Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T21:39:30.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Count Joseph Marie de Maistre and Russian Educational Policy, 1803-1828

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

David W. Edwards
David W. Edwards*
Affiliation:
University of Arkansas, Fayetteville
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

During the quarter century from 1803 to 1828, the Russian imperial government followed an educational policy which ranged from practical to classical, democratic to class-oriented, progressive to conservative. The decrees, rescripts, and regulations may have been contradictory, but they are simply pieces of a puzzle which, in the end, provide the outline of a rather clear picture. This picture, as we shall see in more detail later, shows a movement, in the most elementary terms, from functional to classical, from open to restricted, from modern to traditional. In all respects, the law of 1828 opposed those of 1803 and 1804, but the line of march between the two points was straight and constant.

Another puzzle, however, is more difficult to solve: why did Russian educational policy follow this particular trend ? Among the possible solutions to this question, the activities of Count Joseph Marie de Maistre deserve more study. Maistre is remembered today as a theocratic political philosopher with an eloquent pen, but during his term in Russia (1803-17), as the diplomatic representative of the Sardinian king, he deeply involved himself in the internal questions facing the Russian government. Education particularly interested Maistre, and he turned his attention to this topic from June of 1810 until the end of the following year. During this eighteen-month period, he wrote four works dealing with the question of education in Russia, hoping to influence policy and bring about specific changes.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 36 , Issue 1 , March 1977 , pp. 54 - 75
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1977

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. The best biography of Count de Maistre is Robert, Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre : Étude; sur la vie et sur la doctrine d'an matérialiste mystique (Geneva : Librairie Droz, 1968 Google Scholar. For accounts of Maistre in Russia, see Camille Latreille, “Joseph de Maistre et le tzar Alexander ler,” La Revue hebdomadaire, no. 33 (August 17, 1918), pp. 302-47; and especially Stepanov, M, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” Literaturnoe nasledstvo, vols. 29-30 (1937), pp. 577-726Google Scholar. A rather doctrinaire account of Maistre in Russia with an emphasis upon foreign affairs is found in Dzhuzeppe Berti (Giuseppe Berti), Rossiia i ital'ianskie gosudarstva v period Risordzhimento (Moscow, 1959), pp. 205-308. For many years, the best account of Maistre's activities in Russia was F. Vermale, “Joseph de Maistre émigré,” Societe savoisienne d'histoire et archeologie : Mémoires et documents, vol. 64 (Chambery, 1927), pp. 63-229.

2. The four works on Russian education are found in Maistre, Joseph de, Oeuvres completes, 14 vols. (Lyons, 1884-86)Google Scholar (hereafter cited as O.C.). See O.C., 8 : Cinq lettres sur I'education publique en Russie (pp. 163-232), Observations sur le Prospectus Disciplinarum ou Plan d'étude proposé pour le Séminairc de Nezvsky par le Professeur Fessler (pp. 233-65, signed Philorusse), Mémoire sur la liberte de I'enseignement public (pp. 267-75, signed Philalexandre), and Quatre chapitres sur la Russie (pp. 277-360).

3. Polnoe sobranie zakonov rossiiskoi imperii, 1st ser. (St. Petersburg, 1830), vol. 27, no. 20, 406 (September 8, 1802), pp. 243-48 (hereafter cited as PSZ).

4. The relevant statutes are PSZ, vol. 27, no. 20, 597 (January 26, 1803), pp. 437-42; no. 20, 701 (April 4, 1803), pp. 526-30; no. 20, 765 (May 18, 1803), pp. 610-20; no. 20, 905 (August 23, 1803), pp. 848-58; vol. 38, no. 21, 497 (November 5, 1804), pp. 569-70; no. 21, 501 (November 5, 1804), pp. 626-47.

5. Originally, the parish schools taught the students for only one year, but on August 31, 1807, the term was increased to four years. See PSZ, vol. 29, no. 22, 605, pp. 1250-59, especially p. 1252.

6. The curriculum for the schools is found in PSZ, vol. 27, no. 20, 597 (January 26, 1803), pp. 437-42 and vol. 28, no. 21, 501 (November 5, 1804), pp. 626-47.

7. Even Latin may be considered as a utilitarian subject in the Russian system of this period. Inasmuch as many of the professors at the universities were foreigners and unable to lecture in Russian, Latin became, in many classrooms, the language of instruction.

8. See the excellent article by James T., Flynn, “The Universities, the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services, 1815-1828,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 2, no. 4 (Winter 1968) : 487–92 Google Scholar; and Alston, Patrick L., Education and the State in Tsarist Russia (Stanford : Stanford University Press, 1969, pp. 26–28 Google Scholar.

9. A good survey of the Polish and French influences on the laws of 1803 and 1804 is found in Nicholas, Hans, History of Russian Educational Policy (New York : Russell and Russell, Inc., 1964), pp. 35–58Google Scholar. This study, originally published in 1931, is much superior to a later account : Nicholas, Hans, The Russian Tradition in Education (London : Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1963), pp. 22–23Google Scholar. Summaries of Alexander's educational reforms are also found in Johnson, William H. E., Russia's Educational Heritage (Pittsburgh : Carnegie Press, 1950, pp. 68–76 Google Scholar. Also see Alston, Education and the State, pp. 26-29. Another educational innovation (outside the limits of the present study) to uplift the lower class was the Lancaster system of instruction. See Judith Cohen Zacek, “The Lancastrian School Movement in Russia,” Slavonic and East European Review, 45 (July 1967) : 343-67. Also see Tomashevskaia, N, “Lankasterskie shkoly v Rossii,” Russkaia shkola, March 1913, pp. 36-62Google Scholar.

10. PSZ, vol. 28, no. 20, 501, articles 123 (p. 640), 90 (p. 637), and 14 (p. 627).

11. See the following statutes : PSZ, vol. 28, no. 21, 498 (November 5, 1804), pp. 570-89 (especially pp. 581-82); no. 21, 499 (November 5, 1804), pp. 589-607 (especially pp. 599-600); no. 21, 500 (November 5, 1804), pp. 607-26 (especially p. 618).

12. PSZ, vol. 28, no. 21, 501 (November 5, 1804), article 56, p. 633.

13. Flynn, “The Universities, the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services,” pp. 487, 489-90, 492. See also Alexander, Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture : A History to 1860 (Stanford : University of Stanford Press, 1963), p. 223 Google Scholar.

14. Sviateishii Pravitel'stvuiushchii Sinod, Opis’ dokumentov i del khraniashchikhsia v arkhive sviateishego pravitel'stvuiushchego sinoda s ukazateliami k nei : Dela komissii dukhovnykh uchilishch 1808-1839 gg. (St. Petersburg, 1910), pp. iii, 1-42.

15. PSZ, vol. 30, no. 23, 122 (June 26, 1808), pp. 368-95.

16. Iakhontov, A. N., Istoricheskii ocherk imperatorskogo aleksandrovskogo (b. tsarskosel'skogo) litseia (Paris, 1936), p. 8 Google Scholar; and Marc, Raeff, Michael Speransky : Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772-1839 (The Hague : Martinus Nijhoff, 1957), p. 61 Google Scholar (emphasis in the original).

17. Iakhontov, Istoricheskii ocherk, p. 10. The decree establishing the Lycée was signed a year earlier. See PSZ, vol. 31, no. 24, 325 (August 12, 1810), pp. 310-23.

18. PSZ, vol. 31, no. 24, 325, pp. 311-16, 321-23. Also see Raeff, Michael Speransky, p. 62, and Iakhontov, Istoricheskii ocherk, pp. 52-59. For a brief account of Speranskii's plans, see Kobeko, D. F., Imperatorskii tsarskosel'skii litsei (St. Petersburg, 1911), pp. 6-7Google Scholar.

19. Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 588-90, 599; and O.C., 9 : 239-40.

20. See Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, pp. 296-308; this section is entitled “Maistre et ses paroissiennes.” See also Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 596-98, 606-8; and O.C., 12 : 419, 424. In many of these Hόmes, the wife, but not the husband, converted to Roman Catholicism. The Rostopchin family is but one example.

21. See Adrien Boudou, Le Saint-Siége et la Russie : Leurs relations diplomatiques au XIX* siecle, 1814-1847 (Paris : Librairie Plon, 1922), p. 17.

22. The complicated relationship within Roman Catholicism in Russia is discussed in the following works : Rouët de Journal, M. J., Un collège Jésuites a Saint-Pétersbourg, 1800-1816 (Paris, 1922), pp. 16–33 Google Scholar; Brumanis, André Arvaldis, Aux origines de la hierarchie latine en Russie : Mgr. Stanislas Sicstrsencewicz-Bohuss premier archêveque-metropolitain de Mohilev (1731-1836) (Louvain, 1968), pp. 242–64 Google Scholar; Boudou, Le Saint-Siége et la Russie, pp. 7-24; Treadgold, Donald W., The West in Russia and China : Religious and Secular Thought in Modem Times, 2 vols. (Cambridge : Cambridge University Press, 1973), 1 : 131– 40Google Scholar; Billington, James H., The Icon and the Axe : An Interpretive History of Russian Culture (New York : Alfred A. Knopf, 1968), pp. 271–76Google Scholar; and Judith Cohen Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society and the Catholic Church,” Canadian Slavic Studies, 5, no. 1 (Spring 1971) : 35-50. For Maistre's close relationship with the Jesuits, see Rouët de Journal, Un collège Jésuites, pp. 135-60. Maistre's evaluation of Siestrzencewicz is found in O.C., 8 : 509.

23. N. A. Tolstoi served as grand marshal of the court, while his brother was the military governor of St. Petersburg (1803-5) and subsequently the Russian ambassador to Paris (1807-8). Both Tolstois were conservative and anti-Napoleon, and N. A. Tolstoi vigorously opposed Alexander's “young friends.” For a general discussion, see Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, pp. 291-92; and Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 590. Despite N. A. Tolstoi's opposition to the group surrounding the throne, he and Alexander remained close : Bychkov, I. A., ed., “Aleksandr I i ego priblizhennye do epokhi Speranskogo,” Russkaia starina, 113, no. 2 (February 1903) : 220 Google Scholar. On N. A. Tolstoi's role in the anti-Speranskii movement, see Bychkov, I. A., ed., “Deiateli i uchastniki v padenii Speranskogo,” Russkaia starina, 109, no. 3 (March 1902) : 496–97 Google Scholar; and Fatéev, Ar., “La disgrâce d'un Hόmme d'etat (a l'occasion du centenaire de la morte de Speransky en 1839),” Zapiski russkogo nauchnoissledovatel'skogo ob“edineniia v Prage, 10, no. 72 (1940) (Old Series vol. 15), pp. 33-73Google Scholar.

24. Razumovskii, a friend and supporter of Saint-Martin, served as minister of public; instruction from 1810 to 1816. Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, p. 248. On Maistre's acquaintance, see O.C., 11 : 493.

25. Both Kochubei and the son of Stroganov, Pavel, were among Alexander's close advisers during the early years of the reign, giving Maistre a narrow foothold in that quarter. See Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 590. The old Count Stroganov, however, remained ardently old Russian. In a letter describing the funeral of the count, Maistre told of a meal Stroganov had with Alexander during which the former boasted of the cathedral, Our Lady of Kazan', built by a Russian. He concluded : “Finally, Sire, we have no need of talented foreigners; we possess everything.” The emperor responded, “That being the case, pass me the Madeira wine” ( Maistre, Joseph de, Correspondance diplomatique, 1811-1817, ed. Albert Blanc, vol. 1 [Paris, 1860], p. 36 Google Scholar).

26. Golitsyn, over-procurator of the Holy Synod and later minister of spiritual affairs and public instruction (1816-24), sought advice from Maistre and prompted him to express himself on Russia's domestic situation. Maistre, Joseph de, Les cornets du comte Joseph de Maistre. Livre journal, 1790-1817 (Paris, 1923), p. 193 Google Scholar. On the relationship of Maistre and Golitsyn, see Vermale, “Joseph de Maistre émigré,” pp. 166-67.

27. Golovin was the host at one of the most active salons of Nevsky Prospect (Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, pp. 302-3). Maistre also resided for a time at the Hόme of Golovin (O.C., 11 : 416).

28. Chichagov, minister of the navy, appears to be the only close friend of Maistre who was not consistently hostile to both Napoleonic France and atheism. The two men disagreed over politics and religion, but retained great affection for one another (Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 590-91).

29. Those attending the Jesuit school included children from the following families : Kochubei, Viazemskii, Tolstoi, Golitsyn, Stroganov (ibid., p. 596). In a letter on September 10, 1810, Maistre discussed the support given the Jesuit institution by Count N. N. Golovin, Prince A. N. Golitsyn, Count A. K. Razumovskii, and Count F. V. Rostopchin (O.C., 11 : 493). Many of these same families had members, particularly women, who had converted to Roman Catholicism. See Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, pp. 298-306; and Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 606-8. Also see Berti, Rossiia i ital'ianskie gosudarstva, pp. 254-55; and Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, p. 225.

30. PSZ, vol. 31, no. 24, 698 (June 1811), pp. 771-76 :

31. “Aleksandr Semenovich Shishkov i dve vsepoddanneishiia ego zapiski,” Russkaia starina, 87, no. 9 (September 1896) : 575. Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 598.

32. My comments on this relationship are based upon Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 677-712, especially pp. 677-81. This article translates and reproduces the correspondence in Russian and contains an excellent introduction.

33. Ibid., p. 680.

34. Ibid., p. 681.

35. Albert Vandal, ed., “La cour en Russie en 1807-1808 : Notes sur la cour de Russie et Saint-Pétersbourg, écrites en décembre 1807 par le general Savary,” Revue d'histoire diplomatique, 4 (1890) : 400.

36. A. A. Vasil'chikov, Semeisivo Rasumovskii, 5 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1880-87), 2 : 69.

37. Vandal, “La cour en Russie,” pp. 403-11; and Vermale, “Joseph de Maistre émigré,” p. 165.

38. Indications that Maistre realized his correspondence was being read are found in O.C., 10 : 24, 133, 254, 454; and 11 : 431-32. Two examples, among many, of Maistre's praise for Alexander will suffice : Alexander had a “just spirit, excellent heart, and elevated ideas” (October 22, 1804) (O.C., 9 : 246); and Alexander was the “Godfrey of the new crusade” (August 29/September 10, 1805) (O.C., 9 : 464).

39. The exchange of letters between Alexander and Maistre is found in O.C., l : xx-xxii; see also Maistre, Carnets, p. 167.

40. One of the most curious episodes in Maistre's career in Russia occurred in the spring of 1812, when he was chosen by Alexander to edit imperial papers and draft a manifesto announcing the restoration of Poland. See Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 602-3, 652. It appears that Alexander wished to gain the support of Catholic nobles in Poland in the imminent conflict with France. With the rapid advance of Napoleon, the scheme collapsed, and Maistre lost his favored position.

41. Quoted in Latreille, “Joseph de Maistre,” p. 341.

42. O.C., 1 : 235; see aso O.C., 11 : 386-87. The essay was not published in St. Petersburg because, according to Maistre, he could count on only “ISO buyers, of wHόm only six would read it, and only two would understand it” (O.C., 12 : 475). Nonetheless, the work was later printed in the Russian capital (in 1814); the title page of this rare edition is reproduced in Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 641.

43. On Razumovskii's desire to know Maistre's views on education, see O.C., 8 : 161.

44. See note 2 for the citations of Maistre's works. Inasmuch as the themes of Maistre are repeated throughout the four works, they have been taken as a whole; no attempt has been made to analyze each separately.

45. O.C., 8 : 288.

46. Ibid., pp. 168-69, 284-85.

47. Ibid., p. 284.

48. Ibid., pp. 163-89.

49. Ibid., pp. 163-64.

50. Ibid., pp. 297-98, 310-13. These views are found in Maistre's more celebrated Qttatre chapitres sur la Russie.

51. O.C., 8 : 344.

52. Ibid., p. 291.

53. Ibid., p. 167.

54. Ibid., pp. 166-67, 169, 174, 307-8.

55. Ibid., pp. 298-300, 304-5. In Maistre's symbolic shorthand, Greece represented the scientific, Rome the literary aspects of the ancient world. Such a generalization is, of course, most difficult to defend on either count.

56. Ibid., pp. 168-72, 187-89, 307 (emphasis in the original).

57. Ibid., p. 16S.

58. See Maistre's description of the classical curriculum (ibid., pp. 175-79).

59. Ibid., pp. 182-85. The reasons for Maistre's recommendation that these subjects be eliminated are instructive : natural history—useless, an elementary dictionary is sufficient; history—should never be a subject in the curriculum or require a teacher, for no area of literature is more infected; chemistry—has no place in a general education program; astronomy— an almanac would suffice; physics, origins of the world—Genesis is enough; epistemology and psychology—simply an introduction to materialism; man and society—the student need only know : (a) God has created man for society, (b) society renders government necessary, and (c) obedience, faithfulness, and duty are owed by man to the state; Greek —useless and not enough time allowed for mastery.

60. Ibid., pp. 175, 179, 186-87, 300-303, 320.

61. Maistre questioned Fessler's qualifications as a teacher not only because of his dubious moral qualities and mysticism, but also because he mixed Platonism and Kantianism with Christianity. Maistre argued further that the course of study proposed at Alexander Nevsky Seminary was so broad “that Professor Fessler is either an angel or a charlatan” (see Maistre's Observations sur le Prospectus Disciplinarum, ibid., pp. 233-65).

62. Ibid., p. 190.

63. Ibid., pp. 165, 171, 190-93, 195-96, 270-71.

64. Ibid., p. 166. Maistre ignored the local priests’ social and political function of keeping statistics on births, deaths, and marriages.

65. Ibid., pp. 198-222.

66. Ibid., p. 320.

67. Ibid., pp. 198-203. Included in the list are Bacon, Grotius, Henry IV, Richelieu, Descartes, Louis XIV, Saint-Simon, Condé, Frederick II, Catherine II, Paul I, Dumouriez, Lalande, Francois de Sales, and Fénelon. Once again, Maistre used ideological enemies as well as friends to substantiate his arguments.

68. Ibid., pp. 203-6.

69. Ibid., pp. 223-24. According to Brumanis, Aux origines de la hierarchie latine en Russie, p. 336, no proof exists that Metropolitan Siestrzencewicz also worked for the expulsion of the Jesuits from Russia. See Boudou, Le Saint-Siége et la Russie, p. 122. For a summary of the policy of Catherine II and Paul, see Treadgold, The West in Russia and China, 1 : 131-36.

70. O.C., 8 : 215-17.

71. Ibid., p. 272.

72. Maistre divided illuminism into three groups : (a) Freemasons, (b) Martinists and Pietists, and (c) Protestants. See part 4 of his Quatre chapitres, ibid., pp. 325—45. The first two varieties of illuminism were not overly dangerous to either the church or the state.

73. Ibid., pp. 315-16. According to a woman friend of Maistre, the Protestant clergyhad another bond, shared with the Russian priesthood : “The Russian and Protestant clergy are in accord on two great points of dogma : the love of women and the hatred of the Pope” (ibid., pp. 314-15).

74. Ibid., pp. 317-18, 333-36.

75. Ibid., pp. 224-25, 267-68. On July 18, 1803, a Roman Catholic seminary under the control of Vilnius University had been established at Polotsk (PSZ, vol. 27, no. 20, 853, pp. 782-83).

76. O.C., 8 : 229.

77. Ibid., pp. 273-74.

78. Maistre discussed these and other points in his conclusion to Quatre chapitres, ibid., pp. 355-60. He defined this part of the work as “Conservative maxims for Russia.“

79. O.C., 11 : 521-23; and Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, p. 251.

80. O.C., 8 : 161.

81. Vasil'chikov, Setneistvo Razumovskii, 2 : 70-74. The deleted subjects were transferred to the Pedagogical Institute. According to this history of the Razumovskii family, the minister was completely under the influence of Maistre (ibid., p. 103). The general curriculum in the Lycée included Russian language, rhetoric, physical sciences, and mathematics. Maistre did not realize his maximum goals concerning the curriculum of the Lycée, as the physical sciences were retained (see Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, pp. 227-28).

82. The fall of Speranskii has been a topic of considerable interest for historians. The bibliography in Raeff, Michael Speransky, pp. 202-3 is excellent. Maistre opposed the “innovator” and believed that part of Speranskii's problem came from being the son of a priest, “the lowest class of free men” (O.C., 12 : 39-40).

83. Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 598-99; Henri, Lutteroth, La Russie et les Jésuites de 1772 a 1820 (Paris, 1845), p. 14 Google Scholar; and Zhurnal komiteta ministrov, vol. 2 (St. Petersburg, 1891), pp. 257-58.

84. Maistre, Cornets, p. 193; and Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, p. 254. The work is dated September 16/28, 1811 by Maistre ﹛O.C., 8 : 275). The author gave the piece to Golitsyn on October 6, 1811. Also see Maistre's discussion of the Mémoire in Maistre, Correspondance diplomatique, vol. 1, pp. 33-45.

85. Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” pp. 599-600.

86. See letter to King Victor Emmanuel, dated February 2/14, 1812 (O.C., 12 : 80-81). This letter is also included in Maistre, Correspondance diplomatique, vol. 1, p. 49.

87. O.C., 12 : 81; and Maistre, Correspondance diplomatique, vol. 1, pp. 49-50. George, Cogordan, Joseph de Maistre (Paris, 1894), p. 88 Google Scholar, writes that Quatre chapitres “is the most ardent, the most complete, and, at the same time, the most biting diatribe which he could write against the modern spirit.” Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 602, states that the two Russians most in agreement with the ideas expressed in this work were N. M. Karamzin and Admiral A. S. Shishkov.

88. PSZ, vol. 32, no. 25, 019 (March 1, 1812), pp. 208-10. In a letter of June 22/July 3, 1812, Maistre noted the elevation of the Polotsk Seminary to an academy. In the same letter, he mentioned the Russian retreat before the French, a development which rendered helpless Maistre's efforts for a pro-Russian, Roman Catholic Poland (Maistre, Correspondence diplomatique, vol. 1, pp. 107-8).

89. Maistre, Correspondance diplomatique, vol. 1, pp. 49-50.

90. Quoted in Lutteroth, La Russie et les Jésuites, p. 17. Also see Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, p. 308; and Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 612. A description of the inauguration ceremony is found in Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, pp. 262-64. Cogordan, Joseph de Maistre, p. 86, discussing the academy at Polotsk, writes : “Nothing shows more than this the extraordinary influence of Joseph de Maistre in St. Petersburg.“

91. PSZ, vol. 33, no. 26, 032 (December 20, 1815), pp. 408-9, and vol. 37, no. 28, 198 (March 13, 1820), pp. 113-19. Maistre, in a letter dated December 24, 1815, discussed the expulsion of the Jesuits from St. Petersburg (O.C., 13 : 205-15; see also Maistre, Correspondance diplomatique, vol. 1, pp. 156-61).

92. The issue of Russian converts to Roman Catholicism became a matter of personal vengeance for Prince Golitsyn, whose nephew confessed the Western faith on Christmas Day, 1814. Maistre clearly foresaw disaster ﹛O.C., 13 : 79-80, 384; see also Triomphe, Joseph de Maistre, p. 306; Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 608; and Brumanis, Aux origines de la hierarchie latine en Russie, p. 336). Turgenev argued that the wretched conditions of Roman Catholic students and peasants in Poland served as the reason for the expulsion (O.C., 13 : 611-12). The expulsion of the Jesuits was the result of a much more complex chain of events than Shishkov's explanation revealed. The victory over Napoleon had resulted in a surge of national pride and a return to native values. See Alston, Education and the State, p. 29; and Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, p. 228. The rising pietism of Emperor Alexander, reflected most clearly in the establishment of the Bible Society (December 6, 1812) which was encouraged by Metropolitan Siestrzencewicz but given only lukewarm cooperation by the Jesuits, was another reason for the expulsion. See Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society,” pp. 35-50; Treadgold, The West in Russia and China, 1 : 144; Boudou, Le Saint-Siége et la Russie, p. 122; Rouët de Journal, Un collège Jésuites, pp. 199-202; and Billington, Icon and the Axe, pp. 276-90. Perhaps the crucial factor was the reestablishment of the Jesuit order by Pius VII in 1814. See James T., Flynn, “The Role of the Jesuits in the Politics of Russian Education, 1801-1820,” Catholic Historical Review, 56, no. 2 (July 1970) : 249–51 Google Scholar.

93. Arkhiv kniazia Vorontsova, 40 vols. (Moscow, 1870-95), 23 : 358 and 372. Vasil'- chikov, Semeistvo Rasumovskii, 2 : 68, identifies Maistre as one of the most active “apostles of Latin propaganda.“

94. Maistre profusely denied any part in Roman Catholic conversion efforts in Russia (O.C., 13 : 212 and 384; and Maistre, Camets, p. 200). His protestations are not convincing in light of two works published on this topic : “A une dame protestante, sur la maxime qu'un honnête Hόmme ne change jamais de religion” and “A une dame russe sur la nature et les effets du schisme et sur l'unité catholique” ﹛O.C., 8 : 129-57). These letters, published posthumously in Maistre's collected works, were written in 1809 and 1810 and addressed to Princess Anna Ivanovna Tolstaia (nee Bariatinskaia), the wife of Count Nikolai Tolstoi. See Rouët de Journal, Un collège Jéstates, p. 221, n. 1.

95. O.C., 14 : 182; and Maistre, Camets, p. 201. For an ardent defense of both the Jesuits and Maistre in this matter, see Bliard, P, “L'Empereur Alexandre, les Jésuites et Joseph de * Maistre, d'apres de documents inédits,” Etudes, 130 (1912) : 234–44Google Scholar. It is ironic that Maistre, who had helped to formulate an anti-Western ideology for the conservative group in Russia, fell, at least in part, because of that ideology.

96. Stepanov, “Zhozef de Mestr v Rossii,” p. 615, touches upon the likelihood of Maistre having influence beyond immediate policy decisions. Other authors, such as Latreille and Triomphe, regard Maistre as influential only during certain periods—1811 to 1812—or in specific decisions—the Polotsk Academy. Latreille, “Joseph de Maistre,” p. 344, concludes that Maistre was a complete failure in Russia. Berti, Rossiia i ital'ianskie gosudarstva, p. 257, writes that Maistre's works served only as a stimulus to Alexander, who was already a reactionary.

97. For a general view of the “watering down” of the educational reforms of Alexander from 1811 to 1815, see Flynn, “The Universities, the Gentry, and the Russian Imperial Services,” pp. 498-503.

98. A., Voronov, Istoriko-statisticheskoe obosrenie uchebnykh zavedenii s. peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga s 1715 po 1828 god vkliuchitel'no (St. Petersburg, 1849), pp. 128–29Google Scholar; Materialy dlia istorii i statistiki nashikh gimnazii (St. Petersburg, 1864), p. 13; Sbornik rasporiazhenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1866), columns 184-86; and Sbornik postanovlenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia, vol. 1 (St. Petersburg, 1864), columns 663-64, 672-73, 681.

99. Sbornik rasporiazhenii, vol. 1, column 223, nos. 95 and 96.

100. PSZ, vol. 34, no. 27, 106 (October 24, 1817), pp. 814-34.

101. Ibid., p. 814.

102. Sbornik rasporiazhenii, vol. 1, columns 385-89.

103. Sbornik postanovlenii, vol. 1, columns 1199-1220.

104. Ibid., column 1203. On the impact of Magnitskii, see Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, pp. 233-34; and Johnson, Russia's Educational Heritage, pp. 79-81. Also consult James T., Flynn, “Magnitskii's Purge of Kazan University : A Case Study in the Uses of Reaction in Nineteenth-Century Russia,” Journal of Modern History, 43, no. 4 (December 1971) : 598–614 Google Scholar.

105. PSZ, vol. 39, no. 29, 914 (May 15, 1824), p. 319. The reversion to the earlier form of church and school administration also signaled the political fall of the mystical Prince Golitsyn. Although he remained a close friend of the emperor, Golitsyn's direct involvement in government affairs came to an end. Golitsyn's vehicle for mixing religion and politics, the Bible Society, was also losing influence and would soon vanish in Russia. See Judith Cohen Zacek, “The Russian Bible Society and the Russian Orthodox Church,” Church History, 35, no. 4 (December 1966) : 431-33.

106. Sbornik rasporiashenii, vol. 1, column 535.

107. S. V. Rozhdestvenskii, ed., Istoricheskii obzor deiatel'nosti ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia, 1802-1902 (St. Petersburg, 1902), p. 166.

108. Ibid.

109. For a discussion of Shishkov's program, see Sbornik rasporiazhenii, vol. 1, column 535.

110. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor, pp. 179-80; and PSZ, 2nd ser., vol. 1, no. 338 (May 14, 1826).

111. PSZ, 2nd ser., vol. 2, no. 1308 (August 19, 1827), p. 676.

112. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor, p. 168. Shishkov apparently paid little attention to the official statement and lived for thirteen more years.

113. Ibid., pp. 168-70.

114. A. Voronov, Istorichesko-statisticheskoe obosrenie uchebnykh savedenii s. peterburgskogo uchebnogo okruga s 1829 po 1853 god (St. Petersburg, 1854), pp. 2-3.

115. PSZ, 2nd ser., vol. 3, no. 2502 (December 8, 1828), pp. 1097-1127.

116. Ibid., pp. 1099, 1103, 1110.

117. Ibid., pp. 1104-5, 1111.

118. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor, pp. 202-22.

119. These five men in turn held the office of minister of public instruction from 1810 to 1848. Of the five, only Liven remained outside Maistre's intellectual circle. Liven's brother, however, became a close friend of Maistre, who wrote in 1810 : “The house of Count Liven … is one of those where I have been treated the best, both by him and his wife“ (O.C., 11 : 410).