Kharkov Classical University and Kharkiv Institute of Public Education: problems of heredity (historiographical subjects)

The aim of the article is to highlight the evolution of ideas in Soviet and modern historiography on (non)perception of scientific traditions of the Kharkiv Imperial University by the Institute of Public Education named after O. O. Potebnya (KhIPE). Research methods: problematic-historiographic, historical-chronological, comparative-historical; principles of systematicity and objectivity. Main results and scientific novelty: for the first time it has been considered in detail how researchers assessments have changed from denying the necessity of mastering the old principles of higher education to the perception of the Kharkiv Institute of Public Education named after O. O. Potebnia as the heir of the pre-revolutionary university with partial preservation of traditions. The coverage in the historical thought of the 20s of the 20th and the beginning of the 19th century of problematic issues related to the establishment and operation of the KhIPE is analyzed. Particular attention is paid to the diversity of opinions and assessments of the KhIPE perceptions of the traditions of the Kharkiv Imperial University. The authors concludes that the traditions of the Kharkiv University were partially preserved in the work of the KhIPE, thanks to the inherited material base, and most importantly, the preserve of the main teaching staff, employees and part of the pre-revolutionary students. In the latter case, the years of 1921–1924 are meant, when some of students who had studied before the university closed in 1919 returned to study and non the latter case, the years of 1921–1924 are meant, when some of students who had studied before the university closed in 1919 returned to study and non-proletarian youth made up a significant proportion of the student contingent. In historical science the KhIPE’s estimation as successor to the Kharkiv University is unstable. Soviet authors focused mainly on the refusal of the leadership of the People’s Commissar of Education of the USRR and the IPE on the forms of the liquidated imperial university. Meanwhile, the contemporary authors, on the one hand, emphasize the voluntarism and failure of the educational reform and 1933 forced restoration of universities by the Soviet power. On the other hand, the idea that the tradition of the Imperial University was more than accepted until recently was considered to be in keeping with the KhIPE traditions. The article is dedicated to the 100th anniversary of the most radical reform in the history of domestic universities, the consequences and historical significance of which cause lively discussions among experts. The practical significance of the article is to change the priorities in teaching and promoting the history of the V. N. Karazin Kharkiv National University. The originality of the study is due to the unbiased consideration of a wide range of used historiographical sources (scientific works and journalism). Type of article: theoretical research.