Why was (is?) Russia so Illiterate?

[Romano-Dacis]

It's a well-known fact that most of the books published in the Russian language up until the 19th century were published in Central Europe. In fact the first printing centers in Cyrillic were in Poland, and most of the printing was done in the Ruthenian (Rusyn) language. The question is why were Russians so slow in adopting printing and in systematizing the written language? Poland, right next door, was using the printing press since 1473, while Russia would not print its first book until 1564. Even then, there was only one printing center in Russia until the 18th century, and that center was founded by an immigrant from Poland.

Were they too far away from centers of the Renaissance? Was their culture too dogmatic and backward and too authoritarian, stifling innovation? Did Russians view printing as heretical? Were Russian people just too stupid back then? Did their tsars purposefully keep printing out to keep Russians ignorant and obedient, rather similar to how the Soviet Union manipulated information and how Putin does it today?

For the "3rd Rome" one would expect a higher level of civilization, at least one capable of printing its own books. It is almost surprising Russia got out of the Middle Ages at all.

[DeMolay]

Honestly Romano , i tell you this regardless of the nation , if it was america , zimbabwe or my country ,i would say the same : it's not kind really .. i would be aggressve if you do this with my country . Only thing is you wll make the russian people who come here angry/ sad/vexed , and it's really not kind

[Romano-Dacis]

Honestly Romano , i tell you this regardless of the nation , if it was america , zimbabwe or my country ,i would say the same : it's not kind really .. i would be aggressve if you do this with my country . Only thing is you wll make the russian people who come here angry/ sad/vexed , and it's really not kind

I'm asking a question about a historical phenomenon in the historical sub-forum. If people are offended by history, it's their problem.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Save your lessons for Nikitn.

[karo]

I'm asking a question about a historical phenomenon in the historical sub-forum. If people are offended by history, it's their problem.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Save your lessons for Nikitn.

Of course you are and you don't have any other reason yeah right.

[Romano-Dacis]

Of course you are and you don't have any other reason yeah right.

What stakes would I have in Russians being illiterate or not? It's not my country. I just want to know the exact social factors that caused Russia's backwardness and illiteracy. There must a reason why Poland succeeded and Russia didn't.

[karo]

What stakes would I have in Russians being illiterate or not? It's not my country. I just want to know the exact social factors that caused Russia's backwardness and illiteracy. There must a reason why Poland succeeded and Russia didn't.

So let's start talking history. So for the biggest part Russia was not different from the rest of the world, most people in Europe were illiterate or could barely read. This has changed after WWII and that people went to school much longer than before the war.

The problem was that the socio-economic situation didn't allow most people not only in Russia but as well in the rest of Europe to go to school. The elite of Russia could read and write perfectly like the other rich people of the world.

And the Title of this thread is so funny the "(is)" part, thanks to the Su there isn't a person who can read or write in the old SU

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Because Russia was Russia. A report from an expedition by the Muscovy Company warns there were no doctors in the entire city of Moscow during the XVI century. You wanted to get treated, you either called one of the rare foreign doctors residing there, or you tried the folk cures, or you simply withstood the sickness in silence.

[Sirota]

Better question; why did the Romanians learn how to use the fork and knife only up until 1846?

[Carach]

Better question; why did the Romanians learn how to use the fork and knife only up until 1846?

they dont use them anymore?

[Nikitn]

Because Russia was Russia. A report from an expedition by the Muscovy Company warns there were no doctors in the entire city of Moscow during the XVI century. You wanted to get treated, you either called one of the rare foreign doctors residing there, or you tried the folk cures, or you simply withstood the sickness in silence.

Doctors in the XVI century were mostly idiots anyway. I would rather trust thousand of years old folk cures (like using herbs to increase growth of wounds) than some doctor who thought he could cure fever by tapping your blood.

[Marie Louise von Preussen]

Doctors in the XVI century were mostly idiots anyway. I would rather trust thousand of years old folk cures (like using herbs to increase growth of wounds) than some doctor who thought he could cure fever by tapping your blood.

Clearly, some medical establishment is better than none. Most folk cures involved rather superstitious means, and were not much better than balooney harmful to the health of the patient.

This is just one of the many many aspects: lack of literacy, lack of medical science, backwards shipbuilding, backwards agriculture, etc... Reports on the pre-Petrine Russian army aren't very encouraging either.

Russia wasn't even a "giant" by then. On rough historical accounts, it had about the same population as Poland-Lithuania.

[Dr. Croccer]

Because Russia, like most of Eastern Europe, was still largely unchanged since the 9th century untill the 19th century.

That having been said, literacy was extremely low everywhere in Europe and remainded to be so for quite a while. I believe that up untill WWI nearly a quarter of the French were iliterate.

[karo]

Because Russia, like most of Eastern Europe, was still largely unchanged since the 9th century untill the 19th century.

Most of the world wasn't in a better shape till the later half of the 20th century.

[Romano-Dacis]

Because Russia, like most of Eastern Europe, was still largely unchanged since the 9th century untill the 19th century.

This kind of contradicts the whole "everyone else in Eastern Europe had printing" argument.
If neither Poland or Hungary or the Romanian principalities had printing presses then I would say "well, circumstance of geography" but the fact is Russia sticks out like a sore thumb. Tiny Montenegro, constantly attacked by the Ottoman Empire, had printing presses before Russia.

This leads me to believe there was a societal cause, some symptom endemic to the entire system. Most likely it was because there was no urban class in Russia and serfs had it worse in Russia than elsewhere in Europe. Maybe it's endemic to the Russian people, and their obedience to authority and strongman politics?

[Dr. Croccer]

This kind of contradicts the whole "everyone else in Eastern Europe had printing" argument.
If neither Poland or Hungary or the Romanian principalities had printing presses then I would say "well, circumstance of geography" but the fact is Russia sticks out like a sore thumb. Tiny Montenegro, constantly attacked by the Ottoman Empire, had printing presses before Russia.

This leads me to believe there was a societal cause, some symptom endemic to the entire system. Most likely it was because there was no urban class in Russia and serfs had it worse in Russia than elsewhere in Europe. Maybe it's endemic to the Russian people, and their obedience to authority and strongman politics?

Well, for one, Poland was more ''civilized'', it was more modern and it's proximity to Western Europe would've helped. Many Balcan countries, similairly, benefited from their proximity to Western Europeans and the Ottomans. Russia was more isolated, both geographically, socially and politically. It was surrounded by either primitives or hostile powers. It was completely isolated from both western european and islamic civilization, unlike Poland and Montenegro. That would also explain it's relarive social and technological backwardness.

[Norge]

Many Balcan countries, similairly, benefited from their proximity to Western Europeans and the Ottomans.

Other way around. The Ottomans benefited from their proximity to Christians. There's a reason why the western provinces were the wealthiest and most developed parts of the empire (and still remain so in the case of Turkey).

[cegorach]

@Romano-Dacis

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Croccer
Because Russia, like most of Eastern Europe, was still largely unchanged since the 9th century untill the 19th century.

This kind of contradicts the whole "everyone else in Eastern Europe had printing" argument.
If neither Poland or Hungary or the Romanian principalities had printing presses then I would say "well, circumstance of geography" but the fact is Russia sticks out like a sore thumb. Tiny Montenegro, constantly attacked by the Ottoman Empire, had printing presses before Russia.

This leads me to believe there was a societal cause, some symptom endemic to the entire system. Most likely it was because there was no urban class in Russia and serfs had it worse in Russia than elsewhere in Europe. Maybe it's endemic to the Russian people, and their obedience to authority and strongman politics?

I think it happened during the Time of Troubles. One of Polish mercenaries wrote: 'today we've seen tzar's library. All five books'. Exaggerating probably, but I can give some reasons why printing didn't make it to Moscow for a long time.

I think it had much to do with weakness of Russian orthodox church. In the Commonwealth printing in Ruthenian was funded by rich, orthodox nobility and local scholars who were tempted to learn more about the world or simply to spread their propaganda - religious or political. The second because of decentralised, democratic political system of the Commonwealth where pamphlets, legal works or simple entertainment through reading was fashionable and necessary.
On of more important facts supporting the 'fashion' was that the code of laws of the LGD was comiled only recently, was discussed in details and was simply necessary.
You had to know your rights to deal with an annoying neighbour.

Later during the reformation it became even more important. Religious disputes 'raging' on paper became the only possible way to convert others. Othodox clergy in the Comonwealth also had to keep up.


In Russia many of those peoblems simply didn't appear. That is why you will find the statistcal data somewhere here - heve it ! (30 minutes later...)

Quoting a post from one of VV threads...

According to this data in 16th century over 6,000 different books were published in Poland.

During the same century only 17 books were published in Russia. Moreover - all of these 17 books published in Russia in 16th century were religious books.

This means that in 16th century in Poland almost as many books were being published each day (on average) as during the entire century in Russia.

Because Russia, like most of Eastern Europe, was still largely unchanged since the 9th century untill the 19th century.

That having been said, literacy was extremely low everywhere in Europe and remainded to be so for quite a while.

In our terms surely, but that is, as always, relative. How much is low? In roman times most of humanity wasn't even counted as human beeings so the question perhaps should be - how many people of the elites of a country/nation were illiterate.

In Poland (XVI-XVIIth century) at least 10% of people could read and write and that was one of the highest numbers in Europe.

I believe that up untill WWI nearly a quarter of the French were iliterate.

Nothing unusual. Was even worse in some regions.
For example in 1918 when Poland re-gained independence c. 40% of the population couldn't write or read. Even more didn't know how to do it in Polish.
The highest percentage was in eastern territories and illeteracy was difficult to eliminate - schools in the military proved very helpful, but the most important was the natural process of aging and dying.
It is difficult to teach 60 year old how to read after all.

[jankren]

I really wonder how Russia could turn into one of the biggest powers?

[Salem1]

I really wonder how Russia could turn into one of the biggest powers?

This is what I think:

Lack of enemies that could contend with it for one reason or another, geographic advantage and the human resources to expend in creating its empire. I don't count luck because it's a universal constant. In the end, Russia's rise boils down to the inability of the surrounding nations to destroy Russia, which meant that no matter what you did to Russia it would come creeping back and kick your ass. They did this to Poland-Lithuania, Sweden and Tatars in the early modern age after each of those had taken turns wiping their asses on Russia. Russia also repeatedly smacked Ottomans into pools of blood and barely discernable body parts ever since the Turks miserably screwed the best chance anyone has ever had of destroying Russia since the Time of Troubles.

When all of these threats were gone, Russia had no enemies left and could do whatever it wanted to. Those countries (for the sake of simplicity in the case of Tatar peoples) simply couldn't do much about Russia in the end, Russia proved to be the most persevering state. Peter was the right man at the right time at the right place with the right strategy for taking on Russia's enemies, his successors then picked up where he had left and that was that.

- Poland-Lithuania was already a huge state with huge masses of wilderness that it had to keep under control, this wilderness wasn't exactly a calm place due to Muscovy's ambitions on the ''Russian'' borderlands that Lithuania had laid claim to, Tatars looting and enslaving in Ruthenia and the significant local & political power held by the Polish nobility. After 1648, PLC became an increasingly weak state which had been turned on its head since the days when Polish Husaria was advancing on Moscow back in the early 17th century. Poland was simply much more restricted and divided in both its internal and external policies which proved to be its undoing as the state paralyzed itself and became increasingly unable to offer effective political or military resistance. Besides, PLC couldn't do anything about Sweden because it had no navy.

The Cossack uprising of 1648 sealed the deal for PLC, not because of the uprising itself which reached a peaceful end unfavorable to PLC but which elevated Ruthenia's status, but because of the Russian invasion using the uprising as a pretext and the opportunistic Swedish invasion that followed. This tore the very foundations of the country apart at its core and the consequences for PLC of this event, The Deluge, would last forever. If anything is to be called a pyrrhic victory, it's The Deluge.

- Sweden was too thinly populated for its size, too poor and its few soldiers could never be fully mobilized against Russia because of the constant threat that Denmark etc. presented. During the time of the Swedish empire, Russia's population still outnumbered Sweden's population around 6-7 times or so by estimate. And that's the entire Swedish empire; the core of Sweden itself was outnumbered around 12-14 times, even more if you discount the recently conquered Scanialands, though you could add Finland.

The only reasons why Sweden could ever contend with Russia surface from Sweden's very inability to contend with Russia. Namely, Sweden had to maintain a qualitative advantage. If not, Russia would steamroll Sweden and that's what happened when and after Russia obliterated Sweden's empire, military tradition, soldiers and commanders in the Great Northern War. Every single Swedish military be he a commander or soldier knew that they must be superior to the enemy or else they were doomed, to the point that Swedish soldiers knew that charging into melee combat as quickly as possible was their best chance of success and the best way of minimizing casualties. The shooting war of attrition was one they simply would never win, no matter how trained or good they were at it, due to the massive number advantage held by Russia and PLC. But Sweden's meagre, spread out resources, qualitative advantage or not, had events gone as they had or not, couldn't make up for the fact that Russia and Sweden were in two different categories when it comes to the overall power level of nations.

Russia had one time, the Time of Troubles, in which it was at the brink of being removed from the map due to pretty much everything. Internal stagnation, bandits, pestilence, famine, foreign invasion and intervention, political infighting... you name it, it happened during the Time of Troubles. But Russia lived through it because Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's king single-handedly screwed the entire opportunity and Sweden was too weak to do much & its king had just got his ass handed to him in a war against Denmark (interestingly, the last and one of the few wars in which Denmark was actually victorious in the real sense against Sweden or anyone else for that matter).

[cegorach]

[QUOTE=Salem1;6777590]This is what I think:[/qiote]

Valuable as usual Salem, but I will add a word or two to your post if you don't mind.

After 1648, PLC became an increasingly weak state which had been turned on its head since the days when Polish Husaria was advancing on Moscow back in the early 17th century.

Actually what is the saddest, Russian army was repeatedly defeated during the following years. Field army was literally obliterated in 1660 losing almost all soldiers in a series of battles, but the PLC wasn't able to finish the job. Ran out of gas you could say - due to the civil war in 1666 which followed the Deluge.

The Cossack uprising of 1648 sealed the deal for PLC, not because of the uprising itself which reached a peaceful end unfavorable to PLC but which elevated Ruthenia's status, but because of the Russian invasion using the uprising as a pretext and the opportunistic Swedish invasion that followed. This tore the very foundations of the country apart at its core and the consequences for PLC of this event, The Deluge, would last forever. If anything is to be called a pyrrhic victory, it's The Deluge.

The Deluge was important causing massive losses and even affecting the political system of the country ('middle class' in central Poland was weakened and more power was taken perhaps not by the wealthy, but rather by populists. However the key years would be those of the reign of Jan III Sobieski. Glorios and famous days, but also fruitful in political blunders, wasted opportunities and pure bad lack.
The Commonwealth was engaged in a 30 year war against the ottomans which brought no results and only entangled the Republic in a conflict which couldn't be stopped.
And od course there is the final part - the August II Strong who made a fatal decision to ally with Russia against Sweden, something which was against political reason (Poland never allied with Russian in this way), against tradition and brought nothing but Swedish invasion. Karl XII proved to be a perfect tool to help Peter I.
Also there are the Ottomans who when their opportunity came failed terribly having Peter I in their grasp. Bribery won savd the day.

All in all - everybody failed at the same time - PLC was weakened before and needed peace more than anything, Sweden advanced towards Saxony underestimating Peter, Ottomans were bribed and even smaller factions behaved worse than before - Tartars were weak and Cossacks defeated earlier than their Swedish allies came.

Russia had one time, the Time of Troubles, in which it was at the brink of being removed from the map due to pretty much everything. Internal stagnation, bandits, pestilence, famine, foreign invasion and intervention, political infighting... you name it, it happened during the Time of Troubles.

Rather earlier I am afraid. Russian historians of earlier centuries seen this danger during the Livonian War when Bathory defeated Russia and sweden used the opportunity with Tartars making their moves and Cossacks siding unquestionably with the PLC.
THis is their point of view though, because there was no political will supporting any of their neighbours in conquering Russia, dividing it or whatever.

But Russia lived through it because Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth's king single-handedly screwed the entire opportunity and Sweden was too weak to do much & its king had just got his ass handed to him in a war against Denmark (interestingly, the last and one of the few wars in which Denmark was actually victorious in the real sense against Sweden or anyone else for that matter).

I though something similar in the past, but more recent works seem to agree that the entire affair with Russia was doomed from the start. Noone sane would agree to send his son to a country where an entire crowd of tzars and 'tzars' and 'fake tzars' was eliminated, almost annually. (There were as many as 22 pretenders in one year if I remember correctly).

There might be one battle which could decide the fate of Russia for a looong time, though.
The three day battle of Moscow in 1612 where Chodkiewicz's relief force supporting troops and provisions for the Polish garrison of kremlin was stopped to anyone's suprise (including the Russians) during the urban part of the combat.

If it wasn't stopped Russia would once more seen another defeat with more internal struggle, more assassinations and much longer foreing intervention.
Would there be a Swedish 'tzar' along with a Polish one and a dozen of locals? What would happen to the Protestant cause without help from Sweden involved so much in Russia. Would the Ottomans stand idle observing how the habsburgs strenghten their position?