German civilisation from the North and thus renewed and enriched the civilisation of Western Europe. The rich cultural life of the South influenced Northern and Central Russia, and created there, chiefly in the East, on the river Kama, very important and opulent centres of civilisation which were closely connected with the shores of the Baltic and the steppes of Siberia. This prehistoric civilisation became, as it grew, the basis of the culture of the Slavonic peoples, and formed the background against which the historical life of the Russian State developed.

It is natural that Russian learning should have devoted its best energies to the study of Russian history. One of the peculiarities of this history in the early period is that it cannot be separated from the history of the Greek world. The old ties between them became even closer. This connexion with the Greek world, and chiefly with Byzantium, was at once understood and rightly valued by Russian scholars. The history of the Byzantine Church and Byzantine religious dogma were from the earliest times studied in Russia by the representatives of theological learning. In the 19th century began a systematic study of the history of Byzantine literature, and of the political, economical, social and artistic evolution of Byzantium. Fresh sources of Byzantine history have been published one after another. They have chiefly been taken from the libraries of Russian monasteries and from those of the Orthodox East, especially from Mount Athos and Sinai. Much help has been given to the historians by the Orientalists, i.e. the Arabic and Armenian scholars and the specialists in the Georgian and Coptic languages. The study of Byzantium forms one with the study of the East. At the same time close attention has been paid to the political and social history of Byzantium. Here, too, the Orientalists joined forces with the Hellenists. We can affirm that to Vassilievskij and his school Europe is indebted for the foundations of its knowledge of Byzantine history; and that to Kondakoff and his school it owes its comprehension and right appreciation of Byzantine art.

It is most difficult in a short lecture to follow the gradual evolution of the Russian people from the time

of the creation of a Russian State. Here, too, the foundation was laid by the publication and study of the documentary sources. This work is of course still unfinished, but we must remember that Western Europe is in the same position. Still we can say that the most important of these documents have been elucidated and published. The Russian Annals, for example, have been studied in a masterly manner by Shakhmatoff, who investigated them from the point of view of criticism and language and elucidated the history of their growth as well as the character of the different versions.

Russian scholars have furnished us with many works picturing the evolution of Russian life. Each of these contains not only a synopsis of our knowledge of the facts, but reflects at the same time the influence of the most important philosophical ideas prevalent in the author's day. Karamsin is the historian of the Russian Tsars; Solovieff the historian of the Russian people. Slavophils and Westerns, mystics and realists, idealists and economic materialists in turn coloured the facts of Russian history under the influence of their general ideas. But every surrender to natural bias and every exaggeration were combined with a fresh and ever deeper appreciation of the facts brought about by the discovery and elucidation of new sides of Russian life. At this moment Russian historical learning can boast of having found its Macaulay in the person of a man who understood and appreciated the peculiarities of the evolution of Russia and her close connexion with Western Europe. I speak of the classical works of Klucevsky and his school, and especially of his best pupil Miliukoff. Let me describe their work by reading to you the words of one of the best scholars in Russian history, the late member of the Russian Academy, Lappo-Danilevsky. This learned man, who was an Honorary Doctor of the University of Cambridge, lately died of starvation in Petrograd.

'Klucevsky (he says) elaborated his own "sociological" conception of Russian history. He was not inclined to accept the theory of Solovyeff and particularly the modifications of it which he introduced in the later volumes of his history. Klucevsky attached much more importance to material than to moral forces, which he appreciated in so far as they

manifested themselves in social phenomena; besides, he could not content himself, as Chicherin has done, with the study of institutions considered merely as mechanisms 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 notion; 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 Slavophil doctrine, Klucevsky insisted on the "originality" of Russian history and explained the part that the Russian nation had played, particularly the Great Russians, whom he characterised 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, Klucevsky held that the Russian nation had passed through different stages of evolution. Ancient Russia, situated on the Dnieper, was characterised by urban life and trade; mediæval 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, under the autocratic regime, by the ascendancy of the nobles, and enslaved agriculture and industry. Klucevsky 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, Miliukoff explained the evolution of Russian culture, arranged in a homogeneous series, and, with Kisewetter, Bogoslovsky, Platonov and others, entered upon definite investigations concerning the history of certain Russian institutions.'

The study of Russian history, which made enormous progress in the 19th century, owes this progress in a large measure to the fact that Russian scholars were at the same time actively concerned with questions of philosophy and law as well as social and economic problems regarded from the comparative point of view. Careful attention was also being paid to the solution of the problems of universal history in their widest aspects. Let me describe to you what is being done in Russia in this department by citing the words of one of the

greatest authorities on general history, a man who combines the qualities of a profound jurist and of an acute historical enquirer-Sir Paul Vinogradoff, a professor formerly of Moscow and now of Oxford, and member of the Russian and British Academies.

'All the great nations of Europe (he says) have come to realise in the course of the 19th century to what extent their political, economic and cultural life are products of historical factors; but no nation has been led by conditions and events to so keen a consciousness of this fundamental truth as the Russian people. Apart from the evolution of self-government and the contrasts of economic classes, the problems of orientation towards the West have made Russian scholars especially interested and open-minded in connexion with the scientific study of general history. In the forties and fifties, at the height of the militarist regime of Nicholas I, Granovsky, a professor in Moscow, gave eloquent expression to the best aspirations of French and German scholarship in explaining the progress of the civilised world. His famous lectures on Alexander the Great, Timur, Saint Louis, and Bacon, marked the stages in the road from material domination to spiritual achievement.

'The holders of the chair of History in Moscow remained true to the tradition started by Granovsky, and set before their students and the public at large the historical landmarks of Western civilisation as manifestations of the human struggle for freedom and knowledge. Kudriavtzeff, in his "Destinies of Italy," treated the transition from the ancient to the modern world in its general political aspect-a task which Gibbon, Bury and Hodgkin have undertaken with such success in England, Guerrier turned with indefatigable industry and insight to the leaders of religious thought-St Augustin, Bernard III of Clairvaux, Innocent III. Kareieff presented an encyclopædic survey of the general course of Modern History, besides making a special study of certain aspects of the French Revolution. Vinogradoff investigated the origins of social structure and social functioning in the mediæval past of England, Wales and Italy. His pupil, A. Savine, has made remarkable contributions to the social history of England in the 15th century. M. Karelin made a thorough study at first-hand of the political and cultural ideas of the Italian Renaissance. Boris Tchicherin, a Hegelian philosopher of remarkable learning and analytical power, summarised in four volumes the development of political theory from the Greeks to the Germans of the 19th century.

Maxim Kovalevsky, who, beginning his career in Harkoff, taught in Moscow and Paris and concluded his eventful life in Petrograd, made a masterly contribution to comparative jurisprudence by his work on the customary law of Caucasian tribes, besides surveying the general course of economic development in Europe and investigating the influence of economic conditions and political theories on the French Revolution.'

I am of course far from having exhausted, in these short remarks, the material I could and ought to use in an attempt to describe the state of scientific enquiry in Russia. But I think that I have said enough to show you the direction which humane learning has taken in Russia, and the results which it has achieved.

Not being a specialist, I have no right to speak of what has been done by Russian scholars in the domain of Mathematics and of Natural Science. But, like every educated man, I know the great names of the renowned Russian mathematicians, Lobachevsky and Chebysheff; of the physicists and chemists, Lomonossoff, Mendeleieff, and Lebedieff; and of the physiologists and physicians, Pirogoff, Metchnikoff, Pavloff, and others. I cannot undertake to describe what they have done, but I will venture to bring before you the testimony of some of your own most eminent specialists regarding them. The number of such tributes could be multiplied at will. This is what one of the most distinguished scholars of the age, Sir Joseph Thomson, writes to Prof. Sir P. Vinogradoff about the late Prof. Lebedieff of Moscow:

'I think Lebedieff's investigations on the pressure of light, involving as they did the measurement of extraordinarily minute effects, are among the most striking triumphs of Experimental Physics. The results he arrived at are of firstrate importance in the general theory of radiation.'

It is to the kindness of one of the most eminent contemporary physiologists, Prof. C. S. Sherrington of Oxford, that I owe the following testimony to the works and personality of the two stars of Russian PhysiologyMetchnikoff, who was first a professor in Odessa and then Director of the Pasteur Institute in Paris; and Pavloff, formerly Director of the Institute of Experimental