Orthodox Colleges in the Russian Empire (Second Half of the Eighteenth to the Beginning of the Nineteenth Century): Between Traditions and Innovations

LIUDMYLA POSOKHOVA

The definition of “Orthodox college” (pravoslavnyi kolehium) suggests a certain intrigue to the reader, because traditionally college meant, and still means, Catholic (Jesuit) educational institutions.

The most famous such school was the Kyiv (Mohyla) College, which sought the status of an “academy” from the government of the Polish-Lithuanian Com­monwealth, and later received it from the Muscovite state. As we know, by the middle of the seventeenth century, a leading figure in the Orthodox Church, Metropolitan of Kyiv Petro Mohyla (1596-1647), was able to successfully adapt some Western European educational forms, which resulted in the formation of the Kyiv College.² In the eighteenth century, three more colleges were founded in the Ukrainian lands that were part of the Russian Empire - in Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Pereiaslav (in 1700, 1726, and 1738, respectively). Apart from these three colleges, there were no other educational institutions with this designation in the Russian Empire.

The syncretic nature of Orthodox colleges was due to several factors. These educational institutions originated in the Ukrainian lands, which were part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and after that of the Muscovite state (Russian Empire). Scholars describe the time of the emergence and existence of Orthodox colleges (seventeenth-eighteenth centuries) as an important stage in the “encounter” and interaction of the traditions of West and East in all spheres of culture and at its various levels. This interaction produced the cultural- educational form of the Orthodox college, which, basing itself on “Latin schol­arship,” was an amalgam of Western European and Slavic cultures. Petro Mohyla's choice in favor of the Jesuit college model, based on the principles of combining a humanitarian-philological education with a religio-moral education, meant a turn to European educational standards, while, as scholars note, meeting the needs of society and Church reform.⁴ Thus the Kyiv-Mohyla College (Academy) managed to graft the achievements of a Western European education onto the Orthodox-Russian cultural tradition.

It is noteworthy that they attemptd to follow the lead of the Kyiv College in registering and extending the rights of “their” educational institutions. This is most clearly expressed in Epifanii Tykhors'kyi's request in his petition “to issue a charter of support for the school.” It is very significant that the charter granted to the college on 16 March 1731⁶ is textually very close to the charter granted to the Kyiv-Mohyla College on 11 January 1694, which was confirmed by Peter I (26 September 1701).⁷ The rights recorded in the documents were very close to the concept of “academic freedom” in its medieval sense. Orthodox colleges also had forms of conducting classes (lectures, debates) and “academic acts” that were sim­ilar to those in Jesuit colleges. The same can be said about forms of leisure (for example, recreation), rituals, and symbols. We know about the existence of the theater in Orthodox colleges. Thus, even the model of the college, which was pre­served for a long time in the educational structures of the Russian Empire, es­tablished the important fact of the presence and development of European educational forms. Many college teachers, who later became bishops, in setting up new seminaries, tried to reproduce the cultural-educational forms that were familiar to them. For example, Mytrofan Slotvyns'kyi,⁸ a teacher at the Kharkiv College, just after becoming the bishop of Tver (1738), founded a seminary in which the performances in the school theater took place according to all the canons of school recitation.⁹ Of course, the reasons why the process of establishing seminaries in the empire was slow, why it stalled (the history of most seminaries indicates that their activities were interrupted for several years), and why teaching was for a long time limited to grammar classes, require special research.¹⁰ It is not surprising that the authors of synthetic works on the history of religious schools and the Church in the Russian Empire contrasted colleges with other seminaries of the eighteenth century.¹¹

While the first teachers in the provincial colleges were exclusively graduates of the Kyiv Academy, in a short time these colleges were training teachers no longer only for themselves but also for other religious and secular institutions in the em­pire.

Although Orthodox colleges arose at a time when the processes of unification and centralization were already underway in the Russian Empire, they, as already noted, maintained the specific character of their model until the beginning of the nineteenth century. Colleges were included among imperial institutions as a local cultural-educational form, which proved to be competitive by virtue of the weakness of the educational institutions of the “metropolis” itself.

To sum up, let us take note of Vasilii Kliuchevskii's observation that it was pre­cisely “a Western Russian Orthodox monk, educated in a Latin school or a Russian school modeled on it, who was the first bearer of Western scholarship called to Moscow.”¹⁹ Today, it is with good reason that the “polymorphism” of the Ukrainian cultural space is considered to have acted as a founding core (consti­tutive) element of the cultural code.²⁰ This “polymorphism” manifested itself in this region's multi-layeredness, changeability, and amenability to external influ­ences, and in its linguistic and confessional pluralism. As Mark von Hagen noted, it is “the fluidity of frontiers, the permeability of cultures, the historically formed multi-ethnicity of society that can make Ukrainian history a very ‘modern' field of inquiry.”²¹ The history of Orthodox colleges (Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Pereiaslav) reflects fully, and perhaps more than the history of other institutions, the syncretic nature of the culture of eighteenth-century Ukraine; represented in their history are a variety of influences and trends in concentrated form. Although scholars were primarily interested in the rich history of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, in our opinion, provincial colleges can serve historians as important markers of the “internal borders” and cultural diffusions that took place in the Russian Empire as a whole in the eighteenth century.

When analyzing the channels and degree of influence of the European univer­sity on the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century, it is important to take into account the periodization proposed by Peter Moraw, according to which there were three university “models” (corresponding to three epochs in the history of European universities) - pre-classical, classical and post-classical.²² It bears re­membering that the transition from the pre-classical to the classical university actually dates to the eighteenth century. This period was marked by the crisis of the medieval university and the transformation of the main parameters of the pre-classical university. These processes involved not only the universities them­selves, but the changes affected the entire field of education, resulting in the es­tablishment in the second half of the eighteenth through the beginning of the nineteenth century of the “classical university,” while other educational institu­tions acquired new tasks. In the second half of the eighteenth century in the Rus­sian Empire, especially under Catherine II, the search for new principles in the field of education intensified, and some reforms were carried out in this sphere. As of the second half of the eighteenth century, changes can also be seen in the Orthodox collegiums.

The obvious genetic connection between the Orthodox college model and the Jesuit colleges (universities) makes it necessary to search for answers to questions that, in our opinion, are important to the study of the more general problem of the transfer and adaptation of the university idea to Russian soil. How much did the crisis of the European medieval university affect the Orthodox colleges of the Russian Empire? Were the Orthodox colleges looking for answers to the “chal­lenges” of the time and how did this manifest itself? Did this search and changes affect other educational institutions in the Russian Empire?

The crisis of the pre-classical model of the European university in the seven­teenth, and especially the eighteenth, century prompted Catholic and Protestant universities to search for a way out of stagnation and for means and forms of modernization. In the middle of the eighteenth century, the Jesuit schools were also undergoing reforms, and the transformations in the West were influencing the philosophy and course of educational reforms in the Russian Empire, which is especially observable during the reign of Catherine II.²³ The role of the West in the “ideological content” of Russian culture in the age of Enlightenment, the problems of the transfer and adaptation of Western European ideas in the Rus­sian Empire in the eighteenth century, and the mutual influence of cultures within the pan-European space are being actively studied today.²⁴ The approaches and solutions proposed in the course of these studies give rise to the question of how much the transformations of the medieval university influenced such in­herently European institutions as the Orthodox colleges. To answer this question, it is necessary, first of all, to establish what exactly, and in what direction, was changing in the model of the Orthodox college. Our research allows us to state at the outset that the individual innovations that appeared from time to time in the administration and organization of the educational process in colleges did not change the model in essence.

Among all the components that together formed the college model, significant transformations as of the middle of the eighteenth century occurred only in the content of instruction. The content of the courses in the Ratio Studiorum pro­gram, the main plan of studies in the first half of the eighteenth century, under­went changes. To elucidate the essence of these changes, we will try to reconstruct the content of the academic disciplines and teaching practices that were followed in the Chernihiv, Kharkiv, and Pereiaslav Colleges. Given that Orthodox colleges formed a significant segment of the Russian Empire's educational sphere, we believe that accomplishing this task will shed additional light on similar processes in other educational institutions, primarily religious ones. Although a lot has been written about the history of many seminaries in the Russian Empire, the description of the academic process is limited to a list of academic disciplines with very little information about their content.²⁵ The lack of research on this subject is largely due to the paucity of sources. With regard to the history of the transfer and adaptation of European ideas in the Russian Empire in the eighteenth century, Claus Scharf noted that this topic needs special sources, access to data not so much in fundamental works as special studies on the history of books, journals, and libraries; the history of literature, art, and science; the history of personalities, societies, especially authors, translators, publishers, buyers, sub­scribers, readers, reader communities, and so forth.²⁶ He drew attention to the need for a new reading of the array of paperwork, as well as sources of personal origin (letters, memoirs). Historians of European education are already following this path, although, as shown by Laurence Brockliss, the study of curricula even in Western European universities of the early modern period is still an important but difficult task.²⁷

When undertaking the task of reconstructing the curricula of Orthodox col­leges and identifying changes in them, it is impossible not to say a few words about the Spiritual Regulation (Dukhovnyi reglament), written by Teofan Pro- kopovych, one of the initiators of the reforms carried out by Peter I. Researchers have repeatedly emphasized the similarity of the theoretical foundations of the Spiritual Regulation to the works of Samuel Pufendorf and other representatives of the school of natural law;²⁸ some scholars have called this document the pro­gram of the Russian Reformation.²⁹ Historians esteem Prokopovych as an edu­cator and scholar-fighter, who focused his criticism on Jesuit scholasticism,³⁰ having freed himself from the traditions of a Latin-Jesuit education, which was clearly manifested in the Regulation.³¹ At the same time, I. I. Kedrov noted long ago that although Teofan Prokopovych had wanted to organize the internal and external setup of the academy on the basis of different principles than those of a Latin-Jesuit education, he was not free of the pedagogical concepts under which he had been educated and which prevailed at the Kyiv College.³² Igor Smolitsch came to the very important conclusion that for the most part the curriculum drawn up by Teofan was patterned on the program of the Kyiv Academy.³³ That is to say, the Spiritual Regulation did not actually lead to a change in the content of courses. By the way, the term “academy” is used in the Regulation as the name of an educational institution, and “seminary” is understood to mean a student residence (bursa) or boarding school (that is, the premises themselves) belonging to it. The term “seminary” began to be applied to theological schools in the Rus­sian Empire as of 1731.³⁴

Changes in the internal content of the educational process in Orthodox colleges and changes in the content of courses and in their status, can be seen starting from the i75os-7os. The innovations marked the beginning of a reorientation toward other educational paradigms, which were being implemented at the same time in German Protestant universities and gymnasiums. Of course, the search for something new can be observed even earlier: it is no coincidence that re­searchers specializing in Kyiv-Mohyla Academy's philosophy courses have taken note of the fact that the rejection of scholastic Aristotelianism in the teaching of philosophy did not happen overnight.³⁵ It must be noted that Jesuit philosophy was itself evolving, and in the eighteenth century, it showed discernible traces of “Cartesian and Wolffian elements.”³⁶

Difficulties in reconstructing the content of the educational process in Ortho­dox colleges (and seminaries) in the Russian Empire of the eighteenth century are also due to the fact that the scope and depth of courses (teaching aids and text­books employed by teachers) must be established in each individual case. The or­ganization of the educational process depended on many factors (the school's finances, the initiatives of the college's administration, the professors, the avail­ability of various books, and so forth). Attempts to regulate the curriculum throughout the eighteenth century remained at the level of suggestions and rec­ommendations, and uniform courses of study appeared in the Russian Empire only in the course of the reform of religious educational institutions in 1808. This determines the range of sources that can be used to identify and study the educa­tional programs of Orthodox colleges in the second half of the eighteenth century. For the first half of the century, of crucial importance in the reconstruction of the curriculum of these schools were handwritten lecture courses (many of them were brought in from the Jesuit colleges). But in the second half of the century, teaching in the colleges was based on textbooks printed in a number of European university centers and by the Moscow University Press, as well as on the published works of European scholars. It is quite difficult to establish the range of all the printed text­books that were used in the colleges. In the absence of syllabuses, the use of a given textbook was determined by the views of the diocesan and collegiate authorities and depended on their efforts to find and purchase books.

It is possible to solve this research problem by referring to several types of pa­perwork.³⁷ First of all, the instructions to teachers, which came from the bishops and were refined by the rectors. But because few of them have been preserved, it is necessary to supplement them with information from the reports of instructors, which indicated the textbooks used and the scope of the material that had been studied. The real finds among the paperwork were the lists of books purchased by colleges specifically for educational purposes. The memoirs of former students and teachers also sometimes specified the textbooks that they had studied and taught from (although students often reported the names of authors and titles with distortions). It is particularly worth mentioning the problem of including the registers (catalogues) of libraries of Orthodox colleges as sources for recon­structing actual educational practices. In our opinion, these inventories of books should not be automatically included in the lists of textbooks, as is often done by researchers, who cite long columns of titles that found their way into a given library under various circumstances and at various times. In our case, library reg­isters³⁸ were used to confirm the presence of certain books in collegiums and to determine their attribution. We also used the entries at the end of the book reg­isters that recorded what books had been given to students. This was not the case with the lists of some of the college teachers' own books, whose analysis consid­ered the courses taught by the given teacher. Translations of books made by teach­ers and students at the colleges for teaching purposes were also sources for our study. This article focuses on the “basic” textbooks in various disciplines, based on the fact that they were treated as such by the administrators of the colleges and the teachers.

When we speak about changes in the content of the educational process in Orthodox colleges, we must re-emphasize that the number of classes and the order in which they were taught remained unchanged. Therefore, we will consider changes starting from the lower grammar classes (in which Latin, Church Slavonic, German, French, Polish, and some other disciplines were studied) and all the way up to the upper classes.

While in the first half of the century, the Latin language was studied exclusively according to the textbooks of the Jesuit Emmanuel Alvar, as of the 1760s, they were abandoned in favor of the textbooks of Christoph Cellarius, philologist and professor of eloquence and history at the University of Halle³⁹ (for example, in his instruction in 1769 to the rector of the Kharkiv College, Samuil Myslavs'kyi⁴⁰ indicated the need for such a replacement⁴¹). Colleges purchased Christoph Cellarius's book in large quantities (in 1774 the Pereiaslav College bought 140 copies⁴²), and it was regularly listed among the books that students studied.⁴³ They also began to rely on so-called “Langian colloquies”⁴⁴ in performing gram­mar exercises in the study of Latin. In fact, the textbook was called “School col­loquy”; it was created for educational purposes by Johann Joachim Lange,⁴⁵ professor of theology at Halle University.

Great efforts were made in all Orthodox colleges to organize the study of the German language, and the documentation often contains information about the purchase of a large number of German grammars. At the same time, the author­ship of the textbooks is not easy to establish, only in some cases are there mentions of authors in the memoirs of former students.⁴⁶ Some of them noted that they had studied using the grammar of Franz Holterhof, a doctor of theology from Halle,⁴⁷ and also Johann Christoph Gottsched,⁴⁸ a professor at the University of Leipzig, who, in addition to being a famous philosopher, influenced the estab­lishment of the norms of the German literary language. Speaking about the study of languages, it should be noted that some historians mentioned the early (in comparison with other educational institutions of the empire) beginning of the study of German in the colleges, especially at the Kharkiv College (from 1740), and about the engagement of teachers from abroad (their names were not iden­tified).⁴⁹ Our search yielded the names of the first teachers: “Herr Boneberg,” “master Gottfried Jungius,” “Herr Hertz.”⁵⁰ Their engagement was accounted for by the high level of education that they had received. In the early 1780s, German was taught at the Kharkiv College by Karl-Johann Fegen, who later moved to the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy.⁵¹ Having considered these examples, we should note that foreign teachers were engaged by the collegiums primarily to teach languages (this also applies to French). Incidentally, in most seminaries of the Russian Em­pire, the teaching of German and French would become regular only at the end of the eighteenth century.⁵²

The teaching of mathematics in colleges was based on several textbooks of arithmetic, geometry, and trigonometry by D. Anichkov,⁵³ who translated the works of the famous German mathematician, physicist, and astronomer Johann Friedrich Weidler, a professor at the University of Wittenberg. These publications were purchased by the colleges in dozens of copies.⁵⁴ Iakov Tolmachev⁵⁵ recalled that, as a teacher, he prepared classes at the Kharkiv College using Weidler's full course in Latin.⁵⁶ The reliance on these textbooks is important evidence that arithmetic had gained the status of a discipline in the curriculum of the “new” gymnasium of the beginning of the nineteenth century, evidence of the process of the shifting of elementary mathematics from the philosophy course to the lower classes of the gymnasium.

Although the status of poetics and rhetoric as normative disciplines remained unchanged until the end of the eighteenth century, these courses exhibited new priorities and a departure from traditional definitions.⁵⁷ In the second half of the century, there was a gradual rejection of the traditions and authors who were studied in Jesuit colleges. Johann Friedrich Burg's The Fundaments of Rhetoric was the main textbook.⁵⁸ The author was a famous theologian of the mid-eighteenth century, who had studied at the University of Leipzig. This textbook is mentioned in both instructions and teacher's reports,⁵⁹ as well as in memoirs.⁶⁰ This textbook, which was reprinted many times, was used in many seminaries of the Russian Empire in the early nineteenth century, through to the end of the 1830s.⁶¹ In col­leges, it was the basis for instruction as early as the 1770s, a few years after its first publication. College students recalled that they also studied the “Gesner lexicon” in class.⁶² This lexicon was compiled by Johann Matthias Gesner,⁶³ professor of eloquence at the University of Gottingen and founder of the Philological Semi­nary, who, as noted by scholars, discarded the old humanistic imitative method and introduced a new humanistic one, according to which the classics were the material for an aesthetic-literary and historical education.⁶⁴ All Orthodox col­legiums purchased these lexicons by the dozens,⁶⁵ and a huge number of copies are listed in library catalogues. With regard to the purchase of books by colleges, we should emphasize that we are not talking about centralized purchases (such a system did not yet exist in the Russian Empire), but about the local initiative of rectors, bishops, and teachers. Numerous publications of translations of aca­demic and scholarly books (in the empire or on order from abroad) date back to this time. But these facts cannot be automatically regarded as confirmation of the presence of these books in educational institutions, still less of their use in the educational process (their press runs were miniscule).⁶⁶ Unfortunately, such lists are often the basis for the mistaken practice of mechanically “recording” all the publications as textbooks of colleges or seminaries, which distorts the real picture of the educational process.

In the second half of the eighteenth century, a number of disciplines (primarily history and geography), which were previously studied as part of the rhetoric course, gained independent status. Apropos the history course, it should be em­phasized that in the 1770s it became a separate subject of instruction in colleges (initially, together with geography). Although Catherine II noted the need to study history in the empire's religious schools, which was reflected in the Plan and Charter of Religious Educational Institutions (1766),⁶⁷ this plan was not im­plemented, and history began to be taught in some seminaries only from the end of the 1780s, although even in the early nineteenth century, instruction in this subject was far from universal.⁶⁸ In the Kharkiv College, in accordance with the 1769 instruction of Samuil Myslavs'kyi,⁶⁹ when studying this discipline, it was recommended to refer to the work on world history of Hieronymus Freyer,⁷⁰ a professor of rhetoric at Halle University, who became famous in particular for his work in the field of history. The same instruction included the works of Johann Gottlieb Heineccius and the most famous work of the German professor of po­etics and rhetoric, Daniel Georg Morhof.⁷¹ The author of the instruction empha­sized that these were the books on which teachers were required to base their instruction. The colleges also used the works on history by Christoph Cellarius, which were published multiple times in various European cities.⁷² Also used were the Russian translations of such works as Samuel Pufendorf's An Introduction to the History of the Principal Kingdoms and States of Europe (Einleitung zu der His­torie der vornehmsten Reiche und Staaten, so itziger Zeit in Europa sich befinden), Caesar Baronius's Ecclesiastical Annals, Introduction to Universal History (Ein­leitung zur Universalhistorie) by Hilmar Curas, and the work on Russian history by August Ludwig Schlozer. Much has been said in the literature about the sig­nificance of Samuel Pufendorf's work, the first textbook on world history in the Russian Empire.⁷³ At the same time, scholars have documented the use of this work in the educational process only in a few educational institutions in Moscow and St Petersburg. Against this background, two catalogues of the personal library of Lavrentii Kordet, a professor at the Kharkiv College, can be considered striking finds.⁷⁴ These lists attest to Kordet's purposeful selection of history textbooks. His library included Samuel Pufendorf's Introduction to the History of the Principal Kingdoms and States of Europe,⁷⁵ Hilmar Curas's Introduction to Universal His­tory,⁷⁶ Baronius's Ecclesiastical Annals, the works of Freyer, Johann Franz Budde, Jacques-Benigne Bossuet, and Maturinus Veyssiere La Croze. These works had an excellent reputation. It was no accident that the Curas work was reprinted in Europe thirteen times, Freyer's, nine times, and Pufendorf's, four times.⁷⁷ At the same time, Freyer's work, which was used in the curriculum of the Ukrainian colleges,⁷⁸ was very rarely found in the educational institutions of the Russian Empire in the second half of the century, and it was the main textbook in the history course only at Moscow University.⁷⁹ Sacred history was taught in col­legiums based on the work of the famous German teacher and writer Johann Hübner.⁸⁰ The main textbook for teaching geography in collegiums was the work of the same Johann Hübner, Brief Questions from the New and Old Geography: Up to the Present Time (Kurze Fragen aus der Neuen und Alten Geographie: bis auf gegenwärtige Zeit) (it appeared in the reports of teachers and on the list of books in the library of Kordet, who also taught geography). This book was translated into all the European languages, went through thirty-six editions during the au­thor’s lifetime, and was written especially for educational purposes.⁸¹

Colleges often also resorted to publishing their own translations of textbooks by European authors, which were made by students under the guidance of teach­ers. For example, the Kharkiv College translated from German excerpts of lectures by the professor of literature and ethics Christian Fürchtegott Gellert, which he read at the University of Leipzig.⁸²

These abovenamed textbooks, which were used in the grammar classes and poetics and rhetoric classes of Orthodox colleges, serve as important evidence of significant changes in the content of the curriculum. At this time, the Latin language was losing its former importance everywhere in Europe, becoming just one of the subjects in the “gymnasium course.” The processes of the reorientation of the humanistic school to local languages (which are also regarded as an ele­ment of the crisis in the medieval model of the university) were also reflected in the Orthodox colleges, in which the Russian language began to take on some of the functions of Latin.⁸³ Accordingly, the process of teaching “new” languages also intensified. The curricula of the classes in Orthodox colleges gradually evolved into the curricula of the modernized gymnasiums that were emerging throughout Europe.

The middle of the eighteenth century was also the boundary that marked the transition in the history of Orthodox colleges from teaching Aristotelian-Scholas­tic philosophy to Leibniz-Wolffian philosophy. From the 1750s on, the teaching of philosophy in all Orthodox colleges was based on the work of the German philosopher Friedrich Christian Baumeister. It is possible (primarily, based on the Myslavs'kyi instruction of 1769) to identify Baumeister’s specific philosophy textbook in the Latin language (consisting of logic, metaphysics, and ethics) that they began to use.⁸⁴ To teach the subject of physics, which was missing from the textbook, the author of the instruction directed that teachers rely on the works of Johann Heinrich Winkler, a professor at the University of Leipzig, who was a follower of Leibniz and Wolff, and of Ludwig Philipp Thümmig,⁸⁵ a famous physi­cist and philosopher. Particularly noteworthy was the work of Thümmig, who translated from German into Latin the three-volume work by Christian Wolff on physics (Institutionesphilosophiae Wolffianae, in usus academicos adornatae, 1725). This work was translated into Russian by Mikhail Lomonosov,⁸⁶ and it was this work that was studied in the colleges.

A few words about the “ordinary” lecturer of philosophy of the college of the 1760s- 1770s, the aforementioned Lavrentii Kordet (he also taught philosophy for many years).⁸⁷ The “philosophical” section of his personal library was impressive. Kordet collected several versions of Baumeister's textbooks (in Latin and Russian) and the philosophical works of Johann Gottlieb Heineccius,⁸⁸ professor of phi­losophy at Halle, in which the latter showed his adherence to the philosophical and legal views of Christian Wolff and Hugo Grotius.⁸⁹ Needless to say, it is dif­ficult to know how Lavrentii Kordet understood and interpreted the ideas con­tained in the works that made up his extensive library, which he studied in preparation for classes. We can only quote the words of Hryhorii Skovoroda,⁹⁰ his colleague at the college, who, describing Kordet, remarked that his philosoph­ical knowledge is very extensive.⁹¹ Undoubtedly, an important feature of Kordet's portrait is the fact that he corresponded for many years with Samuil Myslavs'kyi, discussing issues pertaining to teaching at the colleges, and Myslavs'kyi, in turn, was in correspondence with Baumeister.⁹²

Bishops who drew up instructions for teachers at colleges with instructions on how and what books to teach often purchased these books themselves and passed them on to the colleges. After the death of the bishop of Chernihiv and Novhorod- Siverskyi, Kyrylo Liashchevets'kyi (1770), who had always helped the Chernihiv College, an extensive library was left, which he had promised during his lifetime to transfer to the college collection.⁹³ Among the bishop's books were many that were used in the educational process (the works of Baronius, Pufendorf, Freyer, Wolff, Baumeister, Johannes Andreas Quenstedt, Johann Gerhard, Joseph Bing­ham, Johann Jakob Brucker, Budde).⁹⁴ The collection shows a purposeful interest in the works of contemporary European scholars: philosophers, Pietist theolo­gians, historians, and jurists.

From the 1770s on, philosophy was taught in Orthodox colleges (and at the end of the century also in other seminaries) based on Friedrich Baumeister's book, to which were added excerpts from the works of Teofan Prokopovych, Jo­hann Heinrich Winkler, Christian Weisens, and the textbooks by Petrus Canisius and Samuel Christian Hollmann.⁹⁵ It is noteworthy that the Kharkiv College lec­turer Iakov Tolmachev, not satisfied with this textbook, translated Baumeister's logic, philosophy, and moral philosophy from Latin for educational purposes.⁹⁶ Various editions of Baumeister (in Latin and Russian) were purchased by the colleges in such large numbers⁹⁷ that it is safe to say that every student had them. It is not surprising that Baumeister's textbooks appeared together with students at colleges in remote corners of Ukraine. In his novel Pan Khaliavskii (Master Khaliavskii), Hryhorii Kvitka-Osnov'ianenko describes an episode in which the son of a landowner, who was taught by a student of the college working as a pri­vate tutor (na konditsiiakh,) drew all over his teacher's books, which included Baumeister's logic.⁹⁸

The identification of the range of textbooks that were the basis for the study of philosophy in colleges shows that represented in the course were the main di­rections of German Enlightenment, the rational philosophy of Leibniz-Wolff.

Incidentally, the teaching of philosophy according to F. Baumeister at the Moscow Academy began only in 1777, but even in the early 1780s, this transition was not easy.⁹⁹ Similar difficulties were recorded by historians of the Kazan The­ological Academy.¹⁰⁰ Only at Moscow University were the same textbooks used to teach philosophy as those used in the Orthodox colleges.¹⁰¹

At the end of the eighteenth century, another component appeared in the phi­losophy course - the history of philosophy, which, according to the reports of teachers,¹⁰² was taught based on the textbook of Johann Jakob Brucker,¹⁰³ who is considered to be one of the founders of critical historico-philosophical scholar­ship who applied a modified version of historical skepticism.¹⁰⁴

Modern scholars studying the history of education draw conclusions about the significance of textbooks on philosophy as an important element in the trans­fer of new educational ideas, including those that were developed in Halle, to the East Slavic lands. Thus Günther Mülpfordt has noted that the “representative” of Halle in this region was not Christian Wolff himself, but the textbooks written in accordance with his philosophical system, and it was the textbooks of Baumeis­ter, Thümmig, and Gottsched that circulated in European countries and in Russia.¹⁰⁵ He and other historians regard the “German book” as an independent socio-cultural phenomenon, which during this period was one of the main cri­teria of the developing process of the interaction of national cultures.¹⁰⁶ The ed­ucational institutions of the capital of the Russian Empire were the first to come to the attention of researchers. The stated facts, in our opinion, allow us to make the case that Orthodox colleges also played a role in this process.

The content of the theology course that was taught in Orthodox colleges also underwent changes. In the 1750s, these schools switched from a system influenced by the Jesuit tradition of teaching theology to the system of Teofan Prokopovych, which was the fruit of a synthesis of different theological trends.¹⁰⁷ It is noteworthy that in the instructions to teachers of colleges, the teachers were strongly encour­aged to refer, in addition to Teofan Prokopovych's course, to the works of the “newest teachers of other faiths.”¹⁰⁸ In private correspondence, Bishop Samuil Myslavs'kyi advised the college's professor of theology to read and use in prepar­ing his lectures the sermons of the famous Lutheran theologian, professor at the University of Helmstedt and later at Halle, Johann Lorenz Mosheim.¹⁰⁹ The col­lege's teachers not only implemented these recommendations, but they expanded them. For example, Kharkiv College lecturers Iakynf Karpyns'kyi¹¹⁰ and Syl'vestr Lebedyns'kyi¹¹¹ wrote theological textbooks in line with the works of Prokopovych and the Protestant theologian David Hollatz (Hollatius).¹¹² These textbooks attest to the exposure of Orthodox colleges to the European theological discourse and the adoption of the approaches of so-called “theological rationalism.” This pro­gram could easily become the foundation of the theology faculty. Incidentally, the biographies of lakynf Karpyns'kyi and Syl'vestr Lebedyns'kyi are fairly typical examples of the careers of many lecturers at Orthodox colleges, who, after com­pleting this stage of their activity, often went on to head other seminaries, became bishops, and in their new place incorporated their courses in the practice of these seminaries. Karpyns'kyi was later the rector of several seminaries (Kolomna, Vologda, Novgorod), Lebedyns'kyi - the rector of the Tambov and Kazan semi­naries (under him the latter became an academy), and they taught their theology courses in these educational institutions. There are many similar examples. They allow us to begin answering the question about the impact of the changes that were taking place in the Orthodox colleges themselves in the second half of the eighteenth century on other educational institutions (primarily religious ones) in the Russian Empire. For a more complete answer, we need to study the content of the curricula at other seminaries.

It is interesting to note that under the leadership of Ioan Maksymovych, the lecturers at the Chernihiv College published the book Bogomyslie v pol'zu pravovernym (Pious Thoughts for the Benefit of True Believers) as early as in 1710, which was a translation of the work Meditationes Sacrae et exercitium pietatis by the Lutheran theologian, professor at the University of Jena Johann Gerhard. In 1720 the Senate issued a decree imposing sanctions on the Chernihiv Press on the grounds that the book “contained a lot of Lutheran contrariety.”¹¹³ The ban did not affect the fact that Gerhard's work was found in the personal libraries of teachers at the colleges (for example, in the library of Platon Malynovs'kyi,¹¹⁴ lec­turer of theology at the Kharkiv College). This example shows that even as late as the mid-eighteenth century there was an interest among college teachers in the works of German Protestant theology scholars.

In the second half of the eighteenth century, the itineraries of educational travel of college students also changed. While in the first half of the century many teach­ers (and founders) of colleges completed their studies (taking individual courses) in Jesuit colleges and academies, thereafter they were sent to German Protestant universities to continue their education. There were cases when bishops sent the best students to study in Germany at their own expense (on the cusp of the 1760s- 70s, Bishop Samuil Myslavs'kyi paid the costs of study in Germany for two stu­dents of the Kharkiv College to be educated for the teaching profession¹¹⁵). By tracing the fate of students and teachers, and their academic biographies, we can assert that the effect of these trips was to introduce the educational and scholarly achievements of the German Protestant universities into the educational practices of the colleges. The first group (of two people) was sent to the “German univer­sities” as early as 1727 from the Kharkiv College. One of them was Kyrylo Floryn- s'kyi,¹¹⁶ who upon his return, taught poetics and philosophy at the college.¹¹⁷ We should note that students did not complete the entire course of study at German universities but studied individual disciplines (that is why they are not recorded in the matriculas of these universities). The great difficulties in analyzing these data stem from the fact that the bishops tried not to report to the Synod about sending students abroad, did not name the universities,¹¹⁸ and did not report on the students' successes. This was because when this information was revealed, it was impossible to keep the teacher at the college, since he was immediately sum­moned to the capital's academies.¹¹⁹ Nevertheless, the memoirs of Professor Illia Tymkovs'kyi of Kharkiv University (he studied at the Pereiaslav College and the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy) reveal that he grew up among “heads” who had studied in Konigsberg, Leipzig, Leiden, Gottingen, Oxford, and Edinburgh.¹²⁰ At that time, it was quite common for representatives of the local elite of the Hetmanate or Sloboda Ukraine, while visiting Europe on business trips, to attend universities and audit individual courses. Some of them became teachers at colleges. In one of the unrealized projects of creating a “formal university” on the basis of the Kyiv Academy (1766),¹²¹ one of the “main motives” for its appearance was said to be the propensity of the people for education, which “is evidenced by the fact that there are never fewer than 1,000 students in Kyiv, up to 800 in Chernihiv, and up to 300 in Pereiaslav,” that “fathers send them and young people are willing to learn.”¹²² “People with inborn acuity, having experienced... classes in Little Russian academies sometimes being indigent and poor, undertake voyages and travels to Germany and Italy and farther, from which they return directly as scholars.”¹²³ It is well known that Hryhorii Skovoroda attended lectures at Euro­pean universities during his business trip, and eventually became a lecturer at the Pereiaslav and Kharkiv Colleges.

Against the background of various contacts with European universities, as well as under the influence of Enlightenment ideas, there was a gradually growing un­derstanding among the collegians and their circle of the failure of the college model as an educational form to meet society's new needs. An attempt to make some changes in the form (utilitarian orientation) was the opening of so-called “additional classes” at the Kharkiv College in 1768, in which the teaching of lan­guages, mathematics, and geometry was expanded, and a number of subjects such as geodesy, engineering, and artillery appeared. The desire to modernize educa­tional institutions was manifested in requests to the authorities to create a “full- fledged university.” We know of some ten university projects and proposals that were made by top state officials, local officials, and representatives of local society (1760-1804).¹²⁴ Notable are the instructions from the nobility of the Little Russian and Sloboda Ukraine provinces to Catherine’s Commission on Preparing a New Legal Code of 1767, which contained petitions requesting the establishment of universities (in Kyiv, as well as on the basis of converted colleges, in Chernihiv, Pereiaslav, and Kharkiv).¹²⁵ Incidentally, in the instructions to deputies of other provinces of the Russian Empire, questions even of primary education were raised only in a few cases, and only the deputies of Orel County raised the question of “medical universities.”¹²⁶

Historically, Orthodox colleges, created under the influence of Jesuit colleges (universities), represented the southeastern vector of the advance of the European medieval university. The universities created in Russia in the second half of the eighteenth to early nineteenth century represented a different line leading to Ger­man universities, which were already largely modernized, and in this sense their appearance can be linked to the northeastern vector. Although from the middle of the eighteenth century on, Orthodox colleges were also actively searching for ways to renew themselves, which prompted them to turn to the experience and achievements of German universities, their educational model was not modern­ized. Innovations did not reach that “critical mass” that would allow them to over­come traditions and lead to fundamental changes in the model. The path that Orthodox colleges took should be considered when studying all aspects of the transfer and adaptation of the university idea on Ukrainian and Russian soil. It can be said that the Orthodox colleges served as a means of preparation for the reception of the classical university in the Russian Empire. Colleges, retiring from the historical arena as the embodiment of the medieval university, nevertheless were for a long period important channels of interaction of cultures in the Eu­ropean space and left fertile ground for the germination of new educational ideas and the design of new educational forms. The latter gives us reason to assert that the classical university in the Russian Empire did not arise out of “nothing.”

Translated from the Russian by Marta Skorupsky

NOTES

This article is based on a lecture delivered at the conference on “Deutsch­russische Universitätsbeziehungen vom Ende des 18. bis zum Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts im europäischen Kontext: Transfer, Wechselwirkungen, Lebenswelten” (Mainz). The research was prepared within the framework of the international project “Ubi universitas, ibi Europa” (transfer and adaptation of university education in Russia in the second half of the eigh­teenth to the first half of the nineteenth century), which is supported by the German Historical Institute (Moscow) and the Gerda Henkel Stiftung. Origi­nally published as: Liudmila Posokhova, “Pravoslavnye kollegiumy Rossiiskoi imperii (vtoraia polovina XVIII - nachalo XIX vv.): mezhdu traditsiiami i novatsiiami,” Ab Imperio, no. 3 (2010): 85-112. Copyright 2010 by Liudmila Posokhova and Ab Imperio. Translated and reprinted with permission.

1 On Jesuit colleges see Aldo Scaglione, The Liberal Arts and the Jesuit College System (Amsterdam-Philadelphia, 1986); John O'Malley, The First Jesuits (London, 1993).

2 An extensive historiography is dedicated to Petro Mohyla, which also deals with issues related to the Kyiv College: Ihor Sevcenko, “The Many Worlds of Peter Mohyla,“ Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8, no. 1-2 (1984): 9-44; A. Zhukovs'kyi, Petro Mohyla ipytannia iednosty tserkov (Paris, 1969; republished Kyiv, 1997); Frank Sysyn, “Peter Mohyla and the Kiev Academy in Recent Western Works: Divergent Views on Seventeenth Century Ukrainian Cul­ture,” Harvard Ukrainian Studies 8, no. 1-2 (June 1984): 155-87. On the years of the school's formation, see L. Sharipova, “Eshche o ‘Cheloveke mnogikh mirov': Petr Mogila - traditsionalist, reformator, opportunist,” Ab Imperio 1 (2000), 53-73.

3 Hilde de Ridder-Symoens, ed., A History of the University in Europe, vol. 2, Universities in Early Modern Europe (1500-1800) (Cambridge, 1996), 48.

4 Liudmila Charipova, Latin Books and the Eastern Orthodox Clerical Elite in Kiev, 1632-1780 (Manchester, 2006).

5 Lazar Baranovych (1620-1693) was rector of the Kyiv-Mohyla Academy, later the archbishop of Chernihiv and Novhorod-Siverskyi. Ioan Maksymovych (1651-1715) was a lecturer at the Kyiv Academy, later archbishop of Chernihiv and Novhorod-Siverskyi, from 1721 - metropolitan of Tobolsk and All Siberia. Epifanii Tykhors'kyi (?-1731) was a teacher at the Kyiv Academy, later the bishop of Belgorod and Oboian'. Arsenii Berlo (?-1744) was a teacher at the Kyiv Academy, later bishop of Pereiaslav and Boryspil.

6 Polnoe sobranie zakonov Rossiiskoi imperii (Sobranie I) (St Petersburg, 1830), vol. 8, no. 5716.

7 Pamiatniki, izdannye Vremennoi komissiei dlia razbora drevnikh aktov 2 (Kyiv, 1846): 320-1, 325-34.

8 Mytrofan Slotvyns'kyi studied at the Kyiv-Mohyla and Lviv Academies, was rector of the Kharkiv College, rector of the Moscow Academy, and bishop of Tver.

9 I.M. Badalich and V.D. Kuz'mina, Pamiatniki russkoi shkol 'noi dramy XVIII veka (po zagrebskim spiskam) (Moscow, 1968), 56-8.

10 So far the only work dealing with this question is still the research of P. Znamenskii (P. Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii do reform 1808 goda [Kazan, 1881], 189 ff.) Contemporary research in the history of individual seminaries, as a rule, bypass this issue.

11 I.K. Smolich, Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvy: 1700-1917 (Moscow, 1996), part 1, pp. 157, 213 (translation of Igor Smolich, Geschichte der Russischen Kirche [Leiden, 1964]); B.V. Titlinov, Dukhovnaia shkola v Rossii v XIX stoletii (Vilnius, 1908), 1:5.

12 Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii, 185, 578.

13 These calculations were made on the basis of the following sources: Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi istoricheskii arkhiv v Sankt-Peterburge (Russian State Histori­cal Archive in St Petersburg; hereinafter - rgiap ), f. 796, op. 18, d. 32, t. 2; f. 796, op. 78, d. 983; f. 796, op. 78, d. 970; “Svedeniia o Pereiaslavsko-Poltavskoi seminarii za vremia ot 1798 g. po 1818 g., izvlechennye iz del arkhiva Poltavskoi dukhovnoi konsistorii,” in Poltavskie eparkhial 'nye vedomosti. Chast’ neofits. 21 (1887), 771.

14 K.V. Kharlampovich, Malorossiiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnu zhizn’ (Kazan, 1914); David Saunders, The Ukrainian Impact on Russian Culture, 1750-1850 (Edmonton, 1985).

15 See Andreas Kappeler, “Tsentr i elity periferii v Gabsburgskoi, Rossiiskoi i Osmanskoi imperiiakh (1700-1918 gg.),” Ab Imperio 2 (2007): 17-58.

16 Kharlampovich, Malorossiiskoe vliianie na velikorusskuiu tserkovnu zhizn', 488.

17 See Jan Kusher, “Individual, Subject, and Empire. Toward a Discourse on Upbringing, Education, and Schooling in the Time of Catherine II,” Ab Imperio 2 (2008), 125-57.

18 A. Iu. Andreev, Rossiiskie universitety XVIII - pervoi poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoi istorii Evropy (Moscow, 2009), 302-30.

19 V.O. Kliuchevskii, Sochineniia v 9 tomakh, vol. 3, Kurs russkoi istorii, part 3 (Moscow, 1988), 259.

20 Giovanna Brogi Bercoff, “Rus, Ukraine, Ruthenia, Wielkie Ksicstwo Litewskie, Rzeczpospolita, Moskwa, Rosja, Europa Srodkowo Wschodnia: o wielowarst- wowosci i polifunkcjonalizmie kulturowym,” in Contributi italiani al XIII congresso internazionale degli slavish, Alberto Alberti et al., eds. (Pisa, 2003), 325-87; N. Iakovenko, “Vybir imeni versus vybir shliakhu (nazvy ukrains'koi terytorii mizh kintsem XVI - kintsem XVII st.),” in Mizhkul 'turnyi dialoh, vol. 1, Identychnist’ (Kyiv, 2009), 58, 95.

21 Mark von Hagen, “Does Ukraine Have a History?” Slavic Review 54, no. 3 (1995), 670. Although Natalia Iakovenko noted that what exists today are more like declarations of solidarity from the perspective of Ukraine as a terri­tory over which there ran a moving border of interaction between Western and Eastern civilizations, than specific studies (N. Iakovenko, Vstup do istorii [Kyiv, 2007], 168).

Peter Moraw, “Aspekte und Dimensionen älterer deutscher Universitäts­geschichte,” in Academia Gissensis (Marburg, 1982), 1-43; Bjorn Wittrock, “The Modern University: the Three Transformations,” in Sh. Rothblatt and B. Wittrock, eds, The European and American University since 1800 (Cambridge, 1993), 303-61.

Kusher, “Individual, Subject, and Empire.”

“Vvodia nravy i obychai Evropeiskie v Evropeiskom narode”: k probleme adap- tatsii zapadnykh idei i praktik v Rossiiskoi imperii (Moscow, 2008).

See, for example, K.F. Nadezhdin, Istoriia Vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (s 1750 goda po 1840 god) (Vladimir on Kliazma, 1875); A.A. Blagoveshchen- skii, Istoriia Kazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii s vosem 'iu nizshimi uchilishchami za XVIII-XIX st. (Kazan, 1881); I.V. Nikol'skii, Istoriia Voronezhskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (Voronezh, 1898-1899); V.I. Kolosov, Istoriia Tverskoi dukhovnoi seminarii: Ko dniu 150-letnego iubileia Seminarii (Tver, 1889); D.I. Agntsev, Istoriia Riazanskoi dukhovnoi seminarii. 1724-1840 g. (Riazan, 1889); N.V. Malitskii, Istoriia Vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (Moscow, 1900-1902); N.V. Malitskiii, Istoriia Suzdal’skoi dukhovnoi seminarii (1723-1788) (Vladimir, 1905).

Klaus Sharf, “Monarkhiia, osnovannaia na zakone, vmesto despotii. Transfer i adaptatsiia evropeiskikh idei i evoliutsiia vozzrenii na gosudarstvo v Rossii v epokhu Prosveshcheniia,” in “Vvodia nravy i obychai Evropeiskie v Evropeiskom narode,” 17-18.

A History of the University in Europe, 2:565-620.

P.V. Verkhovskii, Ocherki po istorii russkoi tserkvi v XVIII i XIX st. 1 (Warsaw, 1912): 56-7. For examples that served as the basis for Church reform, see Khans Bagger, Reformy Petra Velikogo: obzor issledovanii (Moscow, 1985). G. Florovskii, Puti russkogo bogosloviia (Kyiv, 1991), 84.

Renata Lakhmani, Demontazh krasnorechiia. Ritoricheskaia traditsiia i poni- atie poeticheskogo, trans. from German by E. Akkerman and F. Poliakov (St Petersburg, 2001), 158.

James Cracraft, “Feofan Prokopovich,” in J.G. Garrard, ed., The Eighteenth Century in Russia (Oxford, 1973), 75-105.

I.I. Kedrov, Dukhovnoi reglament vsviazi spreobrazovatel’noi deiatel’nost’iu Petra Velikogo (Moscow, 1886), 189. Prokopovych studied in Catholic educa­tional institutions in Lviv, Cracow, and Rome.

I.K. Smolich, Istoriia Russkoi Tserkvi: 1700-1917 (Moscow, 1996), part 1, p. 392. (Translated from Igor Smolitsch, Geschichte der Russischen Kirche, 1700-1917, Bd. 1 (Leiden, 1964).

Ibid., 395, 409.

M. Tkachuk, “Filosofs'ki kursy Kyievo-Mohylians'koi akademii v konteksti ievropeis'koho skholastychnoho dyskursu,” in Relihiino-filosofs 'ka dumka v Kyievo-Mohylians’kii akademii: ievropeis’kyi kontekst (Kyiv, 2002), 63.

M. Symchych, Philosophia rationalis u Kyievo-Mohylians’kii akademii (Vinnytsia, 2009), 144.

The paperwork of colleges is deposited in the fonds of colleges, spiritual administrative bodies (consistories), and a number of monasteries at the Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv (fonds 133, 961, 990, 1973, 2007, 2009, 2012, 2014) and in the fonds of the office of the Synod at the Russian State Historical Archive in St Petersburg (fonds 796). Individual documents were found in the manuscript collections of libraries in Ukraine and Russia.

In this study, the following catalogues of libraries of Orthodox collegiums were used: Viddil rukopysiv Tsentral ’not naukovo'l biblioteky Kharkivs ’koho natsional’noho universytetu im. V.N. Karazina (the Manuscript Department of the Central Scientific Library of the V.N. Karazin Kharkiv National Univer­sity), No. 1817/c 895; Tsentral’nyi derzhavnyi istorychnyi arkhiv Ukra'lny v m. Kyievi (Central State Historical Archive of Ukraine in Kyiv; hereinafter - tsdiauk), f. 1973, op. 1, spr. 2145; rgiap, f. 834, op. 3, dd. 3282, 3325, 3326, 3327, 3328, 3329.

Kristof Tsellarii, Kratkaia latinskaia grammatika: s nem. na ros. lazyk pereve- dena pri Imperatorskom Moskovskom universitete A. Barsovym (Moscow, 1762). Samuil Myslavs'kyi (1731-1796) was then the bishop of Belgorod (1768-1771), before that, professor and rector of the Kyiv Academy, and from 1783, metropolitan of Kyiv and Galicia.

References to this instruction are based on the publication of A.S. Lebedev, Khar’kovskii kollegium kakprosvetitel’skii tsentr Slobodskoi Ukrainy do uchrezhdeniia vKhar’kove universiteta (Moscow, 1886), 60-79. In the instruc­tion, many titles of the textbooks are given in abbreviated form (often with­out specifying the author), so its analysis and the identification of the textbooks was also part of the research task.

tsdiauk, f. 990, op. 1, spr. 848, ark. 7, 46.

Ibid., f. 1973, op. 1, spr. 2154, ark. 1.

An example of how difficult it is identifying a textbook: in memoirs, it was called “Langievy razgovory,” but in nineteenth century studies, “razgovory Longiia.”

Ioakhim Lange, Shkol’nye razgovory. Perevod. s lat. na rossiiskii iazyk Martin Shvanvits, gimnazii rector (St Petersburg, [1750]).

46 V. Litinskii, “Kartinki iz proshlogo Chernigovskoi dukhovnoi akademii,” in Pribavlenie k Chernigovskim eparkhial'nym izvestiiam 2 (1899), 84.

47 Frantsisk Gel'tergof, Nemetskaia grammatika: v kotoroi ne tokmo vse chasti rechi ili proizvedeniie slov, no i syntaksis ili sochinenie slov, oba nadlezhashchimi premeramy ob iasneny (Moscow, 1784).

48 I.M. Grech, Gotshedova nemetskaia grammatika: sochinennaia v pol ’zu i upotreblenie blagorodnago iunoshestva pri Sukhoputnom shliakhetnom kadet- skom korpuse (St Petersburg, 1760).

49 P. Solntsev, Ocherk istorii Khar’kovskogo kollegiuma (Kharkiv, 1881), 14.

50 Viddil rukopysnykh fondiv i tekstolohii Instytutu literatury im. T.H. Shevchenka Natsional'noi Akademii Nauk (Department of Manuscripts and Textual Studies of the T.H. Shevchenko Institute of Literature of the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine; hereinafter - vr il), f. 37, spr. 360, ark. 26; “Pis'ma partikuliarnye k Ego Preosviashchenstvu ot gubernatora Shcherbin- ina,” in Kurskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti, Chast’ neofits. 1 (1874), 42.

51 O.M. Sandaliuk, “Fegen Karl-Iohann,” in Kyievo-Mohylans 'ka akademiia v imenakh, XVII-XVIII st. (Kyiv, 2001), 559.

52 Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii, 458.

53 D.S. Anichkov, Teoreticheskaia i prakticheskaia arifmetika: v pol ’zu i upotreble­nie iunoshestva (Moscow, 1764).

54 TsDiAUK, f. 990, op. 1, spr. 848, ark. 46.

55 Iakov Tolmachev (1779-1873) would later become a professor at the St Peters­burg Seminary, then a professor at the University of St Petersburg, and a professor and director of the St Petersburg Main Pedagogical Institute.

56 Ia. V. Tolmachev, “Avtobiograficheskaia zapiska,” Russkaia starina 75 (1892): 704.

57 Lakhmani, Demontazh krasnorechiia, 165.

58 Bugrii, Elementa oratoria ex antiquis atgue recentioribus facto praeseptorum delectu tironibus eloquentiae ab imis principiis ac fundamentis sensim ad diffi­ciliora et summa justo ordine manuducendis et prudenter insituendis accomo­data, antea quidem in usum Gymnasiorum Vratislaviensium nunc vero juventutis Rossicae revica, aucta et emendate, ed. Nicolaus Bantisch-Kamenski (Moscow, 1776).

59 TsDiAUK, f. 1973, op. 1, spr. 1265, ark. 7.

60 Tolmachev, “Avtobiograficheskaia zapiska,” 703.

61 I. Ia. Porfir'ev, “Vospominaniia I. Ia. Porfir'eva, professora russkoi slovesnosti Kazanskoi Dukhovnoi Akademii,” in Pravoslavnyi sobesednik (Kazan) 2(10) (2005): 95.

62 Tolmachev, “Avtobiograficheskaia zapiska,” 703.

Iohann Matthias Gesner, Polnoi latinskoi Gesnerov leksikon s rossiiskim perevodom: s pribavleniem k nemu grecheskikh slov i Rossiiskago reestra (Moscow, 1796-98), parts 1-3.

Fridrikh Paul'sen, Istoricheskii ocherk razvitiia obrazovaniia v Germanii (Moscow, 1908), 134-5.

TsDiAUK, f. 990, op. 1, spr. 848, ark. 46.

E.D. Frolov, Russkaia nauka ob antichnosti: istoriograficheskie ocherki (St Petersburg, 1999), 50.

S.V. Rozhdestvenskii, Materialy dlia istorii uchebnykh reform v Rossii v XVIII­XIX vekakh (St Petersburg, 1910), 312-13.

Znamenskii, Dukhovnye shkoly v Rossii, 780, 781. Lebedev, Khar’kovskii kollegium, 69.

leronim Freier, Kratkaia vseobshchaia istoriia, s prodolzheniem onoi do samykh nyneshnikh vremen i prisovokkupleniem k nei rossiiskoi istorii: dlia upotre- bleniia uchashchaiusia iunoshestva, s nem. na ros. iazyk perevedena pri Imp. Mosk. Universitete (Moscow, 1769).

Danielis Georgii Morhofii. Polyhistor literarius, philosophicum et practicus. Cum accessionibus virorum clarissimorum loannis Frickii et loannis Moller (Lübeck, 1732).

Christophori Cellarius, Historia universalis breviter ac perspicue exposita, in antiquam, et medii aevi ae novam divisa, cum notis perpetuis (Jena, 1730). See P. Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom, 1 (St Petersburg, 1862): 324-6; N.I. Malysheva, “Politiko-pravovoe nasledie Samuila Pufen- dorfa,” in Izvestiia vysshikh uchebnykh zavedenii. Pravovedenie 1 (1999): 126-7. vr IL, f. 20, spr. 953, ark. 230-70; rgiap, f. 796, op. 67, d. 572, ll. 3-5. More than two hundred books are recorded in the catalogues.

Samuil Pufendorf, Vvedenie v istoriiu znatneishikh evropeiskikh gosudarstv: S primechaniiami i politicheskimi razsuzhdeniiami, trans. from the German by B. Volkov (St Petersburg, 1767).

Gil'mar Kuras, Vvedenie v general 'nuiu istoriiu, na ros. iazyk perevedeno kantseliarii Akademii nauk sekretarem S. Volchkovym (St Petersburg, 1747). G.I Smagina, “Nemetskie uchebniki po vseobshchei istorii v rossiiskoi shkole XVIII v.,” in G.I. Smagina, ed., Nemtsi v Rossii: rossiisko-nemetskii dialog (St Petersburg, 2001), 185.

TsDiAUK, f. 1973, op. 1, spr. 1254, ark. 4.

E.D. Frolov, Russkaia nauka ob antichnosti: istoriograficheskie ocherki (St Petersburg, 1999), 101-2.

Iohann Giubner, Sto chetyre sviashchennyia istorii Vetkhago i Novogo zaveta: vybrannyia iz sviashchennago pisaniia i izriadneishimi nravouchenniami snabdennyia. Izdannyia g. loannom Gibnerom. Per. s lat. na ros. iazyk studen- tom Matveem Sokolovym (Moscow, 1781).

D.M. Lebedev, Geografiia v Rossii petrovskogo vremeni (Moscow-Leningrad, 1950), 342, 343.

Khristian Fiurkhtegott Gellert, Rassuzhdeniia, izvlechenye iz sochinenii Gellerta,per. z nem. vKhar’kovskom kollegiume (Kharkiv, 1807)

Textbooks on the Russian language, Russian poetics and rhetoric, which were separate disciplines, were not considered in this article.

Friedrich Christian Baumeister, Elementa philosophiae recentioris usibus inventutis scholasticae accommadata. ed. nova, auctior et emendatior M. Frid. Christiani Baumeisteri (Leipzig, 1755).

See Lebedev, Khar’kovskii kollegium, 64.

Khristian Vol'f, Volfiianskaia Eksperimental 'naia fizika, s nem. podlinnika na lat. iazyke sokrashchennaia, s kotorago na ros. iazyk perevel M. Lomonosov (St Petersburg, 1760).

Lavrentii Kordet (1720-1781) taught a number of subjects at the Kharkiv College and was its prefect and rector, and hegumen of several monasteries. vr IL, f. 37, spr. 360, ark. 25.

Johann Gottlieb Heineccius, Elementa philosophiae rationalis et moralis ex principiis admodum evidentibus iusto ordine adornata. Accessere historia philosophica et index locupletissimus (Frankfurt an der Oder, 1761).

Hryhorii Savych Skovoroda (1722-94), who is regarded as the father of both Ukrainian and Russian philosophy, taught at the Pereislav and Kharkiv Colleges.

G.S. Skovoroda, “K lovu [Bazilevichu],” in G.S. Skovoroda, Sobranie sochi­nenii, v 2 tt. (Moscow, 1973), 2: 307.

V.L. Mykytas' and S.O. Kolesnyk, “Myslavs'kyi Symon Hryhorovych (Samuil),” in Kyievo-Mohylians’ka akademiia v imenakh, XVII-XVIII st. (Kyiv, 2001), 365, 104.

Opisanie dokumentov i del, khraniashchikhsia v archive Sviateishego Sinoda, v50 tt., vol. 50 (1770) (St Petersburg, 1914), 296.

Ibid., 700-10.

Friedrich Christian Baumeister, Elementa philosophiae recentioris, pluribus sententiis exemplisque ex veterum scriptorum romanorum monimentis illus­trata: Nunc vero physica, nee non oeconomica, publica et ecclesiastica jurispru­dentia, quibus accessit duplex appendix, exhibens regulas disputandi atque distinguendi, aucta: Usibus que juventutis rossicae adornata (Moscow, 1777). Ia. V. Tolmachev, Logika s latinskago vnovperevedeniia i ispravennaia [per. F. Baumeistera] (Moscow, 1807).

97 tsdiauk, f. 990, op. 1, spr. 848, ark. 6-7, 46.

98 H.F. Kvitka-Osnov'ianenko, Pan Khaliavskii (Kyiv, 1977), 71.

99 S.K. Smirnov, Istoriia Moskovskoi slaviano-greko-latinskoi akademii (Moscow, 1855), 299-301.

100 A. Blagoveshchenski, Istoriia staroi Kazanskoi dukhovnoi akademii. 1797-1818 g. (Kazan, 1875), 92-3.

101 A. Iu. Andreev, Moskovskii universitet v obshchestvennoi i kul’turnoi zhizni Rossii nachala XIX veka (Moscow, 2000), 69.

102 tsdiauk, f. 1973, op. 1, spr. 1266, ark. 1.

103 Iohann lakob Brukker, Sokrashchennaia istoriia filosofii ot nachala mira do nyneshnikh vremen, s frants. iazyka perevel V Kolokol'nikov (Moscow, 1785).

104 A.S. Kolesnikov, “Sovremennyi filosofskii protsess v nachale XXI veka,” in Miscellanea humanitaria philosophiae. Ocherki po filosofii i kul 'ture. K 60-letiiu professora luriia Nikiforovicha Solonina (St Petersburg, 2001), 106.

105 G. Miul'pfordt, “Sistema obrazovaniia v Galle i ee znachenie dlia Rossii 1696­1831 gg. (uchenye, uchitelia, uchilishcha, shkol'nye reformy, knigi, didaktika),” in Nemtsi v Rossii: russko-nemetskie nauchnye i kul 'turnye zviazi: Sb. stattei, ed. G.I. Smagina (St Petersburg, 2000), 164.

106 V. Ziuss, “Stanovlenie i razvitie sotsiokul'turnykh i obrazovatel'nykh sviazei Rossii i Germanii: epokha Petra I,” in Nemtsi v Rossii: Rossiisko-nemetskii dialog, ed. G.I. Smagina (St Petersburg, 2001), 149.

107 A. Arkhangel'skii, Dukhovnoe obrazovanie i dukhovnaia literature v Rossii pri Petre Velikom (Kazan, 1883), 83.

108 Lebedev, Khar’kovskii kollegium, 60.

109 “Preosviashchennyi Samuil, episkop Belgorodskii. Ego pis'ma k arkhiman- dritu Lavrentiiu (1770-1774),” in Kurskie eparkhial'nye vedomosti. Chast’ neofits. 5 (1888), 91.

110 Later Iakynf Karpyns'kyii (1723-98) was rector of the Pereiaslavl-Zalesskii, Kolomna, Vologda, and Novgorod seminaries, a member of the Synod, and the translator of the Ecclesiastical Regulation into Latin.

111 Syl'vestr Lebedyns'kyi (?-1808) was later rector of the Tambov seminary, Kazan seminary (academy), bishop of Poltava and Pereiaslav, and archbishop of Astrakhan and Tersk.

112 Syl'vestr [Lebedyns'kyi], “Sacra theologia, seu Doctrina Christiana per theo­remata, quaestiones et controversias exposita,” in Opera et studio Cazanensis Academiae rectoris archimandritae Sylvestris (St Petersburg, 1799); Iakynf [Karpyns'kyii], Compendium orthodoxae theologicae doctrinae ab archiman­drita Hyacintho Karpinski concinnatum (Moscow, 1800).

113 P. Pekarskii, Nauka i literatura v Rossii pri Petre Velikom (St Petersburg, 1862), 2:234.

114 Opisanie dokumentov i del, khraniashchikhsia v arkhive Sviateishego Sinoda, 34: 617.

115 A.S. Lebedev, Belgorodskie arkhierei i sreda ikh arkhipastyrskoi deiatel’nosti (Kharkiv, 1902), 165.

116 rgiap, f. 796, op. 12, d. 247, l. 128.

117 He later became rector of the Moscow Academy (he was a relative of the well-known Russian philosopher Pavel Florinskii).

118 The biographies of even such famous Church figures as Kyrylo Frolyns'kyi do not indicate in which German universities they studied.

119 This is evidenced by the example of the same Kyrylo Floryns'kyi, whom the Synod and the Moscow Academy urgently summoned to Moscow immedi­ately after his return to Kharkiv.

120 I.F. Timkovskii, “Moe opredelenie v sluzhbu,” Moskvitianin 18 (1852): 30.

121 Rossiiskii gosudarstvennyi arkhiv drevnikh aktov (Russian State Archive of Ancient Documents, hereinafter - rgada), f. 18, op. 1, d. 220, l. 5-5 rev.

122 RGADA, f. 18, op. 1, d. 220, l. 6.

123 Ibid.

124 For some of these projects see L. lu. Posokhova, “Transformatsiia obrazo- vatel'noi traditsii v Vostochnoi Evrope XVII-XVIII vv.,” in “Byt' russkim po dukhu i evropeitsem po obrazovaniiu”: universitety Rossiiskoi imperii v obrazo- vatel 'nom prostrantstve Tsentral 'noi i Vostochnoi Evropy XVIII-nachala XX v. Sb. st., comp. A. Iu. Andreev and ed. A.V. Doronin (Moscow, 2009), 48-9.

125 “Deputatskie nakazy i vsepoddanneishie chelobit'ia ot shliakhetstva Mal- orossiiskoi gubernii,” in Sbornik Russkogo istoricheskogo obshchestva (St Peters­burg, 1889), 68: 130, 193; “Deputatskie nakazy i vsepoddanneishie chelobit'ia ot dvorian Slobodskoi Ukrainskoi gubernii,” ibid, 257.

126 “Deputatskie nakazy ot dvorian Belgorodskoi gubernii,” ibid, 525-6.