(1855–1881), there were many reforms within the educational system. But the reactionary conservatism
fostered by Nicholas I often undermined those reforms. One of the most important changes concerned the development of the
rural school system. In the mid-1860’s, after the Emancipation of the serfs, elected county or rural councils(
zemstvos
) were created. These rural councils included members from both the wealthier nobles and the smaller landowners. Although
the desire for liberal reform varied from region to region, nevertheless, these councils managed to improve the rural school
system for the peasants. Naturally, the more conservative elements in the Russian educational system resented the work of
the councils and did their utmost to undermine both the influence of the councils and the results of their pedagogical activities.
Teachers in the
Zemstvo
schools were regularly subjected to harassment and repression.
With the assassination of Alexander II in 1881, the reactionaries received fresh impetus to suppress liberal reform in the
public school system. Under K. P. Pobedonostsev, the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, as well as other reactionary officials
chosen by Alexander III (1881–94) and Nicholas II (1894–1917), there was a concerted attempt to exert the authoritarian influence
of the Church over public schools. Curiously enough, the
zemstvos
were largely successful in resisting this move to sectarianize the schools, largely because they contributed the lion’s share
of financial support to the rural school system and the Government did not have the funds to wrest control from the councils.
To counter this influence of the
zemstvos
, the Government created a plan to strengthen the parish schools so that they could compete with the secular or rural schools.
The revised curriculum proposed for the parish school concentrated particularly on religious subjects (including prayers,
the catechism and even singing Church music). Because of large amounts of funding from the Government, the parish schools
actually burgeoned for a while through the later 1890s. But that growth quickly declined after 1905 and the
zemstvp
schools were clearly in the ascendancy. In the early part of the 20th Century the rural councils began to design a scheme
whereby education would be accessible to the peasantry not only in theory, but in practice as well. This plan called for the
organization and construction of schools that would be strategically located so that no pupils would have to go farther than
two miles to attend school. Beginning with various reforms introduced after the aborted revolution of 1905, there was a see-sawing
battle between conservatives and liberals to further “deform” or “reform” the educational system. In general, great progress
was made towards expanding the educational system and liberalizing the regulations governing education in Russia by the time
of the Revolution. 19
Against this schematic background of educational progress and regression throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries,
the reader might better comprehend the social significance of Sologub’s extensive preoccupation with and description of the
educational milieu described in the novel. Peredonov, the tireless and tyrannical reactionary, obviously sees the teacher’s
role as being that of the moral policeman rather than the purveyor of knowledge. The supreme way of dispensing disciplinary
punishment (and simultaneously gratifying his own sadistic lasciviousness) is to become an Inspector who controls the police
force of school Prefects. The tension between the champions of the ultra-reactionary educational system of parish schools
and rural council schools is portrayed in Peredonov’s confrontationswith the Marshal of the Nobility, Veriga, and the local
zemstvo
chairman, Kirillov. The question of varying social status within the system is reflected at many points