Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-lj6df Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-03T03:11:40.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

“Relentlessly Running in Place”: The Historiography of Schools and Pedagogical Thought in Medieval Russia (Some Conclusions, Problems, and Perspectives)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  24 February 2017

E. D. Dneprov ,
Eve Levin  and
Ben Eklof
Eve Levin
Affiliation:
Ohio State University
Ben Eklof
Affiliation:
Indiana University, Bloomington
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

A few introductory comments may help the Western reader decode the following article, written by the director of the Laboratory for the History of Education under the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences in Moscow. Although the tone of the article makes clear that Dneprov is extremely dissatisfied with conditions in his area of history (and the stridency of his criticism of Soviet scholarship is in itself somewhat unusual), he must often resort to indirect and elliptical comment to make his basic points. Dneprov is representative of a younger generation of Soviet scholars, well versed in the changes in methodology and content that have affected the writing of history in the West, and impatient to introduce similar directions in the Soviet Union. Even more important, Dneprov notes that Soviet scholars have made significant advances in the study of the medieval period in general—in part because historians of talent often gravitate to more remote times where the strictures of ideology are less unbending and freedom of research more prominent. Yet Soviet educational historians have made few advances in this field, which has been studied in virtual isolation from general cultural developments, and which has adhered closely to dogmatic strictures first put forth in the 1930s.

Type
Articles
Information
History of Education Quarterly , Volume 26 , Issue 4 , Winter 1986 , pp. 537 - 551
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the History of Education Society 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Dneprov, E. D., Sovetskaia literatura po istorii shkoly i pedagogiki dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii, 1918–1977: Bibliograficheskii ukazatel' (Moscow, 1979).Google Scholar

2. Cf. Droblenkova, Nadezhda F., Bibliografiia rabot po drevnerusskoi literature, opublikovannykh v SSR, 1958–1967, pt. 1: 1958–1962 (Moscow, 1978), pt. 2: 1963–1967 (Moscow, 1979).Google Scholar

3. Vasilii Feodorov Burtsov-Protopopov was the leading publisher of religious literature in Moscow from 1633 through 1642. Ioannikii Likhuda (d. 1717) and his brother Sofronii (d. 1730) were Greek by birth and training, and are best known for founding an academy in Moscow in 1686 under the patronage of Tsar Feodor. The curriculum included grammar, singing, rhetoric, logic, mathematics, physics, Greek, Latin, and Italian. Monomakh, Vladimir (1053–1125) was Grand Prince of Kiev, credited as the sponsor of artistic and literary activity. Simeon Emel'ianovich Sitnianovich-Petrovskii Polotskii (1629–1680) was tutor to Tsar Alexei's children. He authored numerous works, including instructional texts for his charges, theological treatises, and comedies. Epifanii Slavinetskii (d. 1675) authored and translated theological texts and was noted for his philosophical works. He edited church service books under Patriarch Nikon, and published a Greek-Latin-Slavonic lexicon. Ivan Fedorov (d. 1583) is known as the father of printing in Russia. His inventory includes numerous ecclesiastical books and the first primer.—Trans.Google Scholar

4. Medynskii, E. N., Istoriia russkoi pedagogiki s drevneishikh vremen do Velikoi proletarskoi revoliutsii Posobie dlia aspirantov i prepodavatelei istorii pedagogiki v vuzakh i pedtekhnikumakh, 2d ed. (Moscow: Uchpedgiz, 1938); Struminskii, V. Ia., “O razrabotke istorii pedagogiki Kievskoi Rusi,” Sovetskaia pedagogika no. 5 (1938): 119–29; idem, “Pedagogika Kievskoi Rusi kak predmet istoricheskogo izucheniia (Obzor osnovnykh napravlenii i rabot do revoliutsionnoi epokhi),” Uchenye zapiski Gosudarstvennogo instituta shkol NKP RSFSR, vol. 3, Rabota kabineta pedagogiki (ist. gruppa), vyp. I (Moscow, 1940), 79–119; Zeilinger-Rubinshtein, E. I., “Voprosy zakonomernosti vozrastnogo razvitiia podrastaiushchego cheloveka v peredovykh pedagogicheskikh ucheniiakh XVI–XVII vv.,” in Voprosy vozrastnoi pedagogiki (Leningrad, 1959), 10–23; Mitiurov, B. N., “idei gumanizma v otechestvennoi pedagogike XVI–XVII vekov,” in Tezisy soobshchenii VI nauchnoi konferentsii Drogobychskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, Sektsiia pedagogiki i psikhologii (Drogobych, 1964), 59–63; idem, “Printsip obraznogo obucheniia v otechestvennoi pedagogike XVII veka,” in Tezisy soobshchenii VII nauchnoi konferentsii Drogobychskogo pedagogicheskogo instituta (Drogobych, 1965), 31–36.Google Scholar

5. Struminskii, , “O razrabotke istorii pedagogiki,” 122–29.Google Scholar

6. Ibid., 121. Emphasis added (E. D.)Google Scholar

7. Artsikhovskii's, A. V. works primarily concern archaeology and material culture. Perhaps his most important work is the publication of the Novgorod birchbark documents. Zimin, A. A. published on a wide variety of topics in political and social history, especially of the sixteenth century, and is known for his commentary on medieval Russian law. Likhachev, D. S. specializes in the development of medieval Russian literature and intellectual and cultural history in general. Mavrodin's, V. V. numerous works run the gamut of political and social history through the eighteenth century, with particular attention to the peasantry. Pashuto, V. T. similarly has broad research interests, including political history, foreign policy, and the west Russian territories. Rybakov's, B. A. works concentrate on the earliest period of Russian history, examining popular and material culture and paganism. Tikhomirov, M. N. is known for his careful studies of chronicles, law, and textological questions, as well as his work on medieval Russian towns. Cherepnin, L. V. emphasized economic and social history in his works; he also edited a multivolume edition of private land documents from medieval Russia. Shmidt's, S. O. specialty is archival sources and their use. Ianin's, V. L. early work primarily concerned archaeology, sphragistics, and numismatics; more recent publications pertain to the social structure of Novgorod.—Trans.Google Scholar

8. Struminskii, , “O razrabotke istorii pedagogiki,” 119.Google Scholar

9. Likhachev, Dmitri S., Velikoe nasledie: Klassicheskie proizvedeniia literatury drevnei Rust (Moscow, 1975), 9.Google Scholar

10. Istoriia russkoi literatury X-XVII vekov (Moscow, 1982), 24.Google Scholar

11. Struminskii, , “Pedagogika Kievskoi Rusi,” 79–119.Google Scholar

12. Petrov, V. M., “Istoriia obucheniia v drevnei Rusi,” Sovetskaia pedagogika no. 6 (1982), 100–104.Google Scholar

13. Konrad, Nikola I., Zapad i vostok: Stati (Moscow, 1966); 2d ed. (Moscow, 1972).Google Scholar

14. Likhachev, Dmitri S., Razvitie russkoi literatury X-XVII vekov: Epokhi i stili (Leningrad, 1973).Google Scholar

15. Gurevich, Aron Ia. writes on medieval Scandinavia and western European popular culture in the Middle Ages, cf. his Problemy srednevekovoi narodnoi kul'tury (Moscow, 1981). Averintsev's, S. S. specialization is Byzantine literature and its religious perspectives, cf. Religiia i literatura (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1981).—Trans.Google Scholar

16. Marx, Karl and Engels, Friedrich, Sochineniia (Moscow, 1955), 4:43.Google Scholar

17. Orlov, A. S., “K izucheniiu srednevekov'ia russkoi literature,” in Pamiati A. N. Sakulina: Sbornik statei (Moscow, 1931), 188–89.Google Scholar

18. Robinson, Andrei N., Literatura drevnei Rusi v literaturnom protsesse srednevekov'ia XI-XIII vv.: Ocherki literaturno-istoricheskoi tipologii (Moscow, 1980), 42–43.Google Scholar