VOL 5, No 51 (51) (2020)

No 51 (2020)
Р.5
The scientific heritage
(Budapest, Hungary)
The journal is registered and published in Hungary.
The journal publishes scientific studies, reports and reports about achievements in different scientific
fields. Journal is published in English, Hungarian, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian, German and French.
Articles are accepted each month. Frequency: 12 issues per year.
Format - A4
ISSN 9215 — 0365
All articles are reviewed
Free access to the electronic version of journal
Edition of journal does not carry responsibility for the materials published in a journal. Sending the
article to the editorial the author confirms it’s uniqueness and takes full responsibility for
possible consequences for breaking copyright laws
Chief editor: Biro Krisztian
Managing editor: Khavash Bernat
 Gridchina Olga - Ph.D., Head of the Department of Industrial Management and Logistics
(Moscow, Russian Federation)
 Singula Aleksandra - Professor, Department of Organization and Management at the University
of Zagreb (Zagreb, Croatia)
 Bogdanov Dmitrij - Ph.D., candidate of pedagogical sciences, managing the laboratory
(Kiev, Ukraine)
 Chukurov Valeriy - Doctor of Biological Sciences, Head of the Department of Biochemistry of
the Faculty of Physics, Mathematics and Natural Sciences (Minsk, Republic of Belarus)
 Torok Dezso - Doctor of Chemistry, professor, Head of the Department of Organic Chemistry
(Budapest, Hungary)
 Filipiak Pawel - doctor of political sciences, pro-rector on a management by a property complex
and to the public relations (Gdansk, Poland)
 Flater Karl - Doctor of legal sciences, managing the department of theory and history of the state
and legal (Koln, Germany)
 Yakushev Vasiliy - Candidate of engineering sciences, associate professor of department of
higher mathematics (Moscow, Russian Federation)
 Bence Orban - Doctor of sociological sciences, professor of department of philosophy of religion
and religious studies (Miskolc, Hungary)
 Feld Ella - Doctor of historical sciences, managing the department of historical informatics,
scientific leader of Center of economic history historical faculty (Dresden, Germany)
 Owczarek Zbigniew - Doctor of philological sciences (Warsaw, Poland)
 Shashkov Oleg - Сandidate of economic sciences, associate professor of department (St. Peters-
burg, Russian Federation)
«The scientific heritage»
Editorial board address: Budapest, Kossuth Lajos utca 84,1204
E-mail: public@tsh-journal.com
Web: www.tsh-journal.com

CONTENT
CULTUROLOGY
Sinkevich G.
VIOLINISTS FRANZ, JOSEPH AND LUDWIG BÖHM,
SOLOISTS AND PEDAGOGUES OF 19th
CENTURY.........3
ECONOMIC SCIENCES
Chornyi O.
DEMAND FOR ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE AT
UKRANIAN NON-ECONOMIC UNIVERSITIES..............15
Grishin V.
USING AUTOREGRESSIVE MODELS IN THE STUDY OF
RUSSIA'S GROSS DOMESTIC PRODUCT .....................24
Myzaev. M.
DIRECTIONS OF INTERACTION BETWEEN
GOVERNMENT AGENCIES AND PRIVATE PENSION
SYSTEMS....................................................................26
Dihanov G.
COLLECTIVE PERSONNEL MANAGEMENT IN THE
CONTEXT OF DIGITALIZATION...................................28
Kolesnikova A., Rossinskaya M.
FEATURE OF FUNCTIONING OF ENTERPRISES
ORGANIZED IN THE FORM OF FRANCHISING: WORLD
EXPERIENCE AND RUSSIAN PRACTICE.......................31
Kuchmieiev O.
BASIC APPROACHES TO ASSESSING THE STATE OF
ECONOMIC SECURITY TRADE ENTERPRISES..............33
Skopich D., Maskin V.
MANAGEMENT SYSTEM – TARGET CORPORATE
GOVERNANCE TOOL..................................................36
Polova O., Petrenko V.
ANALYSIS OF THE LOAN AN PORTFOLIO OF
UKRAINIAN COMMERCIAL BANKS IN
MODERNCONDITIONS...............................................39
Podolianchuk O.
ACCOUNTING AND INFORMATION SUPPORT OF TAX
CALCULATIONS..........................................................44
Smaglo O.
TRENDS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF SOCIAL POLICY
IN UKRAINE................................................................54
JURIDICAL SCIENCES
Kostanyan G.
FEATURES OF THE MARGIN OF APPRECIATION IN
DETERMINING REASONABLE TIME IN THE CONTEXT
OF DECISIONS OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF HUMAN
RIGHTS ......................................................................58
Leshchynsky V.
ISSUANCE OF PERMIT AS A FORM OF ACCEPTANCE A
MANAGEMENT DECISION IN THE FIELD OF URBAN
PLANNING ACTIVITY..................................................63
Ostapets O.
ON CERTAIN ASPECTS OF LEGAL REGULATION OF
TRANSPORT RELATIONS IN MODERN RUSSIA:
INTERNATIONAL AND FEDERAL LEVELS.....................67

The scientific heritage No 51 (2020) 3
CULTUROLOGY
VIOLINISTS FRANZ, JOSEPH AND LUDWIG BÖHM, SOLOISTS AND PEDAGOGUES OF 19th
CENTURY
Sinkevich G.
Saint Petersburg State University
of Architecture and Civil Engineering,
Department of Mathematics, professor, docent
Abstract
This article comprises results of archival research devoted to the violin players of the Böhm family: Franz
(1788–1846), Joseph (1795–1876), Maria (nee Moravek, 1795–1823), and Ludwig (1825–1904). Franz was the
first solo performer at Imperial theatres in St. Petersburg; his wife Maria appeared in concerts together with Franz;
his son Ludwig was a professor of violin at St. Petersburg conservatory; his daughter Maria-Anna (married name
Cantor) became mother of a great mathematician, Georg Cantor; Joseph Böhm became the founder of a violin
class in Vienna. Among the disciples of Franz Böhm were composers M. Glinka and A. Arensky, as well as
members of the tsar's family, and among the disciples of Joseph Böhm were G. Hellmesberger-Sr., H.W. Ernst, J.
Don't, L. Minkus, E. Reményi, E. Singer, J. Joachim, A. Pollitzer, L. Straus, J. Grün, E. Rappoldi, and his nephew
from St. Petersburg Ludwig Böhm. This article describes the history of this family against the background of
musical life of St. Petersburg in the 19th
century. The article publishes archival documents and portraits found by
the author. It also tells about the fate of the Stradivarius violin, which belonged to the Böhm family.
Keywords: St. Petersburg, virtuoso violinists Franz, Joseph, Ludwig Böhm, Maria Moravek.
Abbreviations
Russian State Historical Archive – RSHA
Central State Historical Archive of St. Petersburg
– CSHASPb
Many outstanding musicians in the 17th
, 18th
, 19th
,
and 20th
centuries had the name of Böhm. This name
was quite widely spread in Russia too. In the 17th
cen-
tury, Moscow knew violinist Ivan Böhm (who was born
and educated in Russia); in 1807, St. Petersburg orches-
tra engaged a certain Alexandre Böhm1
as a violin
player. The author is unaware whether they had any-
thing to do with the heroes of our story.
The Böhms trace back to Pest, a Hungarian city on
the bank of Danube. In 1898, Pest merged with the
neighbouring cities – Buda and Obuda – to make Bu-
dapest. The Hungarian origin of this family marked an
immense imprint on the family’s talents: the art of play-
ing the violin is as natural for Hungarians as nothing
else. They say that Hungarians are born with a violin in
their hands.
We do not know much about Hungarian traces in
the violinists’ family. Michaelis Böhm, a violin player
from a theatre orchestra lived in the City of Pest with
his wife Anna (nee Dorfmeister2
. Their elder son Franz
was born in 1788, and Joseph on 4 March 1795. They
are not mentioned in Hungarian Who is Who – they did
not win fame in their motherland. Those were other cit-
ies which made him a celebrity – St. Petersburg lent
éclat to the elder brother and Vienna, to the younger
one.
In 1896, the grandson of Franz Böhm, great
mathematician Georg Cantor, recalled: “My grandpar-
ents Franz and Maria Böhm (nee Moravek) from the
school of a Frenchman Rode in St. Petersburg were im-
perial virtuoso violinists in the 20s and 30s. They ad-
mired the musical community. My granduncle Joseph
Böhm, also a student of Rode, founded the famous
school of violin in Vienna. Joachim3
, Ernst4
, Singer5
,
Hellmesberger6
(father), L. Straus7
, and Rappoldi8
graduated from this school.” [6, p.278].
We know that Pierre Rode (1774–1830) came to
St. Petersburg in 1803 together with F.-A. Boieldieu
(1775–1834) and from 1804 to 1807 was the first vio-
linist9
at Imperial Theatres. Rode’s contract was termi-
nated six months before its expiration because of his
illness. On 23 February 1808, Rode played a farewell
concert in Moscow and left for his motherland. He
taught the heroes of our story, brothers Franz and Jo-
seph Böhm, as well as Maria Moravek, to play the vio-
lin when they were young children. In 1804, Franz was
16, and Maria and Joseph were 9 years old. In 1807, by
the time Rode left Russia, they were 19 and 12 respec-
tively. Two years later, Franz began performing in St.
Petersburg theatres.
1
RSHA. F. 497. Schedule 4. No. 55. Leaf 30.
2
CSHA SPb. F. 347. Schedule 2. No. 9. Leaf 18.
33
Joseph Joachim (1831–1907)
4
Heinrich Wilhelm Ernst (1812–1865)
5
Edmund Singer (1830–1912)
6
Georg Hellmesberger senior (1800–1873)
7
Ludwig Straus (1835–1899)
8
Eduard Rappoldi (1839–1903)
9
RSHA. F. 497. Schedule 4. No. 55. Leaf 293.

4 The scientific heritage No 51 (2020)
Joseph Böhm
Joseph Boehm (Böhm). Lithograph of Böhm by Joseph Kriehuber
After the youngest of the brothers, Joseph Böhm
(1795–1876), left St. Petersburg, he undertook further
study in Italy. He began performing in 1815. In 1821–
1868, he was a soloist at the Hofkapelle in Vienna. In
1819–1848, he worked at Vienna conservatory as a pro-
fessor. He wrote violin pieces. Joseph Böhm is consid-
ered to be the father of the Viennese school of violin
playing. In addition to the above-mentioned violinists,
Jakob Don’t (1815–1888), Ludwig Minkus (1826–
1917), Ede Reményi (1828–1898), Adolf Pollitzer
(1832–1900), Jakob Grün (1837–1916), and his
nephew from St. Petersburg Ludwig Böhm10
, were his
students.
According to some sources, Joseph Böhm came to
Vienna in 1813 and made his first appearance on the
stage in 181611
. Together with violinist Josef Mayseder,
he was distinguished as the best solo performer of the
younger generation. Critics noted the clear and noble
tone of his playing [10, p. 191].
He was attracted by Viennese musicality. One
could hear music in this city at dawn, in the daytime,
and at night. In concert halls, in coffee shops, on open-
air stages in parks, one could listen to serenades, diver-
timentos, nocturnes. There were three coffee shops
along the main walkway in Prater Park, where Beetho-
ven, Lanner, and Strauss brothers used to perform.
Weekend morning concerts began at eight in the morn-
ing, and thereafter, there were day and evening concerts
yet to come. In the morning, public would traditionally
go for an outing in Prater. Grand people would take a
ride along the central parkway in a carriage, common
people would walk. Musicians would play music on
small open-air stages and cafes. At that time, there was
no famous concert halls of Music Association and So-
ciety of Music Lovers as yet. There were only Hofburg
and Schönbrunn, where one could listen to first-night
concerts of Mozart and Beethoven. In the evening, they
10
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1 (97/2121). No. 9754. 69 L.
would set off fireworks, play music, and arrange danc-
ing functions in Prater. Goethe’s Mephisto said to
Faust: “Come, mount the hill, or follow after, / There
‘tis as gay, as in the Prater” [9, p. 191]. In accordance
with the order of Joseph II, as of 1782, morning con-
certs were regularly held in the Garden Hall in another
park, Augarten. Mozart and thereafter, Beethoven were
invited to direct orchestras at these concerts. One could
hear music in Vienna in large concert halls and in pri-
vate houses.
A.K. Razumovsky, a wealthy patron of the arts
and music lover, was the ambassador of the Russian
Empire in Vienna from 1790 to 1799 and from 1802 to
1807. Being a good violinist, he maintained a quartet,
in which I. Schuppanzigh (1776–1830) played the first
violin, and was on visiting terms with Mozart, Haydn,
and Beethoven. Beethoven wrote three quartets on
Razumovsky’s order. In 1816, Schuppanzigh with
Razumovsky’s quartet went on a tour to Germany and
Russia, and the same year in November, Joseph Böhm
gave a series of six concerts with his quartet. Later, they
went on a tour of Italy together with pianist Johann Pe-
ter Pixis.
In 1817, Antonio Salieri, court music director,
founded a Singing School to train boys for Imperial
Music Chapel. The Society of Friends of Music made
efforts to create a music conservatory in Vienna. In
1819, Salieri invited Joseph Böhm, who returned from
Italy, to teach orchestral instrument playing as a profes-
sor. Together with the Singing School, Böhm’s class
formed the basis for Vienna Conservatory.
From 1821 to 1868, Joseph Böhm was the princi-
pal violinist of Imperial Music Chapel and gave numer-
ous concerts. According to critics, Böhm’s playing was
“exquisitely pure and delicate” and filled with “soulful
intimacy”; Böhm introduced dark, voluptuous Hungar-
ian sound in academic rendition of music.
11
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jo-
seph_B%C3%B6hm_%28Violinist%29

For example, on 7 July 1821, he performed in
Prater, and an article describing this concert has re-
mained:
“Today, at eight o’clock in the morning, at the
dawn of a wonderful sunny day, a violin quartet – Mes-
sieurs Böhm, Linke, Holz, and Weiss – gave a concert
at Benkoschen Hall in magnificent Prater. We know
them through the performances in the late May when
they played Haydn’s quartet in B-flat major, having fin-
ished with big Beethoven C-major quintet. Their earlier
programs had already won a well-deserved appraisal.
Let us mention the splendid rendering of Haydn C-ma-
jor quartet with a big and beautiful variation on the
theme of “Gott erhalte Franz den Kaiser”. Subse-
quently, they executed Mr. Weiss first G-major quartet.
They gave an encore, as on the third day, when they
executed Mozart D-major quartet and Beethoven’s
third so-called C-major Rasumosschische Quartet, hav-
ing justified the appreciation of the public listening to
their execution of Haydn, Mozart, and Beethoven. Mes-
sieurs Barlh and Jüger executed vocal compositions in
between the first and second quartet. Many people will
agree that quartet music is perceived better than clavier
owing to the gorgeous sound of strings. These violinists
demonstrated great skill and enthusiastic drive, which
was appreciated by connoisseurs of our musical art.
Musical prowess of Mr. Böhm, who played the first vi-
olin, won the deserved recognition. Mr. Linke, who was
a great virtuoso, played the second cello. The ease of
his play won the admiration of public. Mr. Weiss was
playing the violin with admirable restraint. However,
his playing was at the same time appropriately filled
with mellow and passionate tone. Mr. Holz splendidly
played second.
We are hopefully awaiting for these concerts to
continue and willing to enjoy this superb rendition of
chamber music again.” [1, 1821, July No 54, p. 428].
We can’t but admire that all music was in major,
and the concerts in Vienna began at eight in the morn-
ing! Just imagine how wonderful your day is going to
be should you come to Prater early in a summer morn-
ing to be into major quartets of Haydn, Mozart, and
Beethoven!
Joseph Boehm (Böhm). Ca 1820. R. Ceracchi’s print is kept at The New York Public Library for the Performing
Arts / Music Division
From 1821 to 1823, Böhm performed on a tour of
Germany and France. In 1823, having returned from a
tour, Schuppanzigh invited him to join his quartet.
Their concerts featured many premieres of Beethoven's
and Schubert’s musical compositions. With Schuppan-
zigh’s departure, Böhm replaced him as the leader of
Rasumovsky’s quartet.
Joseph Böhm continued performing at Imperial
Music Chapel as a solo performer, teaching students at
Vienna Conservatory, and composing. His musical
pieces for violin in the then popular style have remained
to these days.
Joseph Böhm knew Beethoven and Schubert per-
sonally and often played their music [11, p.6]. A.W.
Thayer wrote about his execution of Beethoven String
Quartet No. 12 in E-Flat Major, Op. 127, in 1825:
“Böhm had been leader of the quartet concerts in
Vienna during Schuppanzigh’s long absence. He has
left an account of the incident, in which he plainly says
that Schuppanzigh’s attitude toward the work was not
sympathetic and that he had wearied of the rehearsals,
wherefore at the performance it made but a succès d’es-
time. Beethoven sent for him (Böhm) and curtly said:
“You must play my Quartet” – and the business was
settled; objections, questionings, doubts were of no
avail against Beethoven’s will. The Quartet was newly
studied under Beethoven’s own eyes, a circumstance
which added to the severity of the rehearsals, for,
though he could not hear a tone, Beethoven watched the
players keenly and detected even the slightest variation
in tempo or rhythm from the movement of the bows.
Böhm tells a story in illustration of this:

At the close of the last movement of the quartet
there occurred a meno vivace, which seemed to me to
weaken the general effect. At the rehearsal, therefore, I
advised that the original tempo be maintained, which
was done, to the betterment of the effect. Beethoven,
crouched in a corner, heard nothing, but watched with
strained attention. After the last stroke of the bows he
said, laconically “Let it remain so,” went to the desks
and crossed out the meno vivace in the four parts.
The Quartet was played twice by Böhm and his
fellows at a morning concert in a coffee-house in the
Prater, late in March or early in April, and was enthusi-
astically received” [19, p. 193].
In 1827, Joseph Böhm abandoned extensive con-
cert activities, giving preference to teaching students
and music-making in family circle. He attached partic-
ular importance to ensemble music-making with stu-
dents, playing mostly Beethoven together with them in
evenings. On 26 March 1828, Joseph Böhm took part
in an exclusive concert-portrait of Franz Schubert in the
Hall of Music Society in Vienna, where he gave the
premiere of Schubert’s opus 100 trio with J. Linke [10,
p. 285].
Robert W. Eshbach writes:
“Joseph Böhm played in many historically signif-
icant concerts, including a performance of Beethoven’s
9th symphony under the composer’s direction. He be-
came an early advocate for Schubert’s chamber music,
and, on 26 March 1828, he gave the premiere of Schu-
bert’s opus 100 trio. Together with Holz, Weiss and
Linke of the original Schuppanzigh Quartet, he per-
formed Beethoven’s string quartets under the com-
poser’s supervision” [13, p. 243].
During the revolution of 1848, the Conservatory
was temporarily closed. Soon after it was opened again
in 1849, Böhm left the Conservatory and stopped par-
ticipating in the orchestra with no apparent political
cause. However, he kept playing at the Chapel until
1868 and teaching music privately.
Many Böhm’s students managed to nurture fa-
mous violinists. This was the way the Viennese violin
school was formed.
12
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1 (97/2121). No. 9754. 69 L.
From 1840 to 1844, Joseph’s nephew, Ludwig
Böhm, studied and lived at his uncle’s place in Vienna
together with his student Joachim. Later, they main-
tained their family ties as well. More than once Ludwig
came from St. Petersburg to visit his uncle. He wrote
about these visits in his reports on the vacations he had
taken to go abroad. Thus, the reason for his last visit
was Joseph’s terminal illness in 187612
. This was the
last time the uncle and the nephew met. Joseph Böhm
died on 28 March 1876. After Ludwig died in 1904, his
widow, artist Elisaveta Böhm, sold his violin [11]. This
violin had an interesting fortune.
Antonio Stradivari created it in Cremona in 1733;
as of 1800, it belonged to the family of Prince Johann
Friedrich Siegmund Khenhüller, which is why it bears
the name of Prince Khevenhüller; its catalogue number
at the Cozio Archive is 40678. As of 1820, the violin
belonged to Joseph Böhm; after he died, it descended
to his nephew, Ludwig Böhm, who lived in St. Peters-
burg. As of 1900, the violin was owned by a Moscow
violinist, Victor M. Popov (1879–1965), who sold it to
Emil Herrmann (1888–1968), a prominent dealer and
restorer of violins in New York City, who came to Mos-
cow in 1920s. Around 1928 (1929?), Henry Goldman
(1857–1937), an American heir, banker, philanthropist
and art collector, purchased this violin. In 1928 (?), Ye-
hudi Menuhin got the Stradivarius violin (then worth
$60,000) from Henry Goldman for his 12th
birthday. In
April 1929, Menuhin gave his famous concert in Berlin
on this violin (Bach, Beethoven, Brahms). In 1936, a
copy of this violin was produced. Menuhin played this
violin too, and later, he began playing Guarnerius. In
1937, the violin was transferred to Michel Scheinen; in
2000, the violin was transferred to Peter Biddulph, one
of the world's premier dealers in fine stringed instru-
ments; and in 2004, it was sold to a private owner [20].
We are aware of four portraits of Joseph Böhm.
The first one is a lithographical work of Joseph Kriehu-
ber of 1830. The second portrait is a print of Romuald
Ceracchi, which is kept at the New York Public Library
for the Performing Arts / Music Division. The third one
is a relatively unknown portrait of 1839 also made by
Kriehuber and provided herein.

Joseph Böhm. Porträt: Unterschrift: Facsimile des Namens. Kriehuber 1839 (lithogr.). Gedruckt bei Joh.
Höfelich (Wien 1839, Tob. Haslinger in Wien, Fol.)
This portrait was published in a magazine entitled
“Die Musik” which was issued in Germany in the early
20th
century. Caption:
“In commemoration of the wonderful violinist, Jo-
seph Böhm (deceased in 28 March 1876 in Vienna) we
present this portrait on this old print. In 1821–1868, he
played at Imperial Music Chapel (Kaiserl. Hofkapelle)
and was an outstanding educator: Ernst, Jachim, Singer,
Hellmberger (Vater), and L. Straus were among his stu-
dents.” [7, p. 444].
The fourth portrait was a portrait of old Boehm:
the Society of Friends of Music, Vienna.
Joseph Boehm: Gesellschaft der Musikfreunde, Vienna
Musical St. Petersburg
Founded in 1703, St. Petersburg was rapidly de-
veloping as a young capital of the Russian Empire. The
City’s population was rapidly growing. The turn of the
19th
century was the golden age of St. Petersburg – in-
dustry was emerging; commerce was rapidly develop-
ing; architects, builders, and artists created splendid
buildings. Cultural life of the young capital attracted
European musicians. There were three theatres in St.
Petersburg, and each of them had an orchestra of its
own. Numerous houses held private concerts; music sa-
lons and circles were very popular; guest actors and am-
ateurs performed there. Such concerts gathered from
four to four hundred people. There were many music
shops in the City. One could use music sheets there as
if it were a library. Private music-making was more
than entertainment and pastime. One could hear choral
and symphonic music in private homes; families would
engage professional performers and gifted amateurs to
render chamber compositions. These amateurs were
substantially at the same level with professionals. The
borderland between “drawing-room” and public con-
certs was blurring. In 1820s, a famous Polish pianist M.
Shimanovskaya used to regularly arrange “musical
mornings”. Young Glinka, whose fame as a pianist and
composer had already established in St. Petersburg,
took part in these concerts. Singers A. Gebhard and D.
Tozi, violinist F. Böhm were permanent performers at
her concerts. The first and the biggest musical salon
was that of counts Vielgorskies. All nine Beethoven’s
symphonies were performed at the Vielgorskies’. Yury
(Jerzy) Vielgorsky, Polish nobleman, who went over to

Russian service, was a highly educated person and mu-
sic lover, he played the violin. His sons were also mu-
sicians. Matvey Vielgorsky (1787–1863), a cello
player, Romberg’s student, he arranged quartet eve-
nings at his place and was a member of Directorate of
Imperial Theatres. Mikhail Vielgorsky (1788–1856)
played the alto and the piano, and composed music –
Cherubini taught him composition in Paris. He met
Beethoven in Vienna and in 1808, was one of the first
eight listeners of his Pastoral Symphony. In their estate
in Luisino, the Vielgorskies had a bonded orchestra. It
was in Luisino that the first seven Beethoven’s sym-
phonies were performed. There was a tradition in St.
Petersburg in 1820–1850. Before any foreign guest ac-
tors could perform in public concerts, they had to kind
of qualify for it at the Vielgorskies’ salon. It was like
an unofficial dress rehearsal for guest performers, that
is to say, the first appraisal before public concerts.
Franz Böhm and His Family in St. Petersburg
Franz Boehm. From lithograph of Joseph Kriehuber, by Gottlieb Kissling13
Ca 1836. Russian National Library
of St. Petersburg, Prints Division
The first documented evidence we found about
Franz dates back to 1809. It was a contract he signed on
15 January with the Imperial Theatres, which remained
in holdings of the Russian State Historical Archive. He
was engaged as a chamber violinist. Under this con-
tract, Franz undertook to “play the violin in concerto
and to play alone at all concerts the Imperial Directorate
may give at the City’s theatres and at the Imperial
Court.” The terms and conditions of his engagement
comprised the requirements “to accurately attend re-
hearsals” and “to use my entire talent for the benefit and
needs of the theatrical directorate.” Franz Böhm was
given an annual salary of 1,500 roubles14
. This was
quite a high remuneration compared to the salary of an
average violin player, who got paid 400 to 500 roubles
per year, or a music copyist, who was paid 50 roubles
per year.
Under this contract, Franz Böhm was in employ-
ment till 8 January 1811. Then he asked to terminate
the contract. According to the enclosed information let-
ter, “Mr. Böhm suffered the lung rot. The climate in St.
Petersburg was utterly bad for his health, his protracted
illness posed him at the risk of his own life, he was un-
able to perform his duties.” (ibid., p. 2). He did not
13
Gottlieb Kissling (1790–1849) was a copper engraver, associate professor of engraving art at Vilnius University. Visited St.
Petersburg in 1836 and 1845.
14
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 601. L. 3.
15
RSHA. F. 1284. Sch. 21, 1 dep., 1 table, No. 59. L. 74.
serve until 1816. However, as of 1813 he gave some
concerts in St. Petersburg.
What held Franz Böhm from leaving St. Peters-
burg? Love and music of course! A young Czech lady,
Maria Moravek, studied the violin together with him
and Josephм Böhm under Pierre Rode (from 1803 to
1808), and as of 1812, began concertizing in St. Peters-
burg. They began performing together and got married
in 1814.
Maria Moravek (1795–1823), the wife of Franz
Böhm, was coeval with Joseph Böhm. Her family came
from Vienna; her father served in Russia as a Maitre d'
at the Imperial Court in the reign of Catherine the Great,
Paul I, and Alexandre I. An excerpt from the formulary
list reads as follows: “Leopold (Ludwig) Moravek.
Austrian. Registration in Vienna was terminated in ac-
cordance with the Contract of 24 February 1788 made
with him by Prince Golitsyn, Minister Plenipotentiary,
who was staying at Viennese Imperial Court15
”; in
1799, he was granted personal nobility. The Moraveks
had eight children including Maria and Sophia. The
girls from this Viennese family possessed artistic free-
dom and musical sense so typical of Viennese people.
Maria studied the violin under P. Rode together with
brothers Böhm and in 1812–1813, even gave concerts

in St. Petersburg alone and performed together with
Franz Böhm. In 1812, an announcement was published
in St. Petersburg News:
“Young lady Maria Moravek is honoured to an-
nounce that this year, on 18 December, she will give a
big vocal and instrumental concert at Philharmonic
Hall, where she is going to play the violin” [17, No.
100, 13.12.1812, p. 1402].
Maria successfully gave concerts in 1813 and
1814. In spring 1814, she was playing together with
Böhm (before the departure, as they announced), and
on 8 July they got married.
This is evidenced by records in the register of
Catholic Church of St Catherine:
“Franz Böhm from Hungary, son of Michaelis and
Anna (nee Dorfmeister) is united in matrimony with
young lady Maria Moravek, daughter of Leopold and
Anna (nee Maho Grosentes).” Franz was 26 years of
age, Maria was 19. The wedding ceremony was held in
the Catholic Church at 34 Nevsky Prospekt and was at-
tended by Ferdinand Gidello and Public Officer
Yanovsky.
Both spouses kept giving solo and joint concertos.
Franz Böhm had four children of this marriage, in-
cluding Maria (married name Cantor), future mother of
the great mathematician Georg Cantor [18].
Neither her married life nor her tender age pre-
vented Maria Moravek from announcing her solo con-
certos daringly and repeatedly. Solo concertos given by
young ladies were something of a novelty to the public
of that time, all the more so as those were violin con-
certos. As a rule, a lady would perform together with
her father or husband; ladies began giving first public
piano and song recitals some 15 years later – those were
Maria Shimanovskaya, Camilla Pleyel, Pauline Viar-
dot. But Maria Moravek began giving violin concertos
in 1812 when she was only 17!
However, Maria performed together with her hus-
band. It was seldom that she gave solo concertos. Her
concerts were very popular and apparently were played
to a full house. Her concerts were held many times: on
11 February 1813, 15 March 1813, 28 February 1814
(played together with Böhm before the departure), 23
16
Probably, Johann Nepomuk Fuchs (1766–1839).
17
The list of concerts announced in newspapers was kindly
provided by G.V. Petrova, PhD (Art History), Sr. Researcher
of Music Department at Russian Institute of the History of
Arts.
18
CSHA SPb F. 347. Sch. 1. No. 33. L. 125.
19
CSHA SPb F. 347. Sch. 1. No. 60. L. 78.
20
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 73, L. 27.
21
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 17. No. 82.
22
RSHA. F. 468. Sch. 34. No. 223.
March 1816 (Böhm together with his wife Maria –
Double Concerto for 2 violins, 17 March 1817 (Böhm
and his wife played a Fantasy for duet (2 violins), or-
chestra, and choir (Die Töne, music by Fuchs16
), 1818
(Böhm and his wife, Mass), 13 March 1819 (Böhm with
L. Maurer and his wife). The concerts were also held in
the 20s: 23 February 1820 (Böhm alone and with his
wife), 9 March 1821 (Maria Moravek alone), 3 March
1822 – new variations of Maurer – Böhm with his wife,
and on 15 March in a big concert with Chervenko and
Meyer, who played Beethoven fantasy for piano and
choirs17
.
Maria continued concertizing until 1821. In
May1823, she died from “lung rot” at the age of 28.18
Maria’s sister, Sofia Moravek (1798–1866), was
taking care of her orphaned children, and a year later,
in July 1824, Franz Böhm married her.19
Sofia and
Franz had three children, including Ludwig, future vi-
olin player and professor of Conservatory.
Ivan Lenz20
, Pierre Rode (1804–1807)21
, Charles
Lafont (1808–1815)22
were successively First con-
certists23
in St. Petersburg. Franz Böhm became the
next concertist.
Franz entered into a contract as a violinist-con-
certist, which was valid from 1816 to 1819. In 1818, he
asked for an increase in pay, and the new contract, al-
ready valid till 1821, was re-executed with a remuner-
ation of 4,000 roubles in paper money. Pursuant to the
contract, they had to be paid every two months in equal
instalments. In addition, the Directorate of Imperial
Theatres granted to Böhm the right to give one benefit
concert annually during the Lent.
One would note Franz Böhm’s name in theatre
guides of that period. He took part in various theatrical
performances, e.g. in operas of G. Rossini (Tancredi)
and D.G. Steibelt (Cendrillon), and in ballets of I.I.
Lesogorov (Valberkh). It was mentioned in all playbills
that violin solo would be performed by Mr. Böhm, first
concertist24
.
From 1819 to 1821, Mr. Böhm was teaching M.I.
Glinka. This isn’t to say that both were pleased. Glinka
recollects this experience, mocking Böhm’s German
accent: “It wasn’t so fortunate with the violin. Although
my teacher, first concertist Böhm, played faithfully and
clearly, he had no gift for conveying his knowledge to
others. So when I was bowing amiss, he would say:
“Messier Klinka fous ne chouerez chamois du fiolon”
(meaning Mr. Glinka, you will never master the art of
playing the violin) [8, p. 219]. However, later, in 1822–
23, Glinka wrote: “On the contrary, with Meyer, and
even with Böhm, I learnt fast.” [ibid., p. 222]. In 1836,
Glinka composed solo in Ivan Susanin intended espe-
cially for Böhm [ibid., p. 272].
23
At that time, the word “concertist” or “concerter” (as it
sounds in Russian) was understood in Russia as the lead per-
former in his/her group of instruments. When translated into
German and thereafter, from German into English and
French, as, for example, in Décaillot A-M. Cantor et la
France, these words transformed into “solo performer”,
“chapelmaster”, and even “orchestra director”, which is in-
correct.
24
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 1. F. 497. Sch. 15. No. 1. 264 L.

A.F. Lvov, A.N. Verstovsky, N.I. Bahmetev, and
imperial family members were among Böhm’s students
[3, p. 73].
Later on, Franz’ contract was renewed several
times more. He could expect a seniority pension after
12 years of service; and after 18 years of service, one
would be entitled to a pension of half the salary. This
rule applied to foreigners in the service of Russia, the
pension being remitted even to their native country. If
a musician continued working, his/her pension was
paid to him/her in addition to the salary. On special oc-
casions, pension could be awarded by Personal Impe-
rial Majesty's Edict on a full salary basis. The violinist
worked under these conditions until 182625
. In 1832,
for 18 years of service, Böhm was awarded a pension
which amounted to half the salary. For the years of his
service, he deserved the praise of C. Cavos as follows:
“With excellent and renowned talent, he fulfils his du-
ties with due diligence.”26
In 1834, “based on his brilliant capabilities and as-
sent”, Böhm was appointed an inspector of the violin
class at the School of Performing Arts with a salary of
4,000 roubles.
Franz Böhm was the first concertist in St. Peters-
burg for almost 30 years – he gave solo concertos,
played in ensembles. All this time he was a citizen of
Austro-Hungarian Empire (in the contract of 1835, he
was referred to as the Hungarian national; in the con-
tract of 1845, as the Austrian national27
) and had never
taken Russian citizenship28
.
One can see the fruitful activity of this violinist
behind these facts. His intensive work and increasing
popularity are reflected in playbills.
As the talented violinist served, fame came to him
among St. Petersburg music lovers.
At first, Franz Böhm was a member of a German
stage company which gave performances for the Ger-
man population of St. Petersburg. And it was large: ac-
cording to the police register of 1818, there were more
than 23,000 Germans in the City.
Performances were suspended during the Lent,
however, many concerts were held in rented halls in
homes of music lovers. Böhm often and eagerly took
part in such concerts. It was after such concerts that
public began calling him the “primary rival” of Alexey
Fedorovich Lvov, violinist, composer, and author of the
national anthem, God Save the Tsar. Being an aristo-
crat, Lvov could only play in salons [15, p. 172]. Pop-
ular musical salons were quartet meetings at A.F.
Lvov’s place; meetings at M. Szymanowska, Polish pi-
anist’s place; salons of the Olenins, V.F. Odoevsky, and
brothers Vielgorsky. Franz Böhm often played at home
meetings. He arranged concerts at his place as well. For
many years, quartet meetings were regularly held at
home of the “first concertist” of Imperial Theatres, vi-
olinist F. Böhm.
We also came across the viewpoint that it was
thanks to F. Böhm that all Beethoven quartets could be
heard in St. Petersburg [16]. However, this issue re-
mains disputable, because his performances were not
25
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 148. L. 18.
26
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 601. L. 42.
public ones – he performed in salons, which can only
be supported by records of contemporaries. Böhm’s un-
questioned merit was that he initiated St. Petersburg
public into the music of Vienna. He also played his own
compositions.
The evidence of Böhm’s performance in the house
of the Philharmonic Society has also remained.
Odoevsky liked Böhm playing very much and
wrote a lot about him, calling Böhm’s bow a “silk bow
of Cupid” [14, p 107].
Odoevsky wrote in 1837:
“On 17 March, Wednesday, in the same hall of the
Philharmonic Society, a concert of Mr. Böhm, our fa-
vourite violinist, will take place. His proper, correct,
and spiritual playing would always satisfy a musician
perfectly well”. “We will hear H. Marschner’s overture
to his opera (Hans Heiling), which is unknown here as
yet, and relatively unknown Mendelssohn Bartholdy’s
Les Hebrides, which, like other compositions of this
young and already renowned musician, is distinguished
by singularity of melodies and flamboyant instrumen-
tation. This same evening, Mr. Böhm will play a con-
cert of Maurer whose music he understands so well. In
the same concert, we will hear Mr. Brod playing the
oboe, Cyprian Romberg playing the cello, and finally,
young Böhm (Ludwig) playing the violin. This young
performer, who was so brilliantly promising way back
in the past year, will play variations of Bériot. Let’s fin-
ish this announcement with our gratitude to Mr. Böhm,
for, in spite of his truly great talent, he has not increased
ticket prices for his concerts, like many others do. The
price of his tickets is still 5 roubles.” [ibid., p. 131].
Odoevsky, 1837:
“We took a break from all the horrors of the con-
temporary violin playing school at the concert of
Böhm. How accurate, how clear, how noble Böhm's
playing is! No hint of jugglery – only permanent respect
and unconditional love to the art. The concert was filled
with wonderful overtures, excellent choice of other mu-
sic pieces, best actors! The audience was delighted, and
admittance fee did not exceed five roubles; packed hall
– one could not move a muscle; a good lesson to some
concertists who hope to rise their talent in public’s es-
teem by the price of chairs!” [ibid., p. 139].
Odoevsky, 1837: after Ole Bull’s concerts,
“the violin concerts, which were given this week
one after another, convinced everybody in the old
proven truth that there is a lot to be said about each mu-
sical school and that a good musician, no matter which
school he belongs to, would always be a real treat for
the audience. We listened to the classical playing of Mr.
Böhm. Unintentional public applause could be heard all
over the hall – people cheered him for his accurate, no-
ble singing; for his clearness in the most challenging
passages. In acknowledgement of his father, people
clapped the son who, I must say, was played Mr. Artôt’s
fantasy (substantially simplified, I would say) very
well. But, let us admit, we don’t like children on stage!
A child may play very well, accurately; it may be very
27
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 148. L. 52.
28
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 148. 78 L.

good for him as it trains him not to quail before the au-
dience (which amounts to a curse for a violin player!).
However, a kid’s playing will never satisfy any feeling
other than curiosity, which is too little for music.”
[ibid., p. 169].
At first, Böhm lived next to the Stone Theatre on
the Embankment of Kryukov Kanal; later, he lived not
far from this place, at 34 Officerskaya Street. At pre-
sent, the Second Stage of Mariinsky Theatre has been
build on this place. In 1844, his address was: 14 Offic-
erskaya Street.
In 1825, Böhm moved to Nevsky Avenue; now
this house number is 58. Probably he moved because of
the flood of 1824, when houses on the Theatre Square,
in which the Böhms lived, were severely affected.
There was an announcement published in St. Peters-
burg News as follows:
«On Wednesday, 25 February, Mr. Böhm, the first
concertist of the Imperial Theatres, will have the hon-
our to give a big song and instrumental concert in the
hall of the former Philharmonic Society on Nevsky Av-
enue not far from Kazan Bridge. He will play a concert
he composed and a new Polonaise composed by Mr.
Maurer.” [17, No. 14, 17.02.1825, p. 169]. The news-
paper of 31 March published a review of the concert of
16 March where they regretfully announced that “due
to an unexpected sickness of Mr. Böhm, who was will-
ing to take part in the concert, Catalani volunteered to
replace Mr. Böhm during the time allocated for him,
and performed la Placida Campagna”.
Nikolai Ivanovich Bakhmetev (1807–1891),
Böhm’s student, officer, composer; in 1861–1883, di-
rector of Imperial Music Chapel, wrote interesting
memoirs. In his reminiscences, Bakmetev described an
intriguing episode in the Assembly of Nobility:
“On my return in 1837, my battle-field service
went on as before, but for my favourite instrument
which I got down to, having bought a Guadagnini violin
very cheap, for 600 roubles. It came so cheap to me be-
cause someone pledged and I luckily purchased it. At
that time, as a former student of our first violinist
Böhm, I only played pieces composed by various com-
posers like Rode, Viotti, Lafont, Lipiński, Maurer… In
1840, after a Patriotic Concert in the Assembly of No-
bility, they forced me to sign a couple of romances of
mine. By the way, it was then that I sang my Persian
Sword for the first time. This passionate song was com-
posed in 5/4 time. This rhythm has never occurred to
anyone, while I meant to add passion to my romantic
song. Maurer and Böhm rebelled against this innova-
tion, saying that 5/4 just cannot exist as this is indivisi-
29
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 148. L. 58.
ble, and nothing like that has been mentioned in the the-
ory. Only count Vielgorsky did not find anything un-
pleasant or indecent in this timing, and Glinka put on
thinking cap, sitting in the corner of the room, and did
not utter any opinion. Only when departing, he told me:
“We will think about it.” And he did so, and subse-
quently made women's chorus (in A Life for the Tsar)
in 5/4, which had previously been made in another
rhythm dimension, probably in 3/8 time.” [3, p. 279–
282].
Public and drawing room performances of F.
Böhm found a broad response in various testimonies of
contemporaries, e.g. A.S. Dargomyzhsky [5, p. 341–
342].
V.F. Odoevsky, known as a musical critic, wrote:
“Böhm really consoled us, having brilliantly pre-
sented Bériot’s piece of music. What a correct pitch in
the most critical passages – not a bit of singing out of
tune; what a dignity in singing, what a gliding legato!
We heard that when Mr. Böhm finished writing his
piece, a music lover said out loud: “Thank God! We
have finally heard the violin!” We inwardly shared this
opinion, but please, for God's sake, tell me if there is
anything else behind this simple phrase?” [14, p. 157].
F. Böhm died on 16 February 1846. The cause of
his death recorded in the formulary list was “nervous
weakness”. It was also written there: “citizen of Aus-
trian Emperor, born in the City of Pest in Hungary, 57
years of age, left his wife Sofia (nee Moravek), four
children from the first marriage – Adolph, Anna, Maria,
and Sofia – and three children from the second marriage
– Ludwig, Julia and Maximilian.”29
A notice of Böhm’s
death was published in Moscow News on 26 February
1846: “We regret to advise everybody who used to
know Franz Böhm, the first concertist of the Imperial
Theatres who was among the most remarkable virtuoso
performers on the violin, as well as numerous admirers
of his outstanding talent, that he died recently in St. Pe-
tersburg.” [12]. All members of this generation of the
Böhms were buried at Smolensky Cemetery.
Thanks to his merits, Franz Böhm was portrayed
among the St. Petersburg’s most important people in
the picture of brothers Grigory and Nikanor Chernetsov
“Parade on Tsaritsyn Meadow”. On the foreground of
the painting, there is a group of citizens admiring the
parade with Pushkin, Zhukovsky, Krylov, nobility, ac-
tors, artists, and musicians among them. All in all, 223
men – crème de la crème of St. Petersburg. Franz Böhm
(character No. 185 in the painting) is standing to the
right of the group of people with Pushkin, among mu-
sicians and actors.

Franz Boehm in the picture of G. and N. Chernetsov “Parade on Tsaritsyn Meadow”, 1837. (Personal archive
of the author)
Ludwig Böhm, professor of St. Petersburg Conservatory
Ludvig Boehm (1825–1904), Conservatory professor. (Personal archive of the author)
Ludwig Böhm belongs to the second generation
of the unique family of violin players. He was the son
of Franz Böhm from his second marriage with Sofia
Moravek. Ludwig was born in St. Petersburg on 3 Feb-
ruary 1825. His uncle Joseph Böhm taught him to play
the violin in Vienna. This education is described in the
musician’s service record as “family education”30
. Lud-
wig performed together with his father since he was 11,
i.e. as of 17 March 1837. Odoevsky:
30
CSHA SPb. F. 361. Sch. 11. No. 150. L. 15.
“We listened with pleasure to the young (Ludwig)
Böhm playing in this concert. Can you tell me what
point will instrument playing soon reach? Just look at
him: he is but a child, but how keen he is, strong bow,
what an aplomb in devices, what an accuracy in the
most difficult passages! Really, instrument playing will
soon become as common as reading books. They will
be good readers and bad readers, but each and every
person will be able to read.” [14, p. 139].

In 1844, Ludwig completed his education in Vi-
enna and the same year, on 1 May, he was admitted in
the Imperial orchestra in St. Petersburg as a violin
player with an annual salary of 400 roubles. His service
in the orchestra was included in his service record of
1844–1876. In 1856, he sprained his arm and, as a re-
sult, got erysipelas [ ibidem]. In 1864, he was trans-
ferred to play the first violin. He had a certificate of an
actor playing the violin for the Imperial theatres with
an annual pension of 571 roubles and 44 kopecks paid
from the Cabinet of His Imperial Majesty.
In 1867, Ludwig married Elisaveta Endaurova
(1843–1914). She was an artist, student of Kramskoy.
Her works – images of children, Christmas and Easter
post cards, silhouettes – were very popular in the late
19th
– early 20th
century. Ludwig Böhm supported his
wife’s hobbies. Elisaveta’s friend, children's writer S.I.
Lavrentieva, quoted the violinist in her reminiscencies:
“You know, looking at those lovely works, which
Elisaveta Merkurievna made with her hands and used
to show me from time to time when I visited her, I often
thought that I would not have been satisfied to such ex-
tent if my wife were, for example, a musician and I,
having returned from the conservatory, still filled with
slightly wrong sounds my students produced, would
have heard musical tones again, even if they were good
tones! But here, I take real rest looking at her paint-
ings.” [11, p. 6–7].
In 1875, Ludwig’s uncle, Joseph Böhm, fell ill.
Therefore, his nephew asked to grant him 14 days of
leave in 1875 and three weeks in 1876: “My uncle, who
resides in Vienna, is badly ill, and I will have to leave
for his place forthwith on demand (by telegram)”31
. In
the end of April 1876, Ludwig asked to dismiss him
from his service in the orchestra and went to serve in
the St. Petersburg conservatory32
. His career is de-
scribed herein below in the “Service Record of Con-
servatory Instructor L.F. Böhm”. 33
His service record there successively included su-
pernumerary instructor (1870), senior supernumerary
instructor (1876), supernumerary professor (as of
1879). He was paid a compensation for his classes by
the job. In the course of his service, he was awarded the
Order of St. Stanislav and the Order of St. Anna, 3rd
class [ibidem]. In the period of his teaching, in 1882,
Ludwig Böhm became the first in the family of violin
players who was granted Russian citizenship. And in
1896, he converted to Orthodox Christianity.
Until 1901, Ludwig Böhm taught two classes: a
special class of violin playing and multiplayer violin.
However, on 9 May 1901, the 76-year old Böhm wrote
a petition to the Conservatory Administration ad-
dressed to Berngard:
“Dear Valued August Rudolfovich, I feel that I am
unable to teach my special class anymore as I did be-
fore. Therefore, I cannot be of use as expected, and I
feel it my duty to give up on it. At the same time, having
served in the Conservatory for more than 30 years, I got
31
RSHA. F. 497. Sch. 1. No. 9754. 69 L.
32
CSHA SPb. F. 361, Sch. 9, No. 9. 13 L., F. 361. Sch. 11.
No. 150. 66 L.
to love it so much that it is hard for me to tear myself
away from the place all at once. Therefore, please leave
my multiplayer class to me.”34
Of all contemporaries, it was S. Lavrentieva, his
wife’s friend, who cherished the most vivid reminis-
cences of Ludwig Böhm in her letters. “Ludwig Fran-
zevich Böhm, Hungarian by birth, but totally Russified,
was a very educated man, talented violinist, and excel-
lent teacher, who worked in St. Petersburg Conserva-
tory first, as Auer’s associate professor, and thereafter,
as professor. He studied at Viennese Conservatory. At
that time, he lived at his uncle’s place. His uncle was a
famous professor of violin Josef Böhm, Beethoven’s
friend and teacher of entire galaxy of famous violin
players, such as Joachim, Laub, Minkus, Ernst, and oth-
ers, including Auer’s teacher. Being on especially
friendly terms with Joachim, Ludwig Franzevich lived
at his uncle’s (Böhm’s) place together with him. When
L.F. was already married, he inherited his uncle’s fa-
mous Stradivarius violin and Beethoven’s letter.” [11,
p. 6].
On 7 June 1904, Ludwig Böhm died and was bur-
ied at Novodevichy Cemetery. Vice rector of Roman
Catholic Church of St. Catherine made the death record
in the passport attached to the service record of Con-
servatory Teacher Böhm35
. It is unclear whether Lud-
wig was buried in accordance with catholic or orthodox
funeral rite. The violinist’s widow applied for a pension
to the Directorate of Russian Musical Society in 1909.
She stated in her petition to the Directorate that Ludwig
had served for the Conservatory for 33 years and raised
a pleiad of musicians: E. Młynarski, who eventually be-
came director and professor of Conservatory in War-
saw; I. Malkin, subsequently teacher of Vilna Musical
School and the first teacher of Y. Heifetz; Shvachkin,
member of the quartet of the Society of Chamber Music
in St. Petersburg; Tez, orchestra musician at Imperial
Romanian Opera; Frenkel. Being Mr. Auer’s associate
professor and substituting him during his leave, Böhm
contributed a lot to get students ready for the higher
course of Auer’s class.
Regretfully, no mention whatsoever was made
about Böhm in L. Auer’s book [2].
In our opinion, the merits of Ludwig Böhm listed
in the petition most particularly stress the importance
of his work and of the work of other family members
who served for the benefit of St. Petersburg culture of
the 19th
century.
Such was the history of this family which enriched
Vienna and St. Petersburg with its performing and
teaching talents.
References
1. Allgemeine musikalische Zeitung 1821 Wi-
enn, July No 54. https://de.wikisource.org/wiki/Allge-
meine_musikalische_Zeitung_(Wien)
2. Auer L. My long life in music. N.Y.: F. A.
Stokes. 1923.
33
CSHA SPb. F. 361, Sch. 9, No. 9. 13 L.; F. 361. Sch. 11.
No. 150. L. 15, 21.
34
CSHA SPb. F. 361. Sch. 9. No. 9. L. 53.
35
CSHA SPb. F. 361, Sch. 9, No. 9, 13 L.

3. Bahmetev N.I. Zapiski i dnevnik
N.I.Bahmeteva (Notes and Diary of N.I. Bakhmetev) //
Rossijskij arhiv: Istoriya Otechestva v svidetel'stvah i
dokumentah XVIII–XX vv.: Al'manah. T. XII. M.:
Studiya TRITE: Ros.Arhiv, 2003. – P.242–301.
https://runivers.ru/lib/book4777/63970/
4. Belyakaeva-Kazanskaya l.V. Siluehty
muzykal'nogo Peterburga (Silhouettes of musical Pe-
tersburg). St-Petersburg: Lenizdat, 2001. – P.2.
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01000695069
5. Dargomyzhskij A.S. Avtobiografiya (Autobi-
ography) // Russkaya starina. 1875. T. XII. P. 341–358.
https://runivers.ru/lib/book4646/57346/
6. Décaillot A.-M. Cantor et la France. Corre-
spondance du mathématicien allemand avec les fran-
çais à la fin du XIX siècle. Éditions Kimé. Paris, 2008.
http://onscene.ru/Cantor-et-la-France--correspon-
dance-du-math%C3%A9maticien-allemand-avec-les-
fran%C3%A7ais-%C3%A0-la-fin-du-XIXe-
si%C3%A8cle-Anne-Marie-D%C3%A9cail-
lot/2/dgccaei
7. Die Musik. V Jahr 1905/1906 Neft 12 Zweites
Märzheft. https://archive.org/de-
tails/DieMusik05jg2qBd.181905-1906
8. Glinka M. Zapiski. Literaturnye
proizvedeniya i perepiska (Notes. Literary works and
correspondence). Moscow: Muzyka, 1973. (In 2 v.) V.
1. https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01007594069
9. Goethe's Faust, Translated Into English. Verse
by Sir G. Lefevre. Second Ed. 1843. Frankfort o M.:
Ch. Jugel. https://play.google.com/store/books/de-
tails/Goethe_s_Faust_Translated_Into_Eng-
lish_Verse_By_Si?id=CjNdAAAAcAAJ&hl=zh_HK
10. Hanslick E. Geschichte des Concertwesens in
Wien // Bd. 1. Braumüller. Wien, 1869.
https://books.google.ru/books?id=8tRXI-
OAZ7xQC&dq=editions:LCCNgb72007361&hl=tr
11. Lavrent'eva S. Drug detej – E.M. Bem. Bio-
graficheskij ehskiz (A friend of children is E.M. Böhm.
Biographical sketch). SPb, 1911.
https://search.rsl.ru/ru/record/01004489324
12. Moskovskie vedomosti (Moscow newspapers)
№25. 26.02.1846. – p.68. http://nlr.ru/res/inv/uka-
zat55/record_full.php?record_ID=131435
13. Moser, A. Geschichte des Violinspiels. II.
Berlin: Hesse, 1923.
https://play.google.com/store/books/details/Ges-
chichte_des_Violinspiels?id=n9wsAAAA-
MAAJ&hl=ru
14. Odoevskij V.F. Muzykal'no-literaturnoe
nasledie (Musical-literary heritage). Moskva: Muzgiz.
1956. https://imwerden.de/publ-858.html
15. Petrovskaya I.F. Muzykal'noe obrazovanie i
muzykal'nye obshchestvennye organizacii v Peterburge
1800–1917 (Music education and musical public or-
ganizations in Petersburg 1800–1917). SPb.: Petrovskij
fond. 1999. https://search.rsl.ru/ru/rec-
ord/01007484788
16. Purkert W., Ilgauds J. Georg Cantor. 1845–
1918. Basel–Boston–Stuttgart: Birkhäuser Verlag,
1987.
https://www.springer.com/de/book/9783034874120
17. Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti (St. Peters-
burg State Gazette). http://nlr.ru/res/inv/ukazat55/rec-
ord_full.php?record_ID=123517
18. Sinkevich G.I. Georg Cantor&Pol'skaya
shkola teorii mnozhestv (Georg Cantor&Polish school
of a set theory). St-Petersburg: SPbGASU, 2012.
https://www.researchgate.net/publica-
tion/277775314_Georg_Kantor_Polskaa_skola_te-
orii_mnozestv
19. Thayer A.W. The Life of Ludwig van Beetho-
ven, Volume III / Translator: H. E. Krehbiel. New
York: Published by The Beethoven Association. Copy-
right, 1921, By H. E. Krehbiel. From the press of G.
Schirmer, Inc., New York. https://www.cam-
bridge.org/core/books/life-of-ludwig-van-beetho-
ven/D0CD40BDD0CD55A57B768752B9E7035A
20. Toby Faber. Stradivari's Genius: Five Violins,
One Cello, and Three Centuries of Enduring Perfection.
Random House Publishing Group. https://ru.b-
ok.org/book/2270821/768cdf
21. Sinkevich G. I. Böhm. Sem'ya skripachej
(Böhm, violinists family, in Russian) // Musicus. 2010.
№5 (24). p. 54–59. https://www.researchgate.net/pub-
lication/277719487_Bem_Sema_skripacej

ECONOMIC SCIENCES
DEMAND FOR ECONOMIC KNOWLEDGE AT UKRANIAN NON-ECONOMIC UNIVERSITIES
Chornyi O.
Vinnytsia Finance and Economics University, PhD
Associate professor of the Management and Administration Department
Abstract
Despite remarkable fluctuations in the direction of economic development (capitalism versus socialism) over
the last 30 years, one thing remains unchanged in Ukraine, namely, the increased efforts of Ukrainians to create a
modern market economy. This affected not only the revitalization of economic life in the country, but also the
spread of economic knowledge, especially within non-economic universities. At the level with the economic dis-
ciplines introduction, a lot of economic departments and even faculties are created. In this regard, we decided to
investigate how students feel about the feasibility of studying economic knowledge.
The main purpose of our research is to study the attitude of non-economic major students to economics (de-
mand for economic knowledge) at Vinnytsia universities. Within the article, we investigated the students' percep-
tions of a curriculum, their attitudes towards studying economic knowledge at a university, their understanding of
the relationship between economic knowledge and the real economy comprehension. Students' attitudes toward
theoretical and practical economic courses and their desire to start private business were analyzed.
The methodology of our work is based on the questionnaire (field research) method and a set of statistical
methods. We interviewed more than 670 students among 30 different non-economic specialties from 4 target uni-
versities in Vinnytsia (Ukraine). Statistical analysis of the obtained data showed that there are common trends in
economics understanding within all examined specialties.
The main conclusion of our study is that students are not interested in increasing the number of non-core
disciplines in the curriculums, but they do understand the importance of economic knowledge. That is supported
by the following facts: 52% of the respondents consider economic disciplines to be moderately important, and
70% of respondents are interested in obtaining economic knowledge at the university level; 86% of those polled
would like to start a business related to their specialty; 76% of those surveyed would like to take courses related
to business training.
Keywords: economics, demand for economic knowledge, entrepreneurship, tertiary education, Ukraine.
Introduction. Since the early 1990s, a rapid de-
velopment of a market economy has begun in Ukraine.
In parallel, the study, assimilation and application of
economic thought from developed capitalist countries
got a wide spread. During the last three decades,
Ukraine has experienced complications in economic
life, but also reformation of economic departments at
universities, the emergence of national capitalist
thought, and even the spread of economic knowledge
in all spheres of society. Therefore, it is not surprising
that economic knowledge has become important not
only for financiers, economists and entrepreneurs, but
also for the widest range of Ukrainian universities grad-
uates and professionals on the labor market. For this
reason, we have decided to conduct a marketing study
concerning a demand for economic knowledge at
Ukrainian non-economic universities.
In general, this study is a part of a broader research
conducted by the author over the past two years. It is a
section of the experimental chapter of the doctoral dis-
sertation, within which the study of the attitudes toward
economic knowledge was conducted among students
and schoolchildren. Overall dissertation deals with ex-
ploring the possibilities of an interdisciplinary ap-
proach application to economics. During this long-term
research a lot of new knowledge were obtained: the
functioning of economic knowledge at Ukrainian uni-
versities, the specifics of economic and interdiscipli-
nary discourses, the place of economic knowledge in
modern interdisciplinary courses and the problems of
domestic interdisciplinary courses development. Since
students can be determined as stakeholders that are in-
terested in improving of the learning process, it is im-
portant to analyze in what degree students with non-
economic majors are interested in obtaining economic
knowledge.
Specifically, this study, which is presented within
the article, is an integral part of the survey related to
students' perceptions of the need for economic
knowledge teaching among non-economic specialties.
On the university level, we investigated attitudes to-
ward economics and economics’ interdisciplinary con-
nections understanding among 1st and 5th (1st year
master's) course students. This article presents the re-
sults of a study related to the economics comprehension
among the students of 1 year at Vinnytsia non-eco-
nomic universities. The results of the study are quite
representative. At the end of the article, the author made
some recommendations for those involved in decision
making processes.
Literature overview. In order to explain the fea-
tures of our research, we need to address the general
context of the economic knowledge functioning in the
contemporary world. The first thing to keep in mind is
that competencies related to financial and economic lit-
eracy are essential in the modern world (Walstad, Re-
beck & Butters, 2013). Every person, without excep-
tion, needs to arrange personal finances, as well as to
pay taxes. Moreover, citizens of each country must un-
derstand and adequately interpret economic policy, as

well as be aware of the basic macroeconomic indicators
at least at the superficial level. This information is
needed, so the civil society to be able fully implement
the principles of democracy.
In order to teach different professionals (not only
marketers, economists and financiers) how to create an
adequate understanding of their own and national eco-
nomic situation, students of non-economic specialties
are learned different economic disciplines. Most often,
this takes the form of a general economic theory course
(Carlson & Schodt, 1995). However, the need for eco-
nomic education at the bachelor's level has long taken
a serious place, especially in capitalist countries
(Becker & Bartlett, 1991). Modern researchers consider
economics to be an important part of learning in the
21st century (Ferguson, 2011). It should be noted that
even the curricula for economics majors are under scru-
tiny. For example, for several decades, studying of the
undergraduate economic forecasting remains an im-
portant problem (Donihue, 1995).
In fact, contemporary context regarding existing
problem of studying economics at universities is much
broader. Some studies explore different aspects of
teaching economics in a global dimension (Round &
Shanahan, 2005). Accordingly, studies of economic ed-
ucation depending on various parameters are wide-
spread: regional studies, level of economic develop-
ment, type of economic system, needs of a population,
etc. For example, studies of economic education at Brit-
ish universities are quite promising (Davies & Durden,
2010). However, at the current stage of global relations
development, it is equally important for students and
faculties to understand economics functioning in tran-
sitive economies (Walstad & Rebeck, 2001). Moreo-
ver, economic science and education differ within dif-
ferent countries, and even within individual universi-
ties. Therefore, there exists a very important problem
of the uneven economic education at universities
(Bayer & Wilcox, 2019). Given the great difference in
national traditions of teaching economics, Ukrainian
scholars should pay attention to the works concerning
the history of teaching economics in different countries.
For example, an important landmark for capitalism and
market economy is the attitude of American scholars to
the economics teaching in the 1980s (Solow, 1983). In
this context, modern information resources can offer
numerous opportunities for Ukrainian scientists.
Finally, it is safe to say that the interdisciplinary
component of economics is becoming increasingly im-
portant. The last one can successfully replace the "eco-
nomic imperialism" that was prevalent in the second
half of the 20th century. Articles on interdisciplinary
economics began to appear in the early 1990s (Siegers,
1992) and since then, attention to this issue has contin-
ued to increase. For example, at the beginning of the
21st century, fruitful scientific works appeared, com-
bining courses on interdisciplinary economics and crit-
ical thinking (Borg & Borg, 2001). Contemporary
scholars continue to study various interdisciplinary as-
pects of teaching economics (Freedman, 2008). So,
given this context, we decided to investigate the atti-
tude of non-economic specialties students regarding
their loyalty to obtain economic knowledge at Ukrain-
ian universities (specifically in the city of Vinnytsia).
Methodology. The main purpose of our work is to
study the attitude of non-economic major students to
economics (demand for economic knowledge). The
main purpose correlates with the achievement of the
following goals: to investigate students' understanding
of a curriculum, to determine students' attitudes to-
wards studying economic knowledge at university, to
evaluate students' understanding of the relationship be-
tween economic knowledge and the real economy com-
prehension, to determine students' attitudes to theoreti-
cal and practical economic courses, to analyze students’
desire for starting their own business and doing busi-
ness.
The organization of the study was related to ob-
taining permission for questioning among students of
Vinnytsia non-economic universities. We received a
promoting letter from the Department of Education of
Vinnytsia Regional State Administration (VRSA). This
letter was sent to the offices of Vinnytsia universities.
Subsequently, we received permits for questioning
from the pro-rectors of the Donetsk National University
named after V. Stus (based in Vinnitsa since 2014)
(DonNU), Vinnitsa National Medical University
(VNMU), Vinnitsa National Pedagogical University
(VSPU) and Vinnitsa National Technical University
(VNTU). Within the VNMU and VNTU, the survey
was conducted by the staff of the universities. Within
the DonNU and VSPU, the author received further per-
missions for questioning from the faculty members and
directly conducted questionnaires in the student educa-
tional groups of non-economic orientation.
Within the 4 target universities, a survey was con-
ducted among students of numerous non-economic ma-
jors. At DonNU the survey was conducted among stu-
dents of the following specialties: computer science,
applied mathematics, cybersecurity, jurisprudence, in-
ternational relations, history and archeology, infor-
mation and library affairs. At VNMU the main special-
ties among which the questioning were conducted are
medicine, dentistry, medical business and pharmacy.
Specialties surveyed at VSPU: philology, language and
literature (secondary education), geography, chemistry,
labor education, primary education, professional edu-
cation, journalism, fine arts, physical education and
sports, mathematics (secondary education), system
analysis and history (secondary education). Specialties
surveyed at VNTU: automation and computer inte-
grated technologies, computer engineering, cybersecu-
rity, software engineering, information systems and
technologies, ecology. Hence, the survey was con-
ducted among students of 30 different specialties.
The author proposes two main hypotheses, confir-
mation or refutation of which will allow to provide spe-
cific conclusions and basic recommendations:
Hypothesis 1: Students of Vinnytsia non-eco-
nomic universities understand the importance of eco-
nomic knowledge in their curriculums.
Hypothesis 2: Students of Vinnytsia non-eco-
nomic universities are ready to become economically
active population.

The author designed a questionnaire to help inves-
tigate the hypotheses. The developed questionnaire
contained 4 blocks of questions. A total of 20 closed
tests with 4 possible answer options. This paper high-
lights the results of a study regarding the first two
blocks of questions (10 closed tests in total) that corre-
late with above mentioned hypotheses. The question-
naire was conducted within numerous student groups in
the form of paper questionnaires distribution. After ex-
plaining the rules of a questionnaire filling, 10-15
minutes were given to students, directly to fill in a ques-
tionnaire.
The completed questionnaires were processed
manually by the author. A total of 683 questionnaires
were processed. Paper questionnaire answers were
downloaded to a computer and processed using Mi-
crosoft Excel. Than, basic responses were classified by
university, specialty, and gender. Based on these, tables
have been built containing the aggregate results of the
study (the distribution of responses by specialty and
gender will not be covered by us in this article). We
have also constructed the diagrams for visual presenta-
tion of the research results.
Overall, the study took 9 weeks. It took 1 week to
obtain a permission from the VRSA Education Depart-
ment. Obtaining permits for questioning from the uni-
versity administration - 1 week. Direct surveying at
universities - 3 weeks. Systematization and processing
of paper questionnaires - 1 week. Transfer of data from
paper form to electronic form - 1 week. Systematization
of answers into tables and charts - 1 week. Writing an
article - 1 week.
The limitations of the study are related to the fol-
lowing: survey was not conducted at all faculties of the
target universities (except VNMU). In addition, within
VNTU research was conducted mainly among students
of specialties related to computer science and software
development. If we take into account the limitations of
the direct study results, it should be noted that of the
683 questionnaires received, 6 questionnaires were
spoiled. Alike, within some questionnaires, students
did not answer specific questions. There were 25 unan-
swered questions total out of 6770 (677 questionnaires
* 10 questions) in all questionnaires, which is approxi-
mately 0,4%.
Results. Table 1 summarizes the overall quantita-
tive results of our study.
Table 1.
Overall distribution of answers for the VNTU, VSPU, VNMU and DonNU
Block of questions
Question num-
ber
Distribution of answers (votes)
Distribution of answers
(percent)
Keys to the questions A B C D A B C D
Block 1
1 19 211 430 13 2,81 31,17 63,52 1,92
2 41 348 144 143 6,06 51,40 21,27 21,12
3 604 57 13 1 89,22 8,42 1,92 0,15
4 51 351 134 138 7,53 51,85 19,79 20,38
5 59 203 210 202 8,71 29,99 31,02 29,84
mBlock 2
6 193 408 48 27 28,51 60,27 7,09 3,99
7 35 436 146 59 5,17 64,40 21,57 8,71
8 121 160 253 143 17,87 23,63 37,37 21,12
9 251 56 269 96 37,08 8,27 39,73 14,18
10 253 258 115 46 37,37 38,11 16,99 6,79
Source: developed by the author.
Although at this stage the interpretation of the re-
sults is rather superficial, it is still possible to analyze
the distribution of answers in the context of specific
questions. Firstly, Table 1 shows that there is no uni-
form distribution of answers for all 10 questions. Sec-
ondly, in questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 7, one and the same
answer was chosen by more than 50% of respondents.
Thirdly, in the 5th question, the answers are almost
evenly distributed between 3 favorites. Fourthly, there
are two obvious favorites within the 9th and 10th ques-
tions. Finally, although there is a leader in question 8,
the other three answers were answered by approxi-
mately the same number of respondents (the biggest
distance being 5.76%). This is how a cursory analysis
of the answers distribution looks like. Let's have a look
at the coincidence or difference with the overall trend
within individual universities.

Table 2.
Distribution of answers for the VNTU and VSPU
Block of questions
Question
number Distribution of answers for the VNTU (votes)
Distribution of an-
swers for the VSPU
(votes)
Block 1
1 6 72 77 5 4 37 129 2
2 5 100 33 23 19 76 23 55
3 151 9 1 0 152 15 4 1
4 13 80 35 32 16 99 31 26
5 18 49 51 42 16 58 60 37
Block 2
6 45 96 13 6 62 101 8 2
7 12 102 31 15 6 111 40 16
8 44 33 52 32 23 42 82 26
9 59 14 60 26 68 15 64 25
10 61 60 29 10 71 74 22 6
All the universities have answers that are partially
or completely in line with the overall trend. At Vinny-
tsia National Technical University (Table 2), this oc-
curs within questions 2, 3, 4, 5 (partial), 6, 7, 9 and 10.
The distribution of answers to the 1st question for stu-
dents of VNTU is somewhat different: there are two ob-
vious leaders and two outsiders who have scored rela-
tively the same number of points. The distribution of
answers to the 8th question in VNTU differs from the
general trend and is quite complex. So, we will explain
the differences within the 1st and 8th question for
VNTU in the "Discussion of the Results" section.
The answers of Vinnytsia State Pedagogical Uni-
versity students (Table 2) also, to a large extent, coin-
cide with the general trend. Questions 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9,
and 10 are almost the same as the overall trend, the 5th
question is partially the same. The answers to questions
2 and 8 are different from the overall trend. Same as in
the answers distribution for VNTU, here we have only
2 questions that differ from the general trend, and this
allows us to speak about the common moments in rela-
tion to economic knowledge within non-economic spe-
cialties at different universities. To find out if it is true,
the peculiarities of answers distribution in VNMU and
DonNU should be analyzed.
Table 3.
Distribution of answers for the VNMU and DonNU
Block of questions
Question
number Distribution of answers for the VNMU (votes)
Distribution of an-
swers for the DonNU
(votes)
Block 1
1 2 35 97 2 7 67 127 4
2 1 95 24 16 16 77 64 49
3 104 25 8 0 197 8 0 0
4 6 70 31 29 16 102 37 51
5 4 41 43 49 21 55 56 74
Block 2
6 35 83 9 10 51 128 18 9
7 10 85 27 15 7 138 48 13
8 19 32 50 36 35 53 69 49
9 60 20 48 8 64 7 97 37
10 48 46 30 10 73 78 34 20
Within Vinnitsa National Medical University (Ta-
ble 3), the answers to the following questions coincide
with the main trend: 1 (partly), 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 (partly)
and 10 (partly). The underlying trends persist where the
coincidence is partly present, but there is a slightly dif-
ferent distance between favorites and outsiders.
Though the distribution of answers to the 9th question
for VNMU retains the relevance of the main leaders (as
in the general trend), but the distance between them is
greater and the positions of outsiders have changed
places. Despite the aforementioned deviations, the dis-
tribution of answers differs from the basic trend within
only 1 question.
Finally, analyzing the coincidence of the answers
distribution at Donetsk National University (Table 3)
with the overall trend (Table 1), it should be noted that
within questions 1, 3, 4, 5 (partly), 6, 7, 8 and 10 a great
level of correlation is presented. The answers distribu-
tion in the 2nd question for DonNU has an uneven
downward trend: B, C, D, A. The distribution of an-
swers to the 9th question for DonNU has almost uni-
form downward trend: C, A, D, B. Like for the other

universities studied, in DonNU only 2 answers are sig-
nificantly different from the general trend. This indi-
cates that for most non-economic major students at
Vinnytsia universities, a similar attitude towards eco-
nomic knowledge is typical. Considering that we con-
ducted research among 30 non-economic specialties,
we can speak of a broad attitude homogeneity towards
economics and economic knowledge among non-eco-
nomic specialties.
It should be noted that roughly speaking almost
80% of the answers coincide with the main trend, nev-
ertheless 20% of the difference is significant. That is
why, along with the general trend interpretation, we
will do an additional review of differences across indi-
vidual universities (if any). In the case of VNTU, these
are questions 1 and 8; in the case of VDPU – the 2nd
and 8th questions; in the case of VNMU – the 9th ques-
tion; in case of DonNU – the 2nd and 9th questions.
Although the results of the study proved to be quite rep-
resentative – full or partial coincidence of the answers
distribution in 80% of cases – we encourage an individ-
ual approach to teaching economic knowledge to stu-
dents at Ukrainian universities.
Considering the increase of autonomy at Ukrain-
ian universities, we believe that good governance
within them should be encouraged. In view of this,
stakeholder theory should be taken into account. In the
context of the latter, students (the opinions of whom are
analyzed in our study) are one of the key stakeholders
involved in improving Ukrainian higher education.
Therefore, along with the university administration, ac-
ademic staff, local authorities, top-level authorities,
business representatives, civil society, public organiza-
tions, and even parents of students, students themselves
become active participants in the processes of modern-
ization and improvement of Ukrainian tertiary educa-
tion. That is why we invite all other interested parties
to take into account the students' opinion when making
important decisions regarding the acquisition of eco-
nomic knowledge by students within university pro-
grams.
Discussion of the results. The answers to the 1st
question (Figure 1, upper-left diagram) are quite signif-
icant, since very few students have preferred theoretical
knowledge in the specialty and a block of general dis-
ciplines at all universities. Thus, they constitute 3% and
2% respectively. Instead, nearly 64% of the students
surveyed believe that the most important part of the cur-
riculum is both theoretical and practical knowledge that
related to their specialties. In addition, almost 31% of
respondents believe that the most important part of their
curriculums is a practical specialized knowledge. The
only exception here is VNTU, where almost the same
number of students (72 and 77 votes) was split between
practical specialized knowledge and theoretical-practi-
cal specialized knowledge. This indicates that students
of VNTU are more oriented towards practical activity.
In spite of this, the positive option is that the vast ma-
jority of students (almost 64%) have deliberately cho-
sen their specialty and consider it important to study
both theoretical and practical aspects.
Figure 1. The answers to the survey questions (Part 1)
Analyzing the distribution of answers to the 2nd
question (Figure 1, top-right diagram), it must be said
that there is a high level of correlation between the an-
swers to the 1st and 2nd questions. This is reflected in
the fact that the vast majority of respondents (almost
3%
32%
63%
2%
1. What part of the curriculum is the most
important?
theoretical on
speciality
practical on
speciality
both theoretical and
practical
non-core disciplines
6%
52%21%
21%
2. Does the amount of non-core disciplines
need to be changed?
yes, upnward
yes, downward
doubt
no
90%
8%
2%
0%
3. Have you already studied economic
disciplines at university?
no
yes, 1-4 disciplines
yes, 5-10 disciplines
yes, more than 10
disciplines
8%
52%20%
20%
4. Evaluate the importance of economic
disciplines for your specialty:
very important
moderately
important
doubt
not important

52%) are interested in reducing the number of non-core
disciplines in their curriculum. In addition, almost the
same number of respondents believe that the number of
non-core disciplines should not be changed (27.12%)
or doubted (21.27%) about such a need. Only 6% of re-
spondents believe that the number of non-core disci-
plines in the curriculum need to be increased. It con-
firms that the students of Vinnytsia universities are in-
terested in obtaining theoretical and practical
knowledge within their specialties, and therefore they
are concerned about specialties they have chosen. De-
spite latent antipathy towards non-core disciplines, it
will be shown further in the paper that the interviewed
students are quite positive about obtaining economic
knowledge at the university.
Figure 2. The distribution of answers to the 2nd question by university
Figure 2 shows that the distribution of responses
for VSPU and DonNU are significantly different from
the overall trend. Although the largest number of stu-
dents tends to decrease the number of non-core disci-
plines, the differences in distribution require additional
explanation. It is clear that both in the case of VDPU
and in the case of DonNU, a significant number of stu-
dents tend to increase the number of non-core disci-
plines (although this indicator has taken the last place).
In addition, both in the case of VDPU and DonNU, a
relatively large number of students is inclined to say
that the curriculum does not need to be changed at all.
And only in the case of DonNU there is a large group
of students (the second largest for DonNU) who doubt
the need to modernize the curriculum. Such a result is
quite acceptable since abstaining from a particular de-
cision indicates intellectual maturity.
Question 3 in Figure 1 (bottom-left diagram) con-
cerns the number of economic subjects taught to stu-
dents. Since the survey was conducted only among the
1st year undergraduate students of non-economic ma-
jors, it is evident that the vast majority of students did
not study economic subjects. To be precise, 89.2% of
students did not study economic subjects at all, 8.4% of
students studied 1-4 economic subjects, and slightly
less than 2% of students studied 5-10 economic univer-
sity subjects. Of course, with the passage of further ed-
ucation (4 bachelor's and 2 master's years of study) the
attitude of students to economic knowledge may
change. At the moment, it is important to keep in mind
that the vast majority of respondents (89.2%) did not
study economics at university.
In spite of the lack of attention to non-core disci-
plines, the answers to the 4th questions (Figure 1, bot-
tom-right chart) show that the most students have a
clear understanding of the economic knowledge im-
portance for their specialties. Hence, almost 52% of
those surveyed consider economic disciplines to be
moderately important to their specialties, and another
8% consider economic disciplines very important. The
fifth part of those surveyed consider economic disci-
plines insignificant (20%) and another 20% have doubt.
These answers, in turn, echo with the answers to the
following question.
The answers to question 5 (Figure 3, upper-left di-
agram) show that 70% of the respondents are interested
in gaining economic knowledge, while 30% believe
they are not interested in economic knowledge at all.
Given that economic disciplines are not included in the
major of non-economic specialties (first semester), and
the answers to questions 1 and 2 make it clear that most
students are not interested in non-core knowledge, the
situation related to economic knowledge is quite signif-
icant. Thus, 9% of students are very interested, 30% are
moderately interested, and 31% are little interested in
gaining economic knowledge. It can be assumed that
such interest in economic knowledge is related to the
apparent desire to study interdisciplinary subjects re-
lated to the intersection between economics and rele-
vant specialties.
5
19
1
16
100
76
95
77
33
23
24
64
23
55
16
49
VNT U VSP U VNM U D ONNU
2. Does the amount of non-core disciplines need to be
changed?
yes, upward yes, downward doubt no

Figure 3. The answers to the survey questions (Part 2)
Summarizing the answers to the first block of
questions, we conclude that Hypothesis 1 is fully con-
firmed. Although the vast majority of students do not
have a propensity to study non-core disciplines, they
are well aware of the importance to gain economic
knowledge. The following block of questions will give
an opportunity to find out what kind of economic
knowledge students prefer: general economic under-
standing of reality or creation of their own business.
The 2nd block of questions is related to the confir-
mation or refutation of the 2nd Hypothesis. In fact, it
contains questions regarding the real economy under-
standing, opening own business, and the specificity of
demand for economic subjects among non-economic
students.
Figure 3 (top-right diagram) shows that almost
70% of the surveyed students believe that economic
knowledge is needed to understand contemporary soci-
ety. Of these, 29% believe that it is necessary to study
economics as a university subject, and 60% believe that
self-education is sufficient. A much smaller percentage
of respondents (7%) believe that economic knowledge
can be gained from the mass media. Only 4% of the re-
spondents believe that economic knowledge is not
needed to understand modern society, so the latter do
not belong to the economically active population. The
question of whether one can master economics inde-
pendently is rather debatable. On the other hand, such
results speak not only for the students' self-confidence
(regarding the study of economics), but also for the
scattered perceptions regarding the connection between
the life of modern Ukrainian society and real economic
phenomena. In order to better understand this, let's an-
alyze the answers to the following question.
When we look at the middle-left diagram of Figure
3, we’ll see that the most respondents believe that a per-
son who has not studied economic subjects but who is
interested in economics can adequately understand the
real sector of an economy (64%); 5% of the respondents
believe that this understanding can be adequate to a
9%
30%
31%
30%
5. Are you interested in ganing economic
knowledge at university?
yes, a lot
yes, moderate
yes, a little
no
29%
60%
7%
4%
6. Do you need economic knowledge to
understand modern Ukrainian society?
yes, as a university
discipline
yes, as self-
education
yes, from mass
media
no, not needed
5%
64%
22%
9%
7. Can a person who hasn't studied
economics adequately understand the real
economy?
yes, to a great extent
yes, if interested in
economics
no, too difficult
no, only economists
understand
18%
24%
37%
21%
8. Which economic subjects would you
prefer?
only theoretical
only practical
theoretical and
practical
I do not like economic
disciplines
38%
8%
40%
14%
9. Would you like to start aprivate business
that relates to your specialty?
yes, certainly
yes, after graduation
yes, during the life
no
38%
38%
17%
7%
10. Would you like learn courses that relate
to business opening?
yes
rather yes, than no
rather no, than yes
no

great extent. Instead, 22% believe that in such a situa-
tion, it will be difficult to reach an adequate understand-
ing, and another 9% believe that adequate understand-
ing is only available to economists. On one hand, we do
not want to instill an opinion spread within the limits of
economics and to resort to "economic imperialism”. On
the other hand, we will not discuss in what way frag-
mented economic knowledge, provoked by interest in
the economics, can help to comprehend the real econ-
omy. Being impartial, we need to state that just over
64% of those polled believe that adequate understand-
ing is available for curious people.
Generally, the answers to the 8th question (Figure
3, middle-right diagram) are very positive. This is re-
flected in the fact that just over 20% of respondents do
not like economic subjects. This situation is acceptable,
since – once again - the survey was conducted among
non-economic specialties. Consequently, 37% of those
polled have a positive attitude towards obtaining both
theoretical and practical economic knowledge. In addi-
tion, 24% of those surveyed are interested in studying
economic subjects only in practical direction, and 18%
only in theoretical direction. In sum, this gives a large
percentage of interest (79%) concerning economic
knowledge obtainment. If we compare these results
with the previous two questions, it is obvious that stu-
dents have a latent interest in studying economic sub-
jects at the universities, but for various reasons it cannot
convert to a conscious desire. Obviously, this concerns
a superficial understanding of the links between eco-
nomics and respective specializations as well as the the-
ory of interdisciplinarity itself. Taking this into ac-
count, the interest in the economic sphere of public life
is still unformed, nevertheless, consideration of the last
two issues will clearly show that students’ own eco-
nomic interest is well expressed.
Although the distribution of answers to the eighth
question for VNTU is relatively uniform (as in the main
trend), interest in theoretical economic knowledge have
took the second place (44 points), and practical eco-
nomic knowledge same as lack of interest in economic
disciplines rank third. The biggest difference can be ob-
served in the distribution of responses for VDPU. The
answers here are rather uneven. Although no economic
discipline was taught, most students are interested in
economics (approximately 87%). Students are inter-
ested in both theoretical and practical knowledge
(47%), second place is occupied by practical economic
knowledge (24%). The lack of interest in economic
subjects constitutes only 13% (which is less than at
other universities).
86% of the respondents said “yes” to the question
"would you like to start your own business related to
your specialty" (Figure 2, bottom-left chart). Only 14%
of those surveyed have not such a desire. This indicates
that the vast majority of the respondents are ready to
take part in the economic processes within Ukraine and
globally. Specifying the results of the study, it should
be noted that 38% of the respondents are absolutely
sure that they want to start their own business, 8% are
ready to do it immediately after graduation, and 40%
want to open a business during their lives. These results
are largely coincide with the results for VNTU and
VSPU. Instead, the distribution of the answers to this
question for VNMU and DonNU needs further inter-
pretation.
The distribution for VNMU (the 9th question) is
very similar to the general trend, but the ratio between
the favorites and outsiders has changed in cities. For
example, the number of students who do not intend to
start a private business is the smallest among all univer-
sities, while more students want to start a business im-
mediately after graduation. Yet 82% of those polled
want to start their own business and look at it rather
pragmatically.
The distribution of answers to the last question
largely coincides with the main trend (Figure 2, bot-
tom-right chart). So, 76% of the surveyed students
would like to take university courses related to business
start-up. At the same time, half of them are sure that
they want to study relevant courses and half of them are
doubtful. 17% of the respondents believe that they do
not have the desire to study problems related opening
of their own business, and 7% firmly believe that they
do not need such courses. This is largely correlated with
the answers to the previous question. However, we
must say that a relatively small number of students is
frustrated about the essence of economic knowledge
and its place in the system of science.
In general, Hypothesis 2, as well as Hypothesis 1,
is fully confirmed. Students believe that economic
knowledge is accessible for study and comprehension.
They also want to start their own business. In addition,
a very small number of students are not interested in
economic knowledge or business related courses.
Summarizing the results of our study, we conclude
that although students of non-economic Vinnytsia uni-
versities have little interest in studying non-core sub-
jects, there is a hidden interest in gaining economic
knowledge among them. The latter manifests itself in
the awareness of the economic knowledge importance
and it is related to the desire of improving one's own
financial position by opening a private business. That
is why, in the paper, we will take into account the pos-
sibility of this interest consideration by all key stake-
holders.
Given the latest democratic trends and pluralism
within university education that characterize the 21st
century, it is important to emphasize the possibilities of
university autonomy in Ukraine. Reinforcing the latter
can significantly affect the quality of Ukrainian higher
education by seeking individual (or regionally specific)
approaches to conducting scientific and educational ac-
tivities. Increase in the autonomy level of Ukrainian
universities can have a positive impact on the improve-
ment of students’ learning effectiveness, it can also in-
crease the correlation between the content of a curricu-
lum and the activity of graduates in the contemporary
labor market. To do this, a university needs to optimize
relations with all key stakeholders interested in improv-
ing of the learning process quality.
The key stakeholders in the academic sphere can
be divided into 2 main types: internal and external. In-
ternal stakeholders include university governing bod-
ies, academics (scientists and faculty) and students
themselves. External stakeholders include national and

local education authorities, international organizations
and foreign partners, other universities, representatives
of the real economy (business or industry), public or-
ganizations (civil society), and student parents. For the
moment, we will not start a discussion about optimiza-
tion of the communication between key stakeholders
concerning university education. Instead, we note that
this study focuses on the survey of students' thoughts,
and in this context, their opinion should be taken into
account on a par with other key stakeholders. There-
fore, this study contains information that will be useful
both for familiarization and implementation.
A holistic vision of the syllabus in various special-
ties at Ukrainian universities strongly linked to the
number of non-core disciplines. Given the desire to de-
velop a market economy in Ukraine, the administration
and academic community of a particular university
must decide for themselves how much economic com-
petencies their graduates need. It should be noted that
at the Vinnytsia non-economic universities the situa-
tions are quite different. For example, as many as 3 fac-
ulties of economics (or management) are present at
Vinnytsia National Agrarian University. And as of De-
cember 2019 no economic subjects are taught at VSPU.
Therefore, taking into account the results of our re-
search, educational communities of different Ukrainian
universities will be conscious of the results or, if neces-
sary, they can conduct further research.
Considering that our questioning was conducted
among 30 different specialties, we must say that within
each specialty academicians need to use an individual
approach. It is well known that the efforts of faculty
should be concentrated around teaching students the
competencies and knowledge they need to live in the
modern world and to pursue effective professional ac-
tivities. The level of individual industry integration
with the real sector of the economy is quite different,
and therefore it is necessary to take into account the
specifics of specific industries. As for basic financial
literacy, we believe that Ukrainian citizens should re-
ceive it at school or non-formal education levels.
The inclusion of economic subjects (disciplines)
in the curriculums of non-economic specialties depends
on two main factors: the development of a market econ-
omy in Ukraine and the study of experience in higher
education within developed countries. Thus, the admin-
istrations and academic communities of Ukrainian uni-
versities can be guided by both national and global
trends. In any case, the education at Ukrainian univer-
sities that is related to economic competences will af-
fect the size of economically active population and the
reactivation of Ukrainian economic life.
Finally, the possibility of strengthening the eco-
nomic-interdisciplinary component in Ukrainian indus-
try and classical universities is a debatable issue. It de-
pends on the vision of the administrations of specific
universities and the values of specific local communi-
ties. We believe that such issues should be scientifically
substantiated and explored. Therefore, there is a need
for corresponding research to help analyze the views
and thoughts of other stakeholders. The next step may
lay down in the study of the academic community and
university administrations thoughts, or representatives
of the real economy.
Conclusions. Overall, both of our hypotheses
were confirmed. That is supported by the fact that, alt-
hough students are not interested in increasing the num-
ber of non-core disciplines in the curriculums, they do
understand the importance of economic knowledge.
Firstly, 52% of the respondents consider economic dis-
ciplines to be moderately important, and 70% of re-
spondents are interested in obtaining economic
knowledge at the university level. Secondly, the most
of students believe that economic knowledge is needed
to understand contemporary Ukrainian society; such
knowledge is relevant to the study of economics at uni-
versity (29%) and self-education (60%). Thirdly, the
third part of students wish to obtain theoretical and
practical economic knowledge (37%); 24% of respond-
ents are interested in obtaining mainly practical eco-
nomic knowledge, and 18% are mainly focused on eco-
nomic theory. Fourthly, 86% of those polled would like
to start a business related to their specialty. Finally,
76% of those surveyed would like to take courses re-
lated to business training. All the above mentioned
leads to the conclusion that students of non-economic
majors at Ukrainian universities understand the im-
portance of economic knowledge and ready to become
economically active part of the Ukrainian population.
Considering that the opinion of the students them-
selves should be taken into account, we have formu-
lated general recommendations for the improvement
and modernization of the non-economic specialties cur-
ricula. Given that university autonomy is strongly en-
couraged in modern Ukraine, the students' opinions
about the quality of education should be taken into ac-
count on a par with other internal and external stake-
holders. All the key stakeholders should join their ef-
forts to cultivate a holistic vision of curricula and useful
competencies (including economic ones). Attention
should be paid to the systemic study of European expe-
rience in higher education, as well as to the real require-
ments that exist in the labor market. Despite the wide-
spread use of complex interdisciplinary discourses in
Ukrainian science, the very Ukrainian tradition of the
interdisciplinary theory is just beginning to develop.
Therefore, there is a great need for the dissemination of
conceptual directions related to the cultivation of the
global interdisciplinary discourse. The possibilities of
further research are related to various interdisciplinary
investigations regarding Ukrainian science and educa-
tion.
References
1. Bayer A. & Wilcox D.W. (2019). The une-
qual distribution of economic education: A report on
the race, ethnicity, and gender of economics majors at
U.S. colleges and universities. The Journal of Eco-
nomic Education, 50(3), pp. 299-320.
https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.2019.1618766
2. Becker W.E. & Bartlett R. (1991). Preface to
Special Issue on Undergraduate Economic Education.
The Journal of Economic Education, 22(3), pp. 195-
196. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220485.1991.10844709

VOL 5, No 51 (51) (2020)

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (8)

Similar to VOL 5, No 51 (51) (2020)

Similar to VOL 5, No 51 (51) (2020) (20)

More from The scientific heritage

More from The scientific heritage (20)

VOL 5, No 51 (51) (2020)