и проч. Но основательны ли эти жалобы? Разве можно было требовать от ребенка, чтобы он не
подражал другим? Разве можно требовать от богатого дарованиями юноши, оканчивающего курс учения,
чтобы он творил, как Платон, и поучал народы? Дайте ему окончить свое учение, не мешайте свободному
развитию его способностей, и этот юноша—будет муж с зрелым, просвещенным, оригинальным умом […].”
Qtd. in: Aleksandra Kovekh, “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v 1834–1836
gg.,” Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 120–21.
485 “все эти пиесы служат доказательством, что тамошнее юношество упражняется в Словесности не под
влиянием каких-либо эфемерных корифеев ея, но по образцам наших классических Писателей, […].”
“Novyia knigi, izdannyia v Rossii,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia 22 (1839): 79.

175
zapiski also assured the readers that students followed in the steps of Russian writers: “[…] we
cannot not recognize in them [that is, in students]: […] enough command of the language,
formed under the noticeable influence of our best writers; […].”486 The sheer scope of allusions
to Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Dmitriev, Zhukovskii, Pushkin, Benediktov, and many others in
students’ works were the best proofs of such reviewers’ statements.
At the same time, the introduction to Opyty and the reviews presented students in the
Belarusian educational district as promising Russian writers themselves, essentially the
apprentices of Lomonosov and Pushkin, who would continue the legacy of the best Russian
authors. In the most flattering tone, Otechestvennye zapiski stated that the patriotic direction of
students’ works “gives delightful hope to expect from them […], […] useful contribution in the
field of Russian letters.”487 Students’ “fruits of success in Russian Literature,”488 according to the
critics, signified the splendid future of Russian literature. For example, Biblioteka dlia chtenia
gave the following verdict: “Russian letters should welcome [the anthology] as an extraordinary
phenomenon which promises bright days and rich harvests.”489 Otechestvennye zapiski took it
even further and linked the anthology to Russia’s unlimited potential overall: “Exercises in
Russian Letters by Students at Gymnasia of the Belarusian Educational District! Think of those
486 “[…] мы не можем не признавать в них [that is, in students]: […] достаточного уже навыка в языке,
образованного под ощутительным влиянием наших лучших писателей; […].” “Sovremennaia
bibliograficheskaia khronika,” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839), 6.
487 “дает сладостную надежду ожидать от них […], […] полезного содействия нам на общем поле
отечественной словесности.” “Sovremennaia bibliograficheskaia khronika,” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839), 6.
488 “плоды успехов в отечественной Литературе.” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na,
1839), I.
489 “Русская словесность должна приветствовать ее [the anthology] как необыкновенный на своем горизонте
феномен, предвещающий ей дни ясные и богатые жатвы.” “Literaturnaia letopis’,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia 36
(1839): 1.

176
few words: they contain the solution of the centuries-old problem and the seed of unlimited
prospects.”490 Curiously, this shift of focus from the present towards the past and the future also
relived the critics from the necessity to seek for actual literary merits of students’ works, while
the obvious shortcomings could be and were easily excused by the authors’ young age.
Moreover, the imperfect nature of students’ writings and their lack of experience in
writing did not contradict the claims about the significance of their works. On the contrary, these
features paradoxically emphasized the exceptionally rapid progress made both by student authors
and Russian letters as such. Thus, all reviewers directed readers’ attention to the fact that the
anthology appeared only four years after students were required to study Russian. The
introduction, for example, said: “In 1834 all youth of the Lithuanian Territory only started, so to
say, to learn Russian alphabet; in 1838 they present the works of their pen, in which one can see
the signs of style, or maybe even the seeds of famous writers.”491 The young writers appear not
as Belarusian and Lithuanian students leaning the second language but as Russian prodigies, who
made a journey from mastering the alphabet to debuting in print and promising to bring glory to
the Russian Empire—and managed to do all of that in only four years.
However, besides personifying Russia’s maturation and great literary potential, juvenile
authors supported the official ideology not only with sheer existence of their writings but also
with repeating the same ideological statements in their texts. To show how strikingly consentient
490 “‘Опыты в Русской словесности воспитанников гимназий Белорусскаго Учебнаго Округа’! Вдумайтеся
внимательнее в эти немногия слова: они заключают в себе решение вековой задачи и зародыш
беспредельной будущности.” “Sovremennaia bibliograficheskaia khronika,” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839), 1.
491 “В 1834 году все воспитывающееся юношество Литовскаго края начинало только, так сказать, учиться
Русской азбуке; в 1838 году оно представляет произведения пера своего, в которых проглядывают оттенки
слога, а может быть и зародыши славных писателей.” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na,
1839), VIII.

177
students’ works were, I will analyze three prosaic pieces from Opyty, which all almost
tautologically conveyed the same message: Russia is a young talented nation, it did not have a
chance to realize its full potential because of some serious obstacles (such as the Mongol
invasion), but after Peter the Great started his reforms, it had progressed so rapidly that soon it
will surpass all European nations. One of such works, which popularized Uvarov’s theory of
history, was the essay “Knighthood” (“Rytsarstvo”) written by the student F. Anasinskii.
Addressing the origin and significance of knighthood, Anasinskii’s text essentially reworded a
part of Uvarov’s famous speech delivered in 1818. The young author repeated Uvarov’s
statements about the Medieval Ages as the youth of Europe—a crucial stage in its development:
“[…], they say, that Middle Ages […], […] is still the infancy of European States, that in the
events of those times one can see fine qualities as well, which refine the humankind: […].”492
Citing Uvarov, the student also noted that the knights brought to Europe the “spark of freedom
and enlightenment.”493 Anasinskii did not forget to mention that, as a young man, Europe had
“strong impulses of a passionate soul,” which justified its weaknesses, “prejudices and
passions.”494
While “Knighthood” did not discuss Russia specifically, placed in the context of
Opyty and in the broader context of the public discussion on Russian history, Anasinskii’s essay
492 “[…], говорят, что средние веки […], […] это еще младенческий юношеский возраст Европейских
Государств, что в событиях этих времен видны и прекрасные свойства, облагораживающия человечество:
[…].” F. Anasinskii, “Rytsarstvo,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago
okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 132–33.
493 F. Anasinskii, “Rytsarstvo,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago
okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 141.
494 “сильные порывы души пылкой,” “предрассудки и страсти.” F. Anasinskii, “Rytsarstvo,” in Opyty v russkoi
slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra
narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 132.

178
encouraged the reader to draw parallels between Russia and Europe and to excuse the
shortcomings of young but talented Russian nation.
Other student authors openly compared Russia and Europe based on their cultural
achievements, moreover, in their comparative analysis Russia outshined Europe, sometimes in a
paradoxical way. This was exactly what the student S. Liakhovich did in his two works, the
essay “A View on the State of Enlightenment in Russia and the educational achievements in
Western Europe, upon Ascending to the Throne of the House of Romanov” (“Vzgliad na
sostoianie prosveshcheniia v Rossii i uspekhi obrazovannosti v Zapadnoi Evrope, pri vstuplenii
na prestol Doma romanovykh”) and the dialogue “Italy and Russia” (“Italiia i Rossiia”).
Together they formed something like a cycle in which Liakhovich measured a country’s national
prestige with literature. Talking about education (obrazovanie) in the essay, the author
emphasized the role of literature: “Speaking about education in the seventeenth century, first of
all your thought travels to the shores of Seine and ancient Rhône, […]. Learned societies have
been flourishing there for a long time, almighty Richelieu makes the famous Academy out of
them, and it prescribes the laws of language and taste, and writes the code of fine arts.”495 Going
from one European country to another, Liakhovich then meticulously names Corneille, Racine,
Molière,496 Shakespeare, Milton,497 Camões, Cervantes, Lope de Vega, Calderón, Dante,
495 “Говоря об образовании в XVII веке, прежде всего невольно переносишься мыслию к берегам Сены и
древняго Родана, […]. Там давно уже цветут ученыя общества, всемогущий Ришелье составляет из них
знаменитую Академию, и она предписывает законы и языку и вкусу, и составляет кодекс изящнаго.” S.
Liakhovich, “Vzgliad na sostoianie prosveshcheniia v Rossii i uspekhi obrazovannosti v Zapadnoi Evrope, pri
vstuplenii na prestol Doma romanovykh,” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 127.
496Ibid., 128.
497 Ibid.

179
Ariosto, and Torquato Tasso.498 Russia, as Liakhovich concludes, fell behind Europe for
centuries: “Back then, Russia was only Muscovy to Europe; battles like Poltava and Borodino
had not yet deafened Europe with their thunders; The Great One had not opened the window to
the West yet. Lomonosovs, Derzhavins, Pushkins, Zhukovskiis had not yet resounded the
Russian Parnassus with the sounds of their lyres.”499 However, even this conclusion gets turned
into a proof of Russia’s superiority. Liakhovich’s comparison is an asymmetric one: he
juxtaposes Europe’s past with Russia’s past seen through its present. At first glimpse, the young
author uses a sequence of negations: “had not deafened,” “had not opened,” “had not resound.”
And yet, these negations are the list of Russia’s achievements: its victories on the battlefield, the
deeds of its great monarch, and—the lengthiest part of the list—the names of its great writers.
Curiously, Liakhovich even uses the plural form for the writers’ last names, which
hyperbolically emphasizes their abundance.500 This comparison also creates an impression that
unlike Europe that left all its accomplishments in the seventeenth century, Russia has continued
its development. Comparing the two, the young writer thus makes Russia look more enlightened
and powerful even in spite of its obvious weaknesses.
While “A View on the State of Enlightenment in Russia” contained more explanations
for Russia’s lack of progress toward enlightenment rather than straightforward claims of the
498 Ibid., 129.
499 “Тогда Россия была только Московия для Европы; битвы Полтавская и Бородинская еще не оглушали
своими громами Европы; Великий не прорубил еще окна своего на запад. Ломоносовы, Державины,
Пушкины, Жуковские не оглашали еще звуками лир своих Русскаго Парнасса.” Ibid., 131.
500 The plural form also reminds about the lines from Lomonosov’s famous ode: “Дерзайте ныне
ободренны/Раченьем вашим показать,/Что может собственных Платонов/И быстрых разумом
Невтонов/Российская земля рождать.” Mikhail Lomonosov, “Oda na den’ vosshestviia na vserossiiskii prestol Ee
Velichestva Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Elizavety Petrovny 1747 goda,” in Polnoe sobranie sochinenii (Leningrad:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959), 8: 206.

180
country’s superiority, Liakhovich’s dialogue “Italy and Russia” developed the other part of the
argument. In this dialogue, the patriot Bronislav strives to convince the Italophile Miroslav that
in many ways Russia is not less or, perhaps, even more talented than Italy or any other European
state. To explain his passion for Italy, Miroslav draws attention to the great men of this country,
especially great writers, “Horace, Virgil, Ovid … Tasso, Dante, Petrarca, Ariosto, and others;
[…].”501 Bronislav, expectedly, raises his objections and provides Miroslav with his own
sequence of names: Lomonosov, Derzhavin, Karamzin, Drimtiev, Batiushkov, Zhukovskii,
Pushkin, Krylov, and Griboedov. Liakhovich makes the second list longer, furthermore, just like
in “A View on the State of Enlightenment in Russia,” he stresses Russia’s youth and rapid
continuous development. While his Miroslav ends his “catalogue” with Dante (1265–1321) and
Ariosto (1474–1533), Bronislav extends it up to Griboedov (1795–1829) and Pushkin (1799–
1837). Bronislav also makes his point even clearer by citing “immortal” Karamzin: “It has not
been long since we know what a style in verses and prose is, but we already can compete with
foreigners in some parts of it.”502 The young author thus again presents Russia as a literary
prodigy who has already overperformed other nations and will keep doing so.
Moreover, to prove Russia’s superior position in the sphere of enlightenment Liakhovich
makes Russian literature speak for itself. Just like other imitative students’ writings, “Italy and
Russia” is saturated with numerous references to the texts of contemporary Russian authors:
from the abovementioned Nikolai Karamzin and Fedor Glinka to Ivan Murav’ev-Apostol and
501 “Гораций, Виргилий, Овидий ... Тассо, Данте, Петрарка, Ариосто, и прочие; […].” S. Liakhovich, “Italiia i
Rossiia,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po
prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 272.
502 “Давно ли знаем, что такое слог в стихах и прозе, и можем в некоторых частях уже равняться с
иностранцами.” Ibid., 276.

181
Batiushkov. By the end of the dialogue Bronislav’s speech is literally reduced to quotations: the
text ends with the words of Karamzin and the entire stanza from the poem of ShirinskiiShikhmatov, “The Return to the Fatherland of my Beloved Brother Prince Pavel Aleksandrovich
from His Five-Year Sea Journey” (Vozvrashchenie v otechestvo liubeznogo moego brata kniazia
Pavla Aleksandrovicha iz piatiletnego morskogo pokhoda) (1810):
Born into the world
Under the cold northern star,
Nurtured by the stern, grey winter
Since our young age,
We despise the foreign luxury;
And loving our Fatherland
Even more than ourselves,
Seeing in it the promised land
Of milk and honey,
We will not trade our snow
And our homeland ice
For all the delights of southern nature. 503
It is Russian literature itself that brings the conversation to a close and becomes the ultimate
proof of the country’s progress towards enlightenment. In addition to that, literary references
supports Bronislav’s opinion, even when they are meant to do the opposite. For example, talking
about his beloved Italy, Miroslav cites not only the French poet Jacques Saint-Victor (1772–
1858) who described Italy as a land “où chanta Virgile, où peignit Raphaël!/Terre dans tous les
temps consacrée à la gloire,/Grande par les beaux-arts, reine par la victoire,” but also his Russian
contemporary Ivan Kozlov (1779–1840) who dreams about Italian “noon roses/Aromatic lemon
503 “Под хладной северной звездою/Рожденные на белый свет,/Зимою строгою, седою/Лелеяны от юных лет,
Мы презрим роскошь иностранну;/И даже более себя/Свое отечество любя,/Зря в нем страну
обетованну,/Млеко точащую и мед,/На все природы южной неги/Не променяем наши снеги/И наш
отечественный лед.” Ibid., 279.

182
groves,/Green myrtle and vineyards,/And sky as blue as sapphire.” 504
Even the proof of Italy’s
advantage somehow cancels itself: after all, it is a Russian poet who speaks about its beauty and
thus brings glory to his own country.
But what makes “Italy and Russia” especially interesting is its genre which indeed shows
how nineteenth-century juvenile authors brought together the centuries-old literary tradition and
the contemporary literary process. Unlike many other works published in Opyty, it represents the
oldest genre of juvenile literature: a dialogue (razgovor). Combining the features of a scholarly
dispute and a religious/theatrical performance, traditional dialogues were used not only to teach
students how to prove their point of view but also to educate the public who attended these
juvenile performances. “Italy and Russia” was not an actual dialogue acted out by several
students in front of a real audience but a text written by only one student. Nevertheless, the genre
of Liakhovich’s text still reveals the didactic intention of the government to instruct the reading
public through adolescents’ works and convince the readers that Russia had its cultural and
literary achievements to take a respectable place among European countries. At the same time,
the form of Liakhovich’s dialogue as well as its moral was coming from a model text, Konstantin
Batiushkov’s prosaic piece “An Evening at Kantemir’s” (“Vecher u Kantemira,” 1816),505 a
substantial part of which is Kantemir’s dialogue with Montesquieu and Abbot B. Although
Liakhovich cites only several lines from Batiushkov on Russian geography and climate,506 this
504 “полуденные розы,/Душистые лимонные леса,/Зеленый мирт и виноградны лозы,/И синие, как яхонт,
небеса.” Ibid., 270.
505 This text was included in Grech’s chrestomathy (1820, 215) and, what is especially important, was translated to
Polish: Magdalena Dąbrowska, “The Evening at Kantemir’s and About Lomonosov’s Character by Konstantin
Batyushkov and Their Polish Translations,” Acta Polono-Ruthenica XXVI/3 (2021): 134–45.
506 “когда житель влажных берегов Белого моря ходит за куницею на быстрых лыжах своих,—счастливый
обитатель устьев Волги собирает пшеницу и благодатное просо.” S. Liakhovich, “Italiia i Rossiia,” in Opyty v
russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g.
Ministra narodnogo prosveshcheniia (Vil’na, 1839), 271.

183
quotation immediately brings up the bigger discussion on Russia’s potential, which fictional
Kantemir had with his visitors. In his text, Batiushkov depicted Kantemir as a poet who devoted
his time to Russian letters even though his guests tried to convince him in the futility of his
efforts. Responding to the remarks of Montesquieu and Abbot B., Kantemir insists that although
Russian letters is still “in the cradle” (v pelenakh), Russian nation did not have enough time to
develop its talents, and one day Russian language will be “precise and clear, like the language of
witty Fontenelle and thoughtful Montesquieu.”507 Likahovich’s choice of Batiushkov’s text is
even more important because “An Evening at Kantemir’s” is full of literary references itself:
Kantemir tell his opponents about Lomonosov, mentions Derzhavin, alludes to Viazemskii, and
cites Dmitriev. The young author therefore supports his own arguments by extending the already
long history of Russian literature previously demonstrated by Batiushkov. Moreover, by writing
his own “Italy and Russia” Liakhovich shows how juvenile authors develop this tradition.
Drawing attention to the unlimited potential of the young writers and, therefore, Russia
itself, reviewers of Opyty did not hesitate to compare this literary success to, in their opinion,
literary stagnation associated with the Polish influence: “And we do not remember that in the
past decades Students of the same age, at the same Educational Institutions would enter the scene
of Polish letters with the same brilliant success.”508 That, of course, was not the case. Officials
remembered Polish, Belarusian, and Lithuanian literary achievements very well, and that was
exactly one of the reasons to publish students’ works in Russian in the first place. Ironically,
507 “точен и ясен, как язык остроумного Фонтенеля и глубокомысленного Монтескье.” Konstantin Batiushkov,
“Vecher u Kantemira,” in Opyty v stikhakh i proze (Moskva: Nauka, 1977), 37.
508 “И мы не помним, чтобы в прошедшия десятилетия Воспитанники того же возраста, в тех же Учебных
Заведениях, выходили с таким же блестящим успехом на сцену Польской словесности.” “Novyia knigi,
izdannyia v Rossii,” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia 22 (1839): 76.

184
having imported the very system of literary education from the Polish-Lithuanian
Commonwealth in the late seventeenth century, in the nineteenth century, the Russian Empire
started using it against non-Russian nationals. Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov
gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga was thus used as an instrument to show the superiority
of Russian literature and culture in general and to manipulate the public opinion on
Russification.
Training young people in the Western provinces to write, the Ministry of National
Education obviously had goals other than preparing students for literary careers. And yet, these
early exercises in writing helped some of them to become writers, scholars, journalists, and
publishers who contributed to the formation of the public sphere. In a way, the conditions to
produce writers were even more “favorable” in the Western Territory than in the rest of the
Russian Empire. To advance assimilation, Russian authorities applied a carrot-and-stick
approach: they first limited and then forbade the use of Polish,509 but rewarded the use of
Russian. One of the earliest, Khovanskii’s suggestions, for example, was to make sure that the
good command of Russian or even “noteworthy accomplishments in Russian letters” (khoroshie
uspekhi v russkoi slovesnosti) would be now required to enter civil service.510 Moreover, unlike
students in other parts of the country, who could graduate with medals and ranks for various
achievements, students in the Western provinces could graduate with a fourteenth-class rank,
509
“Noiabria 2. O neprepodavanii Pol’skago iazyka v uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Vitebskoi i Mogilevskoi gubernii i o
zakrytii uezdnago uchilishcha v Lyskove,” in Sbornik postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia.
Tsarstvovanie Imperatora Nikolaia I. 1825–1855 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1875), 1: 786, also qtd. in: L. Ignatovets,
“Rusifikatsiia sistemy obrazovaniia v Vitebskoi i Mogilevskoi guberniiakh (1830–1850),” Vesnik Magileuskaga
dziarzhaunaga universiteta imia A.A. Kuliashova 1 (39) (2012): 26.
510
“Oktiabria 18. O predpolozheniiakh na schet uluchsheniia Belorusskikh uchilishch,” in Dopolnenie k sborniku
postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803-1864 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1867), 197.

185
only if they demonstrated achievements in Russian Letters.
511 This is exactly what happened to
the young authors of Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga: several of them received silver and golden medals and the fourteenth rank.
512
One of those students who contributed to Opyty and graduated with the fourteenth-class
rank was Adam Honory Kirkor (1818–1886). He debuted with a couple of essays: “The
Remnants of Pagan Customs in Belarus” (“Ostatki iazycheskikh obyknovenii v Belorussii”) and
“Prut. A Historical Event” (“Prut. Istoricheskoe proisshestvie”) in which he depicted an episode
from the Russo-Ottoman War of 1710–1711 and praised Peter the Great. One of his biographers
has noted that it was exactly Kirkor’s literary talents and his participation in Opyty that drew the
attention of the authorities to him and allowed him to make a successful career. Despite his not
so outstanding academic performance, Kirkor “demonstrated exceptional ability and diligence in
the Russian language to such an extent that, due to a collection of literary ‘attempts’ presented to
the emperor by the school authorities of Vilnius, Kirkor, among a small group of fellow students,
alongside the teaching staff, was honored with imperial recognition ‘for commendable efforts in
promoting and deepening the Russian language and literature’.”513 Moreover, the biographer
stressed that the state recognized Kirkor’s literary efforts as evidence of his impressive command
in Russian: “Such proficiency in the state language, especially among Polish noble youth, was
exceptionally rare at that time, undoubtedly facilitated by the period of Russification of border
511 Sbornik svedenii o srednikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Vilenskago uchebnago okruga (Vil’na, 1873), 17; Olga
Kashtanova, “Iazykovaia politika v sfere obrazovaniia v zapadnykh guberniiakh Rossii i Tsarstve Pol’skom v XIX
v.,” Tsentral’noevropeiskie issledovaniia 2 (2019):193.
512 Pavel Lavrinets, “Pushkin v sochineniiakh gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838),” Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 4
(2007): 151, fn. 18, 19.
513 Michał Brensztajn, Adam Honory Kirkor, wydawca, redaktor i właściciel drukarni w Wilnie od roku 1834 do
1867 (Wilno: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Pomocy Naukowej im. E. I E. Wróblewskich, 1930), 10.

186
offices initiated after the fall of the November Uprising. This facilitated his rapid progress, as the
day after submitting an application on November 28, 1838, Kirkor secured the position of a clerk
in the Vilnius Chamber of the Treasury.”
514 It is important to note that Kirkor was not the only
student author who continued to write after having his works were published in the anthology.
Yet, unlike his peers Kazimierz Paszkowski and Ludwik de Perthées, he seemed to be the only
one who kept producing works in Russian (in addition to Polish), which makes his case
especially noteworthy.515
As Kirkor advanced in the state service, he also became a journalist, publisher, avid
ethnographer and archeologist, actively involved in several professional organizations such as
the Imperial Russian Geographical Society and the Imperial Russian Archaeological Society.
After issuing several literary almanacs (which happened to be rather unsuccessful enterprises),
he started editing perhaps the most influential in the region newspaper, Vilenskii vestnik / Kurier
Wileński that was printed both in Russian and Polish. Ironically, it was essentially the same
newspaper which in 1838 mentioned Kirkor’s name among the names of other student authors
who contributed to the anthology. Trained to be “a true Russian” in the 1830s, in 1865, Kirkor
was dismissed from his post of the editor, because his work did not look loyal enough in the eyes
of the Russian authorities.516 He had to move to St. Petersburg where he published another
newspaper, Novoe vremia, and was equally blamed by Russians and Poles for what both sides
514 Michał Brensztajn, Adam Honory Kirkor, wydawca, redaktor i właściciel drukarni w Wilnie od roku 1834 do
1867 (Wilno: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Pomocy Naukowej im. E. I E. Wróblewskich, 1930), 10.
515 The careers of Kirkor, Paszkowski, and de Perthées have been briefly traced before by Pavel Lavrinets: Pavel
Lavrinets, “Pushkin v sochineniiakh gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838),” Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 4 (2007):
141–43.
516 Abram Reitblat, “Adam Gonorii Kirkor i Faddei Bulgarin: vzaimosviazi i ideinaia blizost’,” in Kova dėl Istorijos:
Vilniaus senienų muziejus (1855-1915): mokslo straipsnių rinkinys (Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus: Vilnius, 2015),
240.

187
perceived as lack of loyalty.517 On the one hand, Kirkor never opposed the imperial government.
For example, when he asked for a permission to launch a Polish newspaper in St. Petersburg, he
explained his intention as at attempt to reconcile one nation with the other which now “settled
under the Russian scepter.”518 Moreover, one of his articles, “Historical and Statistical Essays on
Vil’no” (“Istoriko-statisticheskie ocherki g. Vil’no”), was included in a panegyrical volume In
Memory of the Visit of the Emperor Alexander II to Vil’no on the 6th and 7th of September
1858.
519 At the same time, Kirkor advocated for Lithuanian and Polish culture, and even
criticized governmental anti-Catholic and anti-Polish measures taken in the Western
provinces.
520 Kirkor’s case reveals how literary training could compromise initial goals of the
government: by teaching young people how to write, the state sometimes gave them the
instruments to question the official ideology or, at least, not to radiate unquestionable loyalty and
be a mouthpiece of the state.
517 A detailed analysis of Kirkor’s views in Novoe vremia has been done by Oksana Zav’ialova, see: Oksana
Zav’ialova, “In the Struggle against “Tactless Liberalism”: A. K. Kirkor and the Newspaper Novoe Vremya on the
Consequences of the Great Reforms in the Late 1860s—Early 1870s,” Historia Provinciae—the Journal of Regional
History 7, no. 3 (2023): 762–809. The publication is in Russian, followed by an English translation.
518 Qtd. in: Abram Reitblat, “Adam Gonorii Kirkor i Faddei Bulgarin: vzaimosviazi i ideinaia blizost’,” in Kova dėl
Istorijos: Vilniaus senienų muziejus (1855-1915): mokslo straipsnių rinkinys (Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus:
Vilnius, 2015), 233. The article was also included in Reitblat’s book: Abram Reitblat, Klassika, skandal, Bulgarin…
(Moskva: Novoe literaurnoe obozrenie, 2020). As Reitblat has noted, Kirkor did not receive the permission, and the
successful writer and journalist Thaddeus Bulgarin advised Kirkor to write in Russian.
519 V pam’iat’ prebyvaniia Gosudaria Imperatora Aleksandra II v Vil’ne 6 i 7 Sentiabria 1858 goda (Vil’no, 1858).
520 Oksana Zav’ialova, “In the Struggle against “Tactless Liberalism”: A. K. Kirkor and the Newspaper Novoe
Vremya on the Consequences of the Great Reforms in the Late 1860s—Early 1870s,” Historia Provinciae—the
Journal of Regional History 7, no. 3 (2023): 770–71.

188
Conclusion
In this dissertation, I have traced how the tradition of student literature evolved since the
late seventeenth century to the middle of the nineteenth century. Starting from the 1780s, the
state institutionalized the tradition of juvenile exercises and used student literary production to
popularize the official ideology, to encourage civic participation through charity (which
paradoxically reinforced the system of public education as an instrument of ideological control),
and to support Russification policies in the Western Territory. Placed in this context, Stoiunin’s
account on how school administration punished a boy for getting his poetry published in a
newspaper,521 obtains different meaning: the school was not against juvenile literary activities, it
just wanted to control them to make sure that young people wrote exactly what was expected
from them. Exploring literary training as a historical phenomenon, my dissertation also enriches
our understanding of the Soviet past. Namely, it shows how Soviet literary training (literaturnaia
ucheba)—the mass “production” of writers who would advance state ideology522—had an
important precedent in the nineteenth century.523
521 See p. 14.
522 Evgenii Dobrenko, The Making of the State Writer: Social and Aesthetic Origins of Soviet Literary Culture,
trans. Jesse M. Savage (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 2001).
523 Significantly, the most recent works addressing education in writing have also considered mostly Soviet times.
See the block of articles “Creative Writing Studies: issledovaniia v oblasti literaturnogo masterstva” dedicated to the
history of creative writing in Russia as well as the monograph on the topic: Olga Nechaeva and Maia Kucherskaia,
“Ot sostavitelei,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 183 (2023): 80,
https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/183_nlo_5_2023/; M. Kucherskaia, A.
Bazhenova-Sorokina, A. Chaban, and D. Kharitonov, eds., Tvorcheskoe pis’mo v Rossii: siuzhety, podhody,
problemy (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2023).

189
At the same time, my analysis shows the gap between the outcome anticipated by the
government and actual results. Despite the governmental intention to shape young people’s
thinking and to ensure that their literary production aligned with the official ideology, it would
be erroneous to assume that every student just wholeheartedly absorbed this ideology and
obediently wrote poems and essays in accordance with it. Writers produced by this system of
literary education did not always become enthusiastic supporters of the government. Modeling
their first texts after officially approved examples, young authors could see these examples as
formal and/or outdated, but could as well develop genuine interest in other types of literature and
obtained instruments to express their own thoughts. Although they rarely went for an open
confrontation with the government, their writings, including those which reached the public and
formed public discourse, did not always reflect the official point of view. Zhukovskii allowed
himself to criticize the state in his diary. Baldauf stopped writing occasional poetry when he
graduated from the Mining Corps, and limited his service to the state to his immediate
professional duties as an engineer in Siberia and the Far East, concentrating his literary efforts on
Romantic poetry and following his contemporary Pushkin rather than any school textbooks.524
Kirkor expressed some loyalty to the imperial authorities, but at the same time used this credit to
remain an editor and thus to advocate for cultural autonomy of the colonized nations. Another
curious example of how the system worked in practice can be found in the memoirs of Ivan
Panaev. For a public act, his teacher Iakov Tolmachev, the author of popular textbooks, asked
him to write an essay “On the Significance of the Russian Letters.” Panaev prepared a draft, but
524 One of the most interesting works of Baldauf is his unfinished narrative poem “Avvan i Gairo” (1834), telling a
story of a tragic love between a Russian man (Ivan?) and an Evenk (Tungus) girl Gairo. The poem was clearly
influenced by Pushkin’s “Kavkazskii plennik” (1821).

190
Tolmachev did not approve it and eventually wrote the entire essay himself.525 In his memoirs,
Panaev said: “I completely forgot the meaning of that speech; it seems to me it had no meaning
at all. In conclusion, as always, there was the addressing to the sovereign and the expression of
the reverential gratitude for his care about us.”526 As we can see, the process of indoctrination
through writing and/or reciting did not always go as planned by the state. Panaev’s recollection
shows how a student’s presentation at a public act could turn out to be a mechanical recital of a
“meaningless” text with a tired structure (“as always, there was the addressing…”). Moreover,
reflecting on how the superintendent of St. Petersburg educational district K.M. Borozdin
instructed him to shed a tear when he addressed this speech to the emperor’s portrait, Panaev
said: “I promised to do that—and I really teared up… thinking that downstairs my fancy frock
coat is waiting for me, and that in ten minutes I would be completely free… Those were the tears
of nervous delight; I would have cried at that moment even without any phrases or speeches.”527
Although formally young Panaev complied with the requirements, he filled the school ritual with
a completely different meaning: his emotions were related to his own graduation and had nothing
to do with the gratitude to the monarch.
The analysis of literary training in imperial Russia also prompts us to reimagine the
entire formation of the literary profession between the 1780s and 1860s, and even the
525 From what Panaev says it is clear that Tolmachev rejected his draft because of its quality and not censorship
reasons.
526 “Смысл этой речи я совершенно забыл, да, кажется, в ней и не было никакого смысла. В заключение, как
водится, было обращение к государю и изъявление чувства благоговейной признательности августейшему
покровителю просвещения за попечение и заботливость об нас.” Ivan Panaev, Literaturnye vospominaniia
(Moskva: Pravda, 1988), 38.
527 “Я обещал—и действительно прослезился... при мысли, что внизу меня ожидает щегольской сюртук и что
через десять минут я буду совершенно свободен... Это были слезы нервического восторга; я бы заплакал в
эту минуту без всяких фраз и речей.” Ibid., 39.

191
phenomenon of the Golden Age in Russian literature. Traditionally, starting from the Russian
Formalists, social history of literature has been told through the change of institutions: the
court—literary coteries and salons—and, eventually, the professional book market.528 My
research shows that another crucial but hitherto overlooked institution was a public secondary
school, with its mandatory exercises in poetry and prose and presentations at public acts.
Considered within this framework, some canonical episodes from the history of Russian
literature appear in a different light. One of them, for example, is Pushkin’s proverbial recital of
his juvenile poem “Recollections in Tsarskoe Selo” (“Vospominaniia v Tsarskom sele,” 1814) at
the Imperial Lyceum in front of Derzhavin. Soon after the public act, the text was published in
the journal Rossiiskii museum, and Pushkin entered the world of literature.529 He almost
immediately fictionalized this element of his biography in his poem “To Zhukovskii” (“K
Zhukovskomu”)
530 and later in his novel Eugene Onegin, saying: “The old Derzhavin saw—and
blessed us,/As he descended to the grave.”531 He depicted this performance at the public act as
the beginning of his literary career, the recognition of his poetic genius by famous Derzhavin.
The story has been repeated numerous times, and in early twentieth century the Lyceum even
ordered a painting from Il’ia Repin, which depicted exactly this famous scene, “Pushkin at the
528 This principle has been reflected, for example, in A History of Russian Literature: Andrew Kahn, Mark
Lipovetskii, Irina Reyfman, and Stephanie Sandler, A History of Russian Literature (Oxford, U.K.: Oxford
University Press; 2018).
529 For the history of the poem and its publication, see: Vadim Vatsuro, Mariia Virolainen, Ekaterina Larionova, et
al., “Primechaniia k tekstam stikhotvorenii,” in Polnoe sobranie socihenii v dvadtsati tomakh (Sankt-Peterburg:
Nauka, 1999), 1: 611–17.
530 Aleksandr Pushkin, “K Zhukovskomu,” in Polnoe sobranie socihenii v dvadtsati tomakh (Sankt-Peterburg:
Nauka, 1999), 1: 182.
531 Alexander Pushkin, Eugene Onegin. A Novel in Verse, trans. James E. Falen (Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1998), 185.

192
Exam in Tsarskoe Selo on January 8, 1815.” For decades, Pushkin’s performance was used to
“prove” his exceptional literary talent.
But in reality, this recital was a manifestation of standard school literary practices.
Similar narratives can be found in the biographies of other authors. If we asked ourselves what
such writers as Fonvizin, Zhukovskii, or Pushkin had in common, the answer would be: they all
wrote while they were students and all presented their first works at school public acts. (Even
Teffi would refer to her school poetry as a starting point in her literary career and the beginning
of her literary glory, although not without irony.)532 Moreover, literary “blessings” during school
public events were also much common than we tend to think. Famous literati were frequent
guests at public acts. As the philologist Ardalion Ivanov noted in his memoirs on the Peterburg
Mining Cadet Corps, “Karamzin, Krylov, Zhukovskii and other famous writers often honored us
with their presence.”533 The list can be completed with the names of Kheraskov, Dmitriev,
Khvostov, and others. Apparently, these presentations at the solemn acts had an effect similar to
that described by Mikhail Dmitriev in his memoirs, Minor Details From My Memory (Melochi iz
zapasa moei pamiati). Recalling the gatherings of the Friendly Literary Society (Druzheskoe
literaturnoe obshchestvo) at the Moscow Boarding School for the Nobility, he presented the
process exactly as a literary training: “Other honorary members [of the Society—E.Sh.] were
famous personas: the superintendent of the University, I.I. Dmitriev, Karamzin and others; it
happened that they came in to [the school director] Antonovskii on Wednesday and unexpectedly
for students attended the gathering of their society and stayed until the end. Everyone rejoiced:
532 See p. 6.
533 “Карамзин, Крылов, Жуковский и другия знаменитости нередко делали нам честь своим присутствием.”
Ardalion Ivanov, “Vospominaniia o vospitanii v gornom kadetskom korpuse, 1815–1822,” Sovremennik 1859 (8):
275.

193
[the visitors] saw the budding writers, and the students saw the famous visitors’ attention! This is
how young people were prepared to become writers at that time.” 534 While Dmitriev talks about
students’ literary society, it is easy to imagine that both famous literati and juvenile authors felt
the same way at public school events as well. Given that famous authors often visited the solemn
acts as the trustees of the educational institutions, it also prompts us to think more about
interactions and overlaps between the educational system and literary networks, and how these
overlaps could advance the literary career of a young writer.
535 Besides that, pedagogues and
administrators often acted as the first literary mentors, literary agents, censors, and publishers of
juvenile authors, thus helping some young people to start a literary career (remember Baldauf
and his teacher Nikitin). All things considered, these observations show us that one of the keys to
understanding the rapid development of Russophone literature in the late eighteenth and the first
half of the nineteenth centuries was the educational infrastructure that allowed literary talents to
manifest themselves.
Moreover, further research on literary training at schools can tell us more about the
general logocentrism of Russian culture. A public act functioned as a rite of passage not only for
the future famous writers for every young nobleman.
536 This experience, shared by the majority
534 “Другие почетные члены [of the Society—E.Sh.] были лица известные: попечитель Университета, И. И.
Дмитриев, Карамзин и другие; случалось, что и они заезжали в среду к Антонскому и неожиданно для
воспитанников приходили в собрание их общества и сидели до конца. Сердце радовалось: и у них, видя
возрастающих литераторов, и у воспитанников пансиона, видя внимание к себе таких людей! Так в то время
приготовлялись молодые люди в литераторы.” Mikhail Dmitriev, Melochi iz zapasa moei pamiati (Moskva,
1869), 181. The italics is mine—E.Sh.
535 As Richard Wortman has observed earlier, literary activities played an important role in career advancement for
government officials in general: “The most prominent representatives of the new noble civil servants were the young
officials who led the literary society Arzamas. […] the Karamzinians […] represented a whole new official
mentality. […] The diplomat-sentimentalist type was part of a culture of literary expression, and simple and elegant
writing was his specialty.” Richard Wortman, The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1976), 93–94.
536 Amy Richlin, “Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools,” in Roman Eloquence. Rhetoric in
Society and Literature (London: Routledge, 1997), 75–76.

194
of educated Russian society, can therefore explain everyone’s strong and active interest in
literature. Not every young person recited their poems or speeches at a public act; schools
usually chose the best students to do that. Not everyone who did recite their works became a poet
or a writer. However, preparing a written assignment and presenting it at a public act was a
formative event for many, and many described it as the first experience of authorship. For
example, the scholar and pedagogue Aleksei Galakhov (1807–1892) recalled: “I graduated in
June 1822, fifteen and a half years old. The public exam was a triumph for me. My parents were
thrilled to see me as the best student. At the act, visitors were handed out my composition, ‘On
True Glory,’ printed at the provincial printshop.”537 Curiously, even the topic of Galakhov’s
essay corresponded with the feelings he mentioned. Although what the young author meant by
the true glory was being a good virtuous citizen, the young author allowed himself to dream
about having a poetic talent or, rather, to regret not having it: “If only I had the great gift of
poetry; if only I could fascinate human hearts, cause sweet tears: then I would laud the good
influence of the true, sublime glory! […] But my weak quill, my inexperienced quill! […] Would
you dare to express my unripe thoughts? No, the friends of humankind! I had better cite the
verses which belong to Derzhavin’s immortal lyre.”
538 Galakhov was not the only one who had
recalled about his recital at a public act. Many of those who graduated from gymnasia made it a
537 “Я кончил гимназический курс в июне 1822 года, пятнадцати лет с половиной от роду. Публичный
экзамен был для меня торжеством. Родители восхищались мною как первым учеником. На акте раздавали
посетителям мое сочинение: ‘Об истинной славе,’ напечатанное в губернской типографии.” Aleksei
Galakhov, Zapiski cheloveka (Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999), 69.
538 Aleksei Galakhov, O istinnoi slave. Razsuzhdenie Sochinennoe Uchenikom 3 klassa Riazanskoi Gimnazii,
Alekseem Galakhovym (Riazan’, 1821), 5–6.

195
part of their memoirs. Authorship was therefore embedded in one’s life narrative, and literary
interests was a nearly universal code of communication for educated Russian men.539
At the same time, research on school literary exercises encourages one to rethink how the
entire system of education functioned in imperial Russia. Upon closer examination, it becomes
evident that literary training lay at the core of the education system, regulating the relationship
between different agents in this sphere. As a pars pro toto for education as such,540 students’
writings served as an evaluation instrument for both students’ academic performance and
educational professionals’ service. Students were expected to produce poetic and prosaic texts in
accordance with school curricula, while administrators had to submit these writings to the heads
of educational districts, as a kind of a report on their own work.541 This mechanism created a
curious power dynamic. Literary achievements could allow students to graduate from school
with a rank and thus secure a certain social position. However, schools also greatly depended on
young writers: by having them produce texts of good quality, teachers and administrators could
gain the favor of their superiors and advance their own careers. One of the most interesting
sources which can illustrate how literary exercises could regulate the system of education is the
diary of Kirill Berezkin, who was a student at Vologda gymnasium in the 1840s. Many pages of
his diary are full of his worries about writing, both as a school assignment and as a possible
career path. “I have not written any composition about the holidays,” he laments, “and it is just
539 While girls were also trained in literature, publications of their works were extremely rare, and, when girls
“performed” at school public acts, they almost never recited their own texts. Much more often, they played musical
instruments, sang, and exhibited their needlework.
540 Andy Byford, “Between literary education and academic learning: the study of literature at secondary school in
late imperial Russia (1860s–1900s),” History of Education 33, no. 6 (2004): 638.
541 See, for instance: Aleksandr Reut, “Literaturnye besedy v rossiiskoi shkole XIX–nachala XX veka kak
pedagogicheskii phenomen” (diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi universitet,
2017), 72.

196
today when the principal came to ask if someone did. It was an opportunity to justify myself in
front of the administration, and I did not manage to seize it.”
542 These worries were amplified by
Berezkin’s joy over his publications in newspapers, his unfulfilled plans to write a novella, and
his complaints—day after day—about not having enough materials for writing in his diary.543 At
the same time, numerous entries in which Berezkin mentions the principal or the inspector
inquiring about his essays make the reader think that the school administration worried about
students’ literary achievements for their own reasons: “[…] I do not have even one proper
composition, what am I going to submit to Levitskii, I really have to. Probably, the inspector will
be asking [to write one —E.Sh.] for the discussion, this year I have never done that.”544 This
anxiety over writing, shared by Berezkin and his educators, suggests other research questions.
For example, what was a student’s essay after all? A formal school assignment? A school report
sent by administration for evaluation of their own work? A publication of a budding writer? Or,
perhaps, even some special type of an ego-document? Where does one draw a line?
Moreover, given the growing prestige of literature in Russian society, it was beneficial
for a school to have its very own poets and writers because they would represent the institution at
public events, again demonstrating the good results of the pedagogues and school officials’ work
to the influential attendees of these events, such as Minister of National Education. Students’
publications also advertised their schools, as the name of the school almost always appeared next
542 “Вот и не написал никакого сочинения о праздниках, а сегодня директор и пришел спрашивать, не
написал ли кто-нибудь. Представился случай оправдать себя перед начальством, и не умел воспользоваться
им.” Kirill Berezkin, Dnevnik Kirilla Aleksandrovicha Berezkina (Sankt-Peterburg, 2014), 20.
543 Ibid., 12–13, 17–18.
544
“[…] еще ни одного сочинения дельного, что и подам Левицкому, нужно непременно. Верно, станет
спрашивать и инспектор на беседу, в нонешний год еще ни разу [не—E.Sh.] читал я на беседы.” Ibid., 13.
Nikolai Petrovich Levitskii was the teacher of Russian letters.

197
to the name of the author. As the pedagogue Nikolai Bunakov, who also studied in Vologda in
1840s, recalled in his memoirs, “[…] authorship was flourishing at the gymnasium: it prided
itself on some of its writers and poets, who later would be published on the pages of provincial
gazettes (‘gubernskie vedomosti’) […].”545 Students’ literary achievements made such a
significant contribution to prestige of a school that schools even ignored obviously poor
academic performance: “I remember that in our class there was a young man Silin, who did not
study anything and showed extreme dullness, but was favored by the administration because he
wrote some poems and became known as a poet, and the entire gymnasium treated him as the
future glorious poet.”546 These examples point at the changing role of an author in the first half
of the nineteenth century as well as the changing understanding of fame/glory: even as a young
person, a writer could now influence public opinion and could be considered “glorious” way
before he actually achieved something, not to mention way before his death. Besides enriching
our understanding of the history of education, further examination of such examples can
contribute to the studies of literary reputation, literary fame, and even literary celebrities in the
Russian Empire.
Lastly, further research on literary training can contribute to the imperial studies. One of
possible directions can be illustrated by the following observations related to Opyty v russkoi
slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago uchebnago okruga. Besides saturating their
545 “[…] авторство процветало в гимназии: она гордилась некоторыми своими сочинителями и
стихотворцами, которые впоследствии печатались на страницах ‘Губернских ведомостей’ […].” Nikolai
Bunakov, Zapiski N.F. Bunakova. Moia zhizn’, v sviazi s obshcherusskoi zhizn’iu, preimushchestvenno
provintsial’noi. 1837–1905 (Sankt-Peterburg, 1909), 12.
546 “Я помню, что в нашем классе был юноша Силин, который ничему не учился и отличался крайнею
тупостью, но пользовался благоволением начальства по той причине, что написал кое-какие стишки и
прослыл поэтом, и вся гимназия смотрела на него как на будущего славного русского поэта.” Ibid.

198
works with allusions to model authors, many students, whose works were published in the
anthology, took inspiration from folklore. Doing that was typical of Romanticism, a movement
which still was very much present in the Russian literary process in the 1830s. But engaging with
folk genres also agreed with the official opinion on what literature should be and do. That point
of view was expressed, for example, in Petr Pletnev’s speech “Nationality in Literature”
(“Narodsnost’ v literature,” 1834), published in the very first issue of Zhurnal Ministerstva
narodnago prosveshcheniia and largely inspired by Uvarov.547 Of course, this approach affected
students’ texts as well. Thus, several poems included in Opyty imitated folk songs. Furthermore,
some student writers even engaged in ethnographic and historical studies, describing local
traditions and the past of the Western provinces. Their version of history was unsurprisingly in
tune with that of the Ministry of National Education. Students translated the governmental vision
of the non-Russian nationals as Russians who forgot their true nature because of the “harmful”
Polish influence. Their use of the Russian language in the anthology also confirmed this view:
for example, talking about Ukrainian, Lithuanian, or Polish folklore, they often quoted folk texts
in Russian, without mentioning the original language, which created an impression that Russian
was the language that locals had spoken for centuries. In a way, students’ texts exploring
traditional culture resembled (or even preceded) the works of grown-up writers who were
commissioned by the government to go on ethnographic expeditions in the middle of the
nineteenth century.548 In addition to that, such strong demonstrative interest in folk culture
547 Aleksandra Kovekh, “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v 1834–1836 gg.,”
Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 114–26.
548 For literary expeditions, see: Catherine Clay, “Ethos and Empire: The Ethnographic Expedition of the Imperial
Russian Naval Ministry, 1855–62,” (Ph.D dissertation, University of Oregon, 1989); Catherine Clay, “Russian
Ethnographers in the Service of Empire, 1856–1862”. Slavic Review 54, no.1 (1995): 45–51; Alexey Vdovin,
“Nationalizing Science in Mid-Nineteenth Century Russia: Ideological Origins of the Naval Ministry’s ‘Literary
Expedition’,” Scando-Slavica 61, no. 1 (2015): 100–18.

199
expressed in students’ poems, their essays discussing traditional local culture, and their records
of allegedly folk songs containing anti-Polish sentiments,549 gave an idea that the official view of
history translated through students’ texts was, in fact, vox populi. Thus, using juvenile writings,
the authorities involved another “speaker” to promote the imperial agenda— the people. While in
my dissertation I have concentrated on the Belarusian educational district, further steps in this
direction could include examination of student literary exercises in other regions. For example,
many students works on historical and ethnographic topics were written in the Caucasian
educational district, where in the 1850s Ianuarii Neverov, a pedagogue and one of the major
contributors to Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia, introduced the practice of
actual essay contests among students.550 Finally, such studies on juvenile literary exercises in
their relation to Russian imperial policy before the 1860s can also give historical depth to our
perception of Russia’s contemporary cultural politics. The state use of juvenile literary exercises
to impose the Russian language on colonized territories and to prove Russia’s cultural superiority
internationally illuminates the current governmental use of Russian literature, art, music, and
cinema as “soft power.”
549 Nikolia Ianchuk who have previously analyzed the four songs which conclude the poetic section of the
anthology, defined them as pseudo-folklore, see: Nikolai Ianchuk, “O mnimo-narodnykh belorusskikh pesniakh
istoricheskogo i mifologicheskogo soderzhaniia,” Sbornik Khar’kovskago istoriko-filologicheskago obshchestva 18
(1909): 286–306; also qtd. in N.V. Sharov, “N.A. Ianchuk,” Trudy Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta v
Minske 1 (1922): 286–87. Ianchuk has argued that these songs were likely composed by an anonymous author like a
minor clergyman or clerk and then circulated in manuscripts, we cannot rule out a possibility that the author of these
texts could be a student, especially given that Ianchuk compares the meter of these poems to the meter of countingout games that he himself played at gymnasium as a child.
550 Several students’ essays and scholarly works have been published in the following volume: Glagol budushchego:
Filosofskie, pedagogicheskie, literaturno-kriticheskie sochineniia I.M. Neverova i rechevoe povedenie vospitannikov
Stavropol’skoi gubernskoi gimnazii serediny XIX veka, ed. K. Shtain (Stavropol’: Izdatel’stvo SGU, 2006).

200
Bibliography
“1790 ianvaria 3. O pervom publichnom ispytanii v Kievskom glavnom narodnom uchilishche.”
In Sbornik materialov dlia istorii prosveshcheniia v Rossii izvlechennykh iz Arkhiva
Ministerstva Narodnago Prosveshcheniia. Sankt-Peterburg, 1893, 79–83.
“Aprelia 4. Otnositel’no vospitaniia iunoshestva v Zapadnykh guberniiakh,” in Dopolnenie k
sborniku postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803–1864, SanktPeterburg, 1867, 327.
“Dekabria 11. Predlozhenie Glavnomu Pravleniiu Uchilishch Ministra Narodnogo
Prosveshcheniia Shiskova,” in Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu Narodnogo
Prosveshcheniia. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1866, 531–38.
“Dekabria 8. Ustav Gimnazii i Uchilishch Uezdnykh i prikhodskikh, sostoiashchikh v vedomstve
Universitetov: S. Peterburgsdkago, Moskovskago, Kazanskago, i Khar’kovskago.” In
Polnoe sobranie sochinenii Rossiikoi Imperii. Sobranie vtoroe. Vol. 3. Sankt-Peterburg,
1830.
“Iz Ekaterinodara, Iiulia 6.” Moskovskie vedomosti 62 (1822): 1914.
“Iz Iaroslavlia.” Moskovskie vedomosti 91 (1829): 4251.
“Iz Uglicha.” Moskovskie vedomosti 84 (1829): 3914.
“K st. 413. Raspredelenie prepodavaniia uchebnykh predmetov v uezdnykh uchilishchakh i
gimnaziiakh.” In Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia.
1802–1834. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1866.
“Literaturnaia letopis’.” Biblioteka dlia chteniia 36 (1839): 1–15.
“Maia 27. Stat’i, na kotoryia, po tsirkuliarnomu predlozheniiu Upravliaiushchago
Ministerstvom, Popechiteli i Pomoshchniki Popechitelei dolzhny obrashchat’ osobennoe
vnimanie pri obozrenii Uchebnykh Okrugov.” In Sbornik rasporiazhenii po Ministerstvu
Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia. 1802–1834. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1866, 862–66.
“Marta 14. O predpolozheniiakh na schet uluchsheniia Belorusskikh uchilishch.” In Sbornik
postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. Tsarstvovanie Imperatora
Nikolaia I. 1825–1855. Vol. 2. Sankt-Peterburg, 1875.
“Noiabria 2. “Ob osmotre Grafom Pratasovym echebnykh zavedenii Belorusskago Uchebnago
Okruga.” In Dopolnenie k sborniku postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago
prosveshcheniia. 1803–1864. Sankt-Peterburg, 1867, 482–92.
“Noiabria 2. O neprepodavanii Pol’skago iazyka v uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Vitebskoi i
Mogilevskoi gubernii i o zakrytii uezdnago uchilishcha v Lyskove.” In Sbornik

201
postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. Tsarstvovanie Imperatora
Nikolaia I. 1825–1855. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1875, 786.
“Novyia knigi, izdannyia v Rossii.” Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniia 22
(1839): 73–82.
“O nagradakh dlia blagotvoritelei uchilishch.” In Sbornik potanovlenii po Ministerstvu
narodnago prosveshcheniia. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1864, 781–85.
“Ob uchrezhdenii Moskovskogo universiteta i dvukh gimnazii. S prilozheniem Vysochaishe
utverzhdennogo proekta po semu predmetu.” In Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi
Imperii. Vol. 14. Sankt-Peterburg, 1830, 284–94.
“Oktiabria 18. O predpolozheniiakh na schet uluchsheniia Belorusskikh uchilishch.” In
Dopolnenie k sborniku postanovlenii po Ministerstvu narodnago prosveshcheniia. 1803-
1864. Sankt-Peterburg, 1867, 194–99.
“Pesn’ Russkomu Tsariu.” In Uchebnik russkago iazyka, sostavlennyi Aleksandrom Smirnovym.
God pervyi. Tret’e, vnov’ ispravlennoe izdanie. Moskva, 1853, 161–66.
“Pis’mo Gornago Inzhenera A.N. Taskina k direktoru Gornago Instituta, akademiku N.I.
Koksharovu, o gornom inzhenere Fedore Ivanoviche Baldaufe,” in Vospominaniia
byvshikh pitomtsev Gornago instituta. Izdano ko dniu slotetniago iubileia instituta, 24
oktiabria 1873 goda. Sankt-Petergurg, 1873, 6–7.
“Predvaritel’nye pravila narodnago prosveshcheniia.” Sbornik potanovlenii po Ministerstvu
narodnago prosveshcheniia. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1864, 13–21.
“Preuvedomlenie.” Periodicheskoe sochinenie o uspekhakh narodnago prosveshcheniia 1
(1803): I–II.
“Raport Senatora Novosiltsova.” In K istorii tainykh obshchest i kruzhkov sredi litovsko-pol’skoi
molodezhi v 1819–1823 gg. Varshava, 1898, 3–80.
“Razgovor O tom, chto vo vremia vospitaniia, obrazuia serdtse, dolzhno priobretat’ znaniia i
navyki k raznym dolzhnostiam. Chitan blagorodnymi vospitannikami Imperatorskago
Universitetskago Pansiona v publichnom akte 1795 Dekabria 21 dnia.” In Rech’ pri
otkrytii akta v Blagorodnom universitetskom pensione [sic!], proiznesennaia Odnim iz
vospitannikov 1795 goda, Dekabria 21 dnia. Moskva, 1795, 1–23.
“Russkaia literatura.” Severnaia pchela 183 (1839): 731.
“Sovremennaia bibliograficheskaia khronika.” Otechestvennye zapiski 5 (1839): 1–10.
“Vnutrenniia izvestiia.” Litovskii vestnik 73 (1838): 569–74.

202
“Vysochaishche utverzhdennyi ustav uchebnykh zavedenii, podvedomykh Universitetam.” In
Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii, s 1649 goda. Vol. 28. Sankt-Peterburg,
1830, 626–47.
Adrianova-Perets, Varvara. “Stsena i priemy postanovki v russkom shkol’nom teatre XVII–
XVIII v.v.” In Russkii teatr. Vol. 2. Leningrad: Academia, 1928, 7–63.
Aleksandr Sumarokov, “E.I.V. Vsemilostiveishei Gosudaryne Imperatritse Anne Ioannovne,
Samoderzhitse Vserossiiskoi, pozdravitel’nye ody v pervyi den’ novogo goda 1740, ot
Kadetskogo korpusa sochinennye chrez Aleksandra Sumarokova.” In Izbrannye
proizvedeniia. Edited by Pavel Berkov, 49–50. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957.
Alekseev, Mikhail. Stikhotvorenie Pushkina “Ia pamiatnik sebe vozdvig…” Leningrad: Nauka,
1967.
Alekseev, Mikhailo. “Rech’, govorennaia pri otkrytom ispytanii v Narvskom Narodnom
Uchilishche, v prisudstvii Ego Prevoskhoditel’stva Tainago Sovetnika Senatora i
Kavalera Petra Vasil’evicha Zavadovskago, I Ego Siiatel’stva Tainago Sovetnika
Senatora i Kavalera Mikhaila Vasil’evicha Dolgorukova, i mnogochislennago sobraniia,
togo uchilishcha uchenikom Mikhailom Alekseevym. Noiabria 18 dnia 1786 goda.”
Rastushchii vinograd Dekabr’ (1786): 91–93.
Alekseeva, Nadezhda. Russkaia oda. Razvitie odicheskoi formy v XVII–XVIII vekakh. SanktPeterburg: Nauka, 2005.
Anasinskii, F. “Rytsarstvo,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii Belorusskago
uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vilna, 1839, 132–50.
Anna Rogova, “Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,” Periodicheskoe
sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 358–59.
Annenkov, Pavel. Materialy dlia biografii Aleksandra Sergeevicha Pushkina. Edited by A.
Karpov. Moskva: Sovremennik, 1984.
Archbishop Amvrosii (Serebrennikov). Kratkoe rukovodstvo k oratorii rossiiskoi, sochinennoe v
Lavrskoi seminarii v pol’zu iunoshestva, krasnorechiiu obuchaiushegosiia. Moskva,
1791.
Arkhangel’skii, A. Zametki na programmu po istorii russkoi literatury i teorii slovesnosti,
sostavlennuiu Komissiei uchenogo komiteta. Sankt-Peterburg, 1906.
Aronson, Mark. “Kruzhki i salony,” in Literaturnye kruzhki i salony. Edited by Boris
Eikhenbaum. Leningrad: Priboi, 1929.
Atnashev, Timur, Mikhail Velizhev, and Tatiana Vaizer. “Dvesti let opyta. Ot burzhuaznoi
publichnoi sphery k rossiiskim rezhimam publichnosti.” In Nesovershennaia publichnaia

203
sphera. Istoriia rezhimov publichnosti v Rossii. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie,
2011.
B…v, “Blagotvoritel’nost’.” Utrenniaia zaria (1805): 31–36.
Badalian, Dmitrii. “N.I. Grech—zhurnalist i izdatel’ v sisteme patron-klientskikh otnoshenii.”
Trudy Sankt-Peterburgskogo gosudarstvennogo instituta kul’tury 226 (2022): 44–52.
Badalich, I. and V. Kuz’mina, Pamiatniki russkoi shkol’noi dramy XVIII veka. Moskva: Nauka,
1968.
Baevskii, Vadim, ed. Russkie metodisty-slovesniki v vospominaniiakh. Moskva: Prosveshchenie,
1969.
Baldauf, Fedor. [“Prosti, nauk smirennyi khram…”] Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 359–60.
Baldauf, Fedor. “Pevets. Romans.” In Ukazatel’ proizvedenii, rassmotrennykh na zasedanii
obshchestva. Vol’noe obshchestvo liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti (VOLRS). Accessed
July 2, 2024. https://volrs.org/discussions/208081505.
Barabanov, O. “Pervye publikatsii T.F. Osipovskogo. Zhurnal ‘Rastushchii vinograd’ 1785–1787
gg.” In Provintsiial’nyi gorod v istorii Rossii. Shuia: Politsentr, 2013.
Barker, Emma. “From Charity to Bienfaisance: Picturing Good Deeds in Late EighteenthCentury France.” Journal for Eighteenth-Century Studies 33, no. 3 (2010): 285–311.
Batiushkov, Konstantin. “Vecher u Kantemira.” In Opyty v stikhakh i proze. Edited by I.M.
Semenko, 34–51. Moskva: Nauka, 1977.
Beauvois, Daniel. Lumières et Société еn Europe de l’Est: l’Université de Vilna et les écoles
polonaises de l’Empire russe 1803–1832. Vol. 2. Lille: Atelier reproduction des thèses
Université de Lille III; Paris: diffusion Librairie Honoré Champion, 1977.
Berkov, Pavel. “K istorii russko-pol’skikh kulturnykh otnoshenii kontsa XVIII i nachala XIX
veka. I. I.T. Aleksandrovskii, professor rossiiskogo iazyka i slovesnosti v Kremenetskom
litsee.” Izvestiia Akademii nauk SSSR 9 (1934): 737.
Berkov, Pavel. “Shkol’naia drama ‘Venets Dimitriiu’ (1704 g.).” Trudy otdela drevnerusskoi
literatury 16 (1960): 323–57.
Berkov, Pavel. “U istokov dvorianskoi literatury XVIII veka: Poet Mikhail Sobakin.”
Literaturnoe nasledstvo 9/10 (1933): 421–32.
Berkov, Pavel. Lomonosov i literaturnaia polemika ego vremeni: 1750–1765. Moskva;
Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1936.
Bernstein, Lina. “The First Published Russian Letter-Writing Manual: Priklady, kako pishutsia
komplementy raznye…” SEEJ 46, no. 1 (2002): 98–123.

204
Bezgin, I., ed. Simbirskaia gubernskaia gimnaziia. Sankt-Peterburg, 1888.
Black, Joseph Laurence. Citizens for the Fatherland: Education, Educators, and Pedagogical
Ideals in Eighteenth-Century Russia; with a Translation of Book on the Duties of Man
and Citizen (St. Petersburg, 1783). Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly; New York:
distributed by Columbia University Press, 1979.
Blagotvoritel’nosti v istorii Rossii: Novye dokumenty i issledovaniia. Sankt-Peterburg: NestorIstoriia, 2008.
Bodrova, Alina. “(Ne)akademicheskii Lermontov: tezisy k izucheniiu ‘iunkerskikh tekstov’.” In
Dundukovskie chteniia. Materialy konferentsii pamiati Akademii nauk (26 oktiabria 2013
g.). Edited by B.V. Orekhov, 66–78. Moskva: Labirint, 2014.
Brang, Peter. Zvuchashchee slovo: Zametki po teorii i istorii deklamatsionnogo iskusstva,
translated by M. Sokol’skaia and P. Brang. Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2010.
Brensztajn, Michał. Adam Honory Kirkor, wydawca, redaktor i właściciel drukarni w Wilnie od
roku 1834 do 1867. Wilno: Wydawnictwo Towarzystwa Pomocy Naukowej im. E. I E.
Wróblewskich, 1930.
Bronskii, A. “Evreiskaia Paskha.” In Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vilna, 1839, 393–401.
Bukharkin, Petr, ed. Khronologicheskii katalog slov i rechei XVIII veka. Sankt-Peterburg: St.
Petersburg State University, 2011.
Bunakov, Nikolai. Zapiski N.F. Bunakova. Moia zhizn’, v sviazi s obshcherusskoi zhizn’iu,
preimushchestvenno provintsial’noi. 1837–1905. Sankt-Peterburg, 1909.
Byford, Andy. “Between literary education and academic learning: the study of literature at
secondary school in late imperial Russia (1860s–1900s).” History of Education 33, no. 6
(2004): 637–60.
Byford, Andy. Literary Scholarship in Late Imperial Russia: Rituals of Academic
Institutionalization. London: Modern Humanities Research Association: Maney
Publishing, 2007.
Caradonna, Jeremy. The Enlightenment in Practice. Academic Prize Contests and Intellectual
Culture in France, 1670–1794. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 2012.
Chartier, Roger. Cultural History: Between Practices and Representations. Translated by Lydia
G. Cochrane. Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1988.
Chertov, V., S. Zinin, I. Podrugina, E. Getmanskaia, A. Antipova, and E. Belousova. Nauchnaia
shkola V.V .Golubkova: Istoriia i napravleniia issledovanii. Edited by V.F. Chertov.
Moskva: Ekon-Inform, 2018.

205
Chertov, V.F., A.M. Antipova, E.I. Belousova, V.P. Zhuravlev et al. Metodika prepodavaniia
literatury. Personalii: bibliographicheskii slovar’. Edited by V.F. Chertov. Moskva:
MPGU, 2018.
Chertov, Viktor. Russkaia slovesnost’ v dorevolutsionnoi shkole, 2nd ed. Moskva: Izdatel’stvo
“Prometei”, 2013.
Chistiakov, Mikhail. Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo k postepennomu uprazhneniiu v sochinenii.
Sankt-Peterburg, 1847.
Chrissidis, Nikolaos. An Academy at the Court of the Tsars: Greek Scholars and Jesuit
Education in Early Modern Russia. DeKalb, IL: NIU Press, 2016.
Clark, Donald Lemen. Rhetoric in Greco-Roman Education. New York, Columbia University
Press, 1957.
Clay, Catherine. “Ethos and Empire: The Ethnographic Expedition of the Imperial Russian Naval
Ministry, 1855–62.” Ph.D dissertation, University of Oregon, 1989.
Clay, Catherine. “Russian Ethnographers in the Service of Empire, 1856–1862.” Slavic Review
54, no.1 (1995): 45–51.
Coggin, Philip A. The Uses of Drama: a Historical Survey of Drama and Education from
Ancient Greece to the Present Day. London: Thames and Hudson, 1956.
Crone, Anna Lisa. “Derzhavin’s ‘Bog’: the Internalization of Lomonosov’s ‘Bozhie
velichestvo’.” Russian Literature XLIV (1998): 1–16.
Crone, Anna Lisa. The Daring of Derzhavin: the Moral and Aesthetic Independence of the Poet
in Russia. Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2001.
Dąbrowska, Magdalena. “The Evening at Kantemir’s and About Lomonosov’s Character by
Konstantin Batyushkov and Their Polish Translations.” Acta Polono-Ruthenica 26, no. 3
(2021): 134–45.
Danowska, Ewa. “Życie codzienne w Gimnazjum Wołyńskim w Krzemieńcu (1805–1831).”
Annales Academiae Paedagogicae Cracoviensis 17 (2003): 153–54.
Davydov, Ivan. Uchebnaia kniga ruskago iazyka, soderzhashchaia etimologiiu, orfografiiu,
sintaksis, prosodiiu i kratskie pravila ritoriki. Dlia Blagorodnykh Vospitannikov
Universitetskago Pansiona. Izdanie vtoroe. Moskva, 1823.
Derzhavin, Gavriila. Sochineniia Derzhavina s ob’’iasnitel’nymi primechaniiami Ia. Grota. Vol.
1. Sankt-Peterburg, 1864.
Derzhavin, Gavrila. “Bog,” in Stikhotvoreniia. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1957.

206
Derzhavin, Gavrila. “God,” in The Literature of Eighteenth-Century Russia. Translated by
Harold Segel. New York: Dutton, 1967.
Dmitriev, Ivan. “Gimn Bogu.” In Polnoe sobranie stikhotvorenii. Leningrad: Sovetskii pisatel’,
1967.
Dmitriev, Mikhail. Melochi iz zapasa moei pamiati. Moskva, 1869.
Dobrenko, Evgenii. The Making of the State Writer: Social and Aesthetic Origins of Soviet
Literary Culture. Translated by Jesse M. Savage. Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2001.
Douthwaite, Julia V. “Is Charity for Schmucks?: The Legitimacy of Bienfaisance ca. 1760–82
and ca. 2013–15.” The Eighteenth Century 57, no. 1 (2016): 2–3.
Efremova, Nadezhda. “Dramaturgiia Simeona Polotskogo i shkol’nyi teatr v Rossii kontsa
XVII–nachala XVIII vv.: predposylki, istoki i pervye opyty.” Diss. … kand.
isskustvovedeniia, Gosudarstvennyi institut iskusstvoznaniia, 2019.
Elena Pogosian, “Vostorg russkoi ody i reshenie temy poeta v russkom panegirike 1730–1762
gg.” PhD diss., University of Tartu, 1997.
Eleonskaia, Anna et al., “Stikhotvorstvo i dramaturgiia. Tvorchestvo Simeona Polotskogo
(1629–1680).” In Istoriia russkoi literatury XVII–XVIII vekov (Moskva: Vysshaia shkola,
1969.
Eremin, Igor. “’Deklamatsiia’ Simeona Polotskogo.” Trudy Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 8,
(1951): 354–61.
Eremin, Igor. “Simeon Polotskii—poet i dramaturg.” In Simeon Polotskii. Izbrannye sochineniia.
Edited by I.P. Eremin, 223–60. Moskva: Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR,
1953.
Ezhemesiachnye sochineniia i izvestiia ob uchenykh delakh 1 (1763): 72–73.
Fedyukin, Igor. “Learning to be Nobles: The Elite and Education in Post-Petrine Russia.” PhD
diss., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2009.
Fedyukin, Igor. The Enterprisers: The Politics of School in Early Modern Russia. New York:
Oxford University Press, 2019.
Frumenkova, Tat’iana. “Opekuny Moskovskogo Vospitatel’nogo Doma v Tsarstvovanie
Ekateriny II.” In Blagotvoritel’nosti v istorii Rossii: Novye dokumenty i issledovaniia
(Sankt-Peterburg: Nestor-Istoriia, 2008.
Galakhov, Aleksei. O istinnoi slave. Razsuzhdenie Sochinennoe Uchenikom 3 klassa Riazanskoi
Gimnazii, Alekseem Galakhovym. Riazan’, 1821.
Galakhov, Aleksei. Zapiski cheloveka. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 1999.

207
Geevskii, Stepan. “Avtobiografiia Stepana Lukicha Geevskago,” Kievskaia starina 9 (1893):
375–400.
Geevskii, Stepan. “Avtobiografiia Stepana Lukicha Geevskago,” Kievskaia starina 12 (1893):
91–111.
Getmanskaia, Elena. Literatura v srednei i vysshei shkole: Razvitie i preemstvennost’ (konets
XVII—nachalo XX veka). Moskva: MGPU, 2015.
Glagol budushchego: Filosofskie, pedagogicheskie, literaturno-kriticheskie sochineniia I.M.
Neverova i rechevoe povedenie vospitannikov Stavropol’skoi gubernskoi gimnazii
serediny XIX veka. Edited by K. Shtain. Stavropol’: Izdatel’stvo SGU, 2006.
Grammatin, Nikolai. “Na konchinu Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova, Osnovatelia
Universitetskago Blagorodnago Pansiona.” In Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei zari.
Moskva, 1809.
Grech, Nikolai. “Oborenie russkoi literatury v 1814 godu.” In Sochinenia. Vol. 3. SanktPeterburg, 1855.
Gronas, Mikhail. “Mnemonic Lines: The Social Uses of Memorized Poetry.” In Cognitive
Poetics and Cultural Memory: Russian Literary Mnemonics. New York: Routledge,
2011.
Grossman, Leonid. “Stikhovedcheskaia shkola Lermontova.” Literaturnoe nasledstvo 45–46
(1948): 255–88.
Grot, Iakov. Pushkin, ego litseiskie tovarishchi i nastavniki: neskol’ko statei Iakova Grota s
prisoedineniem i drugikh materialov. Sankt-Peterburg, 1887.
Grot, Karl, ed., Pushkinskii Litsei (1811–1817). Bumagi 1-go kursa, sobrannye akademikom Ia.
K. Grotom. Sankt-Peterburg, 1911.
Guillory, John. “Canon” In Critical Terms for Literary Study. Edited by Frank Lentricchia and
Thomas McLaughlin, 239–48. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995.
Gukovskii, Grigorii. Ocherki russkoi literatury XVIII veka: Dvorianskaia fronda v literature
1750-kh-1760-kh godov. Moskva; Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo akademii nauk, 1936.
Guzairov, Timur. “Zhukovskii—istorik i ideolog Nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia.” PhD diss.,
University of Tartu, 2007.
Hartley, Janet. “Philanthropy in the Reign of Catherine the Great: Aims and Realities.” In Russia
in the Age of the Enlightenment: Essays for Isabel de Madariaga. Edited by Roger
Bartlett and Janet Hartley. New York: St. Martin's Press, 1990.
Iakubina, Iuliia. “Zhanr ody v obrazovanii Nezhinskikh gimnazistov.” Literatura ta cul’tura
Polissia 80 (2015): 126.

208
Ialamas, D. “Privetstviia uchenikov Slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii moskovskomu patriarkhu
Ioakimu,” in The Legacy of Saints Cyril and Methodius to Kiev and Moscow.
Proceedings of the International Congress on the Millennium of the Conversion of Rus’
to Christianity. Thessaloniki 26–28 November 1988. Edited by Anthony-Emil N.
Tachiaos, 513–19. Thessaloniki: Hellenic Association for Slavic Studies, 1992.
Ianchuk, Nikolai. “Literaturnye zametki,” Izvestiia otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti
Imperatorskoi akademii nauk 12, kn. 4 (1907): 199–255.
Ignatovets, L. “Rusifikatsiia sistemy obrazovaniia v Vitebskoi i Mogilevskoi guberniiakh (1830–
1850).” Vesnik Magileuskaga dziarzhaunaga universiteta imia A.A. Kuliashova 1, no. 39
(2012): 26.
Ilchuk, Yulia. “Gogol’s Hybrid Performance: The Creation, Reception and Editing of Vechera
na khutore bliz Dikanki (Evenings on a Farm near Dikan’ka) (1831–1832).” PhD diss.,
University of Southern California, 2009.
Ilchuk, Yuliya. Nikolai Gogol: Performing Hybrid Identity. Toronto; Buffalo; London:
University of Toronto Press, 2021.
Islen’ev, N. “Blagotvoritel’nost’.” In I otdykh v pol’zu. Moskva, 1804.
Istoricheskaia zapiska o sostoianii Tobolskoi gimnazii za 100 let ee sushchestvovaniia. 1789–
1889. Tobol’sk, 1889.
Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti upravleniia Vilenskago uchebnago okruga.1803 g.–1903 g.
Vilna, 1903.
Istoricheskii ocherk Irkutskoi gubernskoi gimnazii. Vol. 1. Irkutsk, 1910.
Iur’ev, Vasilii. Narodnoe Obrazovanie v Viatskoi guberniiv tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy Ekateriny
II-i. Materialy k istorii Viatskoi gimnazii, po povodu eia stoletiia (1786– 1886). Viatka,
1887.
Ivanov, Ardalion. “Vospominaniia o vospitanii v gornom kadetskom korpuse, 1815–1822.”
Sovremennik 8 (1859): 274–77.
Izmailov, Aleksandr. “Ob ekzamene, byvshem v Gornom Kadetskom Korpuse, 27 Maia,”
Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 359.
Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na
mesiats Genvar’ 1778 goda.
Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na
mesiats Fevral’ 1778 goda.
Izvestii Imperatorskago Vospitatel’nago Doma, k udovol’stviiu obshchestva sluzhashchiia, na
mesiats Mart 1778 goda.

209
Jasińska, Barbara. “Narodowa myśl w działalności Komisji Edukacji Narodowej.” Prosopon.
Europejskie Studia Społeczno-Humanistyczne 2(8) (2014): 51.
Jones, W. Gareth. “The "Morning Light" Charity Schools, 1777–80.” The Slavonic and East
European Review 56, no. 1 (1978): 50.
Kahn, Andrew, Mark Lipovetskii, Irina Reyfman, and Stephanie Sandler. A History of Russian
Literature. Oxford, U.K.: Oxford University Press; 2018.
Kaisarov, Petr. “Nadpisi k portretam, postavlennym v zale Universitetskago Blagorodnago
Pansiona.” In Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei zari. Moskva, 1809.
Kaisarov, Petr. “No. 2,” in Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria 14
dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798).
Kalinin, Il’ia. “Istoriia literatury kak Familienroman (russkii formalizm mezhdu Edipom i
Gamletom).” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 4 (2006): 64–83.
Kallash, Vladimir. “Shkolnyia literaturnyia obshchestva 20-kh g.g. XIX v.” In Pomoshch
evreiam postradavshim ot neurozhaia, 455–58. Sankt-Peterburg, 1901.
Kameneva, Liubov’. “Na konchinu Kniazia Aleksandra Mikhailovicha Golitsyna,”
Periodicheskoe sochinenie ob uspekhakh narodnogo prosveshcheniia 20 (1808): 357.
Kaplun, Viktor. “’Zhit’ Goratsiem ili umeret’ Katonom’: rossiiskaia traditsiia grazhdanskogo
respublikanizma (konets XVIII—pervaia tret’ XIX veka),” Neprikosnovennyi zapas 5
(2007): https://magazines.gorky.media/nz/2007/5/zhit-goracziem-ili-umeret-katonomrossijskaya-tradicziya-grazhdanskogo-respublikanizma.html.
Kashtanova, Olga. “Iazykovaia politika v sfere obrazovaniia v zapadnykh guberniiakh Rossii i
Tsarstve Pol’skom v XIX v.” Tsentral’noevropeiskie issledovaniia 2 (2019): 180–208.
Kiseleva, Liubov’. “’Nekanonichnyi’ kanonicheskii tekst (‘Bozhe, tsaria khrani’ V.A.
Zhukovskogo v dorevoliutsionnoi shkole).” In Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy po russkoi i
slavianskoi filologii. Literaturovedenie IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia
pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon. Edited by A. Vdovin, R. Leibov,
89–105. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013.
Kislova, Ekaterina. “Sermons and Sermonizing in 18th-Century Russia: At Court and Beyond,”
Slověne 2 (2014): 175–93.
Klein, Joachim. “’Stichi na končinu…’ Russische Begräbnisdichtung im 18. Jahrhundert.” Welt
der Slaven 66, no.1 (2021): 141–77.
Klein, Joachim. Puti kul’turnogo importa. Trudy po russkoi literature XVIII veka. Moskva:
Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2005.

210
Kochetkova, Natalia. “Fonvizin Denis Ivanovich.” In Slovar’ russkikh pisatelei XVIII veka. Vol.
3. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 2010.
Kostin, Andrei. “Torzhestvennye akty nauchnykh sobranii XVIII veka (Peterburgskaia
Akademiia nauk i Moskovskii universitet).” In Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste
prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka. Edited by Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and
Natal’ia Kochetkova. Sankt-Peterburg: Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010.
Kovekh, Aleksandra. “O politike redaktsii ‘Zhurnala Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia’ v
1834–1836 gg.” Vestnik Moskovskogo universiteta 6 (2012): 114–26.
Kraineva, N. “Rukopisnye zhurnaly i gazety uchebnykh zavedenii Rossii (Po materialam otdela
rukopisei i redkikh knig GPB im. M.E. Saltykova-Shchedrina).” In Narodnoe
obrazovanie i pedagogicheskaia mysl’ Rossii kanuna i nachala imperializma
(Maloissledovannye problemy i istochniki). Sbornik nauchnykh trudov. Edited by E.D.
Dneprov, 223–238. Moskva: NII Obshchei pedagogiki APN SSSR, 1980.
Kucherskaia, M., A. Bazhenova-Sorokina, A. Chaban, and D. Kharitonov, eds. Tvorcheskoe
pis’mo v Rossii: siuzhety, podhody, problemy. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie,
2023.
Kulakova, Irina. Universitetskoe prostranstvo i ego obitateli. Moskva: Novyi Khronograf, 2006.
Kurganovich, A.V. and A. O. Kruglyi, Istoricheskaia zapiska 75-letiia S.-Peterburgskoi vtoroi
gimnazii. Chast’ vtoraiia (1831-1880 g.) Sankt-Peterburg, 1894.
Kusber, Jan. Vospitanie elit i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossiiskoi imperii XVIII—pervoi poloviny
XIX veka: Diskurs, zkonodatel’stvo, real’nost’. Moskva: Rosspen, 2018.
Kuznetsova, Olga. “Carmen echicum: razgovory s ekhom v shkol’noi poezii kontsa XVII v.”
Acta Universitatis Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Rossica 13 (2020): 9–15.
Lapteva, M. “Ippokrena i Irtysh: u istokov klassicheskogo obrazovaniia v Zapadnoi Sibiri,”
Mnemon. Issledovaniia i publikatsii po istorii antichnogo mira 20, no. 1–2 (2020): 207–
19.
Lavrinets, Pavel. “Pushkin v sochineniiakh gimnazistov Litvy i Belorussii (1838).” Pushkinskie
chteniia v Tartu 4 (2007): 138–51.
Lazarev, Iurii. “Rol’ publitsistiki v razvitii rossiiskogo shkol’nogo literaturngo obrazovaniia.”
Diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2017.
Levit, T. “Literaturnaia sreda Lermontova v Moskovskom blagorodnom pansione.” Literaturnoe
nasledstvo 45/46 (1948): 225–54.
Liakhovich, S. “O smerti Pushkina,” in Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vil’na, 1839, 286–89.

211
Lindenmeyr, Adele. Poverty is Not a Vice: Charity, Society, and the State in Imperial Russia.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996.
Linton, Marisa. The Politics of Virtue in Enlightenment France. Basingstoke: Palgrave, 2001.
Lomonosov, Mikhail. Kratkoe rukovodstvo k krasnorechiiu, kniga pervaia, v kotoroi
soderzhitsia ritorika pokazuiushchaaia obshchie pravila oboego krasnorechiia, to est’
oratorii i poezii, sochinennaia v pol’zu liubiashchikh slovesnyia nauki. Sankt-Peterburg,
1748.
Lomonosov, Mikhail. “Oda na den’ vosshestviia na vserossiiskii prestol Ee Velichestva
Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Elizavety Petrovny 1747 goda.” In Polnoe sobranie sochinenii.
Vol. 8. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959, 196–207.
Lomonosov, Mikhail. “Utrennee razmyshlenie o Bozhiem velichestve.” In Polnoe sobranie
sochinenii. Vol. 8. Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1959, 117–19.
Lotman, Iurii. Besedy o russkoi kul’ture. Byt i traditsii russkogo dvorianstva (XVIII–nachalo XIX
veka). Sankt-Peterburg: Iskusstvo-SPb, 1994.
Madariaga, Isabel de. Politics and Culture in Eighteenth-Century Russia. Collected Essays by
Isabel de Madariaga. London: Routledge, 1998.
Mann, Iurii. “M.V. Lomonosov v tvorcheskom soznanii N.V. Gogolia.” In Lomonosov i russkaia
literatura. Edited by A.S Kurilov, 351–71. Moskva: Nauka, 1987.
Marker, Gary. “Paradigms of Eighteenth-Century Russian Education, or is It Time to Move
beyond Secularization?” European Education 52, no. 3 (2020): 193–205.
Mashinskii, Semen. Gogol i “delo o vol’nodumstve.” Moskva: Sovetskii pisatel’, 1959.
Materialy dlia istorii Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo Vospitatel’nogo Doma. Vypusk 1-i, izdannyi
ko dniu stoletnego iubileiia Vospitatel’nogo Doma. Moskva, 1914.
Mel’nikova, Natal’ia. Izdaniia napechatannye v tipografii Moskovskogo universiteta. XVIII vek.
Moskva: Izdatel’stvo Moskovskogo universiteta, 1966.
Mikhed, P. “N.V. Gogol v Gimnazii vyshikh nauk kn. Bezborodko (problemy izucheniia).” In
Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva N.V. Gogolia: nezhinskii period (1820–1828). Edited by
N.M. Zharkevich, Z.V. Kirilliuk, Iu.V. Iakubina, 3–10, Nezhin: OOO: Vidavnitstvo
“Aspekt-Poligraph,” 2009.
Milonov, M. “Nadpisi k portretam, postavlennym v zale Universitetskago Blagorodnago
Pansiona.” In Izbrannye sochineniia iz Utrennei zari. Moskva, 1809.
Mizia, T. “Nauka języka ojczystego i łaciny w szkołach średnich KEN.” Przegląd
Humanistyczny 2 (1973): 1–19.

212
Modzalevskii, Lev. “Lomonosov i ego uchenik Popovskii (o literaturnoi preemstvennosti).”
XVIII vek 3 (1958): 111–69.
Morozov, Petr. Ocherki iz istorii russkoi dramy XVII–XVIII stoletii. Sankt-Peterburg, 1888.
Moskovskie vedomosti 35 (1768): [1].
Moskovskoe uchilishche ordena Sv. Ekateriny 1803–1903 g.g. Istoricheskii ocherk sostavlen po
porucheniiu Soveta Uchilishcha Komissiei prepodavatelei pod obshchei redaktsiei
inspektora klassov V.A. Vagnera. Moskva, 1903.
Myers, Victoria. “Model Letters, Moral Living: Letter-Writing Manuals by Daniel Defoe and
Samuel Richardson.” Huntington Library Quarterly 66, no. 3/4 (2003): 373–91.
Nechaeva, Olga, and Maia Kucherskaia. “Ot sostavitelei.” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie 183
(2023): 76–83. Accessed July 2, 2024.
https://www.nlobooks.ru/magazines/novoe_literaturnoe_obozrenie/183_nlo_5_2023/.
Nikolaev, P., ed. Vozniknovenie russkoi nauki o literature. Moskva: Nauka, 1975.
Nikolaev, Sergei. “Rannii Trediakovskii (k istorii ‘Elegii o smerti Petra Velikogo’).” Russkaia
literatura 1 (2000): 126–32.
Nikolai Ianchuk, “O mnimo-narodnykh belorusskikh pesniakh istoricheskogo i
mifologicheskogo soderzhaniia.” In Sbornik Khar’kovskago istoriko-filologicheskago
obshchestva 18 (1909): 286–306.
O dolzhnostiakh cheloveka i grazhdanina, kniga k chteniiu opredelennaia v narodnykh
gorodskikh uchilishchakh Rossiiskoi Imperii, izdannaia po vysochaishemu poveleniiu
tsarstvuiushchei Imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia. Sankt-Peterburg, 1783.
Ochkin, A. “Ob ekzamene, byvshem v Gornom Kadetskom Korpuse, 27 Maia,”
Blagonamerennyi 22 (1822): 359.
Okenfuss, Max. “Education and Empire: School Reform in Enlightened Russia.” Jahrbücher für
Geschichte Osteuropas 27, no. 1 (1979): 41–68.
Okenfuss, Max. The Discovery of Childhood in Russia: The Evidence of the Slavic Primer.
Newtonville, Mass.: Oriental Research Partners, 1980.
Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsev pri Imperatorskom Vospitatel’nom Dome, po prichine
vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva 1774 goda, Aprelia
23 dnia.
Opisanie torzhestva i eksamena pitomtsov pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Vospitatel’nom
Dome, po prichine vseradostneishago dnia rozhdeniia Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva.
1773. goda.

213
Opisanie vseradostneishago vshestviia Blagochestiveishiia Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny
Altkseevny Samoderzhitsy Vserossiiskiia v Sviato-Troitskuiu Sergievu lavru i prochago,
chto v ono lavre V vysochaishee prisutstvie Eia Imperatorskago Velichestva proizvodimo
bylo, userdnu eia k bogu i ugodnikam ego goriachest’ Predstavliaiushchee oktiabria 17
dnia, 1762 goda. Pechatano pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom Universitete.
Opyty v slovesnosti vospitannikov Blagorodnago pansiona g. Kovalenkova, v Khar’kove.
Khar’kov, 1823.
Panaev, Ivan. Literaturnye vospominaniia. Moskva: Pravda, 1988.
Panchenko, Aleksandr. Russkaia stikhotvornaia kul’tura XVII veka. Leningrad: Nauka, 1973.
Peninskii, Ivan. Rossiiskaia khristomatiia, ili otbornye sochineniia otechestvennykh pisatelei v
proze i stikhakh. Izdanie vtoroe. Sankt-Peterburg, 1837.
Ploshinskii, L. “Voskhod solntsa,” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vil’na, 1839, 56–58.
Plutarkh dlia iunoshei, ili zhizn’ velikikh liudei vsekh natsii, ot samykh otdalennykh do nashikh
vremen. S 212 vygravirovannymi ikh portretami; Sochinenie mogushchee vozvysit’ dushu
molodykh liudei i ukrasit’ onuiu dobrodeteliami; izdannoe Petrom Blanshardom.
Perevod so vtorago ispravlennago i peresmotrennago na Frantsuzskom iazyke izdaniia. 8
vols. Sankt-Peterburg, 1808–1810.
Podshivalov, Vasilii. Russkaia prosodiia, ili pravila kak pisat’ russkie stikhi, S kratkimi
zamechaniiami o raznykh Rodakh Stikhotvorenii. Dlia vospitannikov Blagorodnago
Universitetskago Pansiona. Moskva, 1808.
Podzianka, Semen. “Na sluchai postanovleniia portretov Ikh Prevoskhoditel’stv Gg. Kuratorov
Universiteta v novoi Pansionskoi zale.” Utrenniaia zaria 1 (1800): 179–81.
Poeziia Moskovskogo universiteta. http://www.poesis.ru/o-servere.html.
Posokhov, Sergij. “Traditsii propovedi v aktovykh rechakh professorov universitetov Rossiiskoi
imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia tret’ XIX veka.” Dialog so vremenem 66 (2019):
154–75.
Posokhov, Sergij. “Universitetskaia iubileinaia kul’tura na Vostoke Evropy.” Res historica 39
(2015): 178–79.
Posokhov, Sergij. Universitet i gorod v Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII–pervaia
polovina XIX vv.) Khar’kov: KhNU imeni V.N. Karazina, 2014.
Prashkovich, N. “Iz rannikh deklamatsii Simeona Polotskogo (‘Metry’ i ‘Dialog kratkii’).” Trudy
Otdela drevnerusskoi literatury 21 (1965): 29–38.

214
Prislannoe ot Ego Vysokorodiia Kantseliarii Sovetnika i Moskovskago Imperatorskago
Universiteta gospodina Direktora Mikhaily Matveevicha Kheraskova Imperatorskago
Vospitatel’nago Domu Vysokopochtennym gospodam Chlenam Opekunskago Soveta.
Moskva, no earlier than 1763.
Prokopovich, Feofan. “Slovo v den’ koronatsii Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Alekseevny.
Govorennoe v Moskve v Uspenskom pervoprestol’nom sobore Maia 7 dnia 1724 goda.”
In Slova i rechi. Vol. 2. Sankt-Peterburg, 1761.
Prokopovich, Feofan. Pervoe uchenie otrokom, v nem zhe bukvy i slogi. 1720.
Pushkin, Aleksandr. “K Zhukovskomu,” in Polnoe sobranie socihenii v dvadtsati tomakh. Vol. 1.
Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1999.
Pushkin, Aleksandr. “O narodnom vospitanii.” In Polnoe sobranie sochinenii. Vol. 11.
Leningrad: Izdatel’stvo AN SSSR, 1949.
Pushkin, Alexander. Eugene Onegin. A Novel in Verse. Translated by James E. Falen. Oxford:
Oxford University Press, 1998.
Ram, Harsha. The Imperial Sublime: A Russian Poetics of Empire. Madison, Wis.: University of
Wisconsin Press, 2003.
Razgovory o fizicheskikh i nravstvennykh predmetakh. Izdany dlia detei i v osobennosti dlia
vospitannikov Universitetskago Blagorodnago Pansiona. Moskva, 1800.
Reiser, Solomon and Mark Aronson, comps. Literaturnye kruzhki i salony, with a foreword by
Boris Eikhenbaum. Leningrad: Priboi, 1929.
Reitblat, Abram. “Adam Gonorii Kirkor i Faddei Bulgarin: vzaimosviazi i ideinaia blizost’.” In
Kova dėl Istorijos: Vilniaus senienų muziejus (1855-1915): mokslo straipsnių rinkinys.
Lietuvos nacionalinis muziejus: Vilnius, 2015.
Reitblat, Abram. Kak Pushkin vyshel v genii. Istoriko-sotsiologicheskie ocherki o knizhnoi
kul’ture Pushkinskoi epokhi. Moskva: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001.
Reitblat, Abram. Klassika, skandal, Bulgarin… Moskva: Novoe literaurnoe obozrenie, 2020.
Reut, Aleksandr. “Literaturnye besedy v rossiiskoi shkole XIX–nachala XX veka kak
pedagogicheskii phenomen.” Diss. … kand. ped. nauk, Moskovskii pedagogicheskii
gosudarstvennyi universitet, 2017.
Reyfman, Irina. How Russia Learned to Write: Literature and the Imperial Table of Ranks.
Madison, Wisconsin: The University of Wisconsin Press, 2016.
Rezanov, Vladimir. “K voprosu o starinnoi drame. Teoriia shkol’nykh ‘deklamatsii’ po
rukopisnym poetikam.” Izvestiia Otdeleniia russkogo iazyka i slovesnosti Imperatorkoi
Akademii nauk 18, kn. 1 (1913): 1–40.

215
Rezanov, Vladimir. Iz razyskanii o sochineniiakh V.A. Zhukovskago. Sankt-Peterburg, 1906.
Rezanov, Vladimir. Shkol’nye deistva XVII-XVIII vv. i teatr iezuitov : iz istorii russkoi dramy.
Мoskva, 1910.
Richlin, Amy. “Gender and Rhetoric: Producing Manhood in the Schools.” In Roman Eloquence.
Rhetoric in Society and Literature. London: Routledge, 1997.
Rizhskii, Ivan. Opyt ritoriki sochinennyi i prepodavaemyi v Sanktpeterburgskom Gornom
uchilishche. Sankt-Peterburg, 1796.
Rodzianka, Semen. “No.1.” In Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria
14 dnia, 1798 goda (Moskva, 1798).
Rollin, Charles. De la manière d'enseigner et d'étudier les belles-lettres: Par rapport à l’esprit et
au cœur. Paris, 1726–1728.
Rossiiskaia Azbuka dlia obucheniia iunoshestva chteniiu, napechatannaia dlia obshestvennykh
shkol. Sankt-Peterburg, 1782.
Rotkovich, Iakov. Ocherki po istorii prepodavaniia literatury v russkoi shkole. Moskva:
Izdatel’stvo Akademii Pedagogichesjkikh nauk RSFSR, 1953.
Rudnev, Dmitrii. “Prazdnichno-ritoricheskaia kul’tura v kadetskikh korpusakh.” In
Okkazional’naia literatura v kontekste prazdnichnoi kul’tury Rossii XVIII veka. Edited by
Petr Bukharkin, Ulrike Jekutsch, and Natal’ia Kochetkova. Sankt-Peterburg:
Filologicheskii fakul’tet SPbGU, 2010.
Rukovodstvo uchiteliam pervago i vtorago klassa narodnykh uchilishch Rossiiskoi Imperii,
izdannoe po vysochaishemu poveleniiu Tsarstvuiushchei Impertaritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia.
Sankt-Peterburg, 1783.
Samsonova, Aleksandra. “Pis’mennye uprazhneniia v ruskkoi gimnazii: istoriia voprosa.” In
Slavianskaia kul’tura: istoki, traditsii, vzaimodeistvie. XX Kirillo-Mefodievskie chteniia.
Materialy Mezhdunarodnoi nauchno-prakticheskoi konferentsii (v ramkakh
Mezhdunarodnogo Kirillo-Mefodievskogo festivalia slavianskikh iazykov i kultur). Edited
by M.N. Rusetskaia. Moskva: Gosudarstvennyi institut russkogo iazyka im. A.S.
Pushkina, 2019.
Sankovskii, Vasilii. Oda na Vozhdelenneishii den’ Vysokotorzhestvennago Tezoimenitstva Eia
Avgusteishago Imperatorskago Velichestva, Vsepresvetleishiia Derzhavneishiia Velikiia
Gosudaryni Imperatritsy Ekateriny Vtoryia, Samoderzhitsy Vserossiiskiia, chitannaia v
publichnom sobranii Moskovskago Universiteta, 1762 goda Noiabria 26 dnia,
Sochinennaia togozh Universiteta Studentom Vasiliem Sankovskim,
https://poesis.ru/poeti-poezia/sankovskij/frm_vers.htm.
Savitskii, Aleksandr. “Razsuzhdenie o tom, chto dlia Volynian poznanie Rossiiskago iazyka
preimushchestvenn nuzhno.” Ulei 7 (1811): 5–16.

216
Sbornik administrativnykh postanovlenii Tsarstva Pol’skago. Vol. 2. Varshava, 1867.
Sbornik kantov XVIII veka. Moskva: Gosudarstvennoe muzykal’noe izdatel’svo, 1953.
Sbornik svedenii o srednikh uchebnykh zavedeniiakh Vilenskago uchebnago okruga. Vilna, 1873.
Schierle, Ingrid. “Patriotism and Emotions: Love of the Fatherland in Catherinian Russia.” Ab
Imperio 3 (2009): 65–93.
Schönle, Andreas and Andrei Zorin, On the Periphery of Europe, 1762-1825: The Self-Invention
of the Russian Elite. DeKalb, Illinois: Northern Illinois University Press, 2018.
Sen’kina, Anna. “Iziashchnaia slovesnost’ kak didakticheskii material: k istorii russkoi
literaturnoi khrestomatii (pervaia polovina XIX v.).” In Acta Slavica Estonica IV. Trudy
po russkoi i slavianskoi filologii. Literaturovedenie IX. Khrestomatiinye teksty: russkaia
pedagogicheskaia praktika XIX v. i poeticheskii kanon. Edited by A. Vdovin, R. Leibov,
35–54. Tartu: University of Tartu Press, 2013.
Sen’kina, Anna. “Kniga dlia chteniia’ kak vid uchebnogo posobiia dlia nachal’nogo obucheniia:
voprosy tipologii I istorii izdaniia (konets XVIII-pervaia polovina XIX vv.” Avtoreferat
diss. … kand. filol. nauk, Sankt-Peterburgskii gosudarstvennyi universitet kul’tury i
iskusstv, 2010.
Severiukhin, Dmitrii. “Pochetnye zvaniia, znaki otlichiia i nagrady za blagotvoritel’nost’ v
starom Peterburge.” Vestnik SPbGUKI 3, no. 28 (2016): 6–9.
Shablovskii, F. “Vospominanie.” Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vil’na, 1839, 67–69.
Sharov, N. “N.A. Ianchuk,” Trudy Belorusskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta v Minske 1
(1922): 276–91.
Shell, Alison. “Autodidacticism in English Jesuit Drama: The Writings and Career of Joseph
Simons.” Medieval & Renaissance Drama in England 13 (2001): 34.
Sheremetevskii, Petr. “Zavetnyi den’.” In Istoriia osnovaniia i otkrytiia Imperatrskago
Moskovskago Vospitatel’nago doma. Moskva, 1836.
Shevyrev, Stepan. Istoriia Imperatorskago Moskovkago universiteta, napisannaia k stolentemu
ego iubileiu Stepanom Shevyrevym. 1755–1855. Moskva, 1855.
Shustova, Iulia. “Slova ‘Privetstvii’ v moskovskikh izdaniikh Bukvarei 60-kh godov XVII v.” In
Uchebniki detstva. Iz istorii shkol’ni knigi VII–XXI vekov. Edited by N.B. Barannikova,
V.G. Bezrogov, G.V. Makarevich, 47–57. Moskva: Rosskiiskii gosudarstvennyi
gumanitarnyi universitet, 2013.

217
Silina, Alina. “Gratuliatsiia kak zhanr seminarskogo panegirika v rukopisnykh sbornikakh vtoroi
poloviny XVIII veka.” In Materialy Mezhdunarodnogo molodezhnogo nauchnogo
foruma “LOMONOSOV–2015,” Moskva: MAKS Press, 2015. https://lomonosovmsu.ru/archive/Lomonosov_2015/data/section_28_6890.htm.
Silina, Alina. “Poet-seminarist I.I. Oraevskii i ego rukopisnyi sbornik.” XVIII vek 29 (2017): 95–
111.
Silina, Alina. “Seminarskie stikhotvornye pozdravleniia carmina gratulatoria.” Chteniia otdela
russkoi literatury XVIII veka 8 (2018): 155–64.
Silina, Alina. “Stikhotvornye opyty viatskikh seminaristov serediny XVIII veka.” XVIII vek 28
(2015): 45–65.
Silina, Alina. “Svoe i chuzhoe: mekhanizm zaimstvovanii v russkoi seminarskoi poezii vtoroi
poloviny XVIII veka (po materialam Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii).” Acta Universitatis
Lodziensis. Folia Litteraria Rossica 12 (2019): 25–35.
Smirnov, Aleksandr. Vospominaniia, mysli, Trudy i zametki Aleksandra Smirnova. Chast’
vtoraia. Moskva, 1860.
Smirnov, S. “Uchenicheskie zhurnaly i sborniki.” Vestnik vospitaniia 5–6 (1901): 83–115.
Smirnov, Sergei. Istoriia Moskovskoi Slaviano-Greko-Latinskoi Akademii. Moskva, 1855.
Smith, Jay. The Culture of Merit: Nobility, Royal Service, and the Making of Absolute Monarchy
in France, 1600–1789. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 1996.
Smoliarova, Tatiana. Parizh 1928: Oda vozvrashchaetsi
︠a
︡
v teatr. Moskva: RGGU, 1999.
Spitsyn, Aleksandr. “Istoriia Viatskago glavnago narodnago ichilishcha. (1786–1811 g.g.).” In
Kalendar’ Viatskoi gubernii na 1891 god. Viatka, 1890.
Sposob, kotorym mozhno uchit’ i obuchat’sia slovesnykh nauk. Sochinen G. Rollenom, a S
Frantsuskago iazyka na Rossiiskoi pereveden Ivanom Kriukovym. Sankt-Peterburg, 1774.
Staliūas, Darius. “Imperial Nationality Policy and the Russian Version of the History of the
Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the Mid-Nineteenth Century.” Central Europe 8, no. 2
(2010): 146–57.
Stoiunin, Vladimir. “Iz vospominanii V. Ia. Stoiunina.” In Za sto let: Vospominaniia, stat’i i
materialy. Peterburgskaia byvshaia tret’ia gimnaziia, nyne 13-ia sovetskaia trudovaia
shkola. Petrograd: Izdanie 13-i Sovetskoi Trudovoi shkoly, 1923.
Stoletie Tomskago uezdnago ichilishcha. Tomsk, 1889.
Strakhov, Petr. Istoricheskii ocherk Vladimirskoi gubernskoi gimnazii. Vladimir na Kliaz’me,
1891.

218
Suproniuk, Oksana. Literaturnaia sreda rannego Gogolia. Kiev: Akademperiodika, 2009.
Sushkov, Nikolai. Moskovskii universitetskii blagorodnyi pansion i vospitanniki Moskovskago
universiteta, gimnazii ego, Universitetskago blagorodnago pansiona i Druzheskago
obshchestva. Moskva, 1858.
Szmyt, Andrzej. “Wpływ idei Komisji Edukacji Narodowej na organizację szkolnictwa w Rosji
w pierwszej połowie XIX wieku.” Studia Paedagogica Ignatiana 19 (3): (2016): 55–78.
Talyzin, Matvei. Nachal’nyia osnovaniia ritoriki i poezii s predvaritel’nym ob’’iasneniem
neobkhodimykh logicheskikh pravil, sobrannye dia Igo kadetskago korpusa Matveem
Talyzinym. Sankt-Peterburg, 1818.
Tatarskii, Ierofei. Simeon Polotskii (ego zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’). Opyt issledovaniia iz istorii
prosveshcheniia i vnutrennei tserkovnoi zhizni vo vtoruiu poloviny XVII veka. Moskva,
1886.
Teffi. “My First Visit to an Editorial Office.” In Tolstoy, Rasputin, Others and Me. The Best Of
Teffi. Edited by Robert Chandler and Anne Marie Jackson, translated by Robert and
Elizabeth Chandler, Rose France, and Anne Marie Jackson. New York: New York
Review Books, 2016.
Tendriakova, M., and V. Bezrogov, eds.,“V Rossii nado zhit’ po knige”: Nachal’noe obuchenie
chteniiu i pis’mu. Stanovlenie uchebnoi knigi v XVI–XIX vv. Moskva: Pami
︠
a
︡
tniki
istoricheskoi mysli, 2015.
Tolmachev, Iakov. Pravila slovesnosti, rukovodstvuiushchie ot pervykh nachal do vyshshikh
sovershenst krasnorechiia, v chetyrekh chastiakh. Sankt-Peterburg, 1814.
Toporov, Vladimir. “Mladoi pevets i bystrotechnoe vremia: (K istorii odnogo obraza v russkoi
poezii pervoi treti XIX veka).” In Russian Poetics: Proceedings of the International
Colloquium at UCLA, September 22-26, 1975. Columbus, Ohio: Slavica Publishers,
1983.
Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago Narodnago Uchilishcha, po sluchaiu pereveshcheniia onago
vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha
dom, chto u Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28 dnia 1795 goda. Moskva, 1795.
Uchebnaia kniga rossiiskoi slovesnosti ili izbrannyia mesta iz ruskikh sochinenii i perevodov v
stikhakh i proze, s prisovokupleniem kratkikh prvail ritoriki i piitiki, i istorii rossiiskoi
slovesnosti, izdannyia Nikolaem Grechem. Vol. 4. Sankt-Peterburg, 1822.
Ul’ianova, Galina. “Blagotvoritel’nye pozhertvovaniia Moskovskomu universitety (XIX—
nachalo XX v.).” Ekonomicheskaia istoriia. Ezhegodnik. Moskva: Rosspen, 2004.
Uspenskii, Boris. “Nikolai I i pol’skii iazyk (Iazykovaia politika Rossiiskoi Imperii v otnoshenii
Tsarstva Pol’skogo: voprosy grafiki i orforgrafii).” In Istoriko-filologicheskie ocherki.
Moskva: Iazyki slavianskoi kul’tury, 2004.

219
Uspenskii, Boris. Tsar’ i patriarch. Moskva: Iazyki russkoi kul’tury, 1998.
Ustav narodnym uchilishcham v Rossiiskoi Imperii, ulozhennyi v tsarstvovanie Imperatritsy
Ekateriny II. Sankt-Peterburg, 1786.
Uvarov, Sergei. Izbrannye Trudy. Moskva: Rosspen, 2010.
V pam’iat’ prebyvaniia Gosudaria Imperatora Aleksandra II v Vil’ne 6 i 7 Sentiabria 1858 goda.
Vil’no, 1858.
Vakhrushev, A. “Viatskaia dukhovnaia seminariia i viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka.” Vestnik
Iaroslavskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta im. P.G. Demidova 4, no. 14 (2010): 133–
37.
Vatsuro, Vadim. “Literaturnaia shkola Lermontova.” In Lermontovskii sbornik. Edited by I.S.
Chistova, V.A. Manuilov, V.E. Vatsuro, 49–90. Leningrad: Nauka, 1985.
Vatsuro, Vadim. “Litseiskoe tvorchestvo Pushkina.” Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v dvadtsati
tomakh. Vol. 1. Sankt-Peterburg: Nauka, 1999.
Vdovin, Alexey and Kirill Zubkov, “Genealogiia shkol’nogo istorizma: literaturnaia kritika,
istoricheskaia nauka i izuchenie slovesnosti v gimnazii 1860–1900-kh godov.” Novoe
literaturnoe obozrenie 164 (4) (2020): 161–76.
Vdovin, Alexey. “Nationalizing Science in Mid-Nineteenth Century Russia: Ideological Origins
of the Naval Ministry’s ‘Literary Expedition’.” Scando-Slavica 61, no. 1 (2015): 100–18.
Velizhev, Mikhail. “S. S. Uvarov v nachale nikolaevskogo tsarstvovaniia: Zametki k teme.”
Pushkinskie chteniia v Tartu 5 (2011): 335–56.
Vereshchagin, Aleksandr. “Viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka.” [Part 1]. In Kalendar’ i
pamiatnaia knizhka Viatskoi gubernii na 1897 god, 71–160. Viatka, 1897.
Vereshchagin, Aleksandr. Viatskie stikhotvortsy XVIII veka. [Part 2]. Viatka, 1898.
Vinogradov, Nikanor. “Kanty.” In Torzhestvo Moskovskago Glavnago Narodnago Uchilishcha,
po sluchaiu pereveshcheniia onago vo vsemilostiveishe pozhalovannyi Eia Imperatorskim
Velichestvom dlia sego uchilishcha dom, chto u Varvarskikh vorot, byvshee Oktiabria 28
dnia 1795 goda. Moskva, 1795.
Walicki, Andrzej. The Enlightenment and the Birth of Modern Nationhood: Polish Political
Thought from Noble Republicanism to Tadeusz Kosciuszko. Notre Dame: University of
Notre Dame Press, 1989.
Whittaker, Cynthia. “The Ideology of Sergei Uvarov: An Interpretive Essay.” The Russian
Review 37, no. 2 (1978): 158–76.

220
Whittaker, Cynthia. The Origins of Modern Russian education: An Intellectual Biography of
Count Sergei Uvarov, 1786-1855. DeKalb, Ill.: Northern Illinois University Press, 1984.
Wirtschafter, Elise. The Play of Ideas in Russian Enlightenment Theater. DeKalb: Northern
Illinois University Press, 2003.
Wirtschafter, Elise. Religion and Enlightenment in Catherinian Russia: The Teachings of
Metropolitan Platon. Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2013.
Wortman, Richard. Scenarios of Power: Myth and Ceremony in Russian Monarchy. Princeton,
N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1995–2000.
Wortman, Richard. The Development of a Russian Legal Consciousness. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press, 1976.
Zabelin, Ivan. Materialy dlia istorii, arkheologii i statistiki goroda Moskvy. Vol. 1. Moskva,
1884.
Zamakhaev, S. and G. Tsvetaev, Tobol’skaia gubernskaia gimnaziia. Istoricheskaia zapiska o
sostoianii Tobol’skoi gimnazii za 100 let eia sushchestvvaniia. 1789–1889. Tobol’sk,
1889.
Zapadov, Vladimir. “Derzhavin i poetika russkogo klassitsizma. Shuvalovskaia epistola
Derzhavina.” In Problemy izucheniia russkoi literatury XVIII veka. Lenigrad: Izdatel’stvo
LGPI, 1985.
Zatsvilikhovskii, R. “Gimn Bogu.” In Opyty v russkoi slovesnosti vospitannikov gimnazii
Belorusskago uchebnago okruga, napechatannye po prikazaniiu g. Ministra narodnogo
prosveshcheniia. Vil’na, 1839, 1–2.
Zav’ialova, Oksana. “In the Struggle against “Tactless Liberalism”: A. K. Kirkor and the
Newspaper Novoe Vremya on the Consequences of the Great Reforms in the Late
1860s—Early 1870s.” Historia Provinciae—the Journal of Regional History 7, no. 3
(2023): 762–809.
Zhivov, Viktor. Language and Culture in Eighteenth Century Russia, translated by Marcus
Levitt. Boston, MA: Academic Studies Press; 2009.
Zhukovskii, Vasilii. “No.7.” In Akt, byvshii v Universitetskom blagorodnom pansione, Noiabria
14 dnia, 1798 goda. Moskva, 1798.
Zhukovskii, Vasilii. Polnoe sobranie sochinenii i pisem. Edited by Aleksandr Ianushkevich. 20
vols. Moskva: Iazyki slavianskikh kul’tur, 1999–2019.
Znamenskii, Petr. Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reform 1808 goda. Kazan’, 1881.

221
Zorin, Andrei. “Vo chto verili russkie dvoriane v XVIII veke?” Lecture at Russian State Library,
March 24, 2019, video,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V4g6fPkseSE&ab_channel=Arzamas.
Zorin, Andrei. By Fables Alone: Literature and State Ideology in Late Eighteenth- and Early
Nineteenth-Century Russia. Boston: Academic Studies Press, 2014.
Zorin, Andrei. Poiavlenie geroia: Iz istorii russkoi emotsional’noi kul’tury kontsa XVIII-nachala
XIX veka. Moscow: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2016.

Abstract (if available)

Linked assets

University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses

Conceptually similar

PDF

The vanishing dead body and the rising lyric persona in early modern east Slavic poetry

PDF

The poetics of disillusionment: the legacy of the eighteenth-century ceremonial ode in nineteenth-century Russian lyric poetry and pastoral prose

PDF

From Prutkov to Kharms: tracing nonsense in the Russian literary tradition

PDF

Vagrancy, law, and the limits of verisimilitude in Russian literature

PDF

The Chinovnik and the Rond-de-cuir: bureaucratic modernity in nineteenth-century Russian and French literature

PDF

Self on the move: lyrical journeys in the twentieth-century Russian poetry

PDF

Russian heroides, 1759-1843: translatons and transformations

PDF

The anatomy of the drives: an intellectual history of psychoanalysis in Russia from 1905 to 1930

PDF

Voice of the age, voice of the ages: evolution of the Russian poet-prophet complex through three models

PDF

Living her narrative: Writing heroines in the eighteenth-century novel

PDF

Savagely spiritual: illness and the imagination in the fiction of Jean Stafford

PDF

Dances of death: visual and verbal transformations of the body in Russian modernism

PDF

Identifying and mitigating safety risks in language models

PDF

Justice and how to attain it in Russian literature and film

PDF

Labors of love: Black women, cultural production, and the romance genre

PDF

Dollplay: narrative rituals in nineteenth-century Britain

PDF

The metaphysical materiality of Vladislav Khodasevich and T.S. Eliot's poetry

PDF

East meets west: on translation and the dialogue of Polish and American poets

PDF

The usual things in unusual places: plotting simultaneity in narratives by women

PDF

Romancing the bomb: Gothic terror and terrorism in late nineteenth- and early twentieth-century literature

Asset Metadata

Creator Shubenkina, Ekaterina (author)

Core Title Between literary training and literary service: school writing instruction in the Russian Empire, 1780-1860

School College of Letters, Arts and Sciences

Degree Doctor of Philosophy

Degree Program Slavic Languages and Literatures

Degree Conferral Date 2024-08

Publication Date 09/04/2024

Defense Date 08/21/2024

Publisher Los Angeles, California (original), University of Southern California (original), University of Southern California. Libraries (digital)

Tag creative writing,cultural history,the eighteenth century,the history of education in writing,the nineteenth century,The Russian Empire,the social history of literature

Format theses (aat)

Language English

Contributor Electronically uploaded by the author (provenance)

Advisor Rubin-Detlev, Kelsey (committee chair), Meeker, Natania (committee member), Seifrid, Thomas (committee member)

Creator Email shubenki@usc.edu

Unique identifier UC11399AGMF

Identifier etd-Shubenkina-13485.pdf (filename)

Legacy Identifier etd-Shubenkina-13485

Document Type Dissertation

Format theses (aat)

Rights Shubenkina, Ekaterina

Internet Media Type application/pdf

Type texts

Source 20240905-usctheses-batch-1208 (batch), University of Southern California (contributing entity), University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses (collection)

Access Conditions The author retains rights to his/her dissertation, thesis or other graduate work according to U.S. copyright law. Electronic access is being provided by the USC Libraries in agreement with the author, as the original true and official version of the work, but does not grant the reader permission to use the work if the desired use is covered by copyright. It is the author, as rights holder, who must provide use permission if such use is covered by copyright.

Repository Name University of Southern California Digital Library

Repository Location USC Digital Library, University of Southern California, University Park Campus MC 2810, 3434 South Grand Avenue, 2nd Floor, Los Angeles, California 90089-2810, USA

Repository Email cisadmin@lib.usc.edu