This well-researched study traces the evolution of natural sciences teaching in the universities of the Russian Empire over the long nineteenth century. In successive chapters, the author discusses a gradual professionalization and specialization in the natural sciences (especially biology); the changes in approaches to their teaching; the systems of evaluation of students for entry and leaving; the duties of professors and adjuncts; the growth of practical work through collections, laboratories, and research stations; the role of the imperial government in both stimulating and hindering specialization; and the tension between greater research specialization and the broad training of secondary school teachers of the sciences.

Biology departments emerged from medical faculties and remained linked to them in most imperial universities. St. Petersburg University, lacking a faculty of medicine, led the way toward the independence of biology studies in the empire. The first department of biology emerged in 1836–37. Despite pressures from the government for greater uniformity within teaching programs, each university, responding to local conditions, retained unique features in their programs. Teaching through the first half of the century was theoretical. The facilities for practical work were few; those that existed were underused, if at all. Professors were mostly foreigners, noted more for their eloquence than their research qualifications. Students were primarily from gentry families. Nicholas I encouraged a degree of specialization to train students for particular roles in government service; but few students enrolled in natural science programs.

The 1850s witnessed the beginnings of sweeping cultural change in Russia. Interest in science among educated society burgeoned. Scientific advances in the west captured the imaginations of educated youth. Among students the linking of scientific research to teaching by William von Humboldt encouraged more practical approaches to learning. A wave of students travelled to study in western universities, some to France, but most to Germany. The German method of teaching in laboratories and with the microscope became a standard for young Russian graduates. A generation of western trained Russian natural scientists began to replace the old guard of professors in imperial universities and furthered the training of a new generation. In civil society and in universities, scientific societies and journals provided scope for research and its dissemination.

Although the government of Alexander II generally supported the growth of natural science teaching, funding fell far short of its needs. Laboratories were still few and ill equipped. Much teaching remained theoretical. Under Alexander III, the government pressed for greater uniformity among teaching programs in the universities and took over the entrance and leaving examinations. Specialized research and teaching within the natural sciences were discouraged as the government prioritized the training of science teachers for secondary schools. Although some of these issues were resolved in the reign of Nicholas II, specialization within the sciences remained precarious and the number of specialized science professionals fell far below the country’s needs.

Many readers will find the main lines of the narrative obscured by the overwhelming amount of detail. The division of the different aspects of the topic into separate chapters results in overlap and repetition. The conclusion does provide some welcome clarity to the larger themes but fails to draw broader conclusions about the consequences for the country of these weaknesses in the growth of scientific expertise. Still, specialists in the history and teaching of science will find much of value here. The work is also instructive in the dynamic between the government and the empire’s universities. The author sees the university landscape as a microcosm of the larger society, responding to external changes as the years passed. The laws of the empire and the wishes of the ministry of national enlightenment remained paramount, but regional differences and pressures fostered notable divergence among natural science faculties.

Students of education in the imperial period will recognize in the history of the growth and teaching of natural sciences in Russia the many matters affecting all levels of education in the empire. Paramount was the chronic underfunding of the whole system of education. Equally important was the official distrust of education with its liberating effects on society and an unwillingness to permit social organization and the independence of the professions. The equivocations of government policy in education in general and science education in particular left imperial Russia ill prepared to face the challenges of the new century.