18. History of Modern Russia
N. Rozhkov taught “History of Modern Russia” in 1923. It was a survey course that included an examination of everything from the Great Reforms to the February and October Revolutions to the New Economic Policy. It was most likely skewed toward Marxist explanations in terms of economic forces, drawing from such works as M. N. Pokrovsky’s Russian History in Briefest (1923).
19. History of Pedagogical Doctrines
In his tenure as head of Narkompros, Lunacharsky had stressed progressive pedagogy, influenced heavily by the teachings of John Dewey. “Activity methods of learning,” with increased pupil participation and student-teacher meetings, was the educational credo of the day. Dewey’s works on educational theory and practice were published in the Soviet Union. In fact, from 1918 to 1923, five of Dewey’s books were translated.29 As I argue in Russian Radical, it is entirely possible that Rand studied progressive pedagogy closely; this early exposure to Dewey’s educational theories may have left an impression, since she remained deeply critical of the progressive approach.30
“History of Pedagogical Doctrines” was probably taught by V. A. Zelenko.31 In addition to stressing progressive pedagogy, Zelenko incorporated crucial dialectical insights into his lectures, noting especially the links between education and socioeconomic principles, and the integration of socialist culture, science, and art.
20. Methodology of the Social Sciences
Whether this course was actually taught by Tarle or Kareev or even Takhtarev, it centered on one essential theme: dialectical method as applied to the social sciences.32 Most certainly, this dialectical application was heavily infused with Marxist concepts steeped in historical materialism. It was this kind of “dialectic materialism” that Rand rejected unequivocally.33 But the dialectical form of its presentation was crucial. It required that one view society as a developing system, that is, not as a random conglomeration of unrelated organizations and institutions, but as an integrated, evolving totality of related structures and processes. It stressed “reciprocity between things and the reciprocity of aspects and moments within a thing” (GSE, vol. 8, 1975, 190). It celebrated Lenin’s “methodological conclusion,” “one of the basic principles of the dialectic,” that “in order to genuinely know an object, one must seize it and study it from all sides, with all its interconnections and [mediations]” (GSE, vol. 8, 1975, 186).34
21. The Politics and Organization of Popular Education in the USSR
This course, which discussed the branches of Soviet education, was probably taught by Zelenko, who was the likely teacher of course #19. Given that Rand was enrolled in the Department of Social Pedagogy, both courses were probably part of the curriculum, which sought to increase the number of educators in the Soviet Union.
22. Special Course: History of Medieval Trade
This “special course” was most likely taught by Grevs, who was a specialist in medieval European history. He focused on the fathers of the Latin Church and on the medieval humanists, Dante and Petrarch, but was also well-known for his work on the development of socioeconomic forms. Like N. D. Fustel de Coulanges, Grevs saw continuity between the social structure of the late Roman period and the early Middle Ages. He authored such works as Essays from the History of Roman Landownership and Essays on Florentine Culture (GSE, vol. 7, 1975, 418). Of greatest significance, perhaps, was Grevs’s prominent advocacy of higher education for women. He was a pioneer of the seminar system and of university field trips, and it is likely that Rand would have benefitted from his intense interest in promoting the intellectual success of his women students. Among the texts that would have been used by Grevs was D. M. Petrushevsky’s Essays on the Economic and Social History of Medieval Europe, despite its decidedly non-Marxist tenor.
23. Political Economy
Part of the standard Marxist social science curriculum (David-Fox 1997, 61), this course may have been taught by the Marxist N. A. Trebesnul, who also taught on the “Sociology of Labor.” It entailed a study of contemporary Marxist concepts of economic analysis, including the labor theory of value, the exploitation theory, the critique of capitalism—and the communist alternative as exemplified by the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
24. Seminar in Modern History (Sixteenth-Century England)
In what was probably Rand’s final semester at the university, she registered for senior-level seminars in history, the first of which was probably taught by Sergei Rozhdestvensky, who specialized in sixteenth-century landholding and lectured at the university throughout the 1920s. He used important Marxist texts by N. M. Pakul and I. I. Semenov on the Dutch and English Revolutions, which stressed the interconnections of economics, politics, culture, and ideology. He may have also surveyed some of the period’s great literary works of poetry and drama.
25. Seminar in Modern History (Seventeenth-Century France)
This seminar was probably taught by Tarle, who was the most likely teacher of course #16.
26. Seminar in the History of the Middle Ages (the Medieval Estate)
This seminar was probably taught by Grevs, who was the most likely teacher of course #22. Grevs used such texts as D. M. Petrushevsky’s Essays on Medieval Society and State.
Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical proposed a daring idea—that Rand had absorbed a dialectical orientation from her teachers. Because there was not much archival information available at the time that I authored my book, I was compelled to “combine significant factual evidence with a certain degree of reasonable speculation” (p. <63> of this edition). The recovered transcript provides more persuasive evidence of Rand’s exposure to some of the finest dialectically oriented Russian scholars of the Silver Age. Many of these scholars I had previously identified and discussed in Russian Radical as among Rand’s most probable teachers. We now have a clearer picture of the high caliber of Rand’s education; indeed, the quality of her undergraduate coursework was on a par with current doctoral programs in the social sciences—minus the dissertation requirement.
Most importantly, the transcript strengthens the central historical argument of Russian Radical, a thesis quite apart from the question of whether Rand studied with Lossky, or with any other particular scholar. Ultimately, it is the content and method of her education that matters. Indeed, “[w]hether she was reading her Marxist texts or attending the lectures of her non-Marxist professors, Alissa Rosenbaum was fully exposed to the dialectical methods distinctive to Russian thought and scholarship” (<76>). We now have more credible evidence than ever in support of this contention.
Given the character of the subject matter and of the teachers with whom she probably studied, it is clear that the dialectical motif was present quite explicitly in nearly three-quarters of the courses in which Rand enrolled. In those courses where that motif was distorted by Marxist propaganda, the young Rand still may have gleaned important lessons. For instance, in studying “Historical Materialism” (#6) or “Political Economy” (#23), Rand may have comprehended a key dialectical principle in terms quite different from its materialist monist exposition: that there are reciprocal interactions among the different aspects of society—economics, politics, aesthetics, culture, and psychology—and that these interactions are at the foundation of social change. And while Rand may have rejected the notion of “socialist” culture, science, and art, as put forth in such courses as “History of Pedagogical Doctrines” (#19), she may have learned to appreciate organic connections among seemingly disparate factors, branches of knowledge, and social practices. Even in “Biology” (#8), Rand would not have escaped the process orientation of dialectical method, since this theme was present in the work of its most likely teacher, L. S. Berg.35
In her full-bodied study of ancient, medieval, and modern history—in courses on Greece (#9), Rome (#10), France (#14, #25), the West (#17), Russia (#18), England (#24), among others—Rand would have been taught to view each society as a structured, dynamic totality of many interrelated aspects. The univers
ity historians of the period taught their students to grasp the whole from the vantage point of any part—be it literature, architecture, or social structures—and to synthesize these diverse perspectives into a coherent totality. Through the use of such techniques, Rand’s professors provided her with an interdisciplinary, multitextured approach to history that highlighted the integration of theory and practice.
While we will never be completely sure just what Rand learned from her studies, we are now in a better position to understand, at the very least, what Rand studied. On the basis of the transcript, I reaffirm my deeply held conviction that Rand was educated in the methods of dialectical inquiry, and that this sensibility informed her entire literary and philosophical corpus.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
It took an extraordinary network of scholars and other passionate, committed individuals to locate the document, to resolve many of its puzzles, and to help me delve into the other fascinating mysteries of Rand’s Russian intellectual roots. Some individuals assisted me with issues tangential to the project, but I would like to thank everyone who helped—in ways large and small. Naturally, no one mentioned is responsible for the interpretations herein: Jacqueline Balestier, Juri Bespyatich, Nadja Bespyatich, Roger Bissell, Anna-Britt Kaca, Philippe Chamy, Stephen Cox, Michael David-Fox, Anna Ebeling, Richard Ebeling, Sheila Fitzpatrick, Murray Franck, Mimi Reisel Gladstein, Ed Hudgins, Olga Kats, George Kline, Peter Konecny, Andrei Lossky, Boris Lossky, Nicholas Lossky, Douglas E. Mayfield, Karen Minto, Bernice Rosenthal, Diana Rotblat, Piotr Shalimov, Richard Shedenhelm, Helene Sikorski, Philip Swoboda.
This essay first appeared in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 1, no. 1 (1999): 1–26.
APPENDIX II
THE RAND TRANSCRIPT, REVISITED (2005)
INTRODUCTION
With the publication of my book Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (Sciabarra 1995a), I began an investigation into Ayn Rand’s education in an attempt to identify possible influences on her intellectual development. Always of the belief that my historical inquiries were a “work in progress” (Sciabarra 1997), I extended my analysis in 1999 when I located a copy of Rand’s transcript from Petrograd State University (1921–24).1 In what constituted the very first article published in the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies, “The Rand Transcript” provided a detailed discussion of the university courses that Rand took and the orientations of the professors who were the most likely teachers of those courses (Sciabarra 1999c).
Even then, I knew that the analysis was hampered by the fact that the student records that I had in my possession were incomplete. The official transcript reported that Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum (Rand’s birth name) had entered the university on 2 October 1921 and graduated from the Social-Pedagogical Division of the Faculty (or College) of the Social Sciences of Leningrad (formerly Petrograd) State University. I described the nature of the three-year course of the obshchestvenno-pedagogicheskoe otdelenie (Department of Social Pedagogy), which, as part of the new social science curriculum at the university, had united the existing faculties (departments) of history, philology, and law. As I explained: “The integration of the historical and philosophical disciplines sought to prepare students for careers as social science educators” (363, in this edition). The transcript confirmed the “facts that I had previously uncovered in the official Rosenbaum dossier, dated 6 August 1992,” as part of my Russian Radical research, and included additional information “that Rosenbaum had received her Certificate of Graduation (Diploma No. 1552) on 13 October 1924.”
In 2005, on the occasion of the tenth anniversary of the publication of Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical, I came into possession of a much more extensive academic dossier documenting Rand’s university years and lending further weight to my previous analyses. With assistance from a network of generous researchers and scholars, I present my findings below.2
THE ARCHIVAL MATERIALS
The personal file of the student Alissa Zinovievna Rosenbaum (Central State Historic Archive of St. Petersburg, Fond 7240, Inventory #5, file 3576) includes various documents, certificates, and photos. The following materials are most relevant to the current study:
1. Petition to the Rector: Secondary School Records
Alissa Rosenbaum’s petition to the Rector of Petrograd State University is dated 14 August 1921. She was officially admitted to the university on 25 August 1921. (Rand fulfilled all the requirements of university study, passing all her requisite tests for twenty-three courses and three seminars by 15 July 1924.)
Of most importance, the petition provides information concerning Rand’s secondary school studies. She graduated on 30 June 1921 from the IV Group of Level II in School N 4 (the former Zemstvo gymnasium of A. P. Rushchinskaia and A. A. Mironovich), located in the Crimean city of Evpatoria. Her secondary school courses are listed: Languages (Russian, French, German, Latin); Mathematics; Physics; Cosmography (general description of the world or universe); History; Geography; Natural Science; Logic; Psychology; Soviet Constitution; Drawing; Political Economy; and Shop (literally “Manual Labor” or “Hand Work,” which consisted in the development of “practical” skills in both boys and girls).
Typically, students were rated by the Academic Council for both academic “achievement” and “conduct.” All of Rand’s secondary school grades are reported as “very satisfactory,” with the exception of “Soviet Constitution,” in which Rand received “credit” for having “studied” or “learned” the material. The secondary school certificate bears the signature of Mironovich, who served as Chairman of the School Council, and the signatures of other Council members.3
2. Handwritten University Records
The handwritten university record cards for Alissa Rosenbaum do not include much more information than was brought to light in my previous work. The record documents that Rand was a student of the Social-Pedagogical Division (encompassing Literature and the Arts as well) of the Faculties (or Departments) of the Social Sciences of Leningrad State University.
Rand’s university coursework is documented across seven columns split over recto and verso pages. Column I lists the names of the courses, that is, the “subjects” or “practical studies” for which Rand received credit.
Column I of these handwritten records shows Rand’s coursework in a slightly different order from that presented in the typewritten transcript that I analyzed in 1999. The first seven courses are exactly the same. In the handwritten version, however, two of Rand’s senior seminar courses are misplaced: Course #24 below is listed as course #8, and Course #25 is listed as Course #9, thereby changing by two numbers the order of all subsequent entries (e.g., Course #8 in the typewritten transcript is listed as Course #10 in the handwritten version, and so on).
For the sake of consistency with my 1999 essay, I repeat the more formal, chronological listing of courses here—without my detailed analyses of the courses’ contents or the professors who most likely taught those courses.4 Those analyses remain valid.
1. General Theory of the State and the State Structure in the RSFSR (Russian Soviet Federated Socialist Republic) and the USSR (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)
2. History of the Development of Social Forms (or Institutions)
3. Psychology
4. Logic
5. French Language
6. Historical Materialism
7. History of Worldviews (Ancient Period)
8. Biology
9. History of Greece
10. History of Rome
11. Russian History
12. Medieval History
13. History of Socialism
14. Special Course: Social Movements in Fourteenth-Century France
15. Special Course: History of the Crusades
16. Modern History (“Modern” might also be translated as “Recent”)
17. Modern History of the West
18. History of Modern Russia
19. History of Pedagogical Doctrines
20. Methodology of the Social
Sciences
21. The Politics and Organization of Popular Education in the USSR
22. Special Course: History of Medieval Trade
23. Political Economy
24. Seminar in Modern History (Sixteenth-Century England)
25. Seminar in Modern History (Seventeenth-Century France)
26. Seminar in the History of the Middle Ages (the Medieval Estate)
The second block of columns appears on the recto page; it has two subsidiary columns—spaces within which might be listed (Column II) the number of hours attended for “lectures” and (Column III) the number of hours attended for “practical studies.” The information (or lack thereof) in Columns II and III is of some interest.
Jeff Britting (2004, 17–18), archivist at the Ayn Rand Institute, tells us that Rand enrolled in Petrograd State University “[i]n 1921, at the age of sixteen.” He adds: “Since the professors lectured mainly from their own published writings, she spent most of her time at home studying these texts, attending only the special seminars” (21–22). In my own previous work on the Rand transcript, I had established that many professors lectured from their own published writings. But I found no evidence that Rand hardly attended lectures. Perhaps Britting derives this information from Rand’s biographical interviews, but I do not find any reference to Rand’s lack of attendance in either “Who Is Ayn Rand?” (Barbara Branden’s authorized biographical essay in Branden and Branden 1962) or Branden’s biography, The Passion of Ayn Rand. In fact, Branden (1986, 42) informs us that “[e]ach day, [Rand] walked three miles to school and three miles back, wearing old, torn summer shoes”—odd for somebody who allegedly spent most of her time at home studying professorial texts.
Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical Page 53
