The Russian Review/Volume 1/June 1916/Literary Notes
Literary Notes.
VICTORY IN DEFEAT.
This interesting new book by Stanley Washburn is an attempt to summarize the military operations on the eastern front, which led to the evacuation of the great Russian fortresses in Poland.
The book is written from the point of view of one who is entirely in sympathy with Russia in the present conflict.
It is quite obvious that this is not the time to write a history of the great war, and the author's analytical study of the campaign can scarcely lay claim to historic accuracy, especially in point of interpretation. However, the touch of human sympathy that runs through the book makes it well worth reading, and the author's reflections during the period he followed the enormous Russian battle-line that stretches from Bukowlna to the Baltic, recorded here and there in the book, are extremely interesting.
Mr. Washburn deals at length with the German influences that dominated Russia before the war, and even during a part of the conflict. It is with genuine amazement that we learn of such a fact, for example, as that the fortress of Grodno, as well as several other Russian fortresses, were designed by German engineers, some of whom are now attached to the staff of General von Hindenburg, or that the bridges across the Vistula were constructed by German engineers, who preserved copies of the original plans. This accounts for the fact that some of the structures blown up by the retreating Russian troops were rebuilt by the Germans, sometimes in the course of a few hours.
A chapter in the book is devoted to the Chief of Staff of the Russian Army, General Alexeyev, while another chapter deals with the commercial opportunities that are open to American manufacturers in Russia.
In the last chapter of the book, Mr. Washburn unfortunately makes an excursion into the field of international politics. His treatment of the question of the Russian-American commercial treaty seems to us rather superficial and inadequate. But, except for this injection of something that is foreign to a war correspondent's account, Mr. Washburn's book is both instructive and entertaining.
NEMIROVICH-DANCHENKO IN ENGLISH
The two stories by Vladimir Ivan. Nemirovitch-Danchenko contained in this volume are from his Slezy (Tears), published in Moscow in 1894. It was a wise inspiration to issue them together, as they are two fine examples of the work of Danchenko, who excels in his shorter tales and sketches.
The Diploma is the story of the regeneration of a woman, and the degeneration of a man. So much of modern literature deals with the rising of the fallen and the falling of the risen. A woman of the servant-class has awakened within her the desire for better things through her association with her master, a weak-willed bachelor who has deserted the gay life of the cities and come to his estate in the provinces to live. When the consciousness of her individuality comes, Anna Timofeevna, the woman, leaves the estate and her two children, and goes to Moscow to study. She wishes to get the diploma of doctor's assistant. She spends two years at Moscow, and when she returns with her diploma, eager, feeling that she is now a fit companion for her "man," and a fit mother for her children, she finds that her place has been taken by a common servant. The colorless life on the farm in Little Russia has transformed the man, never very intellectual or ambitious, into a dull clod, seeking nothing but the satisfaction of his lower desires. She was no longer wanted. She had become his superior in mind and instincts. But the woman's former ideal of the man, the thing that had given her the moral strength to bear the two lonely years in Moscow and that had awakened her to a knowledge of herself, will give her the power to rise above this bitter disappointment.
The Whirlwind deals with another phase of the woman's question, and unfolds the peculiar relations that the members of two families hold to each other. The volume holds two interesting tales by a Russian writer only one of whose works has hitherto appeared in English garb.
IVAN PETROVICH PAVLOV.
The April number of the Medical Review of Reviews contains an extremely interesting article by the editor of the Review, Dr. Victor Robinson, on the late Russian physiologist, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov. Before discussing the work of Pavlov, Dr. Robinson gives the following survey of Russia's gallery of scientists, whose work has been invaluable in the advancement of the world's scientific thought:
On the annals of science are written many other glorious Russian names: Von Baer, the greatest name in modern embryology; Metcnnikoff, immortal for his discoveries in phagocytosis; Korsakoff, who described the psychosis of alcoholic polyneuritis; Cyon, after whom is named Cyon's nerve; Minin, whose ultraviolet therapy is known as the Minin light; Stanislav Stein, whose test for disease of the labyrinth is known as Stein's test; Schachowa, who described the histologic canals known as the spiral tubules of Schachowa; Wreden, who first called attention to the fact that there is gelatinous matter in the auditory meatus of stillborn children; Kovalevsky, who described the passage from the medullary tube into the archenteron; Leshaft, after whom is named Leshaft's space; Nikolai Eck, of fistula fame, whose method of abolishing the portal circulation gave physiologists the opportunity to learn the relation of the liver to metabolism; Kupressoff, who described the spinal center of the vesical sphincter; Bobroff, whose osteoplastic operation for spina bifida is known as Bobroff's operation; Koshevnikoff, whose description of a mild type of epilepsy is known as Koshevnikof's disease; Darkshevitch, the neurologist after whom is named Darkshevitch's nucleus; Botkin, the eminent clinician; Struve, whose test for blood in the urine is known as Struve's test; Bechterev, after whom is named the nucleus which gives origin to the fibres of the median roots of the auditory nerve; Cherchevsky, whose description of ileus of nervous origin is known as Cherchevsky's disease; Gamaleia, the bacteriologist; Minkovsky who described congenital acholuric jaundice with splenomegaly and urobilinuria; Mendeleyeff, whose periodic law is one of the fundamentals of modern chemistry; Waldemar Kernig, whose test is tried whenever meningitis is suspected; Poehl, who described the test for detecting cholera bacilli; Nikolsky, after whom is named Nikolsky's sign; Nikiforoff, whose method of fixing blood-films is known as Nikiforoff's method; Rauchfuss, after whom is named Rauchfuss' triangle; Pirogoff, one of the greatest of military surgeons; Filatov, the pediatrist;—and a host of other competent investigators whose work is known wherever medical literature is read.
Not the least among these great men was Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, "who achieved the foremost place in the modern physiology of digestion."
Dr. Robinson gives account of Pavlov's work in this great field, showing how much modern physiology owes to the experimental genius of the great Russian scientist. He tells us of the esteem in which Pavlov was held by such scientists as the great German physiological chemist, Emll Abedrhalden, or the great American biologist, Jacques Loeb.
We also learn of some of those remarkably ingenious experiments performed by Pavlov, the results of which are of prime importance not only in physiology, but also in psychology. His famous experiment performed on two dogs, in which he demonstrated the connection between the psychologist's idea and the chemical reactions of the body, is thus described by Pavlov himself:
I am also able to demonstrate to you the following instructive experiment. In the presence of some of my hearers, who were invited to attend an hour before the lecture, I carried out the following procedures on two dogs, both of which had ordinary gastric fistulae and were, besides, esophagotomized. Into the stomach of the one a definite number of pieces of flesh were introduced through the fistula, the animal's attention being distracted by patting and speaking so as to avoid arousing any thoughts of feeding. The morsels were threaded on a string, the free end of which was fastened into the mouth of the flstular cannula by a cork. The dog was then brought into a separate room and left by itself. A like number of pieces were introduced into the stomach of the other dog in the same way, but during the process a fictitious meal was given, the animal being afterwards left alone. Each dog received 100 grams of flesh. An hour and a half elapsed, and now we may draw the pieces of flesh out by means of the thread and weigh them. The loss of weight, and consequently the amount of flesh digested, is very different in the two cases. In that of the dog without sham feeding, the loss of weight amounts to merely 6 grams, while the flesh withdrawn from the stomach of the other dog weighs only 70 grams, that is to say, was reduced by 30 grams. This, therefore, represents the digestive value of the passage of food through the mouth, the value of a desire for food, the value of an appetite.
With his usual brilliancy of style and his wide range of facts from every field connected with the work of Pavlov, Dr. Robinson has given us an excellent appreciation of one of Russia's foremost scientists.
GOREMYKIN'S RESIGNATION.
The reasons for the recent resignation of the Russian Premier, I. L. Goremykin, were discussed in an article, which appeared in Harper's Weekly for May 13, 1916. The most interesting feature of the article, is the letter, written to Goremykin just before his resignation by the President of the Douma, M. W. Rodzianke. It is generally considered that this letter was perhaps the most important factor that caused the resignation of the Premier. The letter reads as follows:
I am writing this while still under the impression of the data that were just discussed at the special conference for defense, and which relate to the catastrophic condition of the problems of railroad transportation. This question was raised at the last session of the special conference. The work of a special commission was devoted to it, but its solution went no further than mere discussion, proposals, and estimates. And to-day, the catastrophe, which was only probable then, is upon us.
The details of the conditions existing in the factories that produce munitions of war, conditions which may lead to the suspension of the operations of these factories, and the information concerning the approaching famine that threatens Petrograd and Moscow, as well as the possibility of serious popular disturbances in connection with this state of affairs, have, no doubt, been reported to you by the chairman of this conference. These facts and considerations made it quite apparent to me, as well as to the other members of the conference, to what an abyss our country is rapidly moving, thanks to the complete apathy of the government, which takes no active and decisive measures for the purpose of forestalling the events that threaten us.
The members of this conference anticipated all this six months ago, and you cannot deny, Ivan Loginovich, that I, myself, upon several occasions brought the matter to your attention, and that every time your reply was that the matter does not concern you, and that you cannot interfere with the conduct of the war. Such replies are out of place now. The end of the war is rapidly approaching, while within the country, in every department of the people's life, even in those which are concerned with the satisfaction of the prime necessities of life, complete disorder prevails and grows. The inactivity of the government oppresses the faith of the people in ultimate victory. It is your prime duty, without losing a moment's time, to do everything in your power in order to remove all those things that interfere with our achievement of victory.
If the Council of Ministers will not, at last, take those measures which are possible and which will save the country from disgrace and disaster, the responsibility for this will fall upon you. And if you, Ivan Loginovich, do not feel within yourself the strength to bear this heavy burden, if you will not use all the means within your power that will enable the country to come out upon the road that leads to victory, have the courage, at least, to confess this, and to make room for younger forces.
 |
|