B. N. Menshutkin, Biography of Mikhail Vasilyevich Lomonosov, 3rd ed., with the participation of P. N. Berkov, S. I. Vavilov, and L. B. Modzalevsky. Edited by S. I. Vavilov and L. B. Modzalevsky. Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR. Popular-Science Series. Biographies. Moscow–Leningrad, 1947, 296 pp., print run 10,000.

The first book in the biographical series of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR—the monograph by Academician S. I. Vavilov on Newton, which is, by general acknowledgment, a model of a scientific biography—appeared in January 1943. Since then, in the same series, in addition to the monograph on Newton, biographies have appeared of Archimedes, Lobachevsky, Sechenov, Timiryazev, A. O. Kovalevsky, and V. O. Kovalevsky. As this list shows, the main place in the biographical series published by the Commission on Popular-Science Literature of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR is assigned to outstanding Russian scientists.

It is natural that one of the commission’s most important tasks was the publication of a work devoted to the life and activity of the giant of Russian science, M. V. Lomonosov. This task is being fulfilled by the reissue of the monograph by the late Prof. B. N. Menshutkin.

It is well known that it was B. N. Menshutkin who first investigated Lomonosov’s richest scientific legacy and, on the basis of these researches, recreated the image of the brilliant scientist. B. N. Menshutkin devoted about 40 years to the study of Lomonosov’s life and activity, publishing a whole series of works about him both in Russian and in the foreign press. The monograph, published in 1911 on the two-hundredth anniversary of Lomonosov’s birth, constituted a genuine triumph for its author. This work, entitled “Biography of M. V. Lomonosov,” was awarded a prize of the Academy of Sciences and sold in an unheard-of print run for that time—80,000 copies.

Through a quarter of a century, in 1937, in connection with the 225th anniversary of Lomonosov’s birth, a new edition appeared under the same title, revised and supplemented. However, Lomonosov’s activity was so many-sided and fruitful, and the whole life of so extraordinary a researcher as B. N. Menshutkin, proved insufficient to exhaust the richest legacy of the remarkable Russian scholar. Therefore the Academy of Sciences of the USSR undertook the compilation of special collections of materials and studies illuminating various aspects of Lomonosov’s activity (two issues appeared), and in the last several years much has been done in this direction.

Since the reissue of B. N. Menshutkin’s monograph was dictated by the desire to give the broad reader as complete as possible a work on Lomonosov, it was necessary to fill the gaps it contained. The new edition had to be supplied with appropriate additions, the authors of which—P. N. Berkov, S. I. Vavilov, and L. B. Modzalevsky, each in his own field—introduced much that is new in illuminating the creative and personal life of Lomonosov.

It must be noted that the task of re-creating the image of Lomonosov, which confronted B. N. Menshutkin, was exceptionally difficult. Very little material for Lomonosov’s biography has been preserved and, strangely enough, most of it pertains to the period when he was still a student and studied abroad with the celebrated philosopher and scholar of the eighteenth century Chr. Wolff, and also with the specialist in metallurgy and mining of that time I. Henckel. Nevertheless, a careful examination of the holdings of the Archive of the Academy of Sciences and of the literature of the eighteenth century, an attentive study of Lomonosov’s works and unpublished treatises—many of which, in accordance with the traditions of that time, were written in Latin and were only in translation being introduced into scholarly circulation—allowed the researcher to outline the majestic figure of the “father of Russian science.”

Before the reader there rises the path which Lomonosov had to traverse, beginning his life as a fisherman and ending it as a scholar who anticipated his age by entire centuries. For Lomonosov, the son of a peasant, “placed on a poll-tax register,” the road to education and science was closed. Forced to hide his peasant origin in order to have the opportunity to study, he passed himself off now as a nobleman, now as a priest’s son.

Recalling the initial period of his studies, Lomonosov wrote to the well-known eighteenth-century patron of the arts Count I. I. Shuvalov, whose patronage he often enjoyed:

“While studying in the Slavonic schools, I had on all sides powerful impulses that turned me away from the sciences, which in those years possessed an almost irresistible force. On the one hand my father, having no children except me, said that I, being his only one, had left him, had left all his property (which, according to the local condition, he had acquired for me by bloody sweat and which, after his death, strangers would plunder). On the other hand, unspeakable poverty: having one altyn a day for food, it was impossible to have in a day more than a dengu’s worth of bread and a dengu’s worth of kvass; the rest went for paper, for shoes, and for other needs. In this way I lived for five years and did not abandon the sciences. On one side they write that, knowing my father’s prosperity, good people there will give their daughters in marriage to me, which they are even prepared to do in my absence. On the other side, the schoolboys, little lads, cry out and point their fingers: look, what a blockhead, at twenty he has come to study Latin.” (Lomonosov was nineteen years old when he reached Moscow and entered the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy at the Zaikonospassky Monastery.—M. R.)

From such and similar documents B. N. Menshutkin reconstructed the picture of the childhood, youth, and mature years of the scholar, and showed the passions and inclinations of the young Lomonosov.

But the value of the work under review lies not only in its description of Lomonosov’s life and activity, but also in the evaluation that Menshutkin

gave to his investigations. A great connoisseur of the history of science, he showed, against the background of the achievements of the science of that time, the significance of Lomonosov’s works. The precursor of such scholars as, for example, Lavoisier, with whose names an entire epoch in the history of natural science is associated, Lomonosov laid the foundation for new fields of knowledge, especially physical chemistry.

But, as is known, he worked not only in the natural sciences. His works in the humanities were also outstanding.

Before the research of B. N. Menshutkin it was believed that Lomonosov’s scientific activity was determined precisely by these works. This was the opinion of both “high admirers” of the scholar, who were inclined to regard his pursuits in the natural sciences as somewhat accidental. Here is what Lomonosov wrote on this subject to the already mentioned I. I. Shuvalov:

“As for my other exercises in physics and chemistry, in order to abandon them altogether there is neither need nor possibility. Every man requires some rest from his labors; for this reason, having left the present task, some seek pleasure with guests or members of the household in passing the time with cards, draughts, and other amusements, and others in tobacco smoke, which I long ago renounced because I found in them nothing but boredom; and so I hope that it will be permissible also for me, for repose from the labors which I devote to the compilation and composition of Russian history and to the embellishment of the Russian language, to have a few hours a day in order to use them, together with billiards, for physical and chemical experiments, which for me may serve not only as amusement instead of repugnant matter, but also as medicine instead of exercise, and, above all, may undoubtedly bring benefit and honor to the fatherland, perhaps no less than the first...”

Now, almost two centuries later, when in the light of the path traversed by science it is possible to give an objective assessment of Lomonosov’s scientific activity, it is clear that his investigations in the natural sciences were of chief importance. But in the history of Russian culture the role of his poetic work, his pursuits in philology, history, and other social sciences was also great. B. N. Menshutkin likewise illuminated this side of Lomonosov’s activity in his work. But, as a chemist by specialty, he could not undertake special investigations in this direction and give an equally authoritative assessment of the corresponding works of Lomonosov. Therefore, specialists in the humanities were brought in for the new edition of the monograph.

However, B. N. Menshutkin had not covered some of Lomonosov’s physical works either, such as, for example, his optical investigations. The task of filling this gap was undertaken by Academician S. I. Vavilov, who wrote a special chapter (VI) for the new edition. In this chapter, devoted to a completely unexplored area of Lomonosov’s scientific activity, the author showed his optical research, comparing it with the state of optics at that time. As in all other cases, Lomonosov strove in optics to find a practical application for his scientific conclusions. The result of his inquiries was the “night-vision tube,” of the invention of which he reported to the Academy of Sciences in May 1756. The beginning of Lomonosov’s studies of problems of optics, however, dates back to the time of his stay abroad. On returning to Russia, in 1741 he presented to the Academy a treatise entitled Discourse on the Catoptric-Dioptric Incendiary Instrument.

Characterizing Lomonosov’s achievements in applied optics, S. I. Vavilov writes: “Now, almost two centuries after Lomonosov announced his invention, it may be stated with confidence that this was a proposal of great significance. Galileo had already examined in his tube ‘night’ objects—the Moon, planets, and stars—but they were relatively very bright; Lomonosov, however, proposed something entirely different. His night-vision tube was intended for viewing, at twilight or on a bright night, distant objects on the earth barely distinguishable to the eye. As far as is known /”

Bibliography

Lomonosov was the first to propose such a use of the telescope, and the full value of such a proposal has been understood only in our own time. Lomonosov based himself on his own experiments.

S. I. Vavilov noted that Lomonosov had constructed a number of optical instruments founded on ideas that were rediscovered several decades later and became known under the names of later inventors. Thus, speaking of Lomonosov’s reflecting telescope, S. I. Vavilov emphasizes: “Herschel’s famous telescope was built on the basis of the same constructive idea as Lomonosov’s, and it is high time to call this optical system the Lomonosov–Herschel system.”

Considerably renewed are Chapters VII and VIII. Chapter VII, newly revised by L. B. Modzalevsky and S. I. Vavilov, characterizes Lomonosov’s scientific and organizational activity and his works on geography, among which of special interest is his proposal concerning the use of the Northern Sea Route. In addition, this chapter discusses Lomonosov’s studies on gravitation and the numerous instruments he proposed for measurements.

Of great value is the new material added by P. N. Berkov to Chapter VIII. Lomonosov’s work in the field of philology and poetry may be said to have received scientific treatment for the first time. The most important part of this chapter is the section that reveals Lomonosov’s role in creating the Russian scholarly language. Such terms as udel’nyi ves [specific gravity], ravnovesie tel [equilibrium of bodies], prelomlenie luchei [refraction of rays], magnitnaia strelka [magnetic needle], and a great many others were introduced into scholarly usage by Lomonosov.

One should also note the extensive bibliography of Lomonosov’s works and of works about him appended at the end of the book, compiled by L. B. Modzalevsky. This bibliography will be useful not only to those interested in Lomonosov’s life and activity, but also to all who are interested in the history of science and enlightenment in Russia.

The separate parts of the book, written by different authors, naturally differ from one another in style. Menshutkin presents the facts of Lomonosov’s life in narrative form and explains them without any scholarly apparatus. The sections written by S. I. Vavilov and P. N. Berkov, however, provide special studies that refer not only to sources but also to the literature of the subject. In our view, it would have been desirable to furnish the text written by B. N. Menshutkin with appropriate notes as well, since he often does not indicate his sources, even when citing the most important documents. This would undoubtedly have increased the value of the book, which even now can only be called excellent.

M. Radovsky