The article is devoted to one of the
stages in the formation of Roman law studies in
When in March 1881 the Russian tsar Alexander II had been assassinated by a narodovolets’s bomb, his son ascended the swaying throne and faced the task to suppress the revolutionary mental ferment. Specifically it was necessary to curb the students becoming new fighters against the regime. The government understood it was hardly possible to achieve using just repressive means; a radical rebellion or a liberal opposition, terror or concealed anti-monarchical propagation would be leading the youth until young people acquire a strong immunity against such mood. In this respect the key role was meant for the character of knowledge given at Russian universities. Special attention was paid to higher law education. On the one hand the most part of state employees was recruited from those who had got law education. And on the other hand different legal courses introduced a close acquaintance with constitutional doctrines promoting critical perception of the autocracy.
In 1885 the state examination program was
confirmed which was obligatory to pass to get a diploma for all the leavers of
law schools. These rules considerably strengthened the part of Roman law. The
government counted that Roman law studies would have a healing influence on the
forming professional thinking, they would firmly establish the ideas of the
value of a stable legal order (and accordingly the value of the state
maintaining such an order); and the ideas of benefits of evolutional
development of legal constitutions and norms without sudden and sharp leaps and
etc. Besides these considerations there was understanding that with the
spreading of judicial reform in the western provinces of the Empire (
So, having added the study-hours for Roman subjects the Code showed an acute lack of teachers. Maintaining the old way of preparation (when just one or two talented final-year students were kept at the faculty and then passed through a five-year preparation before they could give lectures) it was real to upset the new educational plan demanding to provide all the law schools with teachers of Roman law for a short time. And at the same time the rate of their preparation taking into account the mission’s significance on the subject couldn’t be fulfilled by lowering their qualifications.
Searching for the way out the experience
of Nikolay I’s period was appealed to (the Nikolay’s epoch on the whole and in
its features was specially esteemed by the conservative ideologists and
politicians of 1880-s and by Alexander III himself). At that time half a
century ago several young lawyers were sent to
Before addressing the tsar for this allowance minister Delyanov consulted M.N. Katkov, the distinguished conservative ideologist. After the latter completely approved of the project deeply believing in the protective significance of Roman law as a university subject, the minister reported on the plan before Alexander III. Being a lawyer himself I.D. Delyanov pointed out the two moments determining the significance of Roman law studies for Russian universities. First of all, on its bases the law-governed nature of historical evolution of law is studied. Second, Roman law didn’t lose its practical usefulness and «served as a school for those who connected their lives with the judicial field. Everything put together made Roman law the first subject among different subjects of law faculties and caused that it appeared to be the main trial for our future lawyers in its history as well as in its system. And it should have an enormous part among subjects presented by law faculties like in the rest world». And, at last, Delyanov hoped that such a scrupulous study of Roman law in the conditions of close acquaintance with the research ways and methods could resuscitate and advance the subject of Russian law.
However «it’s a regret that the subject doesn’t get a proper attention, and due to the situation our universities have a lack of teaching staff on Roman law with only one professor giving lectures on such an important subject» and «there is little hope that our universities will be able to put everything in good order themselves training enough number of teachers».
Having made such an introduction the
minister said the main point of the report: «I’ve got an idea to refer to one
of the foreign universities, to
According to the Edict (November 15,
1886) the temporary courses on Roman law were established (later they were
called The Institute of Roman law at
The two men became the heads at the
Institute on the Russian side. A comrade of a minister of public education, a
director of the Ministry’s Department, N.M. Anichkov, was responsible for the
administrative and financial affairs. The educational part of the studies
(curriculum, students’ complement, correspondence with
The suitable candidates were recommended
by the most authoritative Russian Romanists and Civilians. So, professors N.A.
Kremlev and G.F. Dormidontov from
Prof. O. Meikov from
Two years later Prof. Dorn was asked to
look for another worthy candidate. But Dorn wasn’t able to name anybody «since
one of the four people who had passed an exam on Roman law to get a Master’s
degree of Civil law was meant by
Prof. Enghelman willingly shared his
ideas on the requirements on training for the title of professor of Roman law.
And, at last, prof. I. Tabashnikov from
At the same time some representatives of
academic circles were negative about the Ministry’s measure. What’s more the
most ill-will was displayed by the largest university centers of the Empire. The
journal of Civil and Criminal law, the publication of Law society at
The final variant of the instruction
which was given to Petrazhitsky appeared only in October. Its compiler, Prof.
L.N. Kazantsev, found that since the business trip was fulfilled «for training for
a Master’s exam on Roman and Civil law» the stipendiat «should devote the main
attention to a serious well-founded and precise learning of Roman law and get
acquainted with teaching methods and practical studies on Prussian and French
Civil law, Common German and French remedial legislation and Trade law». The
following lines easily convince that the professor from
. By the way, Petrazhitsky without waiting for the instructions left for
Prof. N.P. Bogolepov (
By the way the Ministry continued to
demand to find new candidates. As it became clear that the whole matter didn’t
concern a few people but it made up the system threatening to supersede the
system of postgraduate training in Roman law cherished by Bogolepov, he wrote
I.D. Delyanov a letter. The message is penetrated with anxiety which was common
for some Russian professors regarding the studies with
«The Institute can seriously damage the
«The contest between those who studied at
home and those who came back from
The letter from
But even in this situation Bogolepov and
the university’s authorities supporting him didn’t want to give up. The story
happened with one of Bogolepov’s student,
Another Bogolepov’s pupil, S. Sabinin,
even didn’t manage to go abroad. Although Sabinin was recommended and there was
the instruction for his studies on Roman law in
In contrast to
Taking into account that Grebennikov
hadn’t shown brilliant results in Berlin Delyanov sent the student’s thesis
presented to the examination commission (the manuscript of introductory lecture
Cultural and Historical significance of Roman law) to Bogolepov to carry
out an examination. The intention came up to his expectations.
The people sacrificed to please the Institute’s enemies couldn’t be helped even by the efforts of such an influential dignitary like count A.A. Bobrinsky. On Delyanov’s assignment his deputy, prince Volkonsky, sent the protector a letter under the stamp “In confidence”. It contained the reason explaining that it was impossible to satisfy the request which took the ministry out of the blow.
It stated that Grebennikov’s failure had
the most negative effect on the Institute’s leavers. For instance V.A.
Yushkevich first having applied for the permission to pass a Master’s exam at
In its activity Berlin Institute was far
away from the urgent problems characterizing the internal political situation
in the Russian Empire at the end of the XIX century. But despite that and even
contrary to its great distance from
The number of the students from Ostzey
region who had finished
The fear of such events casting a shadow on the very idea of the Institute (especially against the background of russofication in Ostzey region and the struggle against German cultural domination) made A.I. Georgievsky be more careful. And when a venerable Derpt professor I.E. Enghelman had recommended his ex-student, A.I. Fufaev, to go to Berlin A.I. Georgievsky in spite of the recommendations and a positive review of the candidate’s thesis written by professor V. von Goland sent the minister a letter supposing that Fufaev didn’t know Russian well. There was the instruction given to check the candidate’s knowledge. The results came up to the bad expectations of the Academic Committee’s chairman.
The trustee of Derpt educational region reported: «Fufaev’s written work serves as incontestable evidence that the Russian person has forgotten his native language in the German milieu. It also serves as a general picture of the Derpt students’ attitude to the Russian language. Fufaev can’t be sent to the Russian Institute».
There was the event connected with one of
the Institute’s students, Polish Foma (Tadeush) Semiradsky. In 1880 he had
finished the course at
Later as soon as the question of sending this or that Polish or a Catholic was raised the ministry didn’t want to tempt fate and didn’t give the direct answer. For instance, when the trustee of Derpt educational region recommended a certain Vidzhga his candidate was refused as a catholic in the light of the doubts after Semiradsky’s story. Some time later K.V. Korvin-Piotrovsky asked to send him to the Institute for studies at the same time emphasizing his patriotic activity (he published the brochure of Alexander III’s coronation, was a member of the group, Palestinian society, headed by the tsar’s brother, Great Prince Sergey Aleksandrovich and etc.). But A.I. Georgievsky having learned the Polish’s biography warned the minister against complying with the request of the Polish and Catholic. I.D. Delyanov put the resolution on Georgievsky’s letter: «Refuse without any hope in the future». After the second and the third request applied by Korvin-Piotrovsky who wanted to go to Berlin at his own expense (he didn’t understand that such a persistent thirst for knowledge for a forty years old Polish who had finished a grammar school in Austria seemed to be strange from Petersburg clerks’ point of view). I.D Delyanov resolved: «It is already late. The Institute is to be closed».
Only the two Polish people, L.I.
Petrazhitsky and V.A. Yushkevich, managed to finish the Institute. «Professors
say I’m doing a tremendous progress and think it’s better for me to stay in
V.A. Yushkevich was different from the
rest students because he had finished a privileged school of law. Lawyers
graduated from the school with a great rank but without a scientific title for
they were prepared to work in practice but not as teachers. This circumstance
supported by a hostile attitude the university students felt to lawyers and by
his Polish origin let him down. In the first place V.A. Yushkevich was supposed
to work at
In 1880-90-s the Institute was left by
the first leavers. So, in
M.M. Katkov was appointed by the minister
to work at the Lyceum of Grand Prince Nikolay, an educational institution
organized by his uncle’s (M.N. Katkov) efforts and intended to be the model of
classical education. By the mid of 1890 the Institute had time to teach so many
Romanists that the leavers of the first years started to recommend new
candidates themselves. So, in the personal file of Benedict Freze there are two
recommendations given by A.I. Georgievsky and the recent university student,
A.M. Gulyaev. But such an intensive addition of staff
of educational institutions by new coming from Berlin Romanists caused serious
difficulties with their provision of employment. The difficulties were
redoubled by the fact that many universities objected to the appointment of
We’ve got an appeal of Benedict Freze
full of complaints. The ex-student wrote: «according to the order of His
Imperial Majesty the Institute’s leavers are promised an immediate application
but I can’t get the application for two years» and «I even didn’t get a grant
as others». It’s interesting that Freze suffered a
reverse to take a job of an assistant professor at a vacant chair of Ostzey law
In October 1894 Alexander III died and
expectations to get any leniencies flourished. But the organization of the
Institute was regarded as a reactionary measure by many of those who hoped that
a young tsar would be open for liberal trends. In this situation, as it often
happens, the new authorities feeling an increased concern for popularity were
oppressed by the Institute. Having understood such mood A.I. Georgievsky asked
the minister to keep the Institute. But Delyanov’s keen intuition he
developed being a state clerk suggested different things. Understanding that
the closure of the Institute can be presented as a step both liberal and
patriotic and practically rational the minister decided to advance the tendency
and to be the first one to suggest that the Institute should be closed. So he
answered Georgievsky: «The Institute has fulfilled its objectives and that’s
why its further existence will be just a burden for the state treasury». Having realized that there’s not a step
back the Institute’s supervisor asked to give him some time till the spring of
It was decided to hand it over to the
library of law-faculty of
The education at the Institute was carried out by the three luminaries of Roman law – Pernice, Eck and Dernburg.
Prof. Alfred Pernice read the course of
History of Roman law at
In his fundamental research “Marcus Antistius Labeo” which proposed Pernice into the first numbers of German Romanists, he made an attempt to reveal the role of some Roman lawyers in the development of Roman law. Since the idea of the research was extremely broad (it was supposed to research the Civil law of classical epoch), and the realization was remarkably thorough Pernice didn’t manage to see it through. But even the volumes the author had time to publish became the essential part of the historical-legal treasury. For example the third volume (the last one) got a general acknowledgment as a model research in its method of work with the Roman sources.
In 1881 after a famous Romanist Bruns
died Pernice (together with E. Eck) was invited to hold the chair of Roman law
At the same time A. Pernice devoted himself to lectures and seminars on Roman law history. A Russian Romanist, V.B. Elyashevich (who attended Pernice’s classes) wrote: «They always were attractive for all those researching History of Roman law; devotion and love of the work together with his personal courtesy and amiability made the guidance of such a first-class scientist extremely fruitful and pleasant: a number of scientific works were made thanks to his personal influence and often to his initiative. <…>. All those who worked with Pernice (and a lot of Russian scholars) would always remember the teacher sympathetic and amiable, always ready to sacrifice his time and work and share his enormous knowledge and experience».
The Institute’s work coincided with the difficult times for German Romanists. January 1 of 1900 was coming when the striking of the New Year chime would declare Pandekt law resting on the Roman base the dead law as German Pandektists spoke ironically and gloomily. In spite of a serious influence Roman law had on German Code Civil it was different from Pandekt legal technique and its conceptual vocabulary. The innovation of such a character couldn’t help but led to a considerable reduction of Roman studies. A lot of professors regarded the changes a step to the abyss waiting for the degradation of a world-wide known German law education and the destruction of scientific schools due to the changes in curriculums. Not saying that reduction of Roman law studies seemed to be a sacrilegious attempt to depreciate all their lives as well as their own teachers’ lives and their teachers’ teachers. For instance, the destruction of Roman studies caused by the Code was a very distressing event for Pernice. He complained: «Seminars on Roman law are said to be unnecessary». Instead of scientific research of the sources he had to confine himself to exegesis of the text. These studies being very important in the science were the special care for Pernice. We can suppose that teaching at the Russian Institute organized specially to cultivate Roman legal knowledge was somehow a “vent” for the venerable Romanists for it could allay the sorrow for the lost significance of Roman law at the native universities.
The Russian Institute’s head, professor
Ernest Eck, was considered to be the best teacher of Civil law n
A strong feature of Eck’s works (the list of his works was headed by Die sogenannten doppelseitigen klagen des römischen und gemeinen deutschen Rechts) was not only the originality of his concepts and the courage to frame hypotheses but also his enormous knowledge of Civil law combined with a clear and logical exposition. Eck had an ability of critical perception and scrupulous examination of this or that conception and obvious demonstration of its vulnerable features and advantages which could help to find its place in the general list of other achievements. That gift was embodied in Eck’s critical works on Roman and Civil law literature.
Eck’s didactic abilities were also great
if we remember that in difficult times of transferring from the
Owing to the amount of study-hours of
Eck’s lessons (and due to his administrative work) students communicated with
Eck oftener than with other professors. S.P. Nikonov said: «For us, Russians,
Ernest Eck was very important for he was the teacher of the considerable part
of our own professors, Civilians and Romanists who had finished their education
at the Russian school at
As the tutors of young Romanists E. Eck and A. Pernice were the natural complements of one another. Pernice was different from Eck in many things. If Eck’s fame was based on his unusual teaching talents, Pernice was more a scholar than a teacher. Being an extremely strong dogmatist Eck didn’t give historical courses and historical problems were presented weaker in his dogmatic courses. Pernice, vice versa, was devoted to the studies of History of Roman law.
But, anyway, the Institute’s most
prominent professor, without any doubts, was Heinrich Dernburg. He started to
teach Roman law at the beginning of 1850 having become a successor of Theodor
Mommsen at the chair of
The trend of German Pandektistik which was connected with the name of Dernburg admitting Savingy and Puhta as the predecessors and their scientific achievements was considered to be free from the duty to fulfill everything presented by the luminaries of the Historical School.
Its representatives included people of different talents and personal character like Ihering, Dernburg, Bahr and Bruns. They all thought that the Historical school expounding the reception of Roman law in the “true” and «invariable by the later additions» form in reality rather destroyed the historical succession than strengthened it. So, Dernburg found the furious attacks of “the historians” at usus modernus of the XVIII century, at the large number of the institutions of not a Roman origin (just “dressed” in Roman clothes) but quite viable unjustified. When in his famous “System” Joseph Unger formed up the Austrian Civil law according to the canon which was propounded by Savingny and Puchta and directed to draw Pandekt law closer to Roman law the reproaches with the forced Romanization, compulsory interpretation of national legal institutions in the Roman way were heard not only in the camp of firm Germanists but in the camp of Pandektists as well. In the introduction of the first volume of the “Guarantee law” (Das Pfandrecht nach den Grundsatzen des heutigen romischen Rechts, 1860) Dernburg wrote: «If the old authors weren’t very scrupulous working with the sources, and if they were different from us with their inability to understand historical development of law, their practical understanding and tact were very important for life and justice. The Historical School brought us to the sources again, woke up the criticism and independence, the devices of any scientific success. At the same time, however, the first scientific tasks were missed: often law which must serve life and satisfy its needs appeared to be just collecting antiquity. Our aim is to avoid the unilateral development of different scientific trends. We should make up the system and develop the law proceeding from the natural living organism of law, from the agreement between the sides, from the concept of aequum et bonum but not from the empty dogmatism». At the end of the century he published his own course of Pandekt law and warned the students in the introduction “Inducement and assistance” (Anregung und Unterstutzung): «Pandekts mustn’t be dull dogmatism: the norms have their own two thousand year history. We should remember that we’re standing on the historical ground and talking of the work created by many generations. The supreme objective of university studies is to learn this idea». So it would be a mistake to look for corrections in Roman constructions inserted by the centuries (to adjust the fruits of Roman legal thought to the changed situation) and reject them in a fruitless and sometimes harmful attempt to endow modernity with Roman law institutions in their original kind.
Stilled in the crucible of German Pandektistik the Institute’s pupils appeared to be the supporters of progressive perception in their Motherland (especially in the sphere of contracted commitments). «The reception of Roman law was fulfilled thanks to the influence of Greek Orthodox clergy in the fields of family and hereditary law. But it didn’t touch up guarantee law, contract law and commitment law». P.E. Sokolovsky noticed hoping that it would happen in the recent future.
P.E. Sokolovsky: «For my generation Roman law will not mean an archeological interest. We’ll study it not to say a technical word before the judge. Roman civil law should have an enormous practical significance being caput at fundamentum of our study-hours».
I.A. Pokrovsky: «It’s true that the law’s
fate and its significance for modern peoples of
M.Y. Pergament: «As a firm Romanist I think and believe that without the help of Roman law there’s no a way out for a Civilians and Civil law. The theory of Civil law can be built up on the basis of Roman law; researching a great deal of institutions of Civil law we should always remember of our friends Romans; it’s very useful to get acquainted with the process of the development of Roman law and it’s very important to seek an insight into the legal laboratory if I can say so, of Roman mind».
A.M. Gulyaev: «Thorough acquaintance with the theory of Civil law formed on the bases of the sources of Roman law gives a western lawyer great advantage in comparison with a Russian one. In Western countries jurisprudence is as old subject as theology and philosophy <…>. We have got the opinion of a complete originality of Russian law and the absence of any influence of Roman law on our civil law. This opinion formulated by such an authoritative statesman like Speransky seems to hold the development of our science of Civil law».
V.A. Yushkevich: «Studying the current Civil law Roman law has the significance of the leading theoretical basis and the device of legal concept. Owing to a complete type of our Code and modern state of our science the method of learning home legislature is possible only due to the help of Roman law. The attempts to build up the system of modern Russian law resting on Russian law itself are insincere and still-born. German Civilians use the method of comparative processing of modern codification even in the situation when they have to deal with a much more perfect home legislative material than we do. And at last, the method of comparative processing of Russian civil law with Roman law is rational from the didactic point of view. Since our young lawyers get theoretical bases of civil law at the lectures of Roman law there is the connection between separate civil law subjects and we can achieve the unity of the studies».
E.V. Passek: «Getting acquainted with
Roman law we don’t learn the out-of-date and dead law as it may seem from the
first sight but the living and functioning law. Without knowledge of Roman law
it would be difficult to understand Russian law clearly and impossible to
understand the law of
M. Bobin: «The very parts of modern civil law rooted in the Roman basis are the most perfect <…> without overestimating its merits and exaggerating its defects we should study Roman law respecting the results of centuries-old work did by exceptionally gifted people».
And at last, D.D. Grimm emphasized the importance to study first of all the part of Roman law which took root in Pandekt law since it was the law that presented a more elaborated system of civil law. The most important general questions of civil law were worked out mainly in its adapting to the law and on its bases. Owing to it a good acquaintance with the law is undoubtedly necessary for any lawyer.
The two new scientific titles were connected with the Institute’s activity - a Master’s degree and a Doctor’s degree of Roman law (Russian Romanists got the titles in Civil law earlier). A.I. Georgievsky had the idea to introduce the Degrees thanks to the appearance of many teachers with a first-class training in Roman law who weren’t ready to break with the studies of Roman law at the chairs of universities and special higher juridical educational institutions. As the head of the Academic committee of the Ministry of public education he appealed to be the minister. And soon the trustees of educational regions got the circular giving the universities the right to award a degree in Roman law. At such presentations, as a rule, at least one of the opponents was from the “Berlin” students and in 1901 at the presentation of the dissertation “Sequestration in Civil law” the author of the thesis (S.P. Nikonov) and both of the opponents (D.D. Grimm, L.I. Petrazhitsky) were the ex-students of the Institute.
As we said, the idea to train Romanists and Civilians abroad for Russian universities wasn’t generally accepted in the academic circles.
Besides that the fuel into the fire was
added by the above-mentioned article published in the “Moskovskie vedomosty”.
It described the Institute as the place where young Russian lawyers could be
cured from the malicious illnesses of their education introduced by their
university teachers’ demagogy and ignorance. As anyone could expect the
interpretation outraged those whose sins were to be cured by
To fade this discontent Dernburg, Pernice
and Eck had to send a letter to their Russian partners. It was published in the
journal “Hochschulnachrichten”. The professors said that «an unknown
correspondent of the
Although Russian legal press welcomed
«these noble impulses» there still were many lawyers who were prejudiced against
the Institute and transferred this opinion on scientific achievements of the
Institute’s leavers. Some Civilians thought that the “
So even the people who didn’t have much
liking for the Institute and its pupils had to admit a high standard of
scientific works by the “
Only ten years later after the Institute’s
closure the Ministry of public education had an idea to back the Institute to
life. Probably the order of minister A.N. Shwarz to the universities and
special law schools to inform the Ministry about the teachers who had studied
According to the questioning the staff of
practically all the universities (
P.E. Sokolovsky persuaded A.N. Shwarz to
back the Institute to life: «The state should always take care of training
young scientists especially now when the destroyed personnel can’t assist their
pupils’ scientific work. I think that the Ministry should send young scientists
abroad and check their studies at special schools abroad. I could be useful in
organizing such a school thanks to my numerous acquaintances in the scientific
world of German and France». Sokolovsky didn’t believe it was possible to get a
good training in Roman law in
In 1910 the post of minister of public
education was occupied by L.A. Kasso who got law education in
The First World War and 1917 buried the
intentions to carry on with the activities of the
 RSHA. 733-149-918-200/201. N.A. Kremlev’s letter to I.D. Delyanov (3 December 1890); RSHA. 733-149-918-272/273. the appeal for S. Nikonov.
 RSHA. 733-150-612-150/151. the head of
 RSHA. 733-149-917-167/168. Prof. L.B. Dorn about V.A. Yushkevich for I.D. Delyanov. (July 1888).
 RSHA. 733-150-613-917/198. The head of Odessa’s educational region about M.Y. Pergament’s business trip; Prof. I. Tabashnokov’s report about Pergament’s works on Roman law; RSHA. 733-150-613-204/205. The instruction and plan of studies on Roman law for Pergament; RSHA. 733-149-919-264/265. Novorossyisk’s appeal for Pergament and the report of his works.
 For the month (juridical chronicles) // The Journal of Civil and Criminal
 RSHA. 733-150-612-.73-75. S.
Shpilevsky’s (the head of juridical commission at the
 RSHA. 733-150-613-11/13. the head of
 RSHA. 733-150-613-149. The instruction fulfilled by Prof. L.V. Kazantsev for L.I. Petrazhitsky’s studies (21 October 1890).
 RSHA. 733-150-613-259/261. The file from the order of Educational Committee of the Ministry of public education (7 January, 1891).
 RSHA 733-149-919-135/136. Lavrentiev’s
letter (an assistant of the head of
 RSHA 733-149-918-227/232. The note of the head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky to I.D. Delyanov (1890).
 RSHA 733-149-918-220/221. The head of
 RSHA 733-149-918-284/285 The head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky’s note to I.D. Delyanov; RSHA 733-149-919-39 Prof. E. Eck’s letter to A.I. Georgievsky.
 RSHA 733-149-919-92.
 RSHA 733-150-613-49/51; RSHA 733-150-614-166. N. Dorobets’s appeal to the Ministry of educational region.
 RSHA 733-149-919-1. The head of Kiev’s educational region’s report to the Ministry of public education on I.A. Pokrovsky’s business trip; RSHA 733-149-919-6. The head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky’s note to I.D. Delyanov on I.A. Pokrovsky’s business trip.
RSHA 733-149- 919-316. I.A. Pokrovsky’s appeal to the minister of public education.
 RSHA 733-149-919-114/118. Prof. N.P. Bogolepov’s report on M. Grebennikov’s works. (April 1892).
 RSHA 733-149-919-176/178. A.A. Bobrinsky’s letter to I.D. Delyanov; RSHA 733-149-919-184/185. Count Volkonsky’s (an assistant of the minister of public education) letter to A.A. Bobrinsky.
 RSHA 733-149-918-133/134. The head of the Scientific committee A.I. Georgievsky’s letter to I.D. Delyanov. (August 1890).
 RSHA 733-149-919-155/158. The dean of law faculty of Yuriev University Enghelman’s letter of A.I. Fufaev; Prof. V. von Goland’s report of A.I. Fufaev; A.I. Georgievsky’s letter to the Ministry of public education.
 RSHA 733-149-919-160/161. The head of Derpt educational region’s report to the Ministry of public education.
 RSHA 733-149-918-61/62 The assistant of the minister of internal affairs N.I. Shebeko’s letter to the minister (April 1890).
 RSHA 733-149-918-73. The assistant of the minister of internal affairs N.I. Shebeko’s letter to the minister (May 1890).
 RSHA 733-149-918-74. I.D. Delyanov’s letter to the assistant of the Minister of internal affairs N.I. Shebeko.
 RSHA 733-149-918-79/81. The assistant of the minister of internal affairs N.I. Shebeko’s letter to the minister of public education.
 RSHA 733-149-918-386. The head of Derpt’s educational region N.A. Lavrovsky’s letter to the head of Petersburg’s educational region, M.N. Kapustin.
 RSHA 733-149-918-387. The head of Derpt’s educational region’s letter to the director of the Department of the Ministry of public education, N.M. Anichkov.
 RSHA 733-149-918-133/134. The head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky’s letter to the minister of public education.
 RSHA 733-149-922-36/39. B. Freze’s appeal about a vacant appointment of a lecturer at Yuriev University; The Dean of law faculty at Yuriev university Prof. P. Pustoroslev’s report.
 RSHA 733-149-920-202/203. The head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky’s note to I.D. Delyanov.
 RSHA 733-149-920-199/200. I.D. Delyanov’s letter to A.I. Georgievsky. (19 July 1895).
Due to the audit which was made after the Institute’s closure by the Department of State check it was shown that the money was overspent. The correspondence on the question lasted from 1896 to 1903 (!).
 RSHA 733-149-920. The head of the Scientific Committee A.I. Georgievsky’s note to I.D. Delyanov (21 July 1895); I.D. Delyanov’s letter to A.I. Georgievsky.
 At the beginning Prof. Eck taught History and Prof. Pernice - Pandekt law while Prof. Bernstein (the ex lecturer of Petersburg University) taught the course of Roman and family law who took a great part in the Institution’s organization. Then Eck, Pernice and Dernburg taught the courses of their own scientific interests. (Eck and Dernburg- of dogmatic character and Pernice – of historical one). RSHA 733-149-917-71/72. K.I. Berstein’s letter to I.D. Delyanov.; <L.B.> Russian legal school in Berlin // Moskovskie vedomosty, 1893, № 146, 5.
 Sokolovsky P.E., The significance of Roman law for modern peoples and its importance for Russia, Kiev 1891, 10.
 Other students managed to show their abilities in the field of Roman law before the Institution: L. Petrazhitsky translated the course of U. Baron, and M. Bobin - “Institutions” by Gai.
RSHA 733-149-920-106, 110/112. A.I. Georgievsky’s note to the minister of public education on Bobin’s characteristic; The note from the Journal of the Scientific Committee of public education.
 Sokolovsky P.E., The significance of Roman law for modern peoples and its importance for Russia, Kiev 1891, 10.
 Pokrovsky I.A., The necessity of Civil law in learning and teaching. The introductory lecture, Kiev 1896 (from the “University news”), 12-13.
 Gulyaev A.M., About the attitude of Russian Civil law to Roman law. Introductory letter, Kiev 1894, 5.
 RSHA 733-149-918-227/232. The head of the Scientific Committee A.I.Georgievsky’s note to I.D. Delyanov (1890).
 RSHA 733-149-918-94. The minister of public education’s circular to the heads of educational regions (February 1891).
 Gribovsky V., From foreign legal publishing // The Journal of Legal Society at St. Petersburg University, 1894, № 9, 74-75.
. Nechaev V.M., Science of Civil law and Roman law // Russia. Encyclopedia, Leningrad 1991, 845; Nikolsky B.V., The diary // RSHA; Law. - 1899. - St. Petersburg - 2165-2172.
 RSHA 733-149-922-91. Moscow University Rector’s letter to the Ministry of public education (1907).
 RSHA 1672-1-622-2/20б. P.E. Sokolovsky’s letter (the head of Kharkov’s educational region) to the minister of public education, A.N. Shwarz. (6 November 1908).
 RSHA 733-149-921-99/100. E.F. Shtern’s letter to the minister of public education L.A. Kasso (1909).