The origin of this paper is a thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Arts in History and Philosophy of Science at the University of Melbourne, in December, 1974

¹ Skriabin, G. K. et al. , eds., Ustavy Akademii Nauk SSSR, (Moscow, 1974), 31–39Google Scholar. It was customary to attribute the authorship of the Project to L. L. Blumentrost, Peter's personal physician and later the Academy's first president. However, a recent detailed study of the founding of the Academy minimises his role in the preparation of this document. Kopelevich, Iu. Kh., Osnovanie Peterburgskoi Akademii Nauk, (Leningrad, 1977), 54–5Google Scholar. For the influence of Halle (Blumentrost's Alma Mater) and other German universities on the intellectual orientation of the Academy, see Raeff, M. ‘The Enlightenment in Russia and Russian Thought in the Enlightenment’, 25–47Google Scholar in Garrard, J. G., ed., The Eighteenth Century in Russia, (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1973).Google Scholar

² Reformy Petra I, sbornik dokumentov, comp. Lebedev, V. E., (Moscow, 1937), 324–5Google Scholar. The Project does not name the Academy. In the 18th century documents, it is referred to most commonly as either the Academy of Sciences or as the Academy of Sciences and Arts. It appears less frequently with a prefix of St. Petersburg or Imperial before its title. Kopelevich, , op. cit. (note 1), 56.Google Scholar

³ Ibid., 326–330. A. K. Nartov was a skilled lathe operator, a talented inventor and a confidant of Peter I, who sent him abroad to further his training. Nartov's ambitious scheme calling for 24 mastercraftsmen and artisans, specialising in as many arts and crafts, with 240 apprentices populating 115 academic chambers, was never fully materialised. He became Head of the Arts section in 1735 and, briefly, Head of the Chancellery in 1742.

⁴ Pek., Vol. 1, xxxvii. A charter based on the Project was prepared and submitted to Catherine I, Peter's widow, in September 1725, but she did not ratify it for reasons that are not known.

⁵ Graham, Loren R., The Soviet Academy of Sciences and the Communist Party, 1927–1932, (New Jersey: Princeton, 1967), 16.Google Scholar

⁶ J. D. Schumacher was a native of Colmar in Alsace who had studied at Strassburg university. He came to Russia in 1714 and entered the Tsar's service as a librarian and general factotum. He played a prominent role in the establishment and the running of the Academy until his death in 1761.

⁷ The original plan for the university to have a separate syllabus and staff never materialised because of the shortage of students. The onus of teaching was placed instead on the academicians, who became known as the professors, and they lectured in the subjects outlined in the three classes of the Academy. Skriabin, , op. cit., (note 1), 184 (8)Google Scholar. After 1782 (presumably because the university no longer existed) the professorial title was abolished and the members became known, once again, as academicians. Amburger, Erik, Beiträge zur Geschichte der deutsch-russischen kulturellen Beziehungen, (Giessen, 1961), 45.Google Scholar

⁸ Protokoly were in Latin until 1734, in German until 1741 and in Latin again until 1766. Contravening clause 19 of the 1747 charter, which stipulated that all transactions must be in either Latin or Russian, the Protokoly were again in German until 1772 and in French until the end of the century. From 1751 they were translated and presented to the President in Russian.

⁹ The position of Secretary was filled exclusively by foreigners. In the last three decades of the century, it was held by the Russian born J. A. Euler, who died in 1800. The first communication of the Academy was dated 11th October, 1726, and addressed to Sir Isaac Newton, President of the Royal Society in London. Boss, Valentin, Newton and Russia, The Early Influence, 1698–1796, (Mass: Cambridge, 1972), 94–5Google Scholar. For an extensive and vivid account of the debates on the merits of Newtonian science among the academicians, who were predominantly Cartesians and Leibnizians, see Part II of this work.

¹⁰ Vucinich, A., Science in Russian Culture, A History to 1860, (Stanford, 1963), 66.Google Scholar

¹¹ The Academy of St. Peterburg differed from the Royal Society of London (1662) and the Academies of Paris (1699) and Berlin (1710), mainly in its range of disciplines. For a comprehensive comparison see Kopelevich, Iu. Kh., Vozniknovenie nauchnykh akademii (seredina XVII–XVIII v), (Leningrad, 1974).Google Scholar

¹² Kopelvich, , op. cit. (note 1), 68–70.Google Scholar

¹³ Mat., Vol. I, 22–6.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The fact that the academcians were salaried professional scientists has been seen as a significant deviation from the common practice abroad and a first for Russia. Kopelevich, , op. cit. (note 1), 61–2.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Mat., Vol. I, 26.Google Scholar

¹⁶ Ibid., 54.

¹⁷ Ibid., 217–26.

¹⁸ Ibid., 325–30.

¹⁹ Ibid., 431–3.

²⁰ Ibid., 605–12.

²¹ Ibid., Vol. III, 867–8.

²² Ibid., Vol. VII, 241.

²³ Tolstoi, D. A., ‘Akademicheskaia gymnazia v XVIII stoletii,’ Prilozhenie k LI tomu zapisok Imperalorskoi Akademii Nauk, No. 2, (St. Petersburg, 1885), 6.Google Scholar

²⁴ Vucinich, , op. cit. (note 10), 79.Google Scholar

²⁵ Archiv Akademii Nauk SSSR, fond 3, opis 1, No. 791, 63–6Google Scholar, as quoted in Kuliabko, E. S., M. V. Lomonosov i uchebnaia deatel‘nost’ Peterburgskoi Akademii Nauk, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962), 33–4.Google Scholar

²⁶ Kuliabko, , op. cit. (note 25), 34.Google Scholar

²⁷ Wren, M. C., The Western Impact upon Tsarist Russia, (Chicago, 1971), 51.Google Scholar

²⁸ Adodurov, V. E. (or Adadurov) (1709–1780)Google Scholar was of noble birth. In 1733 he became the first Russian adjunct member of the Academy (in Higher Mathematics). He was educated at the Academy and later briefly taught there himself. Among his students was M. V. Lomonosov. However, he was mainly engaged in translating work and was an active member of the Russian Council. He left the Academy for civil service in 1741, and in 1744 was called upon to teach Russian to the future Catherine II. Upon her accession to the throne in 1762 Adodurov was appointed Curator of Moscow university and retained this position until his death. He was also made President of the College of Manufactures and in 1774 became a Senator.

²⁹ Levin, V. L., ‘Zoologiia v Russkikh zhurnalakh XVIII veka,’ Trudy Instituta Istorii Estestvoznaniia i Tekhniki (Istoriia Biologicheskikh nauk), Vol. 16 (No. 3) (1957), 211Google Scholar. A compilation of these periodicals resulted in a type of encyclopedia which appeared in 1785–93 under the title of Sobrame sochinenii vybranykh iz Mesiatseslovov na raznye gody.

³⁰ Svod. Kat., Vol. 4, 51.Google Scholar

³¹ Levin, , op. cit., (note 29), 209–10Google Scholar. From 1738 articles began appearing initialled by their authors or translators, but it is still impossible to establish the authorship of many of them.

³² Ibid., 202.

³³ Sobol, S. L.', Istoriia mikroskopa i mikroskopicheskikh issledovanii v Rossit XVIII veka, (Moscow, 1949), 117Google Scholar. Also see Nartov, 's plan in Reformy, op. cit. (note 2) 326–330.Google Scholar

³⁴ The Workshops executed a great variety of work, from the intricate machines and instruments ordered by the academicians to small items for the Empress and her high officials. Nartov's notes, which have been preserved, mention manufacture of handles for teapots of the palace tea set made of ebony, a round sun dial with case for Count Golovkin, a ‘machine’ for the observatory ordered by professor de L'sle, and so on. Britkin, A. S. and Vidonov, S. S., A. K. Nartov, an Outstanding Machine Builder of the 18th century, trans. Tal, E. and Baruch, J., (Jerusalem, 1964) 81.Google Scholar

³⁵ Ost., 140Google Scholar. Svod. Kat., Vol. 2, 381–2.Google Scholar

³⁶ Mat., Vol. 2, 633.Google Scholar

³⁷ PSS, Vol. 10, 27.Google Scholar

³⁸ Vucinich, , op. cit. (note 10), 56.Google Scholar

³⁹ Mat., Vol. 1, 273–5.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Ibid., 190, 195–5.

⁴¹ Ibid., Vol. 2, 617–29.

⁴² These included cleaners, watchmen and the museum ‘monsters’, and are excluded from all subsequent calculations here.

⁴³ Mat., Vol. 5, 4–14.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Ibid., Vol. 8, 720–731.

⁴⁵ Pek., Vol. 2, 893Google Scholar and Ost., 154.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ Mat., Vol. 8, 6, 82, 138, 260.Google Scholar

⁴⁷ Ibid. Vol. 10, 321.

⁴⁸ The masters averaged 500 rubles, which was approximately half of the academicians' average salary.

⁴⁹ Graham, Loren R., ‘Review of Science in Russian Culture. A History to 1860, by A. Vucinich,’ Isis, Vol. 55, (1964), 373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁰ Billington, J. H., ‘Science in Russian Culture’, American Scientist, Vol. 52 (1964), 276.Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ost., 54.Google Scholar

⁵² Pek., Vol. 2, Introductory chapter passim. Especially i, xlvii–xlviii.Google Scholar

⁵³ Ost., 154.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ It seems that the lesson was not wasted on Schumacher and his subsequent dealings at the Academy were far more circumspect. Realising, perhaps, that in Elizabethan Russia the Academy could no longer be without at least one Russian full member, he actively supported Lomonosov's promotion into its ranks. Kopelevich, , op. cit., (note 1), 134.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ Mat., Vol. V, 703–7, 724–29, 755–60.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ Britkin, and Vidonov, , op. cit., (note 34), 89.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Ost., 156.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Razumovskii, Count (1728–1803)Google Scholar was brother of Alekseii, Elizabeth's favourite and, according to some sources, her de facto husband. Although Razumovskii's presidency officially spanned the remaining half century, his appointment should be regarded as of only symbolic significance to the Russification of the Academy. Despite the fact that he occasionally supported Lomonosov in the internecine battles of the Academy, his major peace-keeping measure, the formation of the ill fated triumvirate to manage the embattled Chancellery, was at best ineffectual. His tenuous link with the Academy's power structure came in fact to an end with the appointment of Count V. G. Orlov as Director in 1766.

⁵⁹ Teplov, G. N. (1711?–1779)Google Scholar was of humble origin and went to a school run by the enlightened Bishop, Feofan Prokopovich, who sent him abroad for further studies. He returned in 1736, and a year later became a translator at the Academy. Upon the accession of Elizabeth to the throne in 1741, he acquired a powerful patron in the person of Prince Alekseii Razumovskii and was placed in charge of the education of his brother Kyrill. His task was, apparently, to prepare the latter for the role of the Academy's President and he remained abroad with his charge from 1743–5. Upon their return Razumovskii was made President and Teplov began to exercise a great deal of influence at the Academy, which was not considered as beneficial. Ambitious, able and unscrupulous, he played a minor role in the coup which placed Catherine II on the throne. This paved the way for him to a brilliant career at Court. He remained an honorary member of the Academy after 1747, but apart from his one year in 1742 as an adjunct in Botany, he can be classed as a non-scientist.

⁶⁰ Pek., Vol. 2, xxvi–xxvii.Google Scholar

⁶¹ Skriabin, et al. , op. cit., (note 1) 40–61.Google Scholar

⁶² There was now a class of Higher Mathematics, a class in Astronomy which included geography, a class in Mathematical Physics consisting of experimental physics and mechanics and a Physics class with departments in anatomy and physiology, chemistry, and botany and natural history. In the second half of the eighteenth century the greatest number of Russian names are to be found in mathematics, astronomy, chemistry, and botany and natural history.

⁶³ Mat., Vol. IX, 150.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ Lomonosov, M. V. (1711–1765)Google Scholar was the son of a well-to-do fisherman. He was educated at the Slavonic-Greek-Latin Academy in Moscow and then at the Academy's university. Sent to Germany by the Academy he studied under Christian Wolff at Marburg for five years mathematics, physics and philosophy. Upon his return to Russia in 1741 he was appointed adjunct in Physics and from 1745 professor of Chemistry, and in the same year gave the first public lecture in Russian. He was later elected to honorary membership of the Stockholm and the Bologna Academics. In 1748 he established the Chemical Laboratory at the Academy. In 1755 he played an important role in the founding of the Moscow University. In 1757 he became a member of the Academy's Chancellery and retained this position until his death in 1765. During this period he was in charge of the Geographical Department and the teaching and research functions of the Academy. For a long time Lomonosov was valued primarily as a poet, a historian and the chief organiser of the modern Russian literary language. However, he also wrote numerous works on chemistry, physics, geology, mineralogy, geography and astronomy, some of which remained unpublished until fairly recently. Yet it is not only as a polymath of genius that he became a prominent figure in the eighteenth century Academy, but also as its ardent and inflexible Russifier.

⁶⁵ Mat., Vol. X, 438.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid., 247.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 321.

⁶⁸ Tolstoi, D. A., ‘Akademicheskii universitet v XVIII stoletii’, Prilozhenie k LI tomu zapisok Imperalorskoi Akademii Nauk, No. 3, (St. Petersburg, 1885) 56–7.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Ocherki Rossii, izdavaemye Passekom, V., kn. V, 15Google Scholar, as quoted in Ost., 305.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Tolstoi, , op. cit., (note 68), 57–8.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Ibid., 61.

⁷² Tolstoi, , op. cit., (note 23), 90Google Scholar. The quality of the teaching personnel was another problem. Initially the teachers were well educated foreigners who spoke no Russian, thus creating a language barrier. They were later replaced by Russian (often failed) students who were not adequately prepared for teaching. Further, there was no fixed age or date for enrollment, resulting in a flux of pupils of disparate ages. Finally, there were no confirmed statutory regulations for the running of the teaching institutions, which resulted in a frequent turnover of both Heads and methods employed.

⁷³ Kuliabko, , op. cit., (note 25), 108–9Google Scholar, supports Lomonosov's statement by quoting documentary evidence that ‘during the thirty years of Schumacher's rule, not one gymnasium pupil was promoted to student.’

⁷⁴ Mat., Vol. IX, 179, 633–38.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Tolstoi, , op. cit., (note 23), 44–5Google Scholar. Until 1764 the gymnasium was located in a rented building which had fallen into complete disrepair. Frequently the classes had to be abandoned because of extreme cold and the pupils' inadequate clothing.

⁷⁶ PSS, Vol. 10, 723Google Scholar. Among his improvements Lomonosov claimed the establishment of adequate quarters, food and clothing, more stringent supervision by the gymnasium Rector and a greater emphasis on the teaching of the Russian language. In the period 1760–65, when he was in sole charge of the teaching institutions, 24 gymnasium pupils were enrolled at the university. In 1759 he prepared a statute for the gymnasium and the university, but this document had not been preserved.

⁷⁷ A contributing factor in the demise of the Academy's teaching institutions was competition from new educational institutions offering alternative professional and semi-professional goals. See Hans, N., History of Russian Educational Policy, 1701–1917, (New York, 1964) Ch. IGoogle Scholar, and de Madariaga, I., Russia in the Age of Catherine the Great, (Yale, 1981), Ch. 31.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ See clauses 1, 19, 24, 26, 29 and 32 of the 1747 charter. Skriabin, et al. , op. cit., (note 1), 40–61.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Svod. Kat., Vol. 4, 243.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Levin, , op. cit., (note 29), 219.Google Scholar

⁸¹ Svod. Kat., Vol. 4, 130.Google Scholar

⁸² Levin, , op. cit., (note 29), 220.Google Scholar

⁸³ Ibid., 225.

⁸⁴ Prot., Vol. IV, 738–9.Google Scholar

⁸⁵ Svod. Kat., Vol. 4, 117.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Ibid 156.

⁸⁷ Ibid., Vol. 1, 231, Vol. 2, 386–7, Vol. 3, 439.

⁸⁸ Ibid., Vol. 2, 143.

⁸⁹ Vucinich, , op. cit., (note 10), 77.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Gnucheva, V. F., Geograficheskii Departament Akademii Nauk XVIII veka, (Moscow-Lengingrad, 1946), 77.Google Scholar

⁹¹ Ost., 373.Google Scholar

⁹² Mat., Vol. IX, 450.Google Scholar

⁹³ Ibid., Vol. XVIII, 446.

⁹⁴ Koelreuter retained close ties with the Academy as an honorary member and a prolific contributor of articles for its official journal and seeds for the Garden. Ost., 260.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Pek., Vol. I, 459–60Google Scholar. Radovskii, M. I., M. V. Lomonosov i Peterburgskaia Akademiia Nauk, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1961) 45–6.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ PSS, Vol. 10, 468.Google Scholar

⁹⁷ Home, R. W., Introductory Monograph to Aepinus's Essay on the Theory of Electricity and Magnetism, (New Jersey: Princeton, 1979) 43Google Scholar. Fora balanced account of the unfortunate feud between the two men, as well as Aepinus's highly successful career in Russia, see 26–64 of the above work. Also by the same author ‘Science as a career in eighteenth century Russia: The case of F. U. T. Aepinus,’ The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 51, (1973) 75–94.Google Scholar

⁹⁸ Ost., 354Google Scholar. Apart from his academic duties W. L. Krafft was also actively involved in teaching at the Mining and Military Schools.

⁹⁹ Raskin, N. M., Khimicheskaia Laboratoriia M. V. Lomonosova, (Moscow-Leningrad, 1962), 39 ffGoogle Scholar. and Ost., 248–9.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁰ Ost., 254.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Raskin, , op. cit., (note 99), 172.Google Scholar

¹⁰² Prot., Vol. IV, 264.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Raskin, , op. cit., (note 99), 114, 179.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Prot., Vol. IV, 310.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Raskin, , op. cit., (note 99), 114, 184.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., 189.

¹⁰⁷ Zagorskii, F. N., Andrei Konstantinovich Nartov, 1693–1756, (Leningrad, 1969), 44.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Ost., 184–5.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ A committee was formed by Counts Andrei Shuvalov and Vladimir Orlov (Director of the Academy) and Kozitskii, ‘pour surveiller les traductions en langue russe de differents ouvrages, travail pour lequel l'impératrice avait mis a la disposition de ce comité une somme annuelle de 5000 roubles.’ Kunik, A., ed., Sbornik materialov dlia istorii Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk v XVIII veke, Part I, (St. Petersburg, 1865), 220Google Scholar. Quoted source: Russische Bibliotek … herausgegeben von Ludw. Bacmeister, , III (St. Petersburg), 74.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Rogger, Hans, National Consciousness in Eighteenth-Century Russia, (Cambridge, Mass., 1960), 114–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹¹ Papmehl, K. A., Freedom of Expression in Eighteenth Century Russia, (The Hague, 1971), 116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹¹² Pek., Vol. 1, 653Google Scholar. More specifically, Lomonosov, who was now holding the title of the Chancellery Counsellor, was made responsible for the professorial conferences, the teaching institutions and the Geographical Department; the Assistant Librarian, Taubert, was placed in charge of the Printing Works, the Book Shop and the Instrument-Making Workshops and Stählin in charge of the ‘fine arts’ Workshops. Biliarskii, P. S., Materialy dlia biografii Lomonosova, (St. Petersburg, 1865), 077Google Scholar. As each order issued from the Chancellery had to be endorsed by the three signatories, Stählin frequently found himself in the role of a mediator.

¹¹³ Ost., 317.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ Fitzlyon, K., trans, and ed., The Memoirs of Princess Dashkova, (London, 1958), 208–212.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Prot., Vol. IV, 388.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Papmehl, , op. cit., (note 111) 118–9.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ This time for her role in the 1762 coup which had placed Catherine II on the throne and eliminated Paul's father Peter III.

¹¹⁸ Ost., 326.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Ibid.

¹²⁰ Ibid.

¹²¹ The promotional procedure, both before and after the 1747 charter, appears to have been as follows: Exceptional students were at first attached to the individual professors and then, on the recommendation of the latter, were sent abroad for a specified period to further their education. Upon return, they submitted a dissertation and were examined by the academic body (and sometimes by the Director as well) and if considered ‘worthy’ were recommended to the President, or in his absence the Director, for admission to the Academy as adjuncts. If there appeared to be some doubt as to the degree of their ‘worthiness’, they might still be admitted, but at a salary intermediate between student and adjunct, (Prot., Vol. 3, 350 and 162Google Scholar). Their promotion into full membership depended on the calibre of their work and the peer regard of their colleagues, but direct appointment by the President or the Director was not uncommon. In the case of the Russians, the position of adjunct was retained on an average of eight years. It was followed by a fairly brief period as extraordinary professor/academician and ultimately by an appointment to ordinary professor/academician. The foreigners for the most part appear either to have been appointed directly to a Chair or to have served briefly as adjuncts before attaining the highest rank.

¹²² According to Amburger, Erik, op. cit., (note 7), 45–6Google Scholar, of the total number of 111 listed as active members (adjuncts and professors/academicians) of the Academy in the eighteenth century 26 were persons of Russian (i.e. Great Russian, Ukrainian or Belorussian) descent. This figure does not include naturalised Russians or individuals born in Russia of foreigen parents. Of the ‘foreigners’ 68 were German or German-speaking persons and the rest came from various other nations.

¹²³ Clause 41 of the 1747 charter stated that admission to the Academy's university depended on ability and was open to all, with the exception of those paying poll-tax. However, if any of the latter were already admitted and were being educated at the Academy, they were tobe retained. According to Shtrange, M. M., Demokraticheskaia intelligentsia v Rossii v XVIII veke, (Moscow, 1965), 120Google Scholar in the period 1751–65, of 590 pupils who passed through the Academy's gymnasium, 80 were from the poor, mainly landless nobility, 22 were of the merchant class, 13 from the clerical estate, 80 were children of clerks. There were 132 soldiers' sons, 50 sons of craftsmen, 1 of household serfs and 2 of peasant origin. There were 93 foreigners and 23 of unknown origin.

¹²⁴ Johnson, William H. E., Russia's Educational Heritage, (Pennsylvania, 1950), 42.Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Tolstoi, , op. cit., (note 23), 22–3, 90.Google Scholar

¹²⁶ Home, R. W., ‘The Education of Scientists in Eighteenth Century Germany’, paper presented at a meeting of the Australian Association of History and Philosophy of Science, (Melbourne, 1973).Google Scholar

¹²⁷ Rogger, Hans, ‘The Russian National Character: Some Eighteenth Century Views’, Harvard Slavic Studies, 4, 1957, 29Google Scholar, quoting Novikov, N. I. in Satiricheskie zhurmaly N. I. Novikova, Berkov, P. N. ed., (Moscow-Leningrad, 1951) 488.Google Scholar