In terms of his historiography, Tarle moved closer to the Marxists, as he interpreted modern history from “a historical viewpoint” (
GSE
, vol. 25, 1978, 386). This process-oriented approach was reflected both in his books and lectures.
28
17. Modern History of the West
It seems likely that Rand studied with Kareev, who probably taught course #14 as well. Indeed, Kareev’s work in Western history was unparalleled. The class probably used Kareev’s own seven-volume work on
The History of Western Europe in Modern Times
, which, despite its “eclecticism,” was praised by the Soviets, who cited “its wealth of factual material” in which “socioeconomic processes are accorded an important place” (
GSE
, vol. 11, 1976, 441). He presented a general review of historical conflict from a Marxist perspective, as well as topical studies on the Reformation, the development of
culture
, and the English Revolution.
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 university 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.
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