The Museum of the History of Education of the Kirov Region is being evicted. Why did the officials need the old mansion? Count Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy - Russian statesman and historian Da Tolstoy is a conservative of his ideas
Appointment of the new Minister of Internal Affairs, Count A.A. Tolstoy was, perhaps, a more definite and weighty statement of a break with the policy of transformation than the manifesto of April 29, 1881 “The name of gr. Tolstoy in itself is already a manifesto, a program,” Katkov aptly put it, welcoming the decree on the new appointment in the Government Gazette. Tolstoy “represents a whole program,” “his name serves as the banner of a whole movement,” echoed Pobedonostsev.
Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy belonged to the orthodox “guardians”, irreconcilable opponents of the reforms of the 1860s. If liberals perceived him as an obscurantist, then he did not gain popularity among reasonable conservatives because of his views - extreme and one-sided - and because of his personal qualities. “The man is not stupid, with a strong character, but a bureaucrat to the core, narrow and stubborn, who saw nothing but the St. Petersburg spheres, who hated every independent movement, every manifestation of freedom, at the same time devoid of all moral impulses, deceitful, greedy, evil, vindictive, insidious, ready to do anything to achieve personal goals, and at the same time bringing servility and servility to those extreme limits that kings usually like, but arouse disgust in all decent people” - this was the description given to Tolstoy by B.N. Chicherin, not inclined to exaggerate his views on his contemporaries.
At one time, the resignation of D.A. Tolstoy from the post of Minister of Education and Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, to whom M.T. Loris-Melikov managed to achieve this with great difficulty, and was regarded in society as a huge victory. Then, in April 1880, it seemed to everyone, including Count Tolstoy himself, that his career as a statesman was over. And now, at a new turn in the history of autocracy, he is again recognized and called upon.
Alexander III, who had a good understanding of people, constantly complained about the lack of honest, truthful and bright individuals, considering them “a huge rarity” for his era. “And perhaps they are,” he sneered, “but they are hiding out of false shame.” Alexander Alexandrovich could hardly see a bright personality in Tolstoy. Agreeing with Pobedonostsev that Tolstoy had “enormous shortcomings,” he chose him, having in mind, first of all, his suitability for pursuing the course of “renewal of Russia,” which included an onslaught on the reforms of the 60s, which shook the foundations of the autocracy.
And it must be said that the emperor was not disappointed in his chosen one. For all his careerism and self-interest, Tolstoy was guided primarily by the interests of power. This personality was integral in its own way, monolithic in its convictions, and against the background of Alexander III’s immediate circle, it seemed large and significant. The emperor took the death of the Minister of Internal Affairs in 1889 seriously. "Loss of gr. Tolstoy is a terrible blow for me, and I am deeply saddened and upset,” he shared his experiences with Pobedonostsev. And he wrote the same in his diary: “Poor Count Tolstoy has died. A terrible loss. Sad"
There was something to be sad about. Those who, like Tolstoy, were “firm in opinion and decisive in measures,” became less and less in the tsar’s field of vision. Appointed to replace Tolstoy I.N. Durnovo was inferior to him not only in firmness and determination, but also in intelligence and education. However, while holding the position of Comrade Minister of Internal Affairs, he was trained by Tolstoy, and this determined the choice of Alexander III.
LECTURE XXXI
(Start)
Activities of the Ministry of Public Education after 1866 - Gr. D. A. Tolstoy and D. A. Milyutin as exponents of two opposite sides of the reign of Alexander II. - Tolstoy's views. Tolstoy and Katkov. – Question about secondary school reform. – The struggle for the introduction of classicism. – The essence and significance of the reform of 1871 – Tolstoy’s plans for universities and the measures he took.
Dmitry Andreevich Tolstoy. Portrait by I. Kramskoy, 1884
In my last lecture, I described the democratizing and educational significance of the activities of the former Minister of War, General D. A. Milyutin in the sphere of the War Ministry - activities that, as you saw, fully retained this character in the era of reaction of the 70s.
The activity of the then Minister of Public Education, Count D. A. Tolstoy, had a completely opposite meaning and a completely opposite character. This was precisely the side of government activity at that time that was particularly consistent with the reactionary mood that gripped the government of Alexander II after Karakozov’s shot.
In general, it must be said that Count Tolstoy and Milyutin are two such persons who extremely clearly characterized two opposite sides, two opposite, even seemingly mutually exclusive tendencies of the reign of Emperor Alexander II. One can even be amazed that for fifteen whole years after 1866 these two major political figures were both invariably among the employees of Alexander II and both, apparently, enjoyed his full confidence. This can be explained by the fact that in Emperor Alexander himself there were - in fact, throughout his entire reign - precisely these two opposing principles in constant struggle between themselves: on the one hand, he felt and recognized quite consciously the complete need to carry out very progressive and dramatically changing the previous social system of reforms, and on the other hand, he was under constant oppression and fear of the developing revolutionary movement and in the constant consciousness of the necessary active struggle against this revolutionary movement. You saw that after the reactionary mood of the government was determined, life itself, which was developing in a certain way, and the economic and technical needs of the state imperiously demanded the continuation of reforms. You have seen that after 1866 such reforms were carried out as urban regulations and, in particular, as a truly liberal and democratic reform of military service.
Count Tolstoy continuously and constantly since 1866 was a representative of reactionary sentiments and demands, under the pressure of which Emperor Alexander II was constantly under pressure. Tolstoy, if you like, was not essentially an enemy of enlightenment. If we compare him with other ministers of public education who were in the 19th century. in Russia - and you know that many of them were undoubted reactionaries and sometimes even obscurantists - then comparing Tolstoy, for example, with Golitsyn, we can say that Tolstoy was never such a mystic or even such a cleric as he was in his Golitsyn time; if we compare Tolstoy with the most inveterate and wild reactionaries and obscurantists, such as, for example, Prince Shirinsky-Shikhmatov at the end of the reign of Nikolai Pavlovich, then we will see that Tolstoy, again, was not such a wild and desperate obscurantist. Essentially speaking, in his direction and personal tastes, in his adherence to classicism, Tolstoy outwardly resembled, rather, one of the ministers of Nicholas's time, Count Uvarov, to whom, despite his negative aspects, Russia owes a lot, because he still brought enlightenment moved, but did not delay, although he boasted of delaying the overall development of Russia for 50 years. But Tolstoy, undoubtedly, was a much less intelligent and enlightened person than Uvarov, and at the same time differed from him in the integrity and sharpness of his character and was a much stronger defender and conductor of his ideas than Count Uvarov, who, strictly speaking, was , a man of compromise and career first.
Uvarov, even among his principled opponents, as I just said, left such a memory that no one will deny that his activities can be remembered in some good ways; on the contrary, Tolstoy left a memory of himself as a suppressor and enemy of enlightenment. Meanwhile, as I have already said, he, in fact, was not an enemy of enlightenment. But he was a constant, consistent and malicious enemy of the people and, as a minister, constantly, persistently and persistently trampled on the most sacred rights and interests people in the name of the interests and prerogatives of that ruling class, to which he himself belonged. That is why he was the most prominent defender of the state and social system with which these prerogatives were associated. We see therefore that among all the ministers of Alexander II, if we take the most reactionary period of his reign, there was no other such inveterate principled supporter of reaction as Tolstoy was. You saw that Reitern, who considered himself to be one of the supporters of progressive reforms, pointed out that Shuvalov and Valuev pursued a “pseudo-liberal” policy, as he put it, but was in fact reactionary. No one could say this about Tolstoy; he always pursued an openly and clearly reactionary policy and was alone among the ministers of Alexander II was openly an enemy of the reforms of the 60s. Therefore, he did not have to enter into any compromises with himself and change his point of view, like Valuev, who in the liberal era tried to appear as a liberal, and in the reactionary era as a reactionary. No, Tolstoy was always a convinced reactionary; when the peasant reform was carried out, he sharply protested against it, submitted a note, which caused a very sharp resolution from Emperor Alexander, and, in essence, was called to the post of Minister of Public Education as recognized a reactionary precisely when such a reactionary, in the opinion of Emperor Alexander, was needed in this post.
Tolstoy himself in his activities relied on the theoretical foundations that were given to him by the then very prominent publicists M. N. Katkov and P. M. Leontyev, editors and publishers of the Russian Messenger and Moskovskie Vedomosti. Katkov was then, as you know, the most inveterate enemy of the nihilistic trend that developed and largely continued to operate in the late 60s.
Being an enemy of nihilism, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, of those separatist or marginal aspirations that were then manifested in some parts of the Russian state, especially in the western provinces, Katkov, after the Polish uprising and especially after the Karakozov assassination attempt, began to sharply lean to the right. After all, you know that at the beginning of the era of reforms he was still considered, and quite thoroughly, among the liberals of the English style. Some of his Anglomanism remained with him, but his political direction became more and more conservative and even reactionary. Tolstoy, regarding the system of education that, in his opinion, was necessary for Russia, also proceeded, in appearance, at least from English or Anglomaniac ideas, and therefore it was also said about Tolstoy that he wanted to impose a system of English education in Russia. This was due to the fact that the English enlightenment - and especially in the past - had a clearly aristocratic character and that it was this side that seduced and attracted Tolstoy.
This, however, can only be accepted with great reservations, because the English system, undoubtedly aristocratic, at the same time was consistent with a completely definite English political system, where this aristocracy was, although conservative, but at the same time a constitutional principle, where aristocracy, having won for itself a predominant political position and special prerogatives, it has always been at the same time a guardian of recognized people's rights and freedoms against the royal autocracy, which it fought and overcame. In Russia, the aristocracy that Tolstoy and Katkov wanted to create was completely different. The aristocracy, which Tolstoy represented, itself sought to suppress the interests of the people under the wing of autocratic power. This difference between the aristocracy in England and Russia was very well noted and pointed out specifically in relation to Tolstoy’s system of public education by Prince A.I. Vasilchikov in his note, which he published after the introduction of the classical system in Russia, in 1875 in Berlin. In general, it must be said that although there is no doubt that Tolstoy’s system had aristocratic tendencies in the most unattractive sense of the word, its main and most significant idea was not this, but the fight against nihilism, with that worldview that was then quickly developed in Russian society and was attributed such important revolutionary significance. It was from this side that Katkov approached the criticism of the previously existing system of public education.
Mikhail Nikiforovich Katkov
Nihilism, which both Katkov and Tolstoy fought against, then meant the spread of a materialist worldview, which was, in turn, associated with familiarizing wide circles of the intelligentsia and students with the latest conclusions of natural science, which Pisarev and other publicists of the Russian Word were especially concerned about. , which was the main organ of the nihilism of that time.
Tolstoy believed that this worldview is most easily instilled in young people who have been brought up on the assimilation of the conclusions of natural science and are accustomed, as he argued, to hasty and hasty conclusions. It was from this side that Katkov attacked the Golovninsky charter of 1864; he even attacked increasing the number of hours devoted to teaching history and Russian literature in gymnasiums, and in his articles he called the teaching of these subjects “pure evil,” pointing out that here students are accustomed to senseless superficiality and pounding water. In general, he rebelled against such subjects that contributed to the easy and rapid development of an independent way of thinking, demanding in return such knowledge that alone, as he put it, could prepare the mind and feelings for proper work and at the same time protect against the easy assimilation of nihilistic thoughts and materialistic ideas. teachings that most easily penetrated, in his opinion, into minds accustomed to superficial reasoning, especially developed by liberal teachers of literature.
Accordingly, Katkov’s main requirement was that a system be implemented in secondary schools that would accustom the minds of students exclusively to the assimilation of this knowledge and precise concepts and would not give scope for various speculations. From here it is clear that a system that fully meets these requirements would be one that would reduce the number of hours of those subjects that are devoted to the general mental development of students, and would specifically provide only accurate and specific knowledge. Therefore, ancient languages were put forward as the most important subjects, and then mathematics, because it again provided only accurate knowledge. This was the basis of the system of Russian classicism that Katkov substantiated in his writings of that time and which Tolstoy undertook to implement.
From the very moment he entered the ministry, Tolstoy was a supporter of this system, but it was not easy for him to implement it, since, first of all, he did not have sufficient funds, there was not a sufficient contingent of teachers of Latin and especially Greek who could immediately take over teaching in the changed gymnasiums. On the other hand, the material resources that could be given to him given the financial situation at that time were quite meager; and, most importantly, Tolstoy, of course, felt that not only in broad layers of society, but even at the top of it, in that highest bureaucratic environment where he had to implement his ideas, he would encounter insympathy and opposition - even among the then State council, which was liberal-minded largely because the State Council was replenished mainly by retired ministers, and since at this time, following the era of reforms, former ministers were often comparatively liberal people, then in the State Council there was then a mood in defense of the era in general reforms and in particular the ideas of Golovnin, of which Tolstoy was an opponent.
Therefore, Tolstoy took up the matter gradually; He first made a circular inquiry to the district trustees as to what observations they had regarding the deficiencies of the existing system of teaching. It is clear that the trustees, knowing Tolstoy’s views and ideas, should have found corresponding shortcomings in Golovnin’s system. Tolstoy then formed a new institution of higher education, the Philological Institute, which was supposed to provide well-trained teachers of ancient languages. Subsequently, he transformed the Nizhyn Lyceum, founded by Bezborodko, according to the same plan; at the same time, he established active relations with foreign educational spheres, trying to organize the invitation to Russia of teachers from abroad, especially from Austria, where there were many Slavic philologists who could easily study the Russian language and become teachers of ancient languages in Russia. Soon quite a lot of these teachers came to Russia from the Czech Republic and Galicia.
At the same time, the ministry began to develop a draft of a new charter, and in 1871, five years after he assumed the post of minister, Tolstoy decided to move this matter forward. He made a detailed report to Emperor Alexander II, pointing out the importance of classical education as a means of combating the nihilistic mood of youth, which was such a dangerous evil in the eyes of Alexander and which the emperor himself pointed out in his 1866 rescript addressed to Prince. Gagarin, published after the Karakozov assassination attempt.
Alexander therefore reacted sympathetically to the general trends of Tolstoy’s report, but since he himself was by no means a classicist - he was almost never taught ancient languages - he ordered this matter to be discussed by experts. A special commission was formed, which included Valuev, Troinitsky, Tolstoy himself, several specialists from his ministry and Count S.G. Stroganov. Tolstoy himself also felt the need to prepare in this regard as thoroughly as possible and even began to take Greek lessons from the director of the 3rd St. Petersburg gymnasium, Lemonius.
This commission quite quickly developed a detailed draft of a new charter, which was submitted for consideration to the State Council, and it was sent not to one of its departments, as expected, but to a special presence of the State Council, chaired by Count Stroganov, formed for this purpose, consisting of 15 persons , among which were all the ministers, heads of educational institutions - among them several liberals with D.A. Milyutin at the head. On the other hand, it included former ministers of public education Kovalevsky and Golovnin, as well as Count Panin, the former minister of justice, and a number of other persons.
In this presence, which considered the issue as a department of the State Council, the votes were divided; nine people were on Tolstoy’s side, some, perhaps, because Emperor Alexander himself had approved of this project in advance, others because the project corresponded to their own reactionary aspirations. But six people, among whom the most outstanding was D. A. Milyutin, then Count Litke, an enlightened admiral, former educator of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, former Minister of Public Education A. V. Golovnin, academician J. K. Grot and, to the surprise everyone, Count V.N. Panin, who, of course, more by misunderstanding turned out to be among the liberals this time, showed energetic resistance to Tolstoy’s project.
Milyutin and Golovnin sharply attacked Tolstoy and pointed out that both in England itself and in Prussia, to which Tolstoy referred as countries with a classical education system, where this system supposedly recommended by him flourished, in essence, classicism had already begun to be considered an obsolete system and that Recently, real gymnasiums have been opened there on equal terms with classical ones, and the choice of one or another school is given to parents, and both of them offer access to the university. At the same time, Milyutin argued that the view that attributes to the real system of education a connection with materialism and nihilism, and sees the classical system as an antidote to them, is also incorrect. Milyutin pointed out that all the leaders of the Great French Revolution, all the materialists of the late 18th century, who acted so sharply in their time in France, were brought up on the classicism that then reigned in France; and on the other hand, he argued that the real education system could be set up so seriously that it would by no means be certified as specifically fostering the frivolity that Tolstoy complained about. In a special presence, however, Tolstoy won.
But in the general meeting of the State Council, where usually cases were considered only pro forma, since the general meeting usually joined the conclusion of the department or joint presence, in this case something different happened. At the general meeting, members of the State Council, moved, as Vasilchikov wittily noted, by one of the most powerful human feelings - the feeling of parental love, rejected Tolstoy's proposal by a majority of 29 votes to 19. But Alexander joined the minority opinion, and Tolstoy’s project received the force of law on May 15, 1871.
The reform of secondary school education carried out in 1871 by Tolstoy boiled down to the introduction of a new type of classical gymnasium, in which, on the one hand, the Latin and Greek languages were introduced in a huge volume, and on the other hand, natural science was completely excluded and the teaching of the Russian language and There have been significant changes in the curriculum of this subject. At the same time, real gymnasiums were destroyed and in their place - or, rather, not in their place, but only in connection with their destruction - real schools were introduced, which, as you will see, received a completely different meaning.
In the classical gymnasiums of the new type, ancient languages occupied such a place that 49 hours were devoted to the Latin language. per week, and for Greek - 36 hours. per week in all classes, so that the Latin language under the eight-grade system (since the eighth grade was introduced) was not only taught daily in all grades, but in the first grade even 8 hours. in Week; Greek began in the third grade and, therefore, was taught for six years. At the same time, the very system of teaching these languages consisted mainly in the study of grammar, in the study of various grammatical and syntactic subtleties; students had to achieve such knowledge of these subtleties in order to be able to fluently translate in writing into Latin or Greek under dictation in Russian dictated, and these dictations had to include exactly those turns of speech, the correct translation of which would prove knowledge of all the grammatical features and subtleties of these languages - these were the famous so-called extemporalia.
Then the mathematics course was greatly increased, and at the same time, in order to make room for this expanded teaching of ancient languages and mathematics, in accordance with the attacks that Katkov made on literature and history, the number of hours of the Russian language and especially the history of literature in senior classes was greatly reduced classes; The Church Slavonic language was also introduced to count the hours of the already abbreviated Russian language. Further, the number of hours of history, geography and new languages was reduced, the latter being declared secondary subjects, so that teaching the two new languages even became optional.
Along with this, the educational system itself in gymnasiums also changed. The students had to be trained in such a way that they would specifically become ultra-disciplined people who would be taught mainly to unquestioning obedience, and at the same time they were required to have “special trust” and “frankness” with the teacher, which, of course, was unattainable with This regime degenerated into a form of encouragement of espionage and snitching.
The very situation of pedagogical councils has completely changed; they lost their governing rights, and these rights and all administrative power passed individually to the directors. Then, as soon as there was a sufficient selection of teachers of ancient languages, both directors and inspectors began to be appointed from among them, and the number of teachers of ancient languages soon reached 70–80% of the total number of these commanding officials.
Along with all this, the real gymnasiums, as I already said, were destroyed; instead of them, real schools were introduced, the course of which was reduced to six years and the purpose of which was not to prepare for higher school, but to provide special, technical or industrial education, which, as it seemed to Katkov and Tolstoy, would satisfy the needs of raising children of the higher industrial classes, i.e. merchants and rich townspeople. At the same time, it is remarkable that not only from classical gymnasiums, but also from real schools, all general educational elements or elements that gave general development were carefully eradicated. Since ancient languages could not be taught in real schools, a huge amount of drawing was introduced - more than 40 hours. in Week. Then a significant course in mathematics was introduced and natural science was left in a very moderate dose, and in the explanatory note to the program it was stated that it was not to be taught scientifically, but “technologically” - it is difficult to even imagine what this was supposed to mean. Thus, quite openly, the main task of the transformation being carried out was not at all to increase the level of knowledge and enlightenment. The main point was to replace all kinds of general educational subjects with those that, in the opinion of the authors of this system, would discipline the mind well - this was precisely the main task of the entire transformation.
Of course, already at the very moment of its discussion, great attacks arose against him in the press in the leading organs, and not even especially on the left - the most left-wing ones, like Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, were then already closed - but in such as “ Bulletin of Europe", "St. Petersburg Gazette", "Voice"; they all published harsh articles, as far as possible, directed against this system. But Tolstoy, as soon as his project was completed and submitted to the State Council, obtained the highest order that the press should be prohibited from discussing or, as it was said there, “blaming” the plans of the government, and, of course, the press’s mouth was thus closed. As you have seen, the majority in the State Council spoke out against the Tolstoyan system, which, however, did not interfere with its implementation.
In a corresponding spirit, Tolstoy, of course, wanted to transform higher schools in Russia, and from the very beginning he had, of course, the desire to change the charter of 1863. But since this charter had just been passed, and it passed through the State Council in a “purified » in the commission gr. Stroganov saw that it was not so easy to shake this charter and there was a large party for it not only in society, but also among the State Council. Therefore, Tolstoy did not immediately dare to raise the issue of completely changing the charter, but began to introduce only new, additional rules. Thus, in 1867, the rules that I have already mentioned were introduced for students; at the same time, in fact, they wanted to achieve vigilant supervision over students both at the university and outside it; this supervision was precisely regulated, and the competence and independence of university councils was narrowed.
However, despite the strictness of the rules introduced, student unrest broke out under Tolstoy several times and assumed very significant proportions: especially in 1869, as well as in 1874 and 1878. And in the fight against these student unrest, constantly accusing professors of laxity or even complicity and connivance, Tolstoy carefully prepared a complete reform of the university charter and incited Emperor Alexander in this regard. However, Tolstoy failed to achieve this until the end of his tenure as Minister of Public Education, despite Katkov’s active support in the press. At the end of his tenure as minister in 1879, Tolstoy only managed to carry out quite important partial changes in the charter of 1863 - namely, the replenishment, and partly the replacement, of those professorial bodies in relation to the supervision of students, which existed, according to the charter, in the person of the rector, the vice-rector and a special university court, a new institution, an inspection, which was an outside institution for the university and the introduction of which was accompanied by new student unrest.
Those elements of the new charter that Tolstoy prepared throughout his ministry subsequently received progress and practical implementation under his successor, Delyanov, in 1884, when a suitable situation was ripe for this, but more on that later.
S. V. Rozhdestvensky, n. With.; S. S. Tatishchev"Emperor Alexander II, his life and reign", vol. II, pp. 265 et seq.
K. K. Arsenyev."Press legislation". St. Petersburg, 1903, pp. 92 and 99. Compare. "M. M. Stasyulevich and his contemporaries,” vol. II and especially pp. 145 and 205.
S. V. Rozhdestvensky. "History of the Ministry of People, Education from 1802–1902." St. Petersburg, 1902. Compare. “Collection of resolutions on the Ministry of Public Education,” vol. IV.
Russian statesman, Minister of Public Education (1866 - 1880), Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod (1865 - 1880), Minister of Internal Affairs (1882 - 1889); from 1882 to 1889 he also served as president of the Imperial Academy of Sciences.
Born poor into a noble family. Father is retired captain Count Andrei Stepanovich Tolstoy, mother is Praskovya Dmitrievna Pavlova. At the age of 7, he lost his father and was raised by his cousin, Dmitry Nikolaevich Tolstoy. In 1853 he married the daughter of the Minister of Internal Affairs D.G. Bibikova (1852 - 1855) - Sofya Dmitrievna Bibikova (1827 - 1907). He had two children: daughter Sophia (1854 - 1917), son Gleb (1862 - 1902).
He studied at a boarding school at Moscow University, then at the Tsarskoye Selo Lyceum, from which he graduated in 1842 with a gold medal. After an unsuccessful attempt to obtain a scientific degree, in 1843 he entered the civil service in the office of Empress Alexandra Feodorovna. In 1847, he began serving as an official of special assignments in the Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, where from 1851 he often served as head of the 2nd Department of Spiritual Affairs of Foreign Denominations. From 1853 he served in the Ministry of the Navy, where he served as director of the office. According to contemporaries, in the period 1850 - early 1860s he was close to the liberal circle of Grand Duke Konstantin Nikolaevich, took part in the development of new regulations for the management of the Maritime Department. In 1847 he became a member of the Russian Geographical Society. In 1860 he moved to the Ministry of Public Education, where he became a member of the Main Board of Schools, but in 1861 he was dismissed from almost all positions, receiving the honorary position of chamberlain of the imperial court. By this time, he was already quite critical of government reform projects, in particular, the release of peasants with land for ransom.
In 1865, he was appointed chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod, and after the assassination attempt by D. Karakozov on Emperor Alexander II on April 4, 1866, he replaced the dismissed A.V. Golovnin as Minister of Public Education. He considered one of his main tasks to be the revision of the university charter of 1863 adopted by Golovnin. He was the initiator of the gymnasium reform of the 1860s - 1870s. According to the charter of 1872, real gymnasiums were transformed into real schools; Only graduates of classical gymnasiums received the right to enter the university; In 1874, the statute “On Primary Public Schools” was adopted.
With the rise of M.T. Loris-Melikov in April 1880 was dismissed both from the post of chief prosecutor (replaced by K.P. Pobedonostsev) and from the post of minister of public education (replaced by A.A. Saburov).
In May 1882, Alexander III appointed Tolstoy head of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. Changes in a number of reforms of the previous reign are associated with his name in this post. In particular, in August 1882, the “Temporary Rules on the Press” were approved, in March 1883 - the “Regulations on Police Supervision”; Tolstoy achieved the adoption of a new university charter in 1884, and participated in the development of the regulation “On Zemstvo District Chiefs (1889).
First there was an alarming call to the editorial office of Vyatka Krai. It was clearly a caring person who called - this was especially noticeable in his intonation. Valentina Ivanovna Koshcheeva (and it was with her that the conversation about the fate of the regional museum of the history of public education began) is a teacher, local historian, laureate of the “Vyatka Citizen” award, winner of the “Patriot of Russia” commemorative medal. For almost 30 years she collected materials about the Prozorov dynasty of merchants, who emerged from the Vyatka peasants and received the title of nobility.
In particular, about Yakov Alekseevich Prozorov, a merchant of the first guild, who conducted business transactions in Europe, but did not forget his native Vyatka: he helped the poor, ran orphanages, donated to educational institutions, monasteries and churches, participated in the public life of the city Vyatka.
Valentina Ivanovna told how they collected the museum collection literally bit by bit. She, for example, almost never left the archives, restoring the Kirov history of enlightenment, processed the documents she found, wrote something by hand, retyped something herself, donated it to the museum, then went back to the archive, searched and found something new, and more precisely, forgotten and, fortunately, not yet sunk into oblivion. However, this is just the beginning. Why was the woman activist so alarmed?
Prozorov, Tolstoy, Grinevsky...
The Museum of Public Education was opened in the mid-1990s, first at the regional center for children's and youth tourism and excursions. By the way, the idea was born among the students of Apollinaria Nikolaevna Teplyashina, the famous Vyatka teacher, honored school teacher in Russia, holder of two Orders of Lenin, who lived a great life filled with love for children, and became a model of professional excellence for many generations of teachers.
As I said museum director Natalya Goloviznina, the most active and direct participation in the organization of the institution was then taken by the head of the education department of the Kirov region, Anatoly Churin; the employees felt his active presence in everything. Now there are three thousand units of exhibits, unique in their own way.
When the place is prayed for!
This mansion was an ideal place in every way,” continues Nadezhda Goloviznina. - In 1878, Count Dmitry Tolstoy, Minister of Public Education, came to Vyatka. At the same time, Yakov Alekseevich Prozorov handed over the building on Moskovskaya Street for the construction of a higher four-class city school. Later, at the Paris World Exhibition, our school was awarded a silver medal, and the provincial zemstvo received the Grand Prix of the same forum - a gold medal.
But this is not even the most important thing, according to Natalya Goloviznina. This is the only memorial place in the region where Alexander Grinevsky studied, where he showed his first essays to his literature teacher, and then read them out to the class.
The state archive contains the will of Yakov Prozorov: so that this mansion will always be used for the needs of the educational institution! It only once performed functions unusual for it - during the Great Patriotic War: the department of maxillofacial surgery was located in this building. But such was the necessity of harsh wartime!
Among the valuable ruins
I came to the Museum of the History of Public Education on Friday. Schoolchildren came on the excursion. Museum workers handed out shoe covers to them - as is customary when visiting such places. Downstairs, the CBTS has now settled - the center for budgetary and technical support.
The administrator's office, where veterans gathered (they did not have to climb the steep old stairs), had already been taken away from the museum, but essentially an ancient mansion; there was no dressing room (I had to undress in a cramped room on the 2nd floor). The assembly hall, now former, has been turned into a storage facility for the museum's funds. They also had to be lifted upstairs, placed literally on the floor, in the corners, and quickly covered from dust. Their former place was taken over by the archives of the Ministry of Education! In addition, according to museum workers, they want to locate the centralized accounting department of the ministry here.
But we do not stop working even in such not entirely convenient, uncomfortable and unsightly conditions. True, we had to reduce the number of excursions,” the director says bitterly. - Teachers of the region are interested in children and students knowing the history of famous teachers, seeing how different their former “classmates” who studied within these walls were, what uniform they wore, where representatives of the middle class studied, what stationery they used and what they had writing instruments.
Where will the exhibits go?
Of course, concerned people are sounding the alarm. As Valentina Koshcheeva and Natalya Goloviznina said, according to the plan (and who exactly came up with such a decision?!) of the regional Ministry of Education, the museum should move to the premises of a training and production plant and to the Institute for Educational Development (former Institute for Advanced Training for Teachers). According to them, a lot of repairs are needed there, because a museum is not just about hanging pictures on the walls. In addition, the place is quite remote, on the street. Roman Erdyakov, - not everyone can come there, especially veterans! And why should an ancient mansion (directly bequeathed by Yakov Prozorov for educational institutions!) be occupied by officials who, apparently, have little interest in the history of Vyatka’s enlightenment?
Again from a conversation with Valentina Ivanovna Koshcheeva:
Leaving the ministry, where she asked about the transfer of our museum, she said: if it is moved, then we will become criminals in front of all education! She, the deputy minister, looked at me with empty, indifferent eyes, although very carefully...
When preparing this material, I heard more than once how grateful the museum staff and everyone who created it and assembled the collection were Anatoly Mikhailovich Churin, then - head of the department of education of the Kirov region.
Now, as a deputy of the regional Legislative Assembly, he talks with pain about the fate of his brainchild:
Any destruction of traditions is already harmful in itself! For a long time, various educational institutions were located in this building - this was bequeathed by the person who donated it to the city. I have already told educational leaders: why are you doing this?! Is it really possible to move the museum practically to hell in the middle of nowhere, where no one except teachers visits? And here - students, schoolchildren - everything is from the mind, from the heart, done with love, a special aura! There are amazing people in the ministry: they believe that nothing was done before them, that the previous leaders did not work for the good. But this is disrespect for those who worked before them. Even the President of Russia after the tragic events in Kerch said that we cannot provide anything decent to young people. You know, my soul is just boiling and my heart is bleeding... They will destroy the old, and then what? One must think that the people who worked in the museum did everything for the people, for young people first of all! The soul is boiling...
Help "VK"
The decision to create a museum at the regional center for children's and youth tourism and excursions “for the purpose of studying and promoting the contribution of teachers to the development of culture and education, intensifying work to educate patriotism and citizenship of the younger generation” was approved by order of the regional department of public education dated November 19, 1990. The collection took place here for 7 years. The exhibition began with relay albums on the history of education from the regions of the region, with items collected by students on expeditions around their native land. A large collection - 150 storage units - was donated to the museum by local historian and writer Alexander Reva. He also owns the tradition of building stock collections on a selfless gift.
The museum is located in the “house with lions” - a mansion of the late 18th century, a monument of history and architecture. The exposition of the first hall includes the history of the Vyatka school in the pre-Soviet period (the first Khlynov school - the Slavic-Latin school of Bishop Lawrence Gorka (1735), transformed into the Vyatka Theological Seminary (1758); the first secular educational institution of Vyatka - the main public school (1786), on the basis which opened the Vyatka provincial gymnasium in 1811). A large section is devoted to the history of women's education in Vyatka - gymnasiums and diocesan schools.
The educational activities of the museum are very broad. On its basis, a regional competition of youth research works named after V.I. is held annually. Vernadsky, interregional scientific and practical conference “Current problems of educational activities of educational institutions”, regional conference “Intelligence of the Future”, city local history marathon, classes at the regional part-time historical and local history school. Many teachers choose the museum as their creative laboratory, select materials for lessons here, hold class hours, parent meetings, and teacher councils. During the meetings, delegations of educators from various parts of the region and regions of the country remain grateful for the representation of teachers’ dedication, respect and recognition of their work.