The Reception of Aristotle in the Home Reading Programs of the Russian University Extension Movement (1894–1914)
Marina Volf
The paper examines Aristotle’s place in one of the most signifi cant public education projects in late 19th to early 20th century Russia – the “Home Reading Programs” (1894–1914), published by the Moscow Commission for Self-Education.
The University Extension movement emerged as an attempt to overcome the class, geographic, and fi nancial barriers that prevented broad segments of the population from accessing systematic university knowledge. The “Programs”
offered readers structured courses in core academic disciplines, accompanied by recommended literature, methodological materials, and a system for assessing comprehension. Contrary to the widespread view that Aristotelian philosophy had weak reception in Russia, within the “Programs,” Aristotle’s philosophy occupies a central position in logic, psychology, political theory, law, history, literature, and aesthetics. Logic essentially in its Aristotelian version is treated as
the foundation of philosophical and scientifi c thinking. His political treatises are
used in the study of history and law, providing criteria for analyzing contemporary
political developments, patterns of political evolution, causes of coup-d’etat,
and actual governmental mechanisms. The Poetics serves as a basis for analyzing
literary forms and aesthetic theories. In the context of the “Programs,” Aristotle
appears not merely as an ancient author but as a relevant source of theoretical
models used to analyze both classical and modern sociocultural experience.
The “Programs” shaped an image of Aristotle as a universal thinker, a systematizer
of knowledge, the founder of scientifi c rationality, and the creator of
a scholarly tradition that retains methodological signifi cance for modernity.
Plato’s role is far more modest – he is portrayed as a mere philosopher of the past,
a dreamy author of idealistic doctrines that align philosophy with religion, and
of utopian political models. His philosophy is inferior to Aristotle’s in terms of
maturity and analytical rigor. The paper’s results demonstrate the signifi cance
of Aristotle’s philosophy in promoting models of intellectual culture through
the popularization and democratization of university education. They also offer
a new perspective on the scale and nature of the reception of Aristotelianism in
Russian culture within the context of educational initiatives of the time, and contribute
to a deeper understanding of the history of national education.