“乌瓦洛夫路线”对“马格尼茨基路线”:1817-1821年公共教育部的思想斗争和s·s·乌瓦洛夫的第一次辞职

Ivan S. Pustivoit, T. Zhukovskaya
{"title":"“乌瓦洛夫路线”对“马格尼茨基路线”:1817-1821年公共教育部的思想斗争和s·s·乌瓦洛夫的第一次辞职","authors":"Ivan S. Pustivoit, T. Zhukovskaya","doi":"10.37614/2949-1185.2023.2.1.010","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The article discusses the resignation of S. S. Uvarov from the post of trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district in 1821, a kind of fork in the history of the capital district, but also in the entire policy of education of the Alexander reign. Since the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education in 1817 and the appointment of a trustee of Emperor A. N. Golitsyn, the composition and mode of operation of the expert body of the MNP — the Main Board of Schools — has changed. In it, active exposing activities were launched by new members of M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, who became the mainstay of Golitsyn, in essence, his personal experts. S. S. Uvarov fought for several years with the “Golitsyn party” for the preservation of the principles of school and university reform, laid down in the legislation of 1802–1804. The confrontation within the MNP, which determined for a decade the fate of not only the metropolitan university, but also the general course in the management of education, unfolded between the “Magnitsky line” and the “Uvarov line” and began as early as 1817 on the issue of the “second category” of the Main Pedagogical Institute, in which Uvarov intended to concentrate the training of elementary school teachers using the Lancaster method. The confrontation turned into open forms in 1819 on the issue of closing the Kazan University. In the second half of 1819, Uvarov's opponents blocked a constructive discussion in the GPU and the adoption of a special charter for St. Petersburg University. In 1820, the confrontation between the two parties was aggravated by the history of the prohibition of the book of Professor A. P. Kunitsyn “Natural Law” and the exclusion of the subject itself from the program not only of St. Petersburg, but also of other universities. Then the Noble boarding school at St. Petersburg University became the object of denunciation, which led to personnel changes, a change in the mode of education and a tightening of disciplinary supervision. Based on archival and published sources, a chronicle of the dramatic events of the turn of the 1810s–1820s is presented, when, as a result of ideological sabotage, M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, there is a change in the vector in the policy of education in the direction of fighting the principles developed in 1802-1804: the autonomy of universities, the European orientation in scientific and personnel policy, the selectivity and softness of the class framework in the school system.","PeriodicalId":198792,"journal":{"name":"Transactions of the Kоla Science Centre. Series: Natural Sciences and Humanities","volume":"6 4 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“The line of Uvarov” vs “the line of Magnitsky”: ideological struggle in the Ministry of Public Education in 1817–1821 and the first resignation of S. S. Uvarov\",\"authors\":\"Ivan S. Pustivoit, T. Zhukovskaya\",\"doi\":\"10.37614/2949-1185.2023.2.1.010\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The article discusses the resignation of S. S. Uvarov from the post of trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district in 1821, a kind of fork in the history of the capital district, but also in the entire policy of education of the Alexander reign. Since the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education in 1817 and the appointment of a trustee of Emperor A. N. Golitsyn, the composition and mode of operation of the expert body of the MNP — the Main Board of Schools — has changed. In it, active exposing activities were launched by new members of M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, who became the mainstay of Golitsyn, in essence, his personal experts. S. S. Uvarov fought for several years with the “Golitsyn party” for the preservation of the principles of school and university reform, laid down in the legislation of 1802–1804. The confrontation within the MNP, which determined for a decade the fate of not only the metropolitan university, but also the general course in the management of education, unfolded between the “Magnitsky line” and the “Uvarov line” and began as early as 1817 on the issue of the “second category” of the Main Pedagogical Institute, in which Uvarov intended to concentrate the training of elementary school teachers using the Lancaster method. The confrontation turned into open forms in 1819 on the issue of closing the Kazan University. In the second half of 1819, Uvarov's opponents blocked a constructive discussion in the GPU and the adoption of a special charter for St. Petersburg University. In 1820, the confrontation between the two parties was aggravated by the history of the prohibition of the book of Professor A. P. Kunitsyn “Natural Law” and the exclusion of the subject itself from the program not only of St. Petersburg, but also of other universities. Then the Noble boarding school at St. Petersburg University became the object of denunciation, which led to personnel changes, a change in the mode of education and a tightening of disciplinary supervision. Based on archival and published sources, a chronicle of the dramatic events of the turn of the 1810s–1820s is presented, when, as a result of ideological sabotage, M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, there is a change in the vector in the policy of education in the direction of fighting the principles developed in 1802-1804: the autonomy of universities, the European orientation in scientific and personnel policy, the selectivity and softness of the class framework in the school system.\",\"PeriodicalId\":198792,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Transactions of the Kоla Science Centre. Series: Natural Sciences and Humanities\",\"volume\":\"6 4 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Transactions of the Kоla Science Centre. Series: Natural Sciences and Humanities\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.37614/2949-1185.2023.2.1.010\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Transactions of the Kоla Science Centre. Series: Natural Sciences and Humanities","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.37614/2949-1185.2023.2.1.010","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了1821年乌瓦洛夫从圣彼得堡教育区理事的职位上辞职,这是首都地区历史上的一个岔路,也是亚历山大统治时期整个教育政策的一个岔路。自1817年精神事务和公共教育部成立并任命a . N. Golitsyn皇帝的受托人以来,MNP的专家机构-学校主板-的组成和运作模式发生了变化。其中,马格尼茨基和鲁尼奇(D. P. Runich)的新成员发起了积极的揭露活动,他们成了戈利琴的中流支柱,本质上是他的私人专家。s·s·乌瓦洛夫与“戈利岑党”为维护1802-1804年立法中规定的学校和大学改革原则进行了几年的斗争。MNP内部的对抗不仅决定了十年来城市大学的命运,也决定了教育管理的一般课程的命运,在“马格尼茨基线”和“乌瓦洛夫线”之间展开,早在1817年就开始了主要教育学院的“第二类”问题,其中乌瓦洛夫打算集中使用兰开斯特方法培训小学教师。1819年,在关闭喀山大学的问题上,双方的对抗公开化。1819年下半年,乌瓦洛夫的反对者在格别乌阻止了一场建设性的讨论,并阻止了圣彼得堡大学特别宪章的通过。1820年,由于a·p·库尼琴教授的著作《自然法》被查禁,而且不仅在圣彼得堡,而且在其他大学的课程大纲中也排除了这门学科本身,两党之间的对抗进一步加剧。随后,圣彼得堡大学的贵族寄宿学校成为谴责的对象,这导致了人事变动,教育模式的变化和纪律监督的加强。基于档案和出版的资料,本书呈现了19世纪10年代至19世纪20年代的戏剧性事件的编年史,当时,由于意识形态的破坏,马格尼茨基和鲁尼奇,教育政策的方向发生了变化,朝着与1802年至1804年发展起来的原则进行了斗争:大学的自治,科学和人事政策的欧洲取向,学校系统中阶级框架的选择性和柔软性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
“The line of Uvarov” vs “the line of Magnitsky”: ideological struggle in the Ministry of Public Education in 1817–1821 and the first resignation of S. S. Uvarov
The article discusses the resignation of S. S. Uvarov from the post of trustee of the St. Petersburg educational district in 1821, a kind of fork in the history of the capital district, but also in the entire policy of education of the Alexander reign. Since the establishment of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs and Public Education in 1817 and the appointment of a trustee of Emperor A. N. Golitsyn, the composition and mode of operation of the expert body of the MNP — the Main Board of Schools — has changed. In it, active exposing activities were launched by new members of M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, who became the mainstay of Golitsyn, in essence, his personal experts. S. S. Uvarov fought for several years with the “Golitsyn party” for the preservation of the principles of school and university reform, laid down in the legislation of 1802–1804. The confrontation within the MNP, which determined for a decade the fate of not only the metropolitan university, but also the general course in the management of education, unfolded between the “Magnitsky line” and the “Uvarov line” and began as early as 1817 on the issue of the “second category” of the Main Pedagogical Institute, in which Uvarov intended to concentrate the training of elementary school teachers using the Lancaster method. The confrontation turned into open forms in 1819 on the issue of closing the Kazan University. In the second half of 1819, Uvarov's opponents blocked a constructive discussion in the GPU and the adoption of a special charter for St. Petersburg University. In 1820, the confrontation between the two parties was aggravated by the history of the prohibition of the book of Professor A. P. Kunitsyn “Natural Law” and the exclusion of the subject itself from the program not only of St. Petersburg, but also of other universities. Then the Noble boarding school at St. Petersburg University became the object of denunciation, which led to personnel changes, a change in the mode of education and a tightening of disciplinary supervision. Based on archival and published sources, a chronicle of the dramatic events of the turn of the 1810s–1820s is presented, when, as a result of ideological sabotage, M. L. Magnitsky and D. P. Runich, there is a change in the vector in the policy of education in the direction of fighting the principles developed in 1802-1804: the autonomy of universities, the European orientation in scientific and personnel policy, the selectivity and softness of the class framework in the school system.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Geographics of Russian expeditions of the 18th–20th centuries: exhibition from the collections of the Museum-Archive of the Barents Centre of the Humanities of the Federal Research Center “Kola Science Center” Dedications of the holy tables of the parish churches of the Kola deanery in the first half of the XIX century Grateful and productive tandem (in blessed memory of E. Ya. Patsia and B. I. Koshechkin) Ethnic village as a regional tourism brand Family history reflected in the archives of families with german roots
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1