CC BY
37
UDC 94(47).07;94(47).08
Вестник СПбГУ. История. 2016. Вып. 3
T. V. Kostina, А. V. Kouprianov
GROWTH OR STAGNATION? HISTORICAL DYNAMICS OF THE GROWTH PATTERNS OF DORPAT UNIVERSITY (1803-1884)
The patterns of growth of the body of professors and instructors of the University of Dorpat from 1803 through 1884 are compared to that of the universities of Kazan and St. Petersburg. It is shown that Dorpat University (now: Tartu University, Estonia), having once taken a leading position within the imperial University system, lagged behind other universities by the mid-1880s. This lag was caused by a comparative decrease in growth rates of its faculty. An analysis of legislation and of the growth patterns by different categories of the faculty allows one to speculate on two groups of reasons for this growth anomaly. First, the ministerial policy seemingly put limitations on the growth of salaried faculty at Dorpat. Second, the patterns of growth rates of Privatdocenten suggest that there were considerable differences in their status across different universities. While at Kazan and St. Petesrburg, one may observe an explosive growth of the numbers of the Privatdocenten after they had been introduced in the 1860s, at Dorpat, the Privatdocenten failed not only to outnumber the salaried faculty, but even to comprise a more or less considerable fraction of the body of professors and instructors, even though they were present from as early as 1805. The reasons for this difference, it seems, are to be sought in the peculiarities of local academic cultures. Refs 47.
Keywords: Dorpat University, Kazan University, quantitative history, Ministry of education, education policy, Professors, Privatdocenten, Russian Empire, St. Petersburg University, University statutes, 19th century.
Т. В. Костина, А. В. Куприянов
РОСТ ИЛИ ОТСТАВАНИЕ? ДИНАМИКА ЧИСЛЕННОСТИ
ПРЕПОДАВАТЕЛЬСКОГО СОСТАВА ДЕРПТСКОГО УНИВЕРСИТЕТА (1803-1884 гг.)*
В статье рассмотрена динамика численности профессорско-преподавательского состава Дерптского университета с начала XIX в. по 1884 г. сравнительно с таковой в Казанском и Петербургском университетах. Показано, что снижение темпов роста Дерптского университета привело к 1880-м годам к заметному отставанию от остальных университетов, причем отставание становится заметно еще до «русификации» Дерптского университета во второй половине 1880-х годов. Анализ динамики штатной и фактической численности позволяет высказать предположение о том, что на снижение темпов роста влияли как внешние (политика министерства, связанная с ограничением штатной численности), так и внутренние факторы
Kostina Tatiana Vladimirovna — PhD, Senior Researcher, St. Petersburg Branch of the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences, 1, Universitetskaia nab., 199034, St. Petersburg, Russian Fedеration; TanyaBiziaeva@yandex.ru
KouprianovAlexei Valerievich — PhD, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, National Research University Higher School of Economics (St. Petersburg), 16, Soiuza Pechatnikov, 190008, St. Petersburg, Russian Fedеration; alexei.kouprianov@gmail.com
Костина Татьяна Владимировна — кандидат исторических наук, старший научный сотрудник, Санкт-Петербургский филиал Архива Российской академии наук, Российская Федерация, 199034, Санкт-Петербург, Университетская наб., 14; TanyaBiziaeva@yandex.ru
Куприянов Алексей Валерьевич — кандидат биологических наук, доцент департамента социологии, Национальный исследовательский университет «Высшая школа экономики», Российская Федерация, 190008, Санкт-Петербург, ул. Союза Печатников, 16; alexei.kouprianov@gmail.com
* Исследование выполнено при финансовой поддержке РФФИ в рамках научного проекта № 15-06-04531 А и программы НИУ ВШЭ по софинансированию проектов РФФИ и РГНФ (грант № 15-09-0289).
This paper presents results of a research project supported by Russian Foundation for Basic Research (grant № 15-06-04531 A) and by RFBR/RFH matching funds program of the National Research University Higher School of Economics (grant № 15-09-0289).
© Санкт-Петербургский государственный университет, 2016
(статус приват-доцентов). В то время как в Казанском и Санкт-Петербургском университетах с 1860-х годов заметен стремительный рост численности приват-доцентов, в Дерпте (несмотря на то, что приват-доценты появляются там гораздо раньше, уже в 1805 г.) они так и не смогли составить ни большинства, ни даже сколько-нибудь заметной части профессорско-преподавательского корпуса. Библиогр. 47 назв.
Ключевые слова: Дерптский университет, Казанский университет, клиометрия, Министерство народного просвещения, образовательная политика, преподаватели, приват-доценты, профессора, Российская империя, Санкт-Петербургский университет, XIX век, университетские уставы.
Having entered the 19th century with a single small university in its ancient capital, Moscow, the Russian Empire stepped into the next one boasting ten universities with hundreds of professors and thousands of students. Towards the end of the 19th century, the ten universities in the Russian Empire were, in order of appearance: Moscow (established in 1755), Iur'ev, formerly Dorpat (1802), Kazan (1804), Kharkov (1804), St. Petersburg (1819), Alexander University in Helsingfors (Helsinki) (1829), St. Vladimir University in Kiev (1833), Novorussia University in Odessa (1864), Warsaw (1869) and Tomsk (1888). In the age of mass higher education, these numbers do not look impressive, but in the 19th century Russia, where higher education was reserved for few people, such dynamics can be seen as a considerable progress. Formation of a network of universities went hand in hand with the increase of the body of professors and instructors and changes in its structure. In this paper, we will discuss the growth patterns of the faculty and some of its underlying factors.
The development of the university system in general and the personnel policy in particular have been discussed in the works on the history of the Ministry of Education and on the history of universities. However, the analysis of literature reveals certain gaps in our knowledge, partly due to the specific "research optics", partly because of limitations of research methodology.
The history of university corporations before the 1970s was largely a history of self-description [Bizyaeva 2005, Vishlenkova, Dmitriev 2013]. Works on the history of universities were mostly created by and for professors, and usually appeared on the anniversary occasions [e. g., see: Shevyryov 1855, Grigoriev 1870, Zagoskin 1902-1904; Siilivask 1983]. The volume edited by Siilivask is of transitional character, as it pays much attention to the professoriate. Anniversary volumes were published later along with research works, however specialists do not draw upon the newest anniversary publications as often as upon the works listed above [about it also see: Dhondt 2014]. Such an approach reduced the description of the negative trends in the corporations to a minimum and shifted the focus to studying the relations between the body of professors and the Ministry of Education. S. V. Rozhdestvenskii's "History" may serve an example: created for the centenary of the Ministry, it is more of a report and, as a result, is progressivist in character [Rozh-destvenskii, 1902].
Later, historians began studying professoriate as a peculiar social and professional group [Leikina-Svirskaia 1971; Bulgakova 1983; Pavlova 1990; Ivanov 1991; Petrov 20022003; Niks 2008; Andreev 2009; Tamul 2009, and others]. This broadened the issue, bringing up the problems of personnel dynamics, but the progressivist character still prevailed. This fitted well with other progressivist themes like the advancement of science, growing demand for higher education among the population and with generally optimistic tone
of the majority of sources used (Ministry and University reports). As a result, "the grand narrative" was formed — a narrative of the unswerving growth and development of Russian universities in the course of their history, although not without some ebbs and flows in academic liberties.
The tasks set by the researchers becoming more complicated, the limitations of their methodology began to be felt more and more. Dealing with figures, scholars employed verbal descriptions of the accounted numbers, tables and charts for selected years and, occasionally, more complex diagrams. Attempts to study the complicated phenomena of the historical dynamics of the faculty by using tables or employing new ways of statistical data processing, can be found in the works of V. E. Tamul [Tamul 1988], E. A. Rostovtsev [Rostovtsev 2009], D. A. Barinov [Barinov 2012], L. A. Bushueva [Bushueva 2012]. These methods have a number of limitations. In the first place, the choice of specific years or periods for comparative analysis is usually based on rather arbitrary a priory decisions made by the authors, which, in the situation when the temporal dynamics is unknown, may bring misleading and hardly interpretable results. Furthermore, researchers tend to focus on the most dramatic moments of university history (mass dismissals or, on the contrary, mass hirings), missing out on much less spectacular mechanisms of routine rotation which are of no less importance for understanding personnel dynamics [Sh^etin^a 1976; Eimontova 1985; 1993; Vishlenkova 2003; Kostina 2012; Zhukovskaia 2013, and others].
The need for a more comprehensive view on the development of universities brings us to the problem of devising a toolkit to study the fine processes of faculty dynamics and to represent their objective side. The methods used in our work are based on the stepwise aggregation of unaggregated data on the faculty members' careers derived from matricu-lae and biographical dictionaries. This approach was tested in the works by E. Ivanova supervised by A. V. Kouprianov [Ivanova 2014; Ivanova 2015].
Striving to overcome the lopsidedness of "the grand narrative" we would like to draw attention to the processes less studied in the available historiography. A most notable fact that dissonates with the optimistic "grand narrative" was the diminishing significance of Dorpat University in the 1860s and 1870s. Re-established on paper in 1802 and opened in 1803, as a German-speaking university and Russia's nearest to the centers of the European Education, it did not experience serious problems with filling its departments even in its very first years. After the governmental funding rose in 1818, Dorpat became the most attractive university in the Russian Empire. By 1828, the gap between Dorpat University and others became so significant that the Professors' Institute (1828-1839) was founded within the former, where professors for other universities of the Russian empire were trained en masse. However, in the second half of the 19th century, Dorpat University was no longer considered to be superior to other Russian universities. For now, we would not like to judge whether the domination of the Dorpat University over other Russian universities ceased due to a decrease in research productivity or mostly due to the change in the direction of the political vector. We can only state the gradual diminishing of its influence. Senator V. Manassein, who inspected the Baltic provinces in 1882-1883, came to a conclusion that while in the early 19th century the Dorpat University had been the medium for scientific ideas between Russia and Western Europe, by his day it had lost its leading role and no longer provided professors for other universities [Siilivask 1983].
The reasons certainly lie in the situation of the day. Firstly, the university's development depended on the government funding (although by the resolution of December 12,
1802 Dorpat University was given 240 Livonian state-owned "Haken" (units of land unified for cadaster purposes), the economic committee of the university did not begin man aging them and had to confine itself to the revenue from the general budget). Secondly, the Ministry of Education pursued a policy of Russification — it did so carefully and slowly, but persistently. This could not but affect its development as a European university, involved in an extensive exchange with German Protestant universities [Tamul 1988]. It would be an oversimplification, however, to attribute the decline in the university's role to these two factors alone. It is clear that due to a certain degree of freedom in disposing funds and to the active role of university corporation the size of centralized governmental funding was not the only factor to determine the size of the faculty, the quality of education, and the level of academic achievements. The influence of Russification should not be overestimated either, as German remained the language of instruction (it was replaced with Russian only between 1889 and 1895).
We believe that the analysis of the dynamics of the faculty size in Dorpat University can deepen our understanding of the changes in the university between 1803 and 1884.
To do that, we will compare Dorpat University to St. Petersburg and Kazan universities. The corporations of these three universities were formed almost at the same time. The bulk of the Dorpat faculty was appointed in 1800-1803. [Siilivask 1983]. The body of professors and instructors of Kazan University began to take shape right after University's formal opening in 1804. During its first decade, however, Kazan University suffered deficit of faculty members to such an extent that only 1814 was solemnly celebrated as the date of its "full" opening. The St. Petersburg university was designed in 1803 and unveiled as the Pedagogical Institute; in 1816 it was reformed into the Main Pedagogical Institute and in 1819 into a university. Although the number of paid positions increased with these reforms, there was no revision accompanied by mass dismissals or mass hirings. Therefore, considering St. Petersburg University from 1819, the moment of its opening, we should take into account that its body of professors and instructors had been forming since 1803.
To solve the problem we have set, we created a database of the professors' and instructors' careers for the three universities covering the period from their foundation days through 18841. The bulk of the database was compiled on the basis of biographical dictionaries of professors and instructors and other sources characterizing the academic corporations [Biograficheskii slovar' professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Yurievsk-ogo, byvshego Derptskogo universiteta 1902-1903; Biograficheskii slovar' professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta 1904; Mikhailovskii 1901-1908; Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei istoriko-filologicheskogo fakulteta... 1916; Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei fiziko-matematicheskogo fakulteta. 1916; Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei iuridicheskogo fakulteta. 1916; Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei fakulteta vostochnykh yazykov... 1917; Setevoi Biograficheskii slovar' professorov i prepodavatelei Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta. 2012-2014].
1 The authors would like to express their gratitude to E. V. Ivanova and S. S. Prokhanova, students at the School of Social Sciences and Humanities, St. Petersburg campus of the National Research University "Higher School of Economics", who contributed to the database. The "upper" boundary of the time span under consideration here is defined by the General University Statute of 1884. The Statute abolished permanent positions for junior faculty (formerly known as Adjunct-Professors and Docents) which led to an explosive growth of the population of Privatdocenten.
A semi-automatic dataset processing tool written in R environment [R: A Language... 2015] was used to perform the necessary calculations and data visualization. Along with that, we studied the university bylaws and resolutions of the Ministry of Education to reveal the legal framework of the faculty structure, salaries, etc.
Let us first describe the dynamics of the the faculty numbers. The number of paid positions was specified in the University statutes and changed from time to time only by specific resolutions of the Ministry of Education. It was influenced by the generally accepted (European) ideas of the university structure, by the necessity to adapt this structure to the Russian environment, by the financial capacity of the Ministry of Education, etc. During the period in question, the faculty size was seemingly independent on the number of students (which was small), it was mostly influenced by the ideas on which academic disciplines are necessary to be taught.
It is important to remember that universities were different in structure not only in terms of the exact number of teaching positions specified in the statute but also in terms of the number of departments or faculties that united them. In Dorpat University, there were four departments in 1803: theology, law, medicine and philosophy; the same structure remained by the Statute of 1820. The Statute of 1865 divided the philosophical faculty into the faculty of history and philology and the faculty of physics and mathematics. The number of faculties thus increased to five.
Since its foundation in 1804, Kazan Unversity had four departments, or faculties: Moral and Political, Physical and Mathematical, Medical, and Literary. By the General Statute of 1835 they were reformed into three faculties: Philosophy (with a literary division and a division for physics and mathematics), Law (the former Moral and Political department), and Medicine. In 1863, the faculty of Philosophy was divided into two separate faculties: History and Philology and Physics and Mathematics.
St. Petersburg University, into which the Main Pedagogical Institute was reformed in 1819, initially consisted of three departments, or faculties: Philosophy and Law; Physics and Mathematics; History and Literature. By the Statute of 1835, St. Petersburg University, unlike that of Kazan, did not have a medical faculty. In 1854, the Oriental "order", which later became an independent faculty by the Statute of 1863, was transferred from Kazan to St. Petersburg. Thus, St. Petersburg university equaled Kazan in the number of faculties (both had four by this time), however, the Oriental faculty took the place of the Medical.
Faculties and departments had a different number of paid positions specified in the Statutes and the resolutions of the Ministry of Education. The number of teaching positions of Dorpat University was steadily growing during the period in question from 34 to 61, only once decreasing by one when the chair of architecture was abolished on December 7, 1848 (fig. 1)2.
2 The category of professors includes both ordinary and extraordinary professors as well as professors of theology. Adjunct-Professors, Docents and Lecturers, as well as Privatdocenten are all termed 'instructors.' Vertical lines in the figures show the years when the most important documents regulating the number of paid positions were approved: the Statute of 1803 for Dorpat University, exemplary budget of August 17, 1817, "On Additional Faculty and Staff Positions of Dorpat University" 1842, exemplary budget of 1865; for other universities — Kazan University budget of 1804; St. Petersburg, Moscow, Kharkov and Kazan Imperial Russian Universities exemplary budget of 1835, Emperor's Russian Universities' exemplary budget of 1863, Temporary budget of the Russian Universities that are subject to the General Statute of 1884. Milestone dates for Dorpat University are marked with solid lines, for Kazan and St. Petersburg beginning from 1835 on with dashed lines, for St. Petersburg before 1835 with dotted lines.
Fig. 1. Number of paid teaching positions at Dorpat, Kazan, and St. Petersburg universities (1803-1884), according to University bylaws. See footnote 2 for more details on the vertical lines.
The Statute of 1835 formally provided Kazan University with the same number of new chairs as the Statute of Dorpat University of 1842. In both cases, the number of positions increased by 7 (from 45 to 52 in Kazan and from 37 to 44 in Dorpat). The faculty of St. Petersburg University, which was now subject to the General University Statute, increased considerably, from 22 to 40 positions3. It made the metropolitan university, though smaller by the number of faculties, closer to that of Dorpat. The number of faculty positions of Kazan and St. Petersburg Universities increased gradually in the period when the ministry was headed by S. S. Uvarov (1833-1849) due to the development of Asian studies. Three chairs: for Chinese, Armenian, and Sanskrit were established in Kazan university on May 11, 1837, on March 22, 1839 and on August 27, 1842 respectively. On July 24, 1844, St. Petersburg university introduced three new positions for lecturers in Asian languages, which were legally given the privileges of Adjunct Professors. With the transfer of the Oriental "order" on October 22, 1854 from Kazan to St. Petersburg both these universities left Dorpat University behind in terms of the number of paid positions specified in the statute.
These changes were not accidental but apparently resulted from the implementation of Uvarov's strategy. In his note, drawn up as a report on the project of the General Statute prepared under his predecessor K. A. Liven, he wrote: "In order not to stop the establishment of the University exemplary budgets for the extraordinary sums needed for them, let this begin as follows. A) Begin reforming St. Petersburg and Moscow Universities immediately, granting them budgets like that of Dorpat; В) Allot other universities, i. e. Kharkov and Kazan (their reformation could be postponed for some time), budgets
3 The Statute of Moscow University was applied to St. Petersburg University by the resolution of the Ministry of Education of January 4, 1824 "On applying the statute of Moscow University to St. Petersburg University as an instruction", however, it did not influence its staff structure.
equal to each other but inferior to that of St. Petersburg and Moscow Universities. There is no doubt that the yearly salary of 3,500 r[ubles] in Kharkov and Kazan almost exceeds that of 5,500 r[ubles] in the capitals. Such a proposal, given effect to, would, in my opinion, provide Ministry of Education with means and time to reform the two major educational institutions in the first place." As a German-language university, Dorpat does not seem to have been of the first concern in the plan of reforming the national education and science.
By the General Statute of 1863, the new standardized budget gave Russian universities even greater opportunities. With the funds available, St. Petersburg University could now employ 83 and Kazan University 95 professors and instructors (before that they could employ 55 each). The number of positions specified in the Statute of Dorpat University increased only two years later and not so considerably: from 44 to 56.
Our study thus shows a gradual but considerable lagging in the nominal faculty size growth rate at Dorpat University in comparison to Kazan and St. Petersburg Universities, while in an isolated study the changes would be almost unnoticeable. Data visualization makes the processes more vivid by showing why and how St. Petersburg University "overtook" Dorpat in faculty size. It happened with the transfer of the Oriental "order" from Kazan University to St. Petersburg. However, even after it was transformed into an independent faculty, St. Petersburg did not catch up with Dorpat in the number of faculties. They were still four while Dorpat consisted of five.
The number of teaching positions (Ordinary, Extraordinary, and Adjunct professors, lecturers, etc.) specified in the statutes, defined the horizon of the University's developmental potential, however, for various reasons, the realization of this potential was never complete. In the 1863 Statute, the correspondence between the structure of chairs and the pool of paid professorial positions became less rigid. The right to occupy a chair was granted not only to the Ordinary Professors but to the Extraordinary Professors and even to 'Docents' (the latter status was introduced to replace that of an Adjunct-Professor) provided that such an appointment would last no longer than three years. Allotting the universities a certain number of positions of professors and docents, the Statute allowed to hire more "according to the needs and means of the University" [Sbornik postanovlenii... ed. 2, vol. 3, 1876, par. 1046]. Thus, giving effect to the 1863 Statute made the filling the chairs largely dependent on the "economic sums" of the universities, i. e. the the unspent remains of centralized governmental funding, which universities were allowed to use at their discretion.
Looking at the curves depicting the real, not nominal faculty size (fig. 2), it should be noted that the implementation of university statutes did not immediately follow their publication. The revision of the Kazan and St. Petersburg universities was finished in 1837, and the 1835 university statute was implemented only on July 1, 1837. Thus, small declines after the publication dates of the University statutes, where they are noticeable, can be explained by the inadequacy of some of the faculty members to suit the new requirements, it being impossible to quickly compensate their dismissal.
The curve of the real faculty size at Dorpat University is more stable than those for the other Russian universities. The decreases in the numbers due to dismissals were mostly compensated within one or two years. This corresponds to how the members of the corporation felt about the situation. In the early 1870s, the commission of professors held a meeting to discuss the needs of the university and admitted that "Dorpat University was in a better position than the other universities of the empire with only four faculties. It
Fig. 2. The number of professors and instructors at Dorpat, Kazan, and St. Petersburg Universities (1803-1884). See footnote 2 on page 35 for a legend for vertical lines.
can fill in all its five departments with capable and decent academics" [Sbornik postanov-lenii... ed. 1, vol. 6, 1878, par. 416].
Spikes and valleys typical of the numbers for St. Petersburg and Kazan universities demonstrate, in the least, problems with staff recruitment. The largest variations in dynamics at Kazan University have been already discussed in the literature. The sharp drop of the numbers from 1819 to 1821 must have stemmed from the dismissals by the trustee M. L. Magnitskii. However, the visualization also shows a burst in numbers following these dismissals. Moreover, even before Magnitskii was discharged from his position (1826), the staff number had surpassed the peak of 1817, experienced prior to the "rout". It agrees with E. A. Vishlenkova's idea of Magnitskii's support of young academics [Vishlenkova 2002]. In St. Petersburg, a similar, but slightly lesser drop was connected with the dismissals by D. P. Runich in 1822 [Zhukovskaia 2002]. However, the professorial population there was also quickly restored.
The fast growth of the faculty size before 1835 in St. Petersburg and before 1837 in Kazan resulted from S. S. Uvarov's measures aimed at the facilitation of faculty rotation. As this was done instantaneously in the middle of the year with the implementation of the university Statute of 1835 the algorithm counted (which is reflected in the diagram) the professors dismissed as well as those recruited [for more details see: Kostina 2012]. The changes in the faculty size caused by the transfer of the Oriental "order" from Kazan University to St. Petersburg have already been characterized above. Finally, on December 20, 1861 St. Petersburg University was closed because of the disorders and all lecturers were dismissed. As early as on January 25, 1862 it was decided to continue paying them their salary to keep them active at the university, except for teaching. Notwithstanding that formally the number of lecturers dropped to zero we have not reflected this gap in the diagram, counting only dismissals and hirings not synchronized with the closure and
re-opening. The considerable drop of the curve shows, however, that the disorders of the early 1860s took their toll. Instruction resumed only with the publishing of the new Statute of June 18, 1863.
Before 1863, the number of professors and lecturers at Dorpat University fluctuated within the same range as in St. Petersburg and remained lower than in Kazan (both universities having fewer faculties than Dorpat). The earlier period, when Kazan University was struggling to recruit professors, was an exception [for more details see: Kostina 2010]. However, the most serious changes are noticeable in the dynamics of the staff numbers at St. Petersburg and Kazan Universities after 1863. During these years, a considerable lagging of Dorpat University behind Kazan and St. Petersburg becomes conspicuous.
The cause of these changes lies in the development of the institute of Privatdocenten. The role of Privatdocenten in shaping the overall dynamics of the faculty numbers at Dor-pat, Kazan, and St. Petersburg Universities is shown in fig. 3.
"Private instructors" hired beyond the rigid framework of positions prescribed in the University Statute came to work at Dorpat University at a relatively early stage (see fig. 3, а). Employed on July 23, 1805, K. F. Struve became the first of them, and in the brochure published for the 25th anniversary of Dorpat University, printed in German, already eight Privatdocenten were listed, who had worked in this university before 1825. Anybody familiar with the history of Russian universities might be perplexed. It is supposedly well known that Privatdocenten appeared in Russia only after 1842; in the earlier legislative regulations for Dorpat University, only "those who received a degree" and "chastnye prep-odavateli" ("private instructors") are mentioned [Sbornik postanovlenii. ed. 2, vol. 1, 1875, par. 1400; vol. 2, pt. 2, 1876, col. 336, 342]. However, we have found out that already as early as after 1820 German publications identified instructors of this category as Privatdocenten referring to § 81 of the university Statute of 1820 [Die kaiserliche Universitat... 1827, pp. xvi, xxvii], which stated: "The University Council has a right to recommend anybody of those having a degree to be allowed to lecture on disciplines, belonging to any Department or class, and to pay them a yearly wage, corresponding to their diligence and zeal that should not exceed 1000 rubles. Withal he, who can offer such lectures, requires a newly written thesis pro venia legendi to defend in public, in addition to his thesis for which he received his degree" [Sbornik postanovlenii. ed. 2, vol. 1, par. 1251-1310]. However, even though Privatdocenten appeared at Dorpat quite early, they never made up more than one third of all faculty, and in the 1860s and 1870s they accounted for an even smaller proportion than in the 1840s and 1850s.
Besides Privatdocenten, the resolutions of July 8, 1839 at Dorpat and on June 28, 1843 at Kazan and St. Petersburg universities allowed for the employment of "fixed position" Docents, which replaced Adjunct-Professors in the University Statute after 1863. This, however, did not live up to the hopes of the Ministry of Education, which had expected them to become a considerable reserve force for filling the professorial positions: docents as well as Privatdocenten were very few in the universities before 1863 [Sbornik postanovlenii., ed. 2, vol. 2, pt. 1, 1875, col. 1527-1531; pt. 2, 1876, col. 405-408]. Probably, having docents in mind but confusing the notions, V. Afanasyev wrote in a biographical article on A. Böttcher: "About that time (the mid-1850s. — A. K. and T. K.) it was noticed that the number of docents at Dorpat was decreasing and therefore it was imperially ordered to send young people abroad for completing their education" [Biograficheskii slovar' professorov. Yurievskogo. vol. 2, 1903, p. 97].
Fig. 3. Actual number of university professors and lecturers: a — Dorpat, b — Kazan, c — St. Petersburg. Solid line shows the number of all professors and lecturers, dotted line shows the numbers without Privatdocenten. See footnote 2 on page 35 for a legend for vertical lines.
It might be supposed that the easiness of recruiting of academics on an international academic market, mostly from German universities resulted in a more relaxed attitude towards preparing their own homegrown professors from Privatdocenten at Dorpat. A prospect to obtain a permanent position may have been an important motivation for a do-cent or a Privatdocent at the university. The probability of such a promotion seems to have been low in Dorpat. The autumn 1875 proceedings of the Commission for the revision of the General Statute of Russian universities state: "The number of docents in Dorpat University is insignificant comparing to other universities (ten for all the departments) and the positions are somewhat different. Docents are not invited for department sessions, they do not conduct examinations and, as many professors have said, are not considered and do not consider themselves to be indisputable candidates for professorship" [Materi-aly, sobrannye Otdelom Komissii... 1876, par. 3, p. 11].
The situation in the two other universities was radically different4. In Kazan University, Privatdocenten appeared with the publication of the 1863 Statute (fig. 3, b). Later on, their proportion rose sharply, and by the end of the 1860s their absolute number had surpassed the number of Privatdocenten of Dorpat University. The dynamics at St. Petersburg University is even more impressive (fig. 3, c). The number of Privatdocenten had been rising steadily from late 1850s until 1884, after which their growth became "explosive".
The numbers of Privatdocenten might be supposed to have correlated with the numbers of students. Such a correlation is examined at length in the paper by E. A. Rostovt-sev and D. A. Barinov who have studied the materials from St. Petersburg University of 1884-1916 [Rostovtsev, Barinov 2012]. However, although such a correlation did take place at some universities in some periods, comparison of different universities shows that the increase in the student numbers alone did not guarantee a certain number of Privat-docenten. For example, in 1880, the total number of students was 1675 at St. Petersburg University, 794 at Kazan and 1073 at Dorpat [Milyukov 1902, p. 799; Ivanova 2015]. The causes of growth of the population of Privatdocenten require further research. We shall only note that an attempt to explain it with the growth of student population alone would lead to unjustified simplifications.
Estimating the growth of the real faculty numbers at Dorpat University on the whole, it can be stressed that, as with the nominal faculty size, it demonstrates certain increase in the period in question, although the growth rate largely slows down after the implementation of the 1865 Statute. In an isolated study, it would fit in with the progressivist scenario of the university history. However, a serious, even catastrophic lagging becomes obvious through a comparison to the other universities. It is clear that Dorpat University fell out of the general trend of sharp increases in the faculty numbers due to the dearth of Privatdocenten.
Using innovative methods of data visualization has enabled a better demonstration of the staff dynamics at Dorpat University and allowed to compare it to the similar processes at St. Petersburg and Kazan Universities. It has revealed the aspects that reflect the results and consequences of the Ministry of Education policy and the role of internal structure and management of university corporations. These aspects would barely observable using traditional research methodology.
4 See [Piskunov 2014] on the legal platform for introducing Privatdocent positions.
Although the numbers of lecturers at Dorpat University did not diminish and even increased during the period in question, its formal faculty structure specified in the Statutes provided comparatively fewer possibilities for growth. Thus we can positively state that a decline of Dorpat University's influence as a result of the deliberate policy of Ministry of Education.
Comparing the real faculty sizes reveals an even bigger lag in the growth rate of the faculty in Dorpat University. A more detailed analysis of faculty categories shows that its cause lay primarily in the fact that the numbers of Privatdocenten, which could be hired beyond the standardized framework of positions prescribed in the Statutes, did not increase.
Negative trends in the development of Dorpat University after 1865 have been noticed before. The author of the chapter on the Dorpat university faculty in 1865-1889, K. Martinson covertly points to them, notwithstanding that the collective monograph bore a jubilee character. However, he gave other reasons for these changes, which are secondary in our opinion, namely the new priorities in the development of disciplines and fractional struggles within the professors' corporation [Siilivask 1983, p. 88-89]. Now it can be safe to say that the main cause was the Ministry's policy. At the same time, the plateau in the growth of Privatdocenten could hardly have resulted from the Ministry's design. Its sources, in our opinion, should be sought in the relationships between professors and junior faculty within the corporation of Dorpat University.
References
Andreev A. Iu. Rossiiskie universitety XVIII — pervoi poloviny XIX veka v kontekste universitetskoi istorii Ev-ropy [Russian Universities of the 18th — first half of the 19th centuries in context of the University History of Europe]. Moscow, Znak Publ., 2009, 640 p. (In Russian) Barinov D. A. Kollektivnaia biografiia studenchestva Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta 1884-1917 gg.: statisticheskii analiz [Collective Biography of Students of the St. Petersburg University, 1884-1917]. Klio, 2013, no. 10, pp. 42-49. (In Russian) Biograficheskii slovar' professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta (1804-1904) [Biographical Dictionary of Professors and Teachers of the Imperial Kazan University (1804-1904)]. Pt. 1-2. Kazan, Print. House of the Imperial Kazan University, 1904 (part 1 — 555 p.; part 2 — 456 p.). (In Russian)
Biograficheskii slovar' professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Yurievskogo, byvshego Derptskogo universiteta za sto let ego sushchestvovaniia (1802-1902) [Biographical Dictionary of Professors and Teachers of the Imperial Yuriev, former Dorpat, University for the First Century of its Existence (1802-1902)]. Vol. 1-2. Iuriev, K. Matissen Print., 1902-1903. Vol. 1 — 1902, VI, 666 p.; vol. 2 — 1903, 680 p. (In Russian)
Bizyaeva T. V. Kazanskii universitet: problema reprezentatsii i korporativnogo samoopisaniia [Kazan university: problems of representation and corporate self-description]. Kazanskii universitet kak issledo-vatelskoe i sotsiokulturnoe prostranstvo: sbornik nauchnykh statei i soobshchenii [Kazan University as a Research and Socio-cultural space: a Collection of Research Papers and Communications]. Eds. G. P. My-agkov, E. A. Chiglintsev. Kazan, Kazan State University Press, 2005, pp. 91-97. (In Russian) Bulgakova L. A. Intelligentsiia v Rossii vo vtoroi chetverti XIX veka (sostav, pravovoe i materialnoie polozhe-nie) [Russian Intelligentsia in the Second Quarter of the 19th century. (Composition, Legal and Financial Standing)]: Diss. for a PhD in History degree. Leningrad, 1983, 239 p. (In Russian) Bushueva L. A. Sostav professorskoi kollegii Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta v usloviiakh modern-izatsii rossiiskoi vysshei shkoly vo vtoroi polovine XIX — nachale XX v. [The Composition of the Professorial Collegium of the Imperial Kazan University under the Conditions of the Modernisation of the Russian Higher Education in the second half of the 19th — the beginning of the 20th c.]. Istoricheskii opyt rossiiskikh modernizatsii XIX-XXI vekov: spetsifika regional'nogo razvitiia: sb. statei [Historical Experience of Russian Modernisations from the 19th through the 20th cc.: Specifics of Regional Developments.
A Collection of Papers]. Ed. by A. S. Bushuev. Kazan, Sh. Mardzhani Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Republic of Tatarstan, 2012, pp. 89-107. (In Russian) Dhondt P. (ed.) University jubilees and university history writing: a challenging relationship. Leiden, Koninkli-
jke Brill, NV, 2014. XI, 255 p. Die kaiserliche Universitat zu Dorpat: funfundzwanzig Jahre nach ihrer Grundung. Dorpat, gedruckt bei Johann Christian Schunmann, 1827, 60 p. Eimontova R. G. Russkie universitety na grani dvukh epokh. Ot Rossii krepostnoi k Rossii kapitalisticheskoi [Russian Universities at the Edge of Two Ages. From the Russia of Serfdom to the Russia of Capital]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1985, 250 p. (In Russian) Eimontova R. G. Russkie universitety na putiakh reformy: shestidesiatye gody XIX veka [Russian universities
on the path of reform: 1860s]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1993, 272 p. (In Russian) Grigoriev V V. Imperatorskii S. Peterburgskii universitet v techeniepervykhpiatidesiati let ego sushchestvovaniia [The Imperial St. Petersburg University during the First Fifty Years of its Existence]. St. Petersburg, V. Bezobrazov Print., 1870, 679 p. (In Russian) Ivanov A. E. Vysshaia shkola Rossii v kontseXIX — nachale XX veka [Higher School in Russia at the end of the
19th — the beginning of the 20th century]. Moscow: [s. n.], 1991, 392 p. (In Russian) Ivanova E. Chto mozhet dat' edinaia baza dannykh po professure dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii issledovateliam akademicheskoi mobil'nosti? [What Can a Unified Database of the Professors in the Pre-revolutionary Russia Tell about the Academic Mobility?]. Sotsiologiia v deistvii — 2014. Izbrannye materialy VI sotsiologicheskoi mezhvuzovskoi konferentsii studentov i aspirantov [Sociology in Action — 2014. Selected Materials of the 6th Students' Sociological Conference]. St. Petersburg, National Research University "Higher School of Economics", 2014, pp. 131-141. (In Russian) Ivanova E. Popytka postroeniia kauzal'noi modeli kadrovoi dinamiki professorsko-prepodavatelskogo sostava universitetov dorevolutsionnoi Rossii [A Causal Model of the Temporal Dynamics of the Faculty of the Universities of Imperial Russia]. Sotsiologiia v deistvii — 2015. Izbrannye materialy VII sotsiologicheskoi mezhvuzovskoi konferentsii studentov i aspirantov [Sociology in Action — 2015. Selected Materials of the 7th Students' Sociological Conference]. St. Petersburg, National Research University "Higher School of Economics", 2015, pp. 118-136. (In Russian) Kostina T. V. Akademik S. Ya. Rumovskii i Kazanskii universitet: istoriograficheskii kontekst [Academician S. Ya. Rumovskii and the Kazan University: Historiographical Context]. Akademiia nauk v istorii kul'tury Rossii XVIII-XX vekov [Academy of Sciences in the History of Russian Culture of the 18th — 20th c.]. Ed. by Zh.I. Alfyorov. St. Petersburg, Nauka Publ., 2010, pp. 81-101. (In Russian) Kostina T. V. Peresmotr kadrovogo sostava russkikh universitetov v 1835-37 gg. [A Revision of the Faculty Members of Russian Universities in 1835-1837]. Uroki istorii — uroki istorika. Sbornik statei k 80-letiiu Iu. D. Margolisa (1930-1996) [Lessons of History — Historian's Lessons. A Collection of Papers to the 80th Anniversary of Iu. D. Margolis (1930-1996)]. Comp. T. N. Zhukovskaia; ed. by A. Iu. Dvornichen-ko. St. Petersburg, Nestor-Istoriia Publ., 2012, pp. 234-242. (In Russian) Leikina-Svirskaia V. R. Intelligentsiia v Rossii vo vtoroipolovine XIX veka [Russian Intelligentsia in the Second
Half of the 19th c.]. Moscow, Mysl' Publ., 1971, 368 p. (In Russian) Materialy, sobrannye Otdelom Komissii dlia peresmotra obshchego ustava rossiiskikh universitetov pri posesh-chenii ikh v sentiabre, oktiabre i noiabre 1875 g. [Materials Collected by a Division of the Commission for a Revision of the General Statute of Russian Universities during the Visits to the Universities that Took Place in September, October, and November of 1875]. St. Petersburg, V. S. Balashev Print., 1876, [2], VI, 500, 84, [79] p. (In Russian) Mikhailovskii A. I. Prepodavateli, uchivshiesia i sluzhivshie v imperatorskom Kazanskom universitete (18041904 gg.): materialy dlia istorii universiteta [Teachers, students, and officials of the Imperial Kazan University (1804-1904): Materials for a University History]. Part 1, issues 1-3. Kazan, Print. House of the Imperial Kazan University, 1901-1908 (issue 1 — 1901, 426 p.; issue 2 — 1904, 666 p.; issue 3 — 1908, 555 p.). (In Russian) Milyukov P. N. Russkie universitety [Russian Universities]. Entsiklopedicheskii sl-ovar F. A. Brokgauza i I. A. Efrona [F A. Brockhaus and I. A. Efron Encyclopaedical dictionary]. Vol. 68. St. Petersburg, Public limited company "F. A. Brockhaus & I. A. Efron", 1902, pp. 788-800. (In Russian) Niks N. N. Moskovskaia professura vo vtoroi polovine XIX — nachale XX veka [Moscow Professoriate of the second half of the 19th — the beginning of the 20th century]. Moscow, New Chronographer Publ., 2008. 304 p. (In Russian)
Pavlova G. E. Organizatsiia nauki v Rossii v pervoi polovine XIX v. [Organization of Science in Russia of the
first half of the 19th c.]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1990, 239 p. (In Russian) Petrov F. A. Formirovanie sistemy universitetskogo obrazovaniia v Rossii [ The Formation of the System of University Education in Russia]. In 4 vols. Moscow, Moscow State University Press, 2002-2003 (vol. 1 —
2002, 416 p.; vol.2 — 816 p.; vol. 3 — 480 p.; vol. 4, part 1 — 2003, 584 p., vol. 4, part 2 — 2003, 464 p.). (In Russian)
Piskunov A. V. Pravovoe polozhenie privat-dotsentov Rossiiskikh universitetov (1803-1884) [Legal Standing of Privatdocenten in Russian Universities (1803-1884)]. Vestnik Pravoslavnogo Sviato-Tikhonovskogo gumanitarnogo universiteta [Vestnik of St. Tikhon Orthodox University], 2014, no. 4 (59), pp. 98-116. (In Russian)
R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing. The R Development Core Team. Vienna, 2015.
Available at: https://www.r-project.org/ (accessed 22.12.2015). Rostovtsev E. Universitet stolichnogo goroda (1905-1917 gody) [University of a Metropolitan City (19051917)]. Universitet igorod v Rossii (nachalo XX veka) [University and the City in Russia (at the beginning of the20th c.)]. Eds. T. Maurer, A. Dmitriev. Moscow, NLO [New Literary Observer], 2009, pp. 205-370. (In Russian)
Rostovtsev E. A., Barinov D. A. Prepodavatelskaia korporatsiia stolichnogo universiteta 1884-1916 gg.: os-novnye cherty i problemy kollektivnoi biografii [Teachers' Corporation of a Metropolitan University, 1884-1916: Main Features and Problems of a Collective Biography]. Professorsko-prepodavatelskii korpus rossiiskikh universitetov. 1884-1917gg.: issledovaniia i dokumenty [Professors and Teachers of Russian Universities, 1884-1917: Research Papers and Documents]. Eds. M. V. Gribovskii, S. F. Fominykh. Tomsk, Tomsk State University Press, 2012, pp. 41-44. (In Russian) Rozhdestvenskii S. V Istoricheskii obzor deiatelnosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia. 1802-1902 [A Historical Review of the Activities of the Ministry of Education. 1802-1902]. St. Petersburg, State Print. House, 1902, 840 р. (In Russian) Sbornik postanovlenii po ministerstvu narodnogo prosveshcheniia [Collection of Regulations of the Ministry of Education]. 1st ed. In 17 vols. St. Petersburg: [s.n.]. 1864-1904 (vol. 4 — 1871, 1980 col., 44 p.; vol. 5 — 1877, 2318 col., 53, [1] p.; vol. 6 — 1878, 1914 col., 59 p.; vol. 7 — 1883, 2294 col., 63 p., 76 col.; vol. 8 — 1892, 1758, 36 col.; vol. 9 — 1893, 1354 col.); 2nd ed. In 9 vols. St. Petersburg, Print shop of V. S. Balashev, 1875-1876 (vol. 1 — 1875, 1864 col., 43 p., 44 col; vol. 2, pt. 1 — 1875, 1576 col., 69 p., 54 col.; vol. 2, pt. 2 — 1876, 1648 col., 107 p., 58 col.; vol. 3 — 1876, 1528 col., 88 р., col. 89-140, 48 col.). (In Russian)
Setevoi Biograficheskii slovar'professorov i prepodavatelei Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta 1819-1917 [Online Biographical Dictionary of the Professors and Teachers of the St. Petersburg University (1819-1917)]. St. Petersburg, 2012-2014. Available at: http://bioslovhist.history.spbu.ru/biografika/pp1.html (accessed 21.11.2015). (In Russian) Shevyryov S. P. Istoriia Imperatorskogo Moskovskogo universiteta [A History of the Imperial Moscow University]. Moscow, Print House of the Imperial Moscow University, 1855, 608 р. (In Russian) Shchetinina G. I. Universitety v Rossii i ustav 1884 goda [Russian Universities and the General University
Statute of 1884]. Moscow, Nauka Publ., 1976, 232 р. (In Russian) Siilivask K., Ed. Istoriia Tartuskogo universiteta. 1732-1982 [A History of the Tartu University. 1732-1982].
Tallinn, Periodika Publ., 1983. 280 р. (In Russian) Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei fakulteta vostochnykh yazykov imperatorskogo byvshego Peterburgskogo, nyne Petrogradskogo universiteta s 1819 goda [A list of Professors and Teachers of the Faculty of Oriental Languages of the Imperial, Former St. Petersburg, Now Petrograd University from 1819]. Petrograd, [s. n.], [1917], 35 р. (In Russian) Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei fiziko-matematicheskogo fakulteta imperatorskogo byvshego Peterburgskogo, nyne Petrogradskogo universiteta s 1819 goda [A List of Professors and Teachers of the Physico-mathematical Faculty of the Imperial, Former St. Petersburg, Now Petrograd University from 1819]. Petrograd, [s. n.], [1916], 63 р. (In Russian) Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei istoriko-filologicheskogo fakulteta imperatorskogo byvshego Peterburgskogo, nyne Petrogradskogo universiteta s 1819 goda [A List of Professors and Teachers of the Historical & Philological Faculty of the Imperial, former St. Petersburg, Now Petrograd University from 1819]. Petrograd, [s. n.] [1916], 63 р. (In Russian) Spisok professorov i prepodavatelei iuridicheskogo fakulteta imperatorskogo byvshego Peterburgskogo, nyne Petrogradskogo universiteta s 1819 goda [A List of Professors and Teachers of the Faculty of Law of the Imperial, Former St. Petersburg, Now Petrograd University from 1819]. Petrograd, [s. n.], [1916], 45 р. (In Russian)
Tamul S. Tartu i ego universitety (1905-1918 gody) [Tartu and its Universities (1905-1918)]. Universitet I gorod v Rossii (nachalo XX veka) [ University and the City in Russia (at the beginning of the 20th c.)]. Eds. T. Maurer, A. Dmitriev. Moscow, NLO [New Literary Observer] Publ., 2009, pp. 584-702. (In Russian)
Tamul V. E. Professorskii institut i mezhdunarodnye nauchnye sviazi Tartuskogo universiteta v pervoi polovine XIX v. [Professor training Institute and international scientific connections of Tartu university in the first half of the 19th century]: Diss. for a PhD in History degree. Tartu, 1988, 247 p. (In Russian) Uvarov S. S. Kommentarii k proektu Obshchego ustava Rossiiskikh universitetov. 1832-1833 gg. [A Comment on the Proposal of a General Statute of Russian Universities. 1832-1833]. Otdel pis'mennykh istochnikov Gosudarstvennogo istoricheskogo muzeia (DWS SHM) [Department of written sources of the State Historical Museum (DWS SHM)], f. 17, ed. khr. 44. (In Russian, unpublished) Vishlenkova E. A. Kazanskii universitet Aleksandrovskoi epokhi: albom iz neskolkikh portretov [Kazan University in the Age of Alexander I: a Gallery of Selected Portraits]. Kazan, Kazan State University Press, 2003, 240 p. (In Russian) Vishlenkova E. A., Dmitriev A. N. Pragmatika traditsii, ili aktualnoe proshloe dlia rossiiskikh universitetov [Pragmatics of Tradition, or a Reactualisation of the Past for Russian Universities]. Sosloviye russkikh professorov. Sozdateli statusov i smyslov [The Estate of Russian Professors. Creators of Statuses and Meanings]. Eds. E. A. Vishlenkova, I. M. Savelyeva. Moscow, Izd. dom "Vysshaia Shkola ekonomiki" ["Higher School of Economics" Publ. House], 2013, pp. 61-95. (In Russian) Zagoskin N. P. Istoriia Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta za pervye sto let ego sushchestvovaniia. 18041904 [History of the Imperial Kazan University during the First Century of its Existence. 1804-1904]. In 4 vols. Kazan, Print. House of the Imperial Kazan University, 1902-1904 (vol. 1 — 1902, 641 p.; vol. 2 — 1902, 698 p.; vol. 3 — 1903, 594 p.; vol. 4. — 1904, 692 p.). (In Russian) Zhukovskaia T. N. Pravitelstvo i obshchestvo pri Aleksandre I [Government and Society under Alexander I].
Petrozavodsk, Petrozavodsk State University Press, 2002, 220 p. (In Russian) Zhukovskaia T. N. Peregrinatio academica: podgotovka professorantov Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta v Evrope v nachale XIX v. [Peregrinatio Academica: the Preparation of the Future Professors of St.Petersburg University in Europe in the Beginning of the 19th century]. Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. Series 2. History, 2013, issue 3, pp. 30-42. (In Russian)
For citation: Kostina T. V., Kouprianov A. V. Growth or stagnation? Historical dynamics of the growth patterns of Dorpat University (1803-1884). Vestnik of Saint Petersburg University. History, 2016, issue 3, pp. 31-45. DOI: 10.21638/11701/spbu02.2016.303
Статья поступила в редакцию 12 января 2016 г.; рекомендовано в печать 21 июня 2016 г.
