 Second part of Lecture No. 6. The Development of Science and Learning in Russia by A. S. Lapodanovsky. From Russian realities and problems, lectures delivered at Cambridge in August 1916. This LibriVox recording is in the public domain. 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, Karyev, Tushikov, 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 Roberti. 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, particularly Beltov, Struve and others, criticized 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 determined social, political and mental evolution in general. This theory, contested by the subjectivists, had some influence on the adherence of genetic sociology. Kovalevsky 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 inclined to a different conception of social life being manifestly influenced by the Kantian doctrine of ethics. Meanwhile, a more special statistical treatment of social phenomena began to develop. Its beginnings can be traced to the old books of Butero, Daviti, Peti 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, Shlotser, author of a treatise on the theory of statistics, and Hermann and Storch undertook a similar task and performed it in a more satisfactory way. But even they confined themselves to mere description, and this tenancy was still conspicuous in the works of Arsenyev. But in the second half of the nineteenth century, Jansen 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 Tsemsfos. The theory of statistics was further developed by Jansen's pupil, Kauffman, and by Chuprov the Younger, one of the modern representatives of the Mathematical School of Statistics, while practical applications were made in several Tsemsfos by Orlov and other investigators. Statistics were, of course, closely connected, particularly in previous times with economics. This science developed in Russia from the beginning of the nineteenth century. It was expanded by Schlutzer 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 Dorpot 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 Tener was able to develop collectivism, a conclusion which was later supported by Verantsov, who 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, Kursak manifested such a tendency in his acute investigations on the forms of industry. Yan Yul 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, et cetera. Verantsov and Nikolayin agreed with Marx's attack on capitalism. Pleyanov, Ilyin, 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 Pufendorf, and accepted by Grosse, one of the first members of the academy. After the foundation of the university in Moscow, Dilte began to deliver lectures there on natural law, and Zolanitsky 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. Dilte tried to apply the system of Roman law to Russian statutes, but Polyanov, who had studied at Shrasburg in Göttingen, 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, Ryadkin, Krylov, Mayer, et cetera. Further steps were made by Russian scholars in the general knowledge of law, particularly in the second half of the nineteenth century. Some of them, for instance, the Hegelians, Nevolin, Ryadkin, and Chicheren. The positivists, Korkunov and Moromtsev, the psychologist Petrachitsky, 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 Pobjet Anadstev 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. Shershenovich 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, Gorchakov, 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 Andreevsky, Romanovich Slavotinsky, and some of their contemporaries. One of the chief of these was Khrudovsky. 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 role of public offices and of central and local institutions in Russia. Khrudovsky had many pupils. One of these, Korkanov, conceived the state as a juridical relation, the subject of which is quote all the capable population, end quote, and the object, the power of domination. From this point of view he treated of Russian public law and institutions. Some colleagues and some students of Khrudovsky, the adherents of the classical school, Sposevich and Tengantsev contributed largely to the study of criminal law, and Fornitsky expressed original views on criminality. Martins wrote a systematic treatise on international law, conceived in a positive spirit, and trained some pupils. Pilenko studied the 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. 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 eighteenth century. Bayer, 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 Varyagians. Somewhat later, Schlötzer 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 Scherbetov began to study general Russian history in a pragmatic way, and Bolton 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 Rumiantsev at the beginning of the nineteenth century. He was supported by Krug and other learned men. The works of the eldest member of this group, the Metropolitan again Abolshov-Vytena, were distinguished by acuteness and learning and prepared the way for later synthetic surveys of Russian history. The first of these, Karimzin'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 instruction 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 Kotorga in Petrograd and Gronovsky in Moscow. The learned humanist Kotorga 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 Kotorga's investigations was not abandoned. Busek's shiel worked on in this direction. Meantime, Zelinsky began to elucidate the spirit of classical antiquity in connection with modern culture, indicating especially the value of Sapokles, Cicero, and other writers for our own times, and his pupil Rostov Step 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 medieval history was considerably promoted by Gronovsky, a disciple of Rahnke, Thierry, and other German and French historians. He expanded his humane views in a mild social spirit and with an eloquence which charmed his audience and called forth the historical works of Kurovsev and Achevsky. The attempt of Gronovsky 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. Gurrier, formerly a student of medieval 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 Mabli, the French Revolution, etc. Some of his pupils turned from the study of ideas to social and economic history. From this point of view, Lev Menogrodov 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 manner. Another pupil of Gurrier and prolific writer, Karyev, 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 Menogrodov, Petrushevsky and Savin studied social and economic history in England. Following Karyev, Onu and Putenko elucidated the history of some institutions of modern France. The history of culture was not, however, quite abandoned. Korrelin, who was under the influence of Gurrier, 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 Lucitsky. 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 Bulotov and Glubokovsky in critical works on early Christianity, by Novitsky and Prince Trubetskoy in dissertations on the history of ancient philosophy, by Bobinin and Bubnov, Stolyotov, and Vernadsky in researches on medieval and modern science, by Gurrier and Kariev, Petrov and Buseskol, in treatises on former historical conceptions, by Korsch and particularly by Veselovsky in his noteworthy monographs on the genesis and expansion of literary subjects and on the evolution of poetical forms, by Stefanie and Kondakhov in monumental inquiries into the plastic arts, by Riotkin and particularly by Shisharin in his voluminous history of political theories. The development of economics attracted the attention of those who, like Vipar and Petrachevsky, 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. Kulescher attempted a general historical survey of economics in Western Europe and so on. The history of institutions was somewhat less studied. Besides Skorovsky 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 Artishev 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 Vasilevsky, 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. Bufnof, one of his pupils, applied the critical method to the examination of medieval annals. Others began to study Byzantine history and Uspinski produced valuable works on its sources, on the religious movement and the village community in the Byzantine empire, and endeavored 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 Price contributed to this development, and with Grigoryevich, an original student of Slavonic languages and literature, exerted some influence on Sresnevsky. The latter collected a quantity of materials concerning the Slavonic languages and Russian in particular, traditional beliefs, songs, and writings, studying paleographical 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 Sresnevsky. The most prominent of these, Lemonsky, 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 Makushab investigated the history of South Slavonian communities. Meanwhile Kotliarevsky, 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 the 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, quote, general human knowledge cannot be realized by a nation without self-knowledge, end quote, 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 Ritor and was a disciple of Gizot and an adherent of Iur's, 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. Kiryevsky, Omnikov, and Axikov, accepting to some extent the principles of Shelling 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 Solovyev in their estimate of Western civilization and insisted on its one-sidedness and want of stability. They discovered, on the contrary, original and renovating principles of completeness and progress in Russian culture based on true equity, which must be freely spoken out by the people, and they opposed to it the external justice of the state. These views were applied especially by Axikov 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 principle 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 centered in Kiev, Vladimir, Moscow, and St. Petersburg. But this union between land and state was not broken up to 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 favor with those Westerners who opposed 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. Siloviev, although not quite indifferent to the Slavophile tendencies, belonged to the opposite school. Kavilan enlarged his predecessor scheme and introduced between his two principal periods an intermediate stage characterized by the ascendancy of civil patriarchal institutions. Shisharin showed the scarcity of information concerning patriarchal society and divided the subsequent times, like Kavilan, 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 Sergeiyevich. He distinguished in Russian history the two periods of Shisharin, 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 60s, but they had a great influence on subsequent historical writers. One of them, Kliachevsky, a pupil of Siloviev and Shisharin, highly appreciated some of their conclusions but could not accept them entirely. He elaborated his own sociological conception of Russian history. Kliachevsky was not inclined to accept the theory of Siloviev and particularly the modifications of it, which he introduced in the later volumes of his history. Kliachevsky attached much more importance to material than to moral forces, which he appreciated insofar as they manifested themselves in social phenomena. Besides, he could not content himself, as Shisharin 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, Kliachevsky 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, Kliachevsky 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, medieval 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. Kliachevsky 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 Kizovetar, Bogoslavsky 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 deal by Iconikov, 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. Buselev studied it in connection with the general evolution of Russian culture, and Chakhmetov and Sobolevsky explained its evolution. The critical school continued to develop itself in the works of Kachanovsky and other scholars. Kruk had expressed his approval of the critical investigation of Kachanovsky's opponent, Pogodin, upon the annals of Nestor, and Pogodin, in his turn, lent a helping hand to Iconikov and to Danov 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 Besduchev, 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, Chakhmetov, and others. The comparative method of historical study was also used in different domains, in the history of Russian literature and art, by Busleev and Tipon Ravalov, Pipin, Veslovsky, by Kondakov, Jinloi, and others, in the history of Russian economics by Nikitsky, Miljukov, Struve, Tugun Baranovsky, and others, in the general history of Russian law and institutions by Nevolin, Kavalin, Shisharin, Gradovsky, Serkayaevich, and others. One of these, Vladimirsky Bunenov, 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, Lyupovsky, Lapo, and others continued this comparative study of Russian and Lithuanian institutions. In opposition to Vladimirsky Bunenov and some other investigators, Pavlov Silvansky insisted, from a sociological point of view, on the similarity of the medieval institutions of Russia with the corresponding feudal institutions of Western Europe, particularly in the period when the manner 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 Byelin, Kostomarov, and Antonovich. Others studied the history of local government, very much improved by the great reforms, for instance, Andreiyevsky, Gradovsky, Luchitsky. Many took a strong interest in the emancipation of the rural classes and entered into investigations on their past, among others by Yaliyev and Sokolovsky. The history of their gradual enslavement, begun by Kiliuchevsky, 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. 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 Bayer and the Orientalist Kerr, 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 Klaprov's Asia polyglota. 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. Thron was very well versed in these, but he studied especially Mohammedan coins and Arabic writers, the accounts of ancient Russia, its inhabitants and their customs given by Ibn Fodzlan 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 Thron had already paid some attention were investigated, for instance, by Kazan Bek, the self-taught enthusiast of Petrograd, Sinkovsky, next stimulated the growing interest of Russian scholars in Oriental languages and literature. Somewhat later, Volsan and Rosen and their people Kokovtsev continued with growing success the study of Hebrew and Arabic texts. The Mongolish 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 Vilyaminov-Sernov, Kovalevsky and others. Russian study of China owed much less to foreign influence. The foundation of the Orthodox Russian mission to Peking proved to be of some consequence in this respect. Russian psychology was inaugurated by Bihurin and Katerov, the investigators of China's culture, and promoted by Vasilyev, 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 Vasilyev 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 both the link 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 Buddhist culture. Oldenburg studied Buddhist legends and particularly iconography. Sherbatsky explained ancient Indian philosophical treatises in the light of modern critical thought, etc. The well-known Iranian scholar Salaman had also an influence on this movement, and Persian studies were carried on by Tukhovsky 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. Lem and his pupil Turyev, Gulenyshev, and Nikolsky promoted Egyptology and Deserialogy. Boracit and Mar investigated the languages and antiquities, the literature and history of Georgia and Armenia. Tukhovsky and Barthold elucidated the medieval civilization and history of Central Asia and so on. Part 3 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. 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 fulfill such a mission, and Russian philosophers have endeavored 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 30s and 40s, and particularly the Slavophiles, criticized from this point of view the Western rationalism. Kyrievsky, Homakov, 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 Gronovsky, Kovalin endeavored, for instance, to reconcile idealism with realism from a somewhat psychological point of view. A different conception was formed by the materialists of the 60s, Pisarev, Antonovich, and others. They also deliberated in a materialistic sense on the, quote, unity of the physical and moral cosmos, end quote. 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 spiritualistic or 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. Siloviev criticized in this spirit the one-sidedness 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, quote, 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 pricks 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. Siloviev 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 transcendent point of view, Siloviev affirmed that the world must be united with God through the medium of man and transposed the center of man's existence into a supernatural and super personal sphere which reveals its creative power in the collective mind of humanity and contains the leading principles of human life, quote, in union with God, end quote. 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 Trubetskoy and other writers. Materialistic monism was an offshoot of Marxism. One of its most rigid partisans, Platonov, has expressed it in the following well-known formula, quote, matter thinks, end quote, and has deduced from it a materialistic conception of the world and of social life, quote, 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, end quote. One of the adherents of this doctrine, Elin Lenin, stood forth recently in its defense 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 Vodensky 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. Kerinsky, 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 criticized only his theory concerning the role 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. Lobachevsky 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 Mendeleev 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. 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, Gadolene tried to deduce all the crystallographic systems and their subdivisions from one general principle, and Federerff 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. Bayer had been desirous to establish a connection between all natural objects, and supposed that, quote, mutual relations of organized bodies, end quote, 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, quote, living course, end quote, 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 role in respect to our conception of organic processes. Darwinism found many able adherents in Russia. Darwin himself had a very high opinion of the paleontological studies of Vlad Kovalevsky, and appreciated the zoological investigations of his brother Alex Kovalevsky on the lowest vertebrates, and invertebrates, and on their genetic relationship. His works, as well as the works of Mechnikov, 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 Kortzinski. 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 favorable 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 Soloviev. 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, quote, free will, and of man's mission, which is to realize, quote, in union with God, and, quote, 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, quote, outside God, and, quote, 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 Christ. In this sense, Soloviev spoke of the, quote, God-man, end quote, actually, quote, existing on earth, end quote, and gradually advancing to perfection, of, quote, the kingdom of God, end quote, 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, quote, a gradual approximation to the wholeness of individuals, to a possibly most complete and various division of labor between man's organs and most limited division of labor between men, end quote. 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. Karyaev 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 Aksikov, and others who considered it rather as an evolution of pre-established loyalties innate in the Russian people, the Westerners, Jolioviev, and others treated it in a more positive way, as an organic development influenced by various external causes. At a later date, Kliachevsky, 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. 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 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 Ulderslavophiles, Kierievsky, Homjakov, and others, and even in the treatises of some Westerners, for instance, Kavalin. 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. Sulofyev, 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 tans, 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, quote, justification of good, end quote. It proceeds from a kind of moral unity, able to govern individual and social life. Our consciousness approves these two wills, directed to, quote, true good, end quote, 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, Solofiev considered then the problem of unity of consciousness the correlation of reason, will, and feeling. Prince Trubetskoy 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, quote, other self, end quote, 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, quote, faith, end quote, that is, of immediate impression, intuition, of reality and evolution, and not only an object of rational and empirical knowledge. Thus Trubetskoy acknowledged a unifying spiritual principle of the universe in relation to which the phenomenal world must be considered a concrete, quote, subject of this universal object, end quote, which reveals itself in its creative reason and will, in its altruistic existence for others, in its love to our, quote, searching love, end quote, and which cannot be conceived by mere rational and empirical knowledge. This love must be realized by men in their actions. These metaphysical conceptions could not satisfy the Russian philosophers and sociologists to, though they allotted an important role 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, Karyev, 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. Karyev 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, quote, inherent in our soul, end quote, 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 the 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, Belakirev, Musorgsky, Borodin, Rimsky-Korsakov and others expressed their empathy with some ideals and characteristic moral natures of the Russian people. Besides the subjective mood of Tchaikovsky and the deep lyric revelations of Skryabin, other states of mind can be traced in their productions. Belakirev, for instance, was to a certain degree imbued with original mystic sentiment. Rimsky-Korsakov manifested, particularly in his latest work, an inclination to, quote, ethical pantheism, end quote. 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. Kramskoy painted his Christ in the wilderness, quote, with his blood and tears, end quote. Vesnetsov executed mystical pictures on the walls of the cathedral at St. Vladimir. Gwey manifested his sympathy with the moral doctrine taught by Tolstoy in his works. Laryapin often dealt with social and political subjects. Tereshagin 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 Turgenev, the moral tendencies of the age. A mere mention of Dostoevsky and Tolstoy will be enough. Tolstoy's religious and ethical views on the dependent role of art were and still are debated in Russia. But they are very characteristic of the moralizing 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 role, 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 Nicholas 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 favorable to its development. This occurred not only in the roles of reaction mentioned above, but even later in the years before the tragic death of Alexander II, before 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 favorable to a permanent fecundation of thought by life. This convergence 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 acknowledgement 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 existing for the good of humanity, and thus she becomes, in concert with other nations, a part of humanity, and retains, 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. End of Lecture 6 Part 2 and End of Russian Realities and Problems, Lectures Delivered at Cambridge in August 1916