History Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for historians and history buffs. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I have read about the Imperial Lyceum in Tsarskoye Selo, and noticed that starting from 1829 they taught psychology and ethics. I wonder what the 19th century psychology would be like given that even today some regard it as not a fully-fledged science?

What are examples of things they could be taught?

share|improve this question
They obviously didn't teach "if a crack shot duelist is trying to provoke you by insulting your wife, don't challenge him unless you're really good with pistols". – DVK Feb 24 '13 at 16:53
BTW, can you please cite a source that they taught psychology? I don't remember that as a subject, and Russian Wikipedia doesn't list it at all. – DVK Feb 24 '13 at 16:57
up vote 3 down vote accepted

OK, found a reference for you.

Кондаков, И. М. Преподавание психологии в Царскосельском лицее: А.С. Пушкин и А.И. Галич / И.М.Кондаков // Психологическая наука и образование. - 1999. - N3-4. - С. 80-91

I'm trying to digest it but it seems that psychology was treated more like a subset of philosophy, and the guy teaching it (Галич) as part of the class was a follower of Friedrich Schelling.

Please note that the class was not "psychology" class, but more "Human studies" (or as they would later be called in the West, "Social studies") class, which included: логика, психология, нравственность, частное естественное право, публичное естественное право, народное право, русское гражданское право, русское публичное право, русское уголовное право, римское право, политическая экономия и финансы (logic, psychology, ethics, morals, private and public law, civil law, Roman criminal law, other laws, political economy and finance).

Чему же мог учить Галич молодых лицеистов? В его трудах, опубликованных уже после лицейского периода, мы находим психологические знания энциклопедического охвата, и среди них особое место отведено учению о творчестве. Вряд ли часть этого содержания не была отражена в его лицейском курсе. Исходные суждения Галича о строении человеческой психики основывались на определении человека как двуединого существа, состоящего из души и тела. В соответствии с этим, „человековедение... не есть Физиология в обыкновенном смысле, ни Психология исключительно, ни что–либо среднее между обеими, а только полная картина быта человеческого, открытого наблюдениям. Правда, если Психологию принимают за учение о духовном характере человека, и если сей духовный характер составляет сущность его жизни, то Человекоучение должно быть Психологией в значении преимущественнейшем: однако ж и телесное бытие наше необходимо входит в состав той живой природы, в которой одна сторона объясняется другою“ [3, 4]. Его дальнейшие рассуждения о методе исследования психологической реальности в целом соответствовали естественнонаучной традиции: „Следует только держаться известных частных правил осторожности и благоразумия, а именно: ...в) наблюдать происшествия во всевозможной их многосторонности... с) схватывать в массе сих материалов особенно все резкое, характеристическое... d) наблюдать с разных точек зрения, при разных условиях и положениях... e) сравнивать то, что подметили в самих себе, с тем, что изведали на себе и другие... h) наконец, при изучении природы человеческой брали себе в пособие обширные сведения в естественных науках, уединенное и спокойное размышление, обращение с другими лицами и народами, знакомство со светом“ [3, 17–19].

All the references in the quote to reference #3 are from "3. Галич А.И. Картина человека, опыт наставительного чтения о предметах самопознания для всех образованных сословий, начертанный А. Галичем. Санктпетербург. В типографии Имп. Академии Наук. 1834."

I'll try to post an English translation below but I am too lazy to do a good job and most of it is from Google Translate, with minor fixes. Feel free to fix up. Emphasis mine.

What could a young high school students learning Galich? In his works, published after Lyceum period, we find the psychological knowledge of encyclopedic breadth, and among them a special place is given to the doctrine of creativity. It is unlikely that the content of this was not reflected in his Lyceum course.

Initial conclusions by Galich about the structure of human psyche were based on the definition of man as being twofold, consisting of body and soul. In accordance with that, "Study of Humanity ... is not Physiology in the ordinary sense, nor psychology exclusively, or anything in between the two, but only a complete picture of human being, an open observation. True, if psychology is taken as the teaching of the spiritual nature of man, and if this is the essence of the spiritual nature of his life, then the study of the nature of man; however, our bodily existence is of the wildlife, one side of which is explained by the other "[3, 4].

His further argument about the method of study of psychological reality were generally consistent naturalistic tradition: "It is only known to hold private rules of caution and prudence, namely ... to) watch the event in all sorts of versatility ... c) seize materials in bulk so in particular all the sharp, characteristic ... d) watch from different angles, with different terms and conditions ... e) to compare what noticed in themselves, that tasted for yourself and others ... h) Finally, in the study of human nature took his allowance extensive information in the sciences, secluded and quiet meditation, dealing with other individuals and peoples with the light of knowledge "

share|improve this answer

I found another reference, take a look at the case of Germany.

Gundlach, H. (2006). Psychology as science and as discipline: the case of Germany. Physis: Rivista Internazionale di Storia della Scienza, 16, 61-89

I will not take the risk of a translation, but be happy it is in English. In this paper Gundalach made in important preliminary distinction to answer the question "How was psychology in the 19th century": Psychology as science and as discipline.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.