 First part of Lecture No. 6, the Development of Science and Learning in Russia, by A. S. Lapudanilevsky, from Russian Realities and Problems, lectures delivered at Cambridge in August 1916. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. Friendly intercourse, either between nations or individuals, cannot be achieved without mutual knowledge and appreciation of their respective moral forces, for moral forces proved 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 incitement 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 war-like 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. 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. One, the leading principles and characteristic features. Two, 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. Part one. Every thought which as a pretense 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. 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. 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. One. 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, yet its chief deity, the angry and jealous Perun, appears as a center of crystallization for various conceptions concerning the creative powers and processes of nature, connected with thunderstorms and thundershowers, 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 Pskov, mentioned 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 medieval 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 Saint 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. Maxim the Greek, one of the disciples of John Damascene, formulated this theory in Russian as follows, quote, logic can be useful insofar 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 endeavor to agree with them, end quote. Tzinovi Otencki, a pupil of Maxim the Greek, conformed to the same doctrine, though he admitted that reason must play a certain part in theological controversies. A friend of Maxim the Greek, the monk Artemias, also expressed the same idea in one of his letters to the Tsar Ivan the Terrible, quote, true reason, he said, is always confirmed by the Bible and reason, when it contradicts the Bible, is false, end quote. 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 Pisces, 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 role, 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, e.g., the Chronicle of Martin Bielski, penetrated into Russia. This movement developed first in Kiev and somewhat later spread to Moscow. The enlightened metropolitan of Kiev, Peter Mojula, 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 center of scholastic learning. The enlightened spirit of this college was well represented by Steven Jaworski, 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 Apophenius 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, Sylvester Medvedev, was a zealous partisan of Latin learning and took a lively part in the contest, which arose thus early between the Zapatniki and Wostachniki, i.e., the partisans of western Latin civilization and those who, like the Monk Euthemius and the brothers Lihudi, maintained the Eastern Greek tradition. 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 or Protestant Confessions and their sects. Thus Maxim the Greek was somewhat troubled by the ideas he learned during his residence in Italy. Sylvester Medvedev 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 Mojira and the later treatises of Stephen Jaworsky and Teofan 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. Orthodox conceptions predominated moreover at least in a speculative sense in the scheme expounded in the Domostrei and in political theories acknowledged by the Muscovite government. The Tsar was regarded as the vice-gerent 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 center of the Orthodox world. These theories developed by the monk Philotheus and Joseph Velotsky were acknowledged by the Tsar Ivan the Terrible and his successors. They had some influence on our political relations with other Orthodox Slavonic nations. This unifying Orthodox conception of the world was, however, a dogmatic instruction. 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 rights 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 Mikhailovich. 3. 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 seventeenth century, known as 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 seventeenth century. Thus Melitia Smotsky wrote the first detailed Slavonic grammar in 1619. Basil Bursi compiled the first Russian arithmetic in 1645. Bogdan Likov translated Mercator's Geography in 1637, and some of the manuscript copies contained additional Russian notes. Inokinte Gizl produced in 1674 an historical survey of the, quote, beginnings of the Slavonic Russian people and of the first Russian princes who reigned in Kiev, end quote. 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. 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 seventeenth century. The humanistic and individualistic spirit of the Renaissance was not quite unknown to the Russians of the seventeenth century. Peter Mojula, 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 Veselius on Anatomy and of Mojewski on Politics proved that this movement was beginning to penetrate into literary circles at Moscow. The confessional type of culture which predominated in Europe, even in the seventeenth century, had also some influence on Russian literature. Krisanich 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 Theofan 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, Dmitry Tveretanov. He would have paid for his boldness with his life if Peter the Great had not hushed up the affair, 1711 to 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 Farkushlan edited manuals of Geometry, Algebra, and Trigonometry, 1719 and 1730. And these were supplemented by elementary books on Geodicy, 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, shipbuilding and navigation, jurisprudence, history, and other topics. The chief authors translated were Varanias, Vignola, Vaaban and Brown, Alderd and Manson, Pufendorf and Stathamn. The Tsar printed, moreover, a defense 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 the somewhat artificial and, in certain cases, violent means continued to flow and received some new contributions in the eighteenth and nineteenth 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 codaries 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 eighteenth century and inaugurated the nineteenth 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 eighteenth century and the first half of the nineteenth, must be stated without hesitation. The philosophical ideas of Leibniz and Wolf, of Kant, Herder, and others penetrated into Russian chiefly through the Academy of Sciences of Petrograd and the University of Moscow, founded in 1755. 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 coderies between 1832 and 1848, and of somewhat later date is the temporary ascendancy of Moleschatz 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 Schlitzer contributed to the formation of Russian historical studies. Somewhat later and at different times, Weierstrass, Bunsen, Liebig, Ritter, Grimm, Savinie, Ranke, Droysen and Momsen, besides many others, trained Russian students in mathematics, chemistry, linguistics and folklore and in history. French and English influences were less organized. They made way into Russia chiefly through personal intercourse in literature and were of somewhat later origin. These connections grew conspicuous in the times of the French encyclopédistes, Voltaire, Tiderot and others, and the Frenchman 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, Mabli and Reynard, Helvetius and Horbach, and somewhat later they became aware of the theories of Adam Smith, Blackstone and Bentham. 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, Tatyshev and Sherbetov, is enough to prove this. Tatyshev borrowed much from German sources. Sherbetov 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 Kodzelsky and in works of somewhat later origin. Many of these were conceived under the influence of French and English ideas, the theories of the ideologues, and particularly those of Deshtut de Thresi, had made some impression on the reformers known as the Decemberists, 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. Couché and Ampire, Dumas and Bertelot, Pasteur and Bernard, Sensimon, Proudhon and Fourier, Jouisot, Thierry and Michelette, Réinan, Foustelle de Coulanges, and others exercised in 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 Thompson, Lord Kelvin, of Dalton and Maxwell, of Lyle and Darwin, the acute investigations and liberal opinions of Bentley and Gibbon, the brilliant narrative of Macaulay and bold generalizations of Buckles, the suggestive inferences of Tyler, 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 expanded by Couturge, at the University of Petrograd, as early as 1860, and found many Russian supporters, and the diffusion of Buckles ideas among the cultured classes astonished one of his countrymen when traveling in Russia in the 70s. 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, Skovroda, 1722 to 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, quote, 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 favored 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 cited manifestations of science and learning. This can be traced, for instance, in the works of Radoshev, 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 secondhand 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 Lomonasov 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. Bialinsky wrote in 1834, quote, Romanticism was the principle proclaimed in the times of Pushkin, nationality is the alpha and omega of our own times, end quote. And in the name of this national spirit, Nadezhden required from his countrymen appreciation of their national individuality and proper pride in themselves. This doctrine was developed by the Slavophiles, Kyrgyvsky, Homyakov and Aksakov, and later by Danilevsky, the critic of Darwinism, by his friends Stratov and others. Some of the Westerners, also chiefly Solivyev and Kavalin, 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 civilisation. 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 to 1796, under Alexander I after havoc had been made in the universities of Petrograd and Kazan and in a less degree of Moscow, 1820 to 1823, in the times of Nicholas I after the execution of the Decemberists, and particularly after 1848 when philosophy was practically banished from Russian universities for 13 years, 1850 to 1863, when science and learning were subjected to the strictest supervision, when the Westerners and even the Slavophiles, for instance, Herzen and Hormukov, were secretly watched by the police. In fact, only under the reign of Alexander II, after the great reforms of the 60s, 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 lightning 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 favorable 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%. 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 generic 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. In a certain degree, this process can be noticed even in theology. For instance, in the introduction of Makarios Bulgvikov to the principles of orthodoxy, and in an analogous treatise of Filaret 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 40s and 60s. From this point of view, Sidon Ski tried to connect speculation with experience, and the Slavophiles proved to be more original than the Westerners. Kiryev Ski and particularly Homyakov refuted the rationalism of Hegel, whilst Riedkin, and particularly Shisharin, 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 Chicharin tried to introduce some corrections in the logic of Hegel, and some other Westerners, for instance Kavalin, were not entirely satisfied by Hegel. Somewhat later, the materialism of Moloshat, 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 Verbov and propagated by Lvivovich, before he exchanged it for empirical criticism, did not long hold the field. It was attacked by the Archbishop Nikonor Brovkovich, and by one of the foremost representatives of Russian mysticism, V. Soloviev, 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 Comte also found itself challenged by a Russian philosopher, Karinsky. He criticized not only positivism, but all the systems that were based on criticism. After having published some original views on inductive and deductive logic, he endeavored 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, Yevdinsky, the well-known critic of the metaphysical conceptions of matter, soul, etc. His pupil, Lapchen, 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. Lasky, a pupil of Kuslov, developed comprehensive views on the intuition of the external trans-subjective world. He formulated a theory concerning the original coordination between oneself and the content of this world, and applied it to different parts of philosophy. 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 Osupovsky 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 Kushi, Ostrogradsky wrote some noteworthy papers, especially on the integration of algebraic functions and the calculus of variations. Together with Buñkovsky, 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 pangeometry, which revealed an entirely new and comprehensive conception of space, eventually found some partisans among Russian mathematicians, for instance Vashenko and Zakharchenko. 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 de Lille, and Rumovsky, a Russian pupil of Euler, began this work, but it was organized somewhat later, after the foundation of the observatory at Purkovo in 1839 by Struve and his pupils. In course of time Reddihin, 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 Baklund, very highly appreciated in scientific circles, was himself aided by one of the assistants of Reddihin, the astrophysicist Bayelopolsky. These various branches of knowledge received some new applications in the study of geodesy, which particularly concerned Russia. The materials collected by Dileil and Kirilov, an amateur of Russian cartography, proved to be of some use even for the Atlas of 1745. The determinations and measurements made by Vishnijevsky, Struve and others, before the foundation of the observatory of Purkovo, and the subsequent triangulations of the military topographical department, made by Stibnitsky, Tilo and others, contributed largely to the improvement of Russian maps. The best of these were executed by Stryobitsky 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 18th 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, Riemann 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 19th century, besides Lentz and Kupfer, Petrov, one of their Russian colleagues acquired some renown in practical physics. Theoretical physics was further elucidated by Umov and partly by Folsom, famous as well for his actinometrical studies. At the same time, the experimental spirit, further cultivated by Stolyotov 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 Golitsyn. 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 Wilde. The materials collected under their direction in different parts of the Empire were studied by Vesalovsky, Voyakov, 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. These operations, however, could not be carried far at that period. Even Lovits still adhered to the Flajiston theory and only at the beginning of the 19th century Petrov and others tried to prove its inconsistency. Still later, after the discoveries of Kirchhoff and Hess in the domain of catalysis and thermochemistry, Russian chemists began to make further original investigations. In 1842 Sinin arrived by means of experiment at some organic phases 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, Morkovnikov and Syetsev. Bekatov began his investigations also under the direction of Sinin and developed original views on the affinity of chemical elements and on thermochemistry. Some years after the principal discovery of Sinin was made, Mendelev, a most talented supporter of the theory of chemical types, discovered the periodic law of elements and met Shutkin, founded a new center 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 practice it with some success. An assistant of the self-denying Mellon Krasheninikov, for instance, produced a substantial botanical survey of Kamchakka. Lepochin, a collaborator of the learned Pallas, the framer of Russian zoolography and paleontology, published an accurate description of the natural wealth and folk roads of the northern provinces of the empire. And some years later, Osirishkovsky and Tsu'ev 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 Lebedor and Turchannanov on Russian flora, and of Frant and Kuturka on Russian fauna. In the second half of the century some general principles were stated by Russianized 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. Godolin, 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. Godolin's work was continued and improved by Fedorov. He elaborated a vast scheme of all possible structures of crystals. Bernatsky studied not only crystallography, but some of the physical and geochemical processes in minerals, and began to describe their types in a systematic survey. Progress was made also in anatomy and physiology. Pyrogov, the celebrated pupil of the Dutchman, Moyer of Dorpat, made an important contribution to the development of anatomy. He anticipated the bacteriological theory of blood putrefaction, and used anesthetics in surgical operations, which were further improved by Gruber. Yakubovich, and somewhat later Bechtrev, made acute microscopic investigations concerning the anatomy of the nervous system. Meanwhile, Sayetchenov became famous for his physiological researches, particularly on the cerebrospinal 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 in concrete sciences, such as botany and zoology, were also progressing during this period. Zankovsky was one of the first to study the anatomy and physiology of plants, and contributed to the progress of bacteriological investigations. Fominzen also worked at the physiology of plants, and explained the influence of light on them, and the phenomena of symbiosis. Timiryetsev, 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 Bayer, one of the greatest embryologists. But Bayer 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, acidae, amphioxus, lanciolatus, bonellia, sagita, 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 developed 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, vagocytes, 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. Pyrogov had many pupils. Sietchenov was the father of physiology in Russia. Pavlov organized the physiological studies in the Medical Institute. Zinkovsky guided the first steps of Fominzen, who, in his turn, molded 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 Solensky. Bogdanov formed a school of Russian zoologists represented by Shymkovich, Nassanov, and others. Many of these devoted themselves to the study of more special subjects. 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 18th century proved very fruitful in scientific results, particularly the Great Northern Expedition of Gmellen, the Elder, and Muller, 1733 to 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 Midentorf, Percivalsky, Semenov Tienchansky, Botanen, Paevtsov, Sievertsov, and many others. Geographical exploration was not confined to Russian Asia. Miklou Hamakli, for instance, spent some years in New Guinea, among the Papuans and in other places where he made valuable zoological collections and ethnographical observations. In course of time these collections and observations were scientifically treated either by the travelers themselves or by independent investigators, and were brought into connection with anthropological studies. One of the pupils of Bogdanov, Anuchin, 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. Messerschmitt and other travelers 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, Halmerzen 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 paleontological inquiries. Czernyshev set to work on the Paleozoic period, particularly in the Ural Mountains, and Dakutchev 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 researchers in different parts of the empire, Schmitt in the Baltic provinces, Inostransev in the north, and Pavlov in the middle of Russia, Muzhutov in Turkestan, the Ural Mountains, and the Caucasus. Some of these geological investigations were more or less related to prehistoric studies, and the geologists themselves, for instance, Golovkinsky, Inostransev, and others, were inclined to promote anthropology. Count Juvarov 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 Antonovich, Anuchin, 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, Anichkov, one of the adherents of the Volfian 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 fisicus. This tie became weaker under the influence of the empirical psychology. Galik had become aware of its value, and some thirty years later Ushinsky had made an attempt to analyze the phenomena of feeling and will. The scientific study of nature had naturally much effect on psychology. Sietchikov tried to solve the problem of the mind and body in this way, and in his reply to Kavilan's pamphlet expressed the opinion that only physiologists can attempt a solution. Troitsky wished to exclude metaphysics from psychology, and introduced English empirical psychology to Russians. This movement, partly supported by Vladislav Lev, 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 Ushinsky and Lang, in the works of Chalpanov, Vadensky, and others. 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 Messerschmitt and other travellers, particularly in the second half of the eighteenth century, had gathered linguistic materials. Bachmeister made a great collection of such data, which were published in a great dictionary of all known languages, under the direction of Palas. The study of Indo-European languages began in the same century from the time of Bayer, 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. Khorzh was well versed in European and even Oriental languages, but neither he nor Boethlingk, the great Sanskritist, was able to found new linguistic schools in Russia. These arose thanks to the learned activity of Fortunatov in Moscow and Baduin Dekortene 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 neo-grammatical movement, Baduin Dekortene, studied the physiology and psychology of language. He discovered the laws of reduction of the stems of words in favour of their terminations and a phonetic change, and was especially interested in the Slavonic dialects. These distinguished linguists had pupils who continued their work. Shakhmetav, Ulyanov, and others represented the Moscow school. Khrushchevsky, Bogoroditsky, Bulich, and others, the Kazan school of linguistics. At the same time, Potebnya, a follower of Steintal, 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 expanded by Ovcianiko, Kulikovsky, and Tsumtsav. 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 Köppen and Rytich. The publication of materials collected by Georgiy, Chulkov, and others began in the 18th century. In course of time, this work became more specialized. Sakharov, Tarashenko, 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 Chyspinsky, Klaproth, Kastren, Shjorgan, Radlov, and somewhat later Yadrinsev, Shmirnov, 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 Harutzen summed up the results of this work in his lectures on ethnography. End of first part of lecture six.