25 Years of Transformations of Higher

Education Systems in Post-Soviet

Countries 1st ed. Edition Jeroen
Huisman
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/25-years-of-transformations-of-higher-education-syst
ems-in-post-soviet-countries-1st-ed-edition-jeroen-huisman/
 PA L G R AV E S T U D I E S I N

GLOBAL
HIGHER
E D U C AT I O N

25 YEARS OF
T R A N S F O R M AT I O N S O F
H I G H E R E D U C AT I O N S Y S T E M S
I N P O S T- S O V I E T C O U N T R I E S
REFORM AND CONTINUITY

EDITED BY JEROEN HUISMAN,

A N N A S M O L E N T S E VA , I S A K F R O U M I N
Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education

Series Editors
Roger King
School of Management
University of Bath
Bath, UK

Jenny Lee
Centre for the Study of Higher Education
University of Arizona
Tuscon, Arizona, USA

Simon Marginson
Institute of Education
University College London
London, UK

Rajani Naidoo
School of Management
University of Bath
Bath, UK
This series aims to explore the globalization of higher education and the
impact this has had on education systems around the world including East
Asia, Africa, the Middle East, Europe and the US. Analyzing HE systems
and policy this series will provide a comprehensive overview of how HE
within different nations and/or regions is responding to the new age of
universal mass higher education.

More information about this series at

http://www.palgrave.com/gp/series/14624
 Jeroen Huisman • Anna Smolentseva
Isak Froumin
Editors

25 Years of
Transformations of
Higher Education
Systems in Post-Soviet
Countries
Reform and Continuity
Editors
Jeroen Huisman Anna Smolentseva
University of Ghent National Research University
Ghent, Belgium Higher School of Economics
Moscow, Russia
Isak Froumin
National Research University
Higher School of Economics
Moscow, Russia

Palgrave Studies in Global Higher Education

ISBN 978-3-319-52979-0    ISBN 978-3-319-52980-6 (eBook)
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6

Library of Congress Control Number: 2017964090

© The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2018 This book is an open access
publication
Open Access This book is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use,
sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you
give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative
Commons license and indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this book are included in the book’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the book’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly
from the copyright holder.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this
publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are
exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use.
The publisher, the authors, and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in
this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher
nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material
contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made. The publisher remains
neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Cover credit: Utamaru Kido / Getty Stock Images

Printed on acid-free paper

This Palgrave Macmillan imprint is published by the registered company Springer

International Publishing AG part of Springer Nature.
The registered company address is: Gewerbestrasse 11, 6330 Cham, Switzerland
This volume is dedicated to the memory of our colleagues, Dmitry Semyonov,
Evgeny Kniazev and Natalya Drantusova, in recognition of their original
contribution to the study of post-Soviet higher education and its
institutional landscape.
 Preface: Challenges and Advantages of
Exploring Post-Soviet Higher Education

The Soviet Union fell apart a quarter of a century ago. Fifteen newly born
countries started their independent development in 1991 and a formerly
unified higher education system was divided up. The basic commonality of
Soviet design at the beginning of the independent era and the dramatic
transformations of the post-Soviet period serve as the point of departure
for this study.
Post-Soviet countries have different histories, and their socialist past is
not the only thing that builds their identities. Yet, it would be incorrect to
deny the significance of such a long and intense period in their national
histories. This experience is still on the table. Politicians, experts and aca-
demics still often discuss the present while referring to the past. However,
such references are not enough to grasp the effect of the Soviet past on
modern states and bring insights to understand the further development
of these societies. Both academic and pragmatic discourse lack a wide sys-
temic picture.
The studies of post-socialist countries are especially crucial as they
debunk the myths. Soviet society was not monolithic. Norms and practices
changed over time and varied among communities. Identification of the
real differences and similarities beyond the proclaimed statements is
important and requires a generous amount of ambitious studies.
Nevertheless, even very general assumptions about the Soviet past can
result in great contributions to the discussion, especially if the research is
comparative. Juxtaposition can reveal the core rationales for changes and
the foundations of the current state of affairs. The simultaneous start of

vii
viii PREFACE: CHALLENGES AND ADVANTAGES OF EXPLORING POST-SOVIET...

countries’ own trajectories makes the observed period the field of ‘natural
experiment’ which should be described.
In studies of post-Soviet higher education, researchers usually focus on
particular issues. Academic discourse consists of a number papers that
investigate several topics of higher education development (e.g. outcomes
of reforms, internationalization, academic profession); they often consider
several countries of the post-Soviet space. Yet, we rarely see articles which
elaborate on higher education systemic development in its entirety. In
order to investigate a given problem, researchers naturally have to limit
the comprehensiveness of view. We therefore saw a niche for a book that
would contribute to building the background for further studies.
Context matters. That is why the design of this book reflects the diver-
sity of national pathways in higher education. At the start, we were faced
with several alternatives to proceed with the book composition. On the
one hand, the narrative could have flowed around particular aggregated
categories, with the chapters covering as many countries as possible. The
topics could have been major sets of reforms, fluctuations in basic system
indicators, or problems to be resolved in the context of higher education
development. However, after several discussions, we selected a more
demanding approach which, on the bright side, promised a deep and pro-
found contribution. This book is a collection of country cases, each of
them shaped in accordance with a common framework, yet each country
chapter provides a comprehensive view. The introduction chapter aims to
reveal a cumulative understanding of the object of study and the topic of
the higher education landscape in general.
Writing in this manner demanded extensive expertise from the contribu-
tors as well as their being personally embedded in the contexts. The search
for authors was a tricky task. The complicated process of finding academi-
cally relevant people required enlisting the efforts of several layers in our
professional networks. Fortunately, the idea behind the study and the ambi-
tion to cover the whole set of post-Soviet countries appealed to a number
of people around the globe, to whom we are thankful for their help.
The states examined have gone through hard times. We did not pur-
posefully pick the moment for the start of the project, but by chance the
two years of the study turned out to be an extraordinary period for this
part of the world. Under these conditions, the outstanding academic
integrity and ethics of the authors and editors became a real asset for the
project.
 PREFACE: CHALLENGES AND ADVANTAGES OF EXPLORING POST-SOVIET...
   ix

The second major challenge in the fulfilment of this task was obviously
the lack of data. First of all, due to a number of reasons, data is not likely
to be available for the countries studied. Our retrospective view intended
to involve some dynamic pictures. We faced difficulties in collecting and
comparing even aggregate numbers. At the beginning we were lacking
such common characteristics as number of higher education institutions
and student body in private sector, funding and research performance in
higher education, and so on.
Moreover, investigation of the institutional landscape requires a capa-
bility to differentiate the types of HEIs and their roles in the system. The
wide variations between countries, especially in the size of their higher
education systems, make it impossible to rely on a universalistic approach
to data collection and analysis. Such an approach might have weakened
the results. Due to these reasons a mixed approach was selected. The
authors used both qualitative and quantitative methods. Analyses were
based on a number of expert interviews, fragments of data and literature
reviews. In every case, the choice of relevant techniques and methodology
resulted from numerous discussions between the respective authors, edi-
tors and the coordination team.
We hope that this study will make one more step in the gradual move-
ment towards opening up opportunities for research on the post-Soviet
space built on transparent data and keen academic interest. Based on results
of the project, we created a web timeline of higher education key policy
events in all post-Soviet countries. We expect that the scope of this tool will
expand, and it will aggregate more useful information for further work.
The demand for a thorough grasp of post-Soviet higher education
transformations in each former Soviet Republic seemed natural at the
start. Basically, we assumed that national higher education systems reflect
changes in societies and the economic and political environment. The
institutional landscape of higher education, the structure of the system
and the set of ‘rules of the game’ can tell us a great deal about the society
in which they are rooted.

Moscow, Russia Dmitry Semyonov

 Daria Platonova
 Acknowledgements

This book is a result of the international research project ‘Higher Education

Dynamics and Institutional Diversity in Post-Soviet Countries’. The idea
of a study covering the national higher education systems of the entirety
of the former USSR emerged at the National Research University Higher
School of Economics (HSE) in 2012–2013.
This project continued two previous HSE studies. In 2012, Evgeny
Knyazev and Natalya Drantusova reopened the discussion about the insti-
tutional landscape in Russian higher education. They started to develop a
project framework to explore higher education institution types and their
transformations and released several papers on the issue. Regretfully, in
November 2013, a sudden tragedy in the sky terminated their lives. We
dedicate this book to the memory of our colleagues.
In 2013, Isak Froumin, Yaroslav Kouzminov and Dmitry Semyonov
attracted attention to the issue of the evolution of higher education institu-
tions in Russia. In their paper they conceptualized the idea of studying
institutional diversity as a result of transformations in the broader environ-
ment and higher education policy in particular. Obviously, the Soviet legacy
became a natural object to address, as well as the post-dissolution period.
This retrospective approach became the core for the post-Soviet research.
Hence, in 2014, thanks to the inspiration and tremendous support of
the Institute of Education (HSE), we took the opportunity to launch
research on higher education development in all 15 countries. From the
very beginning, we received full endorsement and strong support for
the study from Yaroslav Kouzminov, rector of the HSE, who shared his
­expertise and participated in discussions.

xi
xii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Such a voluminous and complex study would not be meaningful with-

out discussions with our colleagues around the world. Martin Carnoy
(Stanford University) took a significant part in shaping the idea.
With such a scale and diversity of cases, it is hard to overestimate the
heroic work of the editors: Anna Smolentseva, Jeroen Huisman, Isak
Froumin. After several rounds of discussions with them, the research
became focused on the two key issues—higher education policy changes
and institutional diversity in all post-Soviet countries.
Jeroen Huisman came up with a framework which laid out the ground
for all the authors. The straightforward and consistent design of the com-
parative research vitalized the whole idea. Thanks to his efforts, the case
studies remained focused on the most important issues. His accurate and
careful attention to each chapter has ensured that this book complies with
modern academic standards.
The enormous efforts of Anna Smolentseva, both in content develop-
ment and communication with the authors, made this book come to life.
Her ability to assemble the whole picture gave the common output its
consistency. The extensive expertise and enthusiasm of Isak Froumin wid-
ened the book’s ambition and outlook. His passionate approach pushed
the matter through even the most problematic situations.
We would like to thank the World Bank Moscow Office for its organi-
zational support. Our personal thanks are extended to Denis Nikolaev and
Kirill Vasiliev for their help in the recruitment of the research teams, as
well as for fruitful discussions and participation in the project workshops.
Support from the Basic Research Programme of the National Research
University Higher School of Economics is also gratefully acknowledged.
We would also like to thank Amanda Schimunek for her high-quality
language editing and Natalia Rosyaikina for the administrative support.
The team of the Laboratory for University Development (Institute of
Education, HSE) backed us throughout. Their engagement imparted a lot
of confidence and provided the solid base for thoughts and coordination.
The spin-off of the study, the web timeline of higher education changes,
was developed by Lukas Bischof as a leader, Zumrad Kataeva and Daria
Platonova.
In 2016 the summary articles on the country cases of the prospective
book were published in the newsletter Higher Education in Russia and
Beyond (HERB), #2(8)-2016.1 The issue Higher Education Landscape in
Post-Soviet Countries: 25 Years of Changes gained a lot of interest from the
readers around the globe, which reassured our belief in the relevance of
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
   xiii

the book to the academic demand. The credit for this goes to the HERB
editorial team and coordinators, who came up with an idea and got the
issue perfectly fulfilled.
Our greatest acknowledgement is reserved for the 31 researchers for
the country case studies, who committed themselves to this project for
two years, who were so involved in discussions, who hunted down the pre-
cious data and who so patiently worked through the several versions.
Thanks to their energies, the project was enriched by the several work-
shops and panels around the world. During the Conference of the Russian
Association of Higher Education Researchers (RAHER) in 2014 and in
2015, we held project workshops in Moscow (Russia), where all the
research teams presented the results. We would like to thank Mark Johnson
for his great contribution to the discussion and fruitful comments.
With active participation of the research teams, we had project panels
and roundtables at the CIES Annual Conference in Washington D.C.
(USA) in 2015, where Stephen Heyneman (Vanderbilt University) pro-
vided very helpful feedback to the idea and preliminary findings. Also, some
reflections had been presented at the session at the European Conference
on Educational Research (ECER) in 2015 in Budapest (Hungary).
This book could only have happened thanks to the efforts of this large
and diverse team of ambitious researchers.

Postscript
When this book was ready for print we received tragic news. Dmitry
Semyonov, director of our research project, died in a car crash at the age
of 31. During his short life he created the strong academic unit at the
Institute of Education – Laboratory for Universities Development focused
on higher education studies. He was a very creative leader who proposed
exciting new topics for study. His studies and publications informed
Russian higher education policies.
He was a real leader of our project. He managed to mobilize 15 research
teams and the editors. He raised funds, organized seminars and work-
shops, was involved in data collection and initiated substantive discussions.
We will always remember the joy of working with him.

Note
1. https://herb.hse.ru/en/2016--2(8).html
 Contents

1 Transformation of Higher Education Institutional

Landscape in Post-Soviet Countries: From Soviet Model
to Where?   1
Anna Smolentseva, Jeroen Huisman, and Isak Froumin

2 Common Legacy: Evolution of the Institutional

Landscape of Soviet Higher Education  45
Isak Froumin and Yaroslav Kouzminov

3 Armenia: Transformational Peculiarities of the Soviet

and Post-Soviet Higher Education System  73
Susanna Karakhanyan

4 Higher Education Transformation, Institutional Diversity

and Typology of Higher Education Institutions
in Azerbaijan  97
Hamlet Isakhanli and Aytaj Pashayeva

5 Belarus: Higher Education Dynamics and Institutional

Landscape 123
Olga Gille-Belova and Larissa Titarenko

xv
xvi Contents

6 Inverted U-shape of Estonian Higher Education: Post-

Socialist Liberalism and Postpostsocialist Consolidation 149
Ellu Saar and Triin Roosalu

7 Georgia: Higher Education System Dynamics

and Institutional Diversity 175
Lela Chakhaia and Tamar Bregvadze

8 Looking at Kazakhstan’s Higher Education Landscape:

From Transition to Transformation Between 1920
and 2015 199
Elise S. Ahn, John Dixon, and Larissa Chekmareva

9 Institutional Strategies of Higher Education Reform

in Post-Soviet Kyrgyzstan: Differentiating to Survive
Between State and Market 229
Jarkyn Shadymanova and Sarah Amsler

10 Latvia: A Historical Analysis of Transformation

and Diversification of the Higher Education System 259
Ali Ait Si Mhamed, Zane Vārpiņa, Indra Dedze, and Rita
Kaša

11 Lithuanian Higher Education: Between Path Dependence

and Change 285
Liudvika Leišytė, Anna-Lena Rose, and Elena
Schimmelpfennig

12 Moldova: Institutions Under Stress—The Past,

the Present and the Future of Moldova’s Higher
Education System 311
Lukas Bischof and Alina Tofan
 Contents 
   xvii

13 Russia: The Institutional Landscape of Russian Higher

Education 337
Daria Platonova and Dmitry Semyonov

14 Higher Education in Tajikistan: Institutional Landscape

and Key Policy Developments 363
Alan J. DeYoung, Zumrad Kataeva, and Dilrabo Jonbekova

15 The Transformation of Higher Education

in Turkmenistan: Continuity and Change 387
Victoria Clement and Zumrad Kataeva

16 Ukraine: Higher Education Reforms and Dynamics

of the Institutional Landscape 407
Nataliya L. Rumyantseva and Olena I. Logvynenko

17 Uzbekistan: Higher Education Reforms and

the Changing Landscape Since Independence 435
Kobil Ruziev and Umar Burkhanov

Appendix  461
 List of Figures

Fig. 2.1 Governance of Soviet higher education and research in the

1980s (Source: Zinov’ev and Filippov 1983) 54
Fig. 2.2 Number of HEIs in the USSR (Source: Authors using
data from Narodnoye obrazovaniye i kultura v USSR:
Statisticheskiy ezhegodnik [Education and Culture
in the USSR: Statistic Yearbook] (1989). Moscow:
Finansy i statistika) 61
Fig. 2.3 Graduates by form of education (Source: Authors
using data from Narodnoye obrazovaniye i kultura v USSR:
Statisticheskiy ezhegodnik [Education and Culture in
the USSR: Statistic Yearbook] (1989).
Moscow: Finansy i statistika) 65
Fig. 3.1 Number of HEIs with total enrolment figures (in thousands)
at the start of selected academic years (Data collected from
different sources: UNESCO, HE in the USSR, Monographs
on HE edited by L. C. Barrows; Khudaverdyan, K. S, 1960) 75
Fig. 3.2 Enrolment in tertiary education institutions in Armenia
(Statistical Yearbook of Armenia: http://www.armstat.am/
en/?nid=45&year=2014)80
Fig. 3.3 Student enrolment per major (BA level) (Statistical Yearbook of
Armenia): http://www.armstat.am/en/?nid=45&year=2014)80
Fig. 3.4 Official labour force demand submitted by employers
(Statistical Yearbook of Armenia: http://www.armstat.am/
en/?nid=45&year=2014)81
Fig. 3.5 Distribution of HEIs and number of students (Statistical
Yearbook of Armenia: http://www.armstat.am/
en/?nid=45&year=2014)89

xix
xx List of Figures

Fig. 4.1 Student enrolment in higher education (1960–2014) (Source:

SSC 2014) 104
Fig. 4.2 Number of private and public HEIs in Azerbaijan, 1960–2014
(Source: State Statistical Committee 2014) 105
Fig. 4.3 International students based on home country (2013–2014)
and Dynamics in International Student Participation since 2000
(Source: SSC (2014), *Commonwealth of Independent States) 109
Fig. 4.4 Student body characteristics for 2014/2015 (Source: State
Statistical Committee 2014) 112
Fig. 5.1 Change in the number of HEI students in Belarus (thousands),
1940–2015 (Source: MORB 2001, 2013b; NSCRB 2013,
2014, 2015) 130
Fig. 5.2 Change in the number of HEIs in Belarus, 1940–2015
(Source: MORB 2001, 2013a; NSCRB 2013, 2014, 2015) 130
Fig. 5.3 Change in the number of students by study profile between
1990–1991 and 2012–2013 (Source: MORB 2001, 2013a) 134
Fig. 6.1 Number of HEIs in Estonia 1990–2015 (Source: Statistics
Estonia; Estonian ministry of education) 156
Fig. 6.2 Number of students in Estonian HEIs, 1980–2015 (Source:
Statistics Estonia) 158
Fig. 6.3 Number of state-financed and fee-paying students in
Estonian HEIs, 1993–2015 (Source: Ministry of education
and research) 159
Fig. 7.1 Number of HEIs and enrolments in Soviet Georgia (Source:
Savelyev et al. 1990) 176
Fig. 7.2 Number of HEIs 182
Fig. 7.3 Absolute student enrolments 183
Fig. 7.4 Classification of Georgian HEIs in the 1990s by prestige
and rank 187
Fig. 7.5 Number of admitted students in HEIs 191
Fig. 8.1 Demographic trends (1985–2012) (Source: Adopted from
the Agency of Statistics of the Republic of Kazakhstan (2013)) 204
Fig. 8.2 Education reform timeline (1991–2020) (Source: Adopted
from OECD (2007, 112)) 205
Fig. 8.3 HEI trends over time by institutions 1940–2014 (Sources:
Adopted from Brunner and Tillett (n.d.); MoES (2014, 2015);
Ministry of Economics (2015); Moskva-Finansy i Statistika
[Moscow Finance and Statistics] (1989, 202); OECD (2007,
40); Zhakenov (n.d.)) 207
Fig. 8.4 Distribution of universities in Kazakhstan in AY2014–15
(Source: MoES (2015)) 208
 List of Figures 
   xxi

Fig. 9.1 Number of HEIs in the Kirgiz Soviet Socialist Republic,

1932–1991 (Source: Authors using data from Orusbaeva
1982 and NSC 2008) 232
Fig. 9.2 The HEI landscape in Kyrgyzstan (Source: Authors using
data from Orusbaeva 1982) 234
Fig. 9.3 Number of HE students in the Kirgiz Soviet Socialist Republic,
1932–1991 (Source: Authors using data from Orusbaeva 1982
and NSC 2008) 235
Fig. 9.4 Secondary school graduates and student enrollment in
vocational and higher education institutions, 1991–2013
(Source: Authors using data NSC 2014c) 239
Fig. 9.5 Part-time and full-time, day, and evening-class students
(Source: Authors using data from NSC 2014a) 244
Fig. 9.6 Dynamics of higher education enrollment by fields of study,
2000–2014 (Source: Source: Authors using data from
NSC 2008, 2015) 245
Fig. 9.7 The HEI landscape in Kyrgyzstan, 2015 (Source: Authors
using data from NSC 2008, 2015) 246
Fig. 10.1 Milestones in the development of the higher education
system in Latvia, 1990–2014 (Source: Authors) 264
Fig. 10.2 The dynamics of HEIs in Latvia, 1990–2014 (Source:
Authors based on data from MoES, 1991 to 2014) 265
Fig. 10.3 The dynamics of HE student enrolment in Latvia,
1990–2014 (Source: Authors based on data from MoES,
1991 to 2014) 266
Fig. 10.4 Proportion of the number of students in different fields
of study (Source: Authors based on data from MoES 1998
to 2014) 271
Fig. 10.5 Proportion of students by age group (Source: Authors
based on data from MoES 1998 to 2014) 272
Fig. 11.1 Number of schools of higher education and number of
students in Lithuanian SSR (1970–1990) (Source: Statistics
Lithuania: Official Statistics Portal) 288
Fig. 12.1 Timeline of important developments in higher education
policy in the Republic of Moldova 316
Fig. 12.2 Number of public and private HEIs in the Republic of
Moldova320
Fig. 12.3 Development of the total number of students enrolled
on a budget and tuition-fee basis (in both private and
public HEIs) 321
Fig. 12.4 Government expenditure on education 2000/2005–2013 327
xxii List of Figures

Fig. 12.5 Admission numbers by type of prior schooling

(2000/2005–2013)328
Fig. 13.1 Timeline of key higher education reforms in Russia,
1991–2015 (Source: Developed by the authors) 342
Fig. 13.2 Number of graduates by study field (Source: Aggregative
groups calculated by authors based on data from the Federal
State Statistics Service (2015)) 343
Fig. 13.3 Number of students in HEIs and age cohort participation
(17–25), 1991–2014, Russia (Source: Calculated by the
authors. Data from Federal State Statistics Service (2015)) 344
Fig. 13.4 Enrolment by source of financing and type of HEIs, 1995–2013,
Russia (Source: Calculated by authors. Data from: before 2000,
Education in the Russian Federation (2006); for 2000–2010,
Education in the Russian Federation (2012); after 2010,
Federal State Statistics Service (2015)) 346
Fig. 13.5 Public spending on higher education as a share of total public
expenditure on education and public spending on education
as a share of total public expenditure (per cent) (Source:
Calculated by authors. Data for expenditure from: before
2003, Education in the Russian Federation (2006); after 2003,
Roskozna (2015) and FSSS (2015)) Note: Due to the reform
of the financial system in 2003, the data before and after 2003
cannot be directly compared. 347
Fig. 13.6 Russian HEIs by nominal types, 1998–2012 (Source:
Education in the Russian Federation 2006; Federal State
Statistics Service, 2015) 352
Fig. 14.1 HEIs in Tajikistan, 1991–2013 369
Fig. 14.2 Student enrolments in Tajikistan (in thousands): 1991–2013 369
Fig. 14.3 Number of enrolled students by specialization, 1991 and
2010 (Source: The Ministry of Education and Science) 374
Fig. 14.4 Higher education institutions by presidential quota,
2014/2015375
Fig. 15.1 Higher education participation rate 1991–2011, in %
(age cohort 20–24) (Sources: http://www.cisstat.com)395
Fig. 16.1 Numbers of HEIs by levels of accreditation, 1990–2015
(The data for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 are not fully
comparable to data from previous years as they do not take
into account institutions that remained in the occupied
territories and the zone of military conflict in Donetsk,
Lugansk and Crimea. Source: State Office of Statistics of
Ukraine (2016)) 415
 List of Figures 
   xxiii

Fig. 16.2 Numbers of students in HEIs by levels of accreditation,

1990–2015 (The data for 2014–2015 and 2015–2016 are
not fully comparable to data from previous years as they do
not take into account institutions that remained in the
occupied territories and the zone of military conflict in
Donetsk, Lugansk and Crimea. Source: State Office of
Statistics of Ukraine (2016)) 415
Fig. 17.1 Share of GDP by industrial origin in Uzbekistan, 1993–2012
(Source: ADB (2015)) 439
Fig. 17.2 Employment by economic sector in Uzbekistan, 1991–2012
(Source: ADB (2015)) 440
Fig. 17.3 Timeline of key changes in HE since independence 443
Fig. 17.4 Hierarchical structure of the higher education system
in Uzbekistan 450
Fig. 17.5 Geographic distribution of HEIs and student population
in 2012–13 (Source: MHSSE (2013)) 453
Fig. 17.6 Demand for and supply of higher education places,
1996–2014 (Source: MHSSE (2015)) 454
 List of Tables

Table 1.1 The key reforms in higher education in post-Soviet countries 21

Table 2.1 State HEIs in Russia in 1913 48
Table 2.2 Number of HEIs in the USSR by the specialization of the
institution59
Table 3.1 Higher education landscape in Armenia in 1991 76
Table 3.2 Armenian HEIs by legal status: regulatory landscape 91
Table 3.3 Higher education landscape in Armenia in 2015 92
Table 4.1 Main credentials awarded during the Soviet period 99
Table 4.2 Types of HEIs that emerged between 1919 and 1990
with student numbers for 2013–2014 100
Table 4.3 State defined characteristics of HEIs 107
Table 4.4 State defined typology of HEIs 113
Table 4.5 Classification of HEIs in Azerbaijan 115
Table 5.1 Main types of HEIs in the Byelorussian Republic,
1990/1991 academic year 127
Table 5.2 Typology of Belarusian HEIs at the beginning of the 2010s 136
Table 5.3 Characteristics of various HEI types (based on data for
2012–2013)138
Table 6.1 Main types of HEIs in Estonia in 1990/1991 and
1993/1994 academic year 153
Table 6.2 Number and share of students in Estonian HEIs by
study field 161
Table 6.3 Main types of HEIs in Estonia in the 2013/2014
academic year 162
Table 7.1 Classification of Georgian HEIs by the end of the 1980s 178
Table 7.2 Performances of private HEIs 187
Table 7.3 Current typology of Georgian HEIs 190

xxv
xxvi List of Tables

Table 8.1 Kazakhstani HEIs (AY1988–89) 202

Table 8.2 Types of Kazakhstani HEIs in AY1990–91 203
Table 8.3 HEIs by type based on the law “On Education” (2007) 210
Table 8.4 The Kazakhstani HE landscape between 1993 and 2010 217
Table 8.5 Characteristics of HEIs 218
Table 9.1 Higher education institutions in the Kirgiz Soviet
Socialist Republic, 1980 233
Table 9.2 Dynamics of institutional growth in Kyrgyz higher
education, 1991–2016 237
Table 9.3 Dynamics of student population, public and private
HEIs, 1991–2013 238
Table 9.4 Classification of higher education institutions in
Kyrgyzstan, 2015 247
Table 10.1 Types of HEIs in Latvia by 1989 characteristics 262
Table 10.2 Types of HEI in Latvia by 2015 characteristics
and ministerial affiliation 274
Table 11.1 Typology of higher education institutions in
Lithuania in 1990 291
Table 11.2 Typology of higher education institutions in
Lithuania in 2016 301
Table 12.1 HEIs in Moldova during the Soviet period 314
Table 12.2 Types of HEIs in 2015 324
Table 13.1 Expenditure on education (total and higher education)
in the USSR and Russian SFSR in 1981 and 1987
(in billion rubles and %) 338
Table 13.2 Number of HEIs by type, number of students by form
of learning and their shares, 1990 340
Table 13.3 Types of HEIs in Soviet Russia 341
Table 13.4 Structural transformations of the Russian economy
1991–2014343
Table 13.5 Distribution of HEIs by ministry and other agencies,
Russia, 2014 349
Table 13.6 Indicators and measurement 355
Table 13.7 Classification of HEIs in Russia, 2015 356
Table 14.1 Classification of HEIs as of 1989/1990 367
Table 14.2 Typology of higher education institutions as of
2014/2015370
Table. 15.1 Number of higher education institutions in
Turkmenistan during 1940–1990 390
Table 15.2 Distribution of higher education institutions by
sector (1988) 391
Table 15.3 Classification of Soviet HEIs (1988) 392
 List of Tables 
   xxvii

Table 15.4 Number of higher education institutions and number

of students from 2000 to 2011 395
Table 15.5 Current classification of higher education institutions
(2016)400
Table 16.1 Typology of HEIs by specialisation in 1941 410
Table 16.2 Typology of HEIs by type of specialisation in 1988 411
Table 16.3 Typology of higher education institutions in Ukraine
in 2016 418
Table 17.1 Horizontal diversity by HEI type in 1988–89 442
Table 17.2 Horizontal diversity by HEI type in 2015 448
Table 17.3 HE quality diversity based on demand, selectivity and
public perception 452
Table 17.4 Academic qualification of full-time HEI staff in 2013 456
Table A.1 State HEIs in Russia in 1913 462
Table A.2 Non-governmental HEIs in 1913 462
Table A.3 State and non-state HEIs, number of students and
share of women by types of HEIs in the Russian Empire
in 1914/15 463
Table A.4 Number of HEIs and students by types of HEIs in the
USSR in 1922 and 1925 464
Table A.5 Number of HEIs in the USSR in 1940–1988 465
Table A.6 Share of enrolment by the types of HEIs, % 465
Table A.7 Engineers in the USSR, thousand students 466
Table A.8 Graduates by the forms of education, thousand students 466
Table A.9 Number of HEIs in the Soviet Republics 466
Table A.10 Number of HEIs in 1988 467
Table A.11 Number of universities and university students in 1988 468
Table A.12 Number of students in 1988 469
Table A.13 Number of students and share of full-time students in 1990 470
Table A.14 Dynamics of student number in the Soviet Republics,
thousand470
Table A.15 Dynamics of student number per 10,000 population in
the Soviet Republics 471
Table A.16 Age cohort participation in higher education (20–24 age
cohort) in Soviet Republics 471
Table A.17 Competition at entrance exams per 100 places in 1988 472
Table A.18 Share of women in student body in the Soviet Republics
in 1988 472
Table A.19 Number of higher education institutions 473
Table A.20 Number and share of non-state HEIs 474
Table A.21 Number and share of enrolment in non-state HEIs 475
Table A.22 Share of students paying tuition fees 476
xxviii List of Tables

Table A.23 Number of students in 1991–2013 477

Table A.24 Share of full-time students, % 478
Table A.25 Age cohort participation in higher education
(17–25 age cohort) in 1991–2013 478
Table A.26 Gross enrolment ratio, tertiary, % 479
 CHAPTER 1

Transformation of Higher Education

Institutional Landscape in Post-Soviet
Countries: From Soviet Model to Where?

Anna Smolentseva, Jeroen Huisman, and Isak Froumin

Introduction
In 1991, the Soviet model of higher education in 15 republics of the
USSR, with its 5.1 million students and 946 higher education institutions,
started 15 independent journeys. All post-Soviet systems shared the lega-
cies of the single Soviet approach to higher education provision: a cen-
trally planned organization and financing, subordination to multiple
sectoral ministries, a national curriculum, a vocational orientation based
on the combination of strong basic education and narrow specialized job-­
related training, a nomenclature of types of higher education institutions,
­tuition-free study places and guaranteed employment upon ­graduation
combined with mandatory job placement. Despite these commonalities,
the sociocultural and economic disparities across the republics were

A. Smolentseva (*) • I. Froumin

National Research University Higher School of Economics, Moscow, Russia
J. Huisman
University of Ghent, Ghent, Belgium

© The Author(s) 2018 1

J. Huisman et al. (eds.), 25 Years of Transformations of Higher
Education Systems in Post-Soviet Countries, Palgrave Studies in Global
Higher Education, https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52980-6_1
2 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

remarkable: for example, in the structure of the economy, the level of

urbanization, the cultural and ethnic diversity and demographic trends, as
well as the number of higher education institutions, the number of stu-
dents and higher education participation rates.
After gaining their independence, all new countries faced similar chal-
lenges. First of all, there were the challenges of the consolidation of the
new nation and the introduction of a market economy. Second, the col-
lapse of the centrally planned economy was associated with economic
decline, political instability, a drastic drop in public funding and brain
drain from higher education and research institutions to other sectors of
the economy or overseas. Many post-Soviet countries—Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and
recently Ukraine—experienced armed conflicts, which deeply affected
their societies and economies. The similarities and differences between the
national contexts, together with the challenges of the independence
period, created a unique constellation of political, economic, sociocultural
and demographic conditions in each country.
In higher education, almost all the new nations adopted a similar
package of reforms, many of these neo-liberal in nature (Silova and
Steiner-­Khamsi 2008; Smolentseva 2012) that aimed to “normalize”
their higher education systems. This would be achieved through the
establishment of a non-state sector, the introduction of tuition fees in
the public sector, national standardized tests for admission exams to
higher education, decentralization of the governance and—although not
in all countries—loans for students and performance-based funding. The
argument in favour of this particular set of reforms was socially con-
structed (Fourcade-­Gourinchas and Babb 2002), in terms of the per-
ceived need to follow a certain ideal type. Reform was presented as
following the ideal type of the single model of excellence in higher edu-
cation (Heyneman 2010), or catching up, not lagging behind other
countries (Silova and Steiner-­Khamsi 2008) in the context of an increas-
ing interest in and greater opportunities to attend higher education. The
main features of the ideal type of higher education were taken from the
Western world. The implementation of the reforms varied in speed and
timing across countries. Some countries were not so much affected in
the early years of independence (in particular, Turkmenistan), but in
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 3

recent years that country too has become more responsive to interna-
tional policy trends.
Other important reforms across the region included efforts to over-
come Soviet ideological legacies and align higher education systems with
the goals of new nation building. Thus, Soviet ideological courses were
excluded from curricula. Along with the change of the official language in
all countries, titular nation language became predominant in higher edu-
cation instruction, and the higher education programmes were supple-
mented by courses on national history and culture.
All of these transformations have dramatically affected individuals,
social groups and institutions of post-Soviet societies, including higher
education. All have had to adapt to their rapidly changing environments.
That has eventually resulted in a range of changes in the structure of
national higher education systems and in—what we term—their institu-
tional landscapes, the overall institutional composition of the higher edu-
cation system.
Despite the scale and importance of the changes that have taken place,
there are only few comparative studies of post-Soviet higher education
transformation. In many countries, the weakness of the social sciences due
to a lack of research funding, together with the long-standing isolation
from international research communities, partly explains that absence.
Interestingly, comparative research with a focus on secondary education
in post-Soviet systems seems more prolific than research on higher educa-
tion (e.g. Phillips and Kaser 1992; Silova 2010a). There are publications
which aim to analyse several countries of the region and/or the nature of
post-­Soviet transformations (see Heyneman 2010; Johnson 2008; Silova
2009, 2010a; Silova and Steiner-Khamsi 2008). There appear to be no
comparative higher education studies on the region based on primary data
collection and analysis, as distinct from studies consisting of reviews of
literature and policy documents (but see Silova 2010b; Slantcheva and
Levy 2007).
This book is the outcome of the first ever study of the transforma-
tions of the higher education institutional landscape in 15 former USSR
countries following the disintegration of the Soviet Union (1991). It
explores how the single Soviet model that developed across the vast and
diverse territory of the Soviet Union over several decades changed into
4 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

15 unique national systems, systems that have responded to national

and global developments while still bearing significant traces of the
past. This study is distinctive in that (a) it presents a comprehensive
analysis of the higher education reforms and transformations in the
region in the last 25 years; (b) it focuses on institutional landscape
through the evolution of the institutional types established and devel-
oped in pre-Soviet, Soviet and post-­Soviet times; (c) it embraces all 15
countries of the former USSR; and (d) it provides a comparative analy-
sis of the drivers of transformations of institutional landscape across
post-Soviet systems.
The institutional landscape of higher education is one of the key char-
acteristics of higher education systems. Approaching higher education
transformations through the lens of changes in the institutional landscape
enables several goals to be achieved. First, it makes it possible to incorpo-
rate the dynamic dimension, to trace the processes of change. Second, it
includes an analysis of the drivers of change, which opens up the opportu-
nity for systematic analysis of higher education system transformations and
the factors behind them, including governmental policies, institutional
behaviour, demographic change, global forces and others. Third, it allows
the researcher to look at system level while keeping in mind the diversity
of the institutions.
Despite an increasing interest in studying institutional landscapes and
institutional diversity in higher education around the world (Huisman
1998; Huisman et al. 2007; van Vught 2009), very little research has been
focused on the institutional landscape in post-Soviet systems, despite the
major transformations in those landscapes (for Russia, see Knyazev and
Drantusova 2014; Froumin et al. 2014).
In the remainder of this chapter we present a conceptual framework
which guided the project. Following a short introduction to the Soviet
model and an overview of the reforms that took place across the 15 sys-
tems, the chapter focuses on the project findings—the changes in the insti-
tutional landscape, its drivers and a brief reflection on what the future may
bring. This chapter also introduces all country cases included in the study
and highlights their main points, after which it concludes with our final
reflections on the changes in higher education institutional landscapes in
15 post-Soviet countries.
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 5

The Conceptual Approach and Research Design

The concept of the institutional landscape covers two aspects. First, it
denotes the idea of institutional (or organizational) diversity. Higher edu-
cation systems consist of a variety of institutions. These institutions may
differ in various respects. Birnbaum (1983) distinguished various dimen-
sions of diversity, and many of these will also figure in our description and
analysis of the post-Soviet systems. Particularly, three dimensions are key
to our project: systemic diversity, differences in size, type and control
within a higher education system; structural diversity, differences in
­historical and legal foundations; and programme diversity, differences in
degree level, area, mission and emphasis of programmes within the
institutions.
The second aspect of the landscape signifies how the different dimen-
sions of diversity play out in a particular system. That is, various stakehold-
ers classify higher education institutions on the basis of the various diversity
dimensions. Governments are key players by, for example, labelling certain
higher education institutions as polytechnics or universities of applied sci-
ences or—as we will see in the subsequent chapters—as academies, insti-
tutes and (research) universities. Whereas governments are key, there are
other actors that may figure, for instance, representatives of certain types
of institutions (e.g. the Russell Group in the UK, the Group of Eight in
Australia).
Two concepts are helpful to make more sense of this second aspect:
vertical and horizontal differentiation (Teichler 1988). Horizontal differ-
entiation refers to making distinctions between types of higher education
institutions on the basis of their function within the broader fabric. Such
differentiation likely reflects the needs and demands of different groups in
society, including the government (see also Taylor et al. 2008). As such,
the landscape or configuration could be seen as a reflection of a social pact
(Gornitzka 2007). Following this logic, it makes sense to distinguish, for
example, hogescholen from universities in the Netherlands, because they
fulfil different roles, professional education versus academic education,
and applied research versus basic research, respectively. That such distinc-
tions are not watertight (as the demise of the binary systems in, e.g. the
UK and Australia shows) is beyond the point: there is (or has been) a
functional reason to label higher education institutions differently.
Vertical differentiation refers to differences in status and prestige, with
further connotations like “elite” and “high quality”. Such differences are
6 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

less tangible and likely more dynamic than horizontal differences. This is
because status and prestige are in the eye of the beholder and therefore
malleable. Across the globe, the globally oriented comprehensive research
university (sometimes called the world-class university) is quite often seen
as the type of institution at the top of the status hierarchy. The underlying
dynamics are quite different from horizontal differentiation and some-
times at odds. Through processes of academic drift those institutions
lower in the pecking order may emulate higher-status institutions and this
could undermine the functional differentiation. Obviously, academic drift
is not the sole driver of changes in the landscape. On the basis of our
understanding of the literature (e.g. Teichler 1988; Huisman 1998), there
are various factors that would affect the institutional configuration: the
government’s steering approach, the level of marketization, demographic
developments, internationalization and so on.
With these conceptual tools in mind, we asked our country authors to
reflect on the following questions: How did the landscape look like at the
moment of (or just before) independence? Which developments took place
in the system since independence and which drivers can be discerned that
impacted the landscape? And, finally, how do the new landscapes look like
(and are they much different from those in place around 1990)? We asked
authors to rely on available classifications and statistics to arrive at landscape
descriptions that would do justice to the state of the art in their systems.
Assuming distinctive features of each national context, the project ben-
efits from the unique institutional classifications developed for each chap-
ter by their authors. The institutional types and classifications established
in the late Soviet time serve as a starting point for the analysis of the trans-
formations of the independence period. The post-Soviet classifications
embracing state of art of each national system enable to catch the nature
of the current institutional landscape and to trace the transformations of
the institutional landscape since gaining the independence.
The institutional classifications are developed using a wide range of
national- and institutional-level data: affiliation, number of HEIs/stu-
dents within types, distribution over the country, size, age of the institu-
tions, disciplinary composition, student body characteristics, faculty
characteristics, research activity (grants, R&D revenues, publication activ-
ity), international activity (international students, faculty, programmes),
interrelations with business/production (funding, grants, agreements)
and interrelations with other HEIs (net of branches, agreements,
mergers).
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 7

In their overall analysis, most authors relied on analyses of policy devel-

opments in higher education and hence made significant use of policy
papers and existing secondary literature. Some authors supplemented
these methods with interviews. Some authors analysed higher education
landscape using institutional-level data.

The Point of Departure: Soviet Higher Education

System
The USSR was a unique combination of peoples and cultures stretching
from the Eastern Europe to the Siberian Far East, from Northern Russia
to the Caucasus and Central Asia. Over 70 years (for the Baltic republics
and Moldova which became a part of the USSR later it was about 50
years) the Soviet system evolved according to common principles that
aimed at the building of a new political, socioeconomic and cultural sys-
tem, that of communism. The sociocultural project of the USSR—the
construction of the new Soviet man—became interwoven with the prag-
matic purpose of accelerated economic development, in order to over-
come the devastating consequences of the two world wars and outpace the
capitalist countries in military excellence. The Soviet higher education sys-
tem was an important player in both of these arenas: as an instrument of
the formation of a new type of man and as an instrument of economic
progress (Smolentseva 2016).
The Soviet system of higher education had a number of distinctive
characteristics. First of all, as is well known, it was characterized as mainly
state-centred, with central planning and a top-down command method of
administration (Froumin et al. 2014; Kuraev 2016). The higher education
system was built into a larger economic planning system and had to
respond to orders from higher authorities. Higher education institutions
were required to train a specified number of people in certain fields, while
the larger economic planning system was responsible for graduates’ job
assignments. The control and supervision of higher education institutions
were distributed among a large number of sectoral ministries that were
responsible for administering specific industries. This structure was cre-
ated in the Stalin era. From 1929 to 1930 onwards, most higher educa-
tion institutions were transferred from the ministry of education
(Narkompros) to various sectoral ministries and state departments (David-­
Fox 2012; Ryzhkovskiy 2012). That type of organization was considered
8 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

to be a more effective way of linking the training of higher educated cadre

with the needs of industrialization and military mobilization.
Second, as higher education was a system of training professional,
“highly qualified” cadre for the national economy (Kuraev 2015;
Smolentseva 2016), it was in many ways predominantly vocational. The
need to bring higher education and research closer to “life” and the
requirements of the national economy was much discussed during the
Soviet years. This affected organization and curricula in higher education.
The turn towards a technical and vocational orientation started in the early
Soviet period (David-Fox 2012; Ryzhkovskiy 2012) and was maintained
over the succeeding decades.
Third, uniformity, the application of the same principles and require-
ments to all institutions and individuals, was another key feature of the
Soviet system (Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1990; Kuraev 2015). This approach
contributed to the consolidation of the diverse country in social and cul-
tural terms, including the creation of a “common educational space” via
the introduction of the Russian as a common language and the use of
standard curricula and textbooks.
The Soviet programme of continuous expansion of the educational sys-
tem across all republics had results. Each Soviet republic had at least one
comprehensive university and a number of specialized higher education
institutions. The number of students increased from 811 thousand in
1940 to 5.2 million in 1991. Trends in the number of institutions are less
straightforward, due to the ongoing process of opening up, closing down,
merging and disintegrating particular higher learning establishments.
There were 817 HEIs in 1940, 739 in 1960, 805 in 1970 and 883 in
1980 (see Table A.5 in Appendix). Even in the last decade of the USSR
the government kept establishing new HEIs.
Despite the application of similar principles to organization and admin-
istration, uneven socioeconomic conditions of the republics were a histori-
cal legacy which the Soviet government had to grapple with from its
beginning, but did not overcome. There was a special effort to build
higher education institutions outside the European part of the country
where they were mostly concentrated (Matthews 1982; Ovsyannikov and
Iudin 1990). However, one official Soviet indicator, competition for HE
admissions per 100 places, suggests that in many republics the interest of
the population in higher education was much higher than the system could
meet (Table A.16 in Appendix). Higher education systems in the Baltic
republics experienced the least pressure, with 154–164 applications per
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 9

100 vacancies in 1988. The competition in Central Asia was on average

much fiercer, with 291–328 applications per 100 vacancies (but 226 in
Kazakhstan). In Georgia the indicator was even higher at 394.
Free higher education (except in the period 1940–1956) and the con-
tinuing expansion of higher education were important achievements of
the USSR. Many of the barriers to higher education were removed. Social
groups previously underrepresented in higher education received
­increasing opportunities: workers, peasants, women and members of vari-
ous nationalities. Women comprised 52 per cent of students by the end of
the Soviet era, with the lowest gender ratios in Azerbaijan (33 per cent)
and Turkmenistan (36 per cent).
The participation rate in higher education, calculated as a gross enrol-
ment ratio (the number of students as compared to the number of people
in the 20–24 age cohort), was relatively high in the USSR in general at
about a quarter of the age group, but again, it varied significantly across
the Republics (Table A.15 in Appendix). The European part of the coun-
try had the higher participation with the Central Asian republics and
Azerbaijan demonstrating relatively modest indicators (12 per cent for
Turkmenistan, 15 per cent for Tajikistan, 16 per cent Kirgizia (Kyrgyz
Republic), 15 per cent for Azerbaijan). Using Trow’s division of three
stages of massification process (Trow 1973), some Republics had reached
the mass stage (15–50 per cent), while in others participation in higher
education was still in the elite stage of development (less than 15 per cent).
Another prominent characteristic of the Soviet system was the institu-
tional separation of higher education from research (Johnson 2008;
Froumin et al. 2014). From the early Soviet period onwards this structural
division played an important role in weakening the Soviet higher educa-
tion sector. Most research was conducted in sectoral institutes that were
directly linked to particular industries and subordinated to the corre-
sponding ministries, as were most of the higher education institutions.
The need to connect higher education and research, basic and applied, was
constantly discussed in Soviet policy documents (Smolentseva 2016), but
the dominant role of higher education remained the same, that of teach-
ing highly qualified manpower (Kuraev 2015). The higher education sec-
tor’s share of research was small. For example, in Russia in 1990 it
comprised just 6 per cent of all research, while the great bulk of which
took place in academies, sectoral institutes and industries (Nauka Rossii v
tsifrakh 1994, 411).
The Soviet higher education landscape consisted of universities (com-
prehensive HEIs) and specialized institutions—institutes, academies,
10 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

factory-­HEIs (zavod-VTUZ) and others. The comprehensive universities

comprised a small minority of HEIs (8 per cent) and enrolled 12 per cent
of all students by the end of the Soviet era (see Appendix). These universi-
ties had two tasks: the reproduction of research and teaching staff in cer-
tain fields “humanities, natural sciences, psychology and political economy”
(Yagodin 1990) and training for “practical work in national economy,
schools and technic, cultural institutions, government departments and
corporate bodies (such as trade unions, the Party, etc.)” (Severtsev 1976).
The comprehensive universities were supposed to play an important role
in research, and their graduates were expected to make use of their
research-oriented education in their professional activities.
However, this group of universities was not homogenous. A small
number of them had their origins in the imperial period, while the major-
ity was established in the Soviet period, with some of them being upgraded
from pedagogical institutes (and keeping the characteristics of those insti-
tutes, according to Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1990). In the case of Russia,
the biggest higher education system among Soviet republics, including 69
universities in 1988, only 17 out of 37 universities subject to statistical
analysis were regarded as well positioned as universities, characterized by
well-qualified academic staff, a traditional profile of university fields or a
strong research orientation (Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1988). Indeed,
despite the official approach of uniformity, a vertically differentiated sys-
tem of higher education was evident in the USSR.
As noted, the majority of higher learning was organized in specialized
institutions for particular jobs: engineers of various kinds, doctors, teach-
ers, economists, lawyers and so on. Engineering students enrolled in HEIs
servicing industry, construction, transportation and communication com-
prised 43 per cent of the total student population (see Table A.6 in
Appendix). That group of HEIs comprised almost one third of all HE
establishments in the country. Another big group, also about one third of
HEIs, were the pedagogical institutions, with 19 per cent of total number
of students. The engineering and technical fields dominated in the official
list of specialties: 243 out of 381 (64 %) in the ministry list as of 1975
(Ministry of Higher and Secondary Vocational Education 1975) and 177
out 289 (61 %) in 1987 (Ministry of Higher and Secondary Vocational
Education 1987). Admissions in philosophy were available in 13 HEIs, in
psychology in 12 HEIs and in sociology in only 11 institutions
(Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1990).
In the Soviet period, the pre-Soviet orientation towards engineering
and technical fields was continued and deepened. “Industrialization” was
evident in many universities (Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1988). In this work
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 11

we set aside the larger question of the nature of the Soviet university,
whose characteristics were very different from the traditional notion of the
European university (for this topic see Kuraev 2015). Nevertheless, as
early as in the Soviet period it was noted that the two distinct higher edu-
cation sectors, universities and specialized institutes, were developing in
converging ways: university education was moving towards more special-
ized instruction with the inclusion of applied sciences, while specialized
educational institutions tend to embrace more academic research in their
foundations, becoming more like universities, and paid more attention to
research. The “modern technical university” was an example of such con-
verging trends (e.g. the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology,
Moscow Institute of Electronic Engineering, Moscow and Kharkov
Institutes of Radio Engineering, Electronics and Automatics and others
(Severtsev 1976)). The drift to greater vocationalism within the university
sector was fairly common (see Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1988, 1990), but
the intensification of research activities within the specialized sector mostly
developed within a small group of elite engineering institutions.
By the time of perestroika in the mid-1980s, many issues in the Soviet
system of higher education had become evident and were explicitly dis-
cussed (Ovsyannikov and Iudin 1990; Smolentseva 2016), and the first
movements towards changing the educational system had started. The
legalization of cooperatives (1988) as a Soviet form of entrepreneurship
opened an opportunity to create alternative educational provision. For
example, in Estonia by 1989 two non-state higher education institutions
were already established (see the chapter on Estonia in this volume). That
period also introduced the term “customer” into the public policy domain
(Smolentseva 2016), where the production sector served in this role,
being called upon to evaluate the quality of training of specialists. The dif-
ferentiation of the large higher education system was already noted. It was
acknowledged that there were genuine education and research centres but
also many without quality in either theoretical or practical training.

The 25 Years of Changes: Higher Education

Reforms and Contexts
After the disintegration of the USSR, the new independent nations were
looking for quick solutions to stabilize and develop their economies. Some
declared themselves as “normal” Western market-based democracies;
12 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

some adhered to more conservative and isolationistic approaches. In all

countries, the economic collapse, transformational recessions, the break-
down of economic ties with the other former republics in what was a large
federal network and political changes had dramatic effects on the economy
and living standards. Measures that introduced market mechanisms into
the ruined centrally planned economies were supposed to revive the eco-
nomic development.
In his comparative analysis of the transitional economies of Central and
Eastern Europe, the Baltics, and 12 CIS countries, Izyumov (2010) finds
that in all CIS countries the reforms were implemented by inconsistent
shock therapy, ineffective privatization and highly inflationary monetary
policies. Public participation in the reform agenda was narrow, which pre-
vented those countries from developing policies that would reduce the
negative effects of reform for the population. The transition to a market
economy had a high human cost, especially in the countries of the former
USSR. Despite the different political regimes that emerged within the
former USSR, ranging from more democratic to autocratic, the drastic
decline in the standards of living was evident in all countries. In the first
5–10 years of reforms, GDP and GDP per capita dropped dramatically,
while the Gini coefficient increased (again, with some variations: e.g. for
poor countries like Uzbekistan that change in indicators was not signifi-
cant). In the absence of supportive governmental policies, private initia-
tives to cope with transformation often took destructive forms, boosting
the informal economy, corruption, crime and drugs use (Izyumov 2010).
Neo-liberal ideology, which asserted a limited role of the state and indi-
viduals’ responsibility for their own well-being, was timely in the countries
trying to overcome the legacies of the overwhelming state/central
control.
Against this dramatic backdrop, liberalization also took place in higher
education. The opening up of the educational system, like the entire soci-
ety, had started in the perestroika period. At the beginning of the period of
independence, it was expected that private property, market mechanisms
and the absence of state and party control would help to overcome the
problems of socialist education (in some countries, including corruption
at admissions—see chapter on Azerbaijan, for instance). It was hoped that
a change from total state control to autonomy, from uniformity to diver-
sity, from the engineering and vocational bias towards greater humanitar-
ization and personal development would have a crucial impact on the
political, economic, social and cultural progress of the society. Education
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 13

was seen as a key to the new society, and eliminating the state monopoly
in education was often seen as an instrument of the expected positive
development.

Marketization
Accordingly, the earliest reforms in most of the countries of the region
were the introduction of a non-state/private sector in higher education
and tuition fees in the public sector for both full-time and part-time pro-
grammes. The latter was not something that all transitional countries of
Central and Eastern Europe did. They either kept their higher education
public (e.g. Slovak Republic) or charged fees only for part-time pro-
grammes (e.g. in Poland). In all post-Soviet countries, including the
Baltics and except for Turkmenistan which only introduced fees recently
in a few higher education institutions (HEIs), the impoverishment of the
public sector economy inevitably led HEIs to seek for funding elsewhere.
Taking tuition fees from the population was essential to the survival of
higher education. Tuition fees not only directly brought money into the
public HEIs, they also supported largely the same faculty from public
HEIs when they took supplemental teaching jobs at non-state HEIs.
As the comparative data show (see Table A.19 in Appendix), in the first
ten years after independence, the non-state institutions in many countries
of the region have grown very fast, and in five countries (Armenia, Georgia,
Kazakhstan, Latvia, Moldova) exceeded the number of public institutions.
Two countries (Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan) do not have non-state provid-
ers of higher education. Tajikistan closed down most non-state providers,
except for one.
However, as case studies in this book will also show, the non-state sec-
tor in an absolute majority of the countries was unable to gain the same
level of prestige and demand for attendance as the traditional public sec-
tor. In the absolute majority of countries, the enrolments continued to be
concentrated in the public institutions (Table A.20 in Appendix).
Perhaps the only deviation from this trend is visible in Kazakhstan,
where the course of neo-liberal reforms was more explicit than in other
countries of the region. In 2015, 52 per cent of students in Kazakhstan
enrolled in non-state institutions (Table A.20 in Appendix). Kazakhstan
went further in privatization by not only shifting the costs of higher edu-
cation to the families of students enrolled but also by changing the legal
status of several Soviet institutions of higher education into joint stock
companies (see the chapter on Kazakhstan).
14 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

Therefore, the more striking change took probably not place through
the creation of non-state/private sectors but through the transformation
of public sectors, which largely changed their economic basis to private
funding. In public HEIs in most of the countries, except for Estonia and
Turkmenistan, more than half of all students pay fees. Fee payers comprise
up to 85 per cent in the Kyrgyz Republic. The share of student population
of the region that pays fees to either state or non-state providers further
illustrates this point, demonstrating the big change from the full public
provision to the privatization of costs of higher education in the region.
Marketization of higher education had another important implication
for most of the higher education systems of the region: students and their
families became an important source of revenues, and higher education
became more consumer-oriented. It led to a rapid expansion of enrol-
ments in the fields of business studies, economics, foreign language stud-
ies and law. The public sector immediately started to offer degrees in those
fields (either with or without tuition fees). The non-state/private sector
was also mostly built around these fields, as these types of programmes
were cheaper to provide and had a high demand. As our case studies show,
the change from predominantly engineering education to the domination
of “soft” fields had significantly changed the higher education landscape.
A “consumerist turn” (Naidoo et al. 2011) has taken place in this part of
the world too.
Following Kwiek, who reflects on the particular path of marketization
in Poland (2008, 2011), we argue that in the case of post-Soviet states,
marketization of higher education was dual: both internal to the public
sector (through tuition fees) and external (through the emergence of non-­
state providers). We also argue that unlike in Poland, where internal priva-
tization was limited to the part-time programme domain, “creeping
marketization” in the post-Soviet states was much more severe, as the level
of penetration of quasi-market forces through user fees was implemented
at a larger scale. Public higher education institutions could “sell” the most
prestigious “commodity”: a full-time degree in highly desirable fields
stamped by established HEI “brands”, hardly limited by governmental
regulations, especially in the first years of independence.
The privatization of costs opened the way to a remarkable expansion in
higher education. In most countries, higher education enrolments at least
doubled by the mid-late 2000s: in Belarus, Estonia, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Latvia, Lithuania, Moldova, Russia, Tajikistan and Ukraine.
Significant growth also took place in Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia. In
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 15

just two countries, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan, enrolment numbers

declined. In Turkmenistan, the absolute enrolment decreased twice at the
beginning of the reforms and is still far behind the situation in the Soviet
period (currently about 20,000 students compared to 40,000 in the Soviet
period). In Uzbekistan, the enrolment also decreased sharply at first and
the system has yet to achieve the Soviet level of student numbers (about
260,000 now versus over 300,000 in the Soviet era) (see Tables A.22 and
A.24 in Appendix; for massification, see, e.g. Smolentseva 2012; Platonova
2016).
In this way countries that already achieved Trow’s mass stage of higher
education by the end of the Soviet era moved towards and beyond Trow’s
threshold of 50 per cent for ‘universal’ higher education. As such, attend-
ing higher education more or less became the social norm, especially in the
countries of the European part of the region—the three Baltics states,
Belarus, Russia and Ukraine. However, by the mid-late 2000s those sys-
tems faced the demographic decline due to the low birth rates of the tur-
bulent 1990s. This resulted in decreasing enrolments in non-state and
public sectors. Overall, the demographic change has led to system contrac-
tion: in Belarus, the Baltics, Russia and Ukraine (also Moldova, but by
participation rate this country is in another group). De-privatization (an
increasing role of public funding in contrast to the previous trend to priva-
tization) has become a new trend in the region (Kwiek 2014), which dra-
matically affects all dimensions of national landscapes of higher education
(see respective country chapters).
The two Central Asian countries, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan, have
demonstrated quite the opposite case. They have seen a unique process of
de-massification, accompanied by tight government control over higher
education and a pattern of demographic growth. The access bottleneck
created in the Soviet time (e.g. see the above indicators on competition
per 100 places and the chapter on Uzbekistan) has built up more pressure
in the independence period, and that contradiction has not yet been
resolved.
The other countries—Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova,
Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic and Tajikistan—have experienced various fluc-
tuations over the independence period, but all of them have tended to remain
in the mass phase of the massification process. In most of them there has been
a recent decline in participation because of governmental policy, including
quality assurance mechanisms (including programme and institutional
accreditation), in combination with demographic trends. In this group of
16 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

countries, except for European Moldova, the demographics are rising. This
creates additional pressure on the educational system.

Admissions Reform: Introduction of National Standardized Tests

One of the key transformations of higher education systems in the region
was the reform of admission system. In the Soviet period, each HEI held
written and oral examination in subjects corresponding to the field of
study. Examinations took place in person, at the same time in all HEIs,
with a couple of exceptions. For instance, Moscow State University con-
ducted admissions earlier than the majority of the other institutions. An
applicant could take exams only at one institution at a time. Failing the
exams meant one had to wait for another year to try again. The Soviet
admission system was widely criticized as restricting equity (talented stu-
dents could not travel to other cities to take exams) and enabling corrup-
tion (lacking transparency).
Standardized tests have been introduced in all post-Soviet countries,
except for Turkmenistan. Even in Uzbekistan the national test was intro-
duced quite early—in 1994, unlike, for example, Russia, where it became
a prevailing form of admissions only in mid-late 2000s or Tajikistan
(in 2014). The subject tests enable candidates to apply to a higher educa-
tion programme and—if scores would be sufficiently high—to be eligible
for a tuition-free place (in some countries, it is called “grants”). The test
was considered as an instrument to overcome shortages in the Soviet sys-
tem and ensure quality and transparency of admissions, decrease corrup-
tion and enhance educational equity. It was a significant change of the
traditional system and its introduction was accompanied with lots of dis-
cussions and tensions. Assessments of the outcomes of these reforms were
ambiguous. In some countries the new test system addressed the corrup-
tion issue (see chapter on Georgia) or failed to ensure transparency (see
chapter on Uzbekistan). In some countries it probably increased social
mobility somewhat, but also fostered inequities by advantaging those
from better-off families (see chapters on Georgia, Kyrgyz Republic). In
addition, the new admission system has become a market mechanism
introducing competition among HEIs for “better prepared” students,
and thus more public funding, as in most countries academic merit is
linked to governmental support. That indeed has led to an increasing
vertical institutional differentiation within higher education systems. In
many countries the average score of the national university entrance test
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 17

became one of the key indicators of the prestige and status of a university
(see chapters on Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Russia).

Bologna Reforms
Most of the countries of the region joined the Bologna process, starting
with the three Baltic states (1999), Russia (2003), then Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, Moldova, Ukraine (2005), Kazakhstan (2010) and
Belarus (2015). Kyrgyz Republic applied, but was turned down. Only four
countries, all in Central Asia (Kyrgyz Republic, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan,
Uzbekistan), are outside of the Bologna group.
Along Bologna lines, all 15 countries, including those outside the
European Higher Education Area, have adopted a two-cycle degree sys-
tem and introduced bachelor and master degree programmes (3–4 plus
1–2 years). In some countries this system still co-exists, at least in some
fields, with the traditional Soviet 5-year degree for specialists (e.g. in
Russia and Turkmenistan). In terms of advanced qualifications, several
countries, including Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Georgia and Kazakhstan,
have abolished the second Soviet doctorate, so that their third cycle now
only consists of one doctoral degree (PhD).
EHEA member states formally comply with the agreement require-
ments and have introduced quality assurance bodies for programme and/
or institutional accreditation and established a system of credits (ECTS),
all measures to support increasing mobility within the EHEA. This is a
large-scale transformation for national higher education systems. Adoption
of the new policies has created many tensions and uncertainties for higher
education and employers’ communities, as the value and status of the
degrees, especially at bachelor level, have been unclear. In many cases,
traditional 5-year curricula were simply shortened in order to meet the
new length of studies requirements, which generated a lot of discussion
about “incomplete higher education” in the first cycle. In case of countries
with binary systems, like Lithuania, the transition to the new system cre-
ated challenges for colleges awarding professional degrees, especially in
regard to internal quality assurance and the disjunction between profes-
sional bachelor degree and opportunities of further learning at master’s
level (Leisyte et al. 2014).
Bologna transformation of the higher education systems for the post-­
Soviet states meant another wave of adoption of foreign/Western model
of higher education with, for many, unclear purposes and advantages.
18 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

Internationalization
The USSR became a pioneer of a particular form of internationalization of
higher education early in the twentieth century (Kuraev 2014). “Academic
internationalization was continually a mission of the national government,
reflecting general political strategy of the Soviet state”, and aimed at the
“global promotion of the Soviet order” (p. 251). In preparation for the
world revolution after the advent of global capitalism (imperialism), the
Soviet government created a substantial programme of international edu-
cation. This included full government support for international students
to study in the USSR and very limited and highly controlled exchange
programmes. Imposing the Soviet model of higher education on the other
countries of the socialist bloc was also a part of Soviet international strat-
egy. In the last years of the Soviet period it was already understood that the
national economy was unable to continue to bear the costs of large-scale
internationalization. But by the time of perestroika, the deteriorating
Soviet system had opened up opportunities for genuine internationaliza-
tion. The idea of joining global academia as an equal partner became
appealing for Soviet academics. After decades of disseminating the Soviet
model worldwide, as Kuraev points out, the new Soviet government sug-
gested to study Western values and to adopt Western principles of aca-
demic freedom, institutional autonomy and self-governance. The “Open
doors” policy resulted in international agreements and exchanges.
However, those policies had little financial support from the collapsing
economy. Internationalization has increasingly become a tool of commer-
cialization, offering a way to supplement institutional budgets with tuition
fees from international students. In that respect, Russia was in a “privi-
leged” position, as it inherited the international ties from the Soviet times
and had HEIs in major cities where international students traditionally
studied. However, also in other countries of the region internationaliza-
tion has become an important aspect of the transformation of higher
education.
Drawing on three case studies of internationalization in post-socialist
countries, including former Soviet Georgia and Kazakhstan, Orosz and
Perna (2016) found that internationalization has become an important
dimension in these countries, especially in government rhetoric, but it
lacks consistency and clarity in definitions. In both Georgia and Kazakhstan
internationalization indicators became a part of accreditation procedures
and the promotion of student mobility.
 TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE… 19

It can be argued that one of the key questions about internationaliza-

tion in post-Soviet countries is what are its purposes, and to what extent
are they related to the genuine improvement of higher education system
by learning from other cultures? How is it interpreted by governments
and academic communities of the region? To what extent does interna-
tionalization go beyond a single focus on commercialization or degree
recognition? We argue that in many cases the role of internationalization
is largely seen as a way to secure financial revenues for the sector, but also
as an instrument of the further state control, linking internationalization
with accreditation procedures and accountability.

International Assistance
An important role in post-Soviet transformations was played by interna-
tional assistance. This included numerous Western government agencies,
multilateral institutions (such as World Bank, OECD, Council of Europe),
private non-profit foundations and exchange organizations (Open
Society/Soros Institute, Ford Foundation, etc.) and also individual uni-
versities, consortia and professional associations (Johnson 1996). In the
case of the international financial organizations international aid came as
part of the package associated with conditional loans to the governments.
Mostly the aid was focused on secondary school reform, but some was
targeted towards higher education. International assistance contributed
not only to the internationalization of higher education by supporting
direct academic exchanges, the publication of international textbooks and
literature and training programmes, but also helped to support infrastruc-
ture development and academic staff. In Central Asia these international
agencies largely supported structural reforms, such as establishing national
test systems (see chapter on Tajikistan). However, as Johnson (1996)
notes for the case of Russia—and the point is applicable to other countries
of the region—often both the reformers and the providers of international
aid (including World Bank) were guided by idealized Western practices,
rather than local needs and realities. International assistance agents under-
estimated the power of traditional institutional structures and inherited
professional practices from the Soviet system, and the need to work with
them, instead of trying to “develop” the systems as they did in educational
programmes in other regions.
20 A. SMOLENTSEVA ET AL.

Summary of Reforms
Table 1.1 summarizes key reforms in higher education, which have been
implemented in the post-Soviet period. It shows both commonalities and
differences across countries. Even countries close to each other historically
and culturally demonstrate different combinations of the reforms (e.g. the
countries of Central Asia).
It is important to note that this comparative table does not include the
research dimension of higher education systems. It mostly focuses on the
teaching function. Although research has been a concern for many gov-
ernments and international aid providers, it has not become a focus of
reform in most of the countries. As the case studies in this book show,
none of the systems were able to build a strong system of research univer-
sities. This is not only because of the chronic underfunding of research
over the last 25 years but also because of the structural legacies inherited
from the Soviet system, particularly its separation of teaching and research.
Nevertheless, research funding has become an instrument of the state (see
chapters on Lithuania, Russia), and this has contributed to the vertical dif-
ferentiation of higher education systems.

Landscape Changes
The changes in the landscape that took place from the 1990s on—note
that some of the changes overlap—are as follows.
First, many new higher education institutions emerged, particularly
the growth of non-state/private higher education was impressive (but
note our earlier comment that the “privatization” of public higher educa-
tion should not be overlooked). Obviously, under the communist regime,
higher education provision was public and planned and regulated by the
state. In the post-Soviet period, from the mid-1990s on, in many higher
education systems, private initiatives loomed largely. In some countries,
the number of institutions doubled between 1990 and now, in others
growth was steeper, amounting to sixfold the number of institutions in
2015 compared to the beginning of the 1990s (see Table 1.1). Growth
has been even more impressive if the dynamics between 1990 and 2015
are taken into account. Many more non-state higher education institu-
tions emerged in that period, but governmental regulations—licensing
and accreditation—led to the closing down of many private initiatives.
The current private higher education institutions are generally smaller,
Table 1.1 The key reforms in higher education in post-Soviet countries
Non-­ Fees in Standardized Privatization Bologna 2-tier Soviet Replacement Stage of
state public test (admissions of public HEIs signatory degree 5-year of the Soviet massification
sector sector, reform) and new legal system specialist two doctorates in Soviet time
full- forms (bachelor-­ degree by single and now
and master) doctorate (mass, elite,
part-­ (PhD) universal)
time

Armenia + + 2005a +b 2005 + + − M −> M

Azerbaijan + + 1992/2004 − 2005 + +c − M −> M
Belarus + + 2004 − 2015 +/−d + − M −> U
Georgia + + 2005 +e 2005 + − + M −> M
Estonia + +f 1997 − 1999 + − + M −> U
Kazakhstan + + 2004 + 2010 + − + M −> M
Kyrgyz Republic + + 2002/2012 − − + + −g M −> M
Latvia + + + − 1999 + − + M −> U
Lithuania + + 2004 − 1999 + − + M −> U
Moldova + + 2006/2011h − 2005 + +i − M −> M
Russia + + 2005–2009 − 2003 + + − M −> U
Tajikistan + + 2014 − − + + −j M −> M
Turkmenistan −k + − − − + + − E −> E
Ukraine + + 2006 − 2005 + +c − M −> U
Uzbekistan − + 1994 − − + − −l E −> E

Source: L. Bischof, Z. Kataeva, D. Platonova, A. Smolentseva using this project’s data and analysis.
a
Since 2012 it is also used for non-state admissions
b
For example, a new legal form of a foundation
TRANSFORMATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION INSTITUTIONAL LANDSCAPE…

(continued)
21
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd:
 Maître André le perruquier, l’auteur de cette réjouissante tragédie
du Tremblement de terre de Lisbonne (1756), qui le fit monter en un
clin d’œil au faîte de la gloire, et qu’il dédia sans façon à son cher
confrère, « l’illustre et célèbre poëte Voltaire », avait débuté par se
poser en rival de Boileau, et il lui en avait cuit ; c’est à lui qu’on doit
cette intéressante révélation dans la préface de sa pièce : « Je
m’appliquais dans ma jeunesse, dit-il, à faire de petites rimes
satiriques et des chansons, qui n’ont pas laissé de m’attirer quelques
bons coups de bâton. » Je soupçonne que maître André se vante,
pour mieux se poser en poëte.
La Morlière, le plus redoutable chef de cabale dont les
banquettes de la Comédie-Française aient gardé la mémoire, eut
souvent maille à partir avec maint auteur mécontent de ses
procédés, et, si l’on en croit Diderot, malgré ses airs de matamore il
ne payait pas de bravoure en pareille occurrence : « Ce chevalier de
la Morlière, lit-on dans le Neveu de Rameau…, que fait-il ? Tout ce
qu’il peut pour se persuader qu’il est un homme de cœur ; mais il est
lâche. Offrez-lui une croquignole sur le bout du nez, et il la recevra
en douceur. Voulez-vous lui faire baisser le ton ? Élevez-le ; montrez-
lui votre canne, ou appliquez votre pied entre ses fesses. »
Laus de Boissy fut, une nuit, très-cruellement bâtonné au Palais-
Royal, pour s’y être livré à des railleries inconvenantes contre
quelques personnes qui s’y promenaient, comme c’était alors la
grande mode pendant les soirs d’été (juillet 1776). Il tourna
l’aventure en plaisanterie, et ne trouva rien de mieux à faire, pour se
consoler, que d’adresser à l’Académie des Arcades de Rome, dont il
était membre, un petit poëme, dans le goût de l’Arioste, où il badinait
agréablement sur les coups qu’il avait reçus.
Je ne sais quelles étaient ces personnes qui s’offensèrent des
propos de Laus de Boissy, mais je gagerais que c’étaient des
femmes, et qu’on ne le châtia que pour avoir par trop dépassé la
limite honnête de la galanterie, péché mignon de tous les
étourneaux du dix-huitième siècle. Plus d’un auteur râpé dut payer
alors ses bonnes fortunes sur son dos et ses épaules, comme cet
amant clandestin de mademoiselle Allard la danseuse, — peut-être
un poëte, lui aussi, — que l’amant en titre de la dame, monseigneur
le duc de Mazarin, fit bâtonner de si belle façon, en attendant qu’il
eût lui-même la tête cassée par un rival ; ou comme M. de la
Popelinière, dont la renommée de financier a effacé celle d’auteur, et
qui, dit-on, fut traité de la même sorte, et pour la même cause, par le
prince de Carignan [69] .
[69] Gazette noire, p. 159.

En 1783, il se passa une scène étrange au théâtre d’Orléans. Au

milieu d’une représentation, plusieurs jeunes gens s’élancent du
parterre sur la scène, s’emparent des actrices et leur donnent le
fouet, sous prétexte qu’ils étaient mécontents de leur jeu, mais peut-
être pour d’autres raisons plus intimes qu’il ne nous appartient pas
d’approfondir [70] . Comment eût-on respecté les actrices quand elles
se respectaient si peu elles-mêmes ? Quelque temps auparavant, on
avait vu mademoiselle Allard donner, en plein théâtre, des coups de
pied à mademoiselle Peslin, qui répondait sans façon par un coup
de poing [71] . Tel était l’atticisme de ces dames.
[70] Mémoir. secr., t. XXII, p. 375.
[71] Morande, Philosop. cyniq., p. 20.

A la suite d’un concert où il avait déployé tous les charmes de sa

magnifique voix, Caffarielli fut régalé à Rome, dans l’antichambre du
cardinal Albani, de coups de nerfs de bœuf, par les estafiers de
l’Éminence, en retour du sans-façon dédaigneux avec lequel il avait
fait attendre les plus illustres personnages de la ville éternelle. Et
l’assemblée du salon applaudissait à ses cris aigus, comme elle
venait d’applaudir à son grand air, en répétant : « Bravo, Caffarielli !
Bravo, Caffarielli ! »
Combien d’autres bâtonnés nous aurions à citer encore, si l’on
avait eu le temps de noter au passage toutes les aventures du
même genre dont furent victimes les bohèmes de la littérature
d’alors, pauvres diables d’auteurs affamés et cyniques, insectes et
vermisseaux des sous-sols de la poésie, populace grouillante et
fourmillante de la plume, piliers du Caveau [72] , de Procope, de
Gradot, de la veuve Laurent, de la Régence, de tous les cafés et
tripots littéraires, où ils s’attablaient pour cabaler, discuter, lire ou
entendre des vers, siffler ou applaudir, en attendant que le chevalier
de la Morlière vînt les enrégimenter contre la pièce nouvelle de la
Comédie-Française, ou qu’un exempt les conduisît au Fort-
l’Évêque ! Combien de bâtonnés aussi, comme leur patron fameux,
parmi ces Arétins de mièvre encolure, ces enfants perdus de la
calomnie par la presse, ces pères nourriciers de l’ignoble chantage,
ces loups-cerviers du pamphlet, vivant d’une plume empoisonnée
qui faisait mourir leurs victimes, — les Chevrier, les Morande, les
Drigaud, les Dulaurens, les Groubentall, et tant d’autres éhontés
coquins, dont le Neveu de Rameau reste le prototype [73] , —
parfaitement résignés à un soufflet, voire à un coup de pied, et s’en
frottant les mains, pourvu que la chose leur fût payée en beaux écus
comptants !
[72] On peut voir une scène de coups de canne qui
eut lieu au Caveau entre le maître de l’établissement,
Dubuisson, et M. de Brignoles, dans la Corresp. secr.,
XIV, 232 ; 10 avril 1783.
[73] « J’étais leur petit Rameau, leur joli Rameau, leur
Rameau le fou, l’impertinent, l’ignorant, le paresseux, le
gourmand, le bouffon, la grosse bête. Il n’y avait pas une
de ces épithètes qui ne me valût un sourire, une caresse,
un petit coup sur l’épaule, un soufflet, un coup de pied, à
table un bon morceau qu’on me jetait sur mon assiette. »
(Diderot, le Neveu de Rameau.)

Honnête journaliste,

disait un vaudeville du temps, attribué à Collé,

Amusant nouvelliste,
Brochurier à pamphlets,
Changez toutes ces têtes,
 Ces intrigantes têtes,
Changez toutes ces têtes,
Têtes à camouflets [74] .

[74] Ce vaudeville devint le type d’une foule d’autres

qui coururent alors. L’un d’eux s’attira en réponse un
pamphlet, daté par l’auteur de « chez Démocrite Bras de
Fer, au coin de la rue des Étrivières. » (Janvier 1784). Ce
genre de réplique était encore admis par l’usage.

Têtes à camouflets ! Le mot est juste et bien trouvé dans sa

trivialité énergique. Mais nous tombons ici dans la lie de l’histoire
littéraire. Ces hommes ne sont plus des écrivains qu’on outrage, ce
sont des drôles qu’on châtie, et nous n’avons rien à y voir. Est-il
besoin, d’ailleurs, de répéter ici que nous ne prétendons nullement
dresser une nomenclature complète ? La chose n’est certes pas
possible, et, le fût-elle, nous n’y prétendrions pas davantage.
 XI

En dehors de ces quelques exemples, la toute-puissance du

bâton commence à être contestée. Les gens de lettres redressent la
tête sous l’insulte ; ils ne reconnaissent plus la brutale supériorité de
la force qui les tenait courbés autrefois. Il leur faut une réparation
d’honneur, et, pour l’avoir, ils en appellent les uns à leur épée, les
autres à la loi [75] . L’épée et la loi, récusées d’abord, ne tardent pas
à être reçues en leur faveur. La première, c’est peu de chose : elle
ne prouvait rien que le courage personnel de ceux qui s’en
servaient. La seconde, c’est beaucoup plus et beaucoup mieux : elle
prouvait les changements de l’opinion et le progrès de la condition
littéraire.
[75] Démosthène, frappé publiquement d’un coup de
poing à la joue, sur le théâtre, au milieu des fêtes de
Bacchus, pendant qu’il remplissait ses fonctions de
chorége, par Midias, citoyen riche et puissant, forma
d’abord une plainte devant le peuple, qui condamna
Midias, puis composa, pour être prononcé devant les
juges, le vigoureux discours que nous avons encore. Si
Molière, Voltaire, Beaumarchais, etc., avaient imité
Démosthène, la langue française aurait bien des pages
éloquentes de plus.

Il y a une aventure du chevalier de Boufflers qui rappelle en

beaucoup de points celle de cet auteur que nous avons vu plus haut
battu de verges par les actrices de la Comédie-Italienne. Le
chevalier avait fait, contre certaine marquise infidèle, une épigramme
qui avait couru. A quelque temps de là, la grande dame sollicite une
réconciliation, et lui demande de venir la sceller à sa table. Il y va,
mais des pistolets dans sa poche, en homme prudent et qui
connaissait la partie adverse. A peine arrivé, il est saisi par quatre
forts gaillards de laquais, qui, sous les yeux de la marquise, lui
meurtrissent les reins de cinquante coups de verges. Jusque-là,
c’est tout à fait l’histoire de notre auteur ; mais voici un dénoûment
auquel celui-ci n’avait pas songé. Boufflers se relève, se rajuste
avec sang-froid ; puis, tirant ses pistolets de sa poche, il ordonne
aux laquais, en les couchant en joue, de rendre à leur maîtresse ce
qu’ils venaient de lui donner à lui-même. Il fallut bien se résoudre
des deux parts, et le chevalier compta scrupuleusement les coups.
Après quoi, mais c’est un mince détail, il les força à se les repasser
l’un à l’autre. Puis il salua avec grâce et sortit [76] .
[76] Chronique scandal., t. III.

Le chevalier de Roncherolles, s’étant reconnu dans un vaudeville

de Champcenetz sur les jeunes gens du siècle (1783), déclara, en
présence de plusieurs officiers aux gardes, que l’auteur méritait des
coups de bâton. Mais Champcenetz était plutôt homme à en donner
qu’à en recevoir : cette année même, il l’avait bien prouvé à
Morande, en châtiant une de ses nouvelles insolences par les mains
des valets de la Comédie-Française. Le lendemain donc, il alla
demander raison au chevalier et se battit avec lui [77] . Il est vrai que,
comme Boufflers, quoiqu’à un moindre degré, Champcenetz était
gentilhomme et de bonne maison, et l’on dira peut-être que c’était le
sang du patricien, et non celui du poëte, qui se révoltait en lui à ce
propos d’un autre âge. Mais bien des écrivains et des artistes de
profession, qui n’avaient pas même toujours la particule, se
montrèrent tout aussi gentilshommes en pareille occurrence.
[77] Mémoir. secr., t. XXII, p. 30, 11 janv. 1783.

Longtemps auparavant, à une époque où les préjugés nobiliaires

ne s’étaient pas encore abaissés devant ces grands principes
d’égalité civile et sociale que la Révolution devait si définitivement
implanter parmi nous ; lorsque les traditions du règne de Louis XIV,
mort depuis dix ans à peine, régnaient encore dans toute leur
vigueur, Voltaire, un simple petit bourgeois, avait donné le même
exemple de révolte contre un impudent outrage, et il ne tint pas à lui
de le pousser aussi loin que le gentilhomme Champcenetz. Il dînait
chez le duc de Sully, en compagnie du chevalier de Rohan : celui-ci,
nourri dans les habitudes de l’ancienne cour et ne soupçonnant pas
qu’un poëte pût servir à autre chose qu’à amuser les grands
seigneurs qui daignaient l’admettre à leur table, laissa tomber
quelques persiflages de mauvais ton sur l’auteur de la Henriade, qui
lui répondit par une de ces épigrammes comme il en savait faire.
« Quel est donc, demande le chevalier, ce jeune homme qui parle si
haut ? — Un homme, répond fièrement Voltaire, qui honore le nom
qu’il porte, lorsque tant d’autres traînent le leur dans la boue. » Outré
de cette hardiesse, le chevalier donne des ordres à ses gens, et,
quelques jours après, comme Voltaire dînait de nouveau chez le
duc, il est attiré, sous je ne sais quel prétexte, à la porte de l’hôtel ;
des laquais déguisés s’emparent de lui, le frappent à grands coups
de bâton, jusqu’à ce que leur maître, qui assistait incognito à cette
exécution sauvage, leur fasse signe que cela suffit. Ils se sauvent
alors, laissant le poëte à moitié mort.
Le duc de Sully était premier ministre, c’était à sa porte et sur un
de ses invités qu’on venait de se livrer à cet acte barbare et lâche : il
ne s’en inquiéta point pourtant, et le parlement demeura muet. Les
temps n’étaient pas encore mûrs. Mais Voltaire voulut suppléer au
silence de la justice. D’abord malade de honte et de rage, il
s’enferme, et apprend à fond l’escrime et l’anglais, l’un pour sa
vengeance, l’autre pour l’exil qu’il prévoit. Puis, par l’intermédiaire
d’un garçon de Procope, qu’il avait décrassé afin de s’en servir
comme d’un second, il envoie un cartel au chevalier, qui accepte
pour le lendemain, et, dans la nuit, le fait enfermer à la Bastille [78] .
[78] Chronique scandaleuse, 3e vol.
 Lorsqu’il en sortit, au bout de six mois, Voltaire, qui avait la
mémoire tenace, se remit en quête de son adversaire ; mais celui-ci
se cacha si bien, que le poëte dut partir pour son exil d’Angleterre,
avant de l’avoir revu [79] .
[79] Vie de Voltaire, par Condorcet. — Voltaire, par
Eug. Noël, p. 37.

Se venger ainsi des insolences d’un grand seigneur, voilà ce qui

ne serait jamais venu en tête à un auteur du dix-septième siècle, fût-
ce à M. de Boissat, qui avait pourtant sur Voltaire trois grands
avantages, en pareil cas, puisqu’il était académicien, gentilhomme
lui-même, et bretteur de première force.
Il devait être donné au duc de Chaulnes de dépasser encore le
chevalier de Rohan, dans sa querelle avec Beaumarchais, en 1773.
Le noble pair soupçonnait l’écrivain d’être préféré par une actrice de
la Comédie-Italienne, mademoiselle Ménard, qu’il protégeait. Haut et
puissant personnage, d’une violence de caractère égale à sa force
corporelle, il entra en fureur quand il apprit que le fils d’un horloger,
un petit écrivain de drames bourgeois et larmoyants, était son rival
en amour, et forma le projet de le tuer, jurant, avec des serments
effroyables, qu’il voulait boire son sang et lui arracher le cœur à la
force des dents. Il faut lire dans le livre de M. de Loménie [80] les
détails ignobles de la bataille de porte-faix engagée par le grand
seigneur contre l’auteur d’Eugénie, les soufflets et les coups qu’il
commence par donner, dans un fiacre, au poëte Gudin de la
Brenellerie, l’ami de celui-ci, sa lutte à bras-le-corps contre
Beaumarchais dont il déchire le visage et arrache la peau du front,
enfin vingt autres particularités non moins monstrueuses que je n’ai
point le courage de rapporter ici, tant elles me soulèvent le cœur de
dégoût. Et, le dimanche suivant, il osait, dans le foyer de la
Comédie-Française, demander à haute voix le silence, pour raconter
sa conduite, et la justifier à sa façon [81] . Mais le rang et le nom du
duc de Chaulnes, les ménagements singuliers apportés par un
timide commissaire de police dans sa déposition sur cette affaire, ne
purent sauver le pair de France d’un emprisonnement au château de
Vincennes, en vertu d’une lettre de cachet.
[80] Beaumarchais et son Temps, t. I, ch. X.
[81] Nouvelles à la main, Mss., de Pidansat de
Mairobert, 18 février 1773.

Le 8 juin 1781, Mozart, que son patron, l’archevêque de

Saltzbourg, traitait habituellement comme le dernier des laquais, fut
jeté à la porte par le comte d’Arco, avec un coup de pied, et il
écrivait à son père que, partout où il rencontrerait celui-ci, il lui
rendrait la pareille [82] .
[82] Biographie nouvelle de Mozart, par Otto Jahn. 3e
volume.

Nous verrons mieux encore. Voici, par exemple, non plus un

grand poëte qui demande raison à un gentilhomme d’un indigne
outrage, non plus un artiste illustre dont le sang bouillonne aux
insultes d’un manant titré, mais un simple valet de comédie, devenu
auteur par la suite, qui bâtonne un maître des requêtes et soufflette
un marquis. Ce hardi bouffon toujours prompt à la riposte, de la
langue ou de la main, se nommait Dugazon.
M. Caze, fils d’un fermier général, et maître des requêtes,
comme nous venons de le dire, était amoureux de madame
Dugazon, avec laquelle il entretenait un commerce clandestin.
L’acteur finit par s’en douter, et, non content d’avoir forcé le jeune
homme, en lui mettant le pistolet sur la gorge, de lui rendre les
lettres et le portrait de sa femme, il se vengea par un procédé qui
semble un ressouvenir d’une scène de son répertoire, celle où
Scapin frappe à coups redoublés sur le sac où s’est caché Géronte.
Laissons parler encore ici les Mémoires secrets [83] :
[83] XII, p. 86, 18 août 1778.

« Il y a quelques jours qu’après la Comédie Italienne, M. Caze,

se trouvant sur le théâtre, Dugazon l’aperçoit, laisse s’écouler la
foule, et, dans un moment où personne ne le regardait, il applique
presto un ou deux coups de canne sur les épaules du maître des
requêtes, puis se remet en posture. M. Caze se retourne, voit son
rival, fait des menaces. On ne sait ce que cela veut dire, on
approche. Dugazon, sans se déconcerter, lui demande qu’il
s’explique. Le magistrat, perdant la tête de rage, lui répond qu’il est
un assassin qui vient de lui donner des coups de canne. L’acteur le
persifle, prétend que cela n’est pas possible, qu’un histrion comme
lui n’aurait jamais cette effronterie ; bref, n’y ayant pas de témoins,
cela n’a pas d’autres suites. Jusqu’à présent, il n’y a guère de quoi
rire ; mais ce qu’on ne pardonne pas au sieur Dugazon, c’est que,
s’enhardissant du succès de son rôle…, il s’est vanté des coups de
canne, dans différents soupers, et en présence de beaucoup de
spectateurs. »
La seconde aventure fut plus grave et dut encore son origine à la
conduite fort légère de madame Dugazon. En ce temps-là,
l’adorateur en titre de la dame était le marquis de Langeac, de triste
renommée. Irrité d’une expression injurieuse dont l’avait qualifié le
comédien dans une lettre de reproches à sa femme, le marquis
prétendit, en plein salon, devant une réunion nombreuse, qu’il le
rouerait de coups de bâton. Comme il disait ces mots, entre
Dugazon qui va droit à lui, et s’enquiert poliment du jour où il se
propose de le traiter ainsi, afin de se mettre en mesure de lui
répondre avec la même arme. M. de Langeac lance un soufflet à
l’acteur qui se jette sur lui, le lui rend à usure, et ne se fût pas arrêté
de sitôt, si on ne les eût séparés [84] .
[84] C’est sans doute la même aventure qui se trouve
racontée, avec quelques variantes, dans Bachaumont
(XIV, p. 58), et la Chronique scandaleuse, I, p. 3. Un fait
qui montre mieux que celui-là combien les acteurs
commençaient à se relever, dans leurs rapports avec les
grands personnages, c’est la réponse, pleine à la fois de
dignité et de présence d’esprit, adressée par Carlin au
prince de Monaco, qui l’avait interpellé en scène pour lui
reprocher de laisser trop longtemps à ses genoux, dans
une situation dramatique, l’actrice Caroline dont il était
 épris. Au temps où le marquis de Sablé souffletait
Dancourt sur la scène, la chose eût paru toute simple ;
mais cette fois ce fut l’acteur qui humilia le prince, et le
public, par ses huées et ses applaudissements, donna
tort au prince et raison à l’acteur.

La chose en resta là. On prétendit que M. de Langeac ne pouvait

se mesurer avec un baladin. Il était habitué, d’ailleurs, à pareilles
aventures, et quelques années avant, en 1771, il avait reçu avec la
même résignation une grêle de coups de pied et de coups de poing
administrés par Guérin, chirurgien du prince de Conti, qu’il avait
traité de gredin et menacé de faire bâtonner par ses gens, parce que
celui-ci avait regardé sa maîtresse d’une façon qui ne lui plaisait pas.
Aussi, comme on demandait ce qu’il allait faire du soufflet de
Dugazon : « Parbleu ! dit un plaisant, il le mettra avec les autres. »
En 1780, on vit un maçon venir interpeller en plein tribunal un
conseiller au parlement, son débiteur, dont il ne pouvait se faire
payer, et, peu satisfait de ses paroles évasives, lui donner deux
soufflets dans le sanctuaire même de la justice.
Un conseiller au parlement souffleté par un maçon ; un marquis
ayant le brevet de colonel et chevalier de Saint-Louis, battu à plates
coutures par un chirurgien et un valet de comédie ! Il fallait que la
Révolution fût bien proche !
On ne me fera pas l’injure de croire que j’ai rapporté ces scènes
dégoûtantes pour les approuver. Je ne les raconte que comme
symptômes des temps. Ce sont des documents qu’il n’était guère
permis de passer sous silence dans ce travail. Duels ou bâtonnades,
nous n’aimons guère plus les uns que les autres : c’est encore et
toujours le triomphe de la force, et qu’importe qu’elle soit aujourd’hui
pour les écrivains, puisqu’elle peut demain, et avec le même droit,
se retourner contre eux ? Mais, du jour où la loi se prononce pour les
auteurs opprimés, de ce jour seulement ils peuvent lever la tête,
parce que ce n’est plus une vengeance individuelle, c’est la justice
qui leur vient ; ce n’est plus un fait sans conséquence, le fait du
hasard, de la brutalité, du courage d’un homme ; c’est la sanction
officielle et la consécration de leurs droits, de leur dignité morale. Ils
peuvent ne pas avoir pour eux la force périssable du corps, ils ont la
force impérissable de l’opinion et de la pensée publique.
Cette consécration fut lente à venir. Elle était inscrite depuis
longtemps sans doute dans la théorie ; mais, de la théorie à
l’application, il y a souvent plus loin que de la coupe aux lèvres. Je
ne sache pas que la loi, chargée de sauvegarder contre la violence
les intérêts des moindres citoyens, eût fait une exception pour les
poëtes ; mais l’usage se chargeait souvent de compléter les lois et
d’y introduire des amendements singuliers : c’était l’usage qui
semblait avoir définitivement concédé aux gentilshommes le droit de
bâtonner les écrivains à merci.
Une des premières fois que nous voyons la justice intervenir
ouvertement dans ces débats, pour faire son devoir, ce fut, vers
1770, à l’occasion de Fleury, c’est-à-dire d’un simple comédien,
encore peu connu. Un soir, en revenant de jouer Tancrède sur le
théâtre de Versailles, il se vit assailli par une nuée de jeunes gens
armés de bâtons. Il s’agissait encore d’une rivalité d’amour, la
grande source de la plupart des aventures de ce genre. On voulait le
punir d’avoir été préféré par une actrice, que convoitaient tous les
officiers du lieu. Fleury était brave : il se défendit comme il put,
tandis que son domestique criait au secours. La patrouille arriva et
prit cinq jeunes gens qu’elle conduisit en prison. Ils appartenaient à
de grandes familles, et faisaient partie de la maison du roi, mais
Louis XV lui-même, résistant à toutes les supplications dont on le
circonvint, voulut que la justice eût son cours. On peut voir dans les
Mémoires de Fleury [85] tout ce que tentèrent près de lui les parents
des accusés et le duc de Duras pour l’engager à abandonner sa
plainte, et comment l’histrion fit honte aux gentilshommes, en allant
leur dire dans la prison :
[85] T. I, ch. VIII, éd. in-12.

« Messieurs, vous avez voulu m’assassiner… Venez me

combattre l’un après l’autre, ou soyons amis. »
 Que le rédacteur de ces piquants Mémoires ait, à son insu,
donné une couleur un peu trop épique à cette scène ; que, par une
réminiscence théâtrale, il ait drapé son héros à la façon d’Auguste
pardonnant à Cinna, c’est possible, et je le veux bien. Mais il n’en
est pas moins vrai que l’opinion publique et celle même de la cour
s’étaient prononcées en sa faveur, et qu’il n’eût tenu qu’à lui de faire
condamner par-devant tribunal les auteurs du guet-apens. C’est tout
ce qu’il nous faut.
Dix ans plus tard, un danseur de l’Opéra, Nivelon, obtenait la
même justice, pour avoir été battu par M. de Clugny, qui lui avait
cassé sa canne sur le corps. Et pourtant le délit semblait excusable,
car Nivelon s’était permis de mystifier M. de Clugny et de répondre
insolemment à ses représentations, sans doute peu civiles. De plus,
fils lui-même d’un homme qui avait rempli les plus hautes fonctions
dans l’État, c’était en compagnie des fils de deux ministres que ce
dernier s’était vengé de la sorte, ce qui n’empêcha pas que, sur la
déposition du danseur et de ses camarades, l’affaire prit une grave
tournure, et que le roi exila impitoyablement le coupable [86] .
[86] Mémoir. secr., t. XV, p. 298, 25 août 1780.

On sait la réponse de Piron à un grand seigneur, qui,

reconduisant une personne de qualité, le rencontra à la porte de son
appartement. Celle-ci s’arrêtait par politesse pour laisser entrer
l’écrivain : « Passez, passez, fit l’amphitryon, ce n’est qu’un poëte. »
Piron n’hésite pas : « Puisque les qualités sont connues, dit-il, je
prends mon rang. » Et il va devant, en mettant son chapeau sur sa
tête. Il n’y avait pas là une simple boutade sans conséquence et
sans portée : c’était, en quelque sorte, la proclamation ex abrupto
des droits de l’homme du poëte et de l’écrivain. Il avait fallu, si je
l’ose dire, toute une révolution littéraire et politique à la fois pour
rendre ces quelques mots possibles, sans que le grand seigneur
chargeât son suisse de jeter l’insolent à la porte à coups de
hallebarde.
Du reste, ceci n’est pas un fait isolé dans la vie de Piron. Malgré
ses folies de jeunesse et l’extrême licence de quelques-unes de ses
productions, malgré ses démêlés bouffons surtout avec les gens de
Beaune, où il faillit plus d’une fois faire connaissance avec le bâton,
et avec mieux que cela, on sait qu’il eut l’orgueil de sa profession et
qu’en général il porta haut la conscience de la dignité des lettres.
Dans sa Métromanie [87] , au moment où Baliveau lève la canne sur
son neveu l’auteur, celui-ci désarme d’un mot l’irascible capitoul, qui
confesse son tort, et il part de là pour plaider aussitôt la cause de
l’écrivain et pour montrer, dans une brillante et chaleureuse
apologie, la noblesse de la profession littéraire. Puis, dans une des
scènes suivantes, Piron nous montre son poëte tirant l’épée pour
demander raison d’une insulte ; et, personne ne l’ignore, c’était lui-
même que l’auteur avait peint dans le principal personnage de sa
comédie.
[87] III, sc. 7.

Poursuivons encore, et nous verrons le mouvement des esprits

se dessiner de plus en plus dans le même sens. Cette fois c’est
Sedaine qui se trouve en présence de M. de la Ferté, intendant des
Menus, le même que nous avons déjà rencontré plus haut. Après la
représentation de son opéra-comique intitulé Albert, sur le théâtre de
Fontainebleau, Sedaine, mécontent de la mise en scène de la pièce,
se livra à des réflexions amères, qui, rapportées au grand seigneur,
enflammèrent sa bile. Il arriva furieux, criant : « Où est Sedaine ? —
La Ferté, dit résolûment celui-ci, Monsieur Sedaine est ici. Que lui
voulez-vous ? » On peut juger de ce que devint un dialogue entamé
sur ce ton. Le poëte-maçon tint tête à l’intendant des Menus, et
répondit à ses injures avec une dignité hautaine, lui disant, assure-t-
on, les vérités les plus dures. Au dix-septième siècle, M. de la Ferté,
qui n’était pas d’humeur facile, comme nous l’avons vu, eût brisé sa
canne sur l’audacieux rimailleur qui osait parler si fièrement à un
homme, doublement son supérieur par sa naissance comme par ses
fonctions. En 1786, les courtisans s’égayèrent aux dépens de la
Ferté ; l’Académie ne s’abstint de réclamer une réparation d’honneur
pour son membre que parce qu’elle l’estima suffisamment vengé par
l’approbation de la reine ; enfin celle-ci, après avoir écouté la
justification de M. de la Ferté, ne lui répliqua que par ces paroles
caractéristiques : « Lorsque le roi et moi parlons à un écrivain, nous
l’appelons toujours Monsieur. Quant au fond de votre différend, il
n’est pas fait pour nous intéresser. »
Du mot de Piron, commenté et confirmé par ce mot de la reine,
date l’émancipation de l’homme de lettres. Dès lors on le met à la
Bastille, — ou on le guillotine, — lorsqu’on croit avoir à s’en plaindre,
mais on ne le bâtonne plus. Il y a là un incontestable progrès.
Ce n’a point été sans une profonde répugnance que j’ai remué
toutes ces ordures du siècle, qui donnent à cette partie de l’histoire
littéraire et artistique la physionomie d’un égout : il m’a fallu la
conviction de faire une œuvre méritoire en portant la lumière au
milieu de ces turpitudes de tout genre, qui doivent nous instruire en
nous humiliant, nous autres écrivains d’aujourd’hui. Plus d’une fois
j’ai senti une violente tentation de soulever la tête au-dessus de ces
miasmes, pour respirer un air plus pur en meilleure compagnie, et je
tiens à constater ici, pour qu’on ne m’accuse pas d’un pessimisme
systématique, que je l’aurais pu sans beaucoup de peine. Il est des
vies littéraires, comme celle de Vauvenargues, qui semblent faites
exprès pour consoler les regards attristés, par la réunion des plus
hautes qualités morales, et du respect qui en est la récompense : il
est bon, à la suite de cette excursion à travers les mœurs souillées
du dix-huitième siècle, de s’arrêter un moment à un nom pareil, qui
suffit à purifier ces pages. De ces vies découle une leçon qui doit
être jointe à toutes celles dont ce petit livre abonde. Voilà le type du
véritable écrivain, et celui-là n’a jamais été et ne sera jamais le héros
d’une chronique scandaleuse comme celle qu’on vient de lire.
Il ne faut pas, bien entendu, voir dans cette phrase une
condamnation absolue des auteurs bâtonnés, condamnation qui
serait par là même une espèce d’acquittement pour la sauvage
brutalité de leurs bourreaux. Seulement il est impossible de ne point
remarquer combien toutes ces fustigations, qui, autrefois,
lorsqu’elles s’attaquaient à Racine, à Molière, voire à Boileau,
n’avaient nulle atténuation à leur honte, peuvent le plus souvent, au
dix-huitième siècle, trouver une excuse, — bien insuffisante, il est
vrai, — soit dans le nom méprisé et les habitudes de celui qu’elles
atteignent, soit dans l’acte qui les a provoquées. On l’a vu, — et
peut-être a-t-on été tenté de croire alors que je m’écartais du sujet,
— presque toujours, depuis que nous sommes entrés dans ce
siècle, c’est sur un terrain autre que le terrain littéraire, c’est pour un
autre délit qu’un pur délit de plume, que le bâton est en jeu, et il en
sera ainsi, à plus forte raison, désormais que, par suite de l’égalité
civile enracinée dans nos mœurs, et de l’honneur croissant accordé
aux lettres, il n’est plus loisible, fût-ce à un Rohan, de bâtonner le
moindre des vilains, simplement parce qu’il tient une plume.
 XII

Nous voici arrivés au dix-neuvième siècle : c’est dire que notre

tâche est enfin terminée. Grâce au ciel, le bâton est aujourd’hui une
royauté complètement déchue, et ce brutal Deus ex machinâ n’ose
plus apparaître pour dénouer les drames ou les comédies de la vie
littéraire. Non pas sans doute qu’il n’y ait plus de poëtes crottés, de
cyniques écrivains plus ou moins bâtonnables ; mais ceux-là même,
il n’y a plus de grands seigneurs pour les bâtonner. L’aristocratie de
la naissance et celle de la plume ont fait chacune un pas en sens
inverse, si bien qu’elles ont fini par se rencontrer, marchant de pair
sur un terrain uni. Le niveau général des mœurs littéraires s’est de
beaucoup élevé. L’écrivain n’est plus un valet ni un parasite, le fou
de cour de monseigneur le premier ministre, ni l’épagneul de
madame la marquise. Le haut personnage et le petit bourgeois n’ont
pas plus d’autorité l’un que l’autre sur lui : tous deux font, au même
titre, partie du public, son seul maître, s’il est vrai qu’il ait un maître.
Tous sont égaux devant la plume : à ses attaques, les uns, — ce
sont presque toujours les plus sages, — répondent par le silence ;
les autres, par l’épée ; d’autres encore en appellent à la justice ou à
la plume elle-même. Personne ne songe à l’argument du bâton. Ni
l’opinion, ni les lois, qui protégent aujourd’hui les gens de lettres
autant que les portiers, ne badineraient plus sur ces passe-temps
d’un autre siècle, et je doute qu’il se trouvât encore quelque poëte
en belle humeur pour chanter, dans d’ingénieuses épigrammes, ces
petits inconvénients du métier.
Que Talma, poussé à bout par les sarcasmes de Geoffroy, se
soit, pendant une représentation, précipité dans sa loge, et l’ait
souffleté, suivant les uns, lui ait violemment serré et tordu le poignet,
suivant d’autres [88] , ce n’était pas à l’écrivain, mais à l’insulteur que
s’adressait le grand tragédien, qui avait trop le respect des lettres
pour n’avoir pas celui de la critique et des littérateurs. Et puis ce ne
fut là qu’un invincible et irréfléchi mouvement d’indignation, non plus
au nom d’une prétendue supériorité de race, mais d’égal à égal, et
pour venger une injure personnelle.
[88] Mademoiselle Contat ne se montra pas plus
résignée que Talma, et l’éventail de la célèbre actrice
vengea ses injures sur la joue de l’abbé Geoffroy.

Qu’une Lola-Montès, ou quelque autre femme de cette race, ait

cravaché tel journaliste qui avait porté atteinte à sa considération,
c’est un accident en dehors des mœurs générales, comme la
créature à laquelle on le doit.
Que le czar Alexandre Ier ait fait, dit-on, donner des coups de
fouet ou de knout au poëte Pouschkine pour le punir des libertés de
sa plume, cela ne regarde que les Russes, et ceux qui ont affaire à
des czars.
S’il y a d’autres exemples, que j’ignore, je n’éprouve ni le besoin
ni l’envie de les ravir à l’obscurité salutaire sous laquelle ils se
cachent.
Dernièrement, nous assure-t-on, au milieu d’un dîner, un jeune et
noble fabricant de romans-feuilletons se serait écrié : « Je suis
honteux de faire de la littérature, quand je pense que mes aïeux ont
bâtonné les gens de lettres. » Nous aimons à croire que les fumées
du vin avaient obscurci l’étroit cerveau du jeune homme, lorsqu’il se
livra à cette gasconnade, dont nous ignorons l’effet sur les convives.
Qu’il se rassure d’ailleurs ! Outre que ses aïeux n’ont probablement
bâtonné personne, il peut se tenir pour certain qu’il ne fait pas et n’a
jamais fait de littérature : c’est pour cela sans doute qu’il est honteux
de sa plume, et il a raison. S’il en faisait, ses aïeux, mieux avisés
aujourd’hui qu’autrefois, auraient droit d’être fiers de lui.

FIN.
 TABLE
DES PRINCIPAUX ÉCRIVAINS ET
ARTISTES
BATONNÉS [89] .

[89] Je prends le mot bâtonnés dans son sens le plus

large, c’est-à-dire comme synonyme de battus, même
quand on s’est borné à la menace, pourvu qu’elle ait été
publique et sérieuse.

Amant (Saint-), 23.

André (Maître), 207.
Ange (Saint-), 172-5.
Archiloque, 114.
Arétin, 70-1.
Audinot, 201.
Baculard (D’Arnaud-), 175.
Balzac, 49-50.
Barthe, 185-7.
Bautru, 38-41.
Beaumarchais, 203, 223-4.