Student obstruction at Moscow University in the second third of the 19th century as a form of protest activity

Gritsenko Alina Igorevna Postgraduate student; Faculty of History; Lomonosov Moscow State University 108821, Russia, Moscow, village Filimonkovskoye, Usadebny Park str., 3, sq. 148 a.l.i.n.a.1991@mail.ru

The problem of the formation and functioning of the student corporation in the universities of the Russian Empire is an important scientific topic within the framework of the modern historiographical tradition. This process was seriously influenced not only by the student customs and traditions that were formed in the middle of the XIX century, but also by the student circles and societies that appeared. The conflicting episodes of university history are also sufficiently indicative of the practices of interaction between university residents and their willingness to show corporate solidarity.

In the typology of conflicts that took place in the university environment of the specified time, conflicts between university pets and teachers occupy a special place. The most striking manifestation of student protest against objectionable professors should be considered various types of obstruction, which periodically occurred in the classrooms of Moscow University, the largest university in Russia, which had a long tradition of student freethinking.

The purpose of this article is to identify the most characteristic features of student obstruction at Moscow University in the middle of the XIX century – their causes, reasons for protest, results and consequences for students. The study of this phenomenon seems all the more justified because in modern Russian historiography there are practically no works devoted to the study of this problem. Thus, the article by the Kharkov historian I. S. Posokhov is partly comparative in nature and puts obstruction in the broader context of students' protest against university authorities and living conditions at universities ^[1]. A number of works by Russian authors relate to politicized forms of protest of a much later era ^{[2, 3]}, and Soviet authors sought to reduce any form of student opposition to teachers to the early stages of the formation of a revolutionary movement in a diverse environment ^[4].

The very concept of "obstruction" (from Latin. obstructio – "obstacle") dates back to British parliamentary practice and meant in the XVIII-XIX centuries opposition to normal legislative work on the part of opposition deputies in the form of delays, "slamming" speakers, etc. However, this concept also has a broader interpretation – "actions demonstratively aimed at disrupting something ^[5]", and in this regard it is quite possible to talk about methods of student obstruction in relation to objectionable teachers.

Within the walls of Moscow University, students allowed themselves to show dissatisfaction with the lectures of a number of teachers at the dawn of the XIX century. As Posokhov rightly noted, the first cases of obstructionist actions by Moscow students were noted in the memoir literature in relation to the 1810s ^{[1, p. 103]}. In the middle of this century, as Sverbeev recalled, a "funny story" happened at the beginning of a lecture by an unpopular professor of universal history, N. E. Cherepanov: students continued to shuffle their feet and thereby create creaking and noise much longer than it was required to greet the lecturer. The professor understood what this behavior meant by remarking to the students that their "such courtesy <...> worse than any ignorance", after which he continued to lecture in his usual dispassionate tone ^{[6, p. 11]}, eliminating the conflict.

However, in the previous case, as the author of the memoirs himself admitted, this situation at Professor Cherepanov's lecture occurred unintentionally ^{[6, p. 11]}, and this episode, therefore, cannot be about conscious collective protest.

Since the 1830s, Moscow professors have periodically begun to face various forms of student opposition. As a rule, students were not satisfied with either the manner of presentation of the material or the very content of the lecture course. Some students, especially those who were critical of the order prevailing at the University, allowed themselves to be impertinent in response to the remarks of teachers, as V. G. Belinsky did ^{[7, p. 42]}, and A. I. Herzen, who somewhat overestimated the opposition and organization of the students, argued that at that time students "openly said in the audience everything that came in the head ^{[8, p. 53]}", even if it went against the teacher's position or violated discipline and the calm course of classes.

It was in this atmosphere that the so-called "Malovskaya story" of 1831 broke out, the first successful student obstruction in the history of Moscow University, when an objectionable professor was not only kicked out of the classroom, but actually forced to resign soon. Among the reasons for the student protest in the memoir literature is the rudeness of the professor of the political department M. Ya. Malov in his treatment of students ^{[9, p. 316]}. One of the main participants in this story, A.I. Herzen, added that Malov was "a stupid and uneducated professor ^{[8, p. 53]}", and the students despised him ^{[10, p. 241-242]}.

The students were especially outraged that Malov called one of them a "pig ^{[9, p. 321]}" – at that time it was a significant humiliation, because of which scuffles and fights took place between the students themselves ^{[11, l. 1]}. Students also did not approve of other attempts to compare them with animals, be it a donkey or a horse, and even the teacher's reproach to "boys" students was perceived as a challenge ^{[10, pp. 336-337]}.

Eventually, the students of the political department decided to protest, and on March 16, 1831, the same Herzen brought the "auxiliary army" – a number of students of the physics and mathematics department ‑ to the political auditorium. The atmosphere in the audience was heated to the limit, and only one bold remark by Malov to the students was enough to make obstruction inevitable. Among the means of expelling the professor, "whistling, hissing, shouting ^{[8, p. 54]}", stomping and throwing various objects at the professor are mentioned in the memoirs ^{[10, p. 339]}. In the official reports of the university authorities, mocking applause and shuffling of feet were added to this list, accompanying the beginning of the lecture ^{[9, p. 322]}.

As a result of such a powerful and organized protest by the entire student audience, Malov was forced to leave, but the students chased him in the university courtyard and even on the street, throwing his galoshes after him ^{[8, p. 54]}. Ya.I. Kostenetsky adds that a crowd of students chased the unwanted teacher far down Tverskaya Street, "atuka" as when hunting a hare ^{[10, p. 340]}.

Later, Herzen, who recalled the "Malovskaya story", noticed that the students, in the heat of the struggle with the hated professor, forgot that outside the university walls the whole incident took on a completely different appearance and was subject to investigation by police officials. Malov himself also added fuel to the fire by going to complain about students not to the university authorities, but to the Third Department. Moreover, he hastened to inform the gendarmes that the students staged a political protest against his lecture on the "good of monarchism", which was an obvious lie and was quickly refuted ^{[9, p. 318]}. Malov later told the university authorities that he had no idea about the reasons for the demonstration, and he had done absolutely nothing wrong to the students.

Despite the intervention of police officials, the case ended unexpectedly mildly for the students: according to the results of an internal university investigation, several students (including M. Rosenheim, Prince A. Obolensky, and also Herzen), declared the instigators, were put in a punishment cell for four days "on bread and water", and the last punishment was completely ignored ^{[8, pp. 56-57]}. Kostenetsky added that immediately after the obstruction arranged by Malov, students began to actively gather to discuss what had happened, as well as their position at the University and other issues in general ^{[10, pp. 340-341]}, and this became the prototype of gatherings and societies of the post-reform period.

Malov's superiors made the idea that after what happened, he could no longer remain a University professor. The only thing that the latter managed to achieve was a postponement of his dismissal for several months, until August 1831, as well as the appointment of a pension for him. With Malov's departure from Moscow University, the "Malovskaya story" ended successfully – largely due to the position of the rector of Dvigubsky and the university authorities, who recognized Malov's rudeness and incompetence, and at the same time the de facto right of students to protest against unfit teachers.

Despite such a successful outcome, the next two decades of the existence of Moscow University, following the adoption of the University Charter in 1835, passed without such excesses, although the student body gradually grew in numbers throughout the 1830s and 1840s, and the nobility in the ranks of the students gradually gave way to the commoners [for more details, see: 12].

In fact, the next significant case of student obstruction against a teacher was the "Varnek story" that happened at Moscow University in 1858, shortly before the beginning of the "Great Reforms". Unlike Malov, who was not respected by colleagues since the time of defending his own master's thesis on the apology of absolute monarchy (Sverbeev told about the dispute related to the defense of Malov's master's thesis in 1815 in his memoirs, however, mistakenly attributing the authorship of the work to Beketov ^{[6, pp. 17-18]}), a young professor of zoology N. A. Varnek was a bright scientist, and a number of his works were significantly ahead of their time ^{[13, p. 113]}. However, it was this outstanding professor who became the second teacher in the history of Moscow University to face a protest in the audience.

The resentment of the medical students at Varnek had several reasons. Firstly, as P. V. Lebedinsky pointed out in his memoirs, Varnek was really harsh and rude to students, as well as overly demanding in exams – it came to direct bullying of students who had failed ^{[14, p. 312]}. Secondly, the teacher's great self-esteem, his professional pride and the belief that students are obliged to perceive complex educational material in the form in which it is offered at lectures also played a role.

Finally, the fatal role was played by the confusion with the lecture courses that were given, which occurred due to a multiple increase in the number of medical students after the government lifted restrictions on admission to universities ^{[15, pp. 12-13]}. As a result, the first year of the medical faculty of Moscow University, numbering more than 250 people, was divided into two departments, and they needed to give separate lectures. In this situation, Varnek decided to read zoology first for one half of the course, and comparative anatomy for the other, while he sharply rejected students' complaints about the inconvenience of perceiving the material and the ambiguity of the presentation ^{[14, p. 312]}.

Eventually, having exhausted legal ways to deal with the professor (the appeal of doctors to the dean had no result), the student meeting decided to arrange an obstruction. It was decided to "boo" the professor and force him to resign from the university department. Again, as in 1831, it was decided to give the obstruction a university–wide character - not only doctors, but also law students and even philologists decided to fight the professor of zoology. With the full connivance of the university authorities and sub-inspectors in relation to student "gatherings", the meeting set a day for an organized protest against Varnek ^{[14, p. 313]}.

On the day appointed for the demonstration, the audience did not even allow the professor to begin the lecture, deafening him with universal whistling at the very beginning of the lesson. Without stopping whistling, the students left the auditorium in full force, and the confused Varnek felt sick and even fainted in the next room. In the current situation, the university authorities went to the trick of calling the first-year students of the medical faculty one by one to the inspector and forcing them to sign up to attend Varnek's lectures, the reading of which was to resume soon. However, on the appointed day, a full audience of medical students and students of other faculties who supported them declared through the mouth of their deputy, student Zhokhov, that the professor "has no ego", provokes a scandal, and they no longer intend to listen to him. Neither the dean of the faculty Polunin, nor the rector Alfonsky, nor even the trustee Bakhmetev could shake this decision of the students ^{[14, pp. 314-315]}.

As a result of all these events, the department of Zoology and Comparative Anatomy was soon given to another teacher, and Varnek left Moscow University in 1860 under the plausible pretext of deteriorating eyesight (he lost an eye five years before the events described above). In subsequent years, Varnek worked for the Ministry of Public Education and fruitfully engaged in scientific research until the end of the 1880s ^{[13, p. 114]}.

However, the victory over Professor Varnek cost the students more than the "lightest" punishment of prominent participants in the Malov story. Some time after the obstruction, the university authorities conducted a survey among students about their role in the "Varnek story" and despite the fact that students tried to respond uniformly and deny the political background in the protest, student deputies were found guilty and expelled from the University ("unconditionally" excluded Zhokhov, deputies Bystrov, Dobrovolsky and Stolpiansky), a number of other people for harsh responses to the survey. In addition, a number of students refused to subscribe and were expelled from the University, who were punished "conditionally", but refused to subscribe in their loyalty ^{[14, p. 317]}. In total, a dozen and a half people were forced to leave the University.

Another consequence of the students' victory over Varnek was the tightening of internal rules at Moscow University, which radical students protested against, and Herzen even called them shameful and "military police" on the pages of the Bell [Cit. according to: 15, p. 465], although in reality it was only about establishing monthly control of the Ministry over the educational and scientific activities of medical students ^{[17, p. 30-31]}. In general, however, in the conditionally liberal era of university history, which began on the eve of the abolition of serfdom, the University leadership dealt with the instigators of the protest much more strictly than the authorities of the Nikolaev era – with the participants of the "Malovskaya history".

Infrequent but vivid cases of student obstruction directed against objectionable teachers, who caused the displeasure of the student body, represent a visible manifestation of the corporate identity of university students with its inherent heightened sense of self-esteem, a critical view of the state of affairs at the University, sometimes even an excessively strict attitude to the content of lectures and the manner of teaching professors. In the second half of the 19th century, the students of Moscow University, as well as other higher educational institutions of the Russian Empire, will continue their struggle with conservative professors and university authorities, including on political issues.