Russian Realities and Problems/The Development of Science and Learning in Russia

by Alexander Sergeyevich Lappo-Danilevsky

Layout 2

THE DEVELOPMENT OF SCIENCE AND
LEARNING IN RUSSIA

Friendly intercourse, either between nations or individuals, cannot be achieved without mutual knowledge and appreciation of their respective moral forces: for moral forces prove to be powerful springs of action not only in times of peace, but also in times of war, when they reach, in certain cases, their utmost tension and incite men to great deeds.

Although moral forces are not all concentrated in thought, this principle has the greatest combining power of them all and exercises it both in peaceful and warlike activities: thought implies unity of cognition, constantly referred to an object other than the mental state itself, and brings men forward to some definite end, leading through the intricacies of life to a higher destiny^[1].

These considerations prompt me to draw your attention at this Meeting, the main subject of which is the study of Russian civilization, to Russian thought, past and present.

The term "thought," as stated above, particularly in its methodic sense, is distinguished from "will" and "feeling"; but, even with this restriction, it is still too wide for our present object: I shall use it often to cover the leading principles and general movements of philosophy, science, and learning and apply it in this sense to the psychological and historic study of such development in Russia.

The solution of such a problem in its totality would be, probably, unattainable for any one man, even if he were familiar with all branches of human knowledge—science and learning. I have, of course, no such claims and intend to give you merely an approximate idea of what might be done to elucidate some general aspects of Russian thought, as manifested in the scientific and learned work, which is going on in Russia.

Thus conceived, the historical study of Russian thought implies, however, manifold problems: it must be considered not merely in its leading principles but in its characteristic features, and not only in its general movement but in its special development, which depends on local and temporal conditions of Russian life. I have therefore to deal with two sets of problems, concerning Russian science and learning: (1) the leading principles and characteristic features; (2) the general movement and special development. The two sets are, of course, closely connected one with another; in clearing them up I shall take into account this connection.

These problems are not easy to solve; and they grow even more perplexing, if thought be considered as part of a more complicated whole, namely consciousness, and be studied in its relations to will and feeling; if it be, moreover, observed in the process of its realization and regarded as a leading factor in conscious activity. These new problems cannot be treated here at length; but I think I ought not to leave them out entirely, and I shall touch upon them slightly in some concluding remarks on Russian conceptions of consciousness as a whole and on their realization in Russian life.

I

Every thought which has a pretence to knowledge must be unified knowledge; not merely philosophy but every manifestation of science and learning aims more or less at such an end and tries to attain it in different ways.

This principle of unity of thought must be distinguished from the process of unification; it can be realized by different factors or modes of thought.

Two of these, which, in the main, do not exclude one another, deserve, perhaps, some attention: I mean intuitive and discursive thought. Intuitive thought is a spontaneous, creative and inventive power. Discursive thought is a controlling, methodic and orderly power. They can be associated in one person, and this combination is perhaps one of the most pregnant characteristics of genius; but they can be dissociated and represented by different persons belonging to the same or to different nations.

One of the best writers on the history of modern science has made an attempt to apply this distinction to different types of modern European thought: he identified two logically different factors or modes of thought with two actual national types of thought and found these modes existing in different peoples^[2].

Even if this scheme should prove to be true for the characteristics of the thought of some other nations, it would, probably, be too artificial to explain Russian thought. Russian thought can hardly be characterized by either of these modes, and eminent Russian scientific and learned men have been distinguished by the predominance of one or other of them. Besides, some peculiarities of Russian thought, at least, had a much more complicated and concrete origin: they were and still are, in a certain degree, dependent on local and temporal conditions which will be examined here from a historical point of view, mainly in connection with the process of unification.

1

The unifying principles of Russian thought can be perceived in its history and were formed at its different stages in a religious or secular spirit. Let us consider this in some detail and illustrate our statement by some examples.

Religious thought, whatever may be the factors of its evolution, gives, even at its lowest stages, a conception of the world, which tends to a certain unity. Even in heathen times we can trace such a frame of mind. Although Russian mythology could not, of course, reach systematic unity, it contained some germs of unification, around which the varieties of heathen experience were gathered; although the Russian Olympus, even after the attempt of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich to restore the heathen cult, cannot be arranged in a strict hierarchy^[3], yet its chief deity, the angry and jealous Perun, appears as a "centre of crystallisation" for various conceptions concerning the creative powers and processes of nature, connected with thunder-storms and thunder-showers, and even embracing some elements of culture: thus vivifying fire could be obtained, according to tradition, from the oak-tree, which was sacred to Perun; oaths were tendered in his name, and so on.

This unifying tendency became much stronger in Christendom.

Christian monotheism, of course, could not at once abolish polytheistic superstitions, and even in our own times some Russian peasants (for instance, in the government of Pskof) mention Perun in their oaths; but the baptism of Vladimir Svyatoslavovich and his people revealed to them the idea of an Almighty Creator and a benevolent Providence, and thus introduced a somewhat transcendental but harmonious conception of the world, which can be traced, for instance, in the precepts of Vladimir Monomach and other literary works of that time.

This unification in a religious and Christian spirit was, however, transformed by degrees into a dogmatic subordination. The Orthodox Church swayed the minds of mediaeval men and regulated the aims of their "knowledge: it was thought necessary to elaborate the revealed teaching of the Church into a well-balanced system of concepts and to develop it in a chain of regular syllogisms.

This subordination enslaved science and produced scholastic learning. This principle is represented, for instance, by St John Damascene: his treatise on dialectics, in which he tried to adapt the logic of the ancient schools to the teachings of the Orthodox Church, was translated into "Slavonic," and circulated in Russian copies of the 15th century and later^[4]. Maxim the Greek, one of the disciples of John Damascene, formulated this theory in Russian as follows: "logic can be useful in so far as it is employed by us to glorify the Lord and stirs up our love for Him; but it cannot contradict His holy words and must endeavour to agree with them^[5]." Zinovy Otensky, a pupil of Maxim the Greek, conformed to the same doctrine, though he admitted that reason must play a certain part in theological controversies^[6]. A friend of Maxim the Greek—the monk Artemius, also expressed the same idea in one of his letters to the Tsar Ivan the Terrible: "true reason," he said, "is always confirmed by the Bible; and reason, when it contradicts the Bible, is false^[7]."

Thus the principle that reason must be subordinated to revelation was expounded by a father of the Greek Orthodox Church, was stated by a series of Russian writers of the 15th and 16th centuries, and prevailed even in the 17th in Muscovy.

From this point of view the Bible (so far as it was translated) supplied the place of scientific and learned works on nature and man; pious commentaries, e.g., those of Georgius Pisides on God's creation, took the place of treatises on natural science; and the lives of the saints, particularly the great collection of the Metropolitan Macarius, stood for monographs on moral and historical subjects.

Although Greek culture was much better fitted for such a rôle, Russian men of letters began to have recourse to Latin civilization and to study Latin books, particularly those which were of use for theological controversy and scholastic learning. By degrees some notions on formal logic, some dissertations of Aristotle on natural science, expounded in this spirit, some treatises of Thomas Aquinas on justice and other topics, and some works on history, for instance, the chronicle of Martin Byelsky, penetrated into Russia^[8].

This movement developed first in Kiev, and somewhat later spread to Moscow.

The enlightened metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mogila, transformed the famous school at Kiev into a college in 1631; he himself had a humanistic conception of knowledge and education, but the place became later, under Polish influence, a centre of scholastic learning; the enlightened spirit of this college was well represented by Stephen Yavorsky, one of the professors who lectured there for some years before the college was transformed into a theological seminary.

The wise monk Simeon Polotsky, one of the opponents of the learned Epiphanius Slavinetsky, began, probably in 1664, to impart in Moscow the Latin learning, that he had got from the Kiev college and from the Polish schools in Vilna and other cities; one of his pupils—Silvester Medvedyev, was a zealous partisan of Latin learning and took a lively part in the contest, which arose thus early between the zapadniki and vostochniki, i.e., the partisans of "Western" Latin civilization and those who, like the monk Euthymius and the brothers Lihudy, maintained the "Eastern" Greek tradition^[9].

These fears were not entirely unfounded. Men who applied themselves to Latin civilization were sometimes unable to preserve the Greek faith from contamination and to square with its principles all the ideas, more or less intimately connected with the Catholic of Protestant confessions and their sects. Thus Maxim the Greek was somewhat troubled by the ideas he learned during his residence in Italy; Silvester Medvedyev was accused of having expressed Latin rationalistic opinions on transubstantiation; and Matvei Bashkin was perhaps influenced by Protestant or Calvinistic ideas as regards transubstantiation and some other doctrines.

But the fundamental point of view, from which all this knowledge acquired some unity, continued to be religious. The Russian scholars of the 16th and 17th centuries were obliged to conform to the precepts of Russian Orthodoxy, as expounded in the "Profession" of Peter Mogila and the later treatises of Stephen Yavorsky and Theophan Prokopovich, though these were influenced to some extent by Catholic and Protestant ideas. Orthodoxy continued to subdue reason and to humble its independent creative power: for a long time it preserved among Russian scholars the dogmatic and traditional conception of science and learning, and produced such a view as might be expected of natural and historical phenomena. This point of view was conspicuous even in branches of knowledge which, apparently, had nothing to do with theology: thus, the results of arithmetical operations were considered as "miraculous"; different positions of the signs of the zodiac were "explained" by movements produced by angels; peculiar habits of animals were explained in accordance with Christian traditions; and historical facts were selected in order to exalt our past history in the spirit of orthodoxy. П. Милюковъ, Очерки, C.-Пб.}} Orthodox conceptions predominated, moreover, at least in a speculative sense, in the scheme expounded in the "Domostroi" and in political theories acknowledged by the Muscovite government: the Tsar was regarded as the vicegerent of God, and his autocratic power as coming from a divine source. Moscow was represented as the "third Rome," which, after the decline of the first and the second Rome, i.e., Constantinople, was considered to be the principal centre of the Orthodox world. These theories, developed by the monk Philotheus and Joseph Volotsky, were acknowledged by the Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his successors. They had some influence on our political relations with other Orthodox Slavonic nations^[10].

This unifying orthodox conception of the world was, however, a dogmatic construction: it suppressed the varieties of religious experience and fettered the development of Russian thought. This is the principal reason why the Orthodox system could not endure: it was crippled by the great Schism (Raskol), which embodied a protest in regard to some religious rites, and it was unable to stifle the growing power of secular thought in Russia.

 

2

The gradual rise of secular thought in Russia was due to many causes. If we consider these in order of their importance, which, however, does not always correspond to historical sequence, we must notice especially the consciousness of the meaning of truth: in its crudest form it manifests itself in that curiosity which men have about wonderful things; and this feeling was alive in Russians, in the time of the first monarchs of the Romanov dynasty; they interested themselves in "curiosities" that fell within their reach, together with some inventions and novelties which came from foreign lands. But this curiosity could only grow into love of knowledge by reason of its practical value: secular thought was particularly appreciated in its technical applications, and this conception was, for instance, duly expounded in a book on the military art printed by order of the Tsar Alexei Michailovich.

The practical usefulness of science and learning was really one of the essential causes of their development, and the consciousness of this is conspicuous in the popular encyclopedias of the 17th century, known as azbukovniki. Every man of course needed some knowledge of grammar for correct reading and writing, of arithmetic for reckoning, of geometry for measuring, of geography for travel and foreign relations, of history for politics, and so on. In view of these practical needs elementary manuals were composed particularly in the 17th century: thus Meletius Smotitsky wrote the first detailed "Slavonic" grammar in 1619^[11]; Basile Burzev compiled the first Russian arithmetic in 1645; Bogdan Lykov translated Mercator's Geography in 1637, and some of the manuscript copies contained additional Russian notes; Innokenty Giesel produced in 1674 an historical survey of the "beginnings of the Slavonic Russian people and of the first Russian princes, who reigned in Kiev."

In fulfilling these practical ends, secular thought had much more liberty to display itself: and this point of view became predominant in the time of Peter the Great^[12]. He was not without curiosity and even pure love of knowledge; but he appreciated chiefly the public utility of science and learning: thus he used science to build fortresses or ships and organize factories; he wished learning to justify his politics and to glorify his victories.

His reforms were to some extent facilitated by the influence that the Renaissance and the subsequent movements had already exercised on Russian thought, particularly in the 17th century.

The humanistic and individualistic spirit of the Renaissance was not quite unknown to the Russians of the 17th century. Peter Mogila, the enlightened metropolitan of Kiev, had an opportunity of learning something about it, and the monk Epiphanius Slavinetsky, who came from Kiev to Moscow, was acquainted with some of its literary productions. For instance, Russian translations of the treatises of Vesalius on anatomy and of Mozhevsky on politics prove that this movement was beginning to penetrate into literary circles at Moscow.

The confessional type of cvdture which predominated in Europe even in the 17th century had also some influence on Russian literature: Krizhanich was one of the most fervent adherents of Catholic culture. But this type was obliged to give way to the Protestant atmosphere, which found a powerful supporter in Peter the Great and was fairly well assimilated by one of his adherents—the high-spirited Theophan Prokopovich. This influence promoted the development in Russia of the individualistic and rationalistic spirit which permeated, for instance, the conceptions of one of the friends of Protestant culture—Dmitri Tveritinov: he would have paid for his boldness with his life, if Peter the Great had not hushed up the affair (1711–1723).

Thus the growth of secular thought in Russia was to some extent secured by the Emperor himself: in 1725 he founded, for instance, the Academy of Sciences in order that its members might cultivate science and learning and thus refute the opinion according to which Russians were "barbarians." But Peter the Great was much more anxious to propagate technical knowledge among his subjects: he entrusted, at least partly, this business to the Academy and invited some foreign teachers for the purpose; one of them, called Farquharson, edited manuals of geometry, algebra and trigonometry (1719, 1730); and these were supplemented by elementary books on geodesy (1708), mechanics (1722) and other subjects.

At the same time Peter the Great ordered translations to be made of some of the best works on geography, architecture, fortification and artillery, ship-building and navigation, jurisprudence, history and other topics; the chief authors translated were Varenius, Vignola, Vauban and Braun, Allard and Manson, Puffendorff and Stratemann; the Tsar printed, moreover, a defence of his right to dethrone his own son, with quotations from Hobbes and Grotius: and he published a pamphlet, explaining the circumstances that provoked the Great Northern war.

The stream of thought, produced by these somewhat artificial and, in certain cases, violent means, continued to flow and received some new contributions in the 18th and 19th centuries, from German, French and English sources.

These influences, on which I cannot dwell at length, were of different kinds: German philosophy excited in Russian coteries a growing interest in the problem of unity of thought, of a systematic conception of the world, of a harmonious comprehension of nature and man; but it was often marked by its transcendent, metaphysical character, and exceeded the limits of positive science and learning which German scholars were introducing into Russia.

In this respect German influence was supplemented by other movements: French sensualism and English empiricism did much to promote the rise of secular thought and its development in Russia; and the culmination of French and English science which crowned the 18th century and inaugurated the 19th has contributed as much as German learning, and perhaps even more, to the growth of Russian thought in its secular aspect. These influences enriched it, moreover, with new and valuable contents.

The influence of Germany on Russian thought, particularly during the 18th century and the first half of the 19th, must be stated without hesitation. The philosophical ideas of Leibniz and Wolf, of Kant, Herder, and others, penetrated into Russia chiefly through the Academy of Sciences of Petrograd, and the University of Moscow, founded in 1735. After the philosophers of the period of "Enlightenment" came the turn of idealism as taught by Fichte and especially by Schelling and Hegel; this had great vogue in Russian coteries between 1832 and 1848; and of somewhat later date is the temporary ascendancy of Moleschott's materialism, and the theories of Feuerbach, Marx and Engel, which were eagerly welcomed by socialistic groups.

Various branches of science and learning were also planted on Russian soil by German scholars: the great mathematician Euler assisted in the foundation of a Russian mathematical school; the famous historian Schloezer contributed to the formation of Russian historical studies; somewhat later and at different times Weierstrass, Bunsen, Liebig, Ritter, Grimm, Savigny, Ranke, Droysen and Mommsen, besides many others, trained Russian students in mathematics, chemistry, linguistics and folklore, and in history^[13].

French and English influences were less organized: they made way into Russia chiefly through personal intercourse and literature, and were of somewhat later origin. These connections grew conspicuous in the times of the French encyclopédistes, Voltaire, Diderot and others; and the Frenchmen drew the growing attention of Russian readers to Locke and Hume and their followers.

From that time Russian cultured classes became familiar with some of the ideas of Montesquieu and Rousseau, Mably and Raynal, Helvétius and Holbach; and somewhat later they became aware of the theories of Adam Smith, Blackstone and Bentham^[14]. It is clear that German influence was relatively much more exclusive in Russia in the first half of the 18th century than later on. A comparison between two enlightened Russian critics and historians of those times, Tatishchev and Shcherbatov, is enough to prove this. Tatishchev borrowed much from German sources, Shcherbatov was fairly well acquainted with French literature and had some idea even of English, though he could not read it in the original.

By degrees French and English influences encountered the influence of Germany and thus preserved Russian scholars from complete subjection to German thought: this is conspicuous, for instance, in the Philosophical Propositions of Kozelsky and in works of somewhat later origin^[15].

Many of these were conceived under the influence of French and English ideas. The theories of the "ideologues," and particularly those of Destutt de Tracy, had made some impression on the reformers known as the Decembrists; and after the second half of the sixties, the ideas of Comte had some vogue among Russian cultured classes. The views expressed by Mill and Spencer on the Positive Philosophy appeared at once in Russian translations, and nearly all their principal works became accessible to Russian readers. Also modern French science and learning proved to be of great value for the development of Russian thought: Cauchy and Ampère, Dumas and Berthelot, Pasteur and Bernard, St Simon, Proudhon and Fourier, Guizot, Thierry and Michelet, Renan, Fustel de Coulanges and others exercised an influence, partly personal and partly literary, on Russian students. Contemporary English science and learning produced similar results: the great ideas and discoveries of Faraday and Thomson (Lord Kelvin), of Dalton and Maxwell, of Lyell and Darwin, the acute investigations and liberal opinions of Bentley and Gibbon, the brilliant narrative of Macaulay and bold generalizations of Buckle, the suggestive inferences of Tylor, Maine and other writers, could not pass unnoticed in Russia, and some of these writers exercised a considerable influence on Russian minds: for instance, Darwin's investigations into the origin of species were expounded by Kutorga at the University of Petrograd as early as 1860 and found many Russian supporters; and the diffusion of Buckle's ideas among the cultured classes astonished one of his countrymen, when travelling in Russia in the seventies.

These combined influences did much for the development of Russian thought: they relaxed the authority of Orthodox dogma and stimulated free thought. But this state of mind produced a reaction, which manifested itself in mysticism and in freemasonry, first introduced into Russia about 1830. One of the first Russian philosophers—Skovoroda (1722–1794)—was a mystic, who declared that "the invisible" was the essence of the "visible" and must be studied by means of self-knowledge which he combined with some degree of rationalism; one of the Russian freemasons—the well-known Novikov—organized the "typographic company " and the Russian book-trade in 1782.

Thanks to these influences the consciousness of the value of true knowledge deepened: it was expressed in a somewhat clearer manner by Lomonosov. He declared that "faith and truth are own sisters: they proceed from one Almighty Father and can never come into conflict"; and he supposed that the terms "religious action" or "holy action" could properly be applied, in a certain sense, to scientific thought, but that the latter must have its own separate domain. Thus Lomonosov acknowledged the absolute value of science, and this conception grew clearer in subsequent writers.

The variety of these influences must also be noted: it gave to the Russian cultured classes the opportunity of selecting knowledge from different sources and favoured the development of freedom from prejudice and tradition; it enlarged the sphere of their ideas and nourished in them a cosmopolitan and humanistic spirit; it acquainted them with many-sided manifestations of science and learning. This can be traced, for instance, in the works of Radishchev, one of the most enlightened Russian writers of the 18th century, an outspoken critic of despotism and an irreconcilable foe to serfdom.

This variety of influences had, however, one serious defect: it was wanting in unity. And Russian secular thought could attain this unity only after growing independent and in this sense national. Such a unifying national thought was needed, in order to work out this second-hand knowledge and perfect it by discoveries of its own.

National spirit was already very strong in the Muscovite State; but, being intimately connected with Orthodoxy, it could not actively promote secular thought. In the next century this connection was relaxed and foreign predominance produced a national reaction, shown for instance in the animosity, which arose in the Academy between Lomonosov and his German colleagues: he firmly believed in his own creative powers and urged his countrymen to "display their merit." But it was only after the wars which freed Russia and other countries from the dominion of Napoleon, that this national spirit manifested itself in a corresponding doctrine. Byelinsky wrote in 1834: "Romanticism was the principle proclaimed in the times of Pushkin, nationality is the alpha and omega of our own times," and in the name of this "national spirit" Nadezhdin required from his countrymen appreciation of their national individuality, and proper pride in themselves. This doctrine was developed by the Slavophiles—Kiryéevsky, Homyakov, and Aksakov, and later by Danilevsky, the critic of Darwinism, by his friend Strachov and others; some of the "Westerners " also, chiefly Solovyev and Kavelin, were inclined to accept it, but in a different sense. And thus independence of thought was reinforced, to a certain degree, by national feeling.

This independent spirit might have grown much more quickly and continuously, if it had been placed in suitable political conditions: but political circumstances were not favourable to it. I shall not speak of the times when Moscow was a fortified camp, rather than a centre of civilization; but even in later periods of Russian history, when thought was growing up, it was held under considerable restraint.

This occurred of course in times of reaction, for instance, in the last years of Catherine's reign, after the French revolution (1790–1796); under Alexander I, after havoc had been made in the Universities of Petrograd and Kazan, and, in a less degree, of Moscow (1820–1823); in the times of Nicholas I, after the execution of the Decembrists; and particularly after 1848, when philosophy was practically banished from Russian Universities for 13 years (1850–1863), when science and learning were subjected to the strictest supervision, when the Westerners and even the Slavophiles, for instance Herzen and Homyakov, were secretly watched by the police.

In fact, only under the reign of Alexander II, after the "great reforms" of the sixties, after the abolition of serfdom, the promulgation of the new code for the Universities in 1863 and the foundation of many schools for both sexes, the temporary lightening of the censorship in 1865 and some other amendments, Russian thought began to develop more rapidly and to disentangle itself from foreign leading-strings.

Thus the rise of Russian secular thought, produced by the causes which have been considered above, began to manifest itself as early as the 18th century; but it grew more conspicuous only when the combined action of these causes coincided with favourable circumstances and the reforms just mentioned, and this occurred only in the middle of the 19th century: since then Russian thought has developed more independently and continuously, and this can be confirmed in various departments of Russian science and learning.

 

The process of development manifested itself in different domains of knowledge in Russia during the 18th and 19th centuries.

It can be studied either from a quantitative and statistical or from a qualitative and genetic point of view.

General statistical accounts of the growth of science and learning and of the nationality of its chief representatives in Russia hardly exist. Some approximate data, however, concerning the Imperial Academy of Sciences, are in this respect particularly characteristic. During the 18th century the Academy had 107 actual members; only 34 of them, that is 31·98 %, or, if we exclude three members from the Baltic provinces and three members from Finland, only 26·17 %, were Russians; of the foreign members 65 % were Germans. During the 19th century and down to 1908, out of 189 members of the Academy, 139 or 73·96 % (or, if we exclude 16 members from the Baltic provinces and two members from Finland, 69·31 %) were Russians: of the foreign members most were still Germans, 64 %^[16]. Thus the percentage of Russian members of the Academy rose during the whole period from 26·17 % to 69·31 %.

The development of Russian thought in a qualitative or genetic sense manifested itself in different ways: in course of time it revealed much more creative power and became more continuous, thanks to the formation of scientific schools, institutions, and other mediums of communication; but this evolution can be illustrated here only by a few examples^[17]

In a certain degree this process can be noticed even in theology, for instance in the "Introduction" of Macarius Bulgakov to the Principles of Orthodoxy and in an analogous treatise of Philaret Yumilevsky, containing a criticism of German rationalism.

This development, however, is much more conspicuous in Russian philosophy, mathematics, and various branches of knowledge concerning Reality.

The prevalent influence of foreign, and particularly German, philosophy over Russian thought lasted a long while; but in course of time German idealism and materialism found some critics among Russian scholars of the forties and sixties.

From this point of view Sidonsky tried to connect "speculation" with experience, and the Slavophiles proved to be more original than the "Westerners": Kiryéevsky and particularly Homyakov refuted the rationalism of Hegel, whilst Ryedkin and particularly Chicherin remained more faithful to its principles. The Slavophiles had a wider conception of consciousness as a whole than the "Westerners" and hence were not inclined to agree with the rationalistic formulas of Hegelianism which failed to give a satisfactory explanation of reality; but even Chicherin tried to introduce some corrections in the logic of Hegel, and some other "Westerners," for instance Kavelin, were not entirely satisfied by Hegel.

Somewhat later the materialism of Moleschott, Feuerbach, Marx and others passed through a similar phase; Pisarev, for instance, turned from materialism to positivism, and the "anthropological principle" of Chernyshevsky was examined by Yurkevich.

The Positivism of Comte, though assimilated by Vyrubov and propagated by Lezevich before he exchanged it for "empirico-criticism," did not long hold the field: it was attacked by the archbishop Nikanor (Brovkovich) and by one of the foremost representatives of Russian mysticism: V. Solovyev, who was also much interested in epistemological problems, rejected it, and, in agreement with him, one of his intimate friends, Trubetskoy, gave himself up to "concrete idealism."

In modern times the critical philosophy of Kant also found itself challenged by a Russian philosopher, Karinsky: he criticised not only Positivism, but all the systems that were based on criticism; after having published some original views on inductive and deductive logic, he endeavoured to prove that intuitions of space and time can be considered as a priori notions, but that judgments on the laws of intuition (for example, mathematical axioms) proceed also from experience. Some of the ideas of Karinsky were, however, discussed by a consistent representative of Kantian philosophy—Vvedensky, the well-known critic of the metaphysical conceptions of matter, soul, etc.; his pupil Lapchin tried to prove that the laws of logic were not applicable to "things in themselves." Meantime the system of Kant encountered further criticism from Russian intuitionists: Lossky, a pupil of Kozlov, developed comprehensive views on the intuition of the external "transsubjective" world; he formulated a theory concerning the original "coordination" between one's self and the content of this world, and applied it to different parts of philosophy^[18].

The gradual rise of independent research in Russia can be observed even better in the evolution of mathematics, natural sciences and humanistic studies.

Mathematics have developed in a much more logical manner, than other branches of knowledge: for they were much more independent of exterior circumstances and had no need of expensive laboratories, complicated implements, etc ; nevertheless they turned out to be of great practical value and inspired no alarm in the Government.

It is natural, therefore, that mathematics have continuously developed in Russia from the times of Bernoulli and Euler. The latter trained the first Russian mathematicians who were able to use mathematical analysis, particularly Kotelnikov and Rumovsky. Somewhat later Guryev demanded stricter method in mathematical investigations, and Ossipovsky tried to systematize mathematical knowledge; at the same time he bestowed his attention upon the rising genius of Ostrogradsky. After studying in Paris, especially under Cauchy, Ostrogradsky wrote some noteworthy papers, especially on the integration of algebraic functions and the calculus of variations. Together with Bunyakovsky, Ostrogradsky was one of the founders of the Russian mathematical school, which gained great distinction from the work of a famous mathematician of the second half of the century, Chebyshev, who discovered new solutions of many difficult mathematical problems. Chebyshev elucidated the theory of probabilities, elaborated a remarkable theory of numbers, wrote valuable papers on integral calculus and interpolation, continued fractions, and problems concerning maxima and minima, etc.; he started, moreover, new problems which were further investigated by his pupils. Markov, who studied also under the influence of Korkin, was particularly interested in the theory of probabilities and of algebraic numbers and continued fractions; Lyapunov, who gave himself up to the study of theoretical mechanics, guided the first steps of Steklov, and so on. This movement in the domain of mathematics was supplemented by another, produced by the genius of Lobachevsky (1826): his "pan-geometry," which revealed an entirely new and comprehensive conception of space, eventually found some partisans among Russian mathematicians, for instance, Vashchenko, and Zacharchenko^[19].

During the same period the evolution of independent Russian thought concerning the real world in its natural and historical aspect can also be exemplified. Such a knowledge supposes a theoretical conception of Reality as an object of experience, and experience, from an epistemological and even practical point of view, becomes a problem in itself.

The most scientific mathematical treatment of natural phenomena could, however, be applied only to some of them: it turned out to be particularly successful in mechanics. Following Bernoulli and Euler, some Russian scholars contributed to this subject: thus Ostrogradsky wrote papers on the propagation of undulatory motion in a cylinder and on the motion of an elastic body; and more recently Lyapunov solved the problem of the figures of equilibrium not very different from ellipsoids exhibited by a homogeneous and liquid mass with a rotatory movement.

Mathematics and mechanics were applied also to astronomical investigations: one of the colleagues of Bernoulli—the Frenchman Delisle—and Rumovsky a Russian pupil of Euler, began this work; but it was organized somewhat later, after the foundation of the Observatory at Pulkovo in 1839, by Struve and his pupils. In course of time Bredihin, a former student of the University of Moscow, became director of this institution: he was well known for spectroscopic and other investigations on the comets and shooting stars; and the recent Director, Backlund, very highly appreciated in scientific circles, was himself aided by one of the assistants of Bredihin, the astrophysicist Byelopolsky.

These various branches of knowledge received some new applications in the study of geodesy, which particularly concerned Russia. The materials collected by Delisle and Kirilov, an amateur of Russian cartography, proved to be of some use even for the Atlas of 1745^[20]; the determinations and measurements made by Vishnijevsky, Struve and others before the foundation of the Observatory of Pulkovo, and the subsequent triangulations of the military topographical department, made by Stebnitsky, Tillo and others, contributed largely to the improvement of Russian maps: the best of these were executed by Stryelbitsky and his assistants.

Mathematical treatment could not, however, overcome all the difficulties which such an investigation presented in respect to complicated natural phenomena, particularly in the early days of Russian science. In the i8th century Russian thought was still unable to state general laws and could only observe phenomena in part; but in course of time experiment produced a greater knowledge of scientific law, above all in the physical and chemical sciences studied at the Imperial Academy. Before Euler published his Dioptrics, Rihmann had already made some experiments in electricity in which Lomonosov had a certain share; this high-spirited Russian man of science wrote also on optics and formulated some fundamental propositions concerning the mechanical theory of heat. Somewhat later, in the first half of the nineteenth century, besides Lenz and Kupfer, Petrov, one of their Russian colleagues, acquired some renown in practical physics.

Theoretical physics were further elucidated by Umov and partly by Hvolson, famous as well for his actinometrical studies. At the same time the experimental spirit, further cultivated by Stolyetov and others, attained its highest point in the famous investigations of Lebedev on the pressure of light, and manifested itself in the valuable seismographic observations and inventions of Prince Golitsin.

In course of time the physical interpretation of natural phenomena was applied also to the study of weather: Kraft and Lomonosov had been aware of the importance of systematic meteorological observations, but these were not organized till much later, particularly after the foundation of the chief Physical Observatory (1849), by Kupfer and Wild; the materials collected under their direction, in different parts of the Empire, were studied by Veselovsky, Voyeikov, Klosovsky and others.

Chemistry was even more fortunate: conceived in a quite modern way by one of the earliest Russian men of science, it was subsequently studied with great success in different Russian schools.

Some years before the foundation of the University of Moscow, Lomonosov expressed original views on this subject: as a believer in the "corpuscular philosophy," he tried to apply quantitative analysis in studying the physical properties of bodies: he thought it necessary to ascertain their measure, weight and proportions; he was "the father of physical chemistry"; in his inquiries he implied the principles of conservation of matter and of motion; he established fairly clearly some other propositions of this new science, concerning not only the mechanical theory of heat, but also the kinetic theory of gases, the continuity of the three states of matter, etc. And thus Lomonosov formulated the conception of a new science—physical chemistry, which has grown up only in our own days: "physical chemistry," he wrote in 1752, "is a science, explaining theoretically and empirically, by means of physical experiments, the causes of the chemical processes which go on in compound bodies^[21]."

These operations, however, could not be carried far at that period; even Lovitz still adhered to the phlogiston-theory, and only at the beginning of the 19th century Petrov and others tried to prove its inconsistency. Still later, after the discoveries of Kirchhof and Hess in the domain of catalysis and thermo-chemistry, Russian chemists began to make further original investigations: in 1842 Sinin arrived by means of experiment at some organic bases of chemical processes and obtained very valuable results with regard to aniline. He founded a famous school of Russian chemists: one of these, Butlerov, established a new principle of "chemical constitution" of matter, and had in his turn pupils, who worked under his influence—Markovnikov and Saitsev; Beketov began his investigations also under the direction of Sinin and developed original views on the affinity of chemical elements and on thermo-chemistry. Some years after the principal discovery of Sinin was made, Mendeleyev, a most talented supporter of the theory of "chemical types," discovered the periodic law of elements, and Menshutkin founded a new centre of chemical inquiries.

Similar investigations in other branches of natural science developed during this period and were also made subsequently by foreign and Russian students, who began to state the laws which manifest themselves in different forms and processes of matter and life, and tried to complete their observation by experiment. This conception, however, took time to develop: the views of Lomonosov on the physical and chemical processes by means of which the origin of different minerals could be explained (e.g., rock-salt, fossil coal and amber), on the natural uniformity of crystals, and on the phenomena of metamorphism, were too premature to be followed up by Russian students: even their foreign masters had then no clear ideas on these subjects, but confined themselves mostly to observation, and their Russian pupils began to practise it with some success. An assistant of the self-denying Gmelin-Krasheninnikov, for instance, produced a substantial botanical survey of Kamtshatka; Lepechin a collaborator of the learned Pallas, the framer of Russian "zoography" and palaeontology, published an accurate description of the natural wealth and folk-roads of the northern provinces of the Empire; and some years later Osereshkovsky and Zuev recorded valuable observations made during travels in Russia.

This descriptive tendency assumed by degrees a more scientific and precise character: it is conspicuous in the first half of the 19th century, for instance, in the work of Severgin and Koksharov on Russian mineralogy, of Ledebour and Turchaninov on Russian flora, and of Brandt and Kutorga on Russian fauna^[22].

In the second half of the century some general principles were stated by Russianised or Russian men of science and could be confirmed by experiment: and more profound and comprehensive views on nature which gave a new direction to observation were at this time enunciated.

This movement manifested itself, for instance, in the domain of mineralogy. Gadolin, who perceived very clearly the value of mathematical formulae and geometrical figures in order to express the laws which regulate the symmetry of crystals, put forward the hypothesis of a homogeneous crystalline substance enclosed in them. Gadolin's work was continued and improved by Fedorov: he elaborated a vast scheme of all possible structures of crystals. Vernadsky studied, not only crystallography, but some of the physico- and geo-chemical processes in minerals and began to describe their types in a systematic survey.

Progress was made also in anatomy and physiology: Pirogov, the celebrated pupil of the Dutchman, Moier of Dorpat, made an important contribution to the development of anatomy: he anticipated the bacteriological theory of blood-putrefaction and used anaesthetics in surgical operations which were further improved by Gruber; Yakubovich, and, somewhat later, Bechterev made acute microscopical investigations concerning the anatomy of the nervous system; meanwhile Syetchenov became famous for his physiological researches, particularly on the cerebro-spinal reflexes, while Pavlov elaborated a lucid conception of the reciprocal action of the organs which play a part in the normal life of the body, and began his celebrated experiments on the circulation of blood, the secretory functions of the digestive glands, and the reflexes of the brain.

More complicated and concrete sciences, such as botany and zoology, were also progressing during this period: Zenkovsky was one of the first to study the anatomy and physiology of plants, and contributed to the progress of bacteriological investigations. Famintsin also worked at the physiology of plants and explained the influence of light on them, and the phenomena of symbiosis; Timiryazev, a convinced partisan of the mechanical conception of physiological processes and a strict adherent of Darwinism, studied the composition and properties of chlorophyll, and other questions of vegetable life. Zoology and particularly embryology owed much also to Russian students: this new science was founded by Baer, one of the greatest embryologists; but Baer was not prepared to accept the theory of evolution in its phylogenetic sense; and this was done by Kovalevsky and Metchnikov, who contributed to further progress. Kovalevsky made very important investigations concerning the embryogeny of invertebrates (Ascidiae, Amphioxus lanceolatus, Bonellia, Sagitta, etc.), their secretory organs, lymphatic glands, etc. Metchnikov was, with Kovalevsky, one of the founders of the modern embryology of invertebrates: he proved that their embryonic layers develop in a way similar to those of higher organisms, as may be seen in scorpions and other types; he signalized himself moreover by his microbiological studies on intracellular digestion and on the struggle of amoebomorphous cells (phagocytes) against infectious microbes in animal organisms, for instance in the Daphnia magna.

Most of these Russian students of nature exercised a great influence on the pupils who continued their work. Pirogov had many pupils; Syetchenov was the "father of physiology" in Russia; Pavlov organized the physiological studies in the Medical Institute; Zenkovsky guided the first steps of Famintsin, who, in his turn, moulded Palladin, Borodin and others. The assistance given by Kovalevsky and Metchnikov to younger men working in similar fields is testified to by the famous embryologist, Salensky; Bogdanov formed a school of Russian zoologists, represented by Shimkevitch, Nasonov and others. Many of these devoted themselves to the study of more special subjects^[23].

The results of these studies were applied also to more complex domains of knowledge concerning geographical and geological phenomena, particularly those which had some relation to Russia.

The geographical explorations undertaken by the Academy of Sciences in the i8th century proved very fruitful in scientific results, particularly the "Great Northern expedition" of Gmelin the elder and Muller (1733–1743), and the travels of Pallas in different provinces of the Empire. Somewhat later similar expeditions were organized, chiefly under the patronage of the Geological Society (1845), for instance, those of Middendorf, Przsevalsky, Semenov Tyanshansky, Potanin, Pyevtsov, Syevertsov and many others. Geographical exploration was not confined to Russian Asia: Mikluha-Macklay, for instance, spent some years in New Guinea among the Papuans and in other places, where he made valuable zoological collections and ethnographical observations^[24].

In course of time these collections and observations were scientifically treated either by the travellers themselves, or by independent investigators, and were brought into connection with anthropological studies: one of the pupils of Bogdanov, Anutchin, well known also for his geographical works, began to deliver lectures on anthropology and organized the Anthropological Museum at the University of Moscow; he published his investigations on the tribe of the Ainu, comparing archaeological data with ethnographical observations on the bow and arrows, and on the use of sledges, canoes and horses in burial rites.

The rise of geological science in Russia was of later origin. Messerschmidt and other travellers had gathered geological data; and Lomonosov had anticipated some modern views on the gradual formation of successive strata in connection with the internal heat of the earth, and on the origin of subterranean minerals; but, even after the inauguration of the Mining School in 1774, geology was not studied as a separate science until Murchison made an attempt to give a general conception of the geological structure of Russia and the Ural Mountains, which had great influence on subsequent geological studies. Before Murchison's date, however, Helmersen began his travels: he made a study of the Devonian system and elaborated the first geological map of Russia; somewhat later Karpinsky entered upon his various geological, petrographical and palaeontological inquiries; Chernyshev set to work on the palaeozoic period, particularly in the Ural mountains, and Dokutchaev devoted himself to the investigation of the Russian soil in the fertile southern provinces. The Geological Committee was founded in 1882, and some Russian geologists earned reputation by special researches in different parts of the Empire: Schmidt, in the Baltic provinces, Inostrantsev in the north and Pavlov in the middle of Russia, Mushetov in Turkestan, the Urals and the Caucasus.

Some of these geological investigations were more or less related to prehistoric studies, and the geologists themselves, for instance, Golovkinsky, Inostrantsev and others, were inclined to promote anthropology. Count Uvarov was one of the first to devote himself to this special study: he published a comprehensive work on the prehistoric antiquities of Russia, and this was supplemented by further investigations of Antonovitch, Anutchin and others.

In spite of this development in natural science, speculative philosophy continued to control some of the moral sciences in Russia. Thus for a long time philosophy was intimately connected with psychology. In 1783 Anitchkov, one of the adherents of the Wolfian doctrine, wrote papers on the immortality of the soul and on the connection between mind and body, which he explained, in the Aristotelian and scholastic spirit, by the doctrine of the inflexus physicus. This tie became weaker under the influence of the "empirical psychology": Galich had become aware of its value, and some thirty years later Ushinsky had made an attempt to analyse the phenomena of feeling and will. The scientific study of nature had naturally much effect on psychology: Syetchekov tried to solve the problem of mind and body in this way and in his reply to Kavelin's pamphlet expressed the opinion that only physiologists can attempt a solution. Troitzky wished "to exclude metaphysics from psychology," and introduced English empirical psychology to Russians. This movement, partly supported by Vladislavlev, an adherent of Fechner, was however, exposed to some fluctuations. Grote, at the beginning of his career, was ready to accept it from a "positive" point of view, but later turned to metaphysics and terminated by applying the general law of conservation of energy to psychical processes. The metaphysical conception of psychology provoked, moreover, criticism in the modern scientific treatises of Orshansky and Lange, in the works of Chelpanov, Vvedensky and others^[25]

In course of time further applications of physiology and psychology were made in the domain of linguistics: here, as in other departments, description of facts preceded their explanation. General knowledge of this kind was, of course, very scarce in Old Russia: but Messerschmidt and other travellers, particularly in the second half of the 18th century, had gathered linguistic materials. Backmeister made a great collection of such data, which were published in a great dictionary of "all known languages" under the direction of Pallas. The study of Indo-European languages began in the same century, from the time of Baier who took some interest in Sanskrit, and was directed especially to Russian grammar. Lomonosov made a valuable attempt to establish the principal groups of Slavonic languages; he distinguished also the Church-slavonic and Russian elements of our language, elucidated its "rational use" and sketched its probable development; and his views were adopted by Barsov and other Russian writers. Later on, comparative linguistics began to be treated in a much more scientific way: Korsh was well versed in European and even Oriental languages, but neither he, nor Böthlingk, the great Sanskritist, was able to found new linguistic schools in Russia : these arose, thanks to the learned activity of Fortunatov in Moscow and Baudouin de Courtenay in Kazan. The late professor Fortunatov made acute investigations concerning the comparative grammar of Indo-European languages and their dialectical-peculiarities in the most ancient periods. The original representative of the neogrammatical movement, Baudouin de Courtenay, studied the physiology and psychology of language: he discovered the laws of reduction of the stems of words in favour of their terminations, and of phonetic change, and was specially interested in the Slavonic dialects. These distinguished linguists had pupils who continued their work. Shachmatov, Ulyanov and others represented the Moscow school; Krushevsky, Bogoroditsky, Bulich and others, the Kazan school of linguistics. At the same time Potebnya, a follower of Steinthal, applied psychological principles to the investigation of etymological and syntactical as well as semasiologic phenomena in the Russian language: he elucidated the relations of thought to language and studied the folklore of Little Russia; and his views were expounded by Ovsyanikov-Kulikovsky and Sumtsov^[26].

While psychology was dominated by speculative philosophy, it could not have much influence on the development of sociology: but social science was, especially at first, closely related to ethnography, which developed in connection with natural science and thus produced a corresponding conception of social phenomena.

The ethnographical study of the different nations and tribes of the Russian Empire was simplified by the ethnographical maps, anticipated by Kirilov and compiled by Koeppen and Rittich. The publication of materials collected by Georgi, Chulkov and others, began in the 18th century. In course of time this work became more specialized. Sacharov, Tereshchenko, Dal and others were particularly interested in Russian dialects and ways of thought and life, the study of which was promoted by Nadezhdin and enlarged by the expedition of Chyzhbinsky; Klaproth, Castren, Sjögren, Radloff and somewhat later Yadrintsev, Smirnov and others studied the languages, folklore and folk-roads of the Ural-Altaic peoples; while Miller, Uslar and others contributed to our knowledge of the ethnography of the Caucasus. In recent times old and new materials have been classified, particularly in the ethnographical museums of Petrograd; and the late Professor Haruzin summed up the results of this work in his lectures on ethnography^[27].

Sociological studies appeared somewhat later. They were inaugurated in the sixties by Lavrov, a writer who, at the beginning of his career, was considerably influenced by Hegel. Lavrov introduced the "subjective method" in sociology: he arrived at the conclusion that social facts cannot be merely counted but must be weighed also. This point of view was developed by Mihailovsky, Karyeev, Tuzhakov and others; they maintained, that the conception of human personality cannot be exclusively theoretical: it must be at the same time moral and therefore not only explained, but estimated; and social facts, being a product of the reciprocal relations of such personalities and acting on them, must be appreciated. Later sociological studies fell, however, under French and English influences—and chiefly that of Comte's positivism and Spencer's evolutionism. The positive philosophy of Comte became popular in Russia in the second half of the sixties, and Lavrov took an interest in it. Comte's sociology was also appreciated by Mihailovsky and De Roberty; Kovalevsky studied it when he was still a student at Harkov and applied some of its principles as well as those of Spencer's "genetic sociology" in his subsequent works on this subject; he tried to combine sociology with the comparative and historical study of institutions and their evolution. Besides many admirers, Spencer's sociological theory had. however, some critics; one of these, Mihailovsky, a believer in social psychology, wrote vigorous articles on the reciprocal action of the individual and society, on progress and other matters. At the end of the century some Russian admirers of the "economic materialism" of Marx and Engel, partictilarly Beltov, Struve and others, criticised these conceptions, and the psychological theories of Ward, Tarde and other writers which were easily assimilated by the Russian representatives of the "subjective school" and of genetic sociology: these critics ridiculed, just as their authorities did, the failure of most of the previous Russian sociologists to perceive that the "material powers" or methods and corresponding relations of production in material existence "determine social, political and mental evolution in general." This theory contested by the "subjectivists," had some influence on the adherents of genetic sociology: Kovalesky adopted it to some extent, and attempted, for instance, to prove a somewhat closer connection between the family and private property; but nowadays some of the Russian representatives of economic materialism incline to a different conception of social life, being manifestly influenced by the Kantian doctrine of ethics^[28].

Meanwhile a more special statistical treatment of social phenomena began to develop: its beginnings can be traced in the old books of Botero, D'Avity, Petty and others, some of which were probably known in Russia: Kirilov had compiled a description of the "flourishing state" of the Russian Empire in 1727. Somewhat later Schloezer, author of a treatise on the Theory of Statistics, and Herman and Storch undertook a similar task, and performed it in a more satisfactory way; but even they confined themselves to mere description, and this tendency was still conspicuous in the works of Arsenyev. But, in the second half of the 19th century, Janson started a more theoretical conception of statistics, as a science of social phenomena which can be studied in a great number of cases and consequently admits of exact mathematical reasoning; in this scientific spirit he organized the official census and arranged many statistical data, particularly with regard to rural economy. The late Professor Chuprov also made some valuable contributions to the general study of statistics and investigated railway-economics; he also contributed to the success of the statistical investigations into rural economy undertaken by the Zemstvos. The theory of statistics was further developed by Janson's pupil, Kaufman, and by Chuprov the younger, one of the modern representatives of the mathematical school of statistics; while practical applications were made in several Zemstvos by Orlov and other investigators.^[29]

Statistics were, of course, closely connected, particularly in previous times, with economics. This science developed in Russia from the beginning of the 19th century: it was expounded by Schloezer (the younger) and Storch in the spirit of Adam Smith; the French treatise of Storch, however, was in a certain degree independent; it contained, for instance, dissertations on the principle of value and labour, on material and immaterial goods, and on free trade. After foreigners came Russians: one of the earliest Russian economists, Chivilev, was a pupil of the Dorpat school, who learned English in order to read English economists in the original; he explained the general laws of economics in his lectures. Vernadsky, his successor in Moscow, elaborated a more comprehensive conception of political economy as a "theory of labour" or a system of "economic activity," and demonstrated the influence of the material prosperity of a country on its finances; he also showed a turn for historical studies and a practical interest in the modern economic state of different European countries. The moderate liberal views of Vernadsky, in the main supported by Gorlov, provoked criticism: Chernyshevsky, one of the most active representatives of the socialistic movement, expounded its principles and was particularly anxious to elucidate the part which the Russian village community was to play in the subsequent evolution of the country; he tried to prove that the mir was able to develop collectivism—a conclusion which was later supported by Vorontsov; he expressed the conviction that capitalistic production, considered in its historical aspect, was not possible in Russia, The liberal school—Posnikov, Isaev and others—were inclined to accept rather than reject these views. During these controversies the historical school made further progress: to a certain degree Korsak manifested such a tendency in his acute investigations on "the forms of industry"; Yanshul contributed to it in his studies on the influence of economic conditions on finance; many others maintained it in more special works. The evolution of the historical school was, however, visibly hindered by the vigorous expansion of Marxism in Russia. In his general treatise on political economy Chuprov adopted Marx's theory of value, although he was rather inclined to adhere to the historical school; besides railway economics, he studied the small farm industry and the various forms of cooperation necessary for its success, wrote articles on different questions, some of which concerned practical economics, trained many pupils, etc. Vorontsov and Nicolaion agreed with Marx's attack on capitalism. Plehanov, Iljin, and, for a time, Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky and many others became convinced adherents of Marx's doctrine and developed it to its utmost consequences. In course of time, however, a new tendency, partly anticipated by Sieber, manifested itself: Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky and some others began to appreciate the ethical principles of social organization and evolution; the manual of Tugan-Baranovsky, for instance, is written by an author who tries just now to apply Kantian morals to the construction of a socialistic ideal.

The study of law and institutions in Russia had a more remote origin: it developed under the influence of "natural law," expounded, for instance, by Pufendorff, and accepted by Gross, one of the first members of the Academy. After the foundation of the University in Moscow, Dilthey began to deliver lectures there on natural law, and Zolotnitsky published a short survey of its principles; much later Kunitsyn examined them in an elaborate treatise, written under the influence of Kant. Meanwhile there arose a new tendency, due to a more conscious appreciation of Russian positive law. Dilthey tried to apply the system of Roman law to Russian statutes; but Polyenov, who had studied at Strassburg and Goettingen, and Desnitsky, a pupil of Adam Smith, had a much more historical conception of jurisprudence; Desnitsky wrote able essays on civil law and a project for a Russian constitution. Thereupon Speransky, author of a little treatise "on the study of law," elaborated his plan of 1802 also under English influences, though later he turned to French models; he also superintended the publication of the great collection of laws which have proved to be one of the principal sources of historical information for subsequent investigators; and he encouraged some young students of law: Nevolin, Ryedkin, Krylov, Meier, etc. Further steps were made by Russian scholars in the general knowledge of law, particularly in the second half of the 19th century: some of them, for instance the Hegelians Nevolin, Ryedkin and Chicherin, the positivists Korkunov and Muromtsev, the psychologist Petrazhitsky, acquired renown by their works on the general theory of law. Others cultivated special branches: Krylov, trained by Savigny, delivered brilliant lectures on Roman law in its historical aspect; his pupil Duvernoy manifested a great aptitude for juridical construction, which he applied to Russian civil law. These general conceptions were somewhat neglected by Pobyedonostsev and even impaired in their value by his extreme conservative principles: but he studied Russian institutions in a comparative and historical way, closely connected, as in his dissertations on landed property and succession, with practical aims. Shershenevich turned to more theoretical investigations, breathing a liberal spirit, and expounded them in his manuals. This movement was supplemented by studies in a kindred domain: Sokolov, Pavlov, Gortchakov and others elucidated canon law. The "great reforms" of the sixties promoted legal studies, particularly those which concerned public law and institutions; they were undertaken by Andreyevsky, Romanovich, Slavatinsky and some of their contemporaries. One of the chief of these was Gradovsky: he appreciated very highly the principles of legality and liberty in political life and studied their evolution in European constitutions; from this point of view he considered nationality as a basis of political development and investigated the part it had played in the formation of Russian public law and organization: in his famous treatise he elucidated, besides these principles, the rôle of public offices and of central and "local" institutions in Russia. Gradovsky had many pupils: one of these, Korkunov, conceived the State as a juridical relation, the subject of which is "all the (capable) population" and the object—the power of domination; from this point of view he treated of Russian public law and institutions. Some colleagues and some pupils of Gradovsky, the adherents of the classical school Spasovich and Tagantsev, contributed largely to the study of criminal law, and Foinitsky expressed original views on "criminality"; Martens wrote a systematic treatise on international law, conceived in a positive spirit, and trained some pupils: Pilenko studied this subject in a dogmatical spirit and in its connection with private institutions; while Nolde sought to make an historical appreciation of the public and private relations at present subsisting between nations^[30].

This growing independence of Russian thought in the domain of natural and moral sciences was supplemented by an analogous process in historical learning.

The critical historical spirit began to appear in Russia in the 18th century. Baier, one of the first members of the Academy, had gained a reputation by his investigations into some unsettled questions of oriental and Russian history, particularly the origin of the Russian state and the Varyagheans. Somewhat later Schloezer expounded a comprehensive view of the history of Northern Europe and produced a very learned work, containing a critical interpretation of the Chronicle of Nestor. Meanwhile Shcherbatov began to study general Russian history in a "pragmatic" way, and Boltin formulated some scientific views of the natural factors which determined its course, particularly as to Russian manners and customs, and of the consistency which is to be desired in their development.

This differentiation between universal and Russian history grew more conspicuous in course of time. The critical spirit applied by some of the German historians to the study of Russian history penetrated into a coterie formed by Rumyantsev at the beginning of the 19th century: he was supported by Krug and other learned men. The works of the eldest member of this group—the metropolitan Eugène Bolshovitinov, were distinguished by acuteness and learning and prepared the way for later synthetic surveys of Russian history. The first of these, Karamzin's History of the Russian State, was, however, mainly a brilliant literary production; and subsequent Russian historians, while availing themselves of the wealth of information which it contained, particularly in the notes, elaborated a more scientific construction of our past.

Further development of Russian historical thought manifested itself after the publication in 1835 of the new regulations for Universities. Since that time, universal history has received much more independent treatment, thanks especially to Kutorga in Petrograd and Granovsky in Moscow.

The learned "humanist" Kutorga studied, under the influence of Niebuhr's criticism, mainly ancient history; he gave Considerable credit to Greek historical tradition and made some valuable investigations in the constitutional history of Athens. Sokolov, one of his pupils, started the study of Greek epigraphy, which was continued by Latyshev and other pupils. But the main object of Kutorga's investigations was not abandoned: Buseskul worked on in this direction. Meantime Zyelensky began to elucidate the spirit of classical antiquity in connection with modern culture, indicating especially the value of Sophocles, Cicero and other writers for our own times, and his pupil Rostovtsev entered upon his learned investigations on the Hellenistic-eastern origin of the Roman colonial system, and on antique decorative art in South Russia.

The study of mediaeval history was considerably promoted by Granovsky, a disciple of Ranke, Thierry and other German and French historians: he expounded his humane views in a mild social spirit and with an eloquence which charmed his audience and called forth the historical works of Kudryavtsev and Eshevsky. The attempt of Granovsky to deliver public lectures on the Reformation could not, however, be carried out for political reasons, and modern history was not liberated until the second half of the century. Guerrier, formerly a student of mediaeval history, introduced sound historical method into Moscow University, and was particularly interested in the history of European culture in the times of Augustine and Francis of Assisi, in Leibniz and Mably, the French Revolution, etc. Some of his pupils turned from the study of ideas to social and economic history: from this point of view Vinogradoff conducted learned and acute investigations into the origin and development of feudalism in Italy and England, where this process was correlated with the decay of the free village community and its subsequent enslavement, and with the growth of the manor. Another pupil of Guerrier and prolific writer, Kareyeev, devoted himself particularly to the modern history of Europe, and, besides his voluminous work concerning the history of its civilization, wrote some original monographs on the history of rural classes in France and on the French Revolution. These historians formed in their turn new historical schools: following Vinogradoff, Petrushevsky and Savin studied social and economic history in England; following Karyeev, Onu and Butenko elucidated the history of some institutions of modern France. The history of culture was not, however, quite abandoned: Korelin, who was under the influence of Guerrier, devoted himself to the study of Humanism in Italy. But social and economic history proved more attractive, as is shown by the scientific career of Luchitsky: after some dissertations on the religious and political relations between Catholics and Calvinists in France, he devoted his powers to investigating the history of the rural classes, particularly in France, before and during the Revolution, and the growth of their landed property.

These different tendencies revealed themselves, moreover, in other special domains of historical knowledge. The development of ideas was, for instance, elucidated by Bolotov and Glubokovsky in critical works on early Christianity; by Novitsky and Prince Trubetskoi in dissertations on the history of ancient philosophy; by Bobynin and Bubnov, Stolyetov and Vernadsky in researches on mediaeval and modern science; by Guerrier and Karyeev, Petrov and Buseskul in treatises on former historical conceptions; by Korsh and particularly by Veselovsky in his noteworthy monographs on the genesis and expansion of literary subjects and on the evolution of poetical forms; by Stephani and Kondakov in monumental inquiries into the plastic arts; by Ryedkin and particularly by Chicherin in his voluminous history of political theories. The development of economics attracted the attention of those, who, like Vipper and Petrushevsky, were under the influence of Marxism, and was studied by other historians: Kovalevsky discussed, for instance, the growth of population and represented the economic evolution of Europe down to the rise of capitalism; Tarle attended to the history of the working-classes in its connection with industry in France during the Revolution, and to the continental blockade; Kaufman was interested in credit, currency and banking, particularly in England; Kulisher attempted a general historical survey of economics in Western Europe, and so on. The history of institutions was somewhat less studied: besides Gradovsky and others noted above, Kovalevsky explained the rise and development of political institutions in many European states and the origins of modern democracy; Ostrogorsky cleared up the political forces or parties, which put it in motion; and Ardashev investigated the history of provincial administration in France before the Revolution.

Meantime one of the best representatives of the criticism inaugurated by Kutorga, the learned Vasilyevsky, founded a critical school in Petrograd and applied its principles particularly to the study of Byzantine history and historiography: he elucidated the development of the Byzantine village-community and its decay, the tax-system of the Empire and its legislation, particularly in the times of the Iconoclasts, its relations to Russian affairs and barbarous tribes. Bubnov, one of his pupils, applied the critical method to the examination of mediaeval annals; others began to study Byzantine history, and Uspensky produced valuable works on its sources, on the religious movement and the village community in the Byzantine Empire, and endeavoured to give a general survey of its history; and this last task was undertaken also by Kulakovsky.

These investigations were, of course, closely connected with Slavonic studies, which made visible progress after the revival of letters and arts in Slavonic lands. Vostokov and Preiss contributed to this development and, with Grigorovitch, an original student of Slavonic languages and literature, exerted some influence on Sreznevsky: the latter collected a quantity of materials concerning the Slavonic languages, and Russian in particular—traditional beliefs, songs and writings, studying palaeographical peculiarities and explaining the meaning of many of them. The history of the Slavonic peoples, already studied by Bodyansky, was promoted by some former pupils of Sreznevsky: the most prominent of these—Lamansky, discussed the part that the "Slavonic world" had played in universal history, and had in his turn many pupils: one of them, Siegel, elaborated a comparative history of Slavonic laws; and Makushev investigated the history of South-Slavonian communities. Meanwhile Kotlyarevsky, a pupil of Bodyansky, produced a learned work on the funeral rites of the ancient Slavonians, and explained the antiquities and ancient laws of the Pomeranian and Baltic tribes; while Leontovich compared Slavonic institutions and made valuable investigations concerning the history of Lithuanian law.

These examples prove the growing independence of Russian thought in the domain of universal history; and they can be, of course, supplemented by illustrations of what was done, during the same period, for the knowledge of Russia's past: Russian scholars became aware that "general human knowledge cannot be realized by a nation without self-knowledge," which is the chief factor of progress, and many of them turned their minds to the study of Russian history.

This idea was not easy of access to historians like Karamsin, who was much more interested in the fortunes of the Russian monarchy than in the history of the Russian nation; but it was one of the leading principles of Solovyev's great work. Solovyev at one time attended the lectures of Ritter and was a disciple of Guizot and an adherent of Ewers; but he was able to preserve his independence. He examined the geographical conditions of Russian life and gave a detailed survey of its "organic development," that is, of the gradual transformation of ancient patriarchal institutions into the Russian State of the 18th century.

This treatment provoked criticism from the Slavophiles. Kiryeevsky, Homyakov and Aksakov, accepting to some extent the principles of Schelling and Hegel, expressed their conviction that human and even European culture can be conceived only in connection with nationality and that every nation represents one of its aspects; but they differed from Soloviev in their estimate of Western civilization, and insisted on its onesidedness and want of stability; they discovered, on the contrary, original and renovating principles of completeness and progress in Russian culture, based on "true equity," "внутренняя правда" which must be freely spoken out by the people; and they opposed to it the "external justice" of the state ("внҍшняя правда"). These views were applied especially by Aksakov to Russian history: according to him, the principle of "true equity" is incorporated in the community and manifests itself in the mutual love and solidarity of its members; these communities invited, of their own free will, the princes, who founded the Russian state with its external justice; and thus Land and State became the principal elements of Russian history; their relation was subjected, however, to some changes, by which Russian history can be characterized during the four periods of its existence, consecutively centred in Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow and St Petersburg; but this union between Land and State was not broken up till the last of these periods: even Moscow represented it, after having contributed to the unification of the State, and it was only Peter the Great who violently introduced the declining civilization of the West into Russia and thus created a growing divergence between the Russian people and the "cultured" classes—a divergence which must be removed.

This idealistic conception of Russian history could not find favour with those "Westerners" who supposed a general uniformity in the evolution of nations and set a high value on the influence of Western civilization upon Russian life; under Hegel's influence and Savigny's direction they insisted on the part played by the State in national development and preferred to study the history of institutions, fixing the main epochs of Russian history in accordance with these. Solovyev, although not quite indifferent to the Slavophile tendencies, belonged to the opposite school. Kavelin enlarged his predecessor's scheme and introduced between his two principal periods an intermediate stage characterized by the ascendancy of civil patriarchal institutions. Chicherin showed the scarcity of information concerning patriarchal society and divided the subsequent times, like Kavelin, into two periods—the period of "civil union," during which individual will predominated, and the period of "political union," during which public will prevailed and organized social life. This theory was accepted by Sergueyevitch; he distinguished in Russian history the two periods of Chicherin almost in identical terms and expected a third period, during which the opposed principles of the two former will be reconciled.

These conceptions were formed, in the main, before the scientific movement and "Great Reforms" of the sixties; but they had a great influence on subsequent historical writers. One of them, Klyuchevsky, a pupil of Solovyev and Chicherin, highly appreciated some of their conclusions, but could not accept them entirely; he elaborated his own "sociological" conception of Russian history. Klyuchevsky was not inclined to accept the theory of Solovyev and particularly the modifications of it which he introduced in the later volumes of his history: Klyuchevsky attached much more importance to material than to moral forces, which he appreciated in so far as they manifested themselves in social phenomena; besides, he could not content himself, as Chicherin had done, with the study of institutions considered merely as mechanisms which were bound to develop in a certain way: he was interested in the real "social stuff," of which they were made, and with the "vital forces" which put them in motion; he investigated the social and economic evolution of different classes, their enslavement and emancipation, and their influence on political institutions. Yet, agreeing to some extent with the Slavophile doctrine, Klyuchevsky insisted on the "originality" of Russian history and explained the part that the Russian nation had played, particularly the Great Russians, whom he characterized in a very vivid manner; and he tried to represent, in a genetic way, the "real" historical evolution of this nation and not the dialectical scheme of a series of mental concepts, only logically connected with one another. According to these views, Klyuchevsky held that the Russian nation had passed through different stages of evolution: he characterized ancient Russia, situated on the Dnieper, by town life and trade; mediaeval Russia, settled on the middle-Volga, by feudal principalities (differing however, in some respects, from the western type) and by free agriculture; "Great" Russia, formed at a later date, by the national State of Moscow, with the Tsar and the boyars at its head, by military and agricultural institutions; and the Russian Empire, attaining its natural limits, by the autocratic regime, the ascendancy of the nobles, and enslaved agriculture and industry. Klyuchevsky presented this scheme in a brilliant picture of our evolution down to the 18th century, and formed a school of Russian historians. In a similar realistic and "sociological" spirit Milyukov explained the evolution of Russian culture, arranged in a homogeneous series, and with Kisewetter, Bogoslovsky and others entered upon definite investigations concerning the history of certain Russian institutions. This "realistic" conception of Russia's past could not, however, satisfy those who, like Pokrovsky, believed in Marxism: and he worked up again, from a materialistic point of view, the materials collected by the idealists.

The wide field of Russian history, surveyed in great detail by Ikonnikov, was of course cultivated in many other special directions: various historical problems concerning Russia's past were stated and partly solved by different historical schools.

The history of the Russian language, for instance, constituted one of these problems: Vostokov laid its foundation; Buslaev studied it in connection with the general evolution of Russian culture; and Shachmatov and Sobolevsky explained its evolution.

The critical school continued to develop itself in the works of Kachenovsky and other scholars. Krug had expressed his approval of the critical investigations of Kachenovsky's opponent, Pogodin, upon the Annals of Nestor; and Pogodin, in his turn, lent a helping hand to Kunik and Gedeonov at the beginning of their scientific career, when they tried to elucidate, from different points of view, the origin of the Russian State and the Norman or Slavonic nationality of the first Russian princes. The critical school developed further in the works of Bestuzhev, who was to some extent under the influence of Pogodin and had some pupils, Platonov and others. Criticism manifested itself also in the acute investigations of Golubinsky, Shachmatov and others.

The comparative method of historical study was also used in different domains: in the history of Russian literature and art, by Buslaev and Tihonravov, Pypin and Veselovsky, by Kondakov, Azhnalov and others; in the history of Russian economics, by Nikitsky, Milyoukov, Struve, Tugan-Baranovsky and others; in the general history of Russian law and institutions, by Nevolin, Kavelin, Chicherin, Gradovsky, Sergueyevitch and others. One of these, Vladimirsky-Budanov, author of a comprehensive history of Russian law, applied the comparative method to the study of similar institutions of Eastern and Western Russia, showing, by the way, their originality in comparison with those of other European states; subsequent historians, Lyubovsky, Lappo and others continued this comparative study of Russian and Lithuanian institutions. In opposition to Vladimirsky-Budanov and some other investigators, Pavlov-Silvansky insisted, from a "sociological" point of view, on the similarity of the mediaeval institutions of Russia with the corresponding feudal institutions of Western Europe, particularly in the period, when the manor began to subjugate the ancient village community.

Many scholars were or still are working in the same field: some of them, particularly about 1861, were strongly impressed by the idea of nationality or even of the different nationalities constituting the Russian Empire; it had an influence on Sabyelin, Kostomarov, and Antonovitch; others studied the history of local government, very much improved by the "great reforms," for instance, Andreievsky, Gradovsky, Lochoitsky; many took a strong interest in the emancipation of the rural classes and entered into investigations on their past, among others, Byelyaev and Sokolovsky; the history of their gradual enslavement, begun by Klyuchevsky, was continued by Dyakonov and others; and those who were devoted to the people's cause and followed socialistic theories have contributed to the elucidation of these problems, particularly Semevsky in his well-known works on slavery in modern times and the social movements which determined its abolition^[31].

Meanwhile the scientific principles and methods implied in these investigations were applied to Oriental studies: though much less differentiated, they facilitated the understanding of the complex civilizations of the eastern world. These inquiries were affected in Russia, at least in great part, by its intermediate position between Europe and Asia and by practical aims.

Oriental studies were inaugurated in Russia by Baier and the Orientalist Kehr, but made little advance until the publication of the Dictionary of all known Languages, in 1786 or 1787: this work proved to be of some use for Klaproth's Asia Polyglotta.

Soon after a centre of Oriental study arose in Kazan, where a representative of European scholarship was invited, especially in order to promote the practical knowledge of Oriental languages. Fraehn was very well versed in these; but he studied specially Mahomedan coins and Arabic writers, the accounts of ancient Russia, its inhabitants and their customs, given by Ibn Fozlan and others; he made, moreover, arrangements for the further development of these branches of knowledge in Russia. The Turkish and Tartar languages and texts, to which Fraehn had already paid some attention, were investigated, for instance, by Kazem-Beck. The self-taught enthusiast of Petrograd, Senkovsky, next stimulated the growing interest of Russian scholars in Oriental languages and literature; somewhat later Hvolson and Rosen and their pupil Kokovtsev continued with growing success the study of Hebrew and Arabic texts; the Mongolist Schmidt and the Turkish scholar Radloff made valuable contributions to the knowledge of the Mongol, Turkish and Tartar languages and folklore, and this was increased by the works of Velyaminov-Zernov, Kovalevsky and others.

Russian study of China owed much less to foreign influence. The foundation of the Orthodox Russian mission to Pekin proved to be of some consequence in this respect. Russian sinology was inaugurated by Bichurin and Katharov, the investigators of China's culture, and promoted by Vasiliev, who spent ten years at the Mission and became one of the highest authorities on Buddhism in China. Under the influence of the lectures delivered by Vasiliev in Petrograd, Minayev, the well-known critic of the "Pali-theory" of Buddhism, began to study the evolution of Buddhism in the original texts and observed its manifestations in Ceylon, Nepal and Burma. The great work done by Boethlingk in the domain of Indian philology was, of course, highly appreciated by Minayev, himself the author of a grammar of the Pali language; but he and his pupils were more inclined to continue the investigations of Minayev on Buddhistic culture; Oldenburg studied Buddhistic legends and particularly iconography; Shcherbatsky explained ancient Indian philosophical treatises in the light of modern critical thought, etc. The well-known Iranian scholar Saleman had also an influence on this movement; and Persian studies were carried on by Tukovsky in his treatise on Persian dialects and other publications.

These studies were organized by Rosen and supplemented in modern times by new branches of knowledge, cultivated more or less independently by Russian scholars; Lemm and his pupil Turayev, Golenishchev and Nikolsky promoted Egyptology and Assyriology; Brosset and Marr investigated the languages and antiquities, the literature and history of Georgia and Armenia; Tukovsky and Bartold elucidated the mediaeval civilization and history of Central Asia, and so on^[32].

The evolution of Russian thought, considered in its general aspects and in its different domains, can be stated, then, in the following terms. During the 18th and 19th centuries science and learning in Russia became, in a certain sense, Russian science and learning: Russian thought began to play its own part in the historical development of science and learning, gradually embracing all the nations of the civilized world.

 

3

Thanks to the growth of Russian thought the principle of its unity, which was formerly established only from a religious and specially orthodox point of view, could now be formulated afresh. This tendency manifests itself more and more in Russian philosophy, science and learning. Some examples, relating to modern times, will clear up this growing tendency to unify our general conception of the world and our knowledge of nature and history.

Philosophy is, of course, particularly called upon to fulfil such a mission and Russian philosophers have endeavoured to achieve it: they were, indeed, deeply conscious of the capital importance of such a problem, but they solved it in different ways.

The "idealists" of the thirties and forties, and particularly the Slavophiles, criticised from this point of view the "Western" rationalism: Kiryeevsky, Homyakov and others insisted on the "wholeness" of consciousness, implying faith and reason, reason and feeling (with volition). Some of the "Westerners" made similar attempts, but in another spirit; in a work dedicated to Granovsky, Kavelin endeavoured, for instance, to reconcile idealism with realism from a somewhat psychological point of view.

A different conception was formed by the "materialists " of the sixties, Pisarev, Antonovitch and others: they also deliberated, in a materialistic sense, on the "unity of the physical and moral Kosmos."

In modern times this has been done not only in a monistic, but, later on, in a critical spirit.

Modern Russian monistic systems had also a spiritualistic or a materialistic character; they can be noted here only in their general aspect.

Spiritualistic monism was very clearly formulated, in the main from a religious point of view, by one of its most convinced partisans. V. Solovyev criticised in this spirit the onesidedness of Comte's conception of the three stages of evolution; the Russian writer could not agree with a theory, which excluded theology and metaphysics from a general conception of the world and restricted itself to positive science; he formulated the postulates of his own system as follows: the "creative principles which are needed for the transformation of general facts or laws into a harmonious scientific edifice, cannot be deduced from these materials, just as the plan of a building cannot be deduced from the bricks employed to construct it"; these "creative principles" must be found by means of a higher kind of knowledge—the knowledge of absolute principles and causes, expounded in theology and metaphysics; and only in this connection of theology and metaphysics with positive science, can this whole obtain a decisive influence on Life. This epistemological theory implied corresponding views of the Universe. Solovyev worshipped the Spirit of God in the Universe; he perceived a general and positive unity in the entity of the World and in the creative power and the evolutionary process comprising its phenomena—nature and man; from this transcendant point of view Solovyev affirmed that the World must be united with God through the medium of man, and "transposed" the centre of man's existence into a supernatural and superpersonal sphere which reveals its creative power in the collective mind of humanity and contains the leading principles of human life: "in union with God" man has to realize Truth, Good and Beauty in the World, and in fulfilling this mission he contributes to progress. Similar conceptions were enunciated by Trubetskoi and other writers^[33].

Materialistic monism was an offshoot of "Marxism." One of its most rigid partisans, Plechanov, has expressed it in the following well-known formula: "matter thinks," and has deduced from it a materialistic conception of the world and of social life: "as soon as you have admitted," he wrote some years ago, "that the relations of production, on which men enter independently of their will, are reflected in their heads in the form of different economic categories, in the form of prices, money, capital and so on, you must acknowledge that on a certain economic basis there must grow a corresponding ideological superstructure^[34]." One of the adherents of this doctrine, Iljin (Lenin), stood forth recently in its defence against those "Marxists" who try to combine empirical criticism with Marxism.

These dogmatical constructions could not satisfy the critical spirit of those, who were conscious of the epistemological problems implied in them: the doctrine of Kant could not establish itself before the sixties, or even later, and only towards the end of the century, after Vvedensky began to lecture at the University of Petrograd, the critical philosophy was accepted by some Russian thinkers. From that time, however, Kantian doctrine was supplemented by neo-Kantian interpretations, and some modern Russian philosophers began to deliberate on the problem of the unity of knowledge, which underlies the unitarian conception of the World. Karinsky, well known as a critic of Kant, adhered, however, to Kant's views on self-consciousness and its unity and identity, without which knowledge is not possible, and criticised only his theory concerning the rôle which self-consciousness is playing, according to its own principles, in the construction of the external world.

Meanwhile science and learning tried, in their turn, to solve this problem, at least in some of their domains, and Russian scientific and learned men contributed to this movement.

Great Russian mathematicians, for instance, tried to give more logical unity to their science: Lobatchevsky elaborated a more comprehensive conception of space and considered the geometry of Euclid as one of the possible cases of it. Chebyshev, in one of his treatises on averages, proved that a general theorem underlies the different problems of the theory of probabilities and implies the famous theorem of Bernoulli as a special case of it.

This unifying tendency acquired a different character in the knowledge of the external World. In natural science, besides the doctrine of conservation of force or transformation of energy, this movement manifested itself particularly in the conception of matter as a system of elements, and in the doctrine of "consensus" and evolution, as a unifying process of life.

At the end of the sixties Mendeleyev published his famous treatise on the periodic system of elements, founded on the fact that, with increasing atomic or combining weights, their physical and chemical properties change; according to this regular arrangement of the elements by their weights expressed in numbers, the same properties—such as density, fusibility, optical and electric qualities, formation of oxides, etc.—recur in periods, which are, at least approximately, fixed. This theoretical scheme could not, at that time, be absolutely proved by experiment; but it was supplemented by the zero-series of indifferent gases, and the vacant places made it possible to predict the subsequent discovery of the missing numbers; some of them were really made and confirmed the unifying value of this brilliant generalization^[35]. Thus the "periodic law" of the elements established systematic order in our conceptions of them.

Similar attempts were made in other domains of natural science. In mineralogy, for instance, Gadolin tried to deduce all the crystallographic systems and their subdivisions from one general principle, and Fedorov constructed a vast scheme of all the parallelohedrons, which were theoretically possible, and undertook the task of decomposing them into "stereohedrons." In biology, this principle of unity was conceived in different ways. The doctrine of a kind of "consensus" existing between the phenomena of organic life preceded the theory of evolution: Baer had been desirous to establish a connection between all natural objects, and supposed that "mutual relations of organized bodies" can be elucidated by the ontogenesis or the development of the individual; and more recently Pavlov formulated the leading idea of his physiological investigations, when he said that only by considering the organic body as a whole in its "living course" and as a correlation of its parts, can we study with some success the total importance of the functions of each one of them for this whole. The doctrine of evolution performed a similar rôle in respect to our conception of organic processes. Darwinism found many able adherents in Russia. Darwin himself had a very high opinion of the palaeontological studies of Vlad. Kovalevsky and appreciated the zoological investigations of his brother Alex. Kovalevsky on the lowest vertebrates and invertebrates and on their genetical relationship. His works, as well as the works of Metchnikov, were in the main directed to establish unity of organization in animals.

The theory of evolution was, however, eventually modified by the subsequent doctrine of "heterogenesis," formulated by the late Korzinsky: he stated that among numerous homogeneous posterity, born from normal parents, there appear suddenly separate individuals with very marked peculiarities; these variations are probably due to some internal changes, occurring in the cell of the ovum, and come after a certain period of accumulation of vital energy through a series of generations; the rare individuals subjected to them are able to transmit them, in favourable circumstances, to their descendants, forming thus a new "race"; natural selection and other factors can only strengthen these acquired characters and suppress further variations in this race.

The scientific conception of evolution provoked, moreover, some criticism in the domain of moral and historical sciences. It was formulated in a transcendent way by Solovyev; he acknowledged an Absolute Cause or a Creative Force, without which evolution is not possible; but he supposed that God's thought, which is absolute destiny in regard to things, is only a duty for a moral being. In this way he tried to solve the problem of "free will" and of man's mission, which is to realize, "in union with God," Truth, Good, and Beauty in the World. This can be done only in the great whole or collective being named mankind. This union is impossible "outside God," and can be attained in God only, that is in the universal Church, incorporating the principle of this unity, already manifested once in the person of the Christ. In this sense Solovyev spoke of the "God-Man" actually "existing on earth " and gradually advancing to perfection; of "the Kingdom of God" and its manifestation in organized states; of nations, each of which has its own importance and participates in the common life of the whole, contributing thus to its progress.

Most Russian sociologists, however, conceived the idea of progress in a more positive way; many of them discussed evolution in regard to human personality. In his well-known paper on progress Mihailovsky formulated, for instance, such a conception; he arrived at the conclusion that progress is "a gradual approximation to the wholeness of individuals, to a possibly most complete and various division of labour between man's organs and most limited division of labour between men." From this unifying point of view Mihailovsky considered the progressive evolution of mankind.

This general idea of progress included an appreciation of evolution and its results; but in concrete history it was to be considered in its individual aspect. Karyeev applied this conception to the history of European states, and this was done by other Russian historians in respect to the history of their own nation. Besides the "Slavophiles," such as Aksakov and others who considered it rather as an evolution of pre-established qualities innate in the Russian people, the " Westerners," Solovyev and others, treated it in a more positive way as an "organic development" influenced by various external causes. At a later date, Klyuchevsky, in spite of his "sociological tendency," elaborated a much more individualized conception of Russian history: he insisted on its "originality" and considered it as a "local history"; he studied the formation of the Russian nation, and of its historical individuality; he investigated the vital forces, which moved it and produced Russian history; he examined the personalities and events, which had an influence on its evolution, on the development of Russian social and economic relations and political institutions; and in this spirit he exhibited in a masterly manner and vivid picturesque style the different periods of Russian history.

The principle of unity of thought was introduced thus into Russian science and learning and contributed to the elaboration of a harmonious conception of the World.

 

II

This problem of unity may be raised, however, in respect to a more complicated whole, including, besides thought in a strict sense, other components of human consciousness, i.e., will and feeling.

The part played by Russian thought in the construction of such a whole was not an exclusive one: Russian thought, in its general aspect, did not profess to despise will and feeling, and Russian thinkers tried to conceive this whole especially from a religious and a moral point of view.

These attempts developed, probably, under political and social conditions: the representatives of Russian culture manifested at times a "yearning" for religion; they were disposed, moreover, to invoke Justice when it was violated by government, and occasions for this were not wanting; and serfdom, which lasted till 1861 and produced at last a growing feeling of moral responsibility for such a state of things, incited them to take social facts into consideration.

This religious and moral tendency is fairly conspicuous, for instance, in the systems of the older Slavophiles, Kireyevsky, Homyakov and others, and even in the treatises of some "Westerners," for instance, Kavelin: he was particularly anxious to take account of moral feeling, but considered it in a psychological way, which aroused some criticism.

Modern Russian philosophers wanted to go further. Solovyev, for instance, firmly believed in God as an absolute principle of Truth, Good, and Beauty, Truth being the contents of His reason, Good the contents of His will. Beauty the contents of His feeling. According to this doctrine, this unified Whole determines the unity of the human mind, which is conscious of its connection with it. Integral knowledge includes, moreover, faith and various other elements of consciousness: it ascends from feeling to thought and from thought to mystical love which leads us to the cognition of the transcendent World. Besides this knowledge and the will to acquire it, the Idea of Good is the principle to which our will tends and on which depend our aims and actions: our life can have a meaning and become worthy of our moral nature only when it is a "justification of Good"; it proceeds from a kind of moral unity, able to govern individual and social life. Our consciousness approves these two wills, directed to "True Good," and thus establishes the union of Truth and Good. Truth and Good, however, cannot realize these ideal contents in sensual forms: this incarnation is reserved to Art and intimately connected with artistic feeling. From this preeminently religious point of view Solovyev considered, then, the problem of unity of consciousness, the correlation of reason, will, and feeling^[36]. Prince Trubetskoi held nearly the same religious opinions, but formulated his theory from a somewhat different metaphysical and epistemological point of view: in the Absolute he perceived the condition of our knowledge. He maintained that the Absolute cannot be limited by its essence and manifests it in everlasting free activity; the Absolute thus produces its "other self" and communicates with it; and we freely go to meet this revelation in every act of our knowledge. Hence in its intimate nature existence, known by our spiritual being, must also be spiritual; it conditions all our knowledge and can be an object of "faith," that is, of immediate impression (intuition), of reality and of volition, and not only an object of rational and empirical knowledge. Thus Trubetskoi acknowledged a unifying spiritual principle of the universe, in relation to which the phenomenal world must be considered, a concrete "subject of this universal object," which reveals itself in its creative reason and will, in its altruistic existence for others, in its love to our "searching love," and which cannot be conceived by mere rational and empirical knowledge; this love must be realized by men in their actions^[37].

These metaphysical conceptions could not satisfy the Russian philosophers and sociologists who, though they allotted an important rôle to will and feeling, yet were inclined to consider this problem in a positive way: the representatives of the "subjective" school of Russian sociology—Lavrov, Mihailovsky, Karyeev and others—supposed, as was stated above, that the knowledge of social facts is permanently accompanied by an appreciation of them, and tried to combine the objective spirit of investigation into social facts with the "subjective" valuation of them; in his conception of a growing wholeness of the individual, Mihailovsky implied the notion of a being, who possesses, besides reason, other elements of consciousness, i.e., will and feeling, and from this point of view he estimated social progress. Karyeev shared this view and conceived historical progress as a gradual ascent of human beings from coarse reality to ideals, produced by their yearning after Truth and Good, "inherent in our soul," by their desire to be happy without encroaching on the happiness of others.

It may be stated, by the way, that a similar conception became very prominent in modern Russian aesthetics; art was and still is, to some extent, considered in Russia not only as intimately connected with emotion, but as aiming at "ideals" or at moral ends.

Even in music this tendency can be traced: the representatives of Russian music, national but tinged with "orientalism,"—Glinka, Balakirev, Mussorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and others—expressed their sympathy with some ideals and characteristic moral features of the Russian people. Besides the subjective mood of Chaikovsky and the deep lyric revelations of Scriabin, other states of mind can be traced in their productions; Balakirev, for instance, was to a certain degree imbued with original mystic sentiment; Rimsky-Korsakov manifested, particularly in his latest work, an inclination to "ethical pantheism."

This movement is even more conspicuous in Russian painting. Ivanov was imbued with mysticism (at least till 1848) and chose under its influence the subject of his great work, representing the appearance of Christ to the people; Kramskoi painted his Christ in the Wilderness "with his blood and tears"; Vasnetsov executed mystical pictures on the walls of the cathedral of St Vladimir; Gué manifested his sympathy with the moral doctrine taught by Tolstoi in his works; Ryepin often dealt with social and political subjects; Vereshchagin was an apostle of peace, and so on.

There is no need to speak in detail of modern Russian literature which flourished after Pushkin and Lermontov, Gogol and Goncharov, and manifested, independently of the literary movement represented by Turguenev, the moral tendencies of the age; a mere mention of Dostoyevsky and Tolstoi will be enough, Tolstoi's religious and ethical views on the dependent rôle of art were and still are debated in Russia; but they are very characteristic of the moralising mood of modern Russian literature, just now yielding its supremacy to more formal aesthetical ideas.

In these Russian conceptions of consciousness as a compound of thought, will, and feeling, the religious or, at least, moral point of view plays a prominent rôle, and, perhaps, in the main, appears, although not very clearly, to mark out its unifying principle.

 

Thus far Russian thought has been considered in its general aspect apart from its connection with practical life; but unity of thought studied in its process of unification must be made or worked out; hence, its close relation to practical life; such a real unity supposes a permanent harmony between thought and action; and consciousness, in the sense stated above, works it out and thus gives unity to our activity.

Such an agreement, however, could not always be realized, at least in the past history of Russia. In ancient Russia thought was secluded from practice. During the 17th century the utilitarian notion of the technical importance of learning began to develop itself, and Peter the Great appreciated it very highly and was really conscious of its great value to the state; but Catherine II was more interested in education, than in the practical advancement of science and learning; and under Nicolas II education became to some extent an instrument of conservative policy, which was not always in harmony with the public good. And when Russian thought, in spite of the constraint to which it was subject, tried to manifest itself in free action and in conscious applications to practical life, it often met with obstacles, which were not favourable to its development. This occurred not only in the times of reaction mentioned above, but even later—some years before the tragical death of Alexander II, after the promulgation of the new code for the Universities in 1884, and at other times.

But the obstacles, which restrained the development of Russian thought and its conscious applications to life, could not stop its course and had even some positive results: Russian thought was obliged to struggle for its independence and to endure the severe trials, to which it had been submitted. It came out of them tried by misfortune and firmly conscious of the ideal ends, to which it is called.

These reactions could not, however, be favourable to a permanent fecundation of thought by life; this divergence between thought and life was pernicious to both of them; but it must be overcome, and this will be done as the Russian people grows into a nation, conscious of herself and acting by herself.

This unifying principle of self-conscious action can be realized in Russia, of course, only under liberal political conditions; in its strict sense it implies, moreover, a reciprocal acknowledgment of its value for every nation; the Russian nation must acknowledge, therefore, other nations just as she herself is acknowledged by them as a self-conscious cultured nation acting for the good of humanity, and thus she becomes, in concert with other nations, a part of humanity, and obtains, in agreement with them, her right to relative independence; and this right cannot be violated without trampling on the claim which humanity has on every one of its parts.

Cambridge:

PRINTED BY J. B. PEACE, M.A.,
AT THE UNIVERSITY PRESS

1. W. James, Principles of Psychology, I, p. 186. Cf. Th. Merz, A History of European Thought in the Nineteenth Century, I, pp. 1–5; II, pp. 627–628.
2. L. Duhem. La Science Allemande, Paris 1915, pp. 4 sqq. The author applies this distinction, already stated by Pascal, to the characteristics of French and German thought. Similar ideas have been expounded in the collective work edited by P. Petit and M. Leudet, with an introduction by P. Deschanel, under the title: Les Allemands et la Science, Paris, 1916, pp. V, 38–39, 48, etc.
3. Е. Аничковъ, Яѕыччество и древняя Русь, С.-Пб. 1914, pp. 308–328.
4. Іоаннъ Дамаскинъ Діалектика, Russ. transl. Mock. 1862, p. 9; cf. pp. 54–55, 67, 92, 97-98, 103, 104, 106–107, 108–109, etc.
5. Максимъ Грехъ, Сочиненія, Казань, 1859–1862, P. II, p. 75; cf. P. I, pp. 246–250, 356–357. 462, 545; P. III. pp. 180 sqq.
6. Зиновій Отенскій, Показаніе истины, Казань, 1863, pp. 51, 53–54, 57, 357, etc.
7. С. Вилинскій, Посланіл старԥа Артемія, Одесса, 1906, pp. 44, 52, etc.
8. А. Соболевскій, Переводная литература Московской Рүсн XIV–XVII Вѣковъ, С.-Пб. 1903, pp. 20, 44, 53, etc.
9. The bibliographical notes of Pypin (Исторія русской литератүры, С.-Пб. 1898, II, pp. 365–368, 419–423) should be supplemented at least by the following works: С. Голубевь, Исторія Кіевской духовной академіи (періодь до-Могилянскій, К. 1886). Н. Петровь, Кіевская Академія во второй половинҍ XVII вҍка, К. 1895. С. Голубевь, Кіевскій митрополитъ Петръ Могила, К. 1898, V. II. М. Сменцовскій, Братья Лнхуды, С. Пб. 1899. Т. Моревъ, Каменъ Вҍры, С.-Пб. 1904.
10. П. Милюковъ, Очерки, C.-Пб. 1897, II, pp. 243–266. A. Lappo-Danilevsky, L'idée de l'Etat, etc., in Essays in legal history, ed. by P. Vinogradoff, Oxford, 1913, pp. 357–360.
11. This grammar was printed in Eviev near Vilna in 1619, and reprinted with some modifications in Moscow in 1648.
12. А. Лаппо-Данилевскій, Петръ Великій, основатєль Императорской Академіи Наукъ, C.-Пб. 1914, cc. 6–16.
13. П. Пекарскій. Исторія Императорской Акадєміи Наукъ въ С.-Петербургҍ, С.-Пб., 1870, 1873, v. i, pp. LIX sqq., 74. 82–83, etc.; v. ii, pp. 352, 360, 363–64. etc. C. Шевыревъ, Исторія Московскаго Университета, М., 1855, pp. 31. 92, 134–135. 147, 148. 187. 188, 204–205. Словарь профессоровъ Московскаго Университета, v. i, pp. 5, sqq., etc. А. Пыпинъ, Харахтеристики литературныхъ мнҍній отъ двадцатыхъ до пятидесятыхъ годовъ, С.-Пб., 1890, pp. 245, sqq.
14. E. Haumant, La culture française en Russie (1700–1900), Paris, 1910, pp. 104–118, 132–144, 156–157, etc.
15. Я. Козельскій, Философскія предложенія, С.-Пб. 1786.
16. И. Янжудъ, Національность и продолжительность жизни нашихъ акадмиковъ, in Изв. Академіи Наукъ, 1913, pp. 284–290. These data are not quite precise; 9 Russian members of the i8th century and 19 of later date are of unknown origin as regards province.
17. A general survey of the history of different branches of science and learning, literature and art in Russia is given in the articles of the Russian Cyclopedia of Brockhaus and Euphron; they were published in a separate volume under the title: Россія, ея настоящее и прошедшее, С.-Пб. 1900; see pp. 5–8, 128–30, 139–142, 423–425, 430–446, 581–859, 887–889. For some information on public instruction, see ib., pp. 382–420. The modern general dictionaries of national biography are not yet finished; see Русскій Біографическій Словарь, издаваемый Императорскимъ Русскимъ Историческимъ Обществомъ, С.-Пб. 1896, sqq., of which 23 volumes have already appeared; С. Венгеровъ, Источники словара русскихъ писателей. С.-Пб., 1900–1914, vols, i-iii (Ааронъ-Ломоносовъ); С. Венгеровъ, Критико-біографическій словарь русскихъ писателей и ученыхъ, С.-Пб., 1886, sqq., vols. I-VI. Further bibliographical information may be seen in the article of P. Simoni on Russian Bibliography in the Russian Cyclopedia of Brockhaus and Euphron (new edition), VI, pp. 432–502, particularly pp. 492–497. Subsequent notes appended to these lectures contain only general references: I could not over-burden them with more detailed indications.
18. Я. Колубовскій, Философіа у Русскихъ, in his Russian translation of Ueberweg-Heinze's Grundriss der Geschichte der neuen Philosophie, 1 ed., Petrograd, pp. 529–590; cf. J. Kolubovsky, "Die Philosophie in Russland," in Zeitschrift für Philosophie und Philosophische Kritik, vol. CIV, pp. 53–103, 178–220. А. Введенскій, Судьбы рууской философіи, М. 1898. З. Радловъ, Очеркъ исторіи русской философіи, С.-ПБ. 1912. O. Lourié, La philosophie russe contemporaine, Paris, 1905. Special works on the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev: З. Радловъ, Владиміръ Соловьевъ, жизнь и ученіе, С.-Пб. 1913; Кн. Е. Трубецкой, Міросозерцаніе В. С. Соловьева, М. 1913, vols, I, II; on the philosophy of Vladimir Solovyev and Prince Sergius Trubetskoi: Л. Лопатинъ¸ Философекіа характеристики и рҍчи, М. 1911, pp. 120–235, and the articles of L. Lopatin, S. Kotlyarevsky and G. Rachinsky, dedicated to the memory of Prince Sergius Trubetskoi, in "Вопросы Философіи и Психологіи," vol. CXXXI, 1916, pp. 1–77.
19. Cf. p. 174, note 2. В. Каганъ, Математика, in "Исторія Россіи въ XIX вҍкҍ," изд А. и И. Гранатъ, М., vol. VI, pp. 308–327.
20. К. Свенске, Матеріалы для исторіи составленія атласа Россійской Имперіи, 1745, in "Записки Императорской Академіи Наукъ," vol. IX, 1866, Suppl. no. 2. Delisle highly appreciated the work of Kleshnin, one of the Russian geodesists (pp. 10, 14, 16, 24, 152). Kirilov published his Atlas Imperii Russici in 1734, but it was much less satisfactory than the atlas of 1745.
21. П. Пекарскій, Исторіа Императорской Академіи Наукъ, vol. II, pp. 259–892. Б. Мешуткинъ, Михаилъ Васильевичъ Ломоносовъ, издаиіе Имиераторской Академіи Наукъ, С.-Пб. 1911. Труды Ломоносова в области естественно-историческихъ иаукъ, статьи Б. Меншуткина и др., С.-Пб. 1911. Празднованіе двухсотлҍтней годовщини рожденія М. В. Ломоносова Имиераторскимъ Московскимъ Университетомъ, М. 1912. Б. Меншуткинъ, Ломоносовъ, какъ естество и спытатель, С.-Пб. 1911 П. Вальденъ, Ломоносовъ, какъ химикъ, С.-Пб. 1911. В. Бернадскій, О зиаченіи трудовъ М. В. Ломоносова въ минералогіи и геологіи, М. 1900, etc.
22. Л. Тарасевичъ, Научное движеніе въ Россіи въ первой половинҍ XIX вҍка, in Исторіа Россіи въ XIX вҍкҍ, vol. VI, pp. 285–308.
23. К. Тимирязевъ, Пробужденіе естествознанія въ третьей четверти вҍка, in Исторія Россіи въ XIX вҍкҍ, vol. VII, pp. 1–30.
24. А. Пыпинъ, Исторіа русской зтнографіи, С.-Пб. 1бб89, vol. I, pp. 78–112. П. Семеновъ, Исторія полувҍковой дҍятельностн Императорскаго Русскаго Географическаго Общества, С.-Иб. 1896, pp. 1–111.
25. Арх. Гавріилъ, Исторія русской философіи, Каз. 1840, pp. 74, 137, 140, 141. М. Владиславлевъ, Психологія, С.-Пб. 1881, vol. I, pp. 180–183 (short notices).
26. С. Буличъ, Очеркъ исторіи языкознанія въ Россіи, С.-Пб. 1904, vol. I down to 1825).
27. А. Пыпинъ, Исторія Русской этнографіи, С.-Пб. 1890–1892. vols. I–IV.
28. Н. Карҍевъ, Введеніе въ соціологію, С.-Пб. 1897, 2 ed., pp. 207–342 (3rd ed. pp. 322–367). A complete list of Russian works concerning sociology is given in the 1st edition on pp. 393–418; it was printed separately with some additions, J. F. Hecker, Russian Sociology. A contribution to the history of sociological thought and theory. New York. 1915. Cf. K. Vorländer, Kant und Marx, Tübingen, 1911, pp. 104–106, 194–217.
29. К. Германъ, Историческое обозрҍніе литературы статистики въ особенности Россійскаго государства, С.-Пб. 1817.
30. Н. Загоскинъ, Исторіа права Русскаго народа, Каз. vol. I, pp. 17–131. А. Лаппо-Данилевскій, Собраніе и Сводъ законовъ Россійской Имперіи, etc., С.-Пб. 1898, pp. 1–56. Н. Коркуновъ, Исторія философіи права, С.-Пб. 1898, 2nd ed. pp. 274–350. А. Станиславскій, О ходѣ законовѣдѣнія въ Россіи, С.-Пб. 1853. Г. Шершеневичъ, Наука гражданскаго права въ Россіи, Каз., 1893. Г. Фельдштейнъ, Главныя теченія въ исторіи науки уголовнаго права въ Россіи, Ярославль 1909.
31. В. Иконниховъ, Опытъ русско й исторіографіи, T. I, Кіевъ, 1891–1892 (in two volumes); T. II, Кіевъ, 1908 (in two volumes). М. Кояловичъ, Исторія русскаго самосознанія, С.-Пб. 1901 (3rd ed.). П. Милюковъ, Главныя теченія русской исторической мысли, T. I, М. 1898 2nd ed. К. Бестужевъ-Рюминъ, Біографі и характеристики, С.-П. 1882.
32. В. Бартольдъ, Исторіа изученія Востока въ Европҍ и въ Россіи, С.-Пб. 1911, pp. 145–259.
33. В. Соловьевъ, Сочиненія, С.-Пб. 1877, vol. i, pp. 221–222. Cf. infra the brief exposition of Trubetskoi's views on p. 225.
34. Г. Плехановъ, Основные вонросы марксизма, С.-Пб. 1908, cc. 6, 7, 25 и сл.
35. Th. Merz, op. cit., vol. I, pp. 315, 422–423, 448; the author states that Mendeleyev and Loth. Meyer "published their classification almost simultaneously"; he might have noted, perhaps, that Beguyer de Chancourtois had published similar views in 1862.
36. В. Соловьевъ, Оправданіе, Нравственная философія, С.-Пб. 1897.
37. Кн. С. Трубецкой, Собраніе сочнненій, vol. II, pp. 1–110, 161–284; cf. pp. 286–290; vol. III, pp. 9, 15, 24, 37, 135.