Notes
© 2018 Nikolai Krementsov https://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0144.10
The Faces of Eugenics
1 The literature on the history of eugenics is vast and varied. For a sample of books published in English just since 2010, see Alison Bashford and Philippa Levine, eds., The Oxford Handbook on the History of Eugenics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2010); Sheila Faith Weiss, The Nazi Symbiosis: Human Genetics and Politics in the Third Reich (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Marius Turda, Modernism and Eugenics (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010); Francesco Cassata, Building the New Man: Eugenics, Racial Science and Genetics in Twentieth-century Italy (Budapest: CEU Press, 2011); Paul A. Lombardo, ed., A Century of Eugenics in America: From the Indiana Experiment to the Human Genome Era (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2011); Angela M. Smith, Hideous Progeny: Disability, Eugenics, and Classic Horror Cinema (New York: Columba University Press, 2011); Christian Promitzer, Sevasti Trubeta, and Marius Turda, eds., Health, Hygiene and Eugenics in South-Eastern Europe to 1945 (Budapest: CEU Press, 2011); Nathaniel Comfort, The Science of Human Perfection (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2012); Alexandra Minna Stern, Telling Genes: The Story of Genetic Counseling in America (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2012); Christine Ferguson, Determined Spirits: Eugenics, Heredity and Racial Regeneration in Anglo-American Spiritualist Writing, 1848-1939 (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2012); Stefan Kühl, For the Betterment of the Race: The Rise and Fall of the International Movement for Eugenics and Racial Hygiene (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); Debbie Challis, The Archaeology of Race: The Eugenic Ideas of Francis Galton and Flinders Petrie (London: Bloomsbury Academic, 2013); Sharon M. Leon, An Image of God: The Catholic Struggle with Eugenics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2013); Clare Hanson, Eugenics, Literature, and Culture in Post-war Britain (London: Routledge, 2013); Randall Hansen and Desmond King, Sterilized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth Century North America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013); Erika Dyck, Facing Eugenics: Reproduction, Sterilization, and the Politics of Choice (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2013); Richard Cleminson, Catholicism, Race and Empire: Eugenics in Portugal, 1900-1950 (Budapest: CEU Press, 2014); Fae Brauer and Serena Keshavjee, eds., Picturing Evolution and Extinction: Regeneration and Degeneration in Modern Visual Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2015); Ewa Barbara Luczak, Breeding and Eugenics in the American Literary Imagination: Heredity Rules in the Twentieth Century (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015); Thomas C. Leonard, Illiberal Reformers: Race, Eugenics, and American Economics in the Progressive Era (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016); Maurizio Meloni, Political Biology: Science and Social Values in Human Heredity from Eugenics to Epigenetics (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016); Adam Cohen, Imbeciles: The Supreme Court, American Eugenics, and the Sterilization of Carrie Buck (New York: Penguin, 2016); Shantella Y. Sherman, In Search of Purity: Popular Eugenics and Racial Uplift Among New Negroes (CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform, 2016); Gerald V. O’Brien, Framing the Moron: The Social Construction of Feeble-Mindedness in the American Eugenic Era (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2016); Heike I. Petermann, Peter S. Harper, Susanne Doetz, eds., History of Human Genetics: Aspects of Its Development and Global Perspectives (Cham: Springer, 2017); Diane B. Paul, John Stenhouse, and Hamish G. Spencer, eds., Eugenics at the Edges of Empire: New Zealand, Australia, Canada and South Africa (Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, 2018); and many others.
2 Of course, some scholars have contested this linear genealogy, see, for instance, John Waller, “Ideas of Heredity, Reproduction and Eugenics in Britain, 1800-1875,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, Part C, 2001, 32(3): 457-89; Diane B. Paul and Benjamin Day, “John Stuart Mill, Innate Differences, and the Regulation of Reproduction,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Science, 2008, 39: 222-31; and Mark B. Adams, “Eugenics,” in V. Ravitsky, A. Fiester, and A. Caplan, eds., The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics (Cham: Springer, 2008), pp. 371-82.
3 See the early classic studies by Charles P. Blacker, Eugenics: Galton and After (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952); Mark Haller, Eugenics: Hereditarian Attitudes in American Thought (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1963); Donald K. Pickens, Eugenics and the Progressives (Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press, 1968); Kenneth M. Ludmerer, Genetics and American Society: A Historical Appraisal (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1972); Geoffrey R. Searle, Eugenics and Politics in Britain, 1900-1914 (Leyden: Noordhoff, 1976); Lyndsay A. Farrall, The Origins and Growth of the English Eugenics Movement, 1865–1912 (New York: Garland Press, 1985); and Daniel J. Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics: Genetics and the Uses of Human Heredity (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1985). The emphasis on Anglo-American eugenics has been continued in many later studies, see, for instance, Diana B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press International, 1995); idem, The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998); Robert A. Peel, ed., Essays in the History of Eugenics (London: Galton Institute, 1998); Ian R. Dowbiggin, Keeping America Sane: Psychiatry and Eugenics in the United States and Canada, 1880-1940 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997); Alexandra Minna Stern, Eugenic Nation: Faults and Frontiers of Better Breeding in Modern America (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 2005); and many others. Compare also the three overviews of relevant literature published in roughly fifteen-year intervals: Lyndsay A. Farrall, “The History of Eugenics: A Bibliographical Review,” Annals of Science, 1979, 36(2): 111-23; Philip J. Pauly, “Essay Review: The Eugenics Industry — Growth or Restructuring?” Journal of the History of Biology (hereafter JHB), 1993, 26(1): 131-45; and Philippa Levine and Alison Bashford, “Eugenics and the Modern World,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 3-24.
4 Problems in Eugenics: Vol. II. Report on Proceedings of the First International Eugenics Congress held at the University of London, July 24th to 30th, 1912 (Kingsway: Eugenics Education Society, 1913), p. 44.
5 On Ploetz and Rassenhygiene, see Peter Weingart, Jürgen Kroll, and Kurt Bayertz, Rasse, Blut und Gene. Geschichte der Eugenik und Rassenhygiene in Deutschland (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1988); Paul Weindling, Health, Race, and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Robert N. Proctor, Racial Hygiene: Medicine under the Nazis (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1988).
6 Karl Pearson, The Academic Aspect of the Science of National Eugenics (London: Dulau, 1911), p. 4.
7 Since the publication of Kevles’s classic study many historians have emphasized the close similarity and interconnectedness of British and US eugenics, seen particularly in the prominence of Galton’s version in both countries. A closer look at the early manifestations of eugenic thought in the United States, however, indicates that American eugenics also had distinct “national” roots and traditions. To give but one example, at the “first national conference on race betterment” held at Battle Creek, Michigan, in January 1914, Galton’s name was barely even mentioned (nine times on 600-plus pages of the published proceedings). But participants did hail several local “founding fathers” (and “mothers”!) of the science of “race betterment.” See Emily F. Robbins, ed., Proceedings of the First National Conference on Race Betterment (Battle Creek, MI: Race Betterment Foundation, 1914).
8 See, for example, Mark B. Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science: Eugenics in Germany, France, Brazil, and Russia (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990); Anne Carol, Histoire de l’eugénisme en France: les médecins et la procréation, XIXe-XXe siècle (Paris: Éditions du Seuil, 1995); Gunar Broberg and Nils Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State: Sterilization Policy in Denmark, Sweden, Norway, and Finland (East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press, 1996); Nancy L. Stepan, ‘The Hour of Eugenics’: Race, Gender, and Nation in Latin America (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1996); R. A. Soloway, “From Mainline to Reform Eugenics: Leonard Darwin and C. P. Blacker,” in R. A. Peel, ed., Essays in the History of Eugenics (London: Galton Institute, 1997), pp. 52-80; Reinhard Mocek, “The Program of Proletarian Rassenhygiene,” Science in Context, 1998, 11(3-4): 609-17; Jean-Noël Missa and Charles Susanne, eds., De l’eugénisme d’état à l’eugénisme privé (Paris and Brussels: De Boeck University, 1999); Michael Schwartz, Sozialistische Eugenik: Sozialtechnologien in Debatten und Politik der deutschen Sozialdemokratie, 1890-1933 (Bonn: Nachf, 2000); Pauline M. H. Mazumdar, “‘Reform’ Eugenics and the Decline of Mendelism,” Trends in Genetics, 2002, 18(1): 48-52; Nicholas Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement (Boston, MA: Blackwell, 2004); Marius Turda and Paul J. Weindling, eds.,“Blood and Homeland”: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe, 1900-1940 (Budapest: CEU Press, 2007); John Glad, Jewish Eugenics (Washington, DC: Wooden Shore, 2011); Bjorn M. Felder and Paul J. Weindling, eds, Baltic Eugenics (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2013); Marius Turda, ed., The History of East-Central European Eugenics, 1900-1945 (London: Bloomsbury, 2015); Marius Turda and Aaron Gillette, Latin Eugenics in Comparative Perspective (London: Bloomsbury, 2016); and Judith Daar, The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).
9 See, for instance, a detailed discussion of the intimate relations between “reproductive culture” and “eugenic thinking” in Maria A. Wolf, Eugenische Vernunft: Eingriffe in die reproduktive Kultur durch die Medizin, 1900-2000 (Vienna: Böhlau Verlag, 2008).
10 Francis Galton, “Hereditary Talent and Character,” Macmillan’s Magazine, 1865, 12(68): 157-66; (70): 318-27.
11 Francis Galton, Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development (London: Macmillan, 1883), pp. 24-25 (fn. 1) and p. 44.
12 Galton, “Hereditary Talent and Character,” p. 165.
13 Ibid, p. 325.
14 V. Florinskii, “Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda,” Russkoe slovo (hereafter RS), 1865, 8 (August): 1-57. Hereafter the references to this edition will be given as Florinskii, 1865, 8: 1-57.
15 V. Florinskii, “Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda,” RS, 1865, 10 (October): 1-43; 11 (November): 1-25; 12 (December): 27-43. Hereafter the references to this edition will be given as Florinskii, 1865, 10: 1-43; 11: 1-25; 12: 27-43.
16 F. [V. M.] Florinskii, Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda (SPb.: n. p., 1866). The title page had a typo that gave the author a wrong initial: “F.,” instead of “V.” Hereafter the references to this edition will be given as Florinskii, 1866.
17 I have coined the term “eugamics” to distinguish Florinskii’s concept with its focus on “rational marriage” from Galton’s notion of “eugenics” that focused on “being well-born.” To my surprise, in the course of my research, I found that the term had already been proposed to highlight this very distinction in the monumental, two-volume “outlines of general biology” by J. Arthur Thomson and Patrick Geddes, Life: Outlines of General Biology (New York: Harper, 1931). In Chapter 12 of its second volume, the authors included a special section on “Eugenics and Eugamics,” comparing and contrasting the two approaches to the improvement of humankind (see ibid., pp. 1327-33). But the term obviously did not take root — I did not encounter it in any other publications. So, I have decided to use it in the present volume as a shorthand for Florinskii’s ideas of “hygienic” or “rational” marriage.
18 Francis Galton, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (London: Macmillan, 1874), p. 7.
19 For analyses of this process in Britain, see J. Morrell and A. Thackray, Gentlemen of Science: Early Years of the British Association for the Advancement of Science (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1981); R. Barton, “‘Huxley, Lubbock, and a Half a Dozen Others’: Professionals and Gentlemen in the Formation of the X Club, 1851-1864,” Isis, 1998, 89: 409-44; more specifically on the role of Galton, see John C. Waller, “Gentlemanly Men of Science: Sir Francis Galton and the Professionalization of the British Life-Sciences,” JHB, 2001, 34: 83-114. Unfortunately, the literature on the professionalization of science and scientists in nineteenth century Russia is virtually nonexistent; for some observations, see E. V. Soboleva, Organizatsiia nauki v poreformennoi Rossii (L.: Nauka, 1983); A. E. Ivanov, Uchenye stepeni v Rossiiskoi imperii, XVIII v-1917 (M.: RAN, 1994); idem, Uchenoe dostoinstvo v Rossiiskoi imperii, XVIII-nachalo XX veka (M.: Novyi Khronograf, 2016); Nathan M. Brooks, “Alexander Butlerov and the Professionalization of Science in Russia,” Russian Review, 1998, 57(1): 10-24; idem, “The Science of a Lost Empire and its Internal Colonies: The Case of Russia,” in George N. Vlahakis et al., Imperialism and Science: Social Impact and Interaction (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2006), pp.154-77; Elizabeth A. Hachten, “In Service to Science and Society: Scientists and the Public in Late-Nineteenth-Century Russia,” Osiris, 2002, 17: 171-209; Michael D. Gordin, “The Heidelberg Circle: German Inflections on the Professionalization of Russian Chemistry in the 1860s,” Osiris, 2008, 23: 23-49. For a more general treatment of professionalization in other areas such as medicine, psychiatry, civil service, and education, see Harley D. Balzer, ed., Russia’s Missing Middle Class: The Professions in Russian History (Armonk, NY: Sharpe, 1996).
20 See, for instance, Maximien Rey, Dégénération de l’espèce humaine et sa régénération (Paris: Germer-Baillière, 1863); Eduard Reich, Ueber die Entartung der Menschen, ihre Ursachen und Verhütung (Erlangen: Enke, 1868); and many others. As John Waller has convincingly demonstrated, Galton was far from the first or the only British scientist to advance “eugenic” ideas at the time. See Waller, “Ideas of Heredity, Reproduction and Eugenics.” For similar “eugenic” notions in the United States, see Charles E. Rosenberg, “Bitter Fruit: Heredity, Disease, and Social Thought in Nineteenth-Century America,” Perspectives in American History, 1974, 8: 189-235. A careful study of “proto-eugenic” and “proto-eugamic” ideas in Austria, France, Germany, and Italy still awaits its champions, but as many detailed studies of the development of “national” eugenics, along with a recent workshop on “proto-eugenic thinking before Galton” (see Bulletin of the GHI, 2009, 44 (Spring): 83-88), have indicated, such ideas were indeed advanced and debated in these and other countries as well.
21 See John C. Gunn, New Domestic Physician (Cincinnati, OH: Moore, Wilstach, Keys & Co., 1863), p. 120. I am indebted to my student Riiko Bedford for finding this citation. A digital copy of this particular edition is available at https://archive.org/details/63570990R.nlm.nih.gov. On Gunn and his manual see, Charles E. Rosenberg, “John Gunn: Everyman’s Physician,” in idem, Explaining Epidemics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992), pp. 57-73.
22 For a detailed description of the church’s regulations of marriage in Russia, see Chapter 4.
23 Gregory L. Freeze, “Bringing Order to the Russian Family: Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia, 1760-1860,” Journal of Modern History, 1990, 62: 709-46 (p. 711).
24 The portrayal of Florinskii as a “precursor” appeared in the publisher’s foreword, see M. V. Volotskoi, “K istorii i sovremennomy sostoianiiu evgenicheskogo dvizheniia v sviazi s knigoi V. M. Florinskogo,” in V. M. Florinskii, Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda (Vologda: Severnyi pechatnik, 1926), pp. vii-xix. Hereafter the references to this edition will be given as Florinskii, 1926. A very brief assessment of this episode has appeared in Mark B. Adams, “Eugenics in Russia,” in idem, ed., The Wellborn Science, p. 170.
25 See, for instance, I. I. Kanaev, “Na puti k meditsinskoi genetike,” Priroda, 1973, 1: 52-68; and N. P. Bochkov, Genetika cheloveka (M.: Meditsina, 1978), pp. 11-12.
26 V. P. Puzyrev, “Evgenicheskie vzgliady V. M. Florinskogo na ‘Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda’ (k 160-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia),” in V. M. Florinskii, Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda (Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta, 1995), pp. 120-26. Hereafter the references to this edition will be given as Florinskii, 1995.
27 V. M. Florinskii, “Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda,” in V. B. Avdeev, ed., Russkaia evgenika (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2012), pp. 44-134.
28 See, for instance, E. N. Gnatik, Genetika cheloveka: Byloe i griadushchee (M.: LKI, 2010); on Florinskii, see Chapter 2, http://www.irbis.vegu.ru/repos/11864/HTML/007.htm; and R. A. Fando, Proshloe nauki budushchego: Istoriia evgeniki v Rossii (Poltava: OOO “ASMI”, 2014), pp. 82-83. The latter book was produced in Ukraine in 300 copies and is not available in Russia’s main research libraries. I am grateful to the author for providing me with a copy. It is also available in a German translation, see R. A. Fando, Die Anfänge der Eugenik in Russland. Kognitive und soziokulturelle Aspekte, transl. by Elena Paschkowa (Berlin: Logos, 2014).
29 For a highly readable account of some of the challenges in writing the biography of a book, see Owen Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read: Chasing the Revolutions of Nicolaus Copernicus (New York: Walker, 2004).
30 To give a few, almost random examples, see James H. Sledd and Gwin J. Kolb, Dr. Johnson’s Dictionary: Essays in the Biography of a Book (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1955); Paul Eggert, Biography of a Book: Henry Lawson’s While the Billy Boils (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 2013); and Alice Kaplan, Looking For The Stranger: Albert Camus and the Life of a Literary Classic (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2016).
31 See, for instance, James A. Secord, Victorian Sensation: The Extraordinary Publication, Reception, and Secret Authorship of Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2001); idem, Visions of Science: Books and Readers at the Dawn of the Victorian Age (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014); Gingerich, The Book Nobody Read; and Janet Browne, Darwin’s Origin of Species: A Biography (London: Atlantic, 2006).
32 Such as, for instance, J. B. de C. M. Saunders and C. D. O’Malley, The Illustrations from the Works of Andreas Vesalius of Brussels: With Annotations and Translations, a Discussion of the Plates and their Background, Authorship and Influence, and a Biographical Sketch of Vesalius (Cleveland, OH: The World Publishing Company, 1950; repr. New York: Dover, 1973); Koen Huigen, “Biography of a Book: Paratext in all Dutch editions of Louis Couperus’ De stille kracht.” MA thesis, Leiden University, 2015; or Steven van Impe and Mari-Liisa Varila, “The Biography of a Book: The Turku Copy of the 1613 Mercator-Hondius Atlas,” Approaching Religion, 2016, 6(1): 24-34.
33 Compare, for example, Michael Reynolds, “Hemingway’s In Our Time: The Biography of a Book,” in J. Gerald Kennedy, ed., Modern American Short Story Sequences: Composite Fictions and Fictive Communities (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 35-51; and Helen P. Liepman, “The Six Editions of the Origin of Species: A Comparative Study,” Acta Biotheoretica, 1981, 30(3): 199-214.
34 See, for example, Julie Bates Dock, ed., Charlotte Perkins Gilman’s The Yellow Wall-paper and the History of its Publication and Reception (University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press, 1998).
35 Adams, “Eugenics in Russia,” in idem, ed., Wellborn Science, pp. 153-229; idem., “The Politics of Human Heredity in the USSR, 1920-40,” Genome, 1989, 31(2): 879-84; idem, “Eugenics as Social Medicine in Revolutionary Russia,” in S. G. Solomon and J. F. Hutchison, eds., Health and Society in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 200-23; idem, “Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” in Loren R. Graham, ed., Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 94-138. Adams has also published short biographies of many leaders of Russian eugenics in the Dictionary of Scientific Biography.
36 See, for instance, H.-W. Schmuhl, “Rassenhygiene in Deutschland — Eugenik in der Sowjetunion: Ein Vergleich,” in Dietrich Beyrau, ed., Im Dschungel der Macht: Intellektuelle Professionen unter Stalin und Hitler (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 2000), pp. 360-77; Michael Flitner, “Genetic Geographies: A Historical Comparison of Agrarian Modernization and Eugenic Thought in Germany, the Soviet Union, and the United States,” Geoforum, 2003, 34: 175-85; and A. Spektorowski, “The Eugenic Temptation in Socialism: Sweden, Germany, and the Soviet Union,” Comparative Studies in Society and History, 2004, 46: 84-106.
37 Loren R. Graham, “Science and Values: The Eugenics Movement in Germany and Russia in the 1920s,” American Historical Review, 1977, 82(5): 1133-64; Paul Weindling, “German-Soviet Medical Co-operation and the Institute for Racial Research, 1927-c.1935,” German History, 1992, 10(2): 177-206; Mark B. Adams, Garland E. Allen, and Sheila F. Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics,” Osiris, 2005, 20: 232-62; Nikolai Krementsov, “Eugenics, Rassenhygiene, and Human Genetics in the Late 1930s,” in Susan G. Solomon, ed., Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia between the Wars (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2006), pp. 369-404; and Per Anders Rudling, “Eugenics and Racial Biology in Sweden and the USSR: Contacts Across the Baltic Sea,” CBMH/BCHM, 2014, 31(1): 41-75.
38 See, for instance, Iu. V. Khen, Evgenicheskii proekt (M.: IFRAN, 2003); Fando, Proshloe nauki budushchego; and Kevin Liggieri, “‘[A]n der Front des Kampfes um den Menschen selbst.’ Anthropogenetik und Anthropotechnik im sowjetischen Diskurs der 1920er Jahre,” Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte, 2016, 39: 165-84.
39 See, for instance, Pat Simpson, “Bolshevism and ‘Sexual Revolution’: Visualising New Soviet Woman as the Eugenic Ideal,” in Fae Brauer and Anthea Callen, eds.,“Art, Sex and Eugenics”: Corpus Delecti (Burlington, VT: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 209-38; Birte Kohtz, “Gute Gene, schlechte Gene. Eugenik in der Sowjetunion zwischen Begabungsforschung undgenetischer Familienberatung,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 2013, 61(4): 591-610; Vsevolod Bashkuev, “Soviet Eugenics and National Minorities: Eradication of Syphilis in Buryat-Mongolia as an Element of Social Modernization of a Frontier Region, 1923-1928,” in Felder and Weindling, eds., Baltic Eugenics, pp. 261-87; idem, “An Outpost of Socialism in the Buddhist Orient: Geopolitical and Eugenic Implications of Medical and Anthropological Research on Buryat-Mongols in the 1920s,” Études mongoles et sibériennes, centrasiatiques et tibétaines, 2015, 46, http://emscat.revues.org/2523; and Anne Finger, “Left Hand of Stalin: Eugenics in the Soviet Union,” in Ravi Malhotra, ed., Disability Politics in a Global Economy: Essays in Honour of Marta Russell (New York: Routledge, 2016), pp. 199-219.
40 I have attempted to address some of these gaps in several articles, see Nikolai Krementsov, “Eugenics in Russia and the Soviet Union,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 413-29; idem, “From ‘Beastly Philosophy’ to Medical Genetics: Eugenics in Russia and the Soviet Union,” Annals of Science, 2011, 68(1): 61-92; idem, “The Strength of a Loosely Defined Movement: Eugenics and Medicine in Imperial Russia,” Medical History, 2015, 59(1): 6-31.
Chapter 1
1 For the most voluminous accounts of Galton’s life and works, see, Charles P. Blacker, Eugenics: Galton and After (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952); Ruth S. Cowan, Sir Francis Galton and the Study of Heredity in the Nineteenth Century (New York: Garland, 1985); Milo Keynes, ed., Sir Francis Galton, FRS: The Legacy of His Ideas (London: Macmillan, 1993); Nicholas W. Gillham, A Life of Sir Francis Galton: From African Exploration to the Birth of Eugenics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001); and Martin Brookes, Extreme Measures: The Dark Visions and Bright Ideas of Francis Galton (London: Bloomsbury, 2004).
2 F. Galton, Memories of My Life (London: Methuen, 1909), pp. 287-88.
3 This is the date on Florinskii’s birth certificate. However, until the Bolshevik Revolution, Russia used the Julian calendar that was thirteen days behind the Gregorian calendar used in Britain, so in absolute “astronomical” terms Galton and Florinskii were born twelve years and thirteen days apart. A copy of Florinskii’s birth certificate is preserved in the Russian State Military Historical Archive (hereafter RGVIA), fond (collection) 316, opis’ (inventory) 63, delo (file) 6257, list (page) 3; hereafter such references will be given as f. 316, op. 63, d. 6257, l. 3.
4 For a detailed analysis of the social history of the Russian clergy, see Gregory L. Freeze, The Russian Levites: Parish Clergy in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), and idem, The Parish Clergy in Nineteenth-Century Russia: Crisis, Reform, Counter-Reform (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1983). For a more general analysis of the social estate system in Russia, see idem, “The Soslovie (Estate) Paradigm and Russian Social History,” American Historical Review, 1986, 91(1): 11-36; N. A. Ivanova and V. P. Zheltova, Soslovnoe obshchestvo Rossiiskoi imperii (XVIII — nachalo XX veka) (M.: Novyi Khronograf, 2010); and Alison K. Smith, For the Common Good and Their Own Well-Being: Social Estates in Imperial Russia (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014).
5 For a detailed, three-volume history of this seminary, see N. V. Malitskii, Istoriia Vladimirskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (M.: A. I. Snegireva, 1900-02). However, for some reason, Mark Iakovlev’s name is not included in the list of the seminary graduates appended to the last volume.
6 My reconstruction of Florinskii’s early life is largely based on his unpublished memoirs, “Thoughts and Reminiscences about my Education and Upbringing,” held at the National Museum of the Tatarstan Republic (hereafter NRMT), see NRMT, V. M. Florinskii’s collection, № 117959, #204, 205; hereafter such references will be given as NRMT, #204, 205. Direct quotations from this manuscript are indicated in the text as [ZV, followed by the page number]. Alas, the collection has been processed according to the rules of the museum curation (whereby each individual item, be it a letter, a book, a photograph, or an artifact is merely given a number in a general inventory), and not according to the established principles of archival preservation (where similar types of documents, such as correspondence, manuscripts, biographical materials, photographs and so on, are gathered under the same heading), which would have made it much easier to identify and locate a particular document.
7 See O. Penezhko, Gorod Iur’ev-Pol’skii, khramy Iur’ev-Pol’skogo raiona (Vladimir: n. p., 2005), p. 59.
8 Florinskii relayed the story of his family name in his “Thoughts and Reminiscences.” See NRMT, #204.
9 Mikhail’s wife was the younger sister of Mikhail Speranskii, a graduate of the same Vladimir Seminary, who became one of the most prominent statesmen during the reigns of Alexander I and Nicholas I. For his biography, see Marc Raeff, Michael Speransky: Statesman of Imperial Russia, 1772–1839 (Westport, CT: Hyperion, 1979).
10 For detailed biographical information on Grigorii Fedorov, see E. A. Popov, Velikopermskaia i Permskaia eparkhiia (1379-1879) (Perm: Nikifirova, 1879), pp. 158-261.
11 Even at the end of the nineteenth century (when the first country-wide census was taken), its population still counted less than two million people.
12 See, for instance, a description of the travel on that road, though in the opposite direction, some fifteen years after the Florinskiis had made their journey in V. P. Parshin, Opisanie puti ot Irkutska do Moskvy, sostavlennoe v 1849 g. (M.: A. Semen, 1851). For a historical analysis of the Trans-Siberian highway and its role in Russian history, see O. N. Kationov, Moskovsko-Sibirskii trakt i ego zhiteli v XVII-XIX vv. (Novosibirsk: Izd-vo NGPU, 2004).
13 On the 1837 trip of the future Emperor Alexander II through his domains, see L. G. Zakharova and L. I. Tiutiunnik, eds., Venchanie s Rossiei (M.: MGU, 1999).
14 On the contemporary views of Siberia as a “promised land,” see Mark Bassin, “Inventing Siberia: Visions of the Russian East in the Early Nineteenth Century,” American Historical Review, 1991, 96(3): 763-94; and idem, Imperial Visions. Nationalist Imagination and Geographical Expansion in the Russian Far East, 1840-1865 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004).
15 The remnants of this garden have survived to this day, but only the foundation of the old church remains standing. See N. P. Shusharina, “Rod Betevykh v istorii zemli Kataiskoi,” Soiuznaia mysl’, 2011, 2 (24 January): 2-4, http://kaz2.docdat.com/docs/index-122554.html.
16 At the Church of the Holy Virgin he had built, Father Mark served his parishioners as best he could until 1867, when he retired and was succeeded by his youngest son Semen. For a very brief description of the church and its history, see Prikhody i tserkvi Ekaterinburgskoi eparkhii. Istoricheskii ocherk (Ekaterinburg, 1902), p. 571. For a detailed description of the Florinskii family based on the material from the local archives, see N. P. Shusharina, “Sviashchenicheskii rod Florinskikh,” Zaural’skaia genealogiia (Kurgan), 2009, 3, http://www.kurgangen.ru/religion/pravoslavnoe/Florinsky/Florinsky_Rod; and L. A. Biakova, “O dinastiii sviashchenosluzhitelei Florinskikh-Kokosovykh,” http://www.fnperm.ru.
17 It is preserved among his personal papers kept in the NMRT, “Psaltyr’.”
18 For an English translation, see N. G. Pomyalovsky, Seminary Sketches, transl. by Alfred Kuhn (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1973). The translation’s title is misleading, for seminary is a secondary theological school, while Pomialovskii’s Sketches described bursa — that is a primary school.
19 For a detailed, three-volume history of this seminary, see [I. E. Lagovskii], Istoriia Permskoi dukhovnoi seminarii arkhimandrita Ieronima, 3 vols. (Ekaterinburg: I. V. Shestakov, 1900-01), parts 1-4.
20 P. A. Kropotkin, Zapiski revoliutsionera (London: Izdanie vol’noi russkoi pressy, 1902), p. 82.
21 For a brief biographical sketch of Vishniakov, see [Lagovskii], Istoriia Permskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, part 3, p. 677. See also, N. A. Skorobotov, Pamiatnaia knizhka okonchivshikh kurs S.-Peterburgskoi seminarii, s 1811 po 1895 g. (SPb.: I. A. Frolov, 1896).
22 Moskovitianin (M., 1841-56), Biblioteka dlia chteniia (SPb., 1834-65), Otechestvennye zapiski (SPb., 1839-84), Sovremennik (SPb., 1836-66). For a classic, detailed analysis of the nineteenth-century “thick” journals and Russian journalism more generally, see the latest edition of B. I. Esin, Istoriia russkoi zhurnalistiki XIX veka (M.: Moskovskii universitet, 2008).
23 For Makarii’s biography, see G. A. Polisadov, Vysokopreosviashchennyi Makarii (Nizhnii Novgorod: Gubernskoe pravlenie, 1895).
24 On Florinskii’s later contributions to these fields, see A. V. Zhuk, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii kak arkheolog,” AB ORIGINE: Problemy genezisa kul’tur Sibiri (Tiumen’: TiumGU, 2013), 5: 5-22; and idem, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii, ego mesto i znachenie v otechestvennoi arkheologii,” Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriia “Istoricheskie nauki”, 2015, 1(5): 100-15. Florinskii’s involvement with “historical scholarship” will be discussed in Chapter 4.
25 For a brief sketch of Morigerovskii’s work at the seminary, see [Lagovskii], Istoriia Permskoi dukhovnoi seminarii, part 3, pp. 670-71. For his brief biography, see Skorobotov, Pamiatnaia knizhka okonchivshikh kurs S.-Peterburgskoi seminarii; and A. S. Rodosskii, Biograficheskii slovar’ studentov pervykh XXVIII-mi kursov S. Peterburgskoi dukhovnoi akademii (SPb.: I. V. Leont’ev, 1907), p. 281.
26 For a detailed history of the Russian system of learned degrees in theology, see N. Iu. Sukhova, Sistema nauchno-bogoslovskoi attestatsii v Rossii v XIX – nachale XX vv. (M.: PSTGU, 2009).
27 See V. N. Sazhin, “Aleksandr Nikiforovich Morigerovskii – obshchestvennyi deiatel’ i izdatel’,” in Knizhnoe delo v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX veka (L.: GPB, 1986), vol. 2, pp. 10-22.
28 Probably this is why Vasilii Florinskii is absent in the published list of the Perm Seminary graduates, though both of his brothers are duly listed. See Spravochnaia kniga vsekh okonchivshikh kurs Permskoi dukhovnoi seminarii (Perm: I. Shestakov, 1900).
29 Florinskii’s graduation certificate and travel permit are preserved in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 63, d. 6257, ll. 2-2 rev.
30 NMRT, V. Florinskii to his parents, 17 July 1853.
31 For the history of the fair, see Anne L. Fitzpatrick. The Great Russian Fair: Nizhnii Novgorod, 1840-90 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1990); and N. F. Filatov, Tri veka Makar’evsko-Nizhegorodskoi iarmarki (Nizhnii Novgorod: Knigi, 2003).
32 On the development of highways and stagecoach services, see Alexandra Bekasova, “The Making of Passengers in the Russian Empire: Coach Transport Companies, Guidebooks, and National Identity in Russia, 1820-1860s,” in John Randolph and Eugene M. Avrutin, eds., Russia in Motion: Cultures of Human Mobility since 1850 (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2012), pp. 199-217.
33 See Postroika i ekspluatatsiia Nikolaevskoi zheleznoi dorogi (1842-1851-1901). Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk (SPb.: Upravlenie dorogi, 1901).
34 Dobroliubov (1836-1861) would enter the Teachers Institute and soon become the leading literary critic and, together with Nikolai Chernyshevskii, the lead author of The Contemporary, the most influential journal of the time. Markov (183?-1861) would graduate with the highest honors — a gold medal — from the IMSA in 1858 and would be slated for a professorship at his alma mater, but would die from meningitis just after completing his doctoral dissertation. In his recollections, Florinskii claims that he struck a lasting friendship with Dobroliubov but I could not verify this claim: none of Dobroliubov’s published materials (correspondence, diaries, etc.) contains any indication of his acquaintance with Florinskii. Furthermore, Dobroliubov’s account of his attempt to enter St. Petersburg Theological Academy recorded in his letters home differs substantially from Florinskii’s story.
35 According to the Orthodox Church’s rules, only married ordained clerics were allowed to serve as priests. Widowed priests therefore were discharged from their parishes. They had two options: to leave the clergy and try to make a living in the secular world (most often as teachers in low-level secular schools); or to continue their ecclesiastical careers in the Black Clergy, take monastic vows and either become monks or continue their education at a theological academy in their diocese, hoping to get a position in the church administration.
36 Introduced by Peter the Great, the Table of Ranks defined the hierarchy of the court, military, and civil service in the empire. For a complete list of all the ranks included in the Table see D. V. Liventsev, Kratkii slovar’ chinov i zvanii gosudarstvennoi sluzhby Moskovskogo gosudarstva i Rossiiskoi imperii v XV — nachale XX vv. Chast’ 1 (Voronezh: RAGS, 2006). For a detailed historical analysis of ranks and associated privileges, see L. E. Shepelev, Tituly, mundiry, ordena v Rossiiskoi imperii (M.: Nauka, 1991).
37 Possibly professors overlooked Florinskii’s failure in the mathematics exam because the academy had made it a requirement for the first time that year, and many candidates were poorly prepared.
38 The tuition of fifty rubles per annum for “self-supported” students was reinstated two years later, in 1855; see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 26, d. 57. For a detailed account of the history of the academy, including admission rules, tuition, the professoriate, and so on, see G. G. Skorichenko, Imperatorskaia Voenno-meditsinskaia akademiia, 2 vols. (SPb.: Sinodal’naia tipographiia, 1902-10).
39 Unfortunately, Florinskii’s collection in the NMTR contains none of the letters he must have sent home explaining the situation and announcing his decision to enter the IMSA.
40 Indeed, his great uncle, Archbishop Arkadii, was renowned as one of the leading relentless pursuers of a prominent group of inovertsy — the “old believers,” a large section of the Russian Orthodox Christians who had refused to accept the reforms introduced by Patriarch Nikon of Moscow in the mid-seventeenth century.
41 On Zinin’s very brief biography and his work in the IMSA, see I. S. Ioffe, N. N. Zinin. Deiatel’nost’ v Mediko-Khirurgicheskoi akademii. K 150-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia (L.: VMA, 1963).
42 Useful introductions to the history of the Crimean War in English could be found in David Wetzel, The Crimean War: A Diplomatic History (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs, 1985); Trevor Royle, Crimea: The Great Crimean War, 1854–1856 (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2000); and Orlando Figes, The Crimean War: A History (New York: Metropolitan, 2010).
43 For useful introductions to the history of the Great Reforms, see a recent reprint of the Russian language classic, G. A. Dzhanshiev, Epokha velikikh reform, 2 vols. (M.: Territoriia budushchego, 2008); W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia’s Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982); idem, The Great Reforms: Autocracy, Bureaucracy, and the Politics of Change in Imperial Russia (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1990); and Larissa Zakharova, Ben Eklof, and John Bushnell, eds., Velikie reformy v Rossii, 1856-1874 (M.: MGU, 1992); an English version of the latter book was published in 1994 by Indiana University Press.
44 The word glasnost’, which entered the English vocabulary only during Mikhail Gorgachev’s perestroika of the mid-1980s, had come into wide use in the Russian language more than a century earlier. See W. Bruce Lincoln, “The Problem of Glasnost’ in Mid-Nineteenth Century Russian Politics,” European Studies Review, 1981, 11: 171-88; and W. E. Mosse, Perestroika under the Tsars (New York: St. Martin’s, 1992).
45 See P. S. Platonov, Ob amputatsiiakh chlenov i rezektsiiakh kostei (SPb.: Ia. Trei, 1855), and idem, Opisatel’naia anatomiia, 3 vols. (SPb.: Ia. Trei, 1856-1858).
46 See V. Florinskii, “Pronitsaiushchaia rana kolennogo sustava (Vulnus gaesum penetrans genu sinistri),” Voenno-meditsinskii zhurnal (hereafter VMZh), 1857, 70: 1-12.
47 For a biography of Kiter, see Iu. V. Tsvelev, Akademik Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Kiter (ocherk zhizni i deiatel’nosti) (SPb.: Voenno-Meditsinskaia Akademiia, 2004).
48 See A. A. Kiter, Rukovosdtvo k izucheniiu akusherskoi nauki, 2 vols. (SPb.: Ia. Trei, 1857-1858).
49 Unfortunately, “due to its poor physical conditions” I was refused access to a special file on Florinskii’s appointment held in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 27, d. 55, ll. 1-2.
50 See A. A. Kiter, Rukovodstvo k izucheniiy zhenskikh boleznei (SPb.: Ia. Trei, 1858). On the prize, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 112.
51 For an English-language analysis of the IMSA reforms, focused mostly on changes in the academy as a research institution, see Galina Kichigina, The Imperial Laboratory: Experimental Physiology and Clinical Medicine in Post-Crimean Russia (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 2009).
52 For a short biography of Dubovitskii, see V. N. Beliakov, Petr Aleksandrovich Dubovitskii (Leningrad: VMA, 1976).
53 For a biography of Glebov, see V. A. Makarov, Ivan Timofeevich Glebov (M.: Nauka, 1995).
54 See Glebov’s description of the IMSA reforms undertaken during the three years, 1857-1859, in I. Glebov, Kratkii obzor deistvii Imperatorskoi Sanktpeterburgskoi Mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii za 1857, 1858 i 1859 gody v vidakh uluchsheniia etogo zavedeniia (SPb.: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1860). See also a historical account of the academy transformation in Skorichenko, Imperatorskaia Voenno-meditsinskaia akademiia; especially Part 1, “Rebirth of the Academy,” in vol. 2, pp. 1-130.
55 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 28, d. 40.
56 For the statute of the new institute, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 118, ll. 23-27 rev.; see also Florinskii’s reminiscences in ZV, 135-37.
57 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 131.
58 In the spring of 1860, Krasovskii published a voluminous report on the work accomplished in his clinics during the 1858-1859 academic year. See A. Ia. Krasovskii, “Otchet o sostoianii akusherskoi, zhenskoi i detskoi klinik i gospital’nogo zhenskogo otdeleniia,” VMZh, 1860, 77 (March): 229-74; (April): 327-35. Even though Florinskii is not listed as an author, it is clear that he had produced the lion’s share of this report, which Krasovskii acknowledged in a footnote on p. 229.
59 See the protocol of Florinskii’s examination in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 30, d. 129, ll. 3-4 rev.
60 RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 382, l. 2.
61 See Protokoly zasedanii Obshchestva russkikh vrachei v S. Peterburge (hereafter PZORV), 1859-1860: 427. For his reports to the society meetings, see V. Florinskii, “O vtorichnom obremenenii (Superfoetatio),” ibid., 335-57; and idem, “O terapevticheskom upotreblenii matochnykh dushei,” ibid., 429-60.
62 See V. Florinskii, “Mozhno li dopustit’ kefalotripsiiu nad zhivymi mladentsami?” PZORV, 1860-1861: 13-56; idem, “Zachatiia pri otsutstvii mesiachnykh ochishchenii,” ibid., 248-51; idem, “Sroki rodov v sviazi so srokom menstruatsii i sutochnym vremenem,” ibid., 251-53; idem, “O molochnoi likhoradke,” ibid., 253-54; idem, “O zhirovom pererozhdenii posleda,” ibid., 254-57; idem, “Sertsebienie mladentsa do i posle rozhdeniia na svet,” ibid., 257-59.
63 V. S. Gruzdev, Istoricheskii ocherk kafedry akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei Imperatorskoi voenno-meditsinskoi akademii i soedinennoi s neiu akademicheskoi akushersko-ginekologicheskoi kliniki (SPb.: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1898), p. 219.
64 This gradation of professorial positions roughly corresponds to the present day titles of full, associate, and assistant professors.
65 On Florinskii’s appointment, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 195, ll. 187-187 rev.
66 See V. Florinskii, O razryvakh promezhnosti vo vremia rodov (SPb.: I. Markov, 1861). For official documents related to Florinskii’s dissertation, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 196, ll. 102-05 rev.
67 Earning the degree automatically moved Florinskii up to the eighth rank (equal in military terms to major) in the Table of Ranks; more on this subject below.
68 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 256, ll. 21-21 rev.
69 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 196, ll. 125 rev.-126.
70 It appeared in the October issue of the journal. See V. Florinskii, “Otchet akusherskoi, zhenskoi i detskoi klinik i gospital’nogo zhenskogo otdeleniia Imperatorskoi S. Peterburgskoi Mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii za 1859-60 uchebnyi akademicheskii god. 1. Akusherskaia klinika,” VMZh, 1861, 72 (October): 111-47.
71 See Meditsinskii otchet Imperatorskogo S. Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma za 1857 god (SPb.: n. p., 1860). On the founding and early history of this institution, see A. P. Piatkovskii, “S.-Peterburgskii vospitatel’nyi dom pod upravleniem I. I. Betskogo,” Russkaia starina, 1875, 12(1); 146-59; (2): 369-80; (4): 665-80; 13(5): 177-99; (8): 532-53; 14(11): 421-43; (12): 618-38. On its role in medicine and medical education, see T. G. Frumenkova, “Peterburgskii vospitatel’nyi dom i podgotovka medikov doreformennoi Rossii,” Universum: Vestnik Gertsenovskogo universiteta, 2012, 1: 166-74.
72 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 246.
73 V. M. [Florinskii], “Meditsinskii otchet Imperatorskogo S. Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma za 1857 god. SPb., 1860,” Meditsinskii vestnik (hereafter MV), 1861 (24 June): 125-28.
74 This statement comes from Florinskii’s article published in the same newspaper two months later. See V. M. [Florinskii], “Doktorskii ekzamen,” MV, 1861 (26 August): 205-08 (p. 206).
75 Florinskii’s criticism provoked an indignant response from the institution’s head physician, which led to a polemic lasting nearly a year. See K. Raukhfus, “Otvet na stat’iu V. M. O meditsinskom otchete Imperatorskogo S-Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma za 1857g,” MV, 1861 (5 August): 177-81; V. M. [Florinskii], “Otvet g. Raukhfusu, po povodu ego antikritiki,” ibid., 1861 (30 December): 385-89; K. Raukhfus, “Otvet g. V. M.,” ibid., 1862 (26 May): 203-06.
76 My reconstruction of Florinskii’s “grand tour” is largely based on his letters and unpublished diaries and memoirs, “Diaries of My Foreign Trip,” held at the NMRT, #99, 100. Direct quotations from this manuscript are indicated in the text as [DZP, followed by page number].
77 This sum included his regular annual salary (700 rubles) and a special subsidy (1,000 rubles per year) for travel and living expenses. See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 196, ll. 119 rev.-120.
78 For Krasovskii’s instructions on what Florinskii should do during his tour, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 30, d. 19, ll. 7-8 rev.
79 He was granted permission with no extra subsidy; for details, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 30, d. 19, ll. 34-50; op. 60, d. 256, ll. 108-13.
80 See Florinskii’s letters to his parents and siblings in NMRT; and to his superiors in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 32, d. 28, ll. 10-11 rev.
81 V. Florinskii to his parents, Prague, 25 September 1861, in NMRT.
82 See I. Glebov, “O zaniatiiakh medikov vrachebnogo instituta,” VMZh, 1863, 88: 338-64.
83 See, V. M. [Florinskii], “Venskaia akusherskaia klinika,” MV, 1862 (10 March): 81-87 (17 March): 93-96; (25 March): 105-9; (31 March): 121-25; idem, “Miunkhenskaia akusherskaia klinika,” ibid., 1862 (15 September): 314-16; idem, “Miunkhenskaia i Erlagenskaia akusherskie kliniki,” ibid., 1862 (22 September): 367-70.
84 See V. Florinskii, “Obzor trudov [na nemetskom, frantsuzskom, angliiskom i latinskom iazykakh] po chasti akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei za 1861 i 1862 gg.,” VMZh, 1862, 87 (August): 171-248; 88 (September): 37-62; idem, “Referat [inostrannoi literatury na nemetskom, frantsuzskom, angliiskom i latinskom iazykakh] po chasti patologii i terapii zhenskikh boleznei za 1861 i 1862 gg.,” ibid., 1863, 88 (October): 197-219; (December): 341-70.
85 See, for instance, V. M. Florinskii, “Neskol’ko slov o dekapitatsii utrobnogo mladentsa,” MV, 1862 (11 August): 314-16.
86 V. Florinskii, “Ob izmenenii matki v poslerodovom periode,” MV, 1862 (21 July): 283-86; (4 August): 299-304; (18 August): 319-23; (1 September): 335-39; (15 September): 351-53.
87 See V. Florinskii, “Ovariotomiia,” MV, 1863 (9 March): 78-82; (16 March): 91-92; (23 March): 101-03; (30 March): 111-14.
88 See the list of books Florinskii donated to the Tomsk University Library upon his retirement, in NMRT, #262, 31 ll.
89 See, for instance, V. Florinskii to his parents, London, 10 August 1862, NMRT.
90 For a colorful depiction of Russian physicians’ sojourns abroad during this period, see the memoirs of Florinskii’s older colleague Ivan Sechenov, I. M. Sechenov, Avtobiograficheskie zapiski (M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1945), pp. 73-113.
91 On “Russian circles” abroad, see A. Iu. Andreev, Russkie studenty v nemetskikh universitetakh XVIII-pervoi poloviny XIX veka (M.: Znak, 2005); and, especially, Michael D. Gordin, “The Heidelberg Circle: German Inflections on the Professionalization of Russian Chemistry in the 1860s,” Osiris, 2008, 23(1): 23-49.
92 V. Florinskii to his parents, Vienna, 6 October 1861, NMRT.
93 See V. M. [Florinskii], “Doktorskii ekzamen,” MV, 1861 (12 August): 189-92; (19 August): 197-201; (26 August): 205-208; (2 September): 213-16.
94 See V. M. [Florinskii], “Mnenie russkogo inostrantsa o nashem meditsinskom byte,” MV, 1862 (20 January): 17-21.
95 Ibid., p. 21.
96 For useful introductions to the controversy between the Slavophiles and the Westernizers, see Nicholas Riasanovsky’s classic, Russia and the West in the Teaching of the Slavophiles (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952); Andrzej Walicki, The Slavophile Controversy: History of a Conservative Utopia in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Oxford: Clarendon, 1975); and Susanna Rabow-Edling, Slavophile Thought and the Politics of Cultural Nationalism (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 2006).
97 See, for instance, V. Florinskii to his parents, Prague, 11 August 1861, NMRT.
98 V. Florinskii to his parents, Vienna, 25 September 1861, NMRT.
99 For details, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 30, d. 26, ll. 1-4; d. 36, l. 1; op. 32, dd. 28-29; and op. 60, d. 382, l. 5.
100 See V. Florinskii, “Otchet o sostoianii i deiatel’nosti Obshchestva russkikh vrachei v S. Peterburge za 1863-64 akademicheskii god v godovom sobranii obshchestva 12 sentiabria 1864 g.,” PZORV, 1864-1865: 4-10. The next year, he was re-elected as the society’s secretary, see ibid., 1864-65: 11.
101 See V. Florinskii, “Ocherk sovremenngo ucheniia ob anatomii i fiziologii detskogo mesta,” PZORV, 1863-1864: 71-80; idem, “O matochnykh zhelezakh (Glandulae utriculares),” ibid., 139-46; idem, “O tak nazyvaemom zakonnom isskustvennom vykidyshe,” ibid., 223-36; idem, “Difterit,” ibid., 321-38.
102 V. Florinskii, “Referat [inostrannoi literatury na nemetskom, frantsuzskom, angliiskom i latinskom iazykakh] po chasti patologii i terapii zhenskikh boleznei za 1861 i 1862 gg.,” VMZh, 1863, 88 (October): 197-219; (December): 341-70; idem, “Obzor trudov po chasti akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei za 1863 i 1864 gg.,” VMZh, 1865, 94 (October): 23-58; (November) 59-102; (December): 103-39.
103 [V. M. Florinskii], “Povival’noe iskusstvo. Rukovodstvo dlia krest’ianskikh uchenits rodovspomogatel’nogo zavedeniia pri imperatorskom S. Petersburgskom vospitatel’nom dome. Sostavil I. Geppener. SPb, 1862,” MV, 1863 (7 December): 513-15; (14 December): 525-27; idem, “O rasshirenii matochnoi sheiki posredstvom Laminaria diqitata Vil’sona,” ibid., 1864 (2 May): 172.
104 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 382, ll. 12-14.
105 The exact address was Ital’ianskaia Street, Solomko’s House (there were two streets named Ital’ianskaia in 1863), nowadays 22 Zhukovskogo Street (see fig. 1-7). For the history of this house see A. S. Dubin, Ulitsa Zhukovskogo (SPb.: Aleteia, 2012), pp. 236-49.
106 V. Florinskii to A. I. Fufaevskaia, 13 February 1865, NMRT.
107 V. Florinskii to A. I. Fufaevskaia, 23 February 1865, NMRT.
108 RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 382, ll. 15-17.
109 V. Florinskii, “Razbor khronicheskogo vospaleniia ili zavala matki (Metritis parenchymatosa chronica s infarctus uteri chronicus),” VMZh, 1865, 93 (August): 337-400.
110 V. Florinskii, “Ob ozhivlenii mnimoumershikh novorozhdennykh detei,” MV, 1865 (28 August): 325-27; (4 September): 333-35.
111 [G. A. Braun], Kurs operativnogo akusherstva prof. G. Brauna (SPb.: Ia. Trei, 1865). For the original edition, see G. A. Braun, Compendium der Geburtshilfe (Vienna: Braumiiller, 1864).
112 [V. M. Florinskii], “A. Krasovskii, Kurs prakticheskogo akusherstva, Vyp. 1. SPb., 1865 – xx+490 pp.,” MV, 1865 (21 August): 315-20; V. M. Florinskii, “Obzor trudov [na nemetskom, frantsuzskom, angliiskom, latinskom iazykakh] po chasti akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei za 1863 i 1864 gg.” VMZh, 1865 (October): 23-58; (November): 59-102; (December): 103-39.
Chapter 2
1 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859), p, 488. The complete text of this edition is available at https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/135954#page/11/mode/1up. All subsequent references to this edition will be given as Darwin, Origin.
2 In comparison, only four new periodicals had appeared in the preceding five years. For detailed quantitative analyses of Russian periodicals during the imperial era, see N. M. Lisovskii, Bibliografiia russkoi periodicheskoi pechati, 1703-1900 gg., 2 vols. (M.: Literaturnoe obozrenie, [1915] 1995); and A. G. Dement’ev et. al., Russkaia periodicheskaia pechat’ (1702-1894). Spravochnik (M.: Gospolitizdat, 1959).
3 N. V. Shelgunov, “Vospominaniia,” in N. V. Shelgunov, L. P. Shelgunova, M. L. Mikhailov, Vospominaniia v 2-kh tomakh (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1967), vol. 1, pp. 93-94.
4 See W. Bruce Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform: Russia’s Enlightened Bureaucrats, 1825-1861 (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1982).
5 See Esin, Istoriia russkoi zhurnalistiki. For an English language account that focuses exclusively on “literary journals,” see Deborah A. Martinsen, ed., Literary Journals in Imperial Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), especially the chapter by Robert L. Belknap, “Survey of Russian Journals, 1840-1880,” pp. 91-116, which unfortunately contains a number of factual mistakes. For a more general analysis of the role of “thick” journals in the second half of the nineteenth century, see Anton Fedyashin, Liberals under Autocracy: Modernization and Civil Society in Russia, 1866-1904 (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 2012).
6 For detailed histories of the journal, see L. E. Varustin, Zhurnal “Russkoe slovo.” 1859-1866 (L.: Izd. Leningradskogo universiteta, 1966), and F. Kuznetsov, Nigilisty? D. I. Pisarev i zhurnal “Russkoe slovo” (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1983). Although the analytical framework of these books bears the unmistakable stamp of Soviet “Marxist” historiography, both contain a wealth of factual information about the journal and its contributors.
7 Although the count left his footprints in almost every area of Russian literature, arts, philanthropy, education, and even chess, surprisingly, there is no fully-fledged biography of this remarkable man in any language, only brief notices in various encyclopedias and biographical lexicons. See, for instance, “Kushelev-Bezborodko, Grigorii Aleksandrovich,” in А. А. Polovtsov, Russkii biograficheskii slovar’ (SPb.: Russkoe istoricheskoe obshchestvo, 1903), vol. 9, p. 703.
8 G. A. Kushelev to F. M. Dostoevskii, 5 July 1858. Cited in Varustin, Zhurnal, p. 13.
9 See Sankt-Peterburgskie vedomosti, 25 October 1858, p. 1365.
10 This is how Apollon Grigor’ev, the journal’s leading critic during its first year of publication, characterized it in his autobiography, cited in Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, p. 23.
11 See, for instance, V. P. “Literaturnaia zametka,” Russkii invalid, 5 September 1859, p. 1.
12 For biographical details, see P. S. Shelgunov, “G. Blagosvetlov,” in G. E. Blagosvetlov, Sochineniia (SPb.: E. A. Blagosvetlova, 1882), iii- xxviii; and S. A. Vengerov, “Blagosvetlov, G. E.,” in idem, Kritiko-biograficheskii slovar’ russkikh pisatelei i uchenykh (SPb.: I. A. Efron, 1892), vol. 3, pp. 345-62.
13 The early years of Blagosvetlov’s life are described in detail in A. Lebedev, “K biograficheskomu ocherku G. E. Blagosvetlova,” Russkaia starina, 1913, 153(1): 166-82; (2): 359-66; (3): 629-43.
14 The Russian State Archive for Literature and Arts (hereafter RGALI), f. 1027, op. 1, d. 3, cited in Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, p. 43.
15 See the Russian State Historical Archive (hereafter RGIA), f. 1268, op. 8 (1855), d. 155, ll. 1-10; and f. 733, op. 88, d. 123, ll. 1-3.
16 See G. R. Prokhorov, “G. E. Blagosvetlov, Ia. P. Polonskii, G. A. Kushelev-Bezborodko. Pis’ma i dokumenty,” Zven’ia, 1932, 1: 293-344.
17 On Herzen, see Martin Malia, Alexander Herzen and the Birth of Russian Socialism, 1812-1855 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961); and Edward Acton, Alexander Herzen and the Role of the Intellectual Revolutionary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979).
18 For a detailed description of Blagosvetlov’s involvement with “revolutionary circles,” see T. I. Grazhdanova, “G. E. Blagosvetlov v russkom osvoboditel’nom dvizhenii 40-60-kh gg. XIX veka,” doctoral dissertation, Leningrad, 1985.
19 Blagosvetlov described the details of his meeting with the count and its results in a nine-page article that opened the September 1865 issue of the journal. It was clearly added to the issue at the last minute and had no pagination. See G. Blagosvetlov, “Otvet g. Podpischiku ‘Russkogo slova’ na ego neobkhodimye voprosy,” RS, 1865, 9: [iii-xii].
20 For an analysis of Blagosvetlov’s work as a writer and a critic, see E. K. Murenina, “Literaturno-kriticheskaia deiatel’nost’ G. E. Blagosvetlova,” doctoral dissertation, Sverdlovsk, 1989.
21 Blagosvetlov, “Otvet g. Podpischiku,” RS, 1865, 9: [iii-xii].
22 At the peak of its popularity in 1865, the number exceeded 4,000. See Kuznetsov, Nigilisty; and Varustin, Zhurnal.
23 On the history of The Contemporary, see V. Evgenʹev-Maksimov, “Sovremennik” v 40-50 gg.: ot Belinskogo do Chernyshevskogo (L.: Izd-vo pisatelei, 1934); idem, “Sovremennik” pri Chernyshevskom i Dobroliubove (L.: Khudozh. lit-ra, 1936); and V. E. Bograd, Zhurnal “Sovremennik”, 1847-1866 (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1959). As is the case with the histories of Russian Word, these books contain a mass of useful factual information, but their analytical frameworks are shaped by the official Soviet ideology.
24 P. N. Tkachev, “Izdatel’skaia i literaturnaia deiatel’nost’ G. E. Blagosvetlova,” in idem, Kladezi mudrosti rossiiskikh filosofov (M.: Pravda, 1990), pp. 550-76 (p. 554). Written in response to the 1882 publication of Blagosvetlov’s biography and “selected works” and slated to appear in Blagosvetlov’s journal Delo (Deed), this article had been banned by the censorship and was first published only in 1940.
25 G. Blagosvetlov to Ia. Polonskii, Paris, [April] 1859, Zven’ia, 1932, 1: 328-29 (p. 329).
26 For details on certain members of this remarkable group, see F. Kuznetsov, Publitsisty 1860-kh godov. G. Blagosvetlov, V. Zaitsev, N. Sokolov (M.: Molodaia gvardiia, 1969); and idem, Krug D. I. Pisareva (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990).
27 There were very few women writers in 1860s Russia, and Blagosvetlov took special care to recruit several of them to his journal.
28 This admission appeared in a letter Pisarev’s mother published at her son’s direction in The Contemporary, see Varvara Pisareva, “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu ‘Sovremennika’,” Sovremennik, 1865, 3: 218-20.
29 D. I. Stakheev, “Gruppy i portrety. Listochki vospominanii,” Istoricheskii vestnik, 1907, 109(7-9): 424-37 (pp. 424-25).
30 G. N. Potanin, “Vospominaniia o N. A. Nekrasove,” Istoricheskii vestnik, 1905, 99(2): 458-89 (p. 477).
31 See Blagosvetlov’s complaint that in several issues of Delo that came out while he had been abroad, the articles in the first section of the journal had been poorly connected to those in the second section, cited in Varustin, Zhurnal, p. 60.
32 The existing accounts often disagree on, and occasionally downplay, Blagosvetlov’s actual role in shaping the journal, see Varustin, Zhurnal; Kuznetsov, Publitsisty; and idem, Nigilisty.
33 RGIA, f. 772, op. 8, d. 374. Cited in Varustin, p. 103.
34 All the citations are from Blagosvetlov’s letters to D. L. Mordovtsev, which had been published in G. Prokhorov, “Shestidesiatye gody v pis’makh sovremennika,” in N. K. Piksanov and O. V. Tsekhnovitser, eds., Shestidesiatye gody (M.-L.: AN SSSR, 1940), pp. 432-36.
35 See, for instance, RGIA, f. 772, op. 8, d. 105.
36 The State Archive of the Russian Federation (hereafter GARF), f. 109, op. 1, d. 2044, l. 2.
37 For details on the Russian censorship during the period, see Mikhail Lemke, Ocherki po istorii russkoi tsenzury i zhurnalistiki XIX stoletiia (SPb.: Trud, 1904); and, particularly, idem, Epokha tsenzurnyh reform 1859-1865 godov (SPb.: Gerol’d, 1904); on the “temporary rules,” see the latter volume, pp. 166-78. In the last twenty years, the history of censorship in Russia has become a lively field of historical research, with hundreds of publications ranging from short notes to full monographs. See, for instance, the proceedings of several conferences held in St. Petersburg, M. B. Konashev, ed., Svoboda nauchnoi informatsii i okhrana gosudarstvennoi tainy (L.: BAN, 1991); idem, ed., Tsenzura v tsarskoi Rossii i Sovetskom Soiuze (M.: Rudomino, 1995); idem, ed., Tsenzura i dostup k informatsii: istoriia i sovremennost’ (SPb.: Russion National Library, 2005), as well as seven volumes compiled by Mikhail Konashev and issued during the last ten years under the general title “Censorship in Russia: History and the Present,” see Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriia i sovremennost’ (SPb.: RNB, 2001-2015), vol. 1-7. For an English language analysis, see Charles A. Ruud, Fighting Words: Imperial Censorship and the Russian Press, 1804-1906 (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2009).
38 See RGIA, f. 777, op. 2, d. 1.
39 Another regular contributor, Afanasii Shchapov, was exiled to Siberia in the summer of 1864. For a voluminous biography of Shchapov, see A. S. Madzharov, Afanasii Prokop’evich Shchapov: Istoriia zhizni (1831-1876) i zhizn’ “Istorii” (Irkutsk: Tipografiia No. 1, 2005); for an English language assessment of his works, see Andrew M. McGreevy, “A. P. Shchapov’s Scientific Analysis of the Nature of Russian Society,” doctoral dissertation, Ohio State University, 1973.
40 For details of this peculiar deal, see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, pp. 198-204.
41 At first, this role was played by Alexander Afanas’ev-Chuzhbinskii, a well-known litterateur, and later, by one of the journal’s regular contributors, novelist Nikolai Blagoveshchenskii.
42 See RGIA, f. 775, op. 1 (1863), d. 288. Emphasis added.
43 D. I. Pisarev, “Nasha universitetskaia nauka,” RS, 1863, 7(I): 1-75; 8(I): 1-54.
44 “Ob”iavlenie ob izdanii Russkogo slova v 1863 godu,” RS, 1863, 1: front matter.
45 A. N. Gertsen, “Byloe i dumy,” in idem, Sobranie sochinenii (M.: Izd-vo Akademii nauk SSSR, 1954-65), vol. 9, p. 168.
46 Piksanov and Tsekhnovitser, eds, Shestidesiatye gody, p. 225.
47 D. I. Pisarev, “Shkola i zhizn’,” RS, 1865, 7(I): 132.
48 These various labels, which defined a particular journal’s “direction,” have been widely used in contemporary polemics. On polemics between, for instance, Russian Word and The Contemporary, see Pereira, “Challenging the Principle of Authority.”
49 D. I. Pisarev, “Razrushenie estetiki,” RS, 1865, 5(II): 1-32 (p. 3). Emphasis in original.
50 D. Pisarev, “Pushkin i Belinskii (stat’ia vtoraia),” RS, 1865, 6(II): 1-60 (p. 3). Emphasis in original.
51 Ibid., p. 19. Historians of the journal have spilled much ink on this aspect of Russian Word’s publications. See, for instance, Chapter 8, titled “The Destruction of Aesthetics?” in Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, pp. 467-502; and Varustin, Zhurnal. For English language analyses of the debate among Russian writers on utilitarianism in aesthetics, see Robert L. Jackson, “Dostoevsky’s Critique of the Aesthetics of Dobroliubov,” Slavic Review, 1964, 23(2): 258-74; and Charles A. Moser, Esthetics as Nightmare: Russian Literary Theory, 1855-1870 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1989).
52 D. Pisarev, “Nereshennyi vopros (stat’ia tret’ia i posledniaia),” RS, 1864, 11(II): 1-64 (p. 34).
53 See, for instance, V. Samoilovich, “Bezvykhodnoe polozhenie,” RS, 1864, 2(I): 119-58; 3(I): 29-79; N. Kholodov [N. Bazhin], “Stepan Rulev,” RS, 1864, 11(I): 301-34; 12(I): 85-104; N. A. Blagoveshchenskii, “Pered rassvetom,” RS, 1865, 1(I): 39-74; 2(I): 244-92; 4(I): 175-215; and many others.
54 Such as, for instance, Aleksei F. Pisemskii’s novel A Troubled Sea (Vzbalomuchennoe more) (1863) that was viciously criticized in Zaitsev’s review titled “A Troubled Novelist,” see V. Zaitsev, “Vzbalomuchennyi romanist,” RS, 1863, 10(II): 23-44; on the general issue of the “anti-nihilist trend” in the literature of the period, see Charles A. Moser, Antinihilism in the Russian Novel of the 1860s (The Hague: Mouton, 1964).
55 See “Zapiska A. V. Nikitenki o napravlenii zhurnala ‘Russkoe slovo’,” Russkii arkhiv, 1895, 2: 225-28 (p. 226).
56 Cited in Daniel P. Todes, Ivan Pavlov (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), p. 30. The students to which Pavlov refers would have been only fourteen-eighteen years old.
57 GARF, f. 109, op. 1, d. 1632, l. 2, cited in Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, p. 491.
58 After the “Whistle” (Svistok) — a satirical appendix to The Contemporary established by Dobroliubov in 1858.
59 For a detailed analysis of this characterization and the very label “nihilist,” see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, pp. 537-84; Richard Peace, “Nihilism,” in William Leatherbarrow and Derek Offord, eds., A History of Russian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 116-40; and Olga Vishnyakova, “Russian Nihilism: The Cultural Legacy of the Conflict Between Fathers and Sons,” Comparative and Continental Philosophy, 2011, 3(1): 99-111.
60 Compare, for instance, D. Pisarev, “Realisty,” RS, 1864, 9-11; and M. Antonovich, “Lzhe-realisty,” Sovremennik, 1865, 7: 53-93.
61 D. I. Pisarev, “Progulka po sadam rossiiskoi slovesnosti,” RS, 1865, 3(II): 1-68 (p. 35).
62 See a monumental, though dated, two-volume exploration of the place of science in Imperial Russia, Alexander Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, a History to 1860 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1963), and idem, Science in Russian Culture, 1861-1917 (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1970). For more recent accounts, though much narrower in their scope, see Michael D. Gordin, A Well-Ordered Thing: Dmitrii Mendeleev and the Shadow of the Periodic Table (New York: Basic, 2004); and Charles Eliss, “Natural Science,” in Leatherbarrow and Offord, eds., A History of Russian Thought, pp. 286-307.
63 Norov’s statement is cited in K. A. Timiriazev, “Probuzhdenie estestvoznaniia v tret’ei chetverti veka,” in Istoriia Rossii v XIX veke, v 9 tomakh (SPb.: Granat, 1909), vol. 7, pp. 1-30 (p. 2). Emphasis in original.
64 N. Shelgunov, “Vospitanie kharaktera,” RS, 1865, 12(II): 175-210 (p. 175).
65 For the attitude to science by “enlightened bureaucrats,” see Lincoln, In the Vanguard of Reform.
66 For a general analysis of the Enlightenment ideas and ideals in post-Crimean Russia, see R. G. Eimontova, Idei prosveshcheniia v obnovliaiushcheisia Rossii v 50-60-e gody XIX v. (M.: IRI RAN, 1998).
67 N. Serno-Solov’evich, “Ne trebuet li nyneshnee sostoianie znanii novoi nauki,” RS, 1865, 1(I), p. 127.
68 See RGIA, f. 774, op. 1 (1864), d. 12, ll. 117-18.
69 For a general overview of the changes in the institutional structures and organizational principles of Russian science after the 1850s, see E. V. Soboleva, Organizatsiia nauki v poreformennoi Rossii (L.: Nauka. 1983); some useful information on the development of academia in the same period could be found in James C. McClelland, Autocrats and Academics: Education, Culture, and Society in Tsarist Russia (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979); and Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 1970.
70 For a general analysis of scientific societies in Imperial Russia, see Joseph Bradley, Voluntary Associations in Tsarist Russia: Science, Patriotism, and Civil Society (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009). Russian physicians were particularly active in organizing various local societies. From 1858 to 1864, they established nearly thirty new societies. See M. M. Levit, Stanovlenie obshchestvennoi meditsiny v Rossii (M.: Meditsina, 1974), pp. 102-05.
71 Numerous memoirs record that movement; see, for instance, E. N. Vodovozova, Na zare zhizni. Vospominaniia (SPb.: 1-ia trudovaia artel’, 1911), especially Chapters 15 and 16: “Among the Petersburg Youth of the ‘sixtieths,” pp. 442-502.
72 See, for instance, A. P. Katolinskii, Lektsii v Passazhe (SPb.: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1860); and [A. I. Il’inskii], Piat’ populiarno-gigienicheskikh lektsii doktora Il’inskogo, chitannykh v zale Entomologicheskogo obshchestva 26, 29 marta, 1,9, 12, aprelia 1864 goda (SPb.: A. Ia. Isakov, 1864).
73 On the 1864 educational reform see, for instance, a classic account by N. V. Chekhov, Narodnoe obrazovanie Rossii s 60-kh godov XIX veka (M.: Pol’za, 1912). For a recent re-examination of the topic, see A. N. Shevelev, Shkola. Gosudarstvo. Obshchestvo. Ocherki sotsial’no-politicheskoi istorii obshchego shkol’nogo obrazovaniia v Rossii vtoroi poloviny XIX veka (SPb.: SPbGUPM, 2001).
74 For examples of the use of this particular expression, see, for instance, M. Antonovich, “Piat’ populiarno-gigienicheskikh lektsii d-ra Il’inskogo,” Sovremennik, 1864, 8: 207-15 (p. 207).
75 For a general overview of the popularization of science in Russia, see E. A. Lazarevich, Populiarizatsiia nauki v Rossii (M.: MGU, 1981); and idem, S vekom naravne: populiarizatsiia nauki v Rossii (M.: Kniga, 1984). Overviews of “scientific popular” periodicals in Imperial Russia could be found in Jeffrey Brooks, When Russia Learned to Read: Literacy and Popular Culture, 1861-1917 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1985); V. A. Parafonova, “Nauchno-populiarnye zhurnaly v dorevoliutsionnyi period,” Mediaskop, 2011, 3, http://www.mediascope.ru/node/897; idem, “Stanovlenie nauchno-populiarnykh zhurnalov v Rossii,” Vestnik MGU, Zhurnalistika, 2011, 6: 61-72; and A. G. Vaganov, “Rozhdenie termina ‘nauchno-populiarnaia literatura’ v Rossii poslednei treti XIX-pervoi cheverti XX v.,” VIET, 2014, 4: 75-89.
76 See Vokrug sveta: Zhurnal zemlevedeniia, estestvennykh nauk, noveishikh otkrytii, izobretenii i nabliudenii (SPb.: M. O. Vol’f, 1861-68) and Priroda i zemlevedenie: Zhurnal zemlevedeniia, estestvennykh nauk, noveishikh otkrytii, izobretenii i nabliudenii (SPb.: M. O. Vol’f, 1862-68). On M. Vol’f and his publishing empire, see S. F. Librovich, Na kniznom postu: vospominaniia, zapiski, dokumenty (M.: Gos. Istoricheskaia biblioteka, 2005).
77 Russian Word regularly carried this advertisement. See, for instance, the back matter of the October 1863 issue.
78 See RGIA, f. 774, op. 1 (1864), d. 12, l. 117.
79 D. Pisarev, “Nereshennyi vopros (stat’ia tret’ia i posledniaia),” RS, 1864, 11(II): 1-64 (p. 52).
80 In late 1865, when Zaitsev left the journal, Tkachev took over this task.
81 For details of Zaitsev’s biography, see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty.
82 [V. Zaitsev], “Bibliograficheskii listok,” RS, 1864, 10(II): 91.
83 See Varustin, Zhurnal, and Kuznetsov, Nigilisty.
84 N. Shelgunov, “Nachala obshchestvennogo byta,” RS, 1863, 11-12(III): 1-51 (p. 41).
85 For a rather superficial analysis of this view in Pisarev’s writings, see N. N. Zabelina, “Osmyslenie roli nauki kak faktora istoricheskogo progressa v vozreniiakh D. I. Pisareva,” Vestnik MGTU, 2007, 10(3): 382-87.
86 A useful introduction to the concept of “scientific revolution” could be found in Steven Shapin, The Scientific Revolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1996), especially, in his 44-page “Bibliographic Essay.”
87 Blagosvetlov even invited Vogt to become a “staff science writer” for Russian Word. See “Ob”iavlenie ob izdanii literaturno-politicheskogo zhurnala ‘Russkoe slovo’ v 1866 godu,” RS, 1865, 12: front matter.
88 Zaitsev’s statement is cited in the memoirs of Sergei Kravchinskii (1851-1895), an active participant of the revolutionary movement in the 1870s and 1880s, published under the telling title, “Underground Russia.” See S. Stepniak-Kravchinskii, “Podpol’naia Rossiia,” in idem, Sochineniia (M.: Khudozhestvennia literatura, 1958), p. 359.
89 [G. Z. Eliseev], “Vnutrennee obozrenie,” Sovremennik, 1864, 7(II), p. 90.
90 For a dated, but still useful overview of the historical development of “social science” in Russia, see Alexander Vucinich, Social Thought in Tsarist Russia: The Quest for a General Science of Society, 1861-1917 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1976).
91 N. S. Kashkin, “Idealisticheskii i pozitivnyi metody v sotsiologii,” in P. E. Shchegolev, ed., Petrashevtsy v vospominaniiakh sovremennikov v 3-kh tomakh (M.-L.: GIZ, 1926-28), vol. 2, pp. 167-73 (p. 173).
92 For a history of the Petrashevskii circle and the trial in English, see J. H. Seddon, The Petrashevtsy: A Study of the Russian Revolutionaries of 1848 (London: Manchester University Press, 1985).
93 N. G. Chernyshevskii, “Antropologicheskii printsip v filosofii,” in idem, Sochineniia v 2-kh tomakh (M.: Mysl’, 1987), vol. 2, pp. 146-328 (p. 187).
94 N. Serno-Solov’evich, “Ne trebuet li nyneshnee sostoianie znanii novoi nauki,” RS, 1865, 1(I): 125-37 (pp. 127, 131).
95 At the time, Pisarev was writing reviews and editing a bibliographic section in Sunrise (Rassvet), an obscure magazine “for young ladies.”
96 See G. Geine [H. Heine], “Atta Troll, perevod. D. I. Pisarev,” RS, 1860, 12(I): 1-62; and D. I. Pisarev, “Sbornik stikhotvorenii inostrannykh poetov,” ibid., 1860, 12(II): 32-42.
97 See D. I. Pisarev, “Ulichnye tipy. A. Golitsynskogo, s 20-iu risunkami Pikkolo. Izd. K. Rikhau. M. 1860,” RS, 1861, 2(II): 58-70.
98 This long-winded essay was Pisarev’s “candidate” dissertation written in the early spring. See D. I. Pisarev, “Appolonii Tianskii ili agoniia rimskogo obshchestva,” RS, 1861, 6(I): 1-51; 7(I): 1-86.
99 D. I. Pisarev, “Fiziologicheskie eskizy Moleshota,” RS, 1861, 7(II): 23-53. For the German original, see Jacob Moleschot, Physiologisches Skizzenbuch (Giesen: Emil Roth, 1860).
100 Apparently, Viktor L. Khankin, a practicing doctor and the journal’s “staff” reviewer of scientific and medical literature, quit at the beginning of 1861. His last review appeared in February, and from March until July Russian Word carried no reviews of this sort of publications. Perhaps, knowing Pisarev’s proficiency in German, Blagosvetlov offered him Khankin’s role reviewing the latest achievements of German physiology.
101 D. I. Pisarev, “Protsess zhizni (Physiologische Briefe, von Carl Vogt),” RS, 1861, 9(II): 1-26. Further direct quotations from this article are indicated in the text by the issue and page numbers in square brackets. For the German original, see Carl Vogt, Physiologische Briefe für Gebildete aller Stände (Geisen: Rider, 1861).
102 D. I. Pisarev, “Fiziologicheskie kartiny (po Biukhneru),” RS, 1862, 2(I): 1-51. For the German original, see Louis Buchner, Physiologische Bilder (Leipzig: Thomas, 1861), Bd. 1.
103 Of course, the analogy between social and biological “organisms” has a very long history, but in the nineteenth century it became increasingly popular, largely as a result of the “romantic philosophies” of F. W. J. Shelling and G. F. Hegel. See, for instance, a classic historical analysis in F. W. Coker, Organismic Theories of the State: Nineteenth Century Interpretations of the State as Organism or as Person (New York: Columbia University, 1910); for a more sophisticated and nuanced recent analysis, see Robert J. Richards, The Romantic Conception of Life: Science and Philosophy in the Age of Goethe (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002); and Joshua Lambier, “The Organismic State Against Itself: Schelling, Hegel and the Life of Right,” European Romantic Review, 2008, 19(2): 131-37.
104 N. Shelgunov, “Ubytochnost’ neznaniia,” RS, 1863, 4(I): 1-59; 5(I): 1-40. Further direct quotations from this article are indicated in the text by the issue and page numbers in sqare brackets.
105 [N. Shelgunov], “Usloviia progressa,” RS, 1863, 6(I): 1-26.
106 The literature on the reception of Darwin and his works in Russia is quite voluminous. For English-language accounts, see Daniel P. Todes, Darwin without Malthus: The Struggle for Existence in Russian Evolutionary Thought (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989); and Alexander Vucinich, Darwin in Russian Thought (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1988).
107 On Bronn and his translation of Darwin’s works, see Sander Gliboff, H. G. Bronn, Ernst Haeckel, and the Origins of German Darwinism: A Study in Translation and Transformation (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2008), especially Chapter 4, “Bronn’s Origin,” pp. 123-54.
108 On Royer and her involvement with translating Darwin’s works, see Geneviève Fraisse, Clémence Royer: philosophe et femme de science (Paris: La Découverte, 1985); and Joy Harvey, Almost a Man of Genius: Clémence Royer, Feminism and Nineteenth-Century Science (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1997), pp. 62-80.
109 See Charles Darwin, Über die Entstehung der Arten im Thier- und Pflanzen-Reich durch natürliche Züchtung, oder Erhaltung der vervollkommneten Rassen im Kampfe um’s Daseyn. Uebers. und mit Anmerk. v. Dr. H. G. Bronn (Stuttgart: Schweizerbart, 1860); and [Ch. Darwin], De l’origine des espèces, ou des lois du progrès chez les êtres organisés par Ch. Darwin. Trad. par Clémence–Aug. Royer, avec préf. et notes du traducteur (Paris: Guillaumin, 1862).
110 Anon. [Ed. Claparède], “Darvin i ego teoriia proiskhozhdeniia vidov,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia, 1861, 11: 21-40; 12: 25-36. The authorship of this anonymous publication had been a subject of intense speculation for nearly a century until the Moscow historian of biology Iurii Chaikovskii proved that the paper was in fact a translation of Claparède’s review, see Iu. V. Chaikovskii, “O Darvine mezhdu strok,” VIET, 1983, 2: 108-19; and idem, “Pervye shagi darvinizma v Rossii,” Istoriko-biologicheskie issledovaniia, 1989, 10: 121-41. For the original review, see Ed. Claparède, “M. Darwin et sa théorie de la formation des espèces,” Revue Germanique, Française et Étrangère, 1861, 16: 523-59; 17: 232-63.
111 See, Charl’s Darvin [Charles Darwin], O proiskhozhdenii vidov v tsarstvakh zhivotnom i rastitel’nom putem estestvennogo podbora rodichei, ili sokhranenie usovershenstvovannykh porod v bor’be za sushchestvovanie, transl. by S. A. Rachinskii (SPb.: A. I. Glazunov, 1864).
112 Darwin, Origin, p. 488.
113 See, for example, Charles Lyell, Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (London: John Murray, 1863); T. H. Huxley, Evidence as to Man’s Place in Nature (London: Williams & Norgate, 1863); M. J. Schleiden, Das alter des menschengeschlechts (Leipzig: W. Englemann, 1863); and Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schöpfung und in der Geschichte der Erde (Giessen: Ricker, 1863).
114 See V. Z[aitsev], “Bibliograficheskii listok,” RS, 1864, 1(II): 15-21. The book came out in the first week of January 1864, while the censorship permitted the distribution of the journal’s first issue that carried the announcement only on 12 January.
115 Indeed in the preceding issue, Zaitsev had reviewed the first installment of Carl Vogt’s Lectures on Man, see V. Z[aitsev], “Bibliograficheskii listok: Chelovek i mesto ego v prirode. Publichnye lektsii Karla Fogta. Izd. P. A. Gaideburova. T. 1. Vyp. 1. SPb. 1863,” RS, 1863, 11-12(II): 1-7.
116 V. Z[aitsev], “Bibliograficheskii listok. Chelovek i ego mesto v prirode. Lektsii K. Fogta. Vyp. 2. Izd. Gaideburova, SPb., 1864; Chelovek. Mesto ego v mirozdanii i v istorii zemli. Sochinenie K. Fogta. Perevod d-ra Kanshina, vyp. 1 i 2. Izd. Vol’fa, SPb. 1864,” RS, 1864, 3(II): 55-57. For the German original, see Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schöpfung und in der Geschichte der Erde (Giessen: Ricker, 1863).
117 D. I. Pisarev, “Progress v mire zhivotnykh i rastenii,” RS, 1864, 4(I): 1-52; 5(I): 43-70; 6(I): 233-74; 7(I): 1-46; 9(I): 1-46.
118 Pisarev did not have access to the English original but, even though he was incarcerated in the Peter-Paul Fortress, he apparently had a copy of its French translation. He did not use Rachinskii’s rendering of “natural selection” as podbor rodichei (matching of kin). Instead, he chose the word vybor, which Rachinskii used only occasionally. Most likely Pisarev’s choice derived from Royer’s translation of Darwin’s term as “élection,” which literally means “choice,” and, thus, has a clear connotation of something being chosen, selected. This conveyed Darwin’s meaning much closer than Rachinskii’s “matching of kin.” More on Royer’s influence on Pisarev’s interpretation of Darwin’s work below. For details on the importance and intricacies of translations in this book, see the last chapter, “Apologia.”
119 Pisarev most certainly was not alone in popularizing Darwin’s book. After the appearance of Rachinskii’s translation, the leading “thick” journals The Contemporary, Reading Library, and Annals of the Fatherland also published substantial articles on the subject. But none of these articles was as extensive and detailed as Pisarev’s. See M. A. Antonovich, “Teoriia proiskhozhdeniia vidov,” Sovremennik, 1864, 3: 63-107; E. E[del’so]n, “O proiskhozhdenii vidov,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia, 1864, 6: 1-31; 7: 1-14; 8: 1-34; and K. T[imiriazev], “Kniga Darvina, ee kritiki i komentatory,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1864, 155: 880-912; 156: 650-85; 157: 859-82; a few months later, Timiriazev’s essays were issued in book format, see K. Timiriazev, Kratkii ocherk teorii Darvina (M.: A. A. Kraevskii, 1865).
120 The available literature on the notion of progress in history is vast. For a helpful introduction, see Robert Nisbet, History of the Idea of Progress (New York: Basic, 1980).
121 See [Ch. Darwin], De l’origine des espèces, ou des lois du progrès chez les êtres organisés par Ch. Darwin.
122 For a detailed examination of the notion of progress in biology, see Michael Ruse, Monad to Man: The Concept of Progress in Evolutionary Biology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1996); on Darwin’s attitude to the notion, see pp. 136-77. On the intersections of the notions of biological and social progress in Britain, see Peter J. Bowler, The Invention of Progress: The Victorians and the Past (Oxford: Blackwell, 1989).
123 In the first instance, Darwin stated: “The inhabitants of each successive period in the world’s history have beaten their predecessors in the race for life, and are, in so far, higher in the scale of nature; and this may account for that vague yet ill-defined sentiment, felt by many paleontologists, that organisation on the whole has progressed” (Darwin, Origin, p. 345; emphasis added). This statement in no way suggests that Darwin himself shared in “that vague yet ill-defined sentiment,” least of all, that he considered it the essence of his concept. The second time he used the word as a verb in the following passage: “Judging from the past, we may safely infer that not one living species will transmit its unaltered likeness to a distant futurity. And of the species now living very few will transmit progeny of any kind to a far distant futurity; for the manner in which all organic beings are grouped, shows that the greater number of species of each genus, and all the species of many genera, have left no descendants, but have become utterly extinct. We can so far take a prophetic glance into futurity as to foretell that it will be the common and widely-spread species, belonging to the larger and dominant groups, which will ultimately prevail and procreate new and dominant species. As all the living forms of life are the lineal descendants of those which lived long before the Silurian epoch, we may feel certain that the ordinary succession by generation has never once been broken, and that no cataclysm has desolated the whole world. Hence we may look with some confidence to a secure future of equally inappreciable length. And as natural selection works solely by and for the good of each being, all corporeal and mental endowments will tend to progress towards perfection” (Darwin, Origin, p. 489; emphasis added). Here again, Darwin speaks not of the essence of his theory, but of one possible outcome of natural selection — “perfection” — the other one being “utter extinction.”
124 On anthropomorphic explanations of animal behavior, see N. L. Krementsov, “Chelovek i zhivotnoe: k istorii povedencheskikh sopostavlenii,” in E. N. Panov, ed. Povedenie cheloveka i zhivotnykh: skhodstvo i razlichiia (Pushchino: n. p., 1989), pp. 6-28; and Nikolai Krementsov and Daniel Todes, “On Metaphors, Animals and Us,” Journal of Social Issues, 1991, 47(3): 67-82.
125 See Pisarev, “Ocherki iz istorii truda,” RS, 1863, 9(I): 69-134; 11-12(I): 55-117. The article critically discussed American economist Henry Charles Carey’s book The Harmony of Interests: Agricultural, Manufacturing & Commercial (1851).
126 Pisarev explains that the label had been introduced as a pejorative by the German opponents of Darwin’s theory, but that he, of course, used it without any negative connotations.
127 See, Fridrikh Rolle, Karla Darvina uchenie o proiskhozhdenii vidov v tsarstve rastenii i zhivotnykh, primenennoe k istorii mirotvoreniia, transl. by M. Vladimirskii (SPb.: M. O. Vol’f, 1864); and Fridrikh Rolle, Uchenie Darvina o proiskhozhdenii vidov, obshcheponiatno izlozhennoe, transl. by S. A. Usov (SPb.: A. I. Glazunov, 1865). For the German original, see [Friedrich Rolle], Chs. Darwin’s Lehre von der Entstehung der Arten im Pflanzen- und Tierreich in ihrer Anwendung auf die Schöpfungsgeschichte dargestellt und erläutert von Dr. Friedr. Rolle (Frankfurt am Main: J. C. Hermann, 1863). For Schleicher’s work, see [August Schleicher], “Teoriia Darvina i iazykoznanie (Pis’mo Avgusta Shleikhera k d-ru Ernestu Gekkeliu),” Zagranichnyi vestnik, 1864, 2(4-6): 241-63. It was also issued as a brochure, see A. Shleikher, Teoriia Darvina v primenenii k nauke o iazyke (SPb.: P. A. Kulish, 1864). For the German original, see August Schleicher, Die Darwinsche Theorie und die Sprachwissenschaft (Weimar: H. Boehlau, 1863).
128 G. B[lagosvetlov], “Bibliograficheskii listok: Edinstvo roda chelovecheskogo, Katrfazha. Perevod A. D. Mi-khna. Moskva. 1864. –Metamorfozy chelovecheskogo roda, Katrfazha. Perev. A. M-na. Moskva. 1864,” RS, 1864, 4(II): 52-53; for the French originals, see A. de Quatrefages, Physiologie comparée, métamorphoses de l’homme et des animaux (Paris: Baillière, 1862), and idem, Unité de l’espèce humaine (Paris: L. Hachette, 1861). The first book also appeared in English translation in the same year, see A. de Quatrefages, Metamorphoses of Man and the Lower Animals, transl. by Henry Lawson (London: Hardwicke, 1864).
129 G. B[lagosvetlov], “Bibliograficheskii listok: T. Geksli. O prichinakh iavlenii v organicheskoi prirode. Shest’ lektsii, chitannykh rabochim v Muzee prakticheskoi geologii v Londone. SPb. 1864,” RS, 1864, 7(II): 53-58. For the English original, see T. H. Huxley, On Our Knowledge of the Causes of the Phenomena of Organic Nature (Six Lectures to Working Men) (London: Harwicke, 1862), https://archive.org/details/onourknowledgeof62prof.
130 V. Z[aitsev], “Bibliografichekii listok: Karla Darvina uchenie o proiskhozhdenii vidov v tsarstve rastenii i zhivotnykh, primenennoe k isorii mirotvoreniia. Izlozheno i ob”iasneno Fridrikhom Rolle. S prilozheniem biografii Darvina, sostanvlennoi S. Shenemanom. Perevod starshago uchitelia 5-i gimnazii M. Vladimirskogo. SPb. 1864,” RS, 1864, 8(II): 100-02.
131 [V. Zaitsev], “Bibliograficheskii listok. Mesto cheloveka v tsarstve zhivotnom. Sochinenie Tomasa Genrikha Guksleia. Perevel s nemetskogo izdaniia d-ra V. Karusa N. Gol’denbakh. M. 1864,” RS, 1864, 10(II): 97-98.
132 N. V. Shelgunov, “Razvitie chelovecheskogo tipa v geologicheskom otnoshenii,” RS, 1865, 3(I): 218-54.
133 The literature on the history of “social Darwinism” is vast. Useful introductions to the topic can be found in Mike Hawkins, Social Darwinism in European and American Thought, 1860-1945: Nature as Model and Nature as Threat (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997); and Paul Crook, Darwin’s Coat-Tails: Essays on Social Darwinism (New York: Peter Lang, 2007).
134 See [Ch. Darwin], De l’origine des espèces, ou des lois du progrès chez les êtres organisés par Ch. Darwin, transl. by Clémence Royer (Paris: Guillaumin, 1862). On the role and place of Royer in French social Darwinism, see Linda L. Clark, Social Darwinism in France (Tuscaloosa, AL: University of Alabama Press, 1984).
135 Clémence Royer, “Préface,” in De l’origine des espèces, ou des lois du progrès chez les êtres organisés par Ch. Darwin, p. lvi.
136 Ibid., p. lxi. A few years later, she would elaborate and further develop her ideas in a nearly 600-page treatise, see Clémence Royer, Origine de l’homme et des sociétés (Paris: Victor Masson et fils, 1870).
137 See Thomas F. Glick, “The Impact of Darwin on Ideas about Race in the US, UK, France, Germany, and Brazil,” in Henrika Kuklick, ed., New History of Anthropology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2009), pp. 225-40.
138 The literature on the history of racial thought and racial debates is immense. Useful introductions to the topic could be found in Nancy Krieger, “Shades of Difference: Theoretical Underpinnings of the Medical Controversy on Black/White Differences in the United States, 1830-1870,” International Journal of Health Services, 1987, 17(2): 259-78; David N. Livingstone, Adam’s Ancestors: Race, Religion, and the Politics of Human Origins (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008); B. Ricardo Brown, Until Darwin: Science, Human Variety and the Origins of Race (London: Pickering & Chatto, 2010); Nicolas Bancel, Thomas David, and Dominic Thomas, eds., The Invention of Race: Scientific and Popular Representations (New York: Routledge, 2014). For an analysis of Russian anthropologists’ attitudes to the issue of race, see Marina Mogilner, Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2013).
139 See extensive historical examinations of this subject in I. K. Mal’kova, “Istoriia i politika SShA na stranitsakh russkikh demokraticheskikh zhurnalov ‘Delo’ i ‘Slovo’,” Amerikanskii ezhegodnik, 1971: 273-94; R. F. Ivanov and I. Ia. Levitas, “N. G. Chernyshevskii o rabstve negrov v SShA i problema grazhdanskikh svobod,” idem, 1980: 118-38; O. Iu. Kazakova, “Amerika i amerikantsy v otsenke russkogo obshchestva (konets 1850-kh — 1867 g.): sotsiokul’turnye aspekty vospriiatiia”, doctoral dissertation, Orel, 2000; and A. A. Arustamova, Russko-amerikanskii dialog: istoriko-literaturnyi aspect (Perm’: Permskii universitet, 2008), http://litda.ru/images/2017-3/LDA-2017-3_all.pdf.
140 See G. Bicher-Stou, “Khizhina diadi Toma ili Zhizn’ negrov v nevol’nich’ikh shtatakh Severnoi Ameriki,” Russkii vestnik, 1857, 11-12; 1858, 1-4; and Sovremennik, 1857, 66(11-12), 1858, 67(1-2).
141 See A. Pal’mer, Khizhina diadi Toma. Povest’ gospozhi Stove, raskazannaia detiam (SPb.: M. O. Vol’f, 1857). Vol’f reissued the book again in 1865.
142 See M. L. Mikhailov, “Iz Longfello. Pesni o negrakh,” Sovremennik, 1861, 3: 267-78; and V. A. Obruchev, “Nevol’nichestvo v Severnoi Amerike,” ibid.: 279-308. For the original of the book excerpted in Obruchev’s digest, see John S. C. Abbott, South and North (New York: Abbey and Abbott, 1860).
143 A. Toporov, “Nevol’nichestvo v Iuzhno-Amerikanskikh Shtatakh,” RS, 1861, 4(II): 1-28 (p. 26).
144 N. Strakhov, “Durnye priznaki,” Vremia, 1862, 11: 158-72. All subsequent quotations are from this source.
145 Here I use Darwin’s own language to convey the meaning of Strakhov’s praise. Strakhov himself actually used the Russian expressions “estestvennoe izbranie” and “zhiznennaia konkurentsiia,” which were literal translations of the French “l’élection naturelle” and “concurrence vitale” used by Royer. Perhaps, Strakhov did not even have the English original handy. He did not try to find Russian analogues to Darwin’s own “natural selection” and “struggle for existence,” as had the translator of Claparede’s review of Darwin’s work, who had translated them literally as “estestvennaia otbornost’” and “bor’ba za zhizn’,” respectively. See Anon., “Darvin i ego teoriia proiskhozhdeniia vidov,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia, 1861, 11: 21-40; 12: 25-36. For details on the importance and intricacies of translations in this book, see the last chapter, “Apologia.”
146 G. E. Blagosvetlov, “Politika,” RS, 1861, 2(III): 15.
147 E. Rekliu [E. Reclus], “Politika,” RS, 1863, 11-12(III): 42.
148 V. Z[aitsev], “Bibliografichekii listok: Edinstvo roda chelovecheskogo. Kartfazha. Perevod A. D. Mikh...na. M. 1864,” RS, 1864, 8(II): 93-100.
149 M. A. Antonovich, “Russkomu Slovu,” Sovremennik, 1864, 105(11-12): 164.
150 V. Zaitsev, “Bibliograficheskii listok. Otvet moim obviniteliam po povodu moego mneniia o tsvetnykh plemenakh,” RS, 1864, 12(II): 20-26.
151 Anon., “Po povodu statei ‘Russkogo slova’ o nevol’nichestve,” Iskra, 1865, 8: 114-17. All the subsequent quotations are from this source. Emphasis in original.
152 On Nozhin, see A. E. Gaisinovich, “Biolog-shestidesiatnik N. D. Nozhin i ego rol’ v razvitii embriologii i darvinizma v Rossii,” Zhurnal obshchei biologii, 1952, 13(5): 377-92.
153 According to Gaisinovich, Elie Metchnikoff refers to such a translation in his memoirs, but I was unable to find any indication that it had ever been published. Perhaps, as happened with the majority of Nozhin’s works, it perished after his untimely death in April 1866. The first Russian translation of Muller’s book appeared only in 1932, see Frits Miuller, Za Darvina (М.: Gos. Med. izd-vo, 1932). For the German original, see Fritz Müller, Für Darwin (Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann, 1864). For an English translation, see Fritz Müller, Facts and Arguments for Darwin: With Additions by The Author, transl. by W. S. Dallas (London: John Murray, 1869).
154 A few months after the review was published, the book came out in two different Russian translations, see Karl Fokht, Chteniia o poleznykh i vrednykh zhivotnykh (SPb.: L. P. Shelgunova, 1865); idem, Chteniia o mnimovrednykh i mnimopoleznykh zhivotnykh (SPb.: M. O. Vol’f, 1865). For the German original, see Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen über nützliche und schädliche verkannte und verläumdete Thiere (Leipzig: Ernst Keil, 1864).
155 Nozhin gives the full translation of the title, indicating that he had used the 1864 London edition of Darwin’s Journal. Just a few months after the publication of Nozhin’s article, a complete Russian translation of the book in two volumes was published in St. Petersburg. See Ch. Darvin, Puteshestvie vokrug sveta na korable Bigl’, 2 vols. (SPb.: A. S. Golitsyn, 1865).
156 See V. A. Zaitsev, “Bibliograficheskii listok: Charl’z Darvin, Puteshestvie vokrug sveta na korable Bigl’. Perevod pod redaktsiei A. Beketova. Tom 1. Izd. Golitsina. SPb. 1865,” RS, 1865, 5(II): 31-32.
157 See N. V. Shelgunov, L. P. Shelgunova, M. L. Mikhailov, Vospominaniia v 2-kh tomakh (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1967).
158 See V. N. Sazhin, “Aleksandr Nikiforovich Morigerovskii – obshchestvennyi deiatel’ i izdatel’,” in Knizhnoe delo v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX veka (L.: GPB, 1986), vol. 2, pp. 10-22.
159 See, for instance, the memoirs of Russian Word’s author, D. I. Stakheev, “Gruppy i portrety. Listochki vospominanii,” Istoricheskii vestnik, 1907, 109(7-9): 424-37, especially, pp. 433-36.
160 See I. E. Barenbaum, “Tipografiia zhurnalov ‘Russkoe slovo,’ ‘Delo’ (izdatel’skaia deiatel’nost’ Blagosvetlova, Riumina, Morigerovskogo, Tushnova),” in idem, ed., Knizhnoe delo v kul’tunoi i obshchestvennoi zhizni Peterburga-Petrograda-Leningrada (L.: LGIK, 1984), pp. 30-43.
161 [Florinskii], “Doktorskii ekzamen,” p. 201.
162 For the English-language history of the publication and censorship troubles, see Daniel P. Todes, “Biological Psychology and the Tsarist Censor: The Dilemma of Scientific Development,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1984, 58: 529-44.
163 I. Sechenov, “Refleksy golovnogo mozga,” MV, 1863, 47: 461-84; 48: 493-512. For historical assessments of this work and its author, see M. G. Iaroshevskii, Sechenov i mirovaia psikhologicheskaia mysl’ (M.: Nauka, 1981); and David Joravsky, Russian Psychology: A Critical History (Cambridge, MA: Blackwell, 1989).
164 Their daughter Olga would be born on 23 January 1866.
165 For publications in verse, the basic unit for calculating the honorarium was one line.
166 For details of financial arrangements in Russian Word, see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, pp. 93-96.
167 On the censorship of medical publications, see Anon., “Zakon 8 marta 1862 goda,” MV, 1862 (21 April): 153-56.
168 See Lemke, Ocherki; idem, Epokha; and Ruud, Fighting Words, especially, Chapter 9, “The Reform of 6 April 1865,” and Chapter 10, “The First Year of the Reformed System, 1865-66,” pp. 137-67.
169 See Todes, “Biological Psychology and the Tsarist Censor.”
170 I will discuss these steps in the next chapter.
171 For details on how the three “warnings” were issued and the journal’s suspension, see S. S. Konkin, “Zhurnal ‘Russkoe slovo’ i tsenzura v 1863-66 godakh,” Uchenye zapiski Sterlitamakskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 1962, 8: 231-54.
172 See RGIA, f. 776, op. 3, d. 161, ll. 22-25.
Chapter 3
1 See D. Bairon, “Don Zhuan. Roman v stikhakh. Per. D. Minaev,” Sovremennik, 1865, 1: 5-72; 2: 447-512; 3: 169-208; 4: 245-74; 5: 163-203; 7: 207-37; 8: 453-76; 10: 433-68; 1866, 1: 259-74; 4: 385-406.
2 See V. Florinskii, 1865, 8(I): 1-57. The exact citations from this essay are indicated in the text by specific page numbers in square brackets. For the announcement of the release of the August issue, see Golos, 7 October 1865, p. 4.
3 Unless noted otherwise, the emphasis in all quotations is Florinskii’s.
4 Florinskii actually used the word “izmeniaemost’,” which is more accurately translated as “changeability,” although the contents of the section make clear that he followed closely Darwin’s notion of variability. Tellingly, Rachinskii in his translation used the word “izmenchivost’,” which is much closer to Darwin’s meaning of variability. Of course, neither word had a defined terminological status in any language yet.
5 In his discussion of variability, Florinskii borrowed his main analytical category “type” (tip) directly from comparative anatomy, where it was employed to denote a particular pattern of organization that distinguishes one “type” from another. On the emergence of the notion of “type” and its uses, see F. J. Cole, A History of Comparative Anatomy, from Aristotle to the Eighteenth Century (New York: Dover, 1975); on the historical development of this notion in zoology before and after Darwin, see I. I. Kanaev, Ocherki iz istorii sravnitel’noi anatomii do Darvina: Razvitie problemy morfologicheskogo tipa v zoologii (M.-L.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1963); and idem, Ocherki iz istorii problemy morfologicheskogo tipa ot Darvina do nashikh dnei (M.-L.: Nauka, 1966).
6 Although Florinskii did not refer directly to Lyell’s and/or Vogt’s books, it is clear that he borrowed much data from their works. As we saw, both Lyell’s and Vogt’s books were translated into Russian almost immediately after their publications in the original English and German, respectively, see Charl’z Liaiel, Drevnost’ cheloveka. Geologicheskie dokazatel’stva drevnosti cheloveka s nekotorymi zamechaniiami o teoriiakh proiskhozhdeniia vidov (SPb.: O. I. Bakst, 1864); for the English original, see Charles Lyell, Geological Evidences of the Antiquity of Man (London: John Murray, 1863); and Karl Fogt, Chelovek. Mesto ego v mirozdanii i v istorii zemli (SPb.: M. O. Volf, 1865); and idem, Chelovek i mesto ego v prirode (SPb.: P. A. Gaideburov, 1863-65), vols. 1-2; for the German original, see Carl Vogt, Vorlesungen über den Menschen, seine Stellung in der Schöpfung und in der Geschichte der Erde (Giessen: Ricker, 1863).
7 For a voluminous biography of von Baer, see B. E. Raikov, Karl Ber, ego zhizn’ i trudy (M.-L.: AN SSSR, 1961); on his anthropological works, see pp. 393-453.
8 See K. Ber [Karl von Baer], Chelovek v estestvenno-istoricheskom otnoshenii (SPb.: K. Vingeber, 1851).
9 The three sons of Noah: Shem (Asia), Ham (Africa), and Japheth (Europe); plus the native Americans, a group that was unknown in biblical times.
10 One of his principal sources for this section was an extensive treatise by Augustin Weisbach, “Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Schädelformen Österreicher Volker,” Wienese Medizinische Jahrbuch, 1864, 1: 49-127.
11 Florinskii did not give an exact reference and thus it is impossible to ascertain to which particular work of Trémaux’s he refers. As far as I was able to determine, none of Trémaux’s works had been translated into Russian. Florinskii must have read some of his works in French. It could have been one of Tremaux’s numerous publications on his travels and research in Africa. But it is also possible that it was his monumental treatise on “the origin and transformations of humans and other beings,” that has been published in Paris at the beginning of 1865. See Pierre Trémaux, Origine et transformations de l’homme et des autres êtres (Paris: L. Hachette, 1865). Although neither the Russian State Library, nor the IMSA Library has the book, the Library of the Academy of Sciences (BAN) does have a copy.
12 Florinskii cites a Russian translation of Edwards’s treatise by T. N. Granovskii, “O fiziologicheskikh priznakakh chelovecheskikh porod i ikh otnoshenii k istorii. Pis’ma V. F. Edvardsona i A. T’erri,” in idem, Sochineniia (M.: V. Got’e, 1856), vol. 1, p. 33. For the original, see William Frédéric Edwards, Des caractères physiologiques des races humaines considérés dans leurs rapports avec l’histoire (Paris: Mondey-Dupre, 1841).
13 Florinskii here borrows data from and refers to a voluminous investigation by Shchapov on “the historical-geographical organization of the Russian population” serialized in Russian Word, see A. P. Shchapov, “Istoriko-geograficheskoe raspredelenie russkogo narodonaseleniia,” RS, 1864, 8(I): 1-54; 9(I): 95-130; 10(I): 179-211; and idem, “Istoriko-geograficheskoe raspredelenie narodonaseleniia,” RS, 1865, 6(I): 1-30; 7(I): 1-36; 8(I): 1-44; 9(I): 1-41.
14 As an illustration, see Google Ngram for the word nasledstvennost’ in Russian publications from 1800 to 1900, at https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C&year_start=1800&year_end=1900&corpus=12&smoothing=3&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%D0%9D%D0%B0%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B4%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8C%3B%2Cc0
15 See the entry “nasledit’” in Dal’s dictionary at http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/276362.
16 See F. Toll’, Nastol’nyi slovar’ dlia spravok po vsem otrasliam znaniia, 3 vols. (SPb.: F. Toll’, 1863-66). See the entry for “hereditary bleeding” in vol. 2, p. 974.
17 For a detailed analysis of the emergence of the notions of “heredity” in French medicine, see C. López-Beltrán, “Forging Heredity: From Metaphor to Cause, a Reification Story,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1994, 25(2): 211-35; and idem, “In the Cradle of Heredity: French Physicians and L’Hérédité Naturelle in the Early 19th Century,” JHB, 2004, 37: 39–72; for its uses in British medicine, see John Waller, “Ideas of Heredity, Reproduction, and Eugenics in Britain, 1800-1875,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2001, 32(3): 457-89; on the development of the notions of heredity in Germany, see Frederick B. Churchill, “From Heredity to Vererbung: The Transmission Problem, 1850-1915,” Isis, 1987, 78: 337-64; for general overviews, see S. Müller-Wille and H. J. Rheinberger, eds., Heredity Produced: At the Crossroads of Biology, Politics, and Culture, 1500-1870 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2007); and S. Müller-Wille and Christina Brandt, eds., Heredity Explored: Between Public Domain and Experimental Science (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2016).
18 See Prosper Lucas, Traite philosophique et physiologique de l’Hérédité naturelle (Paris: J. B. Bàillière, 1847). For Darwin’s references to Lucas’s views, see Origin, pp. 12, 275.
19 Florinskii does not cite Virchow’s work, but there is no doubt that he knew it well. Delivered in Berlin during the spring of 1858, Virchow’s famous lectures were translated into Russian almost instantaneously. An abridged version appeared as an appendix to the November-December issue of the Moscow Physicians’ Journal (see Moskovskii vrachebnyi zhurnal, 1858, 5-6). A full version (in a different translation) came out in book format a few months later, see R. Virkhov, Patologiia, osnovannaia na teorii iacheek (tselularnaia patologiia), transl. Ia. Rozenblat and I. Chatskin (M.: Moskovskaia vrachebnaia gazeta, 1859). For the German original, see R. Virchow, Die Cellularpathologie in ihrer Begründung auf physiologische und pathologische Gewebelehre: Zwanzig Vorlesungen (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1858). For a historical analysis of the Russian reception of Virchow’s ideas, see Larisa Shumeiko, Die Rezeption Der Zellularpathologie Rudolf Virchows (1821-1902) in Der Medizin Russlands und Der Sowjetunion (Marburg: Tectum Verlag, 2002).
20 The story is found in Genesis, Leviticus 30: 25-43: While shepherding for his uncle Laban, Jacob noted that when sheep in heat looked at, and mated in front of, striped branches, they gave birth to speckled and spotted young. So he convinced his uncle to grant him all the speckled and spotted sheep born to Laban’s flock as payment for his work. Jacob then placed striped branches in watering pools, so that sheep will always have to look at them when they come to drink. And as a result, more and more speckled sheep were born to Laban’s flocks, which Jacob could claim for himself.
21 See J. M. Boudin, “De l’influence de l’âge relatif des parents sur le sexe des enfants,” Comptes rendus hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 1863, 56: 353. A detailed account of Boudin’s report appeared in the Gazette Médicale de Paris, 28 February 1863, 9: 137-39. In October, Medical Herald published a Russian translation of the report, see Buden [Boudin], “O vliianii sravnitel’nogo vozrasta roditelei na pol detei,” MV, 1863 (12 October): 387-88.
22 Florinskii clearly avoided using the word “material” since “materialism” was a red flag for the censors, but that is exactly what he means here.
23 For instance, he cites examples of exceptional fecundity described in the memoirs of V. A. Nashchokin, Zapiski (SPb.: Akademiia nauk, 1842), p. 148; and in J. Lewis Brittain, “Repeated Twin Births,” Edinburgh Medical Journal, 1862, 8(2): 468.
24 V. Florinskii, 1865, 10(I): 1-43. The exact citations from this essay are indicated in the text by specific page number in square brackets. The issue came out in early December. See Golos, 12 December 1865, p. 4.
25 Pisarev, “Razrushenie estetiki,” p. 3.
26 See the discussion of “utilitarian aesthetics” in the previous chapter.
27 The book was reissued more than ten times from the second half of the eighteenth to the mid-nineteenth century. Florinskii cites its fifth edition, N. G. Kurganov, Pis’movnik (SPb.: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1793), Part 1, p. 283.
28 See Adolphe Quételet, Sur l’homme et le développement de ses facultés, ou Essai de physique sociale, 2 vols (Paris: Bachelier, 1835). St. Petersburg libraries have numerous copies and the book was well known in Russia (see, for instance, extensive citations from and references to this work in Shchapov’s articles cited above). Furthermore, its first volume appeared in Russian translation exactly at the time Florinskii was working on his treatise in the spring of 1865, see A. Ketle, Chelovek i razvitie ego sposobnostei, ili Opyt obshchestvennoi fiziki (SPb.: O. I. Bakst, 1865).
29 See A. Veidengammer, “Sel’sko-khoziaistvennoe skotovodstvo kak argument darvinovskoi teorii,” Zapiski Imperatorskogo russkogo obshchestva akklimatizatsii, 1865: 143-81.
30 Much of the evidence Florinskii cited in this section comes from a popular manual on hygiene and medical police compiled from several German publications, which he had apparently used in preparation for his doctoral examination. See L. Pappenheim, Rukovodstvo k gigiene i meditsinskoi politsii, 2 vols. (SPb.: Biblioteka med. nauk d-ra M. Khana, 1860-61). For the German sources of this compilation, see Louis Pappenheim, Handbuch der Sanitäts-Polizei: nach eigenen Untersuchungen (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1858); and Friedrich Oesterlen, Der Mensch und seine physische Erhaltung. Hygienische Briefe für weitere Leserkreise (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1859). The latter book also appeared in a separate Russian translation, see F. Esterlen, Chelovek i sokhranenie ego zdorov’ia (SPb.: O. I. Bakst, 1863).
31 Florinskii did not identify which particular work of Becquerel he quotes here. The quote actually comes from a highly popular “treatise on private and public hygiene,” which since its first appearance in 1851 went through numerous editions and translations. See Louis Alfred Becquerel, Traité élémentaire d’hygiène, privée et publique (Paris: Labé, 1851), https://archive.org/details/traitlmentairedh00becq. Indeed, already in 1852, Iakov Chistovich, the IMSA professor of hygiene and medical police, published a Russian translation and used it as a textbook in his course on hygiene, which Florinskii had to take. See A. Bekkerel’, Elementarnoe nachertanie chastnoi i obshchestvennoi gigieny (nauki o sokhranenii chelovecheskogo zdorov’ia) (SPb.: Med. Departament, 1852). The quote comes from p. 82 of the Russian edition.
32 For a detailed analysis of the notion of hereditary diseases in contemporary British medicine, see John C. Waller, “‘The Illusion of an Explanation’: The Concept of Hereditary Disease, 1770-1870,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 2002, 57: 410-48; in the US, Rosenberg, “The Bitter Fruit.”
33 Florinskii took this example from S. A. Usov, “Zubr,” Zapiski Imperatorskogo Russkogo obshchestva akklimatizatsii, 1865: 1-64.
34 The November issue came out in late December, and the December issue only in late January 1866. See Golos, 24 December 1865, p. 4; and ibid., 29 January 1866, p. 4.
35 V. Florinskii, 1865, 11(I): 1-25; 12(I): 27-43. The exact citations from this essay are indicated in square brackets in the text.
36 He took his numbers from Thomas Willis, Facts Connected with the Social and Sanitary Condition of the Working Classes in the City of Dublin: With Tables of Sickness, Medical Attendance, Deaths, Expectation of Life, &c., &c; Together with Some Gleanings from the Census Returns of 1841 (Dublin: T. O’Gorman, 1845).
37 Florinskii borrowed much of his statistical data on the Germanic lands from Johann Ludwig Casper, Ueber die wahrscheinliche Lebensdauer des Menschen (Berlin: F. Dümmler, 1843).
38 The quotation came from Part I, Chapter 21, which in John Ormsby’s 1885 English translation reads: “…there are two kinds of lineages in the world; some there be tracing and deriving their descent from kings and princes, whom time has reduced little by little until they end in a point like a pyramid upside down; and others who spring from the common herd and go on rising step by step until they come to be great lords; so that the difference is that the ones were what they no longer are, and the others are what they formerly were not.” https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=dig6CwAAQBAJ&pg=PT133&lpg=PT133&dq.
39 Florinskii used the adjectives “consanguineous” (krovnye) and “kin” (rodstvennye) synonymously.
40 For a historical assessment of the French debate, see Mauro Sebastián Vallejo, “El problema de la consanguinidad en la medicina francesa (1850-1880): cuando heredar demasiado era un riesgo y un deseo,” Asclepio. Revista de Historia de la Medicina y de la Ciencia, 2012, 64(2): 517-40; for analyses of the debate in the English speaking countries, see A. H. Bittles, “The Bases of Western Attitudes to Consanguineous Marriage,” Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 2003, 45: 135-38; and, especially, Diane B. Paul and Hamish G. Spencer, “Eugenics without Eugenists?: Anglo-American Critiques of Cousin Marriage in the Nineteenth and Early Twentieth Centuries,” in Müller-Wille and Brandt, eds., Heredity Explored, pp. 49-79.
41 See K. T[olstoi], “O krovnykh brakakh,” MV, 1865 (26 June): 233-35; (3 July): 249-53; (10 July): 257-59; (17 July): 269-72; (24 July): 277-80; (31 July): 285-88.
42 For an English language account of the long history of the studies of this condition, see H. Werner, History of the Problem of Deaf-mutism until the 17th Century (Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1932); for summaries of nineteenth-century studies, see Henry W. Hubbard, Deaf-mutism: A Brief Account of the Deaf and Dumb Human Race, from the Earliest Ages to the Present Time (London: Leisure Hour, 1894); and Holger P. T. Mygind, Deaf Mutism (London: F. J. Rebman, 1894).
43 See J.-Ch.-M. Boudin, Dangers des unions consanguines et nécessité des croisements dans l’espèce humaine et parmi les animaux (Paris: J.-B. Baillière et Fils, 1862), originally published in Annales d’hygiène publique et de médicine légale, 1862, 18: 5-82; idem, “De la Nécessité des Croisements, et du Danger des Unions Consanguines dans l’Espèce Humaine et parmi les Animaux,” Recueil de mémoires de médecine, de chirurgie et de pharmacie militaires, 1862 (3rd series), 8: 193-241; and idem, “Etudes statistiques sur les Dangers des Unions Consanguines dans l’Espèce Humaine et parmi les Animaux,” Journal de la Société de Statistique, 1862, 3: 69-84; 103-20. Florinskii also cited a dissertation by L. T. Chazarain, Du mariage entre consanguins considéré comme cause de dégénériscence organique, et plus particulièrement de surdi-mutité congéniale (Collection des Thèses de l’Ecole de Médecine de Montpellier, No. 63, 1859). The dissertation is absent in the IMSA Library.
44 See Francis Devay, Du Danger des Mariages consanguins au point de vue sanitaire (Paris: Labé, 1857); and its much expanded second edition, idem, Du Danger des Mariages consanguins sous le rapport sanitaire (Paris: V. Masson et fils, 1862); the IMSA Library holds only the second volume, which Florinskii probably used. The anti-consanguinists argued that exogamous marriage replenished “hereditary blood” with fortifying traits. They cited the degeneration of the Ancien Régime to argue their case against consanguinity and thus called for the “regeneration of the French race” through cross-breeding.
45 P. Meniere, “Recherches sur l’origine de la surdi-mutité,” Gazette Médicale de Paris, 1846, 3: 223-26; 243-46; idem, “Du mariage entre parents considéré comme cause de la surdi-mutité congénitale,” ibid., 1856: 303-06.
46 All of these periodicals were available in St. Petersburg’s libraries.
47 In addition to the authors mentioned above, Florinskii cited a special report on idiocy by the director of the Perkins Institution and Massachusetts Asylum in Boston: S. G. (Samuel Gridley) Howe, Report Made to the Legislature of Massachusetts, Upon Idiocy by Howe, S. G. (Boston, MA: Coolidge and Wiley, 1848); and the monograph by Swiss physician Johann Jakob Guggenbühl, Die Heilung und Verhütung des Cretinismus und ihre neuesten Fortschritte (Bern: Huber, 1853); the last book had earned Guggenbühl an honorary membership in the IMSA, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 28, d. 35, ll. 1-16.
48 R. Liebreich, “Abkunft aus Ehen unter Blutsverwandten als Grund von Retinitis pigmentosa,” Deutsche Klinik (Berlin), 1861 (9 February), 13: 53-55.
49 In addition to the works by Devay and Boudin mentioned above, Florinskii also cited many observations of animals collected by French entomologist Charles Nicolas Aubé, “Notes sur les inconvénients qui peuvent résulter du défaut de croisement dans la propagation des espèces animales,” Bulletin de la Société impériale zoologique d’acclimatation, 1857, 4: 509-18; and in humans reported by American physician Samuel M. Bemiss, “On the Evil Effects of Marriages of Consanguinity,” North American Medico-Chirurgical Review, 1857, 1: 97-108 (which also was republished as “On Marriages of Consanguinity” in the London-based Journal of Psychological Medicine and Mental Pathology, 1857, 10(6): 368-79); and idem, “Report on Influence of Marriages of Consanguinity upon Offspring,” Transactions of the American Medical Association, 1858, 11: 319-425. Since none of these journals was available at the IMSA Library, most likely, Florinskii cited these studies from Boudin’s and Devay’s publications.
50 Here he referred to the second edition of Devay’s book, Du Danger des Mariages consanguins (Paris: V. Masson et fils, 1862), which was available at the IMSA Library.
51 Here Florinskii referred to Devay’s earlier monumental, two-volume study of “the physical and moral perfection of man,” which was also available at the IMSA Library, see Francis Devay, Hygiène des familles, ou Du perfectionnement physique et moral de l’homme: considéré particulièrement dans ses rapports avec l’éducation et les besoins de la civilisation moderne, 2 vols. (Paris: Labé; Lyon: Dorier, 1846), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k65137691.
52 V. Florinskii, 1865, 12(I): 27-43.
53 Florinskii here actually gave the English phrase “breeding in and in” without translation.
54 Here Florinskii summarized Sanson’s presentation at the Society’s meeting. See A. Sanson, “Unions Consanguines chez les Animaux,” Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie, 1862, 1(3): 254-64.
55 He cited works by Jean Magne (1804-1885), professor at l’École impériale vétérinaire d’Alfort; Jean Gourdon (1824-1876), professor at l’École vétérinaire de Toulouse; and Antoine Richard “du Cantal” (1802-1891), French doctor, veterinarian, agronomist, and politician. All of these references apparently came from J.-Ch.-M. Boudin, Du croisement des familles et des races et réponse a M. Dally (Paris: Louis Guerin, 1863).
56 Robert Bakewell (1725–1795), British agriculturalist, now recognized as one of the most important figures in the British Agricultural Revolution, was one of the first to implement systematic selective breeding of livestock.
57 He cited articles by Alfred Bourgeois, “Sur les Résultats attribues aux Alliances Consanguines,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 1863, 56: 177-81; J. A. N. Perier, “Essai sur les Croisements Ethniques,” Mémoires de la Société d’Anthropologie, 1863, 1: 69-92; 2: 187-236; and 1865, 2: 261-374; August Voisin, “Contribution a l’Histoire des mariages entre consanguins,” Mémoires de la société d’anthropologie, 1863, 2: 433-59, which also came out in book format a few years later, see August Voisin, Contribution a l’Histoire des mariages entre consanguins (Paris: Bailliere et fils, 1866); and M. Seguin, “Sur les Mariages Consanguins,” Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, 1863, 57: 253-54.
58 Eugène Dally, “Recherches sur les Mariages consanguins et sur les races pures,” Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie de Paris, 1863, 4: 515-75. Dally presented this long report to the Anthropological Society on 5 November 1863, i.e. after Florinskii had left Paris. But the journal that carried it was available at the IMSA Library. The next year the report was also issued as a booklet under the same title, see Eugène Dally, Recherchés sur les Mariages consanguins et sur les races pures (Paris: V. Masson, 1864). An English translation of this report by H. J. C. Beavan appeared in the London Anthropological Review, 1864 (May): 65-108.
59 J.-Ch.-M. Boudin, “Du Croisement des Familles et des Races, et Réponse a M. Dally,” Bulletins de la Société d’Anthropologie, 1862, 6: 662-94.
60 In arguing this point, both the proponents and opponents of kin marriages mostly relied on data provided in Francisque-Michel, Histoire des races maudites de la France et de l’Espagne (Paris: A. Franck, 1847).
61 Meniere, “Recherches sur l’origine de la surdi-mutité,” 1846; and idem, “Du mariage entre parents considéré comme cause de la surdi-mutité congénitale,” 1856.
62 Boudin, 1862, p. 21. The original reads: “A notre sens, les mariages consanguins, loin de militer en faveur d’une hérédité toute imaginaire, constituent la protestation la plus flagrante contre les lois mêmes de l’hérédité. Comment, voilà des parents consanguins, pleins de force et de santé, exempts de toute infirmité appréciable, incapables de donner à leurs enfants ce qu’ils ont, et leur donnant au contraire ce qu’ils n’ont pas, ce qu’ils n’ont jamais eu, et c’est en présence de tels faits que l’on ose prononcer le mot hérédité (3)! Nous croyons inutile de prolonger cette discussion; citons quelques faits.” Emphasis in original.
63 On Morel and his concept, see Daniel Pick, The Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, c.1848-c.1918 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); and Kelly Hurley, “Hereditary Taint and Cultural Contagion: The Social Etiology of Fin-de-Siècle Degeneration Theory,” Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 1990, 14(2): 193-214.
64 Florinskii probably read Morel’s magnum opus: B. A Morel, Traite des Dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles, et morales de l’espèce humaine; et des causes qui produisent ces variétés maladives (Paris: J. B. Baillières, 1857). It was certainly available, along with Morel’s other works, at the IMSA Library. With the exception of Perier, none of the participants in the French debate had cited Morel’s work, though Tolstoi in his overview of the debate did recount very briefly some of Morel’s ideas.
65 Although Florinskii did not cite this work in his treatise, his text strongly suggests that he had borrowed much of the analysis of the existing Russian laws on marriage from their extensive discussion in The Contemporary, see M. A. Filippov, “Vzgliad na russkie grazhdanskie zakony,” Sovremennik, 1861, 2: 523-62; 3: 217-66.
66 For a contemporary overview of the Orthodox Church regulations of marriage, see “Obzor tserkovnykh postanovlenii o brake v pravoslavnoi tserkvi,” Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, 1859, 2: 369-413; 3: 1-45; 119-52; 217-34; 325-51. For detailed instructions on determining the degree of kinship, see Sergei Grigorovskii, O rodstve i svoistve (SPb.: Trud, 1903).
67 See Grigorovskii, O rodstve i svoistve.
68 According to the Russian law, the children of such mixed marriages would be by law Orthodox.
69 Since the essays appeared in a “literary-political” journal addressed to the general reader and largely followed the then acceptable reference style in scientific/medical periodicals, Florinskii did not give the exact reference for every source he had consulted. Quite often he simply mentioned the last name of a scientist or a physician whose work he had used (giving foreign names in Russian transliteration or transcription). Equally often, he did not bother to give even a name. But the contents of his treatise allow one to identify even those publications (such as Lyell’s and Huxley’s books on the origins of man) that do not appear in his references.
70 For the intricacies of correct translations of Florinskii’s vocabulary see the last chapter, “Apologia.”
71 In Origin, Darwin used this expression in various forms more than 200 times.
72 On raznochintsy, see the classic work by Christopher Becker, “Raznochintsy: The Development of the Word and of the Concept,” American Slavic and East European Review, 1959, 18(1): 63-74; for a more recent and much more detailed analysis, see Elise Kimerling Wirtschafter, Social Identity in Imperial Russia (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 1997), pp. 66-99.
73 For an analysis of the early articulations of the raznochintsy’s ideology, see G. V. Zykova, Zhurnal Moskovskogo universiteta “Vestnik Evropy” (1805-1830 gg.): Raznochintsy v epokhu dvorianskoi kul’tury (M.: Dialog-MGU, 1998).
74 See, for instance, N. G. O. Pereira, “Challenging the Principle of Authority: The Polemic between Sovremennik and Russkoe Slovo, 1863-65,” Russian Review, 1975, 34(2): 137-50.
75 On this motto and its role, see a classic study by Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, Nicholas I and Official Nationality in Russia, 1825-1855 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1959).
76 For an excellent analysis of the formation of the “middle class” and its values in Britain, see Harold J. Perkin, The Origins of Modern English Society 1780-1880 (London: Routledge, 1969) and idem, The Rise of Professional Society: England Since 1880 (London: Routledge, 1989).
Chapter 4
1 See “Ob”iavlenie ob izdanii literaturno-politicheskogo zhurnala ‘Russkoe slovo’ v 1866 godu,” RS, 1865, 12: front matter. The same announcement appeared in the newspapers, see, for instance, Golos, 24 December 1865, p. 4.
2 See the announcement of this order in the official newspaper of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, Severnaia pochta, 17 February 1866, p. 1; also Golos, 24 February 1866, p. 4.
3 See, for instance, announcements of the publication in Golos, 11 March 1866, p. 4; and Knizhnik, 1866, 4: 211-12.
4 See Luch: Ucheno-literaturnyi sbornik (SPb.: Riumin i Komp., 1866), vol. 1. The first volume came out at the end of March, see Golos, 28 March 1866, p. 4.
5 See Golos, 28 March 1866, p. 4. Fortunately, several copies of the second volume survived. See Luch: Ucheno-literaturnyi sbornik (SPb.: Riumin i Komp., 1866), vol. 2. For the censorship materials regarding the collection, see RGIA, f. 777, op. 2 (1866), d. 53. For a detailed description of Blagosvetlov’s battle with the censorship over the publication of The Ray, see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, pp. 528-32.
6 For details of the Karakozov Affair, see Claudia Verhoeven, The Odd Man Karakozov: Imperial Russia, Modernity and the Birth of Terrorism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2009).
7 For details, see Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, p. 527.
8 Unfortunately, for some unknown reasons, though listed in the directory, a separate file with the documents related to the establishment of the IMSA pediatrics clinic in the Russian State Military-Historical Archive has been destroyed, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 34, d. 252. For the Academy Council’s decision to put Florinskii in charge of the new clinics and his report on the first year of its operations, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 200, ll. 309 rev-311; d. 201, ll. 258 rev-259. For brief descriptions of Florinskii’s involvement with pediatrics, see N. I. Bystrov, Kratikii ocherk istorii kliniki detskikh boleznei Imperatorskoi VMA (SPb.: Tip. MVD, 1899), pp. 14, 26-28, 34-37; and V. S. Vail’, Ocherki po istorii russkoi pediatrii (Stalinabad: n. p., 1960), pp. 41-50.
9 See, V. Florinskii, “Obzor trudov [na nemetskom, frantsuzskom, angliiskom, latinskom iazykakh] po chasti akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei za 1863 i 1864 gg.,” VMZh, 1865, 94 (October): 23-58; (November): 59-102; (December): 103-39.
10 See, for instance, V. M. Florinskii, “Soderzhanie kormilitsy i rebenka,” in Zh.-Zh. Russo [J.-J. Rousseau], Sobranie sochinenii (SPb.: N. Tiblen, 1866), vol. 1. Teoriia vospitaniia, pp. 625-36.
11 See [V. Florinskii], “Otchet o sostoianii i deiatel’nosti Obshchestva russkikh vrachei v S. Peterburge,” PZORV, 1865-1866: 4-9. For the voting results and Florinskii’s response to his re-election, see ibid., p. 10.
12 For a rather favorable account of the newspaper’s history written half a century later by one of its regular contributors, see N. A. Skorobotov, “Peterburgskii listok” za tridtsat’ piat’ let. 1864-1899 (SPb.: “Gerol’d,” 1914).
13 Peterburgskii listok, 11 January 1866, p. 3.
14 Peterburgskii listok, 15 January 1866, p. 4.
15 Ibid., pp. 4-5.
16 See RGIA, f. 776, op. 3, d. 460, ll. 1-2.
17 Unfortunately, I was unable to find any 1866 documents of St. Petersburg Criminal Court in the Russian archives. Thus my reconstruction of the events surrounding the trial is based largely on newspaper accounts.
18 See Peterburgskii listok, 8 February 1866, p. 3; 10 February 1866, p. 3; 15 February 1866, p. 3.
19 When Mrs. Andreeva attempted to change her story, saying that it might have been not Monday 13 December, but perhaps Saturday 11 or Sunday 12 when she had come to Florinskii’s apartment, the IMSA administration confirmed that on those days Florinskii too had been at the clinics from early morning till late afternoon. See the correspondence between the court and the academy in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 35, d. 142, ll. 1-4.
20 See announcements in “Sudebnaia khronika,” Golos, 12 May 1866, p. 3; “Sudebnaia khronika,” ibid., 19 May 1866, p. 3; and reports on the court proceedings in Peterburgskii listok, 26 May 1866, pp. 1-3; 29 May 1866, pp. 1-2; and 5 June 1866, p. 1.
21 Reportedly, Florinskii asked the court to commute Mrs. Andreeva’s sentence, since she had to take care of her child.
22 I have failed to find any information about Mr. Balabolkin.
23 Florinskii’s suit was just one of several cases against Petersburg Leaf, which had been addressed by the court. See “Sudebnaia khronika,” Golos, 19 May 1866, p. 3; and K. Arsen’ev, “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu,” Sankt Peterburgskie vedomosti, 28 May 1866, p. 3; “Sudebnye prigovory,” ibid., 6 June 1866, p. 2.
24 See MV, 1866 (25 June): 308.
25 For the full text of the edict, see “Vysochaishii rescript ot 13 maia 1866 g.,” Sobranie uzakonenii i rasporiazhenii Pravitel’stva, 1866, 44: 326. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
26 See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 585, ll. 1-10. All the following quotations are from this source.
27 His last publication in the newspaper was a dissertation review, which appeared in July 1866 and had likely been written a few months earlier, see MV, 1866 (30 July): 363-66.
28 See, for instance, V. Florinskii, “O rezul’tatakh nabliudenii nad upotrebleniem khloroforma,” PZORV, 1867-1868: 109-11; 117-18; and idem, “O smertnosti rodil’nits v Sankt Peterburge,” ibid., 1872-73: 229-45.
29 Blagosvetlov to Shelgunov, 30 January 1866, cited in L. P. Shelgunova, “Iz dalekogo proshlogo,” in Shelgunov, Shelgunova, Mikhailov, Vospominaniia, vol. 2, p. 197.
30 For detailed histories of the journal, see B. I. Esin, Demokraticheskii zhurnal “Delo” (M.: MGU, 1959); and M. A. Benina, “Zhurnal ‘Delo’ v 1860-70-e gg. (‘Epokha Blagosvetlova’),” in V. E. Kel’ner, ed., Knizhnoe delo v Rossii vo vtoroi polovine XIX – nachale XX v. (L.: GPB, 1988), vol. 3, pp. 7-20; on the censorship permission and other documents related to the journal publication, see RGIA, f. 777, op. 2 (1866), d. 76; and op. 3 (1866), dd. 398-99.
31 Cited in Kuznetsov, Nigilisty, p. 533.
32 See announcement in Golos, 28 September 1866, p. 4.
33 See Florinskii, 1866. The announcements of the publication appeared in newspapers, see, for instance, Golos, 4 September 1866, p. 4; and Syn otechestva, 14 September 1866, p. 1736.
34 Most books published during this period listed either a publisher (izdatel’), or a printer (tipografiia) on their front pages. For the archival documents that definitively identify the printing shop owned by Blagosvetlov that produced Florinskii’s book, see RGIA, f. 777, op. 2 (1866), d. 7, ll. 12-15 rev.
35 In the newspaper announcements of the book’s publication, however, the name of its author was spelled correctly, see Golos, 4 September 1866, p. 4; and Syn otechestva, 14 September 1866, p. 1736.
36 To give just one example, when a few years later Blagosvetlov issued as a separate volume a series of articles by Veniamin Portugalov, which had first been published in Deed, the volume carried a brief “foreword” by its author that provided the readers with the necessary information. See Avtor, “Predislovie,” in V. O. Portugalov, Voprosy obshchestvennoi gigieny (SPb.: A. Morigerovskii, 1873), p. i.
37 There were no copyright laws in existence yet.
38 For the French original, see Auguste Debay, Hygiène et physiologie du mariage: histoire naturelle et médicale de l’homme et de la femme mariés, dans ses plus curieux détails (Paris: E. Dentu, 1862). This was the 29th edition of the book! For Russian translations, see O. Debe, Gigiena i fiziologiia braka, 2 vols. (M.: S. Orlov, 1862); and O. Debe, Gigiena i fiziologiia braka, 3 vols. (SPb.: D. F. Fedorov, 1862-63).
39 N. Shul’gin, “Ob”iavlenie ob izdanii ezhemesiachnogo zhurnala ‘Delo’,” Golos, 17 November 1866, p. 4. Emphasis in original. Although the announcement was signed by the “official” editor Shul’gin, there is no doubt that it had been written by the actual editor Blagosvetlov.
40 Iakobii entered Zurich University’s Medical School to study psychiatry in 1864, and it was in Zurich that he met and married Zaitsev’s sister, Varvara. For a biography of Iakobii, see I. I. Shchigolev, Otechestvennyi psikhiatr P. I. Iakobii (Briansk: Izd-vo BGU, 2001). This biography devotes much space to Iakobii’s involvement with “revolutionary circles” and his psychiatric work after returning to Russia in 1890. But, unfortunately, it skips over nearly thirty years, from 1862 to 1890, which Iakobii spent studying, publishing, and working as a physician in Germany, Switzerland, and France.
41 See E. K-di [P. Iakobii], “Razvitie rabstva v Amerike,” RS, 1865, 7(I): 91-115; 12(I): 1-30.
42 See P. Ia[kobii], “Dusha cheloveka i zhivotnykh. Lektsii professora geidel’bergskogo universiteta V. Vundta. Per. s nemetskovo E. K. Kemnitsa. Tom pervyi. Izdanie P. A. Gaideburova. SPb. 1865,” RS, 1865, 10(II): 75-102. For the German original, see Wilhelm Wundt, Vorlesungen über die Menschen- und Thierseele (Leipzig: Leopold Voss, 1863).
43 See RGIA, f. 776, op. 3, d. 161, ll. 19-19 rev.
44 Ibid., l. 23.
45 See Ern. Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Psikhologicheskie etiudy. Organicheskie elementy mysli,” Luch. Ucheno-literaturnyi sbornik, 1866, vol. 2, pp. 43-90.
46 See De-Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Fizicheskie usloviia pervonachal’noi tsivilizatsii cheloveka,” Delo, 1866, 1: 104-28.
47 After the Karakozov Affair, the secret police closely monitored Blagosvetlov’s correspondence. This letter was copied and placed in Blagosvetlov’s file. See GARF, f. 109, op. 1, d. 2045, l. 1.
48 De-Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Khronika estestvenno-nauchnykh otkrytii,” Delo, 1867, 5: 27-48; 6: 1-26.
49 De-Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Fiziologiia mysli,” Delo, 1867, 8: 1-48.
50 See L. E. Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Psikhologicheskie etiudy,” Delo, 1867, 11: 92-122.
51 See his dissertation, Paul Jacoby [P. Iakobii], Considérations sur les monomanies impulsives (Bernae: n. p., 1868). Iakobii would resume writing “natural science chronicle” for Deed almost three years later, see De Kalonn [P. Iakobii], “Estestvennye nauki v 1869 g (estestvenno-nauchnaia khronika),” Delo, 1870, 4: 39-78; 9: 35-75.
52 For a severely truncated biography of Portugalov that focuses predominantly on his work in Samara from the late 1870s through the 1890s, see P. S. Kabytov, S. I. Stegunin, and V. Iu. Kuz’min, Zemskii vrach Veniamin Osipovich Portugalov (1835-1896 gg.) (Samara: Samarskoe knizhnoe izd-vo, 2006). For Portugalov’s much more informative autobiography, see the Manuscript Collection of the Institute of Russian Literature in St. Petersburg (hereafter RO IRLI), f. 377, op. 7, d. 2847; see also, “Portugalov, Veniamin Osipovich,” in V. A. Mysliakov, ed., Russkaia intelligentsia. Avtobiografii i bibliograficheskie materialy v sobranii S. A. Vengerova. Annotirovannyi ukazatel’ (SPb.: Nauka, 2010), vol. 2, “M-Ia,” pp. 244-45.
53 His first publications appeared in the Archive of Legal Medicine and Social Hygiene in 1867, see V. O. Portugalov, “Shadrinsk i Cherdyn’,” Arkhiv sudebnoi meditsiny i obshchestvennoi gigieny (hereafter ASMiOG), 1867, 4: 36-60.
54 See V. Portugalov, “Prichiny boleznei,” ASMiOG, 1868, 2: 1-46; 3: 1-43; 4: 1-21; 1869, 1: 1-23; and idem, Prichiny boleznei (SPb.: Tip. Akademii Nauk, 1869).
55 V. Portugalov, “Istochniki boleznei,” Delo, 1869, 3: 81-114.
56 The December 1868 issue of Deed carried an advertisement for the Archive of Legal Medicine and Social Hygiene, which perhaps attracted Blagosvetlov’s attention to the journal and its contents.
57 See Charles Darwin, The Variation of Animals and Plants Under Domestication, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1868). The Russian translation appeared even before the English original, see Ch. Darvin, Proiskhozhdenie vidov. Otd. 1. Izmeneniia zhivotnykh i rastenii vsledsvie prirucheniia, 2 vols., ed. by I. M. Sechenov, transl. by V. Kovalevskii (SPb.: F. S. Sushchinskii, 1868). On the history of this translation, see Ia. M. Gall, “Vladimir Kovalevskii kak perevodchik i izdatel’ truda Charl’za Darvina, ‘The Variation of Animals and Plants under Domestication’,” Vestnik VOGiS, 2007, 11(1): 40-44.
58 Portugalov, Istochniki boleznei, p. 114.
59 Portugalov’s main source was Reich’s recently published voluminous treatise, Ueber die Entartung der Menschen, ihre Ursachen und Verhütung (Erlangen: Ferdinand Enke, 1868). On Reich and his work on the treatise, see Karl-Heinz Karbe, “Eduard Reich (1836-1919) und sein Wirken für die ‘gesamte Hygiene’ in der Gothaer Schaffensperiode von 1861 bis 1869,” Beiträge zur Hochschul- und Wissenschaftsgeschichte Erfurts, 1987-88, 21: 243-56. Portugalov also referred extensively to Virchow’s famous series of articles on the typhus epidemic in Upper Silesia, which had been published in Virchow’s journal, Archiv für pathologische Anatomie und Physiologie und für klinische Medicin, 1849, 2: 143-322. On Virchow’s views on social hygiene, see Ian F. McNeely, “Medicine on a Grand Scale”: Rudolf Virchow, Liberalism, and the Public Health (London: The Wellcome Trust, 2014).
60 V. Portugalov, “Bespredel’nost’ gigieny,” Delo, 1869, 8: 1-39.
61 This is how Russian specialists translated the journal’s title. See Anon., “Zhurnal obshchestvennoi gigieny. Deutsche Vierteljahrsschrift für öffentliche Gesundheitspflege, Red. Von Prof. Reclam,” ASMiOG, 1870, 1: 23-36. Surprisingly, despite his many contributions to legal medicine and social hygiene, my search for Reclam’s biography or an historical assessment of his works yielded no results, aside from a brief entry in the German Biographical Lexicon, see Julius L. Pagel, “Reclam, Karl Heinrich,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, 1907, 53: 246, https://www.deutsche-biographie.de/gnd116374098.html#adbcontent.
62 On pangenesis, see Conway Zirkle, “The Inheritance of Acquired Characters and the Provisional Hypothesis of Pangenesis,” American Naturalist, 1935, 69: 417-45; and Kate Holterhoff, “The History and Reception of Charles Darwin’s Hypothesis of Pangenesis,” JHB, 2014, 47: 661-95.
63 See Blagosvetlov to Portugalov, [March], 1870, RGALI, f. 613, op. 1, d. 5661, ll. 174-76. Released from the Peter-Paul Fortress in November 1866, Pisarev drowned in July 1868 in a boating accident.
64 See K. Reklam, Populiarnaia gigiena: nastol’naia kniga dlia sokhraneniia zdorov’ia i rabochei sily v narode (SPb.: A. Morigerovskii, 1869). Altogether, Blagosvetlov issued five different editions of the book, in 1869, 1870, 1872, 1878, and 1882. Portugalov’s essay was first included in the second edition. For the German original, see Carl H. Reclam, Das Buch der vernünftigen Lebensweise. Für das Volk zur Erhaltung der Gesundheit und Arbeitsfähigkeit. Eine populäre Hygieine (Leipzig: Winter, 1863).
65 See Blagosvetlov to Portugalov, 8 February 1870, RGALI, f. 613, op. 1, d. 5661, ll. 170-71.
66 V. Portugalov, “Poslednee slovo nauki,” Delo, 1869, 11: 104-28; 12: 1-31; 1870, 2: 86-121; 4: 41-94; 6: 104-26; 7: 1-42.
67 See V. O. Portugalov, “Razvitie i porcha,” Delo, 1870, 11: 114-71; 12: 102-36.
68 See V. O. Portugalov, “O vyrozhdenii,” Delo, 1871, 1: 77-118; 2: 199-226; 3: 150-88.
69 Portugalov, “Razvitie i porcha,” p. 136.
70 Reich, Ueber die Entartung der Menschen. Although Portugalov undoubtedly read Reich’s work in the original German, it is worth noting that its Russian rendering appeared just a few months prior to the publication of Portugalov’s essays. See Okt. Mil’chevskii, Prichiny vyrozhdeniia cheloveka, nepolnota i nepravil’nost’ ego telesnogo i dushevnogo razvitiia v nastoiashchee vremia [compiled on the basis of a German work by Ed. Reich] (M.: A. I. Mamontov, 1870).
71 See Eduard Reich, System der Hygiene, 2 vols. (Leipzig: F. Fleischer, 1870-1871).
72 Morel, Traite des Dégénérescences.
73 V. O. Portugalov, Voprosy obshchestvennoi gigieny (SPb.: A. Morigerovskii, 1873). See an advertisement for the book in Delo, 1873, 5: back matter.
74 Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1871).
75 See Znanie, 1871, 4-9, supplements.
76 Ch. Darvin, Proiskhozhdenie cheloveka i polovoi podbor (SPb.: “Znanie,” 1871).
77 He was also not pleased with a different translation, also published in the early fall under Ivan Sechenov’s editorship. See Charl’z Darvin, Proiskhozhdenie cheloveka i podbor po otnosheniiu k polu, 2 vols., ed. and transl. by I. Sechenov (SPb.: Cherkesov, 1871-1872). On his critique of the numerous mistakes in this edition, see G. Blagosvetlov, “Ob”iasneniia s redaktsiei zhurnala ‘Znanie’ po povodu Darvina,” Delo, 1871, 11: 31-46.
78 [G. Blagosvetlov], “Darvin. Proiskhozhdenie cheloveka i polovoi podbor. Sokrashchennyi perevod s angliiskogo. Izdanie redaktsii zhurnala ‘Znanie’. SPb. 1871,” Delo, 1871, 9: 19-23 (p. 19).
79 Ibid., pp. 19-20.
80 Blagosvetlov was likely aware that during the same time another St. Petersburg publisher was preparing one more translation of Darwin’s book edited by Ivan Sechenov, but he proceeded with his own translation anyway.
81 The Knowledge publishers responded in kind to Blagosvetlov’s critique and, after the appearance of the first two volumes of his translation, published a lengthy critical review in St. Petersburg News, see [Redaktsiia zhurnala ‘Znanie’], “Darvin i redaktsiia zhurnala ‘Delo’,” Sankt Peterburgskie vedomosti, 4 November 1871, l(2): 1.
82 Charl’s Darvin, Proiskhozhdenie cheloveka i polovoi podbor, 3 vols., ed. and transl by G. E. Blagosvetlov (SPb.: Tip. A. Morigerovskogo, 1871-1872). The delay in the appearance of the third volume was the result of the censorship interference, see RGIA, f. 776, op. 2, dd. 8-9; and op. 11, d. 142; and f. 777, op. 2, d. 73.
83 See also a similar critique of a Russian translation of А. Wallace’s Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection issued under the auspices of the Moscow popular-science journal Priroda (Nature) and its unfavorable comparison to Blagosvetlov’s own translation of the same book: I. P., “Estestvennyi podbor,” Delo, 1878, 6: 70-89.
84 For some observations on the reception of the book, see Ruth Schwartz Cowan, “Nature and Nurture: The Interplay of Biology and Politics in the Work of Francis Galton,” in William Coleman and Camille Limoges, eds., Studies in the History of Biology (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1977), vol. 1, pp. 133-208; and Emel Aileen Gökyigit, “The Reception of Francis Galton’s ‘Hereditary Genius’ in the Victorian Periodical Press,” JHB, 1994, 27(2): 215-40. Indeed, Russian appears to be the only language into which the book was translated during the nineteenth century. The first German translation came out only in 1910, while a French one was never produced at all.
85 See F. Gal’ton, “Liudi nauki,” Znanie, 1874, 5: 40-53. The translation was made not from the original English publication, Francis Galton, “On Men of Science, their Nature and their Nurture,” Proceedings of the Royal Institution, 1874, 7: 227-36, but from its French translation, Francis Galton, “Les Hommes de Science leur Education et leur Régime,” Revue Scientifique, 1874, 44 (2 May): 1035-40.
86 See F. Gal’ton, “Nasledstvennost’ talanta, ee zakony i posledsviia,” Znanie, 1874, 11-12 (supplement): 1-299. The editors’ choice to translate this particular book seems strange. It would have been more logical to publish in Russian Galton’s next book, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (London: Macmillan, 1874), which came out later in the same year and presented Galton’s much more elaborate views on “hereditary genius” than those advanced in the eponymous volume, as well as his response to the criticism it evoked in various quarters, especially from the Swiss botanist Alphonse de Candolle. Yet, this choice actually supports the suggestion that it was Darwin’s references to Hereditary Genius that incited its Russian translation.
87 F. Gal’ton, Nasledstvennost’ talanta, ee zakony i posledstviia (SPb.: Znanie, 1875).
88 N. Ia. [P. Iakobii], “Sovremennaia bezdarnost’ (Gal’ton, Nasledstvennost’ talanta, ee zakony i posledstviia. Perevod s angliiskogo. SPb. 1875),” Delo, 1875, 5: 50-75.
89 See S. Sh., “Inostrannaia literatura. English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture. By Francis Galton. London, 1874. English Eccentrics and Eccentricities. By John Timbs. London, 1875,” Delo, 1875, 10: 161-72. Although the reviews were signed “S. Sh.,” which was the pen-name used by the journal’s regular contributor, well-known historian Serafim Shashkov, it is likely that the reviews were actually written by Blagosvetlov himself, for their subjects were way beyond Shashkov’s interests and expertise, while his knowledge of the English language was much more limited than that of Blagosvetlov’s.
90 See A. R. Uolles, Teoriia estestvennogo podbora (SPb.: Tip. G. E. Blagosvetlova, 1878). For the English original of the “second edition with corrections and additions,” see Alfred Russel Wallace, Contributions to the Theory of Natural Selection (New York: Macmillan, 1871).
91 V. Portugalov, “Gigienicheskie usloviia braka,” Delo, 1876, 9: 1-39.
92 John Lubbock, The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1870). A Russian translation of Lubbock’s book appeared as supplements to Knowledge in 1874-1875, see Dzh. Lebbok, “Nachalo tsivilizatsii,” Znanie, 1874, 10; 1875, 1-6 (prilozheniia). The next year a different translation came out under the auspices of the Moscow-based popular-science magazine Priroda, see Dzh. Lebbok, Doistoricheskie vremena (M.: “Priroda”, 1876).
93 Edward B. Taylor, Primitive Culture, 2 vols. (London: John Murray, 1871). A Russian translation of Taylor’s monograph came out in 1872-1873 also under the auspices of Knowledge, see E. B. Teilor, Pervobytnaia kul’tura, 2 vols. (SPb.: “Znanie”, 1872-73).
94 The first volume of his textbook, modestly titled Introduction to Gynecology, was published as two separate tomes of more than 650 pages in total in 1869 and 1870, respectively. See V. Florinskii, Kurs akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei (ginekologiia). T. 1. Vvedenie v ginekologiiu. Vyp. 1. Istoricheskii i anatomo-physiologicheskii otdely (SPb.: Tip. Ia. Trei, 1869); idem, Kurs akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei (ginekologiia). T. 1. Vvedenie v ginekologiiu. Vyp. 2. Obshchaia diagnostika i terapiia zhenskikh boleznei (SPb.: Tip. Ia. Trei, 1870).
95 See, for instance, V. Florinskii, “O rezul’tatakh nabliudenii nad upotrebleniem khloroforma,” PZORV, 1867-1868: 109-11, 117-18.
96 For a voluminous general overview of the history of medicine in Russia from the tenth to the twentieth century, see M. B. Mirskii, Meditsina Rossii X-XX vekov (M.: ROSSPEN, 2005). For a detailed analysis of the creation of the system of state medicine in Russia in the early nineteenth century, see Elena Vishlenkova, “The State of Health: Balancing Power, Resources, and Expertise and the Birth of the Medical Profession in the Russian Empire,” Ab Imperio, 2016, 3: 39-75.
97 Despite the fact that his name is mentioned in every textbook on the history of medicine and/or public health, there is still no detailed scholarly biography of this remarkable man, to say nothing of an examination of his time in Russia. For a largely hagiographic account, see Harald Breyer, Johann Peter Frank: “Fürst unter den Ärzten Europas” (Leipzig: Hirzel Teubner, 1983). For Frank’s autobiography written before his appointment in St. Petersburg, see George Rosen, “Biography of Dr. Johann Peter Frank,” Journal of the History of Medicine, 1948, 3(1): 11-46; (2): 279-314. For a detailed examination of his ideas about medical police and public health, see a recent dissertation by Rüdiger Haag, “Johann Peter Frank (1745-1821) und seine Bedeutung für die öffentliche Gesundheit,” doctoral dissertation, Saarbrücken University, 2010.
98 To give but one example, it was Frank who insisted on adopting Latin as the language of instruction and abolishing studies of the French language at the academy, even though at the time the majority of European medical schools were offering instruction in native languages, while French medicine was universally considered the world leader in nearly every medical specialty, thus making the knowledge of French absolutely critical to the profession.
99 Wylie was a personal surgeon to three consecutive Russian emperors: Paul I, Alexander I, and Nicholas I. As with Frank, there is still no fully-fledged scholarly biography of this remarkable man, either in English or in Russian. There are only some brief notices in various encyclopedia and “jubilee” articles. See, for instance, A. A. Novik, V. I. Mazurov, and P. D. A. Semple, “The Life and Times of Sir James Wylie Bt., Md., 1768–1854, Body Surgeon and Physician to the Czar and Chief of the Russian Military Medical Department,” Scottish Medical Journal, 1996, 41(4): 116-20. Although there is a highly fictionalized account of his life (which used no Russian language sources at all), see Mary McGrigor, The Tsar’s Doctor: The Life and Times of Sir James Wylie (Edinburgh: Birlinn, 2010). For a brief analysis of Wylie’s role in the development of Russian medical services, see Vishlenkova, “The State of Health,” 50-65.
100 Biographical details for many German physicians practicing in nineteenth-century Russia could be found in a biographical lexicon issued as part of a general project on “Scientific relations in the 19th century between Germany and Russia in the fields of chemistry, pharmacy and medicine” at the Saxon Academy of Sciences in Leipzig. See Marta Fischer, Russische Karrieren. Leibärzte im 19. Jahrhundert (Aachen: Shaker Verlag, 2010).
101 Florinskii, 1865, 10(I): 1-43 (p. 12).
102 Zinin retired in 1864.
103 The confrontation between the two factions became so vicious that it even found a way into the official history prepared for the academy’s centennial, see N. P. Ivanovskii, ed., Istoriia Imperatorskoi voenno-meditsinskoi (byvshei mediko-khirurgicheskoi) akademii za sto let, 1798-1898 (SPb.: Tip. MVD, 1898), pp. 602-05.
104 A good indication of belonging to one or the other faction is the membership of IMSA professors in either the St. Petersburg Society of Russian Physicians or the St. Petersburg Society of German Physicians, or both. For the membership lists for various years, see PZORV and St. Petersburger medizinische Zeitschrift (1861-1869).
105 Some relevant observations on the patriotic ethos of Russian physicians during the nineteenth century can be found in Nancy M. Frieden, Russian Physicians in an Era of Reform and Revolution, 1856-1905 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981); and E. Vishlenkova, “‘Vypolniaia vrachebnye obiazannosti, ia postig dukh narodnyi’: Samosoznanie vracha kak prosvetitelia rossiiskogo gosudarstva,” Ab Imperio, 2011, 2: 47-79; for more general analyses, see Elizabeth A. Hachten, “Science in the Service of Society: Bacteriology, Medicine and Hygiene in Russia, 1855-1907,” doctoral dissertation, University of Wisconsin at Madison, 1991; and Lisa Kay Walker, “Public Health, Hygiene and the Rise of Preventive Medicine in Late Imperial Russia, 1874-1912,” doctoral dissertation, University of California, Berkeley, 2003.
106 For a vivid depiction of the confrontation by one of its active participants, see Ia. A. Chistovich, Dnevniki, 1855-80, vol. 2 (1857-74), pp. 310-430. These unpublished diaries are held in the Manuscript collections of the Fundamental Library of the Military-Medical Academy (St. Petersburg), f. VIII, d. 16-18. Hereafter references to these diaries will be given as Chistovich, Dnevniki.
107 V. M. [Florinskii], “Mnenie russkogo inostrantsa o nashem meditsinskom byte,” MV, 1862 (20 January): 17-21.
108 See V. M. [Florinskii], “Meditsinskii otchet Imperatorskogo S. Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma za 1857 god. SPb., 1860,” MV, 1861 (24 June): 125-28; K. Raukhfus, “Otvet na stat’iu V. M. O meditsinskom otchete Imperatorskogo S-Peterburgskogo vospitatel’nogo doma za 1857g,” ibid., 1861 (5 August): 177-81; V. M. [Florinskii], “Otvet g. Raukhfusu, po povodu ego antikritiki,” ibid., 1861 (30 December): 385-89; K. Raukhfus, “Otvet g. V. M.,” ibid., 1862 (26 May): 203-06.
109 See Anon. [V. M. Florinskii], “Kurs prakticheskogo akusherstva A. Krasovskogo,” MV, 1865 (21 August): 315-20. Although, the review was published anonymously, its authorship was not a heavily guarded secret.
110 See V. M. Florinskii, “Bibliografiia,” MV, 1866 (30 July): 363-66. Bredov, in turn, published a highly critical review of the Russian translation of Gustav Braun’s obstetrics manual edited by Florinskii, see R. K. Bredov, “Kurs operativnogo akusherstva prof. G. G. Brauna. Per. s nemetskogo pod red. adiunkt-professora V. Florinskogo,” VMZh, 1866, 44 (January-April): 46-56.
111 It was the last act of unwavering support Dubovitskii extended to Florinskii over the years. Two months later, he died. For the documents related to Florinskii’s promotion, see RGVIA, f. 316, op. 36, d. 315, ll. 1-20.
112 See the documents related to the failed promotion in RGVIA, f. 316, op. 69, d. 205. A detailed description of the intrigue surrounding the affair is provided in Iastrebov, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii v Peterburgskoi mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii, pp. 67-78.
113 Many years later, in his eulogy on the death of his colleague, Florinskii specifically emphasized Botkin’s role as the leader of the IMSA Russian party: “In his patriotic aspirations he was, so to say, an extension of P. A. Dubovitskii and I. T. Glebov. … His talent, inexhaustible energy, and, one could say, good fortune gave him an opportunity to lead the Russian scientific movement and to do much more than anyone else among his colleagues and comrades.” See V. M. Florinskii, “Pamiati prof. S. P. Botkina,” Izvestiia Imperatorskogo Tomskogo universiteta, 1890, 2: 64-70. For a biography of Botkin, see A. A. Budko and A. V. Shabunin, Velikii Botkin: serdtse, otdannoe liudiam (SPb.: VMM, 2006). For an English language account of Botkin’s work at the academy, see Kichigina, The Imperial Laboratory, pp. 97-130, 201-24.
114 In 1863, when the IMSA Council voted on Florinskii’s appointment as an adjunct professor, the votes split roughly two to one, with thirteen members voting for and six against, which was quite typical. See RGVIA, f. 316, op. 32, d. 29, ll. 1-2.
115 G. G. Skorichenko, Imperatorskaia Voenno-meditsinskaia (mediko-khirurgicheskaia) akademiia: istoricheskii ocherk (SPb.: M. Vol’f, 1910), vol. 2, pp. 81-82. The author had mistaken Roman K. Bredov for his father Karl von Bredow, a German physician who had come to Russia during the Napoleonic wars.
116 At that time, the most common causes of children mortality under the age of five were intestinal (during the summer) and respiratory (during the winter) infections. Since Sergei died in October, it is likely that he had contracted a respiratory infection, perhaps, scarlet fever that was nearly endemic in St. Petersburg.
117 See Bystrov, Kratkii ocherk, pp. 26-28, 34-37.
118 In 1875, Florinskii’s students published a conspectus of his lectures, see [V. M. Florinskii], Zapiski po akusherstvu po lektsiiam ekstraordinarnogo professora Mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii V. M. Florinskogo (SPb.: Arnol’d, 1875).
119 See PZORV, 1871-1872: 3-9.
120 Florinskii recounted certain details of this appointment in his memoirs. See [V. M. Florinskii], “Zametki i vospominaniia V. M. Florinskogo, 1875-1880,” Russkaia starina, 1906, 126 (1): 78-95. For the documents related to his appointment, see RGIA, f. 733, op. 121, d. 19, ll. 1-68; f. 734, op. 5, d. 2; and RGVIA, f. 316, op. 60, d. 382, ll. 43-44, 50-52 rev.
121 For a partial overview of the Committee’s activities, see a treatise by its chairman from 1873 to 1898, Alexander I. Georgievskii, K istorii Uchenogo komiteta Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia (SPb.: Senat. Tip., 1902). For the ministry’s detailed official history prepared for its centennial, see S. V. Rozhdestvenskii, Istoricheskii obzor deiatel’nosti Ministerstva narodnogo prosveshcheniia: 1802-1902 (SPb.: MNP, 1902).
122 For an overview of Tolstoi’s life and career, see V. L. Stepanov, “Dmitrii Andreevich Tolstoi,” in A. N. Bokhanov, ed., Rossiiskie conservatory (M.: “Russkii mir,” 1997), pp. 233-87. For a detailed analysis of Tolstoi’s work as a minister of people’s enlightenment, see Allen Sinel, The Classroom and the Chancellery: State Educational Reform in Russia under Count Dmitry Tolstoi (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1973).
123 See A. I. Georgievskii, Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk pravitel’stvennykh mer i prednachertanii protiv studencheskikh besporiadkov (SPb.: V. S. Balashev, 1890).
124 The academy was subordinate to the Ministry of People’s Enlightenment from 1810 to 1822.
125 The diaries of the war minister Dmitrii A. Miliutin for the years of 1874-1875 contain numerous references to and details of this conflict, see Dnevnik D. A. Miliutina, 1873-75 (M.: n. p., 1947), vol. 1. Similarly, the diaries of Iakov Chistovich contain numerous entries on the conflict, but mention Florinskii’s involvement only obliquely. See Chistovich, Dnevniki, 1855-80, vol. 3.
126 For a forceful contemporary expression of this concern, see Vl. Snegirev, “Mediko-khirurgicheskaia akademiia ili meditsinskii fakul’tet,” ASMiOG, 1870, 1: 1-18. For historical analyses, see, for instance, Peter F. Krug, “The Debate Over the Delivery of Health Care in Rural Russia: The Moscow Zemstvo, 1864-1878,” Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1976, 50: 226-41; Samuel Ramer, “The Zemstvo and Public Health,” in Terence Emmons and Wayne S. Vucinich, eds., The Zemstvo in Russia: An Experiment in Local Self-Government (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982), pp. 279-314; and Frieden, Russian Physicians.
127 Despite the enormous influence the grand duke had exerted on the course of the Great Reforms and the history of Russia writ large, there is still no fully-fledged scholarly biography of the man. The most complete biographical account remains N. P. Pavlov-Sil’vanskii, “Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Nikolaevich. Biograficheskii ocherk,” in idem, Sochineniia: Ocherki po russkoi istorii XVIII-XIX vv. (SPb.: M. M. Stasiulevich, 1910), vol. 2, pp. 304-73. For a detailed analysis of the early part of the duke’s life and work, see V. E. Voronin, Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Nikolaevich. Stanovlenie gosudarstvennogo deiatelia (M.: Russkii mir, 2002).
128 There is very little documentary evidence related to this event. True to his “Hippocratic oath,” Florinskii left not a word on the subject in his personal papers. The grand duke’s personal journals for 1874-1878 (which are preserved in GARF, f. 722, op. 1, dd. 103-12) might have relevant information, but, unfortunately, they are written in code and have not yet been deciphered.
129 On imperial marriages, see Greg King and Penny Wilson, Gilded Prism: The Konstantinovichi Grand Dukes and the Last Years of the Romanov Dynasty (East Richmond Heights, CA: Eurohistory, 2006).
130 See the grand duke’s recently published diaries of 1846 that recorded his feelings about Alexandra, in I. N. Zasypkina and I. S. Chirkov, “Konstantin i Aleksandra. Pervaia liubov’ velikogo kniazia Konstantina Nikolaevicha po ego dnevnikam 1846 goda,” Vestnik arkhivista, 2009, 1: 220-44; 2: 222-40.
131 For a detailed description of the grand duke’s marriage and family, see L. V. Zav’ialova and K. V. Orlov, Velikii kniaz’ Konstantin Nikolaevich i velikie kniaz’ia Konstantinovichi: istoriia sem’i (SPb.: Vita Nova, 2009).
132 The reference is reported in the diaries of a State Council member, A. A. Polovtsov, Dnevnik gosudarstvennogo sekretaria (M.: Tsentrpoligraf, 2005), vol. 2, p. 238.
133 See S. A. Sapozhnikov, “Potomstvo velikogo kniazia Konstantina Nikolaevicha (1827-1892) ot Anny Vasil’evny Kuznetsovoi,” Istoricheskaia genealogiia, 1993, 2: 22-27; and M. M. Medvedkova, “Dopolnenie i ispravleniia k stat’e Sapozhnikova,” ibid., 1994, 3: 4.
134 [D. A. Miliutin], Dnevnik D. A. Miliutina, 1873-75 (M.: n. p., 1947), vol. 1, pp. 198-201.
135 On the university reform and the 1863 Statute, see the recently published memoirs of their main architect, A. Golovin, Zapiski dlia nemnogikh (SPb.: Nestor-Istoriia, 2004); for a historical analysis, see R. G. Eimontova, Russkie universitety na putiakh reformy: shestidesiatye gody XIX veka (M.: Nauka, 1993).
136 Delianov served from 1861 to 1882 as director of the St. Petersburg Public Library and from 1867 to 1874 as a deputy-minister. For some details of his life and career, see Paul W. Johnson, “Taming Student Radicalism: The Educational Policy of I. D. Delianov,” Russian Review, 1974, 33(3): 259-68; and Iu. P. Gospodarik, “Ministr iz komandy Aleksandra III: Graf Ivan Davydovich Delianov,” in V. M. Filippov, ed., Ocherki istorii rossiiskogo obrazovaniia (M.: MGUP, 2002), vol. 2, pp. 105-35.
137 V. M. Florinskii, Svedeniia o sostoianii i potrebnostiakh russkikh meditsinskikh fakul’tetov, predstavlennye na rassmotrenie v vysochaishe utverzhdennuiu komissiiu dlia peresmotra nyne deistvuiushchego universitetskogo ustava (SPb.: V. S. Balyshev, 1876).
138 Now remembered mostly as a friend and publisher of Anton Chekhov, Suvorin was not only a very successful publisher, but also left a noticeable imprint on Russian journalism. See Effie Ambler, The Career of Aleksei S. Suvorin, Russian Journalism and Politics, 1861-1881 (Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1972); for a detailed biography of Suvorin’s, see E. A. Dinershtein, A. S. Suvorin. Chelovek, sdelavshii kar’eru (M.: Rosspen, 1998).
139 Florinskii himself described in detail his involvement with this project in his memoirs, see V. Florinskii, “Zametki i vospominaniia,” Russkaia starina, 1906, 125(1): 75-109; 125(2): 288-311; 125(3): 564-96; 126(1): 109-56; 126(2): 280-323; 126(3): 596-621. For a detailed description of Florinskii’s work on the establishment of Tomsk University, see Iastrebov, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii, pp. 46-128.
140 See, for instance, a detailed description of its history by the idea’s active proponent Nikolai Iadrinskii, which appeared in Blagosvetlov’s Deed in October 1875, N. Iadrinskii, “Potrebnost’ znaniia na Vostoke (po povodu uchrezhdeniia Sibirskogo universiteta),” Delo, 1875, 10: 33-69.
141 See V. Florinskii, “Sibirskii universitet,” Novoe vremia, 6 March 1876, p. 1; and idem, “Prigoden li Omsk dlia universiteta,” ibid., 2 September 1876, p. 3.
142 See Trudy komissii, uchrezhdennoi po vysochaishemu poveleniiu dlia izucheniia voprosa ob izbranii goroda dlia Sibirskogo universiteta (SPb.: Balashov, 1878).
143 Florinskii, “Zametki i vospominaniia,” Russkaia starina, 1906, 125(3), p. 564.
144 See, for instance, V. M. Florinskii, Materialy dlia izucheniia chumy (Kazan: Tip. Universiteta, 1879). In early 1878, a plague epidemic hit the southern regions of the empire and threatened to spread all over the country, which explains a particular attention paid by Russian physicians to the disease in the late 1870s.
145 See V. M. Florinskii, Kurs akusherstva: Lektsii, chitannye v Imperatorskom Kazanskom universitete (Kazan: Tip. Universiteta, 1883).
146 See V. M. Florinskii, Domashniaia meditsina: Lechebnik dlia narodnogo upotrebleniia (Kazan: Tip. Universiteta, 1880). The manual went through nine editions and stayed in print long after its author’s death. Reportedly, even the writer Leo Tolstoy used it to treat some liver problems.
147 See, V. M. Florinskii, “Proekt publichnogo istoriko-etnograficheskogo museia,” Izvestiia Obshchestva arkheologii, istorii i etnografii pri Kazanskom universitete, 1878, 1: 125-40.
148 See V. M. Florinskii, Russkie prostonarodnye travniki i lechebniki (Kazan: Tip. Universiteta, 1880). He also published (with extensive commentaries) a 500-page collection of manuscripts pertaining to the diplomatic relations between Russia and China during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, which had been compiled by Nikolai Bantysh-Kamenskii and which Florinskii acquired after the latter’s death. See V. M. Florinskii, ed., Diplomaticheskoe sobranie del mezhdu Rossiiskim i Kitaiskim gosudarstvami s 1619 po 1792 god (Kazan: Tip. Universiteta, 1882).
149 For a detailed two-volume history of Tomsk University, see S. A. Nekrylov, Tomskii universitet — pervyi nauchnyi tsentr v aziatskoi chasti Rossii (seredina 1870-kh gg. – 1919), 2 vols. (Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta, 2010-2011).
150 See [V. M. Florinskii,] Rech’ Professora V. M. Florinskogo, proiznesennaia pri zakladke Sibirskogo universiteta 26 avgusta 1880 (Tomsk: Tip. Mikhailova i Makushina, 1880).
151 For detailed, though contradictory, historical assessments of the new statute, see G. I. Shchetinina, Universitety Rossii i ustav 1884 g. (M.: Nauka, 1976); Samuel D. Kassow, Students, Professors, and the State in Tsarist Russia (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1989); E. V. Oleseiuk, ed., Otechestvennye universitety v dinamike zolotogo veka russkoi kul’tury (SPb.: Izd-vo “Soiuz”, 2005); and many others.
152 For an analysis of the changing attitudes to universities see, for instance, E. S. Liakhovich and A. S. Revushkin, Universitety v istorii i kul’ture dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (Tomsk: TGASU, 1998).
153 His official title was popechitel’ Zapadno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga. On the establishment of the new “educational region” and the responsibilities of its supervisor, see A. V. Blinov, “Organizatsiia i razvitie Zapadno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga,” doctoral dissertation, Kemerovo, 2000.
154 See annual reports and registries issued by Florinskii’s office, Pamiatnaia knizhka Zapadnno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga (Tomsk, 1887-1900).
155 For descriptions of Florinskii’s work at his new post, in addition to the literature cited above, see A. A. Sechenova, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii — pervyi popechitel’ Zapadno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga,” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 2009, 12: 139-41; and A. A. Bubnov, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii — organizator i sozdatel’ nauki v Sibiri,” Vestnik Kurganskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, 2014, 1(6): 3-15.
156 Which he certainly did. Unlike in all other Russian universities, there were no students’ strikes, unrest, or “revolutionary circles” in Tomsk during Florinskii’s tenure, which earned him the label of a “reactionary” in the Soviet-era histories of the institution. For a recent, much more balanced analysis of Florinskii’s “anti-revolutionary” activities and measures, see E. A. Degal’tseva, “V. M. Florinskii v Sibiri: satrap ili patriot,” in V. A. Skubnevskii and Iu. M. Goncharov, eds., Aktual’nye voprosy istorii Sibiri (Barnaul: AGU, 2007), vol. 1, pp. 221-27.
157 See V. M. Florinskii, Rech’ popechitelia Zapadno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga, proiznesennaia pri otkrytii Imperatorskogo Tomskogo universiteta 22 iiulia 1888 g. (Tomsk: n. p., 1888); and a special volume published for the opening of the university, which contained a detailed description of the new school, including the biographies of its first professors, Pervyi universitet v Sibiri (Tomsk: Sibirskii vestnik, 1889), http://access.bl.uk/item/pdf/lsidyv36c696d1.
158 Its law school would be opened only a decade later, in 1898. See M. F. Popov, Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk Imperatorskogo Tomskogo universiteta za pervye 25 let ego suchchestvovavniia (1888-1913) (Tomsk: n. p., 1913); and V. F. Volovich, ed., Iuridicheskoe obrazovanie v Tomskom universitete: Ocherk istorii (1898-1998) (Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo universiteta, 1998).
159 [M. V. Florinskii], Opisanie prazdnovaniia zakladki Tomskogo Tekhnologicheskogo instituta 6 iiulia 1896 goda (Tomsk: P. I. Makushin, 1896).
160 See “Trudy Tomskogo obshchestva estestvoispytatelei,” Izvestiia Imperatorskogo Tomskogo Universiteta (hereafter ITU), 1889, 1: 1-32; and V. P. Puzyrev, “V. M. Florinskii i Tomskoe obshchestvo estestvoispytatelei,” Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal (Tomsk), 1999, 14(1-2): 87-91.
161 See V. M. Florinskii, “Zametka ob influentse,” ITU, 1890, 2: 98-106; idem, “Materialy dlia izucheniia chumy,” ibid., 1897, 12: 1-25.
162 See Florinskii, “Proekt publichnogo istoriko-etnograficheskogo museia.”
163 See V. M. [Florinskii], Arkheologicheskii muzei Tomskogo universiteta [Katalog] (Tomsk: 1888). In the subsequent years, Florinskii regularly updated the catalogue. See, for instance, V. M. Florinskii, Vtoroe pribavlenie k katalogu arkheologicheskogo muzeia Tomskogo universiteta (Tomsk: Makushin, 1898).
164 See, for instance, V. M. Florinskii, “Topograficheskie svedeniia o kurganakh Semipalatinskoi i Semirechenskoi oblasti,” ITU, 1889, 1: 15-31; idem, “Nekotorye svedeniia o kurganakh iugo-zapadnoi chasti Semirechenskoi oblasti,” ibid., 32-49; idem, “Kurgany Tomskoi oblasti,” ibid., 58-86; idem, Topograficheskie svedeniia o kurganakh Zapadnoi Sibiri (Tomsk: Mikhailov i Makushin, 1889); idem, “Dvadtsat’ tri chelovecheskikh cherepa Tomskogo arkheologicheskogo muzeia,” ITU, 1890, 2: 16-46.
165 V. M. Florinskii, Pervobytnye slaviane po pamiatnikam ikh doistoricheskoi zhizni: Opyt slavianskoi arkheologii (Tomsk: Makushin, 1894-1898).
166 For an assessment of Florinskii’s archeological works, see A. V. Zhuk, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii kak arkheolog,” AB ORIGINE: Problemy genezisa kul’tur Sibiri (Tiumen’: TiumGU, 2013), 5: 5-22; and idem, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii, ego mesto i znachenie v otechestvennoi arkheologii,” Vestnik Omskogo universiteta. Seriia “Istoricheskie nauki”, 2015, 1(5): 100-15.
167 On the history of this railway, see Christian Wolmar, To the Edge of the World: The Story of the Trans-Siberian Railway (London: Atlantic, 2013).
168 For a brief overview of the literary type, see Ellen Chances, “The Superfluous Man in Russian Literature,” in Neil Cornwell, ed., The Routledge Companion to Russian Literature (London: Routledge, 2001), pp. 111-22.
169 D. Pisarev, “Shkola i zhizn’,” RS, 1865, 7(I), p. 132.
170 See Anon., “Zhurnalistika,” Golos, 29 October 1865, pp. 1-3; 30 October 1865, p. 1.
171 See Anon., “Zhurnalistika,” Golos, 14 December 1865, pp. 1-2.
172 Anon., “Zhurnalistika,” Golos, 17 February 1866, p. 1.
173 See RGIA, f. 777, op. 2, d. 7, ll. 12-13 rev. All the following quotations are from this source.
174 See Golos, 31 August 1866, p. 4. The same advertisement was repeated a few days later, see ibid., 4 September 1866, p. 4.
175 See, for instance, Syn Otechestva, 14 September 1866, p. 1736; and Sovremennaia meditsina, 1866, 36 (November 18): 583.
176 See Delo, 1866, 1: back matter; ibid., 1867, 2: back matter.
177 See Knizhnyi vestnik, 1866, 18-19 (October): 362.
178 See “Kritika i bibliografiia,” Zhenskii vestnik, 1867, 3: 55-56. For the original of the reviewed book, see S. I. Baranovskii, Gigiena, rukovodstvo k sokhraneniiu zdorov’ia (SPb.: V. Prokhorov, 1860).
179 See “Kritika i bibliografiia,” Zhenskii vestnik, 1867, 4: 13-20. For the original of the reviewed book, see A. T. Ronchevskii, Populiarnye lektsii o kholere, chitannye v Tiflise v 1866 g. (Tiflis: Tip. Gl. Upr. Namestnika Kavkaza, 1866).
180 In addition to the journals and newspapers mentioned above, I have examined the 1866-67 issues of Literaturnaia biblioteka, Nedelia, Otechestvennye zapiski, Russkii vestnik, Sankt Peterburgskie vedomosti, Sovremennaia letopis’, Sovremennoe obozrenie, Syn Otechestva, Vestnik Evropy, Vest’, and Zapiski dlia chteniia.
181 For a general overview of the history of marriage regulations in Russia, see N. S. Nizhnik, Pravovoe regulirovanie semeino-brachnykh otnoshenii v russkoi istorii (SPb.: Iuridicheskii tsentr Press, 2006). For some aspects of marriage in late nineteenth-century Russia, see Laura Engelstein, The Keys to Happiness: Sex and the Search for Modernity in Fin-de-Siècle Russia (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1992).
182 For a concise analysis of the situation, see Freeze, “Bringing Order to the Russian Family.”
183 For a general overview of the changes in the Russian Church in the era of the Great Reforms, see a voluminous study by S. V. Rimskii, Rossiiskaia tserkov’ v epokhu velikikh reform: Tserkovnye reformy v Rossii 1860-1870-kh godov (M.: Krutits, 1999).
184 This sentiment appears in the diary entry of 10 April 1858, written by the daughter of an eminent St. Petersburg architect and hostess of a popular literary salon, Elena A. Shtakenshneider, Dnevnik i zapiski (M.-L.: Academia, 1934), p. 199.
185 See, for instance, a detailed critique of the existing civic laws on marriage and family, published on the eve of the emancipation of the serfs by M. A. Filippov, “Vzgliad na russkie grazhdanskie zakony,” Sovremennik, 1861, 2: 523-62; 3: 217-66; which Florinskii used extensively in his own essays. See also N. Leskov, “Svodnye braki v Rossii,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1861, 3: 37-47; “Dva mneniia po voprosu o brakakh,” Biblioteka dlia chteniia, 1863, 11(II): 64-68; “O brake pravoslavnykh s nepravoslavnymi,” Pravoslavnyi sobesednik, 1863, 1: 57-86; and many others.
186 Freeze, “Bringing Order to the Russian Family,” p. 711.
187 That it was not just the “nihilist” or “revolutionary” circles with their open endorsement of “fictitious marriages,” but a much broader segment of Russian society that was calling for changes in the existing marital order is demonstrated by the close involvement of Petr Valuev, the minister of internal affairs, in reforming the Orthodox Church’s regulations on marriage. For details, see Paul W. Werth, “Empire, Religious Freedom, and the Legal Regulation of ‘Mixed’ Marriages in Russia,” Journal of Modern History, 2008, 80: 296-331. For a discussion of “fictitious marriages” largely within the framework of women’s emancipation in Russia, see Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilsm, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978); and Barbara A. Engel, Mothers and Daughters: Women of the Intelligentsia in Nineteenth-Century Russia (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983).
188 See N. I. Cherniavskii, Grazhdanskii brak: Komediia v 5 deistviiakh (SPb.: A. P. Cherviakov, 1867). On the author and the play, see Abram Reitblat, “P”esa ‘Grazhdanskii brak’ i ee avtor glazami agenta III otdeleniia,” in idem, Pisat’ poperek: Stat’i po biografike, sotsiologii i istorii literatury (M.: NLO, 2014), pp. 339-55.
189 For critical reviews of the play, see, for instance, M. Stebnitskii, “Russkii dramaticheskii teatr v Peterburge,” Otechestvennye zapiski, 1866, 169, 11-12: 258-87; and M. R. [M. P. Rozengeim], “Teatral’naia letopis’,” Syn Otechestva, 1866, 48: 1-3. For Cherniavskii’s “defense,” see N. I. Cherniavskii, “Ot avtora,” in idem, Grazhdanskii brak: Komediia v 5 deistviiakh (SPb.: E. I. Ekshurskii, 1868), pp. i-xii.
190 Blagosvetlov to Iakobii, GARF, f. 109, op. 1, d. 2045, l. 1.
191 I have examined the 1866-67 issues of Arkhiv sudebnoi meditsiny i obshchestvennoi gigieny, Drug zdraviia, Meditsinskii vestnik, Moskovskaia meditsinskaia gazeta, Sovremennaia meditsina, and Voenno-meditsinskii zhurnal. Only Modern Medicine, a “newspaper for physicians” published in Kiev, carried an announcement of the publication of Florinskii’s book in its regular list of new books, but not a review. See Sovremennaia meditsina, 1866, 6(36): 583.
192 See Naturalist, SPb., 1864-1867, vols. 1-4.
193 During 1868, the book was advertised in the third, seventh, ninth, tenth, and twelfth issues; in 1869, in the second, forth, and seventh issues. It is possible that I have missed some of the advertisements — during the rebinding of the journal for library storage, some of the ads could have been either lost or deliberately excised. This is certainly true of the available electronic copies of the journal, many of which do not include back and front matters at all.
194 See an advertisement in Deed, 1869, 7: back matter. The price was dropped from 75 to fifty kopeks in store and from one ruble to 75 kopeks with mail order.
195 I found two “versions” of the book in various Russian libraries. One is smaller in size (176 mm x 115 mm) and carries the name of the Russian Word printing shop (Riumin and Co.) on its titlepage, indicating that it is this version that had been originally issued in August 1866. Another is larger (186 mm x 124 mm) and its titlepage has no name of a printing shop at all. The two versions are identical in all other features. The frequency of advertisements for the book printed in Deed indicates that the second (larger) version of the book probably came out in the late summer of 1871. In the entire 1870 run, the journal carried an advertisement of Florinskii’s book in only one (the eleventh) issue. The advertisement reappeared in September 1871 and was then run regularly in almost every issue.
196 See Ludwik Fleck, Genesis and Development of a Scientific Fact (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
197 A concise introduction to the comparative history of anthropology could be found in Henrika Kuklick, ed., A New History of Anthropology (Malden, MA: Blackwell, 2008).
198 See Izvestiia Antropologicheskogo otdeleniia Obshchestva liubitelei estestvoznaniia, sostoiashchego pri Moskovskom universitete, M., 1865, vol. 1; and Izvestiia Obshchestva liubitelei estestvoznaniia, antropologii i etnografii, sostoiashchego pri Moskovskom universitete, vol. 4(1). Antropologicheskie materialy, Part 1. M., 1867. For a contemporary account of the establishment and development of the Anthropological Section, see V. N. Benzengr, Istoricheskii ocherk deiatel’nosti Antropologicheskogo otdela (M.: M. N. Lavrov, 1878); on the general history of Russian physical anthropology in English, see Marina Mogilner, Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia (Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press, 2013); on the general history of Russian ethnography in English, see Nathaniel Knight, “Constructing the Science of Nationality: Ethnography in Mid-Nineteenth Century Russia,” doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1995.
199 On the exhibition, see Nathaniel Knight, The Empire on Display: Ethnographic Exhibition and the Conceptualization of Human Diversity in Post-Emancipation Russia (Washington, DC: NCEEER, 2001), https://www.ucis.pitt.edu/nceeer/2001-814-11g-Knight.pdf; for a Russian version, see idem, “Imperiia napokaz: vserossiiskaia etnograficheskaia vystavka 1867 g.,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2001, 51: 111-31. On a more general issue of the relationship between ethnographic exhibits and the formation of the discipline of anthropology, see Sadia Qureshi, Peoples on Parade: Exhibitions, Empire, and Anthropology in Nineteenth Century Britain (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
200 See Zapiski Russkogo geograficheskogo obshchestva po otdeleniiu etnografii (SPb., 1867). The regularly published Memoirs replaced an occasional publication, titled Ethnographic Collection (Etnograficheskii sbornik), which from 1853 to 1864 had been issued only six times.
201 See A. P. Bogdanov, “Antropologiia i etnografiia,” Naturalist, 1866, 20-21: 309-14. On the role of Bogdanov in the development of Russian anthropology and ethnography, in addition to the literature cited above, see M. G. Levin, Ocherki istorii antropologii v Rossii (M.: Izd-vo AN SSSR, 1960); N. G. Zalkind, Moskovskaia shkola antropologov v razvitii otechestvennoi nauki o cheloveke (M.: Nauka, 1974); and Galina Krivosheina, “Long Way to the Anthropological Exhibition: The Institutionalization of Physical Anthropology in Russia,” Centaurus, 2014, 56(4): 275-304.
202 See A. I. Moiseev, Meditsinskii sovet Ministerstva vnutrennikh del. Kratkii istoricheskii ocherk (SPb.: Tip. MVD, 1913).
203 For a detailed overview of the development of legal and forensic medicine during this period, see S. V. Shershavkin, Istoriia otechestvennoi sudebno-meditsinskoi sluzhby (M.: Meditsina, 1968); and Elisa M. Becker, Medicine, Law, and the State in Imperial Russia (Budapest: CEU Press, 2011).
204 The available literature on the role of zemstvos in providing medical services and articulating public health needs is massive. For general overviews of the development of “social medicine” in post-Crimean Russia, see P. E. Zabludovskii, Meditsina v Rossii v period kapitalizma: Razvitie gigieny. Voprosy obshchestvennoi meditsiny (M.: Medgiz, 1956); M. M. Levit, Stanovlenie obshchestvennoi meditsiny v Rossii (M.: Meditsina, 1974); Frieden, Russian Physicians; and V. Iu. Kuz’min, Vlast’, obshchestvo i zemskaia meditsina (1864-1917 gg.) (Samara: Samarskii un-t, 2003).
205 See, “Konkurs na zameshchenie novootkrytoi kafedry obshchestvennoi gigieny v MKhA,” MV, 1866, 25: 295-96. The difficulties in the organization of “social hygiene” were clearly reflected in the inability of the IMSA Council to find a suitable candidate for the post of the department chair in nearly four years. The position was filled only in 1870. For detailed histories of the two departments, see A. K. Evropin, Istoricheskii ocherk kafedry sodebnoi meditsiny v Voenno-meditsinskoi akademii, 1798-1898 (SPb.: V. P. Meshcherskii, 1898); and Z. G. Surovtsov, Materialy dlia istorii kafedry gigieny v Voenno-meditsinskoi akademii (SPb.: Vladimirskaia tipo-litografiia, 1898).
206 Characteristically, in 1870, the Archive of Legal Medicine and Social Hygiene explicitly excluded epidemiology from its pages and began to issue a special supplement, Epidemiological Leaf (Epidemiologicheskii listok), that became the country’s first specialized epidemiological journal. On the agendas of Russian social hygiene and social medicine, see A. P. Zhuk, Razvitie obshchestvenno-meditsinskoi mysli v Rossii v 60-70-e gg. XIX veka (M.: Meditsina, 1963).
207 For the society’s journal, see Trudy Russkogo obshchestva okhraneniia narodnogo zdraviia (SPb., 1884-1890); for a detailed history of the society, see E. I. Lotova, Russkaia intelligentsiia i voprosy obshchestvennoi gigieny (M.: GIMZ, 1962).
208 On the exhibit, see A. P. Bogdanov, ed., Antropologicheskaia vystavka Obshchestva liubitelei estestvoznaniia, antropologii i etnografii, 4 vols. (M.: Komitet vystavki, 1878-1886). For a clear articulation of the then current agendas of Russian anthropology, see A. P. Bogdanov, Antropologiia i universitet (M.: Imp. Mosk. Un-t, 1876); for the concurrent understanding of the relationship between anthropology and medicine, see V. G. Emme, Antropologiia i meditsina (Poltava: N. Pigurenko, 1882). Needless to say, none of these publications mentioned Florinskii or Human Perfection and Degeneration.
209 For a detailed exposition of the then current agendas of Russian social hygiene, see a textbook by I. I. Arkhangel’skii, Lektsii obshchestvennoi gigieny i dietetiki (Minsk: Gub. Tipografiia, 1872), or a treatise “on the fundamental issues of public hygiene” by Ir. P. Skvortsov, Osnovnye voprosy narodnoi gigieny (SPb.: M. M. Stasiulevich, 1877). Neither publication mentioned Florinskii, or Human Perfection and Degeneration.
210 For a brief account of the 1866 epidemic of cholera in Russia, see the first chapter of Charlotte E. Henze, Disease, Health Care and Government in Late Imperial Russia: Life and Death on the Volga, 1823-1914 (New York: Routledge, 2011).
211 See, for instance, A. Z-n [A. Zabelin], “O prichinakh izmel’chaniia i boleznennosti naroda,” Zhurnal zemlevladel’tsev, 1858, 5(VI): 19-29; and D*** [V. V. Deriker], O vyrozhdenii chelovecheskogo roda i sredstvakh prepiatstvovat’ etomu vyrozhdeniiu fizicheskim i nravstvennym usovershenstvovaniem cheloveka (M.: L. Stepanova, 1860). The latter book was written by Vasilii V. Deriker, a one-time IMSA student, who would become one of the founders of Russian homeopathy. Much like Florinskii’s, Deriker’s treatise went completely unnoticed by the contemporary medical and scientific communities. Florinskii himself was apparently unaware of its existence. For a brief account of Deriker’s life and work, which, tellingly, does not mention this book, see K. K. Boianus, Gomeopatiia v Rossii: Istoricheskii ocherk (M.: V. V. Davydov, 1882).
212 The statement appears in Chernyshevskii’s discussion of Thomas Malthus’s theory of overpopulation in the commentaries to his 1860 translation of J. S. Mill’s Principles of Political Economy. See, N. G. Chernyshevskii, “Zamechaniia na poslednie chetyre glavy pervoi knigi Millia,” in idem, Polnoe sobranie sochinenii v 15 t. (M.: GIKhL, 1949), vol. 9, pp. 251-336 (p. 307).
213 Unfortunately, there are no detailed historical studies of nineteenth-century Russian demography. For some general observations, largely on the late nineteenth-century developments, see the first three chapters of Juliette Cadiot, Le laboratoire imperial. Russie-URSS, 1890-1940 (Paris: CNRS Editions, 2007); the Russian translation, Zhul’et Kadio, Laboratoriia imperii: Rossiia/SSSR, 1890-1940 (M.: Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2010); and Martine Mespoulet, Statistique et révolution en Russie. Un compromis impossible (1880-1930) (Rennes: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2001); idem, “Statisticiens des zemstva: formation d’une nouvelle profession intellectuelle en Russie dans la période prérévolutionnaire (1880-1917): Le cas de Saratov,” Cahiers du monde russe, 1999, 40(4): 573-624.
214 On the role of demographic and vital statistics in the rise of concerns with degeneration in various countries, see, for instance, Paul Weindling, Health, Race and German Politics between National Unification and Nazism, 1870-1945 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Richard A. Soloway, “Counting the Degenerates: The Statistics of Race Deterioration in Edwardian England,” Journal of Contemporary History, 1982, 17(1): 137-64; idem, Demography and Degeneration: Eugenics and the Declining Birth Rate in Twentieth-Century Britain (Chapel Hill, NC: The University of North Carolina, 1990); Kelly Hurley, “Hereditary Taint and Cultural Contagion: The Social Etiology of Fin-de-Siècle Degeneration Theory,” Nineteenth-Century Contexts, 1990, 14(2): 193-214; Edmund Ramsden, “Social Demography and Eugenics in the Interwar United States,” Population and Development Review, 2003, 29: 547-99; and Cassata, Building the New Man.
215 For some observations on Russian “medico-topographical surveys,” see B. S. Sigal, “Pervye mediko-topograficheskie opisaniia v Rossii,” Voprosy gigieny, 1949, 1: 175-208; E. A. Vishlenkova, “Mediko-biologicheskie ob”iasneniia sotsial’nykh problem Rossii (vtoraia tret’ XIX veka),” Istoriia i istoricheskaia pamiat’, 2011, 4: 37-65. For an overview of the history of medical geography in Russia, see A. P. Markovin, Razvitie meditsinskoi geografii v Rossii (SPb.: Nauka, 1993).
216 For a comparison to the contemporary European studies, see, for instance, an analysis of the sex distributions in the Russian population by the “founding father” of Russian statistics Konstantin I. Arsen’ev, “Issledovaniia o chislennom otnoshenii polov v narodonaselenii Rossii,” Zhurnal MVD, 1844, 1: 5-47.
217 See V. Ia. Buniakovskii, Opyt o zakonakh smertnosti v Rossii i o raspredelenii pravoslavnogo naseleniia po vozrastam (SPb.: Imp. Ak. Nauk, 1865); idem, Issledovaniia o vozrastnom sostave zhenskogo pravoslavnogo naseleniia Rossii (SPb.: Imp. Ak. Nauk, 1866); idem, Upotreblenie tablits smertnosti i narodonaseleniia (SPb.: Imp. Ak. Nauk, 1867); idem, Antoropobiologicheskie issledovaniia i ikh prilozhenie k muzhskomy naseleniiu Rossii (SPb.: Imp. Ak. Nauk, 1874); and many others. For a brief biography of Buniakovskii, see V. E. Prudnikov, V. Ia. Buniakovskii — uchenyi i pedagog (M.: Uchpedgiz, 1954); more specifically on his work on the probability theory, see O. B. Sheinin, O rabotakh V. Ia. Buniakovskogo po teorii veroiatnostei (M.: n. p., 1988). Buniakovskii’s demographic works, however, remain almost completely forgotten.
218 See Ia. A. Chistovich, “O sobiranii materialov dlia meditsinskoi geografii i statistiki Rossii,” PZORV, 1865-1866: 31-47.
219 Florinskii himself published his first work on differential mortality only in 1873, see V. Florinskii, “O smertnosti rodil’nits v g. S.-Peterburge i po uezdam S.-Peterburgskoi gubernii,” PZORV, 1872-1873: 229-45.
220 For a contemporary argument for the importance of medical statistics in Russia, see P. A. Peskov, Meditsinskaia statistika i geografiia kak otdel’nye otrasli obshchestvennykh nauk i metody statisticheskogo issledovaniia v meditsine (Kazan: Univ. tip., 1874). For historical overviews of Russian vital statistics, see A. M. Merkov, ed., Ocherki istorii otechestvennoi sanitarnoi statistiki (M.: Meditsina, 1966); and P. E. Zabludovskii, Razvitie meditsinskoi statistiki. Istoricheskii obzor: Meditsinskaia statistika v Rossii v XVIII-XIX vekakh (M.: n. p., 1974). For an analysis of the role of zemstvos in advancing social hygiene agendas, see L. N. Karpov, Zemskaia sanitarnaia organizatsiia v Rossii (L.: Meditsina, 1964).
221 The increased availability of such statistical data in the later decades of the nineteenth and the first decades of the twentieth century certainly was an important factor in the emerging popularity of degeneration concepts in Russia. Alas, the existing literature on the subject completely ignores this factor. See Daniel Beer, Renovating Russia: The Human Sciences and the Fate of Liberal Modernity, 1880-1930 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2008).
222 Florinskii, Mysli i vospominaniia, NMRT, #205, l. 6.
223 See, for instance, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” in L. F. Zmeev, Russkie vrachi-pisateli (SPb.: V. Demakov, 1886), vol. 2, pp. 139-40; V. S. Gruzdev, Istoricheskii ocherk kafedry akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei Imperatorskoi voenno-meditsinskoi akademii i soedinennoi s neiu akademicheskoi akushersko-ginekologicheskoi kliniki (SPb.: Imperatorskaia akademiia nauk, 1898), pp. 214-41; and idem, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” in N. P. Zagoskin, Biograficheskii slovar’ professorov i prepodavatelei Imperatorskogo Kazanskogo universiteta (Kazan’: Tip. Imperatorskogo universiteta, 1904), vol. 2, pp. 353-62.
224 An outline of this project is preserved in NMRT, #260.
225 M. N. Pargamin, O vyrozhdenii (Voronezh: V. V. Iurkevich, 1891). Originally, the essay had appeared in Medical Conversation, a popular medical journal published in Voronezh, see idem, “O vyrozhdenii,” Meditsinskaia beseda, 1891, 10 (May): 253-63.
226 M. N. Pargamin, Nasledstvennost’ i gigiena braka (Voronezh: V. V. Iurkevich, 1896). Originally, this more than 100-page survey had appeared in installments in Medical Conversation in the previous year, see idem, “Nasledstvennost’ i gigiena braka,” Meditsinskaia beseda, 1895, 6: 171-80; 7-8: 200-13; 9:251-58; 11: 313-22; 13-14: 392-402; 15: 432-38; 16: 457-64; 17: 498-500; 19: 553-63; 20: 618-22; 23: 713-31.
227 P. Jacoby to V. Florinskii, [no date], NMRT, #813, ll. 1-2. All the following quotations are from this source. The letter is undated, but its contents indicate that it was written not earlier than 1883 and not later than 1889.
228 In fact it was the Royal Madrid Academy of Medicine that ran the competition and granted the prize. See Paul Jacoby [P. Iakobii], “Préface,” in idem, Etudes sur la sélection dans les rapports avec l’hérédité chez l’homme (Paris: Bailliere, 1881), p. V.
229 See, for instance, a review of Iakobii’s book in Mysl’, 1881, 10-11: 228-29.
230 Here Iakobii apparently refers to Galton’s 1883 Inquiries into Human Faculty and Its Development, not to his 1869 Hereditary Genius, or the 1865 article.
231 Here Iakobii refers to the Swiss botanist Alphonse de Candolle, who in his 1873 book Histoire des Sciences et des Savants depuis deux Siècles, criticized Galton’s Hereditary Genius. For details on the polemics between the two scientists and its influence on Galton’s views, see Raymond E. Fancher, “Alphonse de Candolle, Francis Galton, and the Early History of the Nature-Nurture Controversy,” Journal of the History of the Behavioral Sciences, 1983, 19(4): 341-52.
232 See Paul Jacoby, Études sur la sélection chez l›homme (Paris: F. Alcan, 1904). Tarde’s preface along with Iakobii’s was also published in Archives de l’Anthropologie Criminelle, 1904, 19: 937-42.
233 See [V. M. Florinskii], Stat’i i rechi Vasiliia Markovicha Florinskogo (Kazan: Imperatorskii universitet, 1903).
Chapter 5
1 For details, see Michael Bulmer, “The Development of Francis Galton’s Ideas on the Mechanism of Heredity,” JHB, 1999, 32: 263-92; and idem, Francis Galton: Pioneer of Heredity and Biometry (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2003).
2 Francis Galton, “The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed under the Existing Conditions of Law and Sentiment,” Nature, 1901, 64 (31 October): 659-65 (p. 659).
3 Karl Pearson, The Life, Letters and Labours of Francis Galton (London: Oxford University Press, 1930), vol. 3, part 1, p. 412. Hereafter references to this publication will be given as Pearson, 3(1): 412.
4 For a brief history of the journal during its first years, see John Aldrich, “Karl Pearson’s Biometrika: 1901–36,” Biometrika, 2013, 100(1): 3-15.
5 In its early years, Biometrika carried a variety of items on eugenics, ranging from short reviews to lengthy research reports, see W. P. E., “Probability, the Foundation of Eugenics, by Francis Galton,” Biometrika, 1907, 5(4): 477; idem, “The Scope and Importance to the State of the Science of National Eugenics: The Fourteenth Boyle Lecture by Karl Pearson,” ibid., 1908, 6(1): 124; Edgar Schuster, “Hereditary Deafness: A Discussion of the Data Collected by Dr. E. A. Fay in America,” ibid., 1906, 4(4): 465-82; Edgar Schuster and E. M. Elderton, “The Inheritance of Psychical Characters,” ibid., 1907, 5(4): 460-69; K. P[earson], “Note on Inheritance in Man,” ibid., 1908, 6(2/3): 327-28; Ethel M. Elderton, “On the Association of Drawing with Other Capacities in School Children,” ibid., 1909, 7(1/2): 222-26; and David Heron, “Note on Reproductive Selection,” ibid., 1914, 10(2/3): 419-20.
6 Galton, “The Possible Improvement of the Human Breed”; the same article also appeared in Annual Report of the Board of Regents of the Smithsonian Institution, 1901: 523-38; Man, 1901, 1(132): 161-64; and Popular Science Monthly, 1901-02, 60 (January 1902): 218-33.
7 See, for instance, F. Galton, “Our National Physique — Prospects of the British Race — Are We Degenerating?” Daily Chronicle, 29 July 1903.
8 For further details on the society and its role in Galton’s campaign, see Chris Renwich, British Sociology’s Lost Biological Roots: A History of Futures Past (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
9 F. Galton, “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims,” Sociological Papers, 1905, 1: 45-51 (p. 45). The same article in an abridged form appeared in Nature, 1904, 70 (26 May): 82; while its full text, along with its discussion, was also published by The American Journal of Sociology, 1904, 10(1): 1-25.
10 See Galton, “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims.” The paper was supplemented by the texts of Pearson’s opening remarks, the subsequent discussion, and written comments, as well as excerpts from the press coverage, see Sociological Papers, 1905, 1: 52-84.
11 Pearson, 3(1): 261.
12 Francis Galton, Memories of My Life (London: Methuen, 1908), p. 320.
13 Pearson, 3(1): 222.
14 This definition was publicly introduced for the first time in Galton’s Herbert Spencer Lecture delivered at Oxford University on 5 June 1907, see F. Galton, “Probability, The Foundation of Eugenics,” in idem, Essays on Eugenics, pp. 73-99.
15 See Pearson, 3(1): 222 and passim.
16 See Sociological Papers, 1905, 2: 1-53. (“Restrictions in Marriage,” pp. 3–13; “Studies in National Eugenics,” pp. 14-17; “Reply to the Speakers,” pp. 49-51; “Eugenics as a Factor in Religion,” pp. 52-53).
17 For a detailed history of the society, see Pauline M. H. Mazumdar, Eugenics, Human Genetics and Human Failings: The Eugenics Society, its Sources and Critics in Britain (London: Routledge, 1992).
18 Francis Galton, Essays on Eugenics (London: The Eugenics Education Society, 1909).
19 A clear allusion to Samuel Butler’s Erewhon, an 1872 novel about the future evolution of humanity, whose sequel, Erewhon Revisited Twenty Years Later, appeared in 1901.
20 Sybil Gotto, “Preface,” in Problems in Eugenics (London: The Eugenics Education Society, 1912), vol. 1, p. i.
21 The literature on the early history of eugenics in these countries is vast. Useful introductions could be found in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook.
22 For detailed analyses of the formation of the “transnational eugenics movement” in the early decades of the twentieth century, see Deborah Barrett and Charles Kurzman, “Globalizing Social Movement Theory: The Case of Eugenics,” Theory and Society, 2004, 33: 487-527; Alison Bashford, “Internationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Eugenics,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 254-86; Stefan Kühl, For the Betterment of the Race: The Rise and Fall of the International Movement for Eugenics and Racial Hygiene (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013); and Nikolai Krementsov, “The Strength of a Loosely Defined Movement: Eugenics and Medicine in Imperial Russia,” Medical History, 2015, 59(1): 6-31.
23 See “1-i Mezhdunarodnyi s”ezd po evgenike (rasovoi gigiene),” Vrachebnaia gazeta, 1911, 40: 1260.
24 Gotto, “Preface,” p. i.
25 See A. S. Sholomovich, “Novoe techenie v uchenii o nasledstvennoti (po povodu Gissenskogo kongressa o nasledstvennosti),” Sovremennaia psikhiatriia (hereafter SP), 1912, 6: 392-401; and idem, “Pervyi kongress po genealogii,” Nevrologicheskii vestnik, 1912, 19(3): 582-602. On Somner’s involvement with eugenics, see Volker Roelcke, “‘Prävention’ in Hygiene und Psychiatrie zu Beginn des 20 Jahrhunderts. Krankheit, Gesellschaft, Vererbung und Eugenik bei Robert Sommer und Emil Gotschlich,” in Ulrike Enke and Volker Roelcke, eds., Die Medizinische Fakultät der Universität Giesen. Institutionen, Akteure und Ereignisse von der Gründung 1607 bis ins 20. Jahrhundert (Stuttgart: Steiner, 2007), pp. 395-416.
26 For the history of Russian eugenics during this period, see Adams, “Eugenics in Russia”; Krementsov, “From ‘Beastly Philosophy’ to Medical Genetics”; Felder, “Rasovaia gigiena v Rossii”; and Krementsov, “The Strength of a Loosely Defined Movement.”
27 See, for example, Iogannes Rutgers [Johannes Rutgers], Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody (SPb.: A. S. Suvorin, 1909); for the Dutch original, see J. Rutgers, Rasverbetering en bewuste aantalsbeperking: kritiek van het Malthusianisme en van het Nieuw-Malthusianisme (Rotterdam: W. J. van Hengel, 1905); however, the Russian translation was probably made from a German-language edition, see J. Rutgers, Rassenverbesserung: Malthusianismus und Neumalthusianismus (Dresden; Leipzig: Minden, 1908); see also an excerpt from Davenport’s book, Heredity in Relation to Eugenics (New York: H. Holt, 1911) published as Charl’z Davenport, Evgenika kak nauka ob uluchshenii prirody cheloveka (M.: V. Kariakin, 1913); and many others.
28 See Liudvik Krzhivitskii [Ludwik Krzywicki], Psikhicheskie rasy (SPb.: XX vek, 1902), pp. 54-73, 212-23. Tellingly, when six years earlier, Krzhivitskii published a lengthy (350-page long) overview of contemporary anthropology (see L. Krzhivitskii, Antropologiia (SPb.: F. Pavlenkov, 1896), he mentioned Galton only in passing and did not use the term “eugenics” at all. But he did discuss various ideas and projects of “human betterment” propounded by other authors. It was in the latter volume that Krzhivitskii first used the term “anthropotechnique” to describe such ideas and projects. Nowadays Krzywicki is remembered mostly as a foremost Polish Marxist, sociologist, and economist. See Ludwik Krzywicki, Wspomnienia, 3 vols. (Warsaw: Czytelnik, 1957-59); Tadeusz Kowalik and Henryka Hołda-Róziewicz, Ludwik Krzywicki (Interpress, 1976); Henryk Holland, Ludwik Krzywicki – nieznany (Warsaw: Książka i Prasa, 2007); and Wojciech Olszewski, “Ludwik Krzywicki: An Inconveniently Labelled Marxist,” Journal of Classical Sociology, 2006, 6(3): 359-80. His role in the development of eugenics either in Russia or in Poland, however, remains almost completely forgotten. See, for instance, Grzegorz Radomski, “Eugenika i przejawy jej recepcji w polskiej mysli politycznej do 1939 roku,” Historia i Polityka, 2010, 4(11): 85-100; and Magdalena Gawin, “Early Twentieth-Century Eugenics in Europe’s Peripheries: The Polish Perspective,” East Central Europe, 2011, 38(1): 1-15.
29 See K. Timiriazev, “Galton,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Br. A. i I. Granat i Ko. (M.: “Granat,” 1911), vol. 12, pp. 469-73. It is worth noting that in 1901, the same encyclopedia carried only a very brief note on Galton, which did not mention eugenics at all. See “Galton, Francis,” Nastol’nyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (M.: “Granat” i Ko., 1901), vol. 2, p. 1090.
30 K. A. Timiriazev, “Evgenika,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Br. A. i I. Granat i Ko. (M.: “Granat,” 1913), vol. 19, pp. 391-95.
31 See Liudvik Krzhivitskii [Krzywicki], “Antropotekhnika,” in Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Br. A. i I. Granat i Ko. (M.: “Granat,” 1911), vol. 3, pp. 249-50; K. A. Timiriazev, “Evgenika,” ibid. (M.: “Granat,” 1913), vol. 19, pp. 391-95; L. Krzhivitskii, “Antropotekhnika,” in Novyi entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ (SPb.: Brokgauz-Efron: 1911), vol. 3, pp. 99-101; Anon., “Evgenika,” ibid. (SPb.: Brokgauz i Efron: 1914), vol. 17, p. 173.
32 Kropotkin’s speech was published in the congress’s proceedings, see Problems in Eugenics (London: The Eugenics Education Society, 1913), vol. 2, pp. 50-51. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
33 Dioneo [I. Shklovskii], “Iz Anglii. Zverinaia filosofiia,” Russkoe bogatstvo, 1912, 10: 296-323 (p. 302). The essay was also reprinted in the two-volume collection of Shklovskii’s writings issued two years later under the general title Changing England. See Dioneo [I. Shklovskii], “Glava Piatnadtsataia. Zverinaia filosofiia,” in idem, Meniaiushchaiasia Angliia (M.: Tovarishchestvo pisatelei v Moskve, 1914-1915), vol. 2, pp. 217-50.
34 See, for instance, V. Chizh, Kriminal’naia antropologiia (Odessa: G. Beilenson i I. Iurovskii, 1895); P. I. Kovalevskii, Vyrozhdenie i vozrozhdenie. Prestupnik i bor’ba s prestupnost’iu (SPb.: M. I. Akinfeev i I. V. Leont’ev, 1903); and I. A. Sikorskii, Chto takoe natsiia i drugie formy etnicheskoi zhizni (Kiev: S. V. Kul’zhenko, 1915).
35 For a general history of physical anthropology and the concept of race in Imperial Russia, see Mogilner, Homo Imperii: A History of Physical Anthropology in Russia. See also Nathaniel Knight, “Vocabularies of Difference: Ethnicity and Race in Late Imperial and Early Soviet Russia,” Kritika: Explorations in Russian and Eurasian History, 2012, 13(3): 667-83.
36 See, for instance, E. Chepurkovskii, “Biologicheskii i statisticheskii metody v izuchenii nasledstvennosti u cheloveka,” Russkii antropologicheskii zhurnal (hereafter RAZh), 1916, 1-2: 15-32; 3-4: 17-43.
37 See Krzhivitskii, “Antropotekhnika,” 1911, vol. 3, pp. 249-50; idem, “Antropotekhnika,” 1914, vol. 3, pp. 99-101.
38 Krzhivitskii, “Antropotekhnika,” 1914, p. 100.
39 See Vlad. Nabokov, “‘Poslednee slovo’ kriminalistiki,” Pravo, 1908, 14: 808-12.
40 See, for instance, A. A. Zhizhilenko, “Mery sotsial’noi bor’by s opasnymi prestupnikami,” Pravo, 1910, 35: 2078-91; 36: 2136-43; 37: 2167-77; N. N. Lebedev, “Bor’ba s prestupnost’iu v Amerike: operativnyi sposob uluchsheniia roda chelovecheskogo (sterilizatsiia),” Vestnik obshchestvennoi gigieny, sudebnoi i prakticheskoi meditsiny, 1911, 1: 1-11; and many others.
41 P. I. Liublinskii, “Novaia mera bor’by s vyrozhdeniem i prestupnost’iu,” Russkaia mysl’, 1912, 3: 31-56.
42 See, for instance, S. Ukshe, “Vyrozhdenie, ego rol’ v prestupnosti i mery bor’by s nim,” Vestnik obshchestvennoi gigieny, sudebnoi i prakticheskoi meditsiny, 1915, 6: 798-816.
43 See P. I. Kovalevskii, Otstalye deti (idioty, otstalye i prestupnye deti), ikh lechenie i vospitanie (SPb.: Vestnik dushevnykh boleznei, 1906).
44 See “Khronika,” Gigiena i sanitarnoe delo, 1914, 1: 118.
45 See I. G. Orshanskii, “Rol’ nasledstvennosti v peredache boleznei,” Prakticheskaia meditsina, 1897, 8-9: 1-120; and T. Iudin, “Psikhozy u bliznetsov,” Zhurnal nevropatologii i psikhiatrii, 1907, 7: 68-83.
46 V. M. Bekhterev, “Vorporsy vyrozhdenia i bor’ba s nim,” Obozrenie psikhiatrii i nevrologii, 1908, 9: 518-21; and T. Iudin, “O kharaktere nasledstvennykh vzaimootnoshenii pri dushevnykh bolezniakh,” SP, 1913, 8: 568-78.
47 I. G. Orshanskii, “Izuchenie nasledstvennosti talanta,” Vestnik vospitaniia, 1911, 1: 1-41, 2: 95-127. See also, Vl. Chizh, “Nasldstvennost’ talanta u nashikh izvestnykh deiatelei,” Nauka i zhizn, 1906, 2-3: 267-90.
48 See, for instance, N. Kabanov, Rol’ nasledstvennosti v etiologii boleznei vnutrennikh organov (M.: G. I. Prostakov, 1899); and P. P. Tutyshkin, Rol’ otritsiatel’nogo otbora v protsesse semeinogo vyrozhdeniia (Khar’kov: M. Zil’berberg, 1902);
49 A. Sholomovich, Nasledstvennost’ i fizicheskie priznaki vyrozhdeniia u dushevno-bol’nykh i zdorovykh (Kazan: Tip. Imp. Un-ta, 1913); and idem, Nasledstvennost’ i fizicheskoe vyrozhdenie (Kazan: Tip. Imp. Un-ta, 1915).
50 See, for example, S. A. Preobrazhenskii, “Mendelizm i eigenika,” Vrachebnaia gazeta, 1913, 11: 409; M. G. Zaidner, “Braki mezhdu krovnymi rodstvennikami s tochki zreniia rasovoi gigieny,” ibid., 1914, 16: 656; and L. G. Lichkus, “Nalsedstvennost’ i eigenika,” ibid., 1914, 22: 893.
51 [N. Gamaleia], “[Programma zhurnala],” Gigiena i sanitariia (hereafter GIS), 1910, 1: 1-5 (p. 5).
52 See, for instance, I. V. Sazhin, Nasledstvennost’ i spirtnye napitki (SPb.: Soikin, 1908).
53 See K. Kuchuk, “Kratkii ocherk sovremennykh vzgliadov na nasledstvennost’,” GIS, 1912, 21-22: 437-41.
54 See E. A. Shepilevskii, “Osnovy i sredstva rasovoi gigieny (gigiena razmnozheniia),” Trudy i protokoly zasedanii Meditsinskogo obshchestva im. N. I. Pirogova pri Imperatorskom Iur’evskom Universitete, 1913-14, 6: 61-137. On Shepilevskii and his involvement with “racial hygiene,” see Felder, “Rasovaia gigiena v Rossii.”
55 See L. P. Kravets, “Nasledstvennost’ u cheloveka,” Priroda, 1914, 6: 722-43; and Kr. L., “Evgenetika,” ibid., 10: 1229.
56 See N. Kol’tsov, “Alkogolizm i nasledstvennost’,” Priroda, 1916, 4: 502-05; idem, “K voprosu o nasledovanii posledstvii alkogolizma,” ibid., 1916, 10: 1189; and Iu. Filipchenko, “O vidovykh gibridakh,” in V. A. Vagner, ed., Novye idei v biologii. Nasledstvennost’ (SPb.: Obrazovanie, 1914), pp. 124-49.
57 Iu. Filipchenko, “Evgenika,” Russkaia mysl’, 1918, 3-6: 69-96.
58 For a detailed analysis of this situation, see Krementsov, “The Strength of a Loosely Defined Movement.”
59 For a discussion of the concept of ozdorovlenie (healthification) and its role in the ideology and activities of Russian physicians, see John Hutchinson, Politics and Public Health in Revolutionary Russia, 1890-1918 (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1990), pp. xv-xx.
60 See [N. Gamaleia], “[Programma zhurnala],” GIS, 1910, 1: 5.
61 See K. V. Karaffa-Korbutt, “Ocherki po evgenike,” GIS, 1910, 1: 41-48; 2: 138-45; 3: 276-81. Judging from the contents of these three articles, Karaffa-Korbutt had originally planned a much longer series, with separate articles on biometrics, Galton, and German Rassenhygiene. But although the last published article promised “to be continued,” no further articles appeared. I was unable to discover any reasons for this abrupt end of the series.
62 See, for instance, Kazimir Karaffa-Korbut, “I. Rutgers. Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody. Agnessa Blium. Etika i evgenika. SPb 1909,” GIS, 1910, 1: 75-76; N. G[amaleia], “Bertillion,” ibid., 1910, 4: 292-93; and N. Avgustovskii, “N. Norre, O zachatii v sostoianii op’ianeniia,” ibid., 1910, 9: 670-71.
63 See “Istoriia evgeniki. I. A. Fields, The progress of eugenics,” GIS, 1913, 17-20: 286-90; [N. Gamaleia], “Pervyi mezhdunarodnyi evgenicheskii kongress v Londone 24-30 iiulia 1912,” ibid., 1912, 15-16: 175-82; and Kuchuk, “Kratkii ocherk sovremennykh vzgliadov na nasledstvennost’.”
64 See, for instance, N. G[amaleia], “Bertillion,” GIS, 1910, 4: 292-93; and idem, “1 iiulia 1910 goda,” ibid., 1910, 13: 1-5.
65 N. F. Gamaleia, “Ob usloviiakh, blagopriiatstvuiushchikh uluchsheniiu prirodnykh svoistv liudei,” GIS, 1912, 19-20: 340-61.
66 Ibid., p. 361.
67 Gamaleia did not limit this activity to his journal. For instance, while teaching bacteriology and hygiene in Iur’ev (now Tartu, Estonia), he delivered a series of public lectures on eugenics, which were reported in the city’s major Estonian-language daily, see N. F. Gamaleja [Gamaleia], “Toutervendluse-opetuse, eugeenika pohjus, motteist ja ulesannetest,” Postimees, 5–9 November 1912, http://dea.nlib.ee/fullview.php?frameset=3&showset=1&wholepage=keskmine&pid=s474228&nid=7093. I am grateful to Julia Laius for her assistance in finding this source.
68 For instance, contrary to the opinion of Bjorn M. Felder, it was Gamaleia who incited Evgenii A. Shepilevskii, a professor at Iur’ev University (where Gamaleia was teaching in 1911-13), to take up the discussion of, and research in, racial hygiene. See Felder, “Rasovaia gigiena v Rossii.”
69 T. I. Iudin, “Ob evgenike i evgenicheskom dvizhenii,” SP, 1914, 4: 319-36. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
70 Iudin had conducted extensive research and published a series of articles on the subject, see T. Iudin, “Psikhozy u bliznetsov,” Zhurnal nevropatologii i psikhiatrii, 1907, 7(1): 68-83; idem, “O skhodstve psikhozov u brat’ev i sester,” SP, 1907, 10: 337-42; 11: 401-9; 12: 451-59; idem, “O forme dushevnykh zabolevanii, vstrechaiushchikhsia v sem’e progressivnykh paralitikov,” ibid., 1911, 1-2: 126-43; and idem, “O kharaktere nasledstvennykh vzaimootnoshenii pri dushevnykh bolezniakh,” ibid., 1913 (August): 568-79.
71 Just a few months earlier, a Moscow publisher had issued a Russian translation of the third, revised and expanded, edition of Punnett’s classic textbook, Mendelism (London: Macmillan, 1911), which Iudin used in his survey, see R. Pennet, Mendelizm (M.: Bios, 1913).
72 Iudin used a Russian translation of Correns’s book, Die neuen Vererbungsgesetze (Berlin: Verlag von Gebrüder Borntraeger, 1912), which had appeared just a few months earlier, see K. Korrens, Novye zakony nasledstvennosti (M.: Bios, 1913).
73 My reconstructions of Volotskoi’s life and career are largely based on his personnel files, especially CVs, preserved at various institutions where he had studied and worked. See the Central State Archive of the City of Moscow (hereafter TsGAM), f. 418, op. 325, d. 310, ll. 1-12; the Archive of the Russian Academy of Sciences (hereafter ARAN), f. 356, op. 3, d. 60, ll. 298-303; ARAN, f. 669, op. 2, d. 30, ll. 1-43; and RGALI, f. 117, op. 1, d. 77, ll. 5-5 rev.
74 On Anuchin and his role in Russian anthropology, see G. V. Karpov, Put’ uchenogo: Ocherki zhizni, nauchnoi i obshchestvennoi deiatel’nosti D. N. Anuchina (M.: Geografgiz, 1958); and S. S. Alymov, “Dmitrii Nikolaevich Anuchin: ‘estestvennaia istoriia cheloveka v obshirnom smysle etogo slova’,” in V. A. Tishkov and D. D. Tumarkin, eds., Vydaiushchiesia otechestvennye etnologi i antropologi XX veka (M.: Nauka, 2004), pp. 7-48.
75 For illuminating memoirs (in English) of the February Revolution, see Semion Lyandres, The Fall of Tsarism: Untold Stories of the February 1917 Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013).
76 See Michael David-Fox, Revolution of the Mind: Higher Learning among the Bolsheviks, 1918–1929 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997).
77 For details, see Nikolai Krementsov, Stalinist Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997); and idem, “Big Revolution, Little Revolution: Science and Politics in Bolshevik Russia,” Social Research, 2006, 73(4): 1173-204.
78 For a general discussion of the Bolsheviks’ social, economic, and cultural policies during this period, see D. P. Koenker, W. G. Rosenberg, and R. G. Suny, eds., Party, State, and Society in the Russian Civil War (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1989).
79 For details of the conflict, see the memoirs of the university rector, zoologist Mikhail M. Novikov, Ot Moskvy do N’iu Iorka. Moia zhizn’ v politike i nauke (New York: Izdatel’stvo imeni Chekhova, 1952). For a general, though dated, assessment of Narkompros’s activities in the first years of the Bolshevik regime, see Sheila Fitzpatrick, The Commissariat of Enlightenment: Soviet Organization of Education and the Arts under Lunacharsky, October 1917-1921 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1970).
80 Numerous dairies vividly depict the difficulties of survival in Moscow during the civil war years. See, for example, N. P. Okunev, Dnevnik moskvicha, 1914-1924, 2 vols. (SPb.: Voenizdat, 1998). For a thorough historical analysis of urban life during this period, see A. A. Il’iukhov, Zhizn’ v epokhu peremen (M.: ROSSPEN, 2007).
81 On Bunak, see M. F. Nesturkh, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak,” in idem, ed., Sovremennaia antropologiia (M.: MGU, 1964), pp. 9-18; and S. V. Vasil’ev and M. I. Urynson, “Viktor Valerianovich Bunak: patriarch antropologii,” in Tishkov and Tumarkin, eds., Vydaiushchiesia otechestvennye etnologi i antropologi, pp. 233-60. The former article appeared in a jubilee volume celebrating Bunak’s seventieth birthday and did not mention his involvement with eugenics at all. The list of Bunak’s publications appended to the article did not include a single reference to his numerous works on the subject. This omission is particularly telling, since Bunak was the only Soviet eugenicist whose paper appeared in the proceedings of an international eugenics congress, see V. Bunak, “Sex-Ratio of New-Born Infants, as an Index of Vitality,” in A Decade of Progress in Eugenics. Scientific Papers of the Third International Congress of Eugenics (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1934), pp. 431-35.
82 On the establishment of the State Museum of Social Hygiene and its first director, see M. P. Kuzybaeva, “Gigienicheskii muzei professora A. V. Mol’kova,” Gigiena i sanitariia, 2013, 4: 94-97. On the museum’s consultants, see GARF, f. A1571, op. 1, dd. 1-2.
83 On the creation of Narkomzdrav and its activities during the first decade of operation, see Neil B. Weissman, “Origins of Soviet Health Administration, Narkomzdrav, 1918-28,” in S. G. Solomon and J. F. Hutchinson, eds., Health and Society in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990), pp. 97-120.
84 T. Ia. Tkachev, Sotsial’naia gigiena (Voronezh: Gubzdravotdel, 1924), pp. 11, 153.
85 On the history of Soviet social hygiene, see Susan G. Solomon, “Social Hygiene and Soviet Public Health, 1921-1930,” in Solomon and Hutchinson, eds., Health and Society in Revolutionary Russia, pp. 175-99; and idem, “The Limits of Government Patronage of Sciences: Social Hygiene and the Soviet State, 1920–1930,” Social History of Medicine, 1990, 3(3): 405-35.
86 V. Mol’kov, “Piat’ let raboty Gosudarstvennogo Instituta Sotsial’noi Gigieny,” Sanitarnoe prosveshchenie, 1924, 2: 31.
87 On Kol’tsov’s life and activities, see B. L. Astaurov and P. F. Rokitskii, Nikolai Konstantinovich Kol’tsov (M.: Nauka, 1975).
88 On the history of the institute, see Mark B. Adams, “Science, Ideology, and Structure: The Kol’tsov Institute, 1900-1970,” in Linda L. Lubrano and Susan G. Solomon, eds., The Social Context of Soviet Science (Boulder, CO: Westview, 1980), pp. 173-204.
89 For a focused analysis of Kol’tsov’s early efforts to build working relations with the Bolshevik regime, see Nikolai Krementsov, Revolutionary Experiments: The Quest for Immortality in Bolshevik Science and Fiction (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 183-85.
90 One of the first projects Kol’tsov offered to Semashko in 1919 was breeding rabbits, mice, guinea-pigs, and chickens for Narkomzdrav’s research institutions, which, given the total absence of a system of supply of laboratory animals in the country, was a very timely and appealing offer. See GARF, f. A-482, op. 1, d. 34, ll. 346-47.
91 For the early history of this institution, see L. A. Tarasevich and V. A. Liubarskii, eds., Gosudarstvennyi Institut Narodnogo zdravookhraneniia imeni Pastera (“GINZ”), 1919-1924 (M.: GINZ, 1924).
92 See ARAN, f. 450, op. 4, d. 7, ll. 1-4; d. 8, ll. 22-23.
93 See the descriptions of the meeting in V. Bunak, “O deiatel’nosti Russkogo evgenicheskogo obshchestva za 1921 god,” Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal (hereafter REZh), 1922, 1(1): 99-101; and “Khronika,” RAZh, 1922, 12(1-2): 215-16.
94 See, for instance, Volotskoi’s reports to Narkompros on the RES activities in 1922 and 1923, in GARF, f.A2307, op.8, d. 278, ll.81-83; 85-92.
95 Kol’tsov invited Bunak to head the department and reserved for himself its “general scientific direction,” see ARAN, f. 570, op. 1, d. 1, ll. 27, 58.
96 On the “rejuvenation craze” in early 1920s Russia, see Krementsov, Revolutionary Experiments, pp. 127-58.
97 For detailed analyses of the US “eugenic” sterilization, see Philip R. Reilly, The Surgical Solution: A History of Involuntary Sterilization in the United States (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991); and Mark A. Largent, Breeding Contempt: The History of Coerced Sterilization in the United States (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 2008).
98 See Dr. Sharp, “Sterilizatsiia v shtate Indiana,” in N. K. Kol’tsov, ed., Omolozhenie (M.-Pg.: GIZ, 1923), pp. 121-23. For the original, see “Discussion,” Eugenics Review, 1912, 4(2): 204-05.
99 For a highly readable account of the civil war, see W. Bruce Lincoln, Red Victory: A History of Russian Civil War, 1918-1921 (New York: Da Capo, 1989).
100 For a general discussion of the social, economic, cultural, and political aspects of NEP, see Sheila Fitzpatrick, Alexander Rabinowitch, and Richard Stites, eds., Russia in the Era of NEP (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1991); and Lewis H. Siegelbaum, Soviet State and Society between Revolutions, 1918-1929 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992). For more recent assessments based on the newly available archival documents, see materials of a series of conferences held at the Institute of Russian History in Moscow, A. K. Sokolov, ed., NEP v kontekste istoricheskogo razvitiia Rossii XX veka (M.: IRI, 2001); A. S. Siniavskii, ed., NEP: ekonomicheskie, politicheskie i sotsiokul’turnye aspekty (M.: ROSSPEN, 2006); and many others.
101 For details, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science, and idem, “Big Revolution, Little Revolution.”
102 For details on the post-revolutionary literacy and science-popularization campaigns, see James T. Andrews, Science for the Masses: The Bolshevik State, Public Science and the Popular Imagination in Soviet Russia, 1917-1934 (College Station, TX: Texas A&M University Press, 2003).
103 For instance, in order to get more information on the Indiana sterilization law, Volotskoi initiated correspondence with one of its instigators, Indiana State Health Officer John N. Hurty. See Sharp, “Sterilizatsiia v shtate Indiana,” pp. 121-23.
104 N. K. Kol’tsov, “Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody,” REZh, 1922, 1: 3-27. All the following citations are from this source. This and several other articles that had been published by Soviet eugenicists were reprinted in V. V. Babkov, Zaria genetiki cheloveka (M.: Progress-Traditsiia, 2008). These publications are also available in an English translation; see V. V. Babkov, The Dawn of Human Genetics, transl. by Victor Fet, ed. by James Schwarz (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Press, 2013). Although in my own work I have always used the original Russian texts, for the convenience of my English-reading audience, I include references to their English translations available in the latter volume. Hereafter such references will be given as [Babkov, pp. 66-86].
105 Kol’tsov used the word “religion” in the same sense as we use the word “ideology” today.
106 A year later, when Kol’tsov published this speech as a brochure, he excised its last two paragraphs that had advanced the view of eugenics as religion, see N. K. Kol’tsov, Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody (Pg.: Vremia, 1923).
107 For a short biography of Filipchenko in English, see Mark B. Adams, “Filipchenko, Iurii Aleksandrovich,” in Frederic Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography (New York: Scribner, 1990), vol. 17, suppl. 2, pp. 297-303; for a much more detailed Russian-language biography, see N. N. Medvedev, Iurii Aleksandrovich Filipchenko (M.: Nauka, 2006). From the very beginning of his organizational efforts, Kol’tsov sought Filipchenko’s support. He even invited Filipchenko to head the IEB eugenics department and managed to approve his candidacy by Narkomzdrav (see ARAN, f. 570, op. 1, d. 1, ll. 29, 34, 58). But, busy with building his own institutional base in Petrograd, Filipchenko declined to move to Moscow. In September 1920, Kol’tsov also invited Filipchenko to join him in founding the Russian Eugenics Society. On the latter’s visit to Moscow in November, Filipchenko and Kol’tsov discussed the strategy and agreed that Filipchenko would act in Petrograd independently of whatever Kol’tsov would do in Moscow. For a description of the meeting, see Filipchenko’s diaries held in the Manuscript Department of the Russian National Library in St. Petersburg (hereafter RO RNB), f. 813, op. 1, d. 1283, l. 3.
108 See the St. Petersburg branch of the ARAN, f. 132, op. 1, d. 217, ll. 2-6; and Iu. Filipchenko, “Biuro po evgenike,” Izvestiia Biuro po Evgenike, 1922, 1: 1-4; for a brief history of the bureau, see M. B. Konashev, “Biuro po evgenike, 1922-1930,” Issledovaniia po genetike, 1994, 11: 22-28.
109 In 1924, this society became a branch of the RES and Filipchenko joined Kol’tsov as a co-editor of its oracle, the Russian Eugenics Journal.
110 For a voluminous, though far from complete bibliography of eugenics publications up to 1928, see K. Gurvich, “Ukazatel’ literatury po voprosam evgeniki, nasledstvennosti i selektsii i sopredel’nykh oblastei, opublikovannoi na russkom iazyke do 01.01.1928 g.,” REZh, 1928, 6(2-3): 121-43.
111 See “Evgenika i biologicheskie voprosy,” Ginekologiia i akusherstvo, 1924, 4: 409-13.
112 Many Russian gynecologists preferred the term evgenetika (eugénnetique) introduced by their prominent French colleague, obstetrician Adolphe Pinard. See, V. Wallich, “L’eugénnetique,” in E. Brissaud, A. Pinard, P. Reclus, eds., Nouvelle pratique médico-chirurgicale illustrée. Premier supplément (Paris: Masson, 1911-1912), pp. 547-50, http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k54465064. On Pinard’s involvement with eugenics, see Alain Drouard, “Eugenics in France and in Scandinavia: Two Case Studies,” in Robert A. Peel, ed., Essays in the History of Eugenics (London: The Galton Institute, 1998), pp. 173-207; and idem, L’eugénisme en questions: L’exemple de l’eugénisme “français” (Paris: Elilipses, 1999).
113 N. M. Kakushkin, “Evgenetika i ginekologiia,” in Trudy VI s”ezda vsesoiuznogo obshchestva ginekologov i akusherov (M.: T. Dortman, 1925), p. 415.
114 See Trudy VI s”ezda vsesoiuznogo obshchestva ginekologov i akusherov, pp. 448-55.
115 For more details on Russian geneticists’ and eugenicists’ international activities, see Nikolai Krementsov, International Science between the World Wars: The Case of Genetics (London: Routledge, 2005).
116 Vavilov to Davenport, 21 September 1921. This letter is preserved among Davenport’s papers held in the Manuscript Division of the American Philosophical Society (hereafter APS), Mss. B. D27; hereafter references to this collection will be given as “Davenport Papers.”
117 See “Foreign Notes,” Eugenical News, 1921, 6: 72-73.
118 See Koltzoff [Kol’tsov] to Davenport, 25 June 1921, Davenport Papers.
119 See Philiptschenko [Filipchenko] to Davenport, 28 October 1921, Davenport Papers. Davenport also printed Filipchenko’s plea in the ERO newsletter, see “Russian Eugenics Bureau,” Eugenical News, 1922, 7:13.
120 Richard Stites, Revolutionary Dreams: Utopian Vision and Experimental Life in the Russian Revolution (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989).
121 L. Trotskii, Literatura i revoliutsiia (M.: Krasnaia nov’, 1923), pp. 195-97.
122 See “Russkii evgenicheskii zhurnal,” Izvestiia, 7 October 1922, p. 8.
123 See T. I. Iudin, “Nasledstvennost’ dushevnykh boleznei,” REZh, 1922, 1(1): 28-39; and V. V. Bunak, “Evgenicheskie opytnye stantsii, ikh zadachi i plan ikh rabot,” ibid., 83-99.
124 See A. S. Serebrovskii, “O zadachakh i putiakh antropogenetiki,” REZh, 1923, 1(2): 107-16. For a brief biography of Serebrovskii in English, see Mark B. Adams, “Serebrovskii, Aleksandr Sergeevich,” in Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 18, Suppl. II, pp. 803-11; for a much more detailed description of Serebrovskii’s life and works in Russian, see N. N. Vorontsov, ed., Aleksandr Sergeevich Serebrovskii (M.: Nauka, 1993).
125 V. V. Bunak, “Metody izucheniia nasledstvennosti u cheloveka,” REZh, 1923, 1(2): 137-200.
126 M. V. Volotskoi, “O polovoi sterilizatsii nasledstvenno-defektivnykh,” REZh, 1923, 1(2): 201-22.
127 M. V. Volotskoi, Podniatie zhiznennykh sil rasy. Novyi put’ (M.: Zhizn’ i znanie, 1923), p. 5.
128 See, for instance, T. Ia. Tkachev, “Polovaia sterilizatsiia, kak problema sotsial’noi gigieny,” Voronezhskoe zdravookhranenie, 1923, 2: 51-55; and idem, Sotsial’naia gigiena.
129 See, for instance, Russian discussions of the Norwegian and Swedish eugenic legislation, Anon., “Sovremennoe sostoianie voprosa o sterilizatsii v Shvetsii,” REZh, 1925, 3(1): 78-81; and Iu. Filipchenko, “Obsuzhdenie norvezhskoi evgenicheskoi programmy na zasedaniiakh Leningradskogo Otdeleniia R. E. O.,” ibid., 1925, 3(2): 139-43; the latter article was reprinted in Eugenics Review, see Ju. A. Philiptschenko, “The Norwegian Eugenic Programme: Discussed at Meetings of the Eugenic Society of Leningrad,” Eugenics Review, 1928, 19(4): 294-98.
130 See Iu. A. Filipchenko, “M. V. Volotskoi, Podniatie zhiznennykh sil rasy. Novyi put’. Iz-vo ‘Zhizn’ i znanie’. M. 1923 g. Str. 96,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, 1924, 6: 248-50.
131 See, for instance, N. Lialin, “Khirurgicheskaia sterilizatsiia zhenshchin i ee sotsial’noe znachenie,” Zdravookhranenie, 1929, 11-12: 162-68.
132 V. M. Volotskoi, Podniatie zhiznennykh sil rasy. Novyi put’ (M.: Zhizn’ i znanie, 1926).
133 Ibid., p. 24.
134 Volotskoi published a “historical inquiry” on Peter the Great’s “anthropotechnical projects” in Russian Eugenics Journal, see M. V. Volotskoi, “Antropotekhnicheskie porekty Petra I-go (istoricheskaia spravka),” REZh, 1923, 1(2): 235-36 (p. 336), [Babkov, pp. 20-22].
135 He did notice in the treatise’s text several references to it being “a journal article” and tried to find where it had originally been published. He took as his guide a reference to the journal Deed as the publisher of Florinskii’s book that appeared in an article on Florinskii in a popular encyclopedia (see A. [M. T. Alekseev], “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona (SPb.: Brokgauz i Efron, 1902), vol. 36, p. 169). But, of course, he did not find any of Florinskii’s publications in Deed. See the first “editor’s commentary” in Florinskii, 1926, p. 157.
136 Anuchin knew and corresponded with Florinskii during the 1890s regarding the latter’s archeological research in Siberia (see a sample of this correspondence in Iastrebov, Sto neizvestnykh pisem, pp. 21-25), and it seems likely that he owned a copy of Florinskii’s treatise. However, Anuchin’s book collection currently held at the Rare Book Section of the Scientific Library of Moscow University does not have a copy of Florinskii’s 1866 book (though it does have a copy of the 1926 edition issued by Volotskoi). According to the head of the Rare Book Section, Alexander Livshits (personal communication, 10 November 2016), it is possible that the 1866 copy has been lost, as a result of either the numerous “purges” the library had suffered during the Soviet era, or its evacuation from Moscow during World War II. It is also possible that Volotskoi had “borrowed” the copy to prepare and typeset his 1926 edition of the book and never returned it to the library. However, none of these possibilities could be verified by the available materials.
137 Volotskoi, Podniatie zhiznennykh sil rasy, p. 91.
138 V. M. Volotskoi, “K istorii evgenicheskogo dvizheniia,” REZh, 1924, 2(1): 50-55, [Babkov, pp. 23-28]; all the subsequent quotations are from this source.
139 Ibid., pp. 53-54.
140 Ibid., p. 54.
141 At the time of writing his book, Volotskoi was clearly unaware of Galton’s 1865 article and apparently thought that Galton’s first “eugenic” work was Hereditary Genius published four years later.
142 See M. V. Volotskoi, “O dvukh formakh chelovecheskoi kisti preimushchestvenno v sviazi s polovymi i rasovymi otlichiiami,” RAZh, 1924, 13(3-4): 70-82.
143 Only two years older than Volotskoi, Bunak apparently saw the younger man as a formidable threat to his own administrative ambitions at both the anthropology department and the IEB eugenics department. Judging by available materials, the relations between the two men were less than cordial and might well have also contributed to Volotskoi’s decision to leave the university. Tellingly, in 1930 when Bunak was fired, Volotskoi returned to his alma mater.
144 On the establishment of this institute and its work during the first five years, see Piatiletie Gosudarstvennogo tsentral’nogo instituta fizicheskoi kul’tury, 1918-1923 (M.: TsIT, 1923); for a Soviet-era history of the institute, which of course does not even mention eugenics, see I. G. Chudinov, Gosudarstvennyi Tsentral’nyi ordena Lenina institut fizicheskoi kul’tury: Istoricheskii ocherk (M.: Fizkul’tura i sport, 1966).
145 Podgotovka rabotnikov po fizicheskoi kul’ture (M.: Izd-vo Vysshego i Moskovskogo soveta fiz.kul’tury, 1924), p. 8.
146 ARAN, f. 669, op. 2, d. 30, l.1.
147 For details on the Bolsheviks’ efforts to create “Communist” and “proletarian” science, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science; and idem, “Big Revolution, Little Revolution.”
148 For details on Bogdanov’s concept of “proletarian science,” see Nikolai Krementsov, A Martian Stranded on Earth: Alexander Bogdanov, Blood Transfusions, and Proletarian Science (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2011).
149 For details, see David-Fox, Revolution of the Mind; and Krementsov, Stalinist Science.
150 For detailed analyses of the role of Marxism in 1920s Russian, especially biomedical, science, as well as an overview of voluminous historical literature on the subject, see Nikolai Krementsov, “Marxism, Darwinism, and Genetics in the Soviet Union,” in Denis Alexander and Ron Numbers, eds., Biology and Ideology: From Descartes to Dawkins (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2010), pp. 215-46; and Daniel P. Todes and Nikolai Krementsov, “Dialectical Materialism and Soviet Science in the 1920s and 1930s,” in William Leatherbarrow and Derek Oxford, eds., A History of Russian Thought (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), pp. 340-67.
151 In his 1922 article, titled “On the Significance of Militant Materialism,” Lenin proclaimed that every “scientist must be an up-to-date materialist, a deliberate follower of the materialism presented by Marx, that is, he must be a dialectical materialist.” See V. I. Lenin, “O znachenii voinstvuiushchego materializma,” Pod znamenem marksizma (hereafter PZM), 1922, 3: 29. The rules of appointment are preserved among the Timiriazev Institute’s materials, see ARAN, f. 669, op. 2, d. 30, l. 8.
152 Aside from an occasional mention of his name in various publications on the history of Soviet pediatrics and physical culture, I was able to find only very brief biographies of Radin. See “Radin Evgenii Petrovich,” Bol’shaia meditsinskaia entsiklopediia (M.: Gosmedizdat, 1962), vol. 27, p. 739; the same entry was reprinted in B. D. Petrov, ed., Vrachi-soratniki V. I. Lenina, uchastniki revoliutsionnogo dvizheniia. Biobliograficheskii spravochnik (M.: n. p., 1970), 95-96. The following reconstruction is based on Radin’s personnel file preserved in the Narkomzdrav archive, GARF, f. А482, op. 41, d. 2820, ll. 1-10. Alas, the file covers only the 1923-29 period.
153 The anthem was “Smelo, tovarishchi, v nogu” (Bravely, Comrades, in Step). See “Radin, Leonid Petrovich,” in P. A. Nikolaev, ed., Russkie pisateli. Biobibliograficheskii slovar’ (M.: Prosveshchenie, 1990), vol. 2, “M-Ia,” pp. 185-86.
154 See E. Radin, Okhranenie nervnogo i dushevnogo zdorov’ia uchashikhsia (SPb.: B. M. Vol’f, 1910). He also published several interesting studies on what at the time was termed “social psychiatry,” investigating manifestations of mental illness in contemporary literature and social attitudes. See, for example, E. P. Radin, “Vyrozhdaiushchiesia vysshego poriadka,” SP, 1908, October: 433-44; November: 483-93; idem, Problema pola v sovremennoi literature i bol’nye nervy (SPb.: Montvida, 1910); idem, Dushevnoe nastroenie sovremennoi uchasheisia molodezhi po dannym Peterburgskoi obshchestudencheskoi ankety 1912 goda (SPb.: N. P, Karbasnikov, 1913); and idem, “Futurizm i bezumie”. Paralleli tvorchestva i analogii novogo iazyka kubo-futuristov (SPb.: N. P. Karbasnikov, 1914).
155 For a general examination of the Bolsheviks’ concern with children, see Alan M. Ball, And Now My Soul Is Hardened: Abandoned Children in Soviet Russia, 1918-1930 (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1994); and Loraine de la Fe, “Empire’s Children: Soviet Childhood in the Age of Revolution,” doctoral dissertation, Florida International University, 2013.
156 See, for instance, E. P. Radin, Chto delaet sovetskaia vlast’ dlia okhrany zdorov’ia detei (M.: Komissiia pamiati V. M. Bonch-Bruevich [Velichkinoi], 1919). He fought fiercely to wrestle control over school physicians from Narkompros and instigated several decrees by the SNK to subordinate all the issues of children’s health to Narkomzdrav’s authority. See E. P. Radin, Okhrana zdorov’ia detei i podrostkov i sotsial’naia evgenika (Orel: GIZ, 1923), pp. 23-58. For a brief contemporary English-language description of the OZDP department, see Anon., “Children’s Health Protection in the Soviet Union,” Russian Review, 1925, 3(22): 461-62. In 1927 Radin became the director of the first research institute for the protection of children’s and adolescents’ health, see E. P. Radin, Gosudarstvennyi nauchnyi institut okhrany zdorov’ia detei i podrostokov Narkomzdrava (Orel: Orlovskoe pedologicheskoe obscshestvo, 1929).
157 For general histories of early Soviet physical culture, which, alas, do not mention Radin, see Susan Grant, “The Politics and Organization of Physical Culture in the USSR during the 1920s,” Slavonic and East European Review, 2011, 89(3): 494-515; and idem, Physical Culture and Sport in Soviet Society: Propaganda, Acculturation, and Transformation in the 1920s and 1930s (New York: Routledge, 2013).
158 For accounts of the history of Soviet pedology, see N. Kurek, Istoriia likvidatsii pedologii i psikhotekhniki (SPb.: Aleteia, 2004); and E. M. Balashov, Pedologiia v Rossii v pervoi treti XX veka (SPb.: Nestor-Istoriia, 2012); on the history of Russian pedology in English, see a series of publications by Andy Byford, “Professional Cross-Dressing: Doctors in Education in Late Imperial Russia (1881-1917),” Russian Review, 2006, 65(4): 586-616; idem, “The Mental Test as a Boundary Object in Early-20th-Century Russian Child Science,” History of the Human Sciences, 2014, 27(4): 22-58; and idem, “Imperial Normativities and the Sciences of the Child: The Politics of Development in the USSR, 1920s-1930s,” Ab Imperio, 2016, 2: 71-124. Alas, none of the above publications mention Radin’s contributions to the field.
159 See, for instance, his book (co-written with his wife) on “New games for new children” that went through five editions during the 1920s, M. A. Kornil’eva-Radina and E. P. Radin, Novym detiam — novye igry. Podvizhnye igry shkol’nogo i vneshkol’nogo vozrastov (ot 7 do 18 let) v refleksologicheskom i pedologicheskom osveshchenii, 5th edn. (M.: Medgiz, 1929).
160 Radin, Okhrana zdorov’ia detei i podrostkov.
161 N. Semashko, “Predislovie,” in E. P. Radin et al., eds., Fizicheskaia kul’tura v nauchnom osveshchenii (M.: Izdanie Vysshego i Moskovskogo sovetov fizicheskoi kul’tury, 1924), pp. 3-4 (p. 3).
162 M. V. Volotskoi, “Fizicheskaia kul’tura s tochki zreniia evgeniki,” in Radin, Fizicheskia kul’tura v nauchnom osveshchenii, pp. 62-75; idem, “O nekotorykh techeniiakh v sovremennoi evgenike,” in ibid., pp. 76-85. The first article was actually the text of a report he had delivered in November 1923 to an all-Russia conference on the protection of children’s and adolescents’ health. He also published an updated version of this article three years later in a new journal, Theory and Practice of Physical Culture, established by Narkomzdrav, see V. M. Volotskoi, “Fizicheskaia kul’tura i evgenika,” Teoriia i praktika fizicheskoi kul’tury, 1927, 1: 19-26.
163 V. M. Volotskoi, Klassovye interesy i sovremennaia evgenika (M.: Zhizn’ i znanie, 1925).
164 Volotskoi used Siemens’s article, “Die Proletarisierung unseres Nachwuchses, eine Gefahr unrassenhygienischer Bevölkerungspolitik,” Archiv für Rassen- und Gesellschafts-Biologie (hereafter ARGB), 1916-17, 12(1): 43-55; and his two-volume treatise on Grundzüge der Rassenhygiene (Munich: J. F. Lehmann, 1923); along with the second volume of the infamous collection by Erwin Baur, Eugen Fischer, and Fritz Lenz, Grundriss der menschlichen Erblichkeitslehre und Rassenhygiene (Munich: J. F. Lehmann, 1921), written and published by Lenz under the title, Menschliche Auslese und Rassenhygiene.
165 Volotskoi, Klassovye interesy, p. 45.
166 See the tables of contents of the two oracles of Russian eugenics, Russian Eugenics Journal and Herald of the Eugenics Bureau, in Babkov, pp. 196-203; and pp. 287-89.
167 See N. K. Kol’tsov, “Genealogiia Ch. Darvina i F. Gal’tona,” REZh, 1922, 1(1): 64-73; and A. S. Serebrovskii, “Genealogiia roda Aksakovykh,” ibid., 82-97.
168 See, for instance, D. M. D’iakonov and Ia. Ia. Lus, “Raspredelenie i nasledonvanie spetsial’nykh sposobnostei,” Izvestiia biuro po evgenike, 1922, 1: 72-112; and G. G. Shefter, Vyrozhdenie i evgenika (M.-L.: GIZ, 1927).
169 Kol’tsov, “Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody,” p. 10.
170 He described this “experiment” in detail in his article, Volotskoi, “O nekotorykh techeniiakh v sovremennoi evgenike.” All the following quotations are from this source.
171 Volotskoi took this citation from Florinskii, 1866, p. 73.
172 He repeated the same talk in April 1926 at the Institute of Physical Culture. Its text, however, appeared in print only two years later, see M. V. Volotskoi, Sistema evgeniki kak biosotsial’noi distsipliny (M.: Izd. Timiriazevskogo instituta, 1928). All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
173 See V. M. Volotskoi, “Alkogolizm i sifilis kak factory, vliiaiushchie na potomstvo,” Fizicheskaia kul’tura v nauchno-prakticheskom osveshchenii, 1928, 1-2: 134-47.
174 See V. M. Volotskoi, Professional’nye vrednosti i potomstvo (Vologda: Severnyi pechatnik, 1929). This 250-page book had actually been finished in 1926, but appeared in print only three years later.
175 He gave a talk on the subject at the Timiriazev Institute, but never published its text. See ARAN, f. 356, op. 1, d. 38, ll. 72-73 rev. Unfortunately, the archive does not contain a stenographic record of the talk.
176 Florinskii, 1926.
177 As did all other Soviet publications, on the back of its front page, Florinskii’s volume bore a specific inscription — “Gublit № 1114 (Vologda)” — that “identified” the concrete censor who had reviewed the book and approved it for publishing. The inscription indicates that the volume was submitted to the censor in the city of Vologda where it was printed. Alas, I was unable to find any archival records illuminating the censorship process.
178 Florinskii, 1926, pp. 163-64.
179 Ibid., pp. 159-60. He took his picture from Vestnik mody, 1922, 5.
180 M. V. Volotskoi, “K istorii i sovremennomu sostoianiiu evgenicheskogo dvizheniia, v sviazi s knigoi V. M. Florinskogo,” in Florinskii, 1926, pp. VII-XIX. All the subsequent citations are from this source.
181 Volotskoi cited an English translation of Niceforo’s report to the 1912 London congress, see A. Niceforo, “The Causes of the Inferiority of Physical and Moral Characters in the Lower Classes,” Problems in Eugenics, vol. 1, pp. 189-94. On Niceforo and his place in Italian eugenics, see Cassata, Building a New Man.
Chapter 6
1 N. K. Koltzoff [Kol’tsov], “Die rassenhygienische Bewegung in Russland,” ARGB, 1925/26, 17: 96-99; all the subsequent quotations are from this source. It is worth noting that in his Russian-language texts on the subject, Kol’tsov almost never used the term “racial hygiene,” and it seems likely that the title of this particular article, as well as some of its language, was supplied by the journal’s editor.
2 The only source of information on Vaisenberg’s biography I was able to find is his obituary published in the Russian Anthropological Journal, see V. Bunak, “S. A. Vaisenberg (1867-1928). Nekrolog,” RAZh, 1929, 18(1-2): 71-72.
3 S. Weisenberg [S. Vaisenberg], “Theoretische und praktische Eugenik in Sowjetrussland,” ARGB, 1926, 18: 69-83 (pp. 71-72).
4 S. Weisenberg [S. Vaisenberg], “Florinsky, W. M. Die Verbesserung und Entartung des menschlichen Geschlechts. (Russisch.) XIX und 165 Seiten. Wologda 1926,” ARGB, 1927, 19: 105-07.
5 See “Florinsky, W. M., 1926, Die Verbesserung und Entartung des menschlichen Geschlechts. (Russisch.) Wologda, XIX u. 165 S. Eine Neuauflage eines 1866 erschienenen Buches, das in mancher Beziehung als Vorläufer der gegenwärtigen eugenischen Ideen zu betrachten,” in Anon., “Bibliographie,” Anthropologischer Anzeiger, 1927, 4(1): 1-19 (p. 6).
6 Vas. Slepkov, “Prof. V. M. Florinskii. Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda. ‘Severnyi pechatnik’. Vologda. 1926. 164 str.,” Pravda, 17 March 1926, p. 3; all the following quotations are from this source. On Slepkov and his involvement with genetics and eugenics, see A. I. Ermolaev, Istoriia geneticheskikh issledovanii v Kazanskom universitete (Kazan’: Izd-vo Kazanskogo universiteta, 2004), pp. 29-76.
7 V. S[lepkov], “Gosudarstvennyi Timiriazevskii nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut,” Izvestiia, 18 April 1926, p. 5.
8 B. Vishnevskii, “Zabytyi russkii evgenik,” Priroda, 1926, 3-4: 100-01. There are almost no biographical materials for this interesting man, only brief obituaries in various journals. See, for instance, M. S. Spirov and N. G. Zalkind, “B. N. Vishnevskii (1892-1965),” Voprosy antropologii, 1967, 26: 182.
9 N. K[ol’tsov], “Ot redaktsii,” REZh, 1924, 2(1): 50.
10 See Nik. Kol’tsov, “V. M. Florinskii. Usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda. Izdanie 2-e. Pod red. i so vstup. stat’ei V. M. Volotskogo. Gos. Timiriazevskii nauchno-issledovatel’skii institut. Seriia V. Bib-ka materialista. Vyp. 1. ‘Severnyi pechatnik’. Vologda. 1926. Str. 164. Tir. 3000 ekz. Ts. 1 r. 75 kop.,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, 1926, 4: 191-93; all the subsequent quotations are from this source.
11 Here Kol’tsov is somewhat exaggerating, for Darwin had introduced the concept of sexual selection already in Origin. But he indeed discussed its application to humans only in the Descent of Man, six years after the first publication of Florinskii’s book.
12 N. Kol’tsov, “R. Gets. Nasledstvennost’ i evgenika. Avtorizovannyi perevod s angl. pod red. Iu. A. Filipchenko. ‘Seiatel’. L. 1926. Str. 267,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, 1926, 2: 206-07 (p. 207). For the English original of the reviewed book, see R. Ruggles Gates, Heredity and Eugenics (London: Constable; New York: Macmillan, 1923).
13 M. Beliaev, “Obzor literatury po evoliutsionnomu ucheniiu,” Narodnyi uchitel’, 1927, 9: 112-18 (p. 116).
14 Volotskoi, “K istorii i sovremennomu sostoianiiu evgenicheskogo dvizheniia,” p. xix.
15 See, for instance, T. Iudin, Evgenika. Uchenie ob uluchshenii prirodnykh svoistv cheloveka (M.: M. i S. Sabashnikovy, 1925), p. 40; idem, Evgenika. Uchenie ob uluchshenii prirodnykh svoistv cheloveka (M.: M. i S. Sabashnikovy, 1928), pp. 53-54; and V. Slepkov, Evgenika. Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi prirody (M.: GIZ, 1927), pp. 18-19.
16 T. Iudin, “Evgenika,” Bol’shaia meditsinskaia entsiklopediia (M.: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1929), vol. 9, pp. 663-70 (p. 670); hereafter references to this encyclopedia will be given as BME, 1929, 9: 663-70.
17 For a brief overview, see Becky L. Glass and Margaret K. Stolee, “Family Law in Soviet Russia, 1917-1945,” Journal of Marriage and the Family, 1987, 49(4): 893-902. For more detailed analyses written largely from a feminist perspective, see Dorothy Atkinson, Alexander Dallin, and Gail Lapidus, eds., Women in Russia (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1977); Wendy Z. Goldman, Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Elizabeth A. Wood, The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997).
18 See “O grazhdanskom brake, o detiakh i o vedenii knig aktov sostoianiia,” Sobranie uzakonenii RSFSR, 1917, 11: 160. For an English-language collection of the Soviet legal documents on family, see Rudolf Schlesinger, ed., The Family in the USSR (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, [1949] 1998).
19 See “Kodeks zakonov ob aktakh grazhdanskogo sostoianiia, brachnom, semeinom i opekunskom prave,” Sobranie uzakonenii RSFSR, 1918, 76-77: 818.
20 See Anon., “Okhrana zdorov’ia brachuiushchikhsia,” Izvestiia, 11 August 1923, p. 4; and L. Vasilevskii, “Zdorov’e i brak. K proektu Narkomzdrava,” Pravda, 9 September 1923, p. 1.
21 A. Sysin, “Brak, zdorov’e i potomstvo,” Izvestiia, 18 September 1923, p. 3.
22 See an announcement of the report in Pravda, 23 November 1923, p. 4.
23 See “Kafedra sotsialnoi gigieny,” Sotsial’naia gigiena, 1923/1924, 2: 170-72.
24 See A. N. Sysin, “Pervye shagi evgenicheskogo zakonodatel’stva v Rossii,” Sotsial’naia gigiena, 1924, 3-4: 11-20. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
25 See, for instance, P. I. Liublinskii, “Evgenicheskaia sterilizatsiia,” Vestnik znaniia, 1925, 6: 443-50; and idem, “Evgenicheskie tendentsii i noveishee zakonodatel’stvo o detiakh,” REZh, 1925, 3(1): 3-29.
26 For an analysis of certain aspects of this campaign, especially in relation to sex education, see Frances Lee Bernstein, “‘What Everyone Should Know about Sex’: Gender, Sexual Enlightenment, and the Politics of Health in Revolutionary Russia, 1918-1931.” doctoral dissertation, Columbia University, 1998; and idem, The Dictatorship of Sex: Lifestyle Advice for the Soviet Masses (DeKalb, IL: Northern Illinois University Press, 2007).
27 See D. I. Kurskii, ed., Sbornik statei i materialov po brachnomu i semeinomu pravu (M.: Iuridicheskoe izdanie, 1926). Many documents from this collection appeared in English translations in Schlesinger, ed., The Family in the USSR.
28 N. I. Mikulina-Ivanova, “Oplodotvorenie i nasledstvennost’,” Zhenskii zhurnal, 1927, 1: 14-15.
29 See Il. Poltavskii, “Institut sotsial’noi gigieny,” Vecherniaia Moskva, 13 December 1926, p. 3. The State Institute of Social Hygiene established the consultation jointly with the Moscow Venereal Dispensary and the Moscow Psycho-Neurological Dispensary.
30 S. N. Davidenkov, “Geneticheskoe biuro pri M. O. N. i P.,” REZh, 1928, 6: 55-56.
31 See S. N. Davidenkov, “Geneticheskoe napravlenie v nervno-psikhiatricheskoi profilaktike,” Klinicheskaia meditsina, 1929, 23-24: 1478-92.
32 See T. I. Iudin, Zdorov’e, brak i sem’ia (M.: Narkomzdrav, 1928); and P. Rokitskii, “Evgenika i brak.” Zhenskii zhurnal, 1930, 6: 18. See also Tat’iana Pletneva, “Obshchestvenno-nauchnyi podkhod k materinstvu,” Zhenskii zhurnal, 1927, 7: 13.
33 See also a series of popular articles by obstetrician N. I. Mikulina-Ivanova, “Oplodotvorenie i nasledstvennost’,” Zhenskii zhurnal, 1927, 1: 14-15; and idem, “Brak i evgenika: O kontrole nad zdorov’em lits, vstupaiushchikh v brak,” ibid., 1929, 1: 22; as well as her voluminous manual on Woman’s Health, idem, Zdorov’e zhenshchiny (M.: OMM NKZ, 1928).
34 See, GARF, f. A2307, op. 8, d. 278, ll. 81-83.
35 See Iu. A. Filipchenko, Frensis Gal’ton i Gregor Mendel’ (M.: GIZ, 1924). The second printing came out in a slightly larger format and under a slightly different title, see idem, Gal’ton i Mendel’: Ikh zhizn’ i trudy (M.: GIZ, 1924).
36 Kol’tsov was a member of the editorial board of the series and profoundly influenced the choice of books that were to comprise it. See GARF, f. R395, op. 9, dd. 315-318.
37 See GARF, f. R395, op. 9, d. 313, ll. 14-14 rev; d. 315, ll. 180, 184-85.
38 See Gregor Mendel’, Opyty nad rastitel’nymi gibridami (M.-Pg.: GIZ, 1923).
39 Volotskoi recounted the story in a lengthy footnote in his 1925 pamphlet on Class Interests and Modern Eugenics, see Volotskoi, Klassovye interesy, p. 13.
40 One could only speculate that, if Volotskoi did complete his translation in 1922, the translation of Galton’s book might have perhaps been published by the GIZ in the next year, along with Mendel’s.
41 Apparently, the manuscript never went into production, see GARF, f. R395, op. 9, d. 77, l. 51; d. 92, l. 40; d. 313, l. 14.
42 GARF, f. R395, op. 9, d. 313, l. 30 rev.
43 Iu. A. Filipchenko, Puti uluchsheniia chelovecheskogo roda (Evgenika) (L.: GIZ, 1924).
44 Anon., “Predislovie redaktsii,” in Filipchenko, Puti uluchsheniia chelovecheskogo roda, pp. 3-7.
45 See GARF, f. R395, op. 9, d. 77, l. 46; d. 92, l. 40.
46 On Solov’ev’s life and works, see V. A. Solov’eva, ed., Zhizn’ i deiatel’nost’ Z. P. Solov’eva po vospominaniiam sovremennikov (M.: Meditsina, 1980).
47 Z. P. Solov’ev, “Neskol’ko slov o ‘razvedenii porody cheloveka’,” in idem, Stroitel’stvo sovetskogo zdravookhraneniia (M.: Medgiz, 1932), pp. 320-34. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
48 See T. Iudin, Evgenika. Uchenie ob uluchshenii prirodnykh svoistv cheloveka (M.: M. i S. Sabashnikovy, 1925). The second updated and expanded edition was released by the same private press three years later.
49 I failed to find any materials that could explain why Kol’tsov did not publish the translation of Galton’s book with a different press.
50 I was unable to find out who had written the “editorial foreword.” The GIZ Petrograd office had several regular reviewers for biological literature, including such well-known specialists as expert in biology education Boris Raikov, zoologist Petr Shmidt, and parasitologist Evgenii Pavlovskii. None of them had ever published anything even remotely similar to the “Marxist” assessment of eugenics presented in the foreword. To the contrary, Raikov, for instance, published several favorable reviews of Filipchenko’s various publications on eugenics in the journal Natural Sciences in School, see Estestvoznanie v shkole, 1922, 1-2: 78; 1926, 2: 90; 1926, 3: 95-96.
51 See, for instance, E. I. Berman, “Kak uluchshit’ prirodnye svoistva cheloveka? (Evgenika),” Molodaia gvardiia, 1926, 2: 108-16. The article, written by young Moscow pediatrician Efim Berman (1894-1963), was basically a recapitulation of Volotskoi’s arguments advanced in his pamphlet on Class Interests and Modern Eugenics. For a similar reiteration of Volotskoi’s work, see also B. A. Ivanovskii, Sovetskaia meditsina i fizkul’tura (M.: Gosmedgiz, 1928), pp. 25-29.
52 It is worth noting that, a year earlier Filipchenko published in the same journal his review of Volotskoi’s book, Elevating the Vital Forces of the Race, that first introduced Florinskii’s treatise to its Soviet audiences. See Iu. A. Filipchenko, “M. V. Volotskoi, Podniatie zhiznennykh sil rasy. Novyi put’. Iz-vo ‘Zhizn’ i znanie’. M. 1923 g. Str. 96,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, 1924, 6: 248-50.
53 N. A. Semashko, “Ikh evgenika i nasha,” Vestnik sovremennoi meditsiny, 1927, 10: 639-49. The article was an excerpt from a public lecture Semashko has delivered. Alas, I was unable to find either the date or the venue of this lecture.
54 See Iu. A. Filipchenko, “Intelligentsiia i talanty,” Izvestiia biuro po evgenike, 1925, 3: 83-96, [Babkov, pp. 279-87].
55 G. Shmidt, “Ne iz verkhnikh desiati tysiach, a iz nizhnikh millionov,” PZM, 1925, 7: 128-33.
56 Ibid., p. 128.
57 See, for instance, Vas. Slepkov, “Nasledstvennost’ i otbor u cheloveka,” PZM, 1925, 4: 102-22; idem, “Biologiia cheloveka,” ibid., 1925, 10-11: 115-42; idem, Evgenika (M.-L.: GIZ, 1927); and B. M. Zavadovskii, “Darvinizm i marksizm,” Vestnik Kommunisticheskoi akademii (hereafter VKA), 1926, 14: 226-74.
58 For a brief sketch of Batkis’s life and works, see Nora Karlsen, “Grigorii Abramovich Batkis (k 110-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia),” Demoskop Weekly, 2005, 225, http://demoscope.ru/weekly/2005/0225/nauka03.php.
59 See G. A. Batkis, “Sovremennye evgenicheskie techeniia v svete sotsial’noi gigieny,” Sotsial’naia gigiena, 1927, 1(9): 97-98; and, especially, idem, “Sotsial’nye osnovy evgeniki,” ibid., 1927, 2(10): 7-25. All the subsequent quotations are from the latter article.
60 For a detailed historical analysis of the interrelations among Marxism, Darwinism, Lamarckism, and genetics in Russia, see Krementsov, “Marxism, Darwinism, and Genetics,” pp. 215-46. As any “ism,” the label “Lamarckism” meant many different things to its various users, see Snait B. Gissis and Eva Jablonka, eds., Transformations of Lamarckism: From Subtle Fluids to Molecular Biology (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2011). In the 1920s, this label was largely used (often in the form of “neo-Lamarckism”) to signify a particular concept of biological evolution that considered the inheritance of acquired characteristics to be its major mechanism. Neo-Lamarckism, thus, contradicted both the contemporary notions of heredity developed by geneticists on the basis of Mendel’s and Weismann’s works and the contemporary notions of evolution developed by Darwin’s followers, which considered natural selection to be the major mechanism of biological evolution.
61 See, for example, Preformizm ili epigenezis? (Volodga: Severnyi pechatnik, 1926); P. A. Novikov, Teoriia epigeneza v biologii: Istoriko-sistematicheskii ocherk (M.: Izdatel’stvo komakademii, 1927); E. S. Smirnov, Problema nasledovaniia priobretennykh priznakov: Kriticheskii obzor literatury (M.: Izdatel’stvo komakademii, 1927). For a historical assessment of the debate between geneticists and Lamarckists, see A. E. Gaissinovitch, “The Origins of Soviet Genetics and the Struggle with Lamarckism, 1922-1929,” JHB, 1980, 13: 1-51; and Krementsov, “Marxism, Darwinism, and Genetics.”
62 On Kammerer’s work, see Sander Gliboff, “The Case of Paul Kammerer: Evolution and Experimentation in the Early 20th Century,” JHB, 2006, 39: 525-63.
63 P. Kammerer, Obshchaia biologiia (M.-L.: GIZ, 1925). The translation was made from the second updated edition of the original, Paul Kammerer, Allgemeine biologie (Stuttgart: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1920).
64 On Kammerer’s life story, see Arthur Koestler, The Case of the Midwife-Toad (New York: Random House, 1971).
65 See P. Kammerer, Zagadka nasledstvennosti (L.: Priboi, 1927) and (M.: GIZ, 1927). For the original, see idem, Das Rätsel der Vererbung: Grundlagen der allgemeinen Vererbungslehre (Berlin: Ullstein, 1925). See also, P. Kammerer, Pol, razmnozhenie i plodovitost’: Biologiia vosproizvedenia (L.: Priboi, 1927). Furthermore, also in 1927, the head of Narkompros Anatolii Lunacharskii — the official patron of all “pure” science in the country and an active member of the Communist Academy — wrote a movie script loosely based on Kammerer’s life-story. Directed by a young talented director, Grigorii Roshal’, and featuring Lunacharskii’s wife in the lead female part, the movie, entitled Salamander, hit screens across the country in late 1928. The movie portrayed Kammerer as a progressive scientist, whose research on the inheritance of acquired characteristics in salamanders earned him the hatred of the clergy and the bourgeoisie. His opponents (who apparently subscribed to the views of modern genetics on the impossibility of Lamarckian inheritance) plot to destroy his reputation by tampering with his research. Driven out of his lab and haunted by lack of money, the scientist is saved from poverty and disgrace (and his salamanders from inevitable death) by the invitation of the Soviet government to come to Moscow to continue his research. The official press greeted the movie with much enthusiasm. See, for example, Kh. Khersonskii, “Salamandra,” Pravda, 30 December 1928, p. 5.
66 See, for instance, M. I. Lifshits, Uchenie o konstitutsiiakh cheloveka s kratkim ocherkom sovremennogo polozheniia voprosa o nasledstvennosti (Kiev: GIZ Ukrainy, 1924); A. A. Krontovskii, Nasledstvennost’ i konstitutsiia (Kiev: GIZ Ukrainy, 1925); S. Davidenkov, Nasledstvennye bolezni nervnoi sistemy (Kiev: GIZ Ukrainy, 1925); T. I. Iudin, Psikhopaticheskie konstitutsii (M.: Sabashnikov, 1926); and many others.
67 See, for instance, S. Levit, “Evoliutsionnye teorii v biologii i marksizm,” Vestnik sovremennoi meditsiny, 1925, 9: 15-24; idem, “Evoliutsionnye teorii v biologii i marksizm,” Meditsina i dialekticheskii materialism, 1926, 1: 15-32; idem, “Dialekticheskii materializm v meditsine,” Vestnik sovremennoi meditsiny, 1927, 23: 1481-90. For a brief biography of Levit, see Mark B. Adams, “Levit, Solomon Grigorevich,” in Holmes, ed., Dictionary of Scientific Biography, vol. 18, suppl. II, pp. 546-49.
68 See, Vestnik sovremennoi meditsiny, 1925, 9: 27; and ibid., 1927, 23: 1506-07.
69 S. Levit, “Problema konstitutsii v meditsine i dialekticheskii materialism,” in Meditsina i dialekticheskii materializm, 1927, 2: 7-34 (pp. 20-21).
70 See, for instance, I. I. Rozenblium, “Popytka marksistkogo podkhoda k nekotorym problemam konstitutsii i nasledstvennosti,” Leningradskii meditsinskii zhurnal, 1926, 4: 48-63; L. Syrkin, “Uluchshenie chelovecheskogo roda ili evgenika,” V pomoshch’ sanitarke, 1928, 8: 1-2, and Berman, “Kak uluchshit’ prirodnye svoistva cheloveka? (Evgenika).”
71 See, for instance, “Preniia po dokladu M. V. Volotskogo,” VKA, 1927, 20: 232-54 (p. 237).
72 Ibid., p. 246 .
73 See, for instance, B. M. Zavadovskii, “Darvinizm i lamarkizm i problema nasledovaniia priobretennykh priznakov,” PZM, 1925, 10-11: 79-114; and idem, Darvinizm i marksizm (M.: GIZ, 1926).
74 This quote comes from a commentary by Mikhail Mestergazi, a geneticist and Bolshevik party member, to Volotskoi’s report on “issues in modern eugenics” delivered to a meeting of the Society of Materialist-Biologists in December 1926, see “Preniia po dokladu M. V. Volotskogo,” VKA, 1927, 20: 232-54 (p. 234).
75 See, for instance, his favorable review of the book published by a well-known supporter of Lamarckism under the title “Are Acquired Characteristics Transmitted by Heredity?”, M. Volotskoi, “A. P. Vladimirskii. Peredaiutsia li po nasledstvu priobretennye priznaki? Darvinovskaia bib-ka pod red. prof. M. M. Zavadovskogo. GIZ. M.-L. 1927. Str. 184. Tirazh 4000. Ts. 1 r. 25 k.,” Pechat’ i revoliutsiia, 1927, 6: 179-80.
76 For a sample of publications by members of the Lamarck Circle, see E. S. Smirnov, Iu. M. Vermel’, and B. S. Kuzin, Ocherki po teorii evolutsii (M.: Krasnaiia nov’, 1924); and E. S. Smirnov, Problema nasledovaniia priobretennykh priznakov: Kriticheskii obzor literatury (M.: Izdatel’stvo Komakademii, 1927).
77 See ARAN, f. 356, op. 1, d. 38, ll. 53-54. Unfortunately, the file does not contain the text of the report.
78 See, for instance, lengthy analyses of the concept of the inheritance of acquired characteristics produced by Filipchenko’s student Theodosius Dobzhansky in F. G. Dobrzhanskii, “K voprosu o nasledovanii priobretennykh priznakov,” in Preformizm ili epigenezis?, pp. 27-47; and idem., Chto i kak nasleduetsia u zhivykh sushchestv? (L.: GIZ, 1926).
79 See, for instance, N. K. Kol’tsov, “Noveishie popytki dokazat’ nasledstvennost’ blagopriobretennykh priznakov,” REZh, 1924, 3(2-3): 159-67.
80 T. H. Morgan and Iu. A. Filipchenko, Nasledstvenny li priobretennye priznaki (Leningrad: Seiatel’, 1925). For Morgan’s original article, see T. H. Morgan, “Are Acquired Characteristics Inherited?” Yale Review, 1924, 13(4): 712-29.
81 Iu. A. Filipchenko, “Nasledstvennost’ priobretennykh priznakov,” in Morgan and Filipchenko, Nasledstvenny li priobretennye priznaki, p. 57. Here Filipchenko used the same “translation” of Florinskii’s “hereditary potentials” as “genes,” which had been used by Volotskoi.
82 See ARAN, f. 1595, op. 1, d. 389, l. 1.
83 See a stenographic record of the report in ARAN, f. 350, op. 2, d. 112. A full text of the report soon appeared on the pages of Under the Banner of Marxism, see A. S. Serebrovskii, “Teoriia nasledstvennosti Morgana i Mendelia i marksisty,” PZM, 1926, 3: 98-117. All the following quotations are from this source. Unless noted otherwise, all the emphasis is Serebrovskii’s.
84 Volotskoi, “O nekotorykh techeniiakh v sovremennoi evgenike,” p. 85. For the original citation see Florinskii, 1866, p. 73.
85 See A. S. Serebrovskii, “Genogeografiia i genofond sel’skokhoziaistvennykh zhivotnykh SSSR,” Nauchnoe slovo, 1928, 9: 3-22.
86 On the further development of this concept within the framework of population genetics and evolutionary synthesis, see Mark B. Adams, “From ‘Gene Fund’ to ‘Gene Pool’: On the Evolution of Evolutionary Language,” in William Coleman and Camille Limoges, eds., Studies in the History of Biology (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1979), vol. 3, pp. 241–85.
87 See, for instance, Anon., “U nas ogromnyi genofond,” 30 dnei, 1926, 12: 84-85.
88 N. K. Kol’tsov, “Rodoslovnye nashikh vydvizhentsev,” REZh, 1926, 4(3-4): 103-43, [Babkov, pp. 152-95].
89 For a stenographic record of the report and its discussion, see ARAN, f. 350, op. 2, d. 68, ll. 1-71. The report and its discussion soon appeared in print in the Herald of the Communist Academy, see M. V. Volotskoi, “Spornye voprosy evgeniki,” VKA, 1927, 20: 212-32; and “Preniia po dokladu M. V. Volotskogo,” ibid., 232-54.
90 “Preniia po dokladu M. V. Volotskogo,” p. 236.
91 “Preniia po dokladu M. V. Volotskogo,” p. 243.
92 M. Mestergazi, “Epigenezis i genetika,” VKA, 1927, 19: 197-233 (p. 232).
93 The debates over “bourgeois” and “proletarian” eugenics also found vivid expression in a variety of literary, theatrical, and cinematographic productions. For a brief introduction to this theme, see my analysis of the play I Want a Baby, written in 1926 by Sergei Tret’iakov, a popular poet and playwright; Krementsov, “From ‘Beastly Philosophy’ to Medical Genetics.” I am currently preparing a manuscript that explores these productions in their scientific and social contexts.
94 N. Kol’tsov, “Evfenika,” BME, 1929, 9: 689-92. All the following quotations are from this source. Although there were slight differences in the Russian spelling of the term — Kol’tsov spelled it evfenika, Andreev eufenika, Mestergazi eutenika — their explanations and use in the respective texts leave no doubt that all three meant exactly the same thing, representing merely different Russian transliterations of the term “eu-phenics” modeled after “eu-genics.”
95 See ARAN, f. 1595, op. 1, d. 323, ll. 1-2.
96 See S. L[evit], “Otchet o rabote kabineta nasledstvennosti i konstitutsii cheloveka pri Mediko-biologicheskom institute za 1928-29 akad. g.,” Mediko-biologicheskii zhurnal, 1929, 5: 115-16.
97 See N. Kol’tsov, “Zadachi i metody izucheniia rasovoi patologii,” REZh, 1929, 7(2-3): 69-87, [Babkov, pp. 479-92]; and Anon., “Kratkii otchet o deiatel’nosti obshchestva po izucheniiu rasovoi patologii i geograficheskogo rasprostraneniia boleznei,” ibid.: 113.
98 A. Serebrovskii, “Galton,” Bol’shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia (hereafter BSE) (M.: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1929), vol. 14, pp. 443-44; idem, “Galton,” BME, 1929, 6: 253-54.
99 T. Iudin, “Evgenika,” BME, 1929, 9: 663-70; N. Kol’tsov, “Evfenika,” ibid., 9: 689-92.
100 For details, see Robert C. Tucker, Stalin in Power: The Revolution from Above, 1928-1941 (New York: Norton, 1990); also Sheila Fitzpatrick, ed., Cultural Revolution in Russia, 1928-1931 (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1978).
101 On the Shakhty trial, see Kendal Bailes, Science and Russian Culture in an Age of Revolutions (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1990); Loren R. Graham, The Ghost of the Executed Engineer (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); for much more extensive and informative Russian-language publications, see S. A. Kislitsyn, Shakhtinskoe delo: nachalo stalinskikh repressii protiv nauchno-tekhnicheskoi intelligentsii v SSSR (M.: Logos, 1992) and, especially, S. A. Krasil’nikov, ed., Shakhtinskii protsess 1928 g.: podgotovka, provedenie, itogi, 2 vols. (M.: ROSSPEN, 2011).
102 For a general assessment of the relations between specialists and the state in the field of health protection in Russia, see Susan G. Solomon, “The Expert and the State in Russian Public Health: Continuities and Changes Across the Revolutionary Divide,” in D. Parker, ed., The History of Public Health and the Modern State (Amsterdam: Rodopi, 1994), pp. 183-223.
103 For a detailed analysis of the impact of the “revolution from above” on the Soviet science system, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science.
104 See P. Rokitskii, Mozhno li uluchshit’ chelovecheskii rod (M.-L.: GIZ, 1928).
105 See ARAN, f. 356, op. 3, d. 60, l. 301.
106 V. M. Volotskoi, Professional’nye vrednosti i potomstvo (M.: Timiriazevskii Institut, 1929).
107 See Trudy Vsesoiuznogo s”ezda po genetike i selektsii, 6 vols. (L.: Redkollegiia, 1930). See also a brief report on the congress by Erwin Baur, one of its German guests, E. B., “Der Allrussische Kongres für Genetik, Tier- und Pflanzenzüchtung in Leningrad, Januar 1929,” Der Züchter, 1929, 1(1): 24-25.
108 A. Sh. Shorokhova, “Novye puti v selektsii cheloveka i mlekopitaiushchikh,” Vrachebnaia gazeta, 1929, 3-4: 179-84.
109 See RO RNB, f. 813, op. 1, d. 363 and d. 736.
110 A. S. Serebrovskii, “Antropogenetika i evgenika v sotsialisticheskom obshchestve,” Trudy Kabineta nasledstvennosti i konstitutsii cheloveka pri Mediko-biologicheskom institute, published as a special issue of Mediko-biologicheskii zhurnal, 1929, 5: 3-19, [Babkov, pp. 505-16]; S. Levit, “Genetika i patologiia (v sviazi s sovremennym krizisom v meditsine),” ibid., 20-39, [Babkov, pp. 552-65].
111 For a detailed, though dated analysis of the Bolshevization of the Academy of Sciences, see Loren R. Graham, The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927-1932 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1967); for a more recent assessment based on newly available archival materials, see F. F. Perchenok, “‘Delo Akademii nauk’ i ‘velikii perelom’ v sovetskoi nauke,” in Tragicheskie sud’by: repressirovannye uchenye Akademii nauk SSSR (M.: Nauka, 1995), pp. 201-35.
112 For detailed, but also dated analyses of these campaigns in English, see David Joravsky, Soviet Marxism and Natural Science, 1917–1932 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1961); and Loren R. Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union (New York: Knopf, 1974); for a more recent analysis, focusing specifically on the “ideological” impact of the campaigns in biological sciences, see E. I. Kolchinskii, V poiskakh sovetskogo ‘soiuza’ filosofii i biologii (SPb.: D. Bulanin, 1999).
113 D. Bednyi, “Evgenika,” Izvestiia, 4 June 1930, p. 4. On Bednyi and his role in Soviet literature, see Robert Horvath, “The Poet of Terror: Dem’ian Bednyi and Stalinist Culture,” Russian Review, 2006, 65(1): 53-71.
114 Тhe texts of Bednyi’s poem and Serebrovskii’s response have been reprinted in R. A. Fando, “Polemika o sud’be evgeniki (v poeticheskom zhanre),” VIET, 2002, 3: 604-17. However, in this publication, Bednyi’s poem is misdated.
115 Anon., “Po povodu proizvodstvennogo plana ‘sotsialisticheskoi evgeniki’,” Moskovskii meditsinskii zhurnal, 1930, 9: 77-87.
116 A. S. Serebrovskii, “Pis’mo v redaktsiiu,” Mediko-biologicheskii zhurnal, 1930, 4-5: 447-48, [Babkov, pp. 517-18].
117 A. I. Abrikosov, “Trudy kabineta nasledstvennosti i konstitutsii cheloveka. Vyp.1,” Russkaia klinika, 1930, 13(72): 522-23 (p. 522); see also V. Bunak, “Medio-biologicheskii zhurnal, vyp. 5, 1929,” RAZh, 1930, 19(3-4): 209; N. P. Dubinin, “Trudy kabineta nasledstvennosti i konstitutsii cheloveka. Vyp.1. 1929,” Nauchnoe slovo, 1930, 4: 122-26; idem, “Uspekhi sovremennoi genetiki i meditsina,” Tsentral’nyi referativnyi meditsinskii zhurnal, 1930, 6: 330-50; and Ia. I. Cherniak, Genetika i meditsina (Kharkov: Nauchnaia mysl’, 1930).
118 For the standard instructions to a workers’ brigade conducting an inspection, see GARF, f. А2307, op. 17, d. 151, l. 3. On the general campaign to reform “medical-scientific societies,” see S. Subotnik, “Meditsinskie nauchnye obshchestva nuzhdaiutsia v ozdorovlenii,” Izvestiia, 11 January 1930, p. 4; and Anon., “Nauchno-meditsinskie obshchestva otorvany ot shirokoi nauchnoi obshchestvennosti. Obsledovanie nauchnykh meditsinskikh obshchestv rabochimi brigadami,” Izvestiia, 12 February 1930, p. 5.
119 See G. Sobolev, “Russkoe evgenicheskoe obshchestvo,” VARNITSO, 1930, 5: 49-50. On the campaign directed personally against Kol’tsov, see B. Zavadovskii, “Prof. N. K. Kol’tsov,” Izvestiia, 18 January 1930, p. 2; and against his IEB, M. Rokhlina, “Obshchestvennyi smotr In-ta eksperimental’noi biologii,” VARNITSO, 1930, 5: 44-48.
120 The plan is preserved among Kol’tsov’s personal papers in ARAN, f. 450, op. 4, d. 7, ll. 3-7.
121 A manuscript of this article is preserved among Kol’tsov’s personal papers in ARAN, f. 450, op. 5, d. 29, ll. 1-25 rev. All the subsequent quotations are from this source. For an English translation, see Babkov, pp. 48-56.
122 Tkachev, Sotsial’naia gigiena, pp. 11, 153.
123 G. Batkis, “Evgenika,” BSE, 1931, 23: 812-19, [Babkov, pp. 519-24].
124 Solov’ev, “Neskol’ko slov o ‘razvedenii porody cheloveka’,” in idem, Stroitel’stvo sovetskogo zdravookhraneniia (M.: Medgiz, 1932), pp. 320-34. After its first 1932 publication the article was regularly reprinted in various collections of Solov’ev’s works, see Z. P. Solov’ev, Voprosy zdravookhraneniia (M.-L.: Medgiz, 1940), pp. 300-11; idem, Izbrannye proizvedeniia (M.: Izd. Meditsinskoi literatury, 1965), pp. 83-96; idem, Izbrannye proizvedeniia (M.: Meditsina, 1970), pp.189-99.
125 On “public discussion” as an instrument of Bolshevik policies, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science.
126 See, for instance, P. I. Valeskaln and B. P. Tokin, eds., Uchenie Darvina i marksizm-leninzm (M.: Partizdat, 1932).
127 Engels’s brochure appeared in Russia in numerous editions and translations, see F. Engels, Ot obez’iany k cheloveku (Gomel’: Gomel’skii rabochii, 1922); and idem, Rol’ truda v protsesse ochelovechivaniia obez’iany (M.: Partizdat, 1932).
128 See L. Vygotskii, “Sotsialisticheskaia peredelka cheloveka,” VARNITSO, 1930, 9-10: 36-44. For a dated, but still useful historical account of this newfound emphasis on nurture versus nature in the specific area of “the conception of personality,” see Raymond A. Bauer, The New Man in Soviet Psychology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1952). On VARNITSO, see I. A. Tugarinov, “VARNITSO i AN SSSR,” VIET, 1989, 4: 46-55.
129 V. I. Kremianskii, “Perekhod ot vedushchei roli estestvennogo otbora k vedushchei roli truda,” Uspekhi sovremennoi biologii, 1941, 14(2): 356-71.
130 See, for instance, materials of the First All-Union Conference of Teachers of Deaf-Mute Children held in Moscow in May 1929, which appeared under the title “Socio-Political Upbringing of Mentally-Retarded and Physically-Defective Children,” M. M. Pistrak, ed., Obshchestvenno-politicheskoe vospitanie umstvenno-otstalykh i fizicheski-defektivnkh detei (M.-L.: GIZ, 1930).
131 See F. Galton, “Experiments in Pangenesis,” Proceedings of the Royal Society, 1871, 19: 393-410.
132 The main apostles of this value system — Nikolai Chernyshevskii, Nikolai Dobroliubov, and Dmitrii Pisarev — became the “cultural heroes” of the foundational myths generated by both the Russian intelligentsia and the Bolsheviks. Lenin’s numerous pronouncements on the subject, endlessly reproduced during the 1920s and beyond, placed Chernyshevskii, Dobroliubov, and Pisarev in the pantheon of the Russian Revolution as the rightful successors to the Decembrists and Alexander Herzen, and the predecessors (via narodniki) of the Bolsheviks themselves. See, for instance, Lenin’s articles “What Legacy Do We Reject?” (1897); “What is To Be Done?” (1902); “On the Occasion of a Jubilee” (1911); “To Herzen’s Memory” (1912); and many others.
133 Kol’tsov, “Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody,” p. 20.
134 See P. I. Liublinskii, “Evgenicheskie tendentsii i noveishee zakonodatel’stvo o detiakh,” REZh, 1925, 3(1): 3-29; idem, “Brak i evgenika (O kontrole nad zdorov’em lits, vstupaiushchikh v brak),” REZh, 1927, 5(2): 49-89; R. Bravaia, “Mal’tuziantsy XX veka,” Zhurnal po izucheniiu rannego detskogo vozrasta, 1928, 7(1): 63-69; Z. O. Michnik, “Soznatel’noe materinstvo i regulirovanie detorozhdeniia,” ibid., 70-76; N. I. Mikulina-Ivanova, “Brak i evgenika: O kontrole nad zdorov’em lits, vstupaiushchikh v brak,” Zhenskii zhurnal, 1929, 1: 22; and P. Rokitskii, “Evgenika i brak.” ibid., 1930, 6: 18.
135 Galton, “Eugenics: Its Definition, Scope and Aims,” p. 45.
136 Galton, “Probability, The Foundation of Eugenics,” p. 81.
137 M. Gremiatskii, “Evgenika,” Malaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia (M.: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1936), vol. 3, pp. 150-52.
138 See G. A. Batkis, Sotsial’naia gigiena. Sanitarnoe sostoianie naseleniia i sanitarnaia statistika (M.-L.: Biomedgiz, 1936), pp. 273-89 (pp. 277-78).
139 The history of human genetics in Russia has attracted considerable attention and generated substantial literature. See, for instance, Mark B. Adams, “The Politics of Human Heredity in the USSR, 1920-1940,” Genome, 1989, 31: 879-84; idem, “The Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” in Loren R. Graham, ed., Science and the Soviet Social Order (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1990), pp. 94-138; and idem, Garland E. Allen, and Sheila F. Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics: A Comparative Institutional Study of the Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor (United States), the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute for Anthropology, Human Heredity, and Eugenics (Germany), and the Maxim Gorky Medical Genetics Institute (USSR),” Osiris, 2005, 20: 232-62. See also numerous Russian language studies, such as V. V. Babkov, “Meditsinskaia genetika v SSSR,” Vestnik RAN, 2001, 71(10): 928-37; idem, “Moskva, 1934: Rozhdenie meditsinskoi genetiki,” Vestnik VOGIS, 2006, 10(3): 455-78; idem, Zaria genetiki cheloveka; M. B. Konashev, “Ot evgeniki k meditsinskoi genetike,” Rossiiskii biomeditsinskii zhurnal, 2002, 3, http://www.medline.ru/public/art/tom3/eumedgen.phtml; M. D. Golubovskii, “Stanovlenie genetiki cheloveka,” Priroda, 2012, 10: 53-63; R. A. Fando, Stanovlenie othechestvennoi genetiki cheloveka. Na perekrestke nauki i politiki (M.: Maks-Press, 2013); and many others. Alas, with the exception of the last book, all other historical works focus almost exclusively on the history of medical genetics research and institutions in Moscow and, to a lesser extent, Leningrad, passing over in silence important developments in other centers, such as Kazan and Kharkov. Furthermore, despite the existence of this voluminous literature, the history of Russian human genetics is either misrepresented or altogether ignored in the general histories of human and medical genetics available in English. See Diane B. Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press, 1995); Robert G. Resta and Diane B. Paul, eds., Historical Aspects of Medical Genetics, a special issue of the American Journal of Medical Genetics, 2002, 115(2): 73-110; Peter S. Harper, A Short History of Medical Genetics (New York: Oxford University Press, 2008); Bernd Gausemeier, Saffan Muller-Wille, and Edmund Ramsden, eds., Human Heredity in the Twentieth Century (London: Pickering and Chatto, 2013); and Petermann, Harper, and Doetz, eds., History of Human Genetics.
140 The same year, Serebrovskii became chairman of the first genetics department at Moscow University and chairman of the genetics department at the Narkomzem Institute of Animal Breeding, which perhaps also contributed to his move away from research in human genetics.
141 S. Levit, “Chelovek kak geneticheskii ob”ekt i izuchenie bliznetsov kak metod antropogenetiki,” Trudy geneticheskogo otdeleniia pri Mediko-biologicheskom institute, 2, published as a special issue of Mediko-biologicheskii zhurnal, 1930, 4-5: 273-87, [Babkov, pp. 566-76]. All the subsequent quotations are from this source. For the tables of contents of the four volumes of the MBI’s Proceedings, see Babkov, pp. 621-24.
142 The term “Phänogenetik” was coined in 1918 by the one-time student of August Weismann, Halle University zoology professor Valentin Haecker, Entwicklungsgeschichtliche Eigenschaftsanalyse: (Phänogenetik): gemeinsame Aufgaben der Entwicklungsgeschichte, Vererbungs- und Rassenlehre (Jena: Fisher, 1918). On Haecker, see Uwe Hosfeld, Elizabeth Watts, and Georgy S. Levit, “Valentin Haecker (1864–1927) as a Pioneer of Phenogenetics: Building the Bridge Between Genotype and Phenotype,” Epigenetics, 2017, 12(4): 247-53. For a detailed historical analysis of the development of phenogenetics, see K. B. Sokolova, Razvitie fenogenetiki v pervoi polovine XX veka (M.: Nauka, 1998); for a brief English-language overview of Russian contributions to the field, see Leonid I. Korochkin, Boris V. Konyukhov, and Alexander T. Mikhailov, “From Genes to Development: Phenogenetic Contributions to Developmental Biology in Soviet Russia from 1917 to 1967,” International Journal of Developmental Biology, 1997, 4: 763-70.
143 On the Rockefeller fellowships for Russian scientists and physicians, see Susan G. Solomon and Nikolai Krementsov, “Giving and Taking Across Borders: The Rockefeller Foundation and Soviet Russia, 1919-1928,” Minerva, 2001, 3: 265-98.
144 Muller apprised his Russian colleagues of the remarkable progress the Morgan group had made during the last ten years and presented them a large collection of Drosophila stocks he brought from the United States. See G. G. Meller [H. J. Muller], “Rezul’taty desiatiletnikh geneticheskikh issledovanii s Drosophila,” Uspekhi eksperimental’noi biologii, 1923, 1: 292-21; for Muller’s description of his trip, see H. J. Muller, “Observations of Biological Science in Russia,” Scientific Monthly, 1923, 16: 539-52. For a voluminous biography of Muller, see Elof Axel Carson, Genes, Radiation and Society: The Life and Work of H. J. Muller (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1981). Alas, this biography glosses over both Muller’s involvement with eugenics and his relations to Soviet Russia and socialist ideas.
145 See a letter from the RF officer Daniel O’Brian to Serebrovskii, of 11 February 1931, in ARAN, f. 1595, op. 1, d. 377, l. 101; and Levit’s report on his fellowship in GARF, f. A2307, op. 19, d. 241, ll. 2-5. Isaak Agol, another active “materialist-biologist” who had converted to genetics under Serebrovskii’s tutelage also received an RF fellowship, which he took together with Levit at Muller’s lab in Texas, see his report in GARF, f. A2307, op. 19, d. 232, ll. 4-7.
146 See A. Serebrovskii, “Chetyre stranitsy, kotorye vzvolnovali uchenyi mir,” Pravda, 11 September 1927, p. 5. The title of the article, “Four Pages that Shook the Scientific World,” alluded to the title of the famous book about the Bolshevik Revolution by John Reed, Ten Days that Shook the World (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1919).
147 See, H. J. Muller, “Mutation,” in Eugenics, Genetics and the Family: Scientific Papers of the Second International Congress of Eugenics (Baltimore, MD: Williams and Wilkins, 1923), vol. 1, pp. 106-12. On Muller’s involvement with eugenics, see Garland E. Allen, “Biology and Culture: Science and Society in the Eugenic Thought of H. J. Muller,” BioScience, 1970, 20(6): 346-53; Diane B. Paul, “Eugenics and the Left,” Journal of the History of Ideas, 1984, 45(4): 567-90; and Elof Axel Carlson, “Eugenics and Basic Genetics in H. J. Muller’s Approach to Human Genetics,” History and Philosophy of the Life Sciences, 1987, 9(1): 57-78.
148 On Davenport and his genetics department, see Jan A. Witkowski, The Road to Discovery: A Short History of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (Cold Spring Harbor, NY: Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press, 2016).
149 [S. Levit], “Ot redaktora,” Trudy mediko-biologicheskogo instituta (M.-L.: Biomedgiz, 1934), vol. 3, p. i.
150 See S. Levit, “Darvinizm, rasovyi shovinizm i sotsial-fashizm,” in Valeskaln and Tokin, eds., Uchenie Darvina i marksizm-leninizm, pp. 107-25.
151 G. I. Meller [H. J. Muller], “Evgenika v usloviiakh kapitalisticheskogo obshchestva,” Uspekhi sovremennoi biologii, 1933, 2(3): 3-11; for the English language original, see H. J. Muller, “The Dominance of Economics over Eugenics,” Scientific Monthly, 1933, 37: 44-47.
152 G. Meller [H. J. Muller], “Evgenika na sluzhbe natsional-sotsializma,” Priroda, 1934, 1: 100-6.
153 See also H. J. Muller, “Lenin’s Doctrines in Relation to Genetics,” in Pamiati V. I. Lenina (M.: Partizdat, 1934), pp. 565-92. The article has been reprinted in Graham, Science and Philosophy in the Soviet Union, pp. 453-69.
154 See Konferentsiia po meditsinskoi genetike. Doklady i preniia, issued as a supplement to the journal Sovetskaia klinika, 1934, 20(7-8); all the subsequent quotations are from this source.
155 See Todes, Ivan Pavlov.
156 See, for instance, S. G. Levit and S. N. Ardashnikov, eds., Trudy Mediko-geneticheskogo nauchno- issledovatel’skogo instituta imeni Maksima Gorkogo (M.-L.: Biomedgiz, 1936), vol. 4; N. N. Anichkov, ed. Nevrologiia i genetika (M.-L.: VIEM, 1936), vol. 1; and S. N. Davidenkov, ed., Nevrologiia i genetika (M.-L.: VIEM, 1936), vol. 2.
157 See, for instance, a report on a 1935 visit to Moscow and Levit’s IMG by the secretary of Eugenics Review E. A. Palmer, in “Notes of the Quarter,” Eugenics Review, 1935, 27(3): 187-88.
158 See, for instance, S. G. Levit and N. N. Malkova, “A New Mutation in Man: Haemophilia-a,” Journal of Heredity, 1930, 21(2): 73-78; S. Levit, “On the Heredity of Atheroma,” ibid., 1931, 22(3): 3-5; idem, “Twin investigations in the USSR,” Character and Personality, 1935, 3: 188-93; S. G. Levit, S. G. Ginsburg, V. S. Kalinin, and R. G. Feinberg, “Immunological Detection of the Y-chromosome in Drosophilia Melanogaster,” Nature, 1936, 139: 78-79; V. V. Bunak, “Changes in the Mean Values of Characters in Mixed Populations,” Annals of Eugenics, 1936, 7(3): 195-206; and many others.
159 For a detailed history of the Seventh International Genetics Congress, see Nikolai Krementsov, International Science between the World Wars: The Case of Genetics (London: Routledge, 2005).
160 H. J. Muller, Out of the Night. A Biologist’s View of the Future (New York: Gollancz, 1935). See a contemporary review of the book by an eminent US geneticist, P. W. Whiting, “Communist Eugenics: Review of a Preview of a Possible Tomorrow for Human Society,” Journal of Heredity, 1936, 27(3): 132-35.
161 Mark B. Adams found a draft of Muller’s letter to Stalin among Muller’s papers, see Adams, “Eugenics in Russia,” in idem, ed., The Wellborn Science, p. 195. A Russian translation of the letter has been found in Stalin’s personal archive, see “Pis’mo Germana Miollera — I. V. Stalinu,” VIET, 1997, 1: 65-78. The English text was published in John Glad, “Hermann J. Muller’s 1936 letter to Stalin,” Mankind Quarterly, 2003, 43(3): 305-20. The following quotations from Muller’s letter are given from the English original located in the Lilly Library of the University of Indiana (Bloomington), Muller MSS, Writings, Box 3, Folder 1936.
162 For details on Muller’s further development of these ideas, see Chapter 8.
163 “Notes of the Quarter,” Eugenics Review, 1935, 27(3): 188.
164 Charles Davenport to the Secretary of State, 17 December 1936. APS, Davenport Papers.
165 For details, see Adams, Allen, and Weiss, “Human Heredity and Politics,” pp. 232-62; and Krementsov, “Eugenics, Rassenhygiene, and Human Genetics in the late 1930s,” in Solomon, ed., Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia between the Wars, pp. 369-404.
166 See, for instance, G. I. Petrov, Rasovaia teoriia na sluzhbe u fashizma (M.-L.: Sotsekizdat, 1934); E. A. Finkel’shtein, “Evgenika i fashizm,” in Rassovaia teoriia na sluzhbe fashizma (Kiev: Medizdat, 1935), pp. 37-88; Z. A. Gurevich, “Fashizm, ‘rasovaia gigiena’ i meditsina,” in ibid., pp. 89-125.
167 G. Frizen, “Genetika i fashizm,” PZM, 1935, 3: 86-95.
168 E. Kol’man, “Chernosotennyi bred fashizma i nasha mediko-biologicheskaia nauka,” PZM, 1936, 11: 64-72.
169 L. Karlik, “Trudy Mediko-geneticheskogo instituta im. M. Gor’kogo,” PZM, 1936, 12: 169-86.
170 See, Anon., “Po lozhnomu puti,” Pravda, 26 December 1936, p. 4.
171 For the meeting’s transcripts, see GARF, f. R8009, op. 1, d. 113.
172 For details, see Krementsov, International Science; and idem, “Eugenics, Rassenhygiene, and Human Genetics”.
173 See “Men and Мice at Edinburgh,” Journal of Heredity, 1939, 30: 371-74. All the subsequent quotations are from this source. The text of the “manifesto” also appeared in Nature, see “Social Biology and Population Improvement,” Nature, 1939, 144: 521-22. For a detailed analysis of Muller’s role in preparing the manifesto, see Krementsov, International Science, pp. 121-22.
174 The original signatories were F. A. Crew, J. B. S. Haldane, S. C. Harland, L. Hogben, J. S. Huxley, H. J. Muller, and J. Needham. Additional signatures were those of G. P. Child, P. R. David, G. Dahlberg, Th. Dobzhansky, R. A. Emerson, John Hammond, C. L. Huskins, W. Landauer, H. H. Plough, E. Price, J. Schultz, A. G. Steinberg, and C. H. Waddington.
175 For details, see Krementsov, “Printsip konkurentnogo iskliucheniia,” pp. 107-64; and idem, Stalinist Science.
176 For published materials on the conference, see M. Mitin, “Za peredovuiu sovetskuiu geneticheskuiu nauku,” PZM, 1939, 10: 147-76; and V. Kolbanovskii, “Spornye voprosy genetiki i selektsii (Obshchii obzor soveshchaniia),” PZM, 1939, 11: 86-126. For the English translations of the three main speeches at the conference by Vavilov, Lysenko, and the PZM editor-in-chief Mitin, see “Genetics in the Soviet Union: Three Speeches from the 1939 Conference on Genetics and Selection,” Science and Society, 1940, 4(3): 183-233.
177 Kolbanovskii, “Spornye voprosy genetiki i selektsii,” p. 116.
178 See, the Russian State Archive of Socio-Political History (hereafter RGASPI), f. 71, op. 3, d. 109, ll. 291-80, (l. 287).
179 See Peter Pringle, The Murder of Nikolai Vavilov (New York: Simon and Schuster, 2011).
180 For a detailed description of the establishment of the new institution and its operations in the immediate post-World-War-II years, see Nikolai Krementsov, The Cure: A Story of Cancer and Politics from the Annals of the Cold War (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2002), pp. 56-62.
181 S. N. Davidenkov, Evoliutsionno-geneticheskie problemy v nevropatologii (L.: GIDUV, 1947).
182 Ibid., p. 94. Here Davidenkov cited the 1875 Russian edition of Hereditary Genius.
183 The literature on the so-called Lysenko affair is vast. For recent overviews, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science; Nils Roll-Hansen, The Lysenko Effect: The Politics of Science (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 2005); William deJong-Lambert, The Cold War Politics of Genetic Research: An Introduction to the Lysenko Affair (Dordrecht: Springer, 2012); for an overview of available historical research on the subject, see Nikolai Krementsov and William deJong-Lambert, “Lysenkoism Redux,” in William deJong-Lambert and Nikolai Krementsov, eds., The Lysenko Controversy as a Global Phenomenon (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), vol. 1, pp. 1-34.
184 A. N. Studitskii, “Mukholiuby-chelovekonenavistniki,” Ogonek, 1949, 11: 14-16.
185 See, Anon, “Gal’ton, Fransis,” BSE, 1952, 10: 179; Anon, “Genetika,” ibid., 10: 430-38; and Anon., “Evgenika,” ibid., 15: 372-73.
186 See, for instance, M. V. Volotskoi, “Sluchai nasledstvennoi anomalii pigmentatsii zubov v sviazi s problemoi tsertatsii u cheloveka,” in Davidenkov, ed., Nevrologiia i genetika, vol. 2, pp. 277-86; and idem, “K voprosu o genetike papiliarnykh uzorov pal’tsev,” in Levit and Ardashnikov, eds., Trudy mediko-geneticheskogo instituta, pp. 404-39.
187 See Zhurnal’naia letopis’ gosudarstvennoi tsentral’noi knizhnoi palaty, 1926-39.
Chapter 7
1 See, for instance, Conway Zirkle, ed., Death of a Science in Russia: The Fate of Genetics as Described in “Pravda” and Elsewhere (Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949); and Michael I. Lerner, Genetics in the USSR: An Obituary (Vancouver: University of British Columbia, 1950).
2 For details, see Mark B. Adams, “Genetics and the Soviet Scientific Community, 1948-1965,” doctoral dissertation, Harvard University, 1972; idem., “Biology After Stalin: A Case Study,” Survey: A Journal of East and West Studies, 1977-78, 23: 53-80; and idem., Networks in Action (Trondheim: Trondheim Studies on East European Cultures and Societies, 2000).
3 For the full text of the report, see N. S. Khrushchev, “O kul’te lichnosti i ego posledstviiakh,” Izvestiia TsK KPSS, 1989, 3: 128-70; an English translation appeared in The New York Times on 5 June 1956, p. 13; its text is also available online at numerous sites, see https://www.marxists.org/archive/khrushchev/1956/02/24.htm.
4 See S. V. Shalimov, “Razvitie genetiki v Novosibirskom nauchnom tsentre vo vtoroi polovine 1960-kh gg.: Sotsial’no-istoricheskii aspect,” Istoriko-biologicheskie issledovaniia, 2013, 5(1): 16-32. For the history of Akademgorodok in English, see Paul R. Josephson, New Atlantis Revisited: Akademgorodok, the Siberian City of Science (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1997).
5 On Beliaev’s life and works, see a volume of memoirs by his colleagues and family, V. K. Shumnyi, ed., Dmitrii Konstantinovich Beliaev: Kniga vospominanii (Novosibirsk: “Geo,” 2002); for a brief history of the institute, see N. A. Kupershtokh, “Institut tsitologii i genetiki Sibirskogo otdeleniia RAN,” Vestnik RAN, 2009, 79 (6): 546-55; for a lively popular account of Beliaev’s personal research interests, see Lee Alan Dugatkin and Lyudmila Trut, How to Tame a Fox (and Build a Dog): Visionary Scientists and a Siberian Tale of Jump-Started Evolution (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2017).
6 See, for instance, a detailed but rather self-aggrandizing account of the controversy in N. P. Dubinin, Vechnoe dvizhenie, 2nd ed. (M.: Politizdat, 1975). The book, titled Perpetual Motion, went through several successive editions and was dubbed by Dubinin’s opponents, “Perpetual Self-Promotion.” For a detailed historical account of the controversy, see Adams, “Soviet Nature-Nurture Debate,” pp. 94-138.
7 For a detailed examination of how exactly the AMN dealt with Lysenko’s takeover of biological research in 1948, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science, pp. 191-254.
8 S. N. Davidenkov, “Genetika meditsinskaia,” BME, 1958, 6: 841-55.
9 See V. P. Efroimson, “Osnovnye dostizheniia meditsinskoi genetiki i ee neotlozhnye zadachi,” Vestnik AMN SSSR, 1962, 17 (7): 74-82.
10 See, for instance, P. B. Gofman-Kadochnikov, Dve lektsii po meditsinskoi genetike (M.: n. p., 1961); and V. P. Efroimson, Vvedenie v meditsinskuiu genetiku (M.: Meditsina, 1964).
11 See, for instance, Dzh. Nil’ and U. Shell, Nasledstvennost’ u cheloveka (M.: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoi literatury, 1958); for the English original, see James V. Neel and William Shull, Human Heredity (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1954); R. Vagner i G. Mitchell, Genetika i obmen veshchestv (M.: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoi literatury, 1958); for the English original, see Robert P. Wagner and Herschel K. Mitchell, Genetics and Metabolism (New York: Willey; London: Chapman, 1955); Sh. Auerbakh, Genetika v atomnom veke (M.: Atomizdat, 1959); for the English original, see Charlotte Auerbach, Genetics in the Atomic Age (Edinburgh: Oliver and Boyd, 1956).
12 S. N. Davidenkov and V. P. Efroimson, “Nasledstvennost’ cheloveka,” BME, 1961, 19: 1009-65.
13 See Vestnik AMN SSSR, 1962, 17(12).
14 See Michael D. Gordin, “Lysenko Unemployed: Soviet Genetics after the Aftermath,” Isis, 2018, 109(1): 56-78.
15 S. I. Alikhanian, ed., Aktual’nye voprosy sovremennoi genetiki (M.: MGU, 1966). Given the paucity of textbooks on genetics, this collection of essays was often used as a “textbook” by young biologists in the USSR in the 1960s and 1970s.
16 See G. Mendel’, Opyty nad rastitel’nymi gibridami (M.: Nauka, 1965). Furthermore, three years later, yet another edition of Mendel’s Selected Works appeared under the auspices of the AMN publishing house, while a fictionalized biography of Mendel’s came out in the popular series “The Lives of Remarkable People,” see G. Mendel’, Izbrannye raboty (M.: Meditsina, 1968); and B. G. Volodin, Mendel’: (Vita alterna) (M.: Molodaia gvardiia, 1968).
17 See M. Popovskii, “Tysiacha dnei akademika Vavilova,” Prostor (Alma-Ata), 1966, 7-8; and S. Reznik, Nikolai Vavilov (M.: Molodaia gvardiia, 1968).
18 By that time the institute had been renamed the Institute of Developmental Biology. On Astaurov’s life and career see, O. G. Stroeva, ed., Boris L’vovich Astaurov. Ocherki, vospominaniia, materialy (M.: Nauka, 2004).
19 See Konferentsiia po meditsinskoi genetike. Doklady i preniia, Sovetskaia klinika, 1934, 20(7-8): Supplement.
20 Bochkov described his path to genetics in a popular book, titled Genes and Fates, see Bochkov, Geny i sud′by (M.: Molodaia gvardiia, 1990). For telling details on Bochkov’s appointment and the creation of the institute, see the transcript of Peter Harper’s interview with Bochkov conducted on 27 May 2005, https://genmedhist.eshg.org/fileadmin/content/.../interviewees.../Bochkov%20N.pdf.
21 See V. P. Efroimson, “K istorii izucheniia genetiki cheloveka v SSSR,” Genetika, 1967, 10: 114-27.
22 See V. P. Efroimson, Vvedenie v meditsinskuiu genetiku (M.: Meditsina, 1964).
23 See, for instance, E. N. Pavlovskii and P. S. Pervomaiskii, “Ob eksperimental’nom izmenenii nasledovaniia okraski u krolika,” Izvestiia AN SSSR, ser. Biologiia, 1949, 6: 702-08. For a Soviet era, laudatory biography of Pavlovskii, see N. P. Prokhorova, Akademik E. N. Pavlovskii (M.: Meditsina, 1972).
24 See E. Pavlovskii, “Evgenika,” BME, 1959, 9: 961-67.
25 See V. Polynin, Mama, papa i ia (M.: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1967). For a brief sketch of Blanter’s work in the journal, see O. O. Astakhova and O. I. Shutova, “O prirode ‘Prirody’,” Priroda, 2012, 1: 3-10.
26 Polynin, Mama, papa i ia, pp. 182, 293-300.
27 He would slightly expand this very impoverished portrayal of early Soviet eugenics in a fictionalized biography of Kol’tsov published two years later, see V. Polynin, Prorok v svoem otechestve (M.: Sovetskaia Rossiia, 1969), pp. 10-13.
28 B. Astaurov, “Predislovie,” in Polynin, Mama, papa i ia, pp. 5-11. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
29 See I. I. Kanaev, Frensis Gal’ton, 1822-1911 (L.: Nauka, 1972). In 2000 the book was reprinted in a volume of Kanaev’s Selected Works on the History of Biology. See I. I. Kanaev, “Frensis Gal’ton (1822-1911),” in idem, Izbrannye trudy po istorii nauki (SPb.: Aleteiia, 2000), pp. 356-475.
30 See, for instance, N. A. Pan’kov, “Gete v Saranske. Pis’ma M. M. Bakhtina k I. I. Kanaevu,” Dialog. Karnaval. Khronotop, 1999, 3: 79-97; Ben Taylor, “Kanaev, Vitalism and the Bakhtin Circle,” in David Shepherd, Craig Brandist, and Galin Tihanov, eds., The Bakhtin Circle: In the Master’s Absence (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2004), pp. 150-66; Iu. P. Medvedev and D. A. Medvedeva, “Trudy i dni kruga M. M. Bakhtina,” Zvezda, 2008, 7, http://magazines.russ.ru/zvezda/2008/7/me14.html; and many others.
31 For a brief biography of Kanaev, see K. V. Manoilenko, “I. I. Kanaev i ego rol’ v razvitii evoliutsionnoi biologii,” in Kanaev, Izbrannye trudy, pp. 7-16; and idem, “Biolog-evoliutsionist I. I. Kanaev kak istorik nauki,” in Russkaia nauka v biograficheskikh ocherkakh (SPb.: Dmitrii Bulanin, 2003), pp. 129-36.
32 The following biographical information comes from Kanaev’s “autobiography” and other materials preserved in his personnel file held at the St. Petersburg Branch of the ARAN, f. 806, op. 2, d. 259.
33 See I. I. Kanaev, “Iz istorii biologii v Leningrade v nachale 20-kh godov,” Nauka i tekhnika (voprosy istorii i teorii), 1972, 7(2): 44-46; see also L. Z. Kaidanov, “Formirovanie kafedry genetiki i eksperimental’noi zoologii v Petrogradskom Universitete (1913-1920),” Issledovaniia po genetike, 1994, 11: 6-12.
34 See, for instance, I. I. Kanaev, Nasledstvennost’: Nauchno-populiarnyi ocherk (L.: Priboi, 1925).
35 Kanaev’s magnum opus on the subject appeared in 1952 and was translated into English in 1969, see I. I. Kanaev, Hydra: Essays on the Biology of Fresh Water Polyps (Irving, CA.: Howard M. Lenhoff, 1969).
36 See, for instance, I. Kanajew [Kanaev], “Über den Porus aboralis bei Pelmatohydra oligactis Pall.,” Zoologischer Anzeiger, 1928, 76: 37-44.
37 In 1930, as part of the sweeping reorganizations of the Great Break, all medical schools were separated from universities and re-constituted as independent teaching facilities.
38 For details, see Todes, Ivan Pavlov.
39 See I. P. Pavlov, Dvadtsatiletnii opyt ob”ektivnogo izucheniia vysshei nervnoi deiatel’nosti (povedeniia) zhivotnykh (L.: GIZ, 1923).
40 On Pavlov’s flirtation with Lamarckism and its consequences, see Krementsov, “Marxism, Darwinism, and Genetics,” pp. 225-28.
41 See N. K. Kol’tsov, “I. P. Pavlov: Trud zhizni velikogo biologa,” Biologicheskii zhurnal, 1936, 5(3): 387-402.
42 Some of Krasnogorskii’s experiments with conditional reflexes in children had been recorded in the famous 1926 film, Mechanics of the Brain. An abridged copy of the film with English subtitles is available at http://vimeo.com/20583313.
43 See I. I. Kanaev, “Izuchenie bliznetsov, kak geneticheskii metod,” Priroda, 1934, 12: 37-45; idem, “Opyt izucheniia uslovnykh refleksov u odnoiaitsevykh bliznetsov,” Arkhiv biologicheskikh nauk, 1934, 34(5-6): 569-77; and idem, “Dal’neishee izuchenie fiziologicheskoi deiatel’nosti mozga u odnoiaitsevykh bliznetsov,” ibid., 1936, 44(1): 12-42.
44 See I. I. Kanaev, “Bezuslovnye sliunnye refleksy u chelovecheskikh bliznetsov,” Doklady Akademii nauk SSSR, 1939, 25(3): 255-58; idem, “Spontannaia sliunnaia sekretsiia u chelovecheskikh bliznetsov,” ibid.: 252-54; idem, “Uslovnye sliunnye refleksy u chelovecheskikh bliznetsov,” ibid.: 259-60; idem, “K voprosu o podvizhnosti uslovnykh refleksov u bliznetsov,” ibid., 1941, 30(9): 851-53; and idem, “Sliunnye refleksy u bliznetsov,” Priroda, 1940, 11: 81-85. See also I. I. Kanaev, “Genetika i embriologiia papiliarnykh risunkov chelovecheskikh pal’tsev,” Priroda, 1935, 4: 37-47; and idem, “Physiology of the Brain in Twins,” Character and Personality, 1938, 6(3): 177-87.
45 I. I. Kanaev, “Eksperimental’naia genetika vysshei nervnoi deiatel’nosti,” Uspekhi sovremennoi biologii, 1948, 25(1): 149-55.
46 For details, see N. L. Krementsov, “Ot sel’skogo khoziaistva do … meditsiny,” in Repressirovannaia nauka (L.: Nauka, 1991), vol. 1, pp. 91-116.
47 See, for instance, I. I. Kanaev, “K izucheniiu nervnykh protsessov pri dvigatel’nykh reaktsiiakh ruk u detei,” Fiziologicheskii zhurnal SSSR, 1954, 40(1): 9-17; and idem, “Materialy k fiziologii otscheta vremeni det’mi,” ibid., 1956, 42(4): 341-47.
48 For instance, he was one of the nearly 300 signatories to the famous letter detailing the detrimental effects of Lysenko’s monopoly on the development of Soviet science sent in 1955 by leading biologists, physicists, chemists, and mathematicians to the Central Committee of the Communist Party. See, L. G. Dubinina and I. F. Zhimulev, “K 50-letiiu ‘Pis’ma trekhsot’,” Vestnik VOGiS, 2005, 9(1): 12-33.
49 On the history of this institution and Kanaev’s work there, see E. I. Kolchinskii, Istoriko-nauchnoe soobshchestvo v Leningrade-Sankt-Peterburge v 1950-2010 gody: liudi, traditsii, sversheniia (SPb.: Nestor-Istoriia, 2013).
50 See, I. I. Kanaev, “Gete-naturalist,” in I. V. Gete, Izbrannye sochineniia po estestvoznaniiu (M.: Izd. AN SSSR, 1957), pp. 418-87.
51 I. I. Kanaev, Bliznetsy. Ocherki po voprosam mnogoplodiia (M.-L.: Izd. AN SSSR, 1959).
52 Many, but not all of these articles were reprinted in the volume of his “selected works,” see Kanaev, Izbrannye trudy, pp. 17-338. A bibliography of Kanaev’s publications on the history of biology is appended to the same volume, see “Trudy I. I. Kanaeva,” in Kanaev, Izbrannye trudy, pp. 488-91.
53 For an interesting comparison of these visions, see John Griffiths, Three Tomorrows: American, British and Soviet Science Fiction (London: Macmillan, 1980).
54 See Gordon Wolstenholme, ed., Man and his Future (Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Co, 1963), https://archive.org/details/manhisfutureciba00wols. For a detailed analysis of the symposium and its role in the formation of new eugenics, see the next chapter.
55 On “new” eugenics, see Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; R. A. Soloway, “From Mainline to Reform Eugenics – Leonard Darwin and C. P. Blacker,” in Peel, ed., Essays in the History of Eugenics, pp. 52-80; Paul, The Politics of Heredity; Pauline Mazumdar, “‘Reform’ Eugenics and the Decline of Mendelism,” Trends in Genetics, 2002, 18(1): 48-52; and Comfort, The Science of Human Perfection. For a more detailed discussion of “new” eugenics, see the next chapter.
56 See, for instance, Anon., “Glubzhe razrabatyvat’ metodologicheskie problemy biologii,” Voprosy filosofii, 1964, 12: 25-32. This anonymous editorial, titled “To Deepen the Elaboration of the Methodological Problems of Biology,” inaugurated biologists’ direct attack on philosophers’ superficial “ideological” and “methodological” critiques of science, especially, genetics. The campaign was part of a much broader movement by Soviet scientists to get out from under the strict “ideological” control of the party-state apparatus and to limit interference by Marxist philosophers, who in the 1930s had become spokesmen of the apparatus in the scientific community, in the development of Soviet science. See Krementsov, Stalinist Science; and Adams, Networks.
57 See, for instance, Dzh. B. S. Kholdein, “O vozmozhnosti sotsial’nykh prilozhenii antropogenetiki,” in V. N. Stoletov, ed., Nauka o nauke (M.: Progress, 1966), pp. 179-87. This was a Russian translation of Haldane’s essay “The Proper Social Application of the Knowledge of Human Genetics” in the famous 1964 volume The Science of Science, edited by Maurice Goldsmith and Alan Mackay.
58 See, for instance, Ia. S. Iorish, “Budushchee biologii i obshchestvo,” Voprosy filosofii, 1966, 9: 169-77. For details on the symposium and the discussion, see the next chapter.
59 See an overview of the discussion in I. K. Liseev and A. Ia. Sharov, “Genetika cheloveka, ee filosofskie i sotsial’no-eticheskie problemy. Kruglyi stol ‘Voprosov filosofii’,” Voprosy filosofii, 1970, 7: 106-15; 8: 125-34.
60 On Neifakh and his contributions, see M. E. Aspiz, “Ob A. A. Neifakhe kak ob uchenom,” in A. A. Neifakh, Vzgliady, idei, razdum’ia (M.: Nauka, 2001), pp. 114-18.
61 Partially this discussion has been examined in Loren R. Graham, “Reasons to Studying Soviet Science: The Example of Genetic Engineering,” in Lubrano and Solomon, eds., Social Context of Soviet Science, pp. 205-40.
62 See, for instance, B. A. Nikitiuk, ed., Sootnoshenie biologicheskogo i sotsial’nogo v razvitii cheloveka (M.: n. p., 1974); V. M. Banshchikov, ed., Sootnoshenie biologicheskogo i sotsial’nogo v cheloveke (M.: n. p., 1975); B. F. Lomov, ed., Biologicheskoe i sotsial’noe v razvitii cheloveka (M.: Nauka, 1977); A. F. Polis, ed., Biologicheskoe i sotsial’noe v formirovanii tselostnoi lichnosti (Riga: LGU, 1977); V. V. Orlov, ed., Sotsial’noe i biologicheskoe (Perm: n. p., 1975); idem, ed., Sootnoshenie biologicheskogo i sotsial’nogo (Perm: PGU, 1981); and many others. The 1975 publication of Edward O. Wilson’s Sociobiology and extensive discussions it provoked in the West fueled these debates further. For an analysis of these later debates, see Yvonne Howell, “The Liberal Gene: Sociobiology as Emancipatory Discourse in the Late Soviet Union,” Slavic Review, 2010, 69(2): 356-76.
63 Compare, for instance, special brochures on “Genetics and the Future of Humanity” published in the aftermath of the discussion by Nikolai Dubinin, Genetika i budushchee chelovechestva (M.: Znanie, 1971) and Nikolai Bochkov, Progress obshchestva i genetika cheloveka (M.: Znanie, 1971). The brochures were issued in huge print runs of 100,000 copies each by the “All-Union Society Knowledge,” as preparatory material for the society’s cadres of lecturers and were distributed to the society’s local offices, as well as public libraries, all over the country. On the early history of the society, see Michael Froggatt, “Science in Propaganda and Popular Culture in the USSR under Khrushchev, 1953-1964,” doctoral dissertation, Oxford University, 2005; and James T. Andrews, “Inculcating Materialist Minds: Scientific Propaganda and Anti-Religion in the USSR during the Cold War,” in P. Betts and S. Smith, eds., Science, Religion and Communism in Cold War Europe (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), pp. 105-25.
64 The campaign also spread to literary and popular journals. For instance, in 1971, the leading journal New World carried a controversial article by Efroimson on the “Genealogy of Altruism: Ethics from the Viewpoint of Human Evolutionary Genetics,” see V. Evroimson, “Rodoslovnaia al’truizma (Etika s pozitsii evoliutsionnoi genetiki cheloveka), Novyi mir, 1971, 10: 193-213. The article sparked a prolonged debate in various periodicals; see Howell, “The Liberal Gene.”
65 For instance, in 1965 a special collection, under the revealing title “The Novelty in Science and the Problems of Preparing the Term-list for the Third Edition of the Great Soviet Encyclopedia,” was issued for discussions over the contents of the new edition. See Novoe v nauke i problemy podgotovki slovnika 3-go izdaniia BSE (M.: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1965).
66 With a short time lag, each volume of the entire encyclopedia was translated into English and published by Macmillan, see A. M. Prokhorov, ed., Great Soviet Encyclopedia, 30 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1973-1982).
67 M. G. Iaroshevskii, “Gal’ton, Frensis,” BSE, 1971, 6: 229-30.
68 Anon, “Gal’ton, Fransis,” BSE, 1952, 10: 179.
69 M. E. Lobashov and Iu. E. Vel’tishchev, “Evgenika,” BSE, 1971, 8: 584-85. All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
70 See E. F. Davidenkova, “Genetika meditsinskaia,” BSE, 1971, 6: 692-94.
71 See D. K. Beliaev, “Genetika,” BSE, 1971, 6: 677-91, and A. A. Prokof’eva-Bel’govskaia, K. N. Grinberg, “Genetika cheloveka,” ibid., 1971, 6: 700-03.
72 N. V. Glotov, A. A. Liapunov, and N. V. Timofeev-Resovskii, “Biometriia,” BSE, 1970, 3: 1061-62.
73 I. I. Kanaev and V. A. Pokrovskii, “Bliznetsy,” BSE, 1970, 3: 1249.
74 See a reference to Galton’s research in Kanaev’s first publication on the subject, I. Kanaev, “Izuchenie bliznetsov, kak geneticheskii metod,” Priroda, 1934, 12: 37-45.
75 Kanaev, Bliznetsy, p. 29.
76 See I. I. Kanaev, Bliznetsy i genetika (L.: Nauka, 1968), p. 49.
77 See I. I. Kanaev to Th. Dobzhansky, 10 February 1969. Theodosius Dobzhansky Papers, Mss. B. D65. Series I. Correspondence. Folder “Kanaev,” in APS (hereafter Dobzhansky Papers). Alas, the folder contains only six letters by Kanaev to Dobzhansky, but no copies of Dobzhansky’s letters to Kanaev, which so far remain unfound.
78 On Dobzhansky, see Mark B. Adams, ed., The Evolution of Theodosius Dobzhansky: His Life and Thought in Russia and America (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); and M. B. Konashev, Stanovlenie evoliutsionnoi kontseptsii F. G. Dobrzhanskogo (SPb.: Nestor-Istoriia, 2011). Kanaev’s letters to Dobzhansky have recently been published in M. B. Konashev and E. I. Kolchinksii, “‘… v SShA vsei genetikoi rukovodit russkii,’ (perepiska othechestvennykh biologov s F. G. Dobrzhanskim),” Istoriko-biologicheskie issledovaniia, 2010, 2(3): 116-41; Kanaev’s letters appear on pp. 132-35.
79 See I. I. Kanaev, Gete kak estestvoispytatel’ (L.: Nauka, 1970); idem, Ocherki iz istorii problem fiziologii tsvetogogo zreniia ot antichnosti do XX veka (L.: Nauka, 1971); and idem, Abraam Tramble (L.: Nauka, 1972).
80 Kanaev, Frensis Gal’ton, p. 5.
81 This rehabilitation was continued, albeit in a limited way, in the biographies of the two leaders of Soviet eugenics, Kol’tsov and Filipchenko, published in the 1970s by their students in the same series of “Scientific Biographies.” See B. L. Astaurov and P. F. Rokitskii, Nikolai Konstantinovich Kol’tsov (M.: Nauka, 1975); and N. N. Medvedev, Iurii Aleksandrovich Filipchenko (M.: Nauka, 1978). Each book had a short chapter on “human genetics” that actually discussed the involvement of their protagonists with eugenics.
82 P. F. Rokitskii, “Osnovopolozhnik genetiki cheloveka,” Priroda, 1973, 5: 116-18; all the subsequent quotations are from this source. See also a similarly praising review by M. Reidiboim, “U istokov genetiki cheloveka,” Defektologiia, 1973, 5: 87-90.
83 Kanaev, Frensis Gal’ton, p. 117.
84 He certainly knew of Volotskoi’s active involvement with eugenics and human genetics. In the book he referred to an article on twins that appeared in the Russian Eugenics Journal, as well as to Volotskoi’s contribution to the fourth volume of the IMG Proceedings.
85 Kanaev to Dobzhansky, 14 March 1969, Dobzhansky Papers.
86 I. I. Kanaev, “Na puti k meditsinskoi genetike,” Priroda, 1973, 1: 52-68. All the subsequent quotations are from this source and indicated in the text by page number in square brackets.
87 Kanaev’s main sources for Florinskii’s biography were the 1898 history of the IMSA gynecology department and Florinskii’s eulogy of Sergei Botkin, see Gruzdev, Istoricheskii ocherk kafedry akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei, pp. 214-41; and Florinskii, “Pamiati prof. S. P. Botkina,” 64-70. In his references Kanaev “renamed” Gruzdev into Gur’ev.
88 A copy of Florinskii’s book held in this library has numerous pencil marks on the margins indicating most of the cuts made by Volotskoi in the original text, which might have been left by Kanaev.
89 N. P. Bochkov, Genetika cheloveka (M.: Meditsina, 1978), pp. 11-12; see also idem, Geny i sud’by, p. 61.
90 N. P. Bochkov, “Meditsinskaia genetika,” BME, 1980, 14: 1092-98.
91 Iu. E. Vel’tishchev and B. V. Koniukhov, “Nasledstvennye bolezni,” BME, 1981, 16: 183-88.
92 See E. I. Gusev, “Genealogicheskii metod,” BME, 1977, 5: 720-31; N. P. Bochkov, E. T. Lil’in, and R. P. Martynova, “Bliznetsovyi metod,” ibid., 1976, 3: 718-27; and V. A. Alpatov and V. M. Akhutin, “Biometriia,” ibid., 1976, 3: 509-16.
93 N. E. Granat, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” BME, 1985, 26: 1034-35. The entry was a slightly expanded version of an unsigned article published in the previous edition, see Anon., “Florinskii Vasilii Markovich,” BME, 1963, 33: 854.
94 V. P. Bisiarina and M. S. Maslov, “Pediatriia,” BME, 1982, 18: 1301-19 (p. 1307).
95 In the early 1970s, Kanaev published brief accounts of research conducted at Levit’s Institute of Medical Genetics, which was clearly part of this project. See, I. I. Kanaev, “Antropogenetika i praktika,” Nauka i tekhnika: Vorposy istorii i teorii, 1971, 6: 169-72; and idem, “O rabotakh MGI im. M. Gor’kogo,” ibid., 1973, 8(2): 155-58.
96 Alas, I was unable to obtain a copy of the manuscript that reportedly is still kept in the family.
97 For concise depictions of the Brezhnev era, see William Tompson, The Soviet Union under Brezhnev (Harlow: Pearson/Longman, 2003); and Dina Fainberg and Artemy M. Kalinovsky, eds., Reconsidering Stagnation in the Brezhnev Era: Ideology and Exchange (London: Lexington, 2016).
98 Around the same time, Nikolai Medvedev, another student of Filipchenko, experienced similar difficulties in publishing a biography of his teacher. But he decided to compromise and agreed to rewrite and shorten the chapters dealing with eugenics, thus assuring that the biography would come out. For a new edition of Medvedev’s book, which contains the full text of the original 1976 manuscript, along with a vivid depiction of his negotiations with the publisher, see N. N. Medvedev, Iurii Aleksandrovich Filipchenko (M.: Nauka, 2006).
99 For a succinct overview of the war, see Mark Galeotti, Russia’s Wars in Chechnya 1994-2009 (Oxford: Osprey, 2014).
100 For informative introductions to political and economic developments in Russia, see Michael McFaul, Russia’s Unfinished Revolution: Political Change from Gorbachev to Putin (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001); David E. Hoffman, The Oligarchs: Wealth and Power in the New Russia (New York: Public Affairs, 2002); Neil Robinson, ed., The Political Economy of Russia (Toronto: Rowman and Littlefield, 2013); and Svetlana Stephenson, Gangs of Russia: From the Streets to the Corridors of Power (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2015).
101 See, for instance, Donald J. Raleigh, ed., Soviet Historians and Perestroika: The First Phase (London: Routledge, 1989).
102 On the demise of Soviet censorship in the late 1980s and early 1990s, see the published materials of seven conferences on “Censorship in Russia: History and the Present” held in St. Petersburg in the 1990s and 2000s, Tsenzura v Rossii: Istoriia i sovremennost’ (SPb.: n. p., 2001-2015), vols. 1-7.
103 See, for instance, four volumes of historical materials published during 1992-93 under the general title “Unknown Russia. XX century,” Neizvestnaia Rossiia. XX Vek: Arkhivy, Pis’ma, Memuary, 4 vols. (M.: Istoricheskoe nasledie, 1992-1993).
104 See M. B. Konashev, “Biuro po evgenike, 1922-1930,” Issledovaniia po genetike, 1994, 11: 22-28; D. A. Aleksandrov, “Osobennosti Petrograda-Leningrada kak tsentra razvitiia evgeniki,” Nauka i tekhnika: voprosy istorii i teorii, 1996, 10: 113-19; and V. V. Babkov, “Biologicheskie i sotsial’nye ierarkhii. Konteksty pis’ma G. G. Mellera I. V. Stalinu,” VIET, 1997, 1: 76-94.
105 For a brief account of Motkov’s life and work, see Iakov Pravdin, “Posviatil zhizn’ probleme uluchsheniia genofonda,” Chestnoe slovo (Kazan), 28 December 2016, http://chskaz.wixsite.com/index/170-09.
106 S. E. Motkov, “Vvedenie,” Sovetskaia evgenika, 1991, 1: 1-3 (p. 1).
107 See, for instance, S. Gershenzon and T. Buzhievskaia, “Evgenika: 100 let spustia,” Chelovek, 1996, 1: 23-29; and I. Frolov, “Nachalo puti (kratkie zametki o neoevgenike),” ibid., 1997, 1: 34-37.
108 For the transcript of the discussion, see “Ne khotim byt’ klonami (Problemy sovremennoi evgeniki),” Chelovek, 1996, 4: 22-33; 5: 21-37.
109 “Nauka, kotoraia sebia izzhila. Beseda s N. P. Bochkovym,” Chelovek, 1997, 2: 20-30. Both the materials of the round table and Bochkov’s assessment were included in a special volume put together by the journal’s editor-in-chief under the title Bioethics: Principles, Rules, Problems, see B. G. Iudin, ed., Bioetika: printsipy, pravila, problemy (M.: Editorial URSS, 1998).
110 See F. Gal’ton, Nasledstvennost’ talanta: Zakony i posledstviia (M.: Mysl’,1996).
111 I. I. Kanaev, “Frensis Gal’ton (1822-1911),” in idem, Izbrannye trudy po istorii nauki (SPb.: Aleteiia, 2000), pp. 356-475.
112 See V. V. Babkov, “Meditsinskaia genetika v SSSR,” Vestnik RAN, 2001, 71(10): 928-37; idem, “Moskva, 1934: Rozhdenie meditsinskoi genetiki,” Vestnik VOGIS, 2006, 10(3): 455-78; M. B. Konashev, “Ot evgeniki k meditsinskoi genetike,” Rossiiskii biomeditsinskii zhurnal, 2002, 3, http://www.medline.ru/public/art/tom3/eumedgen.phtml; E. B. Muzrukova, “Raboty Iu. A. Filipchenko i ego shkoly po izucheniiu nauchnogo soobshchestva Petrograda,” Sotsiokul’turnye problem nauki i tekhniki, 2006, 4: 32-42; E. B. Muzrukova and R. A. Fando, “Evgenicheskie raboty Iu. A. Filipchenko i A. S. Serebrovskogo,” Nauka i tekhnika v pervye desiatiletiia sovetskoi vlasti: sotsiokul’turnoe izmerenie (1917-1940) (M.: Academia, 2007), pp. 257-78; Iu. V. Khen, “Evgenika: osnovateli i prodolzhateli,” Chelovek, 2006, 3: 80-88; L. I. Korochkin, L. G. Romanova, “Genetika povedeniia cheloveka i evgenika,” ibid., 2007, 2: 32-43; A. M. Polishchuk, “Meditsinskaia genetika v Rossii,” Khimiia i zhizn’, 2010, 2: 44-51; and many others.
113 See, for instance, R. A. Fando, “Polemika o sud’be evgeniki,” VIET, 2002, 3: 604-17.
114 See V. Babkov, Zaria genetiki cheloveka (M.: Progress-Traditsiia, 2008).
115 E. V. Pchelov, ed., Rodoslovnaia genial’nosti: iz istorii otechestvennoi nauki 1920-kh gg. (M.: Staraia Basmannaia, 2008).
116 Fando, Proshloe nauki budushchego.
117 See R. A. Fando, “Tragicheskaia sud’ba othechestvennoi evgeniki,” in Nauka i tekhnika v pervye desiatiletiia sovetskoi vlasti: sotsiokul’turnoe izmerenie (1917-1940) (M.: Academia, 2007), pp. 279-305.
118 E. V. Iastrebov, Bibliografiia opublikovannykh trudov Vasiliia Markovicha Florinskogo (M.: n. p., 1992); idem, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii (Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo Universiteta, 1994); idem, Sto neizvestnykh pisem russkikh uchenykh i gosudarstvennykh deiatelei Vasiliiu Markovichu Florinskomu (Tomsk: Izd-vo Tomskogo Universiteta, 1995); and idem, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii v Peterburgskoi mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii (M.: MPU “Signal”, 1999).
119 See, for instance, a brief biography of his maternal grandfather in N. A. Medvedeva, “K biografii sviashchenika Rezhevskoi Ioanno-Predtecheskoi tserkvi Petra Ladyzhnikova,” in A. M. Britvin, ed., Pravoslavie na Urale (Ekaterinburg: Ural’skoe tserkovno-istoricheskoe obshchestvo, 2017), pp. 67-76.
120 Before the war, the Urals University did not have a geography department. On the early history of this university, see M. E. Glavatskii, Istoriia rozhdeniia Ural’skogo universiteta (Ekaterinburg: UrGU, 2000).
121 See his memoirs on the subject in E. V. Iastrebov, “O Borise Pavloviche Kolesnikove i pervykh shagakh deiatel’nosti komissii po okhrane prirody pri Ural’skom filiale Akademii nauk SSSR,” Izvestiia UrGU, 2002, 23: 158-68.
122 See, for instance, his popular publications, E. V. Iastrebov, Po reke Chusovoi, 2nd ed. (Sverdlovsk: Knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1963); and N. P. Arkhipova and E. V. Iastrebov, Kak byli otkryty Ural’skie gory (Perm’: Knizhnoe izdatel’stvo, 1971); the latter book has been reprinted three times.
123 A collection of Iastrebov’s personal papers deposited in the state archive of the Sverdlovsk region contains several unpublished manuscripts on his grandparents and other members of the extended family. See Gosudarstvennyi arkhiv sverdlovskoi oblasti (hereafter GASO), f. R-2787, op. 1 (1939-1999), 263 dd.
124 Iastrebov, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii, p. 6.
125 See GASO, f. R-2787, op. 1, d. 119, ll. 1-226.
126 See, for instance, David M. Woodruff, Money Unmade: Barter and the Fate of Russian Capitalism (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2000).
127 See the data on the series compiled in Z. K. Sokolovskaia and V. I. Sokolovskii, 550 knig ob uchenykh, inzhenerakh i izobretateliakh (M.: Nauka, 1999).
128 See V. A. Makarov, Ivan Timofeevich Glebov (M.: Nauka, 1995).
129 See V. P. Puzyrev, “Predislovie,” in Iastrebov, Sto neizvestnykh pisem, pp. 3-7.
130 Although his name as the actual publisher of the new edition does not figure in the book’s bibliographic record, several oblique statements in “preliminary materials” definitively point to his key role in its publication.
131 Iastrebov, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii, p. 130.
132 See a brief biography published on the occasion of his sixtieth birthday, “Puzyrev Valerii Pavlovish (k 60-letiui so dnia rozhdeniia),” Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal, 2007, 2: 141-42.
133 The following story is based to a certain degree on my correspondence and conversations with Valerii Puzyrev (in St. Petersburg in October 2016), as well as his recollections written at my request.
134 V. P. Puzyrev, “Kliniko-genealogicheskoe i biokhimicheskoe issledovanie nasledstvennoi predraspolozhennosti k aterosklerozu i ishemicheskoi bolezni serdtsa,” doctoral dissertation, Novosibirsk, 1977; some materials from this dissertation were included in a book on Heredity and Atherosclerosis that Puzyrev co-authored with a member of the Institute of Cytology and Genetics, see A. A. Dzizinskii and V. P. Puzyrev, Nasledstvennost’ i ateroskleroz (Novosibirsk: Nauka, 1977).
135 For a brief history of the institute, see its official website at http://www.medgenetics.ru/about/history.
136 Certain elements of this gigantic project, largely those carried out by the Moscow IMG, are described in Susanne Bauer, “Mutations in Soviet Public Health Science: Post-Lysenko Medical Genetics, 1969-1991,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2014, 30: 1-10; and idem, “Virtual Geographies of Belonging: The Case of Soviet and Post-Soviet Human Genetic Diversity Research,” Science, Technology, and Human Values, 2014, 39(4): 511-37.
137 See, for instance, V. P. Puzyrev, Mediko-geneticheskoe islledovanie naseleniia pripoliarnykh regionov (Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo Universiteta, 1991); idem, ed., Genetika cheloveka i patologiia (Tomsk: Izd. Tomskogo universiteta, 1992); and many others.
138 See Puzyrev’s correspondence with Iastrebov in GASO, f. R-2787, op. 1, d. 213, ll. 1-12.
139 See V. P. Puzyrev, “Granitsy chelovecheskoi zhizni (V. M. Florinskii: sovremennoe zvuchanie myslei uchenogo),” Krasnoe znamia, 21 September 1993, # 209; idem, “Podvizhnik nauki. 160 let so dnia rozhdeniia professor V. M. Florinskogo,” ibid., 30 March 1994, # 78; idem, “Professor V. M. Florinskii (k 160-letiiu so dnia rozhdeniia),” Nauka v Sibiri, 16 April 1994; idem, “Tomskii period zhizni i tvorchestva V. M. Florinskogo,” Vrach, 1994, 11: 47; idem, “V. M. Florinskii i ego evgenicheskie vzgliady na uluchshenie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda,” Genetika, 1994, 30, Prilozhenie: 129.
140 Iastrebov misdated the photograph as being taken in 1861.
141 See V. P. Puzyrev, “Evgenicheskie vzgliady V. M. Florinskogo na ‘usovershenstvovanie i vyrozhdenie chelovecheskogo roda’,” in Florinskii, 1995, pp. 120-26; the same text also appeared in the Bulletin of the Tomsk Scientific Center of the Academy of Medical Sciences, Biulleten’ Tomskogo nauchnogo tsentra, 1995, 6: 23-33; while its abstract was published in the Russian journal of genetics, Genetika, 1994, 30, Prilozhenie: 129.
142 K. Garver and B. Garver, “Proekt ‘Genom cheloveka’ i evgenicheskie problemy,” in Florinskii, 1995, pp. 127-47; for the original, see Kenneth L. Garver and Bettylee Garver, “The Human Genome Project and Eugenic Concerns,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 1994, 54: 148-58.
143 V. P. Puzyrev, “About V. M. Florinskii and his Book ‘Improvement and Degeneration of the Human Race’ (1865),” in Florinskii, 1995, pp. 148-51.
144 On the debate, see Kenneth L. Garver and Bettylee Garver, “Eugenics: Past, Present, and the Future,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 1991, 49: 1109-18; Daniel J. Kevles and Leroy Hood, eds., The Code of Codes: Scientific and Social Issues in the Human Genome Project (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1993); Diana Paul, Controlling Human Heredity: 1865 to the Present (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Humanities Press Intemational, 1995); idem, The Politics of Heredity: Essays on Eugenics, Biomedicine, and the Nature-Nurture Debate (Albany, NY: SUNY Press, 1998); and many others.
145 See V. P. Puzyrev, “‘Physiological laws of heredity’ by V. M. Florinsky,” Brazilian Journal of Genetics, 1996, 19(2): 211 (Abstracts of the 9th International Congress of Human Genetics, Rio de Janeiro, 1996).
146 V. P. Puzyrev, About V. M. Florinsky and his Book “Improvement and Degeneration of the Human Raсe” (1865) (Tomsk: Tomsk Scientific Center of the RAMS, 1996).
147 V. P. Puzyrev, “‘Hygiene of Marriage’ Concept (to the 130th Anniversary of Publishing ‘Improvement and Degeneration of the Human Raсe’ by Vassily Florinsky),” European Journal of Human Genetics, 1996, 4, Suppl. 1: 121.
148 V. P. Puzyrev, “Vol’nosti genoma i meditsinskaia patogenetika,” Biulleten’ sibirskoi meditsiny, 2002, 2: 16-29. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, Tomsk Medical Institute was renamed “Tomsk Medical University.”
149 The only brief notice I found has appeared in a footnote on Florinskii in the introduction to Pchelov’s compilation, see E. V. Pchelov, “Evgenika i genealogiia v othechestvennoi nauke 1920-kh godov,” in idem, ed. Rodoslovnaia genial’nosti: Iz istorii othechestvennoi nauki 1920-kh gg., pp. 7-60, the reference is in fn. 11 (p.13).
150 See E. V. Iastrebov, Vasilii Markovich Florinskii v Peterburgskoi mediko-khirurgicheskoi akademii (M.: MPU “Signal”, 1999), pp. 91-92.
151 See, for instance, A. A. Sechenova, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii — pervyi popechitel’ Zapadno-Sibirskogo uchebnogo okruga,” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo pedagogicheskogo instituta, 2009, 12: 139-41; I. A. Dunbinskii, “Rol’ V. M. Florinskogo v formirovanii uchebno-vspomogatel’nykh uchrezhdenii Tomskogo imperatorskogo universiteta,” Kul’tura, Dukhovnost’, Obshchestvo (Novosibirsk), 2013, 5: 46-49; A. I. Teriukov, “V. M. Florinskii i M. K. Sidorov,” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Istoriia, 2013, 2(22): 199-202; N. A. Kachin, “V. M. Florinskii: V poiskakh sibirskoi modeli ‘klassicheskogo universiteta’,” ibid., 2015, 6(38): 11-18; idem, “Sobiraia ‘Khranilishche dukhovnoi pishchi’: iz istorii sozdaniia V. M. Florinskim knizhnogo fonda nauchnoi biblioteki Tomrskogo universiteta,” ibid., 2016, 406: 90-97; V. A. Bubnov, “Vasilii Markovich Florinskii — organizator i sozdatel’ nauki v Sibiri,” Vestnik Kurganskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Fiziologiia, 2014, 1(32): 3-16; and many others.
152 V. P. Puzyrev, “V. M. Florinskii i Tomskoe obshchestvo estestvoispytatelei,” Sibirskii meditsinskii zhurnal (Tomsk), 1999, 14(1-2): 87-91.
153 See, Iu. A. Ozheredov, “Nauchnaia konferentsiia, posviashchennaia 130-letiiu muzeia arkheologii i etnografii Sibiri im. V. M. Florinskogo TGU,” Vestnik Tomskogo gosudarstvennogo universiteta, Istoriia, 2013, 2(22): 7-9.
154 Florinskii, 2012, pp. 44-134.
155 Terry Martin, The Affirmative Action Empire: Nations and Nationalism in the Soviet Union, 1923-1939 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2001). See also Francine Hirsch, Empire of Nations: Ethnographic Knowledge and the Making of the Soviet Union (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2005).
156 See, for instance, Marlène Laruelle, Russian Eurasianism: An Ideology of Empire (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2008); Stephen Shenfield, Russian Fascism: Traditions, Tendencies and Movements (London: Routledge, 2001); Wendy Helleman, ed., The Russian Idea: In Search of a New Identity (Bloomington, IN: Slavica, 2004); Hilary Pilkington, Elena Omel’chenko, and Al’bina Garifzianova, Russia’s Skinheads: Exploring and Rethinking Subcultural Lives (London: Routledge, 2010); John Garrard and Carol Garrard, Russian Orthodoxy Resurgent: Faith and Power in the New Russia (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014); Pal Kolstø and Helge Blakkisrud, eds., The New Russian Nationalism (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2016); and many others.
157 On the place of raciology among other contemporary ideological constructs, see Mark Bassin, “‘What is More Important: Blood or Soil?’: Rasologiia contra Eurasianism,” in Mark Bassin and Gonzaldo Pozo, eds., The Politics of Eurasianism: Identity, Popular Culture and Russia’s Foreign Policy (London: Rowman and Littlefield, 2017), pp. 39-58.
158 For Avdeev’s “literary and scientific biography” up to 2012, published on the occasion of his fiftieth birthday in the notorious nationalist newspaper Za russkoe delo, see “Literaturnaia nauchnaia biografiia V. B. Avdeeva,” http://www.zrd.spb.ru/news/2012-01/news-0236.htm; Avdeev’s personal page on the Russian social media site “In-Contact” contains a wealth of relevant materials: https://vk.com/racology. Avdeev also maintains his own website for “raciology” at http://racology.ru/avdeyev-vladimir-borisovich or http://racology.ru. However, several websites maintained by Russian nationalists since 2001 that carried nearly all of Avdeev’s publications, as well as numerous commentaries, are no longer available, for instance, http://www.xpomo.com/ruskolan/start.htm; or have changed their address, for instance, http://www.velesova-sloboda.org became https://www.velesova-sloboda.info/start/index.html.
159 See, V. B. Avdeev, Strasti po Gabrieliu (M.: Stolitsa, 1990); and idem, Protezist (Kharkov: n. p., 1992).
160 After the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991, the Union of Soviet Writers (established at Stalin’s direction in 1934) split into two separate, antagonistic organizations, a “democratic” Russia’s Union of Writers (Rossiiskii soiuz pisatelei) and a “patriotic” Writers Union of Russia (Soiuz pisatelei Rossii). For a general overview of these unions, see N. N. Shneidman, Russian Literature, 1995-2002: On the Threshold of the New Millennium (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004).
161 V. B. Avdeev, Preodolenie khristianstva (M.: Kap’, 1994). The book was reprinted in 2006 and 2011 and became the subject of scholarly works and dissertations. See, for instance, O. V. Aseev, “Iazychestvo v sovremennoi Rossii: Sotsial’nyi i etnopoliticheskii aspekty,” doctoral dissertation, Moscow, 1999; A. V. Gaidukov, “Ideologiia i praktika slavianskogo neoiazychestva,” doctoral dissertation, St. Petersburg, 2000; A. V. Puchkov, “Neoiazychestvo v sovremennoi evropeiskoi kul’ture na primere rassovykh teorii,” doctoral dissertation, Rostov-na-Donu, 2005; and S. M. Petkova, A. V. Puchkov, Neoiazychestvo v sovremennoi evropeiskoi kul’ture (Rostov-na-Donu: RGUPS, 2009).
162 Avdeev later collected many of these early articles into a single volume published under the ambiguous title “Metaphysical Anthropology,” see V. B. Avdeev, Metafizicheskaia antropologiia (M.: Belye al’vy, 2002); the volume was hailed as a symbol of neo-paganism, see, for instance, A. B. Iartsev, Kniga V. B. Avdeeva “Metafizicheskaia antropologiia” kak kharakternyi logotip sovremennogo iazychestva (M.: MAKS, 2009).
163 For a detailed general analysis of racism in contemporary Russia and the role of Avdeev in its popularization, see Nikolay Zakharov, Race and Racism in Russia (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015).
164 For a general analysis of the resurgence of racism in post-communist regimes, see Ian Law, Red Racisms: Racism in Communist and Post-Communist Contexts (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2012).
165 V. B. Avdeev and A. N. Savel’ev, eds., Rasovyi smysl russkoi idei, 2 vols. (M.: Belye al’vy, 2002). See the table of contents of the two volumes https://www.velesova-sloboda.info/antrop/rasovyy-smysl-russkoy-idei.html.
166 V. B. Avdeev, ed., Russkaia rasovaia teorii do 1917 goda, 2 vols. (M.: FERI-V, 2002-04). This anthology, along with many other publications by Avdeev, is freely available online at various sites, for instance, at Librusec, a major Russian internet library, http://lib.rus.ec/a/26150.
167 See Liudvig Vol’tman, Politicheskaia antropologiia (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2000); for the German original see Ludwig Woltmann, Politische Anthropologie (Jena: Diederichs, 1903). See also Karl Shtrats, Rasovaia zhenskaia krasota (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2004); for the German original see Carl H. Stratz, Die Rassenschönheit des Weibes (Stuttgart: Enke, 1901). For various works by Ernst Krieck, the leading Nazi theorist in the field of pedagogy, see Ernst Krik, Preodolenie idealizma. Osnovy rasovoi pedagogiki (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2004). For a number of articles by the leading Nazi racial hygienist Hans Friedrich Karl Günther published during the 1930s and 1940s, see Gans F. K. Giunter, Izbrannye rabory po rasologii (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2004).
168 V. B. Avdeed, Rasologiia: nauka o nasledstvennykh kachestvakh liudei (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2005).
169 See, T. I. Alekseeva et. al., “Retsidivy shovinizma i rasovoi neterpimosti,” Priroda, 2003, 6: 80-81.
170 See V. A. Shnirel’man, “Rasizm vchera i segodnia,” Pro et Contra, 2005, 5: 41-65, http://www.demoscope.ru/weekly/2006/0233/analit02.php; idem, “Rasologiia v deistvii: mechty deputata Savel’eva,” in A. M. Verkhovskii, ed., Verkhi i nizy russkogo natsionalizma (M.: Tsentr “Sova”, 2007), pp. 162-87; and idem, “‘Tsepnoi pes rasy’: divannaia rasologiia kak zashchitnitsa ‘belogo cheloveka’,” in ibid., pp. 188-208; an expanded version of the latter article is available at https://scepsis.net/library/id_1597.html; see also a lengthy review of Avdeev’s Raciology by the leading specialist of the St. Petersburg Museum of Anthropology and Ethnography Alexander Kozintsev, “Rasolog Vladimir Avdeev izuchaet izviliny v mozge vraga,” in Kritika rasizma v sovremennoi Rossii i nauchnyi vzgliad na problemu etnokul’turnogo raznoobraziia (M.: Academia, 2008), pp. 19-40.
171 See V. A. Shnirel’man, “Porog tolerantnosti”: Ideologiia i praktika novogo racizma, 2 vols. (M.: NLO, 2011-14).
172 Shnirel’man, “‘Tsepnoi pes rasy’,” pp. 192-93.
173 See, for instance, his response to Priroda’s article in the foreword to the second volume of his anthology, V. B. Avdeev, “Russkaia rasovaia teoriia do 1917 goda (prodolzhenie nachatoi temy),” in idem, ed., Russkaia rasovaia teoriia do 1917 goda (M.: FERI-V, 2004), vol. 2, pp. 5-67.
174 See V. B. Avdeev and A. N. Sevast’ianov, Rasa i etnos (M.: Knizhnyi mir, 2007); and V. B. Avdeev, Istoriia angliiskoi rasologii (M.: Belye al’vy, 2010). For the full list of the publications on raciology under the White Elves trademark, see http://shop.influx.ru/-c-30_34.html?page=2&sort=products_sort_order.
175 Vladimir Avdeyev, Raciology: The Science of the Hereditary Traits of Peoples, transl. by Patrick Cloutier (Morrisville, NC: Lulu, 2011).
176 On Draper and his “Pioneer Fund,” see William H. Tucker, The Funding of Scientific Racism: Wickliffe Draper and the Pioneer Fund (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 2002).
177 See http://www.zrd.spb.ru/news/2012-01/news-0236.htm.
178 See Dzh. F. Rashton, Rasa, evoliutsiia i povedenie (M.: Profit-Stail, 2011). For Avdeev’s own description of his involvement with the publication of this book, see http://концептуал.рф/vladimir-avdeev-obzor-rasologicheskih-novinok.
179 See https://majorityrights.com/weblog/comments/vladimir_avdeyevs_raciology. One of the latest additions to Avdeev’s “Library of Racial Thought” was a Russian translation of Taylor’s 2014 book Face to Face with Race, see Dzhared Teilor, Litsom k litsu s rasoi (M.: Belye al’vy, 2016).
180 See the text of the court decision at http://www.zrd.spb.ru/news/2011-02/news-0756.htm. See also a response by the publisher at http://www.zrd.spb.ru/news/2010-02/news-0830.htm.
181 The journal’s title was probably a veiled reference to “Ahnenerbe,” an infamous Nazi society for the “study of the German ancestral heritage” founded by Heinrich Himmler in 1935.
182 V. Avdeev, “Svoboda lichnosti i rasovaia gigiena,” Nasledie predkov, 1997, 3, http://cultoboz.ru/np3/292-cboo----.
183 Vladimir Avdeev, “Geneticheskii socialism,” Nasledie predkov, 1997, 4: 9-15; all the subsequent quotations are from this source.
184 N. K. Kol’tsov, “Rassovo-gigienicheskoe dvizhenie v Rossii,” Nasledie predkov, 1998, 5: 41-42; for the German original, see N. Koltzoff [Kol’tsov], “Die rassenhygienische Bewegung in Russland,” ARGB, 1925, 17: 96-103.
185 V. Avdeev, “Nikolai Konstantinovich Kol’tsov,” Nasledie predkov, 1998, 5: 41.
186 Thus, he included his articles on eugenics published during the late 1990s into his collections on Metaphysical Anthropology and The Racial Essence of the Russian Idea.
187 V. M. Avdeev, ed., Russkaia evgenika. Sbornik original’nykh rabot russkikh uchenykh (khrestomatiia) (M.: Belye al’vy, 2012).
188 It also included publications by several much less known proponents of eugenics in Russia, such as the hygienist Kazimir Karafa-Korbut, the biochemist Boris Slovtsov, the psychiatrist Viktor Osipov, and the forensic expert Aleksander Kriukov.
189 On the “patriotic” campaigns, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science.
190 See Florinskii, 2012, pp. 44-134.
191 Vladimir Avdeev, “Ideologiia russkoi evgeniki,” in idem, Russkaia evgenika, pp. 3-43.
192 See https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OXAhjTM6Ta8; there are more than seventy videos featuring Avdeev on YouTube.
193 See, for instance, A. Ia. Ivaniushkin, Iu. E. Lapin, V. I. Smirnov, “Evgenika: ot utopii k nauke i …ot nauki k utopii,” Rossiiskii pediatricheskii zhurnal, 2013, 2: 55-59; K. A. Barsht, “Medved’-kuznets iz povesti A. Platonova ‘Kotlovan’ i opyty I. I. Ivanova po sozdaniiu gibrida cheloveka i obez’iany,” Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, 2015, 6, http://magazines.russ.ru/nlo/2015/6/medved-kuznec-iz-povesti-platonova-kotlovan-i-opyty-ii-ivanova-.html#_ftnref3; N. V. Mikhalenko, “Simvolika Vavilonskoi bashni v ‘Puteshestvii moego brata Alekseia v stranu krest’ianskoi utopii’ A. V. Chaianova,” Problemy istoricheskoi poetiki, 2016, 14: 428-40; and R. N. Gaishun, “Teoreticheskie i institutsional’nye predposylki stanovleniia evgeniki v Rossii i SSSR,” in Chelovek v Mire. Mir v Cheloveke (Perm: PGNIU, 2016), pp. 38-46.
194 See Roman Raskol’nikov at http://zavtra.ru/blogs/apostrof-42; and http://lurkmore.to/%D0%95%D0%B2%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B0; and Igor Sokolov at https://vk.com/topic-27125505_26811584; and http://russian7.ru/post/russkaya-evgenika-kak-sozdat-idealn.
195 Adams, Networks in Action.
196 See R. Vagner i G. Mitchell, Genetika i obmen veshchestv (M.: Izdatel’stvo inostrannoi literatury, 1958); Dzh. Nil’ and U. Shell, Nasledstvennost’ u cheloveka (M.: Inostrannaia literatura, 1958); Sh. Auerbakh, Genetika v atomnom veke (M.: Atomizdat, 1959); K. Shtern, Osnovy genetiki cheloveka (M.: Meditsina, 1965); V. A. Makk’iusik, Genetika cheloveka (M.: Mir, 1967); A. Stivenson and B. Davison, Mediko-geneticheskoe konsul’tirovanie (M.: Mir, 1972).
197 See, S. N. Ardashnikov, “Predislovie k russkomu izdaniiu,” in Nil’ and Shell, Nasledstvennost’ u cheloveka, pp. 5-6.
198 See the last chapter, “Eugenika,” in ibid., pp. 374-88.
199 See, for instance, a foreword to the translation of Curt Stern’s Principles of Human Genetics, Redaktory, “Predislovie k russkomu izdaniiu,” in Kurt Shtern, Osnovy genetiki cheloveka (M.: Meditsina, 1965), p. 5.
200 See N. P. Bochkov, ed., Genetika i meditsina: Itogi XIV Mezhdunarodnogo geneticheskogo kongressa (M.: Meditsina, 1979); and M. E. Vartanian, ed., Genetika i blagosostoianie chelovechestva: Trudy XIV mezhdunarodnogo geneticheskogo kongressa, Moskva, 21–30 avgusta 1978 (M.: Nauka, 1981).
201 For a general analysis of the situation, see Loren R. Graham and Irina Dezhina, Science in the New Russia: Crisis, Aid, Reform (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2008).
202 For a detailed analysis of the International Science Foundation’s work in 1990s Russia, see Irina Dezhina, The International Science Foundation: The Preservation of Basic Science in the Former Soviet Union (New York: OSI, 2000).
203 See, for instance, Mark G. Field, “The Health Crisis in the Former Soviet Union: A Report from the ‘Post-War’ Zone,” Social Science and Medicine, 1995, 41(11): 1469-78; and Mark G. Field and Judith L. Twigg, eds., Russia’s Torn Safety Nets: Health and Social Welfare during the Transition (New York: St. Martin’s, 2000).
204 See, for instance, John M. Kramer, “Drug Abuse in Russia: An Emerging Threat,” Problems of Post-Communism, 2011, 58(1): 31-43; and Eugene Raikhel, Governing Habits: Treating Alcoholism in the Post-Soviet Clinic (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2016).
205 See, for instance, Michele Rivkin-Fish, Women’s Health in Post-Soviet Russia: The Politics of Intervention (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 2005).
206 See, for instance, K. K. Borisenko, L. I. Tichonova, and A. M. Renton, “Syphilis and other sexually transmitted infections in the Russian Federation,” International Journal of STDs and AIDS, 1999, 10(10): 665-8; and Michael Z. David, “Social Welfare or Wasteful Excess?: The Legacy of Soviet Tuberculosis Programs in Post-Soviet Russia,” in T. Lahusen and P. H. Solomon, eds., What is Soviet Now?: Identities, Legacies, Memories (Berlin: Lit Verlag, 2008), pp. 214-33.
207 At the administrative level, they managed to accomplish this task quite successfully. At the very end of 1993, the Russian Ministry of Health Protection issued a special order (no. 316) that outlined an extensive programme of creating “medico-genetic services” throughout the country. But the order was not backed by funding and, for almost a decade, its implementation depended on the ability of medical geneticists to marshal necessary resources elsewhere. For the complete text of the order and its subsequent revisions in 2001 and 2003, see http://lawrussia.ru/texts/legal_382/doc382a880x203.htm.
208 This line of research became an important part of the Tomsk IMG agendas in the late 1990s and early 2000s. See, for instance, Genetiko-ekologicheskaia otsenka sostoianiia zdorov’ia zhitelei Iakutii (Iakutsk: n. p., 2001); and Iaderno-khimicheskoe proizvodstvo i geneticheskoe zdorov’e (Tomsk: Pechatnaia manufaktura, 2004).
209 See V. Avdeev, “Restavrator russkogo mirovozzreniia V. M. Florinskii,” in V. M. Florinskii, Pervobytnye slaviane po pamiatnikam ikh doistoricheskoi zhizni: opyt slavianskoi arkheologii (M.: Belye Al’vy, 2015), pp. 3-19.
Chapter 8
1 N. P. Bochkov, Klinicheskaia genetika (M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2002), p. 9. In the last ten years the book appeared in five “updated and revised” editions. But its “historical introduction” remains basically the same, see, for instance, N. P. Bochkov, V. P. Puzyrev, and S. A. Smirnikhina, Klinicheskaia genetika, 4th edn. (M.: GEOTAR-Media, 2011), pp. 16-17.
2 Terentianus Maurus, De litteris, syllabis, pedibus et metris (London: H. Bohn, 1825), verse 1286, p. 57.
3 The story is available in numerous editions and translations. I use here the translation by Anthony Bonner, see Jorge Luis Borges, “Pier Menard, Author of the Quixote,” in Ficciones (New York: Grove, 1962), pp. 45-55. All the subsequent quotations are from this edition and all the emphasis is in the original.
4 The phrase first appeared in the “Preface to the 1888 English Edition of the Manifesto of the Communist Party.” See K. Marx and F. Engels, Selected Works (M.: Progress, 1969), vol. 1, p. 8.
5 See, for instance, V. V. Bunak, “O smeshenii chelovecheskikh ras,” REZh, 1925, 3(2): 121-38.
6 On the western studies of the “unfit,” see Nicole H. Rafter, White Trash: The Eugenic Family Studies, 1877-1919 (Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press, 1988); idem, Creating Born Criminals (Chicago, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1998); and Richard F. Wetzell, Inventing the Criminal: A History of German Criminology, 1880-1948 (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 2000).
7 E. K. Krasnushkin, “Chto takoe prestupnik?” in Prestupnik i prestupnost’, 1926, 1: 6-33 (p. 32). For a general overview of the early Soviet studies of the criminal, see Kenneth M. Pinnow, “From All Sides: Interdisciplinary Knowledge, Scientific Collaboration, and the Soviet Criminological Laboratories of the 1920s,” Slavic Review, 2017, 76(1): 122-46.
8 My analysis here is based on numerous historical studies of eugenics in various countries, and especially on several explicitly comparative collections and compilations, including Adams, ed., The Wellborn Science; Broberg and Roll-Hansen, eds., Eugenics and the Welfare State; Stepan,“The Hour of Eugenics”; Raphael Falk, Diane B. Paul, and Garland Allen, eds., Science in Context (a special issue on eugenics), 1998, 11(3-4): 329-627; Pauline M. H. Mazumdar, ed., The Eugenics Movement: An International Perspective, 6 vols. (London: Routledge, 2007); Turda and Weindling, eds., “Blood and Homeland”; Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook; Promitzer, Trubeta, and Turda, eds., Health, Hygiene and Eugenics; Felder and Weindling, eds, Baltic Eugenics; Kühl, For the Betterment of the Race; Turda, ed., The History of East-Central European Eugenics; Turda and Gillette, Latin Eugenics; and Paul, Stenhouse, Spencer, eds., Eugenics at the Edges of Empire.
9 For a fine-grained analysis of the “local” and the “general” in the history of genetics, see Jonathan Harwood, “National Styles in Science: Genetics in Germany and the United States between the World Wars,” Isis, 1987, 78: 390-414; and idem, Styles of Scientific Thought: The German Genetics Community, 1900-1933 (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1993); for a concise application of similar arguments to the history of eugenics, see Adams, “Eugenics,” in V. Ravitsky, A. Fiester, and A. Caplan, eds., The Penn Center Guide to Bioethics (Cham: Springer, 2008), pp. 371-82.
10 The glossaries attached to the chapters dealing with separate countries in Marius Turda’s collection of materials on the development of eugenics in eastern and central Europe provide perfect examples of such local vocabularies, as well as differences and similarities among them. Alas, the collection’s authors have neglected to utilize these rich sources for a comparative analysis of the “domestication” of various “imported” versions of eugenics in these countries, see Turda, ed., History of East-Central European Eugenics.
11 Leonard Darwin, “Presidential Address,” in Problems in Eugenics, vol. I, p. 2.
12 Barrett and Kurzman, “Globalizing Social Movement Theory.”
13 For a general analysis of the attitudes of the Russian educated elites to the state’s authority, see Joseph Bradley, “Subjects into Citizens: Societies, Civil Society, and Autocracy in Tsarist Russia,” American Historical Review, 2002, 107(4): 1094-123.
14 For instance, an article published in Russian Thought in 1893 under the characteristic title “Biologists on the Women Question” denied the “inherent” “biological inferiority” of women. See. L. E. Obolenskii, “Biologi o zhenskom voprose,” Russkaia mysl’, 1893, 2: 61-78. On the Russian intelligentsia’s general attitudes towards the “women question,” see Richard Stites, The Women’s Liberation Movement in Russia: Feminism, Nihilism, and Bolshevism, 1860-1930 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978). eugenics and gender, see Alexandra Minna Stern, “Eugenics, Gender and Sexuality: A Global Tour and Compass,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 173-91; and Susan Klausen and Alison Bashford, “Fertility Control: Eugenics, Neo-Malthusianism, and Feminism,” in ibid., pp. 98-115.
15 See, for instance, Richard Cleminson, Anarchism, Science and Sex: Eugenics in Eastern Spain, 1900-1937 (Bern: Peter Lang, 2000); idem, “Eugenics without the State: Anarchism in Catalonia, 1900-1937,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2008, 39(2): 232-39; and Richard Sonn, “‘Your Body Is Yours’: Anarchism, Birth Control, and Eugenics in Interwar France,” Journal of the History of Sexuality, 2005, 14(4): 415-32.
16 For a useful comparative overview of the place of eugenics in a “welfare state,” see Véronique Mottier, “Eugenics and the State: Policy-Making in Comparative Perspective,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 134-53.
17 I cannot discuss here the actual implementation of this decreed gender equality in Russia, which is the subject of numerous historical studies. For some general observations, see Wendy Z. Goldman, Women, the State and Revolution: Soviet Family Policy and Social Life, 1917-1936 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); and Elizabeth A. Wood, The Baba and the Comrade: Gender and Politics in Revolutionary Russia (Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1997).
18 The issues surrounding the actual realization of the egalitarian ethnic policies in the Soviet Union generated an extensive body of historical literature. For some general observations, see Hirsch, Empire of Nations; and Martin, Affirmative Action Empire.
19 See Birte Kohtz, “Gute Gene, schlechte Gene. Eugenik in der Sowjetunion zwischen Begabungsforschung und genetischer Familienberatung,” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas, 2013, 61(4): 591-610.
20 The involvement of several early proponents of eugenics, such as, for instance, eminent American zoologist David Starr Jordan, in the nascent peace movement also suggests that perhaps a more general ideology of “international dialogue” also played a role in the eugenics movement’s success on the international scene before, and especially after, World War I.
21 See, for instance, Paul Weindling, “The ‘Sonderweg’ of German Eugenics: Nationalism and Scientific Internationalism,” British Journal of the History of Science, 1989, 22: 321-33; idem, “International Eugenics: Swedish Sterilization in Context,” Scandinavian Journal of History, 1999, 24: 179-97; and Alison Bashford, “Internationalism, Cosmopolitanism and Eugenics,” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, 254-86.
22 Garland E. Allen, “The Eugenics Record Office at Cold Spring Harbor, 1910-1940: An Essay in Institutional History,” Osiris, 1986, 2: 225-64.
23 See, for instance, Jean-Jacques Salomon, “The ‘Internationale’ of Science,” Science Studies, 1971, 1: 24-42; Paul Weindling, ed., International Health Organisations and Movements, 1918–1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995); Krementsov, International Science; a special issue on “Transnational History of Science,” British Journal for the History of Science, 2012, 45(3); and many others.
24 The subsequent meetings were held in London (1919), New York City (1921), Brussels (1922), Lund (1923), Milan (1924), London (1925), Paris (1926), Amsterdam (1927), Munich (1928), Rome (1929), Farnham, England (1930), New York City (1932), Zurich (1934), and Schweningen, the Netherlands (1936). Reports on the meetings appeared regularly on the pages of Eugenics Review.
25 For detailed examinations of the role of such networks in the history of science in general and of Soviet science in particular, see Adams, Networks in Action; and Krementsov, International Science.
26 For an examination of the role of international networks in the history of genetics and eugenics in Russia, see Krementsov, “Eugenics, Rassenhygiene, and Human Genetics.”
27 See, for instance, Michael Burleigh, “Eugenic Utopias and the Genetic Present,” Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions, 2000, 1(l): 56-77.
28 See, for instance, Anne-Laure Simmonot, Hygiénisme et eugénisme au XXe siècle à travers la psychiatrie française (Paris: S. Arslan, 1999).
29 On the co-evolution of the notions of social hygiene and public health, see the next chapter “Apologia.”
30 Edwin Chadwick, Report to Her Majesty’s Principal Secretary of State for the Home Department, from the Poor Law Commissioners, on an inquiry into the sanitary condition of the labouring population of Great Britain; with appendices (London: Clowes, 1842).
31 For a historical analysis of this process in France, see William Coleman, Death is a Social Disease: Public Health and Political Economy in Early Industrial France (Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin Press, 1982).
32 See J. P. Frank, “The Civil Administrator, Most Successful Physician,” (1784), transl. by Jean Captain Sabine, Bulletin of the History of Medicine, 1944, 16: 289-318.
33 As we saw in Chapter 5, in his 1912 assessment of the First International Eugenics Congress, Nikolai Gamaleia pinpointed the close connection between the growth of social hygiene and the rise of eugenics in Britain.
34 David Starr Jordan, The Blood of the Nation: A Study in the Decay of Races through the Survival of the Unfit (Boston, MA: American Unitarian Association, 1902).
35 See, for instance, Paul Crook, “War as Genetic Disaster?: The First World War Debate over the Eugenics of Warfare,” War & Society, 1990, 8(1): 47-70; and idem, Darwinism, War and History: The Debate over the Biology of War from the “Origin of Species” to the First World War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994).
36 M. M. Zavadovskii, Pol i razvitie ego priznakov (M.: GIZ, 1922), p. 235.
37 For a general assessment of the influence of Haldane’s essay, see Krishna R. Dronamraju, ed., Haldane’s “Daedalus” Revisited (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995).
38 See his groundbreaking analysis in Mark B. Adams, “Last Judgment: The Visionary Biology of J. B. S. Haldane,” JHB, 2000, 33: 457-91; and idem, “The Quest for Immortality: Visions and Presentiments in Science and Literature,” in Stephen G. Post and Robert H. Binstock, eds., The Fountain of Youth: Cultural, Scientific, and Ethical Perspectives on a Biomedical Goal (New York: Oxford University Press, 2004), pp. 38-71.
39 On polemics between Haldane and Russell, see Adams, “Last Judgment”; and Charles T. Rubin, “Daedalus and Icarus Revisited,” The New Atlantis: The Journal of Technology and Society, 2005, 8: 73-91. Both Haldane’s Daedalus and Russell’s Icarus appeared in Russian as a single volume, see D. B. S. Holden and B. Rassel, Dedal i Ikar (Budushchee nauki) (M.-L.: Petrograd, 1926).
40 See, for instance, Jon Turney, Frankenstein’s Footsteps: Science, Genetics and Popular Culture (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1998); and the first chapter in Jon Towlson, Subversive Horror Cinema: Countercultural Messages of Films from Frankenstein to the Present (Jefferson, NC: McFarland, 2014). The Google Ngram for the word “Frankenstein” shows a doubling of its use in English books from 1910 to 1940, see https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=Frankenstein&year_start=1910&year_end=1940&corpus=15&smoothing=5&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2CFrankenstein%3B%2Cc0
41 Philip J. Pauly, Controlling Life: Jacques Loeb and the Engineering Ideal in Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1987).
42 On the early history of the notion of “social engineering” and its popularity during this very period, see David Östlund, “A Knower and Friend of Human Beings, Not Machines: The Business Career of the Terminology of Social Engineering, 1894-1910,” Ideas in History: Journal of the Nordic Society for the History of Ideas, 2007, 2(2): 43-82.
43 A. E. Hamilton, “Putting Over Eugenics,” Journal of Heredity, 1915, 6(6): 281-88 (p. 281).
44 For an overview of eugenics’ impact on the public imagination in the United States during the 1920s, see Betsy Lee Nies, Eugenic Fantasies: Racial Ideology in the Literature and Popular Culture of the 1920s (London: Routledge, 2002).
45 See Leslie C. Dunn, ed., Genetics in the 20th Century: Essays on the Progress of Genetics during Its First 50 Years (New York: Macmillan, 1951); especially the report on “Old and New Pathways in Human Genetics” by leading US human geneticist Lawrence H. Snyder, pp. 369-92. For an analysis of the Golden Jubilee’s goals and means, see Audra J. Wolfe, “The Cold War Context of the Golden Jubilee, Or, Why We Think of Mendel as the Father of Genetics,” JHB, 2012, 45(3): 389-414.
46 See Leslie C. Dunn, A Short History of Genetics: The Development of Some of the Main Lines of Thought, 1864-1939 (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1965); and Alfred H. Sturtevant, A History of Genetics (New York: Harper and Row, 1965). A similar process of distancing genetics from eugenics occurred in many other countries. See, for instance, a detailed analysis of this process in Italy in Cassata, Building the New Man.
47 The first issue of the renamed Annals carried a brief “editorial note” that “explained” the name change: “In the foreword to the first volume of the Annals of Eugenics, published in 1925, Karl Pearson stated that the time was ripe for a journal which should devote its pages wholly to the scientific treatment of racial problems in man but that contributions dealing with heredity in man from any scientific standpoint would be acceptable. From the outset, the journal contained many papers dealing with heredity and, in recent years, has consisted almost exclusively of contributions to the science of human genetics. It seems logical to recognize this trend by the alteration of the title from Annals of Eugenics to Annals of Human Genetics (beginning with Vol. 19, Part 1). The numbering of the volumes will follow on without any change.” Anon., “Editorial Note,” Annals of Human Genetics, 1954, 19(1): 79-80.
48 For a penetrating analysis of the movement and its connections to eugenics, see Matthew Connelly, Fatal Misconception: The Struggle to Control World Population (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2008); for a more focused analysis, see Randall Hansen and Desmond King, Sterilized by the State: Eugenics, Race, and the Population Scare in Twentieth Century North America (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013).
49 To list only the most prominent examples, such alliances included the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO, 1949), the Australia, New Zealand, United States Security Treaty (ANZUS, 1951), the Southeast Asia Treaty Organization (SEATO, 1954), the World Bank (1944), and the Common Market (1958) in the “capitalist West”; the Warsaw Pact (1955) and the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (COMECON, 1949) in the “socialist East”; and the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN, 1967) formed by several of the nonaligned countries.
50 On “big science” and its development in western contexts, see Derek J. de Solla Price, Little Science, Big Science (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963); Peter Galison and Bruce Hevly, eds., Big Science: The Growth of Large-scale Research (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1992); and Olof Hallonsten, Big Science Transformed: Science, Politics and Organization in Europe and the United States (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016).
51 Julian S. Huxley, Evolution. The Modern Synthesis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1942). For broad historical assessments of the synthesis, see Ernst Mayr and William B. Provine, eds., The Evolutionary Synthesis: Perspectives on the Unification of Biology (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1980); and Vassiliki B. Smocovitis, Unifying Biology: The Evolutionary Synthesis and Evolutionary Biology (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1996).
52 See Gisela Nass, Moleküle des Lebens (Munich: Kindler, 1970); idem, Las moléculas de la vida (Madrid: Ediciones Guadarrama, 1970); and idem, The Molecules of Life (London: Weidenfeld and Nickolson, 1970).
53 Lily E. Kay, The Molecular Vision of Life: Caltech, the Rockefeller Foundation, and the Rise of the New Biology (New York: Oxford University Press, 1996).
54 See V. I. Vernadskii, Biosfera (L.: VSNKh, 1926), for the first modern articulation of this notion.
55 See Nancy M. Jessop, Biosphere: A Study of Life (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1970).
56 This new understanding was clearly conveyed in an extensive “science program with experiments and observations for the student” published in the popular textbook series “Today’s Basic Science.” See John Gabriel Navarra, Joseph Zafforoni, John E. Garone, Today’s Basic Science: The Molecule and the Biosphere (New York: Harper and Row, 1965).
57 To list just a few, almost random titles, see Pierre Teilhard de Chardin, L’avenir de l’homme (Paris: Editions du Seuil, 1955), published in English as P. Teilhard de Chardin, Phenomenon of Man (London: Collins, 1959); Jean Rostand, Peut-on modifier l’homme? (Paris: Gallimard, 1956), published in English as J. Rostand, Can Man be Modified? (New York: Basic, 1959); Lewis Mumford, The Transformations of Man (London: Allen and Unwin, 1957); D. C. Rife, Heredity and Human Nature (New York: Vantage, 1959); P. B. Medawar, The Future of Man (New York: Basic, 1960); C. H. Waddington, The Ethical Animal (London: Allen and Unwin, 1960); Garrett Hardin, Nature and Man’s Fate (New York: New American Library, 1961); H. Hoagland and R. W. Burhoe, eds., Evolution and Man’s Progress (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), a collection of articles originally published in the summer of 1961 as a special issue of the journal Daedalus; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Mankind Evolving: The Evolution of the Human Species (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962); H. L. Carson, Heredity and Human Life (New York: Columbia University Press, 1963); R. Dubos, Man Adapting (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1965); and many others.
58 See, for instance, the development of the notion of “environmental engineering” in B. MacKaye, From Geography to Geotechnics (Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press, 1968); and B. H. Jennings, Environmental Engineering: Analysis and Practice (New York: International Textbook Company, 1970); for the notion of “biomedical engineering,” see J. H. U. Brown, John E. Jacobs, and Lawrence Stark, eds., Biomedical Engineering (Philadelphia, PA: F. A. Davis, 1970); and Heinz Siegfried Wolff, Biomedical Engineering (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1970).
59 See, Wolstenholme, ed., Man and his Future; T. M. Sonneborn, ed., The Control of Human Heredity and Evolution (New York: Macmillan, 1965); and John D. Roslansky, ed., Genetics and the Future of Man (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1966).
60 Life Sciences: Recent Progress and Application to Human Affairs (Washington, DC: National Academy of Sciences, 1970).
61 Philip Handler, ed., Biology and the Future of Man (New York: Oxford University Press, 1970).
62 Some elements of these debates have been examined by Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics; Paul, The Politics of Heredity; Comfort, The Science of Human Perfection; Diane B. Paul, “Genetic Engineering and Eugenics: The Uses of History,” in Harold W. Baillie and Timothy K. Casey, ed., Is Human Nature Obsolete?: Genetics, Bioengineering and the Future of Human Condition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), pp. 134-63; and many others. For insightful but necessarily brief overviews, see Alison Bashford, “Epilogue: Where Did Eugenics Go?” in Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook, pp. 539-58; and Carolyn Burdett, “Introduction: Eugenics Old and New,” New Formations, 2007, 60: 7-12.
63 See Anon., “The Ciba Foundation,” Lancet, 1949, 254 (6566): 25-26.
64 For an insider’s history of the Ciba Foundation, see F. Peter Woodford, The Ciba Foundation: An Analytic History, 1949-1974 (Amsterdam: Elsevier, 1974); see also a favorable review of this history by one of the participants of the 1962 symposium, Alan S. Parkes, “The Ciba Foundation, 1949-1974: An Appreciation,” Journal of Biosocial Science, 1976, 8(1): 69-73.
65 Gordon Wolstenholme, “Preface,” in idem, ed., Man and His Future, p. v.
66 The following story of the symposium is based on its published proceedings and all of the subsequent quotations are taken from this volume, Wolstenholme, ed., Man and his Future.
67 Artur Glikson came from Tel Aviv, Israel, and Marc Klein from Strasbourg, France. Since Muller could not come to London due to illness, only 26 invited participants actually attended the symposium.
68 See H. J. Muller, “The Guidance of Human Evolution,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1959, 3: 1-43; and idem, “Human Evolution by Voluntary Choice of Germ Plasm,” Science, 1961, 154: 643-49.
69 On the development of artificial insemination in the twentieth-century United States, see Kara W. Swanson, “The Birth of the Sperm Bank,” The Annals of Iowa, 2012, 71: 241-76.
70 See, for instance, Anon., “Man and His Future,” Lancet, 6 July 1963, 33-34; Marjorie C. Meehan, “Man and His Future,” JAMA, 1963, 187(2): 159; N. J. Berrill, “Man and His Future,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1964, 7(3): 368-69; Charles D. Aring, “Man and His Future,” Archives of Internal Medicine, 1964, 113: 458-59.
71 Berrill, “Man and His Future,” pp. 368-69.
72 J. Lederberg, “Molecular Biology, Eugenics and Euphenics,” Nature, 1963, 198: 428-29.
73 See J. F. Crow, “Modifying Man: Muller’s Eugenics and Lederberg’s Euphenics,” Science, 1965, 148: 1579-80.
74 See, for instance, Rollin D. Hotchkiss, “Portents for a Genetic Engineering,” Journal of Heredity, 1965, 56: 197-202.
75 Predictably, geneticists were the most vocal group in this debate. See, for instance, Theodosius Dobzhansky, Heredity and the Nature of Man (New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1964); idem, The Biology of Ultimate Concern (New York: New American Library, 1967); I. Michael Lerner, Heredity, Evolution and Society (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1968); Arne Muntzing, Biological Points of View on Some Humanistic Problems (Lund: Gleerup, 1968); and C. H. Waddington, Biology, Purpose and Ethics (Barre, MA: Barre Publishing Company, 1971).
76 Sonneborn, ed., The Control of Human Heredity; see also the records of a similar discussion at a Nobel conference held in 1965 at Gustavus Adolphus College in John D. Roslansky, ed., Genetics and the Future of Man (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1966).
77 Hotchkiss, “Portents for a Genetic Engineering.”
78 Theodosius Dobzhansky, “Changing Man,” Science, 1967, 155: 409-15.
79 K. Hirschhorn, “On Re-Doing Man,” Commonweal, 1968, 88: 257-61; the article was reprinted in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1971, 184: 103-12, as part of a special issue on “Environment and Society in Transition.”
80 The address was published posthumously as Jack Schultz, “Human Values and Human Genetics,” American Naturalist, 1973, 107: 585-97.
81 Joshua Lederberg, “Experimental Genetics and Human Evolution,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1966, 22(8): 4-11; also reprinted in American Naturalist, 1966, 100 (915): 519-31; and H. J. Muller, “Means and Aims in Human Genetic Betterment,” in Sonneborn, ed., The Control of Human Heredity, pp. 100-22; and idem, “What Genetic Course Will Man Steer?” in James F. Crow and James V. Neel, eds., Proceedings of the Third International Congress of Human Genetics (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1967), pp. 521-43.
82 James F. Crow, “The Quality of People: Human Evolutionary Changes,” Bioscience, 1966, 16: 863-67 (p. 867).
83 See John J. Pauson, Beyond Morality and the Law (Pittsburgh, PA: Philosophical Press, 1966); Theodosius Dobzhansky, “On Genetics, Sociology and Politics,” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1968, 11: 544-54; Paul Ramsey, Fabricated Man: The Ethics of Genetic Control (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1970); Joseph Fletcher, “Ethical Aspects of Genetic Controls: Designed Genetic Changes in Man,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1971, 285: 776-83; B. Glass, “Prometheus and Pandora: 1971,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1971, 47: 1045-58; M. S. Fox, et al., “Reservations Concerning Gene Therapy,” Science, 173: 195; Anon., “The Biologists’ Dilemmas,” Nature, 1970, 228: 900-01; P. Handler, “Can Man Shape His Future?” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, 1971, 14: 207-27; P. R. Abelson, “Anxiety About Genetic Engineering,” Science, 1971, 173: 285; James J. Nagle, “The Dilemma of Genetic Engineering,” Journal of Religion and Health, 1972, 11(4): 370-76; James R. Sorenson, Social and Psychological Aspects of Applied Human Genetics: A Bibliography (Bethesda, MD: Fogarty International Center, 1973); and many others.
84 See, for instance, Karl H. Hertz, “What Man Can Make of Man: Genetic Programming,” Christian Century, 1967, 84(25): 807-10; Michael Hamilton, “New Life for Old: Genetic Decisions,” ibid., 1969, 86(22): 741-44; H. B. Kuhn, “Prospect of Carbon-Copy Humans,” Christianity Today, 1971, 15: 11-12; Charles T. Epstein, “Medical Genetics: Recent Advances with Legal Implications,” The Hastings Law Journal, 1969, 21: 35-49; Bernard D. Davis, “Ethical and Technical Aspects of Genetic Intervention,” New England Journal of Medicine, 1971, 285: 799-801; Michael P. Hamilton, ed., The New Genetics and the Future of Man (Grand Rapids, MI: W. B. Eerdmans, 1972); and many others.
85 See, for instance, Louis Lasogna, “Heredity Control: Dream or Nightmare?” New York Times Magazine, 5 August 1962, 7: 58-61; Lucy Eisenberg, “Genetics and the Survival of the Unfit,” Harper’s Magazine, 1966, 232: 53-58; “Man Into Superman: The Promise and Peril of the New Genetics,” Time, 19 April 1971: 33-52; “Playing God,” Newsweek, 23 November 1970, 76: 120; Albert Rosenfeld, “Science, Sex and Tomorrow’s Morality,” Life, 13 June 1969, 66: 37-50.
86 Fred Warshofsky, The Control of Life (New York: Viking, 1969).
87 Anon., “New Words in Biology and Related Subjects,” Nature, 1964, 204: 628. See also, Panos D. Bardis, “Eudemics, Eugenics, Euphenics, Euthenics,” Phi Kappa Phi Journal, 1972, 52(3): 37.
88 See J. Lederberg, “Letter to the editor,” The New York Times, 26 September 1970, p. 20.
89 See Blacker, Eugenics; Haller, Eugenics; Pickens, Eugenics; and Ludmerer, Genetics and American Society.
90 The protestations of Muller’s widow eventually forced Graham to drop Muller’s name from his sperm bank. For details, see Cynthia R. Daniels and Janet Golden, “Procreative Compounds: Popular Eugenics, Artificial Insemination and the Rise of the American Sperm Banking Industry,” Journal of Social History, 2004, 38(1): 5-27; David Plotz, The Genius Factory: The Curious History of the Nobel Prize Sperm Bank (New York: Random House, 2005); Martin Richards, “Artificial Insemination and Eugenics: Celibate Motherhood, Eutelegenesis and Germinal Choice,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 2008, 39(2): 211-21; and Kara W. Swanson, Banking on the Body: The Market in Blood, Milk, and Sperm in Modern America (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014).
91 See a contemporary overview of the available techniques in E. Freese, ed., The Prospects of Gene Therapy (Bethesda, MD: Fogarty International Center, 1972); for a concise summary, see James J. Nagle, “Genetic Manipulations in Humans I: The Potentials for Gene Therapy,” Bios, 1976, 47(1): 3-13; for a brief historical account co-written by Lederberg himself, see J. A. Wolff and J. Lederberg, “A History of Gene Transfer and Therapy,” in Jon A. Wolff, ed., Gene Therapeutics: Methods and Applications of Direct Gene Transfer (Boston, MA: Birkhäuser, 1994), pp. 3-25.
92 See, for instance, Robert G. McKinnell and Marie A. Di Berardino, “The Biology of Cloning: History and Rationale,” BioScience, 1999, 49(11): 875-85; and a popular account in Gina Kolata, Clone: The Road to Dolly, and the Path Ahead (New York: William Morrow, 1998).
93 For an analysis of how western medical geneticists themselves dealt with the origins of their discipline in eugenics, see Diane B. Paul, “From Eugenics to Medical Genetics,” Journal of Policy History, 1997, 9: 96-116; and Comfort, The Science of Human Perfection.
94 See, for instance, a long chapter on “Eugenics, Euphenics, and Human Welfare,” in L. L. Cavalli-Sforza and W. F. Bodmer, The Genetics of Human Populations (San Francisco, CA: Freeman, 1971), pp. 753-804.
95 In contrast to the previous name change from Eugenics News to Eugenics Quarterly in 1954, which had been justified at length in a special editorial (see, Anon., “Editorial comment,” Eugenics Quarterly, 1954, 1(1): 1-3), the 1969 renaming was not explained or even mentioned in any of the materials appearing in the journal, see Social Biology, 1969, 1-4.
96 Compare, for instance, Frederick H. Osborn, The Future of Human Heredity: An Introduction to Eugenics in Modern Society (New York: Weybright and Talley, 1968) and John K. Brierley, Biology and the Social Crisis: A Social Biology for Everyman (Madison, NJ: Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, 1970).
97 See Van Rensselaer Potter, Bioethics: Bridge to the Future (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1971). For historical accounts of the new field, see Albert R. Jonsen, A Short History of Medical Ethics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999); and John H. Evans, The History and Future of Bioethics: A Sociological View (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011).
98 See numerous references to publications in the British press in Turney, Frankenstein’s Footsteps, such as, for instance, Anon., “New Hopes for the Childless,” The Guardian, 14 February 1969, p. 1; and Anon, “Test-tube Fertility Hope for Women,” The Times, 15 February 1969, p. 1. Similar publications appeared in US magazines, see Edward Grossman, “The Obsolescent Mother: Is the Artificial Womb Inevitable?,” The Atlantic, 1971, 227 (May): 16-32; James D. Watson, “Moving toward the Clonal Man: Is This What We Want?,” ibid., 1971, 227 (May): 50-63; C. Stinson, “Theology and the Baron Frankenstein: Cloning and Beyond,” Christian Century, 1972, 89(3): 60-63; and many others.
99 Nancy M. Freedman, Joshua, Son of None (New York: Delacorte, 1973).
100 See, for instance, Judith Daar, The New Eugenics: Selective Breeding in an Era of Reproductive Technologies (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017).
101 To list just three publications that reflected these new developments, see Jürgen Habermas, The Future of Human Nature (Cambridge: Polity, 2003), originally published as idem, Die Zukunft der menschlichen Natur. Auf dem Weh su einer liberalen Eugenik? (Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 2001); Nicholas Agar, Liberal Eugenics: In Defense of Human Enhancement (Boston, MA: Blackwell, 2004); and John Glad, Future Human Evolution: Eugenics in the Twenty-first Century (Schuylkill Haven, PA: Hermitage, 2006).
102 The latest developments, from the 1990s through the 2010s, generated a huge body of literature both pro and contra the newest incarnations of eugenics, which is beyond the scope of this project. See, for instance, Harold W. Baillie and Timothy K. Casey, eds., Is Human Nature Obsolete?: Genetics, Bioengineering, and the Future of the Human Condition (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2004); Jean Gayon and Daniel Jacobi, eds., L’éternal retour de l’eugénisme (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 2006); Calum MacKellar and Christopher Bechtel, eds., The Ethics of the New Eugenics (New York: Berghahn, 2014); Henry T. Greely, The End of Sex and the Future of Human Reproduction (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2016); Daar, The New Eugenics; Jennifer A. Doudna and Samuel H. Sternberg, A Crack in Creation: Gene Editing and the Unthinkable Power to Control Evolution (Boston, MA: Houghton, Mifflin, Harcourt, 2017); and many others.
103 See http://www.tsu.ru/news/pamyatnik-osnovatelyam-tgu-florinskomu-i-mendeleev
Apologia: The Historian’s Craft
1 Cited from the complete text of the first 1605 edition of Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, El ingenioso hidalgo don Quijote de la Mancha, available at http://cvc.cervantes.es/literatura/clasicos/quijote/edicion/parte1/cap09/cap09_02.htm; the full quote cited in the epigraph in English would read as: “... it is the job and duty of historians to be exact, truthful, and dispassionate, and neither interest nor fear, hatred nor love, should make them swerve from the path of truth, whose mother is history, the rival of time, storehouse of deeds, witness for the past, example and counsel for the present, and warning for the future.” The translation is mine.
2 Josephine Tey, The Daughter of Time (London: Peter Davis, 1951). All the subsequent quotations are from this source.
3 For a recent analysis of the relations between More’s account and Shakespeare’s drama, see Douglas Bruster, “Thomas More’s Richard III and Shakespeare,” Moreana, 2005, 42(163): 79-92.
4 See, for instance, Robin W. Winks, ed., The Historian as Detective: Essays on Evidence (New York: Harper and Row, 1969).
5 I am profoundly grateful to its publisher Valerii Puzyrev for supplying me with a copy from his personal stash.
6 On the remarkable story of the accidental discovery of this collection, see I. Efremova, “Tsennaia nakhodka,” Sovetskaia Tatariia, 10 August 1938, p. 4; idem, “Eshche raz o tsennoi nakhodke,” ibid., 15 August 1938, p. 4; and G. Zemlianitskii, “Tsennye rukopisi,” ibid., 30 November 1938, p. 4.
7 See NMRT, V. M. Florinskii’s collection, №117959.
8 See, for instance, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” in L. F. Zmeev, Russkie vrachi-pisateli (SPb.: V. Demakov, 1886), vol. 2, pp. 139-40.
9 See NMRT, #49, O. Florinskaia.
10 For a sample of this correspondence, see Iastrebov, Sto neizvestnykh pisem. All of the 100 letters published in this volume date from after 1879.
11 See NMRT, ##99, 204, 205.
12 See, V. Florinskii, “Tri pory zhizni,” NMRT, #203.
13 See NMRT, #260.
14 See V. Florinskii, “Zametki i vospominaniia,” Russkaia starina, 1906, 125(1): 75-109; 125(2): 288-311; 125(3): 564-96; 126(1): 109-56; 126(2): 280-323; 126(3): 596-621.
15 See Chistovich, Dnevniki, 1855-1880.
16 See, for instance, A. [M. T. Alekseev], “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauza i Efrona (SPb.: Brokgauz i Efron, 1902), vol. 36, p. 169; A. A. Dmitriev, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” in idem, Materialy dlia biografii pamiatnykh deiatelei iz permskikh urozhentsev (Trudy permskoi uchenoi arkhivnoi komissii), 1902, 5: 70-71; and Gruzdev, “Florinskii, Vasilii Markovich,” in Zagoskin, Biograficheskii slovar’, pp. 353-62.
17 See Gruzdev, Istoricheskii ocherk kafedry akusherstva i zhenskikh boleznei, pp. 214-41; and Vail’, Ocherki po istorii russkoi pediatrii, pp. 41-54.
18 See, for instance, a brief assessment in K. A. Bogdanov, Vrachi, patsienty, chitateli: patograficheskie teksty russkoi kul’tury XVIII-XIX vekov (M.: OGI, 2005), pp. 258-59.
19 See L. C. Dunn, “Cross Currents in the History of Human Genetics,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 1962, 14: 1-13 (pp. 9 and 12). In Dunn’s bibliography it was listed as “Florinsky, W. M. 1866. Über die Vervollkommung und Entartung der Menschheit. Petersburg.”
20 See N. V. Shelgunov, “Predislovie,” in G. E. Blagosvetlov, Sochineniia (SPb.: E. A. Blagosvetlova, 1882), pp. iii-xxviii.
21 See RGALI, f. 613, op. 1, dd. 5660-63; and f. 629, op. 1, d. 422.
22 See, for instance, Kuznetsov, Nigilisty; Varustin, Zhurnal “Russkoe slovo”; T. I. Grazhdanova, “G. E. Blagosvetlov v russkom osvoboditel’nom dvizhenii 40-60-kh gg. XIX veka,” doctoral dissertation, Leningrad, 1985; E. K. Murenina, “Literaturno-kriticheskaia deiatel’nost’ G. E. Blagosvetlova,” doctoral dissertation, Sverdlovsk, 1989; Feliks Kuznetsov, Krug D. I. Pisareva (M.: Khudozhestvennaia literatura, 1990); and many others.
23 See RGALI, f. 117. For the contents of this fond that includes only 47 files, see http://www.rgali.ru/object/215034575.
24 For the most detailed account of Volotskoi’s life, focusing almost exclusively on his work on Dostoevsky’s genealogy, see Nikolai N. Bogdanov, “Mikhail Volotskoi i ego “khronika roda Dostoevskogo’,” in N. D. Shmeleva, ed., Dostoevskii i sovremennost’. Materialy XXI Mezhdunarodnykh starorusskikh chtenii 2006 goda (Velikii Novgorod: Novgorodskii gosudarstvennyi muzei zapovednik, 2007), pp. 407-34. A revised version of this article also appeared in Voprosy literatury, 2009, 4: 410-33, http://www.hrono.ru/text/2007/bogd0108.php
25 T. V. Tomashevich, “Pamiati M. V. Volotskogo — vydaiushchegosia antropologa, osnovopolozhnika i lidera rossiiskoi dermatoglifiki,” Moskovskii universitet, October 2005, 34 (4139), http://www.getmedia.msu.ru/newspaper/newspaper/4139/all/mirnauki.htm
26 See A. M. Reshetov, Materialy k biobibliograficheskomu slovariu rossiiskikh ethnografov i antropologov. XX vek (SPb.: Nauka, 2012).
27 See I. G. Chudinov, Bibliograficheskii ukazatel’ nauchno-issledovatel’skikh i nauchno-metodicheskikh rabot sotrudnikov instituta [fizicheskoi kul’tury], 1920-1957 (M.: n. p., 1958).
28 See http://museum.sportedu.ru/category/muzei/v-binokl-vremeni/vospominaniya, especially the memoirs by I. M. Sarkisov-Sarazini, who worked in the IFK from its very beginnings.
29 INION had “inherited” the Library of the Communist Academy and thus preserved many books and journals issued under the auspices of this bastion of “Marxist” science during the 1920s and early 1930s, including those published by the Timiriazev Institute. Tragically, in recent years, the collections of both BAN and INION have been damaged severely by fires, and many of the rare publications in their holdings have been lost.
30 On spetskhran and its uses, see M. B. Konashev, “Lysenkoizm pod okhranoi spetskhrana,” in Repressirovannaia nauka (SPb.: Nauka, 1994), vol. 2, pp. 97-112; S. F. Varlamova, “K istorii sozdaniia i razvitiia spetsfondov Gosudarstvennoi publichnoi biblioteki im. M. E. Saltykova-Shchedrina,” in Tsenzura v tsarskoi Rossii i Sovetskom soiuze (M.: Rudomino, 1995), pp. 161-67; and K. V. Liutova, Spetskhran Biblioteki Akademii nauk: Iz istorii sekretnykh fondov (SPb.: BAN, 1999).
31 The only but very brief account of Volotskoi’s involvement with eugenics can be found in Fando, Proshloe nauki budushchego, pp. 179-86.
32 See, for instance, a review of my 2002 book The Cure by a practicing clinician who could not accept such reconstructions and accused me of writing “like a novelist,” which I take as the highest compliment a historian could receive, Ross Camidge, “Nikolai Krementsov, The Cure: A Story of Cancer and Politics from the Annals of the Cold War,” British Medical Journal, 2002, 324: 1589.
33 See the new edition of David Lowenthal’s classic, The Past is a Foreign Country: Revisited (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015).
34 I am not concerned here with the philosophical and historiographical debates about the nature of this translation process, and even less with the possibilities or impossibilities of an “exact” translation of certain “past” meanings into “present” ones, see, for instance, W. A. DeVries, “Meaning and Interpretation in History,” History and Theory, 1983, 22: 253-63; or Gary L. Hardcastle, “Presentism and the Indeterminacy of Translation,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science, 1991, 22(2): 321-45.
35 See, for instance, Vivian Nutton, “The Changing Language of Medicine, 1450-1550,” in Olga Weijers, ed., Vocabulary of Teaching and Research between Middle Ages and Renaissance (Turnhout: Brepols, 1995), pp. 184-98; and the recent “Focus” section in the oracle of the History of Science Society, “Focus: Linguistic Hegemony and the History of Science,” Isis, 2017, 108 (3): 606-50.
36 For a pioneering detailed examination of the importance of multi-language translations and interactions in the development of science, see Michael D. Gordin, Scientific Babel: How Science Was Done Before and After Global English (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 2015).
37 Pisarev, “Progress v mire zhivotnykh i rastenii,” p. 1.
38 V. Dal’, Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka, 4 vols. (M.: Ob-vo liubitelei rossiiskoi slovesnosti, 1863-1866). The entire dictionary is now available online at http://dic.academic.ru/contents.nsf/enc2p
39 See Toll’, Nastol’nyi slovar’.
40 See L. P. Grinberg, Vseobshchii terminologichesko-meditsinskii slovar’ na latinskom, nemetskom i russkom iazykakh, 4 vols. (Berlin, Leipzig: G. Reimer, 1840-42); and idem, Terminologicheskii meditsinskii slovar’ na latinskom, nemetskom, frantsuzskom i russkom iazykakh, 2nd ed. (SPb.: Ia. I. Isakov, 1862-64).
41 See [Ia. Banks,] Anglo-russkii slovar’, sostavlennyi Iakovom Banksom, 2 vols. (M.: A. Semen, 1838); and idem, Russko-angliiskii slovar’, sostavlennyi Iakovom Banksom (M.: A. Semen, 1840); Ch. Ph. Reiff, Dictionnaires parallèles des langues russe, française, allemande et anglaise: Dictionnaire français (St.Pétersbourg; Carlsruhe, 1852), 2-e éd.; idem, Parallel-Wörterbücher der russischen, französischen, deutschen und englischen Sprache für die russische Jugend (SPb.; Karlsruhe, 1861), 4-te Aufl.; and idem, New parallel dictionaries of the Russian, French, German and English languages: English dictionary (SPb.; Karlsruhe, 1862).
42 See A. D. Mikhel’son, Ob”iasnenie 7000 intostrannykh slov, voshedshikh v upotreblenie v russkii iazyk (M.: Tip. Lazarevskogo in-ta vostochnykh iazykov, 1861); and I. F. Burdon and A. D. Mikhel’son, Slovotolkovatel’ 30,000 inostrannykh slov, voshedshikh v sostav russkogo iazyka (M.: Universitetsakia tipografiia, 1866).
43 Sydney Ross, “‘Scientist’: The Story of a Word,” Annals of Science, 1962, 18: 65-85.
44 For details, see Soboleva, Organizatsiia nauki v poreformennoi Rossii, pp. 35-43.
45 See Charles Rosenberg, “Toward an Ecology of Knowledge: On Discipline, Context, and History,” in idem, No Other Gods: On Science and American Social Thought (Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1997), pp. 225-39.
46 See, for instance, a “Glossarial note” in the English translation of an excerpt from Paul Broca’s treatise on hybridity, Paul Broca, On the Phenomena of Hybridity in the Genus Homo, transl. by C. Carter Blake (London: Longman, 1864), p. x; for the French original, which, of course, did not have such a “glossary,” see M. Paul Broca, Recherches sur l’hybridité animale en général et sur l’hybridité humaine en particulier (Paris: J. Claye, 1860).
47 See, for instance, Robley Dunglison’s famous one-thousand-page “medical lexicon,” which first appeared in 1833 and over the years went through more than twenty editions. It included not only English terms, with detailed explanations of their etymology and meaning, but also their French, Latin, and occasionally German synonyms, Robley Dunglison, Medical Lexicon: A Dictionary of Medical Science (Philadelphia: Blanchard and Lea, 1838), 2nd ed. On the dictionary and its author, see Chalmers L. Gemmill, “Robley Dunglison’s Dictionary of Medical Science, 1833,” Bulletin of the New York Academy of Medicine, 1972, 48(5): 791-98.
48 See, for instance, Drug zdraviia (Health Companion), one of the oldest medical weeklies, published in St. Petersburg from 1833 to 1866.
49 For a brief overview of this growing business, see A. G. Smoliakova, “Perevodnaia spetsial’naia kniga v Rossii XVI-XIX vv.,” doctoral dissertation, Moscow, 1999.
50 See Karl Fogt [Carl Vogt, trans.], [Robert Chambers], Estestvennaia istoriia mirozdaniia (M.: A. Cherenin i A. Ushakov, 1863). For the German edition that had been used to prepare the Russian one, see Anon. [Robert Chambers], Natürliche Geschichte der Schöpfung des Weltalls, der Erde und der auf ihr befindlichen Organismen, begründet auf die durch die Wissenschaft errungenen Thatsachen, transl. by Carl Vogt (Braunschweig: Friedrich Vieweg, 1858), 2nd ed.
51 See T. G. Geksli, Mesto cheloveka v tsarstve zhivotnom. Per. Iu. Gol’dendakh s nem. Ed. V. Karusa (M.: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1864); and T. G. Geksli, O polozhenii cheloveka v riadu organicheskikh sushchestv. Per. pod red. A. Beketova (SPb.: N. Tiblen, 1864).
52 N. L. Tiblen, “[Predislovie],” in G. Spenser, Klassifikatsiia nauk (SPb.: N. L. Tiblen, 1866), pp. i-iii (p. ii). Unfortunately, the process of creating scientific terminology in the biomedical sciences in Russia has attracted no attention from historians. For an analysis of this process in Russian physics, see L. L. Kutina, Formirovanie terminologii fiziki v Rossii (M.-L.: Nauka, 1966).
53 Charles Darwin, On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (London: John Murray, 1859). In this section I focus mostly on the actual translations of Darwin’s vocabulary and its key terms and expressions into the Russian language, not the perception and reinterpretation of their meanings by Russian readers. For a detailed analysis of the latter processes as regards a key metaphor of Darwin’s Origin, “the struggle for life,” see Todes, Darwin without Malthus.
54 See, for instance, the catalogues of foreign language books available in St. Petersburg’s major bookstores in the second half of the nineteenth century, Katalog knig, prodaiushchikhsia v magazine russkikh i inostrannykh knig D. E. Kozhanchikova v S. Peterburge (SPb.: n. p., 1863); Katalog udeshevlennykh meditsinskikh knig na russkom i inostrannykh iazykakh, prodaiushchikhsia po porucheniiu izdatelei v mediko-khirurgicheskom knizhnom magazine N. P. Petrova v S.-Peterburge (SPb.: n. p. 1887); Katalog knig po vsem otrasliam znaniia na russkom i inostrannykh iazykakh knizhnogo magazina V. L. Lebedeva (SPb.: n. p. 1906); and many others.
55 See Charl’s Darvin, O proiskhozhdenii vidov v tsarstvakh zhivotnom i rastitel’nom putem estestvennogo podbora rodichei, ili sokhranenie usovershenstvovannykh porod v bor’be za sushchestvovanie. Per. S. A. Rachinskogo (SPb.: A. I. Glazunov, 1864). In the second edition, Rachinskii excised these words, thus restoring Darwin’s original title. See Charl’s Darvin, O proiskhozhdenii vidov putem estestvennogo podbora, ili sokhranenie usovershenstvovannykh porod v bor’be za sushchestvovanie. Per. S. A. Rachinskogo (SPb.: A. I. Glazunov, 1865).
56 N. Strakhov, “Kritika i bibliografiia,” Grazhdanin, 16 July 1873, http://smalt.karelia.ru/~filolog/grazh/1873/16jyN29
57 See, for instance, Diane B. Paul, “The Selection of the ‘Survival of the Fittest’,” JHB, 1988, 21(3): 411-24.
58 See Charles Darwin, Über die Entstehung der Arten durch natürliche Zuchtwahl, oder die Erhaltung der begünstigten Rassen im Kampfe um’s Dasein. Aus dem Englischen übersetzt von H. G. Bronn. Nach der vierten englischen sehr vermehrten Ausgabe durchgesehen und berichtigt von J. Victor Carus (Stuttgart: E. Schweizerbart, 1867). Tellingly, Friedrich Rolle in his own rendering of Darwin’s Origin excised the expression “natural selection” from his title.
59 Claparède, “M. Darwin et sa théorie de la formation des espèces,” p. 531. The original reads: “Je regrette d’employer une expression aussi paradoxale. Il est difficile, en effet, d’admettre qu’une élection puisse être inconsciente. L’expression employée par le naturaliste anglais a l’avantage de ne renfermer aucune contradiction dans les termes. Malheureusement, notre langue ne renferme aucun mot qui rende exactement le terme selection. J’ai choisi celui d’élection, malgré son insuffisance, plutôt que d’employer un néologisme de couleur trop étrangère.” Needless to say, this passage is absent in the Russian translation of Claparède’s review. For a similar discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of using the words sélection and élection as the correct renderings of Darwin’s term, see Rey, Dégénération de l’espèce humaine et sa régénération, pp. 4, 12, 29.
60 See Charles Darwin, De l’origine des espèces par sélection naturelle: ou, Des lois de transformation des êtres organisés, traduit en français avec l’autorisation de l’auteur par Clémence Royer, avec une préface et des notes du traducteur, 2nd edn. (Paris: Guillaumin et Cie, 1866).
61 See, for instance, Charles Darwin, L’origine des espèces au moyen de la sélection naturelle, ou, La lutte pour l’existence dans la nature. Trad. de J.-J. Moulinié (Paris: C. Reinwald, 1873).
62 See, for instance, Ia. Sliaskii, Iz selektsionnykh zametok (Kiev: G. T. Korchak-Novitskii, 1893); Ocherk deiatel’nosti Smelianskoi selektsionnoi stantsii grafov Bobrinskikh za piat’ let: 1890-96 (Kiev: n. p., 1896); Selektsionnaia stantsiia pri Vol’finskom imenii tainogo sovetnika N. A. Tereshchenko. 1890-97 (Kiev: I. N. Kushnerev, 1897); and many others.
63 See Ch. Darvin, “Proiskhozhdenie vidov putem estestvennogo otbora, ili sokhranenie izbrannykh porod v bor’be za zhizn’. Per. prof. K. A. Timiriazeva,” in Ch. Darvin, Sobranie sochinenii v 4-kh tomakh (SPb.: O. N. Popova, 1896-98), vol. 1.
64 See Toll’, Nastol’nyi slovar’. For specific entries, see “plemia,” vol. 3, p. 117; “poroda,” vol. 3, p. 172; “rasa,” vol. 3, p. 269.
65 Only in the 1870s, there appeared major English-language anthropological works, such as John Lubbock’s The Origin of Civilization and the Primitive Condition of Man (1870) and Edward B. Taylor’s Primitive Culture (1871), which within a few years were translated into Russian. See Dzh. Lebbok, “Nachalo tsivilizatsii,” Znanie, 1874, 10; 1875, 1-6 (prilozheniia); Dzh. Lebbok, Doistoricheskie vremena (M.: “Priroda”, 1876); and E. B. Teilor, Pervobytnaia kul’tura, 2 vols. (SPb.: “Znanie”, 1872-73).
66 See, for instance, Louis Pappenheim, Handbuch der Sanitäts-Polizei: nach eigenen Untersuchungen (Berlin: Hirschwald, 1858), https://books.google.co.uk/books/about/Handbuch_der_Sanit%C3%A4ts_Polizei.html?id=3EVLAAAAcAAJ&redir_esc=y; and Friedrich Oesterlen, Der Mensch und seine physische Erhaltung. Hygienische Briefe für weitere Leserkreise (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1859). Florinskii used both books in his own work.
67 See, for instance, J.-Ch.-M. Boudin, Études d’hygiène publique sur l’état sanitaire, les maladies et la mortalité des armées de terre et de mer (Paris: J. Corréard et J. Dumaine, 1846), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k64732014; and Louis Alfred Becquerel, Traité élémentaire d’hygiène. Florinskii used both books in his own work.
68 See, for instance, Michael Ryan, A Manual of Medical Jurisprudence and State Medicine (London: Sherwood, Gilbert, and Piper, 1836).
69 See, for instance, a survey of the English “social hygiene legislation” translated from German (!), Istoriia progressa angliiskogo zakonodatel’stva po chasti obshchestvennoi gigieny. Per. s nem. (Kiev: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1861). The German source for this survey was an article by Fr. Oesterlen, “Die neuere Sanitäts-Gesetzgebung und Sanitätsreform in England. Deren Geschichte und Resultate,” Zeitschrift für Hygiene, medizinische Statistik und Sanitätspolizei, 1860, 1: 131-65.
70 In 1851 and 1859 the first two international “sanitary” conferences were held in Paris in an attempt, largely unsuccessful, to hammer out “sanitary conventions” to prevent the spread of infectious diseases across national borders. But the conferences did not even raise the issues of terminology and methodology of the nascent field of “public health.” See Norman Howard-Jones, The Scientific Background of the International Sanitary Conferences, 1851-1938 (Geneva: WHO, 1975).
71 There are numerous histories of the multiple “national” variants of the field of public health. For a concise overview, see Susan G. Solomon, Lion Murard, Patrick Zylberman, eds., Shifting Boundaries of Public Health: Europe in the Twentieth Century (Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press, 2008). Alas, only German historians have made an effort to trace its terminological development, see Rudolf Thissen, “Die Entwicklung der Terminologie auf dem Gebiet der Sozialhygiene und Sozialmedizin im deutschsprachigen Gebiet bis etwa zum Jahre 1930,” doctoral dissertation, Düsseldorf, 1968.
72 See L. C. Dunn, “Cross Currents in the History of Human Genetics,” American Journal of Human Genetics, 1962, 14: 1-13 (p. 12). Dunn visited Russia in 1927, and it seems likely that Kol’tsov gave him the reprint of the article he had published in ARGB the previous year. For Dunn’s report on his visit, see L. C. Dunn, “Genetics at the Anikowo Station,” Journal of Heredity, 1928, 19(6): 281-86; Dunn also wrote a report for the Rockefeller Foundation on his Russian tour, see Joe Cain and Iona Layland, “The Situation in Genetics I: Dunn’s 1927 Russian Tour,” Mendel Newsletter, 2003, 12: 10-15.
73 Adams, “Eugenics in Russia,” p. 170.
74 See, for instance, Beer, Renovating Russia, p. 39; Krementsov, “From ‘Beastly Philosophy’ to Medical Genetics,” p. 66; Babkov, The Dawn of Human Genetics, pp. 23-29.
75 This is the first meaning attributed to the word in all major English dictionaries, such as the Miriam-Webster and the Oxford dictionaries, see www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/improvement, and https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/improvement
76 See, for instance, Kol’tsov, “Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi porody”; B. I. Slovtsov, Uluchshenie rasy (evgenika) (Pg.: Akademicheskoe izd-vo, 1923); Filipchenko, Puti uluchsheniia chelovecheskogo roda (evgenika); Slepkov, Evgenika. Uluchshenie chelovecheskoi prirody; and many others.
77 All the subsequent quotations are from the entry sovershat’ at http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/356274
78 See, for instance, I. Gergard, Piat’desiat i odno sviashchennykh razmyshlenii, sluzhashchikh k vozbuzhdeniiu istinnogo blagochestiia i k usovershenstvovaniiu vnutrennego cheloveka (M.: Reshetnikov, 1802); and E. Iv-niso, Blagost’ bozhiia v priorode ili Sovershenstvo estestvennogo mira (M.: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1845).
79 See, for instance, V. Kh. Fribe, Rukovodstvo k usovershenstvovaniiu v Rossii ovtsevodstva (SPb.: Meditsinskaia tipografiia, 1807); N. I Abashev, Prakticheskoe rukovodstvo k usovershenstvovaniiu sel’skogo khoziaistva v nechernozemnoi polose Rossii (SPb.: Ia. Ionson, 1855); and Trudy Komiteta dlia rassmotreniia razlichnykh sistem ventiliatsii, dlia priiskaniia sredstv k ikh usovershenstvovaniiu (SPb.: N. Tiblen, 1864).
80 See, for instance, P. D. Markelov, Sovershenstvovanie cheloveka v istine (SPb.: A. Pliushar, 1839).
81 See, for instance, A. Dreier, Kosmosomatika ili ob iskusstve proizvodit’, usovershenstvovat’, podderzhivat’ krasotu tela i istrebliat’ nedostatki ee (M.: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1840).
82 See, for instance, Jean-Alexis Borrelly, Introduction à la connaissance et au perfectionnement de l’homme physique et moral (Marseille: J. Mossy, 1796); Antoine Desmoulins, Exposition des motifs d’un nouveau système d’hygiène, déduit des lois de la physiologie et appliqué au perfectionnement physique et moral de l’homme (Paris: Didot, 1818), https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=csebxAc4ma0C; Léopold Deslandes, Manuel d’hygiène publique et privée, ou Précis élémentaire des connaissances relatives à la conservation de la santé et au perfectionnement physique et moral des hommes (Paris: Gabon et Cie, 1827); Victor Maquel, Perfectionnement ou dégénération physique et morale de l’espèce humaine (Paris: Desloges, 1860); and many others. For the further development of these perfectionist ideas in French ethnology, see François Souffret, De la disparité physique & mentale des races humaines & de ses principes (Paris: Felix Alcan, 1892), https://archive.org/details/deladisparitphy00soufgoog. Alas, I did not find a historical analysis of the interrelations between the perfectionist ideas of French biologists and early French public health. For some observations, see Sean M. Quinlan, The Great Nation in Decline: Sex, Modernity and Health Crises in Revolutionary France c. 1750-1850 (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2007); and idem, “Heredity, Reproduction, and Perfectibility in Revolutionary and Napoleonic France, 1789-1815,” Endeavour, 2010, 34(4): 142-50.
83 See Francis Devay, Hygiène des familles; and idem, Traité spécial d’hygiène des familles particulièrement dans ses rapports avec le mariage au physique et au moral et les maladies héréditaires (Paris: Labé, 1858), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k9734739v. Both editions were available at the IMSA Library.
84 For the French original, see Auguste Debay, Hygiène et physiologie du mariage, histoire naturelle et médicale de l’homme et de la femme mariés, perfectionnement de l’espèce, hygiène du nouveau-né, 4th edn. (Paris: l’auteur, 1853); the 1857 edition is available at https://archive.org/details/hygineetphysiol00debagoog. For Russian translations, see O. Debe, Gigiena i fiziologiia braka, 3 vols. (SPb.: D. F. Fedorov, 1862-63); and O. Debe, Gigiena i fiziologiia braka, 2 vols. (M.: S. Orlov, 1862).
85 See Auguste Debay, Hygiène et perfectionnement de la beauté humaine dans ses lignes, ses formes et sa couleur: théorie nouvelle des aliments et boissons, digestion, nutrition: art de développer les formes en moins et de diminuer les formes en trop, orthopédie, gymnastique, éducation physique, hygiène des sens, etc., 4th edn. (Paris: E. Dentu, 1864), http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k107746x. For a Russian translation, see O. Deve, Gigiena i usovershenstvovanie chelovecheskoi krasoty v ee liniiakh, formakh i tsvete (M.: O. Nazarova, 1866).
86 Recall, for instance, Royer’s “translation” of the subtitle of Darwin’s Origin as “des lois du progrès chez les êtres organisés” (the laws of progress in organized beings) and Pisarev’s interpretation of its contents as “progress in the world of animals and plants.”
87 See, for instance, Louis Agassiz, The Diversity of Origin of the Human Races (Boston, MA: n. p., 1850); Thomas Smyth, The Unity of the Human Races Proved to be the Doctrine of Scripture, Reason, and Science (New York: G. P. Putnam, 1850); Joseph Arthur de Gobineau, Essai sur l’inégalité des races humaines, 4 vols. (Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 1853-1855); and John P. Jeffries, The Natural History of the Human Races (New York: E. O. Jenkins, 1869).
88 For the UNESCO declarations on race, see Michelle Brattain, “Race, Racism, and Antiracism: UNESCO and the Politics of Presenting Science to the Postwar Public,” American Historical Review, 2007, 112(5): 1386-413; and Marcos C. Maio and Ricardo V. Santos, “Antiracism and the Uses of Science in the Post-World War II: An Analysis of UNESCO’s First Statements on Race (1950 and 1951),” Vibrant: Virtual Brazilian Anthropology, 2015, 12(2): 1-26. See also the Google Ngram for the phrase “the human race” that illustrates its usage in print during the period of 1800-2008, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=%22the+human+race%22&year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&share=&direct_url=t1%3B%2C%22%20the%20human%20race%20%22%3B%2Cc0
89 Toll’, Nastol’nyi slovar’, vol. 3, p. 269.
90 The literature on the concept of degeneration is vast. Useful overviews can be found in Richard Walter, “What Became of the Degenerate?: A Brief History of a Concept,” Journal of the History of Medicine and Allied Sciences, 1956, 11: 422-29; Robert A. Nye, Crime, Madness and Politics in Modern France: The Medical Concept of National Decline (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1984); J. Edward Chamberlain and Sander Gilman, eds., Degeneration: The Dark Side of Progress (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985); Daniel Pick, Faces of Degeneration: A European Disorder, c.1848-c.1914 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989); Ian Dowbiggin, Inheriting Madness: Professionalisation and Psychiatric Knowledge in Nineteenth-century France (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press, 1991); and many others. For a rather superficial account of the popularity of Morel’s concept in late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century Russia, see Beer, Renovating Russia.
91 The original reads: “Le mot dégénérescence lui-même est un mot nouveau.” See P. Buchez, “Rapport fait à la société médico-psychologiques sur le traité des dégénérescences physiques, intellectuelles et morales de l’espèce humaine et des causés qui les produisent,” Annales médico-psychologiques, 1857, 3: 455-67 (p. 455).
92 See the Google Ngram for the word “degeneration” that illustrates its usage in print in 1800-2008, https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?year_start=1800&year_end=2008&corpus=15&smoothing=7&case_insensitive=on&content=degeneration&direct_url=t4%3B%2Cdegeneration%3B%2Cc0%3B%2Cs0%3B%3Bdegeneration%3B%2Cc0%3B%3BDegeneration%3B%2Cc0
93 All the subsequent quotations are from the entry vyrozhdat’ in Dal’s dictionary, http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/enc2p/222446. See also the meaning of one of its derivative, “vyrodok,” in Toll’, Nastol’nyi slovar’, vol. 1, p. 545.
94 See the classic analysis by Herbert Butterfield, The Whig Interpretation of History (London: Bell, 1931). For an application of this critique to the history of science, see, for instance, Loren R. Graham, “Why Can’t History Dance Contemporary Ballet?: Or Whig History and the Evils of Contemporary Dance,” Science, Technology, & Human Values, 1981, 6(34): 3-6; and Nick Jardine, “Whigs and Stories: Herbert Butterfield and the Historiography of Science,” History of Science, 2003, 41: 125-40.