¹ For brief notes on this and the other main social groups discussed in the article, see Glossary, , pp. 51f.Google Scholar

² Hans, N., History of Russian Educational Policy, 1701–1917 (London, 1931);Google Scholar Johnson, W. H. E., Russia's Educational Heritage (New Brunswick, 1950), p. 290;Google Scholar Rashin, A. G., “Gramotnostť i narodnoe obrazovanie v Rossii v XIX i nachale XX v.”, in: Istoricheskie Zapiski, No 37 (1951), pp. 28–80;Google Scholar Yu, N. Egorov, “Studenchestvo Sankt-Peterburgskogo universiteta v 30–50-kh godakh XIX v., ego sotsial'nyi sostav i raspredelenie po fakul'tetam”, in: Vestnik Leningradskogo Universiteta, Seriya istorii, yazyka i literatury, 1957, No 14, pp. 5–19;Google Scholar Leikina-Svirskaya, V. R., “Formirovanie raznochinskoi intelligentsii v 40-kh godakh XIX v.”, in: Istoriya SSSR, 1958, No 1, pp. 83–104;Google Scholar Anderson, C. A., “The Social Composition of University Student Bodies: The Recruitment of Nineteenth-Century Elites in Four Nations”, in: The Year Book of Education 1959 (London, 1959), pp. 502–06;Google Scholar Yu, N. Egorov, “Reaktsionnaya politika tsarizma v voprosakh universitetskogo obrazovaniya v 30–50-kh gg. XIX v.”, in: Nauchnye Doldady Vysshei Shkoly, Istoricheskie nauki, 1960, No 3, pp. 60–75;Google Scholar Erman, L. K., “Sostav intelligentsii v Rossii v kontse XIX i nachale XX vekov”, in: Istoriya SSSR, 1963, No 1, pp. 161–77, esp. p. 174, Table X;Google Scholar id., Intelligentsiya v pervoi russkoi revolyutsii (Moscow, 1966), p. 29; Pollard, A. P., “The Russian Intelligentsia: The Mind of Russia”, in: Californian Slavic Studies, III (1964), pp. 1–32;Google Scholar Kahan, A., “Social Structure, Public Policy, and the Development of Education and the Economy in Czarist Russia”, in: Education and Economic Development, ed. by Anderson, C. A. and Bowman, M. J. (London, 1966), pp. 363–75;Google Scholar Chutkerashvili, E., Kadry dlya nauki (Moscow, 1968), p. 60;Google Scholar Brower, D. R., “Fathers, Sons, and Grandfathers. Social Origins of Radical Intellectuals in Nine-teenth-Century Russia”, in: Journal of Social History, II (1968–1969), pp. 333–55;Google Scholar Pushkin, M., “The Professions and the Intelligentsia in Nineteenth-Century Russia”, in: University of Birmingham Historical Journal, XII (1969–1970), pp. 72–99;Google Scholar Shchetinina, G. I., “Universitety i obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v Rossii v poreformennyi period”, in: Istoricheskie Zapiski, No 84 (1969), pp. 164–215;Google Scholar Kamosko, L. V., “Izmeneniya soslovnogo sostava uchashchikhsya srednei i vysshei shkoly Rossii (30–80-e gody XIX v.)”, in: Voprosy Istorii, 1970, No 10, pp. 203–07;Google Scholar Leikina-Svirskaya, V. R., Intelligentsiya v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX veka (Moscow, 1971), pp. 57–65;Google Scholar Confino, M., “On Intellectuals and Intellectual Traditions in Eighteenth- and Nineteenth-Century Russia”, in: Daedalus, CI (1972), No 2, pp. 117–49;Google Scholar Besançon, A., Education et société en Russie dans le second tiers du XIXe siècle (Paris, 1974), pp. 82–84;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Ryabikova, T. B., “Chislennosť i soslovnyi sostav studentov Moskovskogo universiteta”, in: Vestnik Moskovskogo Universiteta, Istoriya, 1974, No 5, pp. 57–67;Google Scholar Brower, D. R., Training the Nihilists. Education and Radicalism in Tsarist Russia (Ithaca and London, 1975), pp. 114, 118;Google Scholar Shchetinina, G. I., Universitety v Rossii i ustav 1884 goda (Moscow, 1976), pp. 71–72, 192–203;Google Scholar Flynn, J. T.. “Tuition and Social Class in the Russian Universities: S. S. Uvarov and ‘Reaction’ in the Russia of Nicholas I”, in: Slavic Review, XXXV (1976), pp. 232–48;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Brym, R. J., “A Note on the Raznochintsy”, in: Journal of Social History, X (1976–1977), pp. 354–59;Google Scholar Shchetinina, G. I., ‘Alfavitnye spiski studentov kak istoricheskii istochnik. Sostav universitetskogo studenchestva v kontse XIX – nachale XX veka”, in: Istoriya SSSR, 1979, No 5, pp. 110–26.Google Scholar

³ The students of higher technical institutions also participated actively in the revolutionary movement (see, for example, Antonov, V. A., “K voprosu o sotsial'nom sostave i chislennosti revolyutsionerov 70-kh gg.”, in: Obshchestvennoe dvizhenie v poreformennoi Rossii, ed. by Ivanov, L. M. (Moscow, 1965), pp. 336–44, esp. p. 340, Table II). The question of this group's social background is of considerable importance, but the available information is rather fragmentary.Google Scholar Our earlier study (Pushkin, , loc. cit., p. 81) concluded that they were considerably more plebeian than their university counterparts.Google Scholar Other data may be sought in Ibid.Leikina-Svirskaya , Intelligentsiya, op. cit., pp. 78, 110, 112, 116–19, 122, 126, 137, 150–51, 177–78; Erman, “Sostav”, loc. cit.; Johnson, Heritage, op. cit.; Brym, , “A Note”, loc. cit., p. 359, Table 2.Google Scholar

⁴ Confino, , “On Intellectuals”, loc. cit., p. 146, note 36;Google Scholar Besançon, , Education, op. cit., pp. 82–84;Google Scholar Brower, , Training the Nihilists, op. cit., p. 114.Google Scholar

⁵ Kamosko, , “Izmeneniya”, loc. cit., p. 204,Google Scholar and Shchetinina, , Universitety, op. cit., pp. 70–71, cite figures for 1855 and 1875; Kamosko states “no information” on the social origins of the 3,591 students in 1866.Google Scholar Rashin, , “Gramotnost”, loc. cit., p.78Google Scholar (and after him Kahan, , “Social Structure”, loc. cit., p. 370,Google Scholar and Brower, ibid.), quotes data for 1864–65, but his figure of 14% for the peasantry is impossibly high for that date and leads one to approach the data with some caution. The fault lies not in Rashin's misinterpretation of correct data, but in the source material itself, which Rashin has faithfully transcribed: Obzor deyatel'nosti Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya i podvedomstvennykh emu uchrezdenii v 1862, 63 i 64 godakh (St Petersburg, 1865) (hereafter Obzor deyatel'nosti), Prilozheniya, , p. 230.Google Scholar

⁶ Rozhdestvenskii, S. V., “Soslovnyi vopros v russkikh universitetakh v pervoi chetverti XIX veka”, in: Zhurnal Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya (hereafter Zhurnal), New Series, IX (1907), pp.83–108;Google Scholar Flynn, J. T., “The Universities, the Gentry, and the Imperial Russian Services, 1815–1825”, in: Canadian Slavic Studies, II (1968), pp. 486–503; Egorov, “Studenchestvo”, loc. cit.; id., “Reaktsionnaya politika”, loc. cit.; Leikina-Svirskaya, “Formirovanie”, loc. cit.; Ryabikova, “Chislennost”, loc. cit.; Flynn, “Tuition”, loc. cit.Google Scholar

⁷ See Table 1. This change from 1836 onwards and its subsequent reversal were first noted by Egorov (“Studenchestvo”, p. 6; “Reaktsionnaya politika”, p. 63), who explained the reversal, but not the democratization itself. Egorov, however, did not make use of the Zhurnal data for 1835 and 1840 presented in our Table l, which alter the picture somewhat (see below, pp. 28f.). Others (e.g., Flynn, ,“Tuition”, p. 242, note 24) do not mention these fluctuations when referring to this period, although Leikina-Svirskaya's article (“Formirovanie”) has as its theme the formation of the raznochinets intelligentsia in the 1840's.Google Scholar

⁸ Polnoe Sobranie Zakonov Rossiiskoi Imperii (hereafter PSZ), First Series, No 23559, 3 April 1809, pp. 899–900; No 23771, 6 July, pp. 1054–57. All dates for PSZ are given in Old Style.

⁹ Alston, P. L., Education and the State in Tsarist Russia (Stanford, 1969), p. 28.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Ibid.

¹¹ See Table 2.

¹² PSZ, Second Series, No 1308, 19 08 1827, pp. 675–77.Google Scholar

¹³ Ibid., No 2502, 8 12 1828, pp. 1097–1127; No 2503, pp. 1127–28.

¹⁴ Ibid., First Series, No 20597, 26 01 1803, pp. 437–42; No 20598, 24 01, p. 442; No 21497, 5 11 1804, pp. 569–70. Under the reform pupils could proceed from one level of the system to the one above with no built-in barriers. Control was decentralized: in each region the university ran the secondary schools, which in turn were responsible for the elementary schools.

¹⁵ Uvarov's school regions reform, ibid., Second Series, No 8262, 25 06 1835, pp. 756–58, and charter of the universities, No 8337, 26 07, pp. 841–55, had political and administrative rather than social goals.

¹⁶ See Table 2.

¹⁷ See Table l.

¹⁸ Oberofitsery were company-grade commissioned officers in the Russian army (captain and below), mostly soldiers who had worked their way up through the ranks to officer status and thus to ennoblement. The children of such servicemen who were born before their fathers were ennobled were known as oberoJutserskie deti or simply as oberofitsery. Children of civil servants in the same situation were personally entitled to the status of “hereditary honorary citizens”, but were often referred to as “children of civil servants” in university documents. See Ryabikova, , “Chislennost”, p. 65;Google Scholar Egorov, , “Reaktsionnaya politika”, p. 61, note 4;Google Scholar Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Pravitel'stvennyi apparat samoderzhavnoi Rossii v XIX v. (Moscow, 1978), pp. 25–26.Google Scholar

¹⁹ See Pintner, W. M., “The Social Characteristics of the Early Nineteenth-Century Russian Bureaucracy”, in: Slavic Review, XXIX (1970), pp.429–43, esp. pp. 435–37;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Korelin, A. P., “Dvoryanstvo v poreformennoi Rossii (1861–1904 gg.)”, in: Istoricheskie Zapiski, No 87 (1971), pp. 91–173, esp. p. 97.Google Scholar For a recent account of the effects of the expansion at the lower end of the bureaucracy, see McFarlin, H. A., “The Extension of the Imperial Russian Civil Service to the Lowest Office Workers: The Creation of the Chancery Clerkship, 1827–1833”, in: Russian History, I (1974), pp. 1–17;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Korelin's book of the same name (Moscow, 1979) and Russian Officialdom: The Bureaucratization of Russian Society from the Seventeenth to the Twentieth Century, ed. by Pintner, W. M. and Rowney, D. K. (Chapel Hill, 1980), which includes two new articles by Pintner, both arrived too late to be used in this article.Google Scholar

²⁰ PSZ, Second Series, No 5284, 10 April 1832, pp. 193–95. It is common practice in textbook accounts of this manifesto to suggest that it provided for civil servants below the ninth rank to earn the title of “honorary citizen” by service. See, for example, Brokgauz, F. A. and Efron, I. A., Entsiklopedicheskii slovar', IXA (18) (1893), pp. 523–24;Google Scholar Florinsky, M., Russia: A History and an Interpretation (New York, 1963), II, p. 786;Google Scholar Pushkarev, S., The Emergence of Modern Russia, 1801–1917 (New York, 1963), p. 28;Google Scholar Seton-Watson, H., The Russian Empire, 1801–1917 (Oxford, 1967), p. 240.Google Scholar (Both Florinsky and Seton-Watson give the date of the manifesto as 10 February 1832.) No such provision was in fact included in the 1832 manifesto. Indeed, at this time anyone on the fourteenth and lowest grade of the Table of Ranks automatically earned the higher title of “personal noble”, and would have no need of the inferior status of an “honorary citizen”. It was only when the ranks at which nobility was conferred were raised in 1845 (from the eighth to the fifth rank for hereditary nobility and from the fourteenth to the ninth for personal nobility) that the bottom five ranks became eligible for “honorary citizenship” (PSZ, Second Series, No 19086, 11 06 1845, pp. 450–51).Google Scholar

²¹ Korelin, , “Dvoryanstvo”, loc. cit., p. 159.Google Scholar

²² Printner, , “Social Characteristics”, loc. cit., p. 435, Table 7, and p. 437, Table 9. Data on the other social changes within the bureaucracy in the second quarter of the century presented below in this section are from the same source, with additional material from Korelin, “Dvoryanstvo”.Google Scholar

²³ See note 45 for comments on Brym's attempt to do this.

²⁴ Pintner, , “Social Characteristics”, pp. 441–43.Google Scholar

²⁵ See Table 3.

²⁶ Pintner's term for civil servants and oberojtsery combined.

²⁷ Zaionchkovskii, , Pravitel'stvennyi apparat, op. cit., p. 262.Google Scholar

²⁸ Alston, , Education, op. cit., p. 36;Google Scholar Sinel, A., The Classroom and the Chancellery: State Educational Reform in Russia under Count Dmitry Tolstoi (Cambridge (Mass.), 1973), p. 18;CrossRefGoogle Scholar Hans, , History, op. cit., p. 77.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hans, ibid.

³⁰ Sinel, ibid. Flynn, , “Tuition”, pp. 242–44, explores in detail the changes in Uvarov's position and his differences with the Tsar on the question of tuition fees. He reveals that there was a three-year delay in the implementation of the increase.Google Scholar

³¹ PSZ, Second Series, No 19094, 14 06 1845, p. 455.Google Scholar

³² See note 20; PSZ, Second Series, No 19086. The proximity of this decree to No 19094 provides a good demonstration of the interrelation between educational policy and developments in the bureaucracy.

³³ Sinel, , Classroom, op. cit., pp. 22–23;Google Scholar Alston, , Education, p. 40.Google Scholar

³⁴ Ryabikova, , “Chislennost”, pp. 59–60, describes the history of this measure in some detail.Google Scholar

³⁵ Sinel, , Classroom. p. 21.Google Scholar

³⁶ I.e. Sons of hereditary and personal nobles, of civil servants both on and below the Table of Ranks, of first-guild merchants and unranked scientists and artists. Ryabikova, , “Chislennost”, p. 60.Google Scholar

³⁷ See Table 1. The difference in the two sets of data for 1848–49 and 1849 suggests that Leikina-Svirskaya's figures include the more “democratic” Dorpat university (cf. note 42) alongside the five Russian universities. See Johnson, , Heritage, p. 270, Table 12, and p. 287, Table 32. His figures for Dorpat (567 in 1835, 618 in 1855) approximately account for the difference. Another source gives a total of 623 in 1851. See Statisticheskie materialy dlya opredeleniya obshchestvennogo polozheniya lits, poluchivshikh obrazovanie v Imperatorskom Derptskom Universitete s 1802–1852 goda (St Petersburg. 1862), A. Obshchee chislo uchivshikhsya v lmperatorskom Derptskom Universitete, 1802–1852, no page numbers.Google Scholar

³⁸ Hans, , History, p. 79.Google Scholar

³⁹ Ibid., p. 95.

⁴⁰ Alston, , Education, p. 45;Google Scholar Johnson, , Heritage, p. 270, Table 12, and p. 287, Table 32. Note that the last column of our Table l does not necessarily contain the absolute totals of students (cf. notes 55, 113, 117).Google Scholar

⁴¹ Alston, ibid.

⁴² The data on individual universities are contained in Table 3. Dorpat is not included, as no separate data are available for 1855. Because Dorpat, by far the most “democratic” of the universities, is included in the 1863 aggregate in Table 1, that table shows a slight overall democratization between 1855 and 1863, whereas Table 3 indicates the opposite in most cases. The 1863 figures for St Petersburg should perhaps be treated with some caution. Student numbers were only at one-third of their previous level, as the university had only just been re-opened after its closure in 1861. On the other hand, the numbers are not all that far below those for Kiev, Kazan, Kharkov and Dorpat universities.

⁴³ It is possible that some historians use the term “nobility” when referring only to the hereditary nobles, and either “personal nobles” or “civil servants” when referring to the two groups taken together. There is no reason to assume this inaccuracy in the work from which the data are taken, Leikina, -Svirskaya, “Formirovanie”, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar She has faithfully transcribed the figures from her own source (Davydov, I. I., “O naznachenii russkjkh universitetov i uchastie ikh v obshchestvennom obrazovanii”, in: Sovremennik, 1849, No 3, p. 45).Google Scholar

⁴⁴ See Table 3 for the changes within the elite. The data on the clergy (some 4% in 141, 3% in 1849 and 10% in 1859) are taken from Brower, , “Fathers”, loc. cit., pp. 344–45,Google Scholar and Leikina, -Svirskaya, “Formirovanie”, p. 87.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ Brym, , “A Note”, p. 356, argues that the inclusion of the non-noble bureaucrats in the raznochintsy is consonant with one of the widely accepted definitions (that of Mikhailovskii and Lenin).Google Scholar It does seem likely that most of the students labelled in university statistics as “children of civil servants” were not of noble origin, though the fathers of some of them may have been ennobled after the birth of their children. Zaionchkovskii, Pravitel'stvennyi apparat, pp. 25–26, note ***, suggests that they were the children of the civil servants “of the lowest ranks”. Shchetinina, , “Alfavitnye spiski”, loc. cit., pp. 122–23, states that the civil-servant (chinovnik) group normally excluded unranked civil servants, but adds that it may also have included the most varied social categories and probably originated in large part from not very well-off petty office-workers. Brym attempts indirectly to quantify the different groups within the student elite by inference from their relative proportions within the bureaucracy; as we have seen, the correlation is not easy to establish. He does not refer to Brower's 1859 data, and as a result his own figures (“A Note”, p. 359, Table 1) appear to support the idea that there was no democratization of any kind in the late 1850's. His support for the “raznochinlsy thesis” rests not on the argument that the raznochinets element grew as a proportion of the student body at this time, but rather on the fact that the inclusion of the non-noble bureaucrats in the raznochintsy increases the group's size.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ See Table 1.

⁴⁷ Brower, , “Fathers”, p. 343.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Id., Training the Nihilists, p. 42, Table 2.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Brower concentrates on comparing the proportion of nobles among radical students with that among the student body as a whole at any one time, and it is true that there were always more nobles among the radicals. This should not, however, lead us to ignore the changes in the radicals' origins or to miss their similarity to the changes in the background of the St Petersburg student body as a whole.

⁵⁰ See Table 2.

⁵¹ See note 4 and Table 1.

⁵² Sinel, , Classroom, p. 27.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ibid., p. 29.

⁵⁴ PSZ, Second Series, No 39752, 18 06 1863, pp. 621–38; No 41068, 14 07 1864, pp. 613–18; No 41472, 19 11, pp. 167–79.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ 4,551 represents the overall total of students in 1863, not only the total of those whose social origins were known as in Table 1, see note 117. By 1875 the overall total in those same six universities, excluding the new ones at Odessa and Warsaw, had increased only slightly to 4,870. See Johnson, , Heritage, p. 287, Table 32;Google Scholar Zhurnal, , CLXXXVII (1876), p. 52 (for Warsaw total).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Shchetinina, , Universitety, p. 75, note 158.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Alston, , Education, pp. 86–87.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Sinel, , Classroom, p. 98.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ PSZ, Second Series, No 49860, 30 07 1871, pp. 85–99.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Ibid., No 50834, 15 05 1872, pp. 626–36.

⁶¹ Aiston, , Education, p. 97.Google Scholar

⁶² See Table 2.

⁶³ Confino, , “On Intellectuals”, p. 146, note 36.Google Scholar Brower, , Training the Nihilists, p. 114, following Rashin, compares the years of Nicholas I, the mid 1860's and 1880.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Sinel, , Classroom, p. 99.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Brower's term, Training the Nihilists, p. 114. Reliance on the Obzor deyatel'nosti data for 1864–65 leads to the erroneous conclusion that the urban estates more than doubled their combined percentage in the student body between 1865 and 1880. See note 118.

⁶⁶ The data both on secondary schools attended and on financial assistance are given in the annual reports of each university published in the following year in the Zhurnal. See note 143.

⁶⁷ Respectively posobie, stipendiya, osvobozhdenie ot plary za uchenie.

⁶⁸ As in 1861; see above, p. 37.

⁶⁹ As Shchetinina does, Universitety, pp. 73–74, Tables 3–4. The number of exemptions remained unchanged between 1868 and 1877, but dropped substantially in the next few years, just when enrolments were increasing rapidly and the urban estates were flooding into the universities.

⁷⁰ “Universitetskii vopros. Izvlechenie iz materialov, sobrannykh otdelom Vysochaishe uchrezhdennoi Komissii dlya peresmotra Obshchego Ustava rossiiskikh universitetov, pri poseshchenii ikh v sentyabre, oktyabre i noyabre 1875 goda”, in: Zhurnal, CLXXXVII, Sovremennaya letopis', p. 141.

⁷¹ Ibid., CXXXVII (1868), p. 144; CXLVIII (1870), p. 32.

⁷² See Kamosko, , “Izmeneniya”, p. 204.Google Scholar

⁷³ See Table 5.

⁷⁴ Although Kamosko (ibid.) does not explicitly distinguish between the late 1860's and early 1870's in relation to the provision of financial assistance, her choice of data tends to exaggerate the increase in the late 1860's and to underestimate that in the first half of the 1870's. This is because she includes the exceptional year of 1870 alongside the other years (1866, 1867 and 1874) she has selected from the full year-by-year list given in the Zhurnal.

⁷⁵ See Table 6.

⁷⁶ From 7.1% in 1863 to 15.3% in 1868; the 1880 level was still oniy 18.6%. See note 117; Zhurnal, , CXXXVII, Sovremennaya letopis', p. 306; Universitety i srednie uchebnye zavedeniya v pyatnadtsati guberniyakh Po perepisi 20-ogo marta 1880 goda (St Petersburg. 1888), p. 6.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Data on financial assistance at St Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev universities are contained in Table 7.

⁷⁸ See Table 6.

⁷⁹ “O chisle okonchivshikh kurs v gimnaziyakh i o chisle postupivshikh v universitety v 1875 g. sravnitel'no s 1874 g.” in: Zhurnal, , CLXXXIII (1876), pp. 88–93.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Ibid., p. 90.

⁸¹ Ibid., p. 93.

⁸² “Universitetskii vopros”, loc. cit., p. 136.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid., p. 139.

⁸⁴ See Table 2.

⁸⁵ Shchetinina, , “Alfavitnye spiski”, pp. 115–20.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ See Tables 8 and 9. Sinel, , Classroom, p.204, note 42, claims that the Ministry did not provide data of this kind before the 1880's. The tiny Faculties of Theology at Dorpat and Oriental Languages at St Petersburg are included in our tables, but not in our analysis. For the sake of brevity, we shall refer to the History and Philology Faculty as “Humanities” and to the Physics and Mathematics Faculty (when undivided) as “Science”. Our analysis takes account both of the social composition of each faculty, as seen in Tables 8 and 9, and of the proportion of each social group within the universities entering a particular faculty.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Sinel seems to imply that the Law Faculty stood alongside Medicine in popularity among non-noble students as a whole when he writes that “the career-oriented faculties of jurisprudence and medicine attracted the most students by far, and the proportion of the university population from the nonnoble estates mounted steadily from 33 percent in 18641053 percent in 1881.” (Classroom, p. 101)

⁸⁸ Shchetinina, , “Alfavitnye spiski”, pp. 119–20, Tables 7–8, also introduces interesting data for 1903–04, with a highly differentiated series of social groups. Unfortunately, these only cover three universities (Kiev, Kazan and Odessa). A comparison with the same three universities in 1880 produces a very consistent and predictable result. All faculties experienced substantial increases in the percentages of both sections of the urban estates and of the peasantry, accompanied by a sharp deterioration in the position of the clergy. The major difference between the faculties lay in the fact that those faculties least affected by the influx of seminarians before 1880 (Mathematics and Law) experienced the smallest movement back towards the elite between 1880 and 1903–04 (in the case of Mathematics the percentage of the elite actually dropped). Conversely, Humanities and Natural Sciences, most affected earlier on by the advance of the clergy, were the only faculties to move back sharply towards the elite (by twelve and fifteen per cent respectively) after 1880.Google Scholar

⁸⁹ See Table 9. The only data we possess about the social origins of university staff after 1880 are those for Moscow university in 1896. We cannot fully agree with Leikina Svirskaya in her conclusion that “we see in the student milieu a continuing process of democratization, but in the professorial milieu this process is held back” (Intelligentsiya, pp. 177–78). It is true that the rate of democratization was faster among the students before 1880 and that the Moscow data do indicate a movement in the opposite direction among the staff by 1896. However, one should not ignore the fact that a similar regression occurred among the students between 1895 and 1900. Furthermore, Leikina-Svirskaya compares the 1861 and 1896 figures for Moscow university with the 1880 data for staff in all universities (46.2% were nobles or civil servants) as against those for Moscow university alone (53.6%). As a result the regression after 1880 is rather exaggerated.

⁹⁰ See Table 10.

⁹¹ See Table 2.

⁹² Pintner, , “Social Characteristics”, p. 437, Table 10, and p. 434,Google Scholar Table 4: Zaionchkovskii, P. A., “Vysshaya byurokratiya nakanune Krymskoi voiny”, in: lstoriya SSSR, 1974, No 4, pp. 154–64;Google Scholar id., Rossiiskoe samoderzhavie v kontse XIX stoletiya (Moscow, 1970), pp. 112–17.Google Scholar

⁹³ Korelin, , “Dvoryanstvo”, p.157.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Ibid., p. 98.

⁹⁵ Ibid., pp. 99, 161; Zaionchkovskii, , Pravitel'stvennyi apparat, p. 29;Google Scholar Kenez, P., “Autocracy and the Russian Army”, in: Russian Review, XXXIII (1974), pp 204–05;Google Scholar Nifontov, A.S., ‘Formirovanie klassov burzhuaznogo obshchestva v russkom gorode vtoroi poloviny XIX v.”, in: Istoricheskie Zapiski, No 54 (1955), pp. 239–50.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Zaionchkovskii, P. A., Krizis samoderzhaviya na rubezhe 1870–880-kh godov (Moscow, 1964), p. 111.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Leikina-Svirskaya, , Intelligentsiya, p. 105;Google Scholar Sinel, , Classroom, p. 99.Google Scholar Sinel cites only Odessa university (the most extreme case) as an example of the effects of the exemption. Leikina-Svirskaya , ibid., p. 60, unlike Sinel, follows through the effects of the 1879 measure, but her lack of data between 1880 and 1895 leads her to underestimate the speed with which the measure achieved its aim. See Tables 1, 4 and 6.

⁹⁸ See Tables 1 and 4.

⁹⁹ V[orontsov, V.], “Kapitalizm i rabochaya intelligentsiya”, in: Otechestvennye Zapiski, CCLXVII (1884), Sovremennoe obozrenie, p. 139. The article is dated 16 11 1883.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ PSZ, Third Series, No 2404. 23 08 1884, pp. 456–74.Google Scholar Tolstoi had been preparing the statute since the mid 1870's, but its enactment was delayed by his enforced resignation in 1880 during Loris-Melikov's “constitutional” manoeuvre. After the Tsar's assassination Tolstoi returned as Minister of the Interior. For an authoritative account of the government's discussions on the universities, see Zaionchkovskii, , Krizis, , op. cit., pp. 111ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Alston, , Education, p. 130;Google Scholar Shchetinina, , Universitety, pp. 203–04.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Hans, , History, p. 147.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Ibid., p. 145.

¹⁰⁴ Ibid., p. 147.

¹⁰⁵ Shchetinina, , Universitety, pp. 199–200;Google Scholar Johnson, , Heritage, pp. 154–55.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Alston, , Education, pp. 130–33.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁷ See Table 2.

¹⁰⁸ Hans, , History, p. 178.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See Table 2.

¹¹⁰ See Tables 1 and 4.

¹¹¹ Rashin, A. G., Naselenie Rossii za 100 let (1811–1913). Statisticheskie ocherki (Moscow, 1956), p. 124, Table 87. and p. 126, Table 89; Sankt-Peterburg po perepisi 10 dekabrya 1869 goda, I (St Petersburg, 1872), Pt 3, pp. 110–11, 116–17; Sankt-Peterburg po perepisi 15 dekabrya 1881 goda, I (St Petersburg, 1884). ch. 1, pp 242–43; Statisticheskie svedeniya o zhitelyakh g. Moskvy po perepisi 12 dekabrya 1871 goda, I (Moscow, 1874), Pt 3, pp. 68–69; Perepis' Moskvy 1882 goda (Moscow, 1885–1886), II, ch. I, pp. 27–32.Google Scholar For more detailed accounts of the raznochirnsy, see Ch., Becker, “Raznochintsy: The Development of the Word and the Concept”, in: American Slavic and East European Review, XVIII (1959), pp. 63–74;Google Scholar Vul'fson, G. N., Raznochinno-demokraticheskoe dvizhenie v Povolzh'e i na Urale (Kazan, 1974).Google Scholar

¹¹² All the above figures for 1858 and 1897 refer to European Russia and not to the whole Russian Empire, for purposes of comparability. They are drawn from Statisticheskie tablitsy Rossiiskoi Imperii, II (1863), pp. 267–93; Obshchii svod po Imperii rezul'tatov razrabotki dannykh pervoi vseobshchei perepisi naseleniya, proizvedennoi 28 yanvarya 1897 goda (St Petersburg, 1905), I, pp. 160–87.Google Scholar

¹¹³ Zhurnal, , XII (1836), p. 330.Google Scholar Data for St Petersburg, Moscow, Kiev, Kazan and Kharkov universities are in Table 1. Dorpat is excluded for purposes of comparison with Egorov. The Zhurnal data for this period have been almost totally ignored in the secondary literature, except by Flynn, (“Tuition”, pp. 241–42, note 22), who refers to the 1840 data but cites no figures. In addition to the national data for 1835 and 1840, the Zhurnal also contains useful material on individual universities for other dates in this period (see notes 128, 130, 132).Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Egorov, , “Studenchestvo”, pp. 6–14, Tables 1–6. The group entitled raznochintsy clearly includes both the clergy and the petty bourgeois. The elite group in Egorov's tables is labelled “nobles and oberofitsery”, with no mention of civil servants. Comparison of Egorov's data with those of Leikina-Svirskaya for Kazan in 1848–49 (“Formirovanie”, pp. 86–87) and especially with Ryabikova's Moscow data, taking into account an average of 8−10% for the clergy, clearly demonstrates that Egorov's elite group is likely to include the non-noble civil servants.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Zhurnal, , XXXII (1841), pp. 32–35.Google Scholar Same universities as in note 113. Flynn (Ibid.) points out that both Egorov and Ryabikova unnecessarily omit the clergy as a separate group from their tables. He also notes the inconsistencies between individual universities in the categorization of some of the minor non-noble groups. The same is in fact true of the 1835 data.

¹¹⁶ Leikina-Svirskaya, , “Formirovanie”, pp. 86–87. Same universities as in note 113, with the addition of Dorpat. See note 37.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Sbornik spravochnykh svedenii po Ministerstvu Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya za 1862 i, chast'yu, za 1863 i 1864 gody (St Petersburg, 1864), no page numbers, 4. Statisticheskie vedomosti ob uchebnykh zavedeniyakh, A. Universitety, table entitled “Podrobnaya vedomost' o studentakh v universitetakh k 1-mu yanvarya 1863 goda”. Same universities as in note 116. The absolute total of students at the time of the survey was 4,551, but the social origins of 376(8.3%) were not discovered. Of these, more than three-quarters (293) were at Kiev university. Rather surprisingly, this source has been almost totally ignored. The only reference to it that we have seen is in Hans, , History, p. 244 (bibliography).Google Scholar The two sections of the elite are labelled here as “hereditary nobles” and “personal nobles”, with no mention of civil servants. The Zhurnal also published data at this time for some of the individual universities referred to in the Sbornik spravochnykh svedenii, and likewise dated 1 January 1863. The elite is not subdivided in the Zhurnal materials, but is clearly labelled in each case as “sons of nobles and civil servants”. Most of the Zhurnal figures are very close to those in the Sbornik. For example (Zhurnal figures first), St Petersburg: 275 nobles and civil servants out of 383 (71.8%); 205 hereditary nobles and 72 personal nobles out of 383 (72.3%);Kazan: 263 out of 399 (65.9%) as against 120 and 142 out of 405 (64.7%). These figures strongly suggest that the same social groups are included in the elite in both sources, and that the “personal nobles” in the Sbornik in fact include the civil servants, as was the normal custom in university statistics (see Shchetinina, , Universitety, p.71, Table 1). Zhurnal data from CXIX (1863), Pt 2, pp. 283, 495: CXX (1863), Pt 2, pp. 403, 452–53.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Obzor deyatel'nosti, Prilozheniya, p. 230. Same six universities as in note 116. The figure of 14.0% for the peasantry is impossible to accept in the light of all the other data presented. One can only assume that the “urban estates” consist solely of the honorary citizens and merchants and that the petty bourgeois, artisans and raznochintsy are included with the peasantry. As a result, those scholars reproducing this source give a false impression about which social groups participated in the democratization of the universities at this time. See Rashin, , “Gramotnost”, p. 78, Tables 58–59;Google Scholar Kahan, , “Social Structure”, p. 370, Table 6B;Google Scholar Brower, , Training the Nihilists, p. 114. In the data for individual universities, not reproduced by other scholars, the Obzor deyatel'nosti gives figures of about 76% for the nobles and civil servants at Kazan and Kharkov universities, far higher than at any other date. In these two cases a section of the urban estates (perhaps the honorary citizens) appears to have been included in the figure for nobles and civil servants as well as in that for the peasantry.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Kamosko, , “Izmeneniya”, p. 204Google Scholar (Kamosko's figures reproduce those in Shchetinina, , “Universitety”, loc. cit., pp. 166, 205–06). Same universities as in note 113, plus Odessa. In all four years, the data for the urban estates and the peasantry are included in the single column “Others”. Kamosko claims (note 4) that “in this and following tables (except the column headed ‘Total’) data about foreign students are omitted, as they are of no significance for the solution of the present question.” However, the totals do in fact tally with the sum of the individual figures presented. This does not seriously affect the overall picture, as the level of foreign students was normally about 2%.Google Scholar

¹²⁰ Shchetinina, , “Alfavitnye spiski”, p. 118, Table 6, p. 120, Table 9, and p. 121, Table 10. Same universities as in note 116, minus Kharkov (our Table 1); same universities as in note 113, plus Odessa (our Table 8).Google Scholar

¹²¹ Universitety, as in note 76; Leikina-Svirskaya, , Intelligentsiya, p. 62 (lower row). The census covers the universities included in note 116, plus Odessa and Warsaw. The data in the upper row are taken from our transcription of the census. Leikina-Svirskaya's are apparently from various sources. She refers to “(1880 – the year of the census)” (p. 57), and describes the way in which the 1880 census differs from her other data in dividing the nobility into two sections (p. 60). However, she does not include this source in her list of materials used in connection with the universities (p. 332, note 7), bunly in relation to the secondary schools (p. 331, note 2). Whatever the reason, her data differ considerably from our own, with a total of 8,120 instead of 8,193, and with figures for most groups between 9 and 25 lower than our own. The one exception is the case of the clergy, given as 42 higher than in our data. Almost all the significant differences relate to Kiev and Dorpat universities. Leikina-Svirskaya has also included as “foreigners” the group entitled “other estates” in the census. These other estates presumably include the foreigners, but may well also include other marginal groups. A figure of 5% seems rather high for the foreigners alone, when in all our other data up to 1900 (except 1864–65, when the percentage was lower still) the foreigners represented l½-2½% of the student body.Google Scholar

¹²² Hans, , History, p. 236.Google Scholar

¹²³ Ibid., p. 55.

¹²⁴ Kahan, , “Social Structure”, p. 370, Table 6A.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Rashin, , “Gramotnost”, pp. 72–74, Tables 47–51 (gymnasiums); p. 78, Tables 58–59 (universities).Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Kamosko, , “Izmeneniya”, pp. 205–06.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Sinel, , Classroom, p. 204, Table I.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ For data not included here on these and other individual universities, see Egorov, , “Reaktsionnaya politika”, pp. 61–67, Tables 1–5;Google Scholar Erman, , Intelligentsiya, op. cit., p. 29;Google Scholar id., “Sostav”, p. 174. Table 10;Google Scholar Hans, , History, p. 79;Google Scholar Leikina-Svirskaya, , “Formirovanie”, pp. 86–87;Google Scholar Ryabikova, , “Chislennost”, p. 65, Table 6;Google Scholar Shchetinina, , “Alfavitnye spiski”, pp. 120–21, Tables 9–10;Google Scholar id., “Universitety”, pp. 166, 205–06;Google Scholar id., Universitety, pp. 71–72, 199–203: Trudy Odesskogo Statisticheskogo Komiteta (Odessa, 1867), p. 129;Google Scholar Zhurnal, , VIII (1835), p. 321; CCII (1879), p. 41; CCIII (1879), pp. 74–75; CCVII (1880), p. 24; CCVIII (1880), pp. 43–45;CCIX (1880), pp. 84–85, 165; CCX (1880), pp. 71–72; CCXI (1880), pp. 94–95.Google Scholar

¹²⁹ Hans, , History, p. 79.Google Scholar

¹³⁰ Offitsial'no-uchebnye pribavleniya k Zhurnalu Ministerstva Narodnogo Prosveshcheniya, 1840, p. 90.

¹³¹ Brower, , “Fathers”, pp. 344–45.Google Scholar

¹³² Offitsial'no-uchebnye pribavleniya, 1843, p. 70. Two sets of percentages are given in Table 3 because the source gives two different totals.

¹³³ Egorov, , “Reaktsionnaya politika”, pp. 61–67, Tables 1–5.Google Scholar

¹³⁴ Brower, , Training the Nihilists, p. 42, Table 2. Brower in “Fathers” gives a total for the nobles of 585 out of 1,026, which is 57 per cent. His figures for the non-noble bureaucrats differ in his two pieces by 3 per cent.Google Scholar

¹³⁵ Confino, , “On Intellectuals”, p. 146, note 36.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ Leikina-Svirskaya, , Intelligentsiya, p. 177.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Zhurnal, , CXXXVII, Sovremennaya letopis', p. 306.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Ibid., CXCVI (1878), pp. 155–56.

¹³⁹ Shchetinina, , Universitety, pp. 199–200, Tables 12–13. The 1885 row covers St Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov and Odessa universities; the data for 1889 refer to St Petersburg, Kiev, Kazan and Odessa.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Leikina-Svirskaya, , Intelligentsiya. pp. 63–64. For both 1895 and 1900, the upper row includes the universities of St Petersburg, Moscow, Kazan, Kharkov, Dorpat and Warsaw. In each case the lower row also includes Odessa university. The data for Odessa differ from the others in that all the urban estates and the peasantry are taken as a single group. Leikina-Svirskaya provides separate overall totals and percentages for each of the three estates involved, based on the other six universities. Her main series of overall totals includes Odessa, and groups the three estates into one. However, in the 1895 table, she cites figures of 5,140 for the nobility and 554 for the clergy which in fact represent the totals for those estates excluding the Odessa students (the correct totals are 5,376 and 592). We have therefore attempted to avoid confusion by including two complete tables for each of 1895 and 1900. The upper row excludes Odessa completely and includes all the individual estates for the other six universities. The lower row includes Odessa and groups the three estates into one. It may be noted that the two sets of rows differ in most cases by no more than about 0.2%, which illustrates the typicality of Odessa students in their social origins.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ Chutkerashvili, , Kadry, op. cit., p. 60, Table 3–1. He states (p. 59) that the “Others” column includes some workers. Rashin does not specify at all.Google Scholar

¹⁴² “Universitetskii vopros”, pp. 175–76.

¹⁴³ Data on seminarians and financial assistance are taken as follows from Zhurnal, , Sovremennaya letopis'. St Petersburg: CXXIX (1866), pp. 559–65; CXXXVII, p. 144; CXLIII (1869), p. 79; CXLVIII, p. 32; CLV (1871), pp. 78–79; CLXI (1872), p. 33; CLXVIII (1873), p. 69; CLXXV (1874), pp. 55–56; CLXXVIII (1875), p. 118; CLXXXV (1876), p. 41; CXC (1877), pp. 131–32; CXCVI, pp. 27879; CCII, p. 84; CCVIII, pp. 134–35; Moscow: XCVII (1858), p. 43; CIX (1861), p. 63; CXIII (1862), p. 57; CXXIV (1864), Pt 2, pp. 27–28; CXXX (1866), pp. 396, 399–401; CXXXVII, pp. 304–05; CXLI (1869), pp. 28, 220: CXLVIII, p. 169; CLVII (1871), pp. 41–42; CLXIV (1872), pp. 53–55; CLXIX (1873), p. 117; CLXXV. p. 78; CLXXX (1875), p. 105; CLXXXVI (1876), pp. 11–12; CXCI (1877), pp. 126–27; CXCVI, pp. 155–56; CCVIII, pp. 43–45; Kiev: CXXIII (1864), Pt 2, p. 78; CXXV (1865), p. 390; CXXX, pp. 113–15; CXLIV (1869), pp. 175–76; CXLIX (1870), pp. 186–87; CLVI (1871), pp. 49 (page misnumbered here), 64; CLXIII (1872), p. 93; CLXVII (1873), pp. 76–77; CLXXIII (1874), p. 92; CLXXIX (1875), p. 70; CLXXXV, p. 69; CXCI, p. 46; CXCVII (1878), p. 16; CCIII, pp. 239–40; CCIX, p. 165; Kazan: CXXIII, Pt 2, p. 697; CXXXII (1866), pp. 20–21; CXXXIX (1868), pp. 305–06; CXLIV, pp. 165–66; CXLIX, pp. 12–13; CLVI, pp. 129–31; CLXII (1872), pp. 63–65; CLXX (1873), pp. 10–11; CLXXXII (1875), p. 85; CLXXXVIII (1876); pp. 69–70; CXCIII (1877), pp. 142–43; CXCVIII (1878), p. 25; CCVI (1879), p. 47; CCX, pp. 71–72; Kharkov: CXXIII, Pt 2, pp. 451, 455–56; CXXXI (1866), pp. 523–25, 531–35; CXXXIX, p. 298; CXLIII, pp. 209–10; CXLIX, pp.26–27; CLVIII (1871), pp. 97–98; CLXII, p. 13; CLXIX, p. 14; CLXXVI (1874), p. 44; CLXXXI (1875), p. 29; CLXXXVII, pp. 190–91; CXCIV (1877), pp. 36–37; CXCIX (1878), p. 23; CCVI, pp. 96–97; Dorpat: CXXXIX, p. 394; CXLIV, pp. 23–24; CLI (1870), pp. 40–41; CLIX (1872), p.7; CLXIV, p.66; CLXX, pp. 94–95; CLXXVI, p. 201; CLXXXIII, pp. 24–25; CXCIII, p. 126; CXCIX, p. 52; CCIII, pp.74–75; CCIX, pp. 84–85; Odessa: CXXXII, pp. 20–21, 40–41; CXXXIX, p.390; CXLI, p. 28; CXLIV, p. 18; CXLIX, p. 196; CLV, p. 178; CLXIII, p. 215; CLXVII, pp. 8–9; CLXXII (1874), p. 46; CLXXIX, p.6; CLXXXIX(1877), p. 32; CXCII (1877), p. 59; CC (1878), p. 37; CCII, p. 41; CCVII, p. 24; CCXI, pp. 94–95; also Trudy Odesskogo Statisticheskogo Komiteta, IV (1870), pp. 215–16; Warsaw: Zhurnal, CLI, pp. 28–29, 32–33; CLVIII, p.9; CLXIV, p. 129: CLXVI (1873), pp. 130–31; CLXXIV (1874), p. 111; CLXXXII, p. 24; CLXXXVII, p. 52; CXCII, pp. 14–15; CXCVII, p. 81.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁴ “O chisle okonchivshikh kurs”, loc. cit., p. 93s.

¹⁴⁵ Sources as in note 143. Table 7 only includes years where there are data for all three types of financial assistance. Where two sets of figures appear in one column, they indicate the percentage of students receiving assistance in the two halves of the year. It should be noted that these percentages are sometimes taken from the separate totals given for each semester, but sometimes from a single total given for the whole academic year. The Kiev totals for the two halves of 1875 and 1876 do not tally with the sums of the individual figures presented. We have therefore given two pairs of percentages.

¹⁴⁶ Zhurnal, , IX (1836), p. 133.Google Scholar

¹⁴⁷ Ibid., XI (1836), p. 635.

¹⁴⁸ Universitety (cf. note 76), p. 12.

¹⁴⁹ Ibid., pp. 436–41.