1 IV (Moscow, 1958), 201.

2 , Book III, cols. 1057-58: “Obshchestvo iunoe, kipiashchee neustroennymi silami, proizvelo ispolina, kak iunaia zemlia v dopotopnoe vremia proizvodila gromadnyia sushchestva, skelety kotorykh privodiat v izumlenie nash melkii r o d …. Devstvennaia strana predstavliala takoe obshirnoe poprishche dlia bogatyrei vsiakago roda“; cf. XXII, chap, v, Book V, col. 542: “Kto-to sil'nyi, neobyknovennyi iavilsia, proshel, ostavil neizgladimye sledy, porazil voobrazhenie, ovladel pamiat'iu naroda. Vsiudu dlia liudei chutkikh, ispolnennykh sily, slyshalis’ slova: ‘Idi za mnoi, vremia nastupilo'!” It must be noted, however, that in his Public Lectures on Peter the Great (1872) Soloviëv seems to be more cautious and reserved on this point. “Great men“ should not be isolated from their environment, from the nation, and should not be regarded as miraculous or supernatural beings: they are children of their age and embody the hidden urges of the nation. Soloviev then stresses the inevitability of historical development, the rhythm of history, the necessary stages of the process. Yet the general scheme of interpretation is still the same. There are two stages, or ages, of national life: in the first the life of the nation is dominated and guided by “feeling“—the period of youth, of strong passions and movements, the time of fire. And yet it is the time of immaturity, as vigorous as the energy may be. The nation must come of age, or perish. In the second stage its life is ruled by reason, or by thought. Everything is subjected to doubt. There are dangers in these awakenings, in the transition from superstition to unbelief. Nevertheless, it is a step forward. Western Europe passed into the mature age, the age of thought, at the time of the Renaissance. Russia did the same two centuries later. In fact, only at this point of transition does real history begin, although it is possible only on the basis of what had been accumulated or created in the age of feeling. There is, in Soloviëv's vision of history, a peculiar blending of Hegelianism and the motives of the Enlightenment: belief in general laws of history and worship of knowledge and critical thinking. See (St. Petersburg, 1882), pp. 88 ff.

3 op. cit., Book III, col. 1057: “Ochered’ porabotat’ chuzhomu nachalu.“

4 I (St. Petersburg, 1908), pp. 3-4, 21, 29, 32.

5 (St. Petersburg, 1912), chap, i, pp. 1-3.

6 V.Jagi£, Historija Književnosti Naroda Hrvatskoga i Srbskoga, Vol. I.: Staro doba (Zagreb, 1867), pp. 52, 66.

7 I/1 (2nd ed.; Moscow, 1901), pp. 701 ff., 720.

8 (New York, 1952), p. 19–22.

9 George P. Fedotov, , The Russian Religious Mind: Kievan Christianity (Cambridge Mass.: Harvard. University. Press, 1946, p. 21–41.Google Scholar

10 (Moscow, 1958).

11 This theme must be elaborated in detail with reference to the modern study. It is enough to mention the recent works of Igor Grabar, V. N. Lazareff, M. Alpatov, etc.

12 See the penetrating essay of V Shchepkin, , “L'Ame du Peuple Russe dans l'Art Russe,” in Le Monde Slave, May and June, 1928 Google Scholar; the Russian text in , 1929, VIII-IX, X-XI, XII.

13 1912.

14 (Paris, 1937), pp. 1-2.

15 Wladimir Weidle, , Russia: Absent and Present (New York, 1952), pp. 15 ff.Google Scholar