opera attested to Russia's emancipation from foreign musical domination. An impressionable musical genius, Glinka reflected not only the influence of Russian folksongs, but also that of Oriental and Spanish folktunes. In both latter fields he has wrought his chef-d'œuvre, introducing new elements everywhere and breathing new life into everything he utilized. Sympathetic comprehension of the spirit of Oriental music, which is so characteristic of many Russian composers, found in Glinka the first and greatest embodiment.

But Glinka was chiefly an instrumental composer. Much as he did in this field- and he actually created the modern Russian orchestra and introduced entirely new methods of orchestration — Glinka did not do much for vocal music. With this phase of musical development Alexander Dargomyzhsky (1813-69), Glinka's illustrious contemporary, concerned himself. Although Dargomyzhsky, too, began by imitating foreign musical models, he soon surpassed all these, and even Glinka himself, in the operatic field. Even his early opera, 'Russalka' (the Mermaid, first produced in 1856), surpassed Glinka's 'A Life for the Tsar' in some respects. But his later works, the uncompleted opera Rogdana, and especially The Stone Guest' (first produced in 1872), fully revealed the great genius of this composer. The Stone Guest,' Dargomyzhsky's operatic masterpiece, shows all the distinctive merits of his originality. Although but a second rate instrumentalist, Dargomyzhsky made a lasting impression on Russian music. He not only perfected the melodic recitative introduced by Glinka, rendering it colorful and expressive alike of joy and sorrow, but added a lively sense of humor entirely wanting in the works of the former. With as strong an Oriental setting as Glinka's and an even stronger nationalist element, Dargomyzhsky's works really placed the keystone in the great arch of Russian music which was begun by Glinka. While he lacked Glinka's melodic inspiration and strong lyrical vein, no other Russian composer save Musorgsky (to be considered presently) made music express life so veraciously and so passionately. Dargomyzhsky was a great realist. His constant watchword was to fit the music to the word - each period or sentence with the musical phrase best adapted to it-and in this respect, too, he succeeded far beyond Glinka and all his early foreign masters. In perfectly blending vocal and orchestral elements so as to form a natural and inseparable whole, Dargomyzhsky took a great step in advance even of Wagner himself.

So inspiring were the great works of Glinka and Dargomyzhsky, that a whole school of Russian composers soon grew up which strove consciously to imitate and interpret them. By continued and close study of Glinka's and Dargomyzhsky's masterpieces, this group of composers - variously known as "the Balakirev Circle," "the Mighty Set," "the Invincible Band," and "the Great Five"- mastered every essential principle embodied in them and clearly formulated such others as may have lain entirely unconscious in the minds of their adapted masters. All these principles, judiciously compounded with those of West European composers, constituted the musical tenets of the Young Russian School, the true national school

of Russian composers. The leading representatives and guiding spirits of this great school were Balakirev (1837-1910), Borodin (1843-87), Musorgsky (1839–81), Rimsky-Korsakov (1844 1908) and César Cui (1835-1918). Space forbids any consideration of the musical principles which guided the work of this illustrious circle of Nationalists. As their chief mission was the radical reform of opera along the lines marked out by Glinka and Dargomyzhsky (in the field of symphonic music they accepted the work of its great Western masters), one cardinal principle may be stated to indicate their general trend. In the words of Cui himself, this was the principle that "operatic music should always have sufficient intrinsic value as absolute music, apart from the text to which it is written." "Truth and Nationalism" was their persistent battle-cry.

Of the principles and methods of this school, Balakirev was the most influential teacher, Cui the most aggressive exponent, and Musorgsky the best illustrator. The first two wrote little music, thus making the other three members of the group the most prominent composers of their school. But even though Balakirev and Cui do not rank high as composers and the compositions of the first, especially the wonderful symphonic poem 'Tamara,' are by no means negligible they occupy a very important place in the history of Russian music- the former as the initiator and leading spirit of the great musical school we are here considering, and the latter as the most vigorous and devoted literary champion of the principles for which it stood. Of the three others, Musorgsky was chiefly a vocal composer, Borodin an instrumentalist, while RimskyKorsakov worked prolifically in both fields. As they have all won universal renown, a word characterizing the work of each will not be amiss.

Musorgsky was the direct musical descendant of Dargomyzhsky, whose theories and principles he followed so faithfully that he soon excelled the work of his great master. Accepting Dargomyzhsky's musical creed concerning the realistic representation of life, Musorgsky embraced also the principle that art is a means to an end, and not an end in itself. The end, in the case of music, as in the case of the other arts, is the communication of thought. This was Musorgsky's guiding principle, which he successfully embodied in both song and opera, neither of which have ever been surpassed. His operas (especially 'Khovanstchina' and 'Boris Godunov, both historical music-dramas) are as truly Russian in every respect as art could make them. By all means the most gifted and original composer of the nationalist school, Musorgsky has extended the bounds of musical_art quite as much as did Berlioz or Wagner. Certainly no Russian composer, before or since, has done so much for musical realism. His works are not only realistic and intensely national in plot, inspiration and melodic texture, but are also veritable studies in folk-psychology, thus giving the spirit of the times as faultlessly as any historical novel. Hence Musorgsky's operas and songs, in both of which he displays truly Shakespearean insight into human nature, are human documents in the broadest and best sense of the word. Add to all this a pervading sense of musical humor- a very uncommon

quality among Russian composers and great dramatic gifts, and Musorgsky's greatness and historical importance become obvious even to the casual student of musical history.

A far lesser genius was Borodin. Just as Musorgsky continued the line of musical evolution begun by Dargomyzhsky, the vocalist, so Borodin worked along the lines laid down by Glinka, the instrumentalist. Borodin, unlike Musorgsky and Dargomyzhsky, devoted much time to absolute music, and sedulously cultivated the older musical forms discarded by the latter. In his only opera, 'Prince Igor,' Borodin is more lyrical than Glinka and more romantic than Musorgsky. In other words, he stands somewhere between national lyricism and dramatic realism. Prince Igor,' however, has great melodic inventiveness, national picturesqueness, and epical charm. If Borodin's music is the most national after Glinka's, his use of Oriental melodies surpasses even his great master's. But Borodin was essentially an orchestral composer, and it is as a symphonist that he has influenced the course of Russian musical development. Yet, though a great melodist and Orientalist in color (especially in such a masterly musical picture as 'In Central Asia,' one of the mainstays of the modern concert repertoire), Borodin can hardly be ranked among the foremost Russian composers.

The orchestral development begun by Glinka and furthered by Borodin, among others, attained seeming perfection in Rimsky-Korsakov, at once the most brilliant and the most prolific composer of the Balakirev Circle. An apostle of musical beauty and a perfect master of form, this many-sided Russian composer stands supreme in the history of modern Russian music, since not even the great Tchaikovsky (to be considered in another section), equals his powers of orchestration and his epical melodic charm. Rimsky-Korsakov is, first of all, an optimist (a composer in the major key) and an objectivist. Like all the lineal musical descendants of Glinka, he uses folk-melodies of several countries, setting them off in such gorgeous color and orchestrating them with such luxuriance that one almost forgets that the resulting kaleidoscopic beauty is a work of art. Nor is it possible to say in which department, orchestral or vocal, Rimsky-Korsakov really excels. He has produced firstclass symphonic music (including the universally admired suite, 'Scheherazade') and many splendid operas (including such gems (Sniegurotcha'), besides volumes of songs, duets, choruses and cantatas. Besides being the most versatile Russian composer and the greatest wizard of orchestration, producing endless varieties of rich orchestral color, Rimsky-Korsakov enjoys the additional distinction of being the greatest Russian musical fabulist — a great "musical archeologist," he has been aptly called for the way he draws upon folklore and legends for his enchanting opera librettos.

as

Manifestly, such splendid musical development as was attained by this brilliant group of Russian composers could not continue indefinitely. A period of decadence, which almost always sets in after a particularly rich flowering out of any art, naturally followed the unprecedented musical progress made by the foremost composers of the Balakirev Cir

VOL. 24-3

33

cle. The numerous and inevitable followers were, for the most part, uninspired imitators. Devoid of original ideas, they became a cult of mere formalists musical rhetoricians, as it were. Thus, the representatives of the second generation of nationalist Russian composers, Glazunov (1865-) and Liadov (18551914), both distinguished pupils of RimskyKorsakov, were very skilful technicians whose musical inspiration hardly ever keeps up with their mastery of form. Of the two, Glazunov is the greater technician; Liadov, the greater melodist. Both have their followers and imitators in Russian music. Mention might be made of Shtcherbatchev, Sokolov, Ladyzhsky, the two Blumenfelds, Alferaky and others, who should be classed in the school best represented by Liadov. Among the followers of Glazunov, most prominent are Vitol, Liapunov, Gretchaninov, Kapylov, Antinov and Yestafyev. But, of course, none of these groups of younger nationalists suggest even remotely the great older generation of Russian composers in whom the great nationalist school of Russian music reached its culmination. Whether the vein of nationalism has finally run dry, or whether other tendencies have ultimately replaced it, cannot be discussed in the present article. Certain it is that the glorious illumination we have been considering in this section has not yet found its like in Russian musical history.

The Western School. Even while the nationalist illumination was at its height, the "New-Russian School" did not have the field all to itself. Not only then, but from its very inception, this school or tendency had a formidable rival in the Western school, represented by the two Rubinsteins, Serov and others. Indeed, the Western tendency antedated the nationalist, being the more natural heir of the 18th century foreign-opera period. The struggle between the two great schools constitutes a most interesting chapter in the history of Russian music. The traditions established by the leaders of each musical camp have not entirely died out yet, though naturally the bitterness of earlier days has disappeared. There are many Russian contemporary composers who, consciously or sciously, represent one or the other of these tendencies; and there are some, as we shall see presently, whose eclecticism embraces both. It is impossible to enter here into the details and merits of this historic musical controversy, which raged all through the second half of the 19th century. Having already referred to the leading representatives of the nationalists, the "Mighty Five," we must now consider, however briefly, the guiding spirits of the Western school, since Russian musical history is as inseparably connected with Serov and Rubinstein as it is with the famous Balakirev Circle.

uncon

Anton Rubinstein (1829-94), who was conservative as a composer, rendered his greatest service to Russia's musical development as an educator. In a country where systematic musical education had been hitherto entirely unknown and where musical art was cultivated but by the few, Rubenstein's persistent and indefatigable educational efforts were sorely needed, if not always appreciated. It was to him that Russia owed the establishment of its first symphony concerts, the first Russian con

34

servatory of music, the Imperial Conservatory of Saint Petersburg, founded in 1862, and the oldest Russian musical society, the Imperial Russian Musical Society, organized in 1859, perhaps the greatest musical organization in the world. In the teeth of much adverse criticism Rubinstein introduced into his conservatory the principle of sound musical scholarship and broad Western musical education. His insistence on this principle alone would have embittered the members of the new national school, most of whom were neither academic musicians nor professional composers. But, of course, Rubinstein's musical tastes and predilections gave them equal offense.

Just as he looked to the West for educational guidance, so Rubinstein turned thither for musical models and inspiration. Being a classicist both by temperament and by education, he followed almost religiously the musical traditions of the school of Beethoven and Mendelssohn, eschewing and detesting all musical innovations, Wagner's no less than those of the new Russian school. Lacking in originality, however, Rubinstein remained a mere imitator as a composer; and he may not improperly be classed with one or other of the German schools of the 19th century. A truly Russian composer Rubinstein never became, though he at times used national themes and set to music several Russian texts missing, in both instances, the essential spirit of the national elements he employed. Moreover, he was a very careless composer, and most of his works lack finish and depth. He was a very prolific composer, however, and produced many works in every musical form. Though passages of exquisite beauty and even grandeur may be found everywhere, Rubinstein's longer compositions suffer for want of sustained inspiration, artistic finish and proper proportion, profuseness being one of his besetting sins. Much as he did for Russia's musical development as an educator and Rubinstein not only taught in his conservatory, but also toured Russia as musical conductor and piano virtuoso, giving concerts and recitals of inestimable educational value- Rubinstein did very little for Russian music as a composer. Mistaking mere ethnography for nationalism, he could never become a truly national composer.

Among the composers whom Anton Rubinstein may be said to have influenced, the most prominent were his brother, Nikolai Rubinstein (1835-81), also a great musical educator and pianist; Edward Napravnik (1839-1916), a great operatic conductor, and Karl Davidov (1839-89), perhaps the greatest violoncellist Russia has ever produced.

More important also as a musical educator than as a composer was the other prominent opponent of the Balakirev Circle, Alexander Serov (1820-71), the first well-educated professional music critic in Russia. Beginning with a series of essays and lectures interpreting the meaning of Western composers Mozart, Beethoven, Donizetti, Rossini, Meyerbeer, etc.- and ending with his whole-hearted praise of the works of Richard Wagner, Serov did very much to spread musical knowledge in Russia. His influence on the reading public of his day was inestimable. By raising musical appreciation in Russia he did for Russian music

pretty much what the great Belinsky (q.v.) did for Russian literature. For having lifted Russian musical criticism to its professional level, a level well sustained by at least two other musical critics (Laroche and Ivanov), Serov's name deserves always to be remembered in the history of Russian music. But, being a subjective critic and by no means a very consistent one, his four collected volumes of musical criticism abound in misleading and contradictory statements. many of them made in the heat of journalistic debate, for Serov was a born and bitter controversialist.

The Cosmopolitan or Eclectic SchoolNeither the strictly nationalist nor the purely Western tendency in Russian music proved self-sufficient. Rubinstein has had no noteworthy followers, while the nationalist illuminination owed most of its brilliancy to such rare geniuses as Musorgsky and RimskyKorsakov. Whatever truth there was in the two diverse views, neither of them contained the whole truth. The golden mean in this case was found by the great Tchaikovsky, the greatest Russian composer and the foremost representative of "occidentalism" or "eclecticism in Russian music.

a

Peter Ilyitch Tchaikovsky (1840-93), pupil of Rubinstein, did not actually belong to the Balakirev Circle, though some of his works embody principles formulated by the famous "Five." He cannot properly be classed with the new Russian school, since he persistently deviates from the straight and narrow path of pure nationalism. Though Tchaikovsky_undoubtedly had much in common with the Russian nationalists, his artistic tastes and leanings were too Western to be confined within the narrow bounds prescribed by nationalism. Thus it came about that in Tchaikovsky these two musical tendencies were happily combined.

Like his great contemporary, Rimsky-Korsakov, Tchaikovsky was a very prolific composer, having created numerous works in every field of musical composition orchestral, operatic, song, chamber music, concertos, etc. It is as an orchestral composer, however, that Tchaikovsky's genius shows to greatest advantage; and it is as a symphonist that he ranks among the greatest composers of the world. Tchaikovsky's characteristic vein is subjective introspective. All his symphonies but one are written in a minor key, while the three greatest are pervaded by a tone of intense struggle and revolt. If Rimsky-Korsakov may be described as a musical optimist and an objectivist, Borodin as an epical composer, and Musorgsky as a delightful realist, then Tchaikovsky may be characterized as a musical pessimist and subjectivist. The lyrical vein of Glinka, whose musical heritage he, naturally, shared, finds its highest expression in Tchaikovsky. The spirit of folksong, which pervades the best melodies of Rimsky-Korsakov, yields in Tchaikovsky's typical music to sombre themes steeped in introspection. Technically and temperamentally he is an uneven composer, resembling in this respect the less gifted Rubinstein. While Tchaikovsky's rhythms are often capricious, his melodious vein seldom runs dry, and his rare elegaic charm remains forever fresh, while as a master of orchestration he is second only to Rimsky-Korsakov.

Just as the nationalist school of modern Russian composers reached its highest development in Rimsky-Korsakov, its most brilliant representative, so the cosmopolitan or eclectic school attained its greatest glory in Tchaikovsky, its most illustrous composer. In neither case have followers or disciples sustained the splendid attainments of their great masters. The followers of Tchaikovsky are quite numerous. They include Arensky (1861-1906), a fairly interesting melodist and a skilful harmonizer; Kalinnikov (1866-1900). a very promising symphonist who died all too soon; Ippolitov-Ivanov (1859), a great connoisseur of Caucasian and Semitic melodies; Taniev (1856-), a composer best known for his chamber music, and Rakhmaninov (1873-), the greatest and most promising follower of Tchaikovsky, if not the foremost living Russian pianist and composer.

Recent Tendencies.- Many and varied are the new tendencies that have appeared in Russian music since the days of Tchaikovsky and Rimsky-Korsakov. As these practically coincide with the beginning of the present century, they are all too new to have reached any very definite development. It is, therefore,. as impossible to label such tendencies as it is to classify the contemporary Russian composers into "schools." The necessary historical perspective is altogether wanting for such a task. All that can safely be attempted in this article is a very general outline of such few tendencies as seem most pronounced and unmistakable at this writing.

It seems to have been inevitable that the world-wide radical tendencies - "impressionism," "futurism," and what not-prevalent in music, as in art generally, since the close of the 19th century, should have found their way into Russia. At any rate, we have in recent Russian music unmistakable echoes of Debussy, Ravel, and Dukas, in France, and of Reger, Richard Straus, and Schönberg, in Germany. The three chief representatives of these new tendencies in Russia are, Skriabin (1872-1915). Stravinsky (1882-) and Prokofiev (1891—). Of course these three names do not exhaust the list for Russia any more than the preceding ones exhaust those of France and Germany; but a brief characterization of the work of these more eminent ultra-modern Russian composers will indicate the general direction their numerous imitators are taking.

Skriabin, whose earlier compositions are delightfully Chopinesque, passed through a period of Liszt-Wagnerism before becoming the musical extremist for which he is known the world over. Thus it is in his last period that Skriabin showed his unmistakable impressionism. Becoming more and more independent as a composer, he introduced more and more revolutionary ideas into his works. For instance, in his symphonic poem, 'Prometheus,' the composer tries to prove the fancied relationship between sound and color by introducing what is known as "the color-keyboard." This experimental fusion of auditory and other sense-impression was to be carried still further in a symphonic poem which would utilize perfume as well as color, but Skriabin's premature death prevented its completion. There is no telling what course this original composer would have taken next, had he lived longer.

35

Less of a musical theorist and more of an impressionist than Skriabin is Stravinsky, whose great originality asserted itself from the very first (Scherzo Symphonique'). More than any other Russian composer, Stravinsky resembles Debussy and Schönberg. Proceeding to assert himself in subsequent compositions, he soon came to be generally regarded as the foremost "Futurist," which meant that Stravinsky had gone somewhat beyond legitimate impressionism.

Harder to classify than either Skriabin or Stravinsky is Prokofiev, the youngest of the three and seemingly the most immature. Decidedly under the influence of Schumann and Brahms, he yet shows unmistakable traces of Reger. Though having little in common with Stravinsky's general musical manner, he yet reveals internal traits strongly suggestive of his futurism. Prokofiev, evidently, has not yet found himself.

The only one of these composers whose followers can be said to have formed a new school is Skriabin. In both Petrograd and Moscow there are innumerable budding composers who try to ape Skriabin's compositions, a task far beyond mediocrity. Of these imitators - and to some extent of all the impressionists and futurists it may be said that their principal shortcomings are the lack of thematic invention and solid musical scholarship. Disregarding fundamentals and seizing upon accidentals, these ultra-moderns worship musical form above spirit and substance, seeking dissonance instead of consonance. The great advance made in modern orchestral technique enables these composers to hide a woeful paucity of musical ideas under much belabored orchestration. The result, in most cases, is much ado about nothing.

Bibliography. Considering the very important place Russian music now occupies in the concert halls and opera-houses of at least two continents, it is more than surprising that there should be such a scarcity of literature on the subject in West European languages. In English this dearth is particularly disconcerting. Apart from periodical literature, which cannot be listed here, five more or less comprehensive works (two by the same author and two in translation) are practically all that is available in English at this writing on the subject of Russian music generally: Cui, César, A Historical Sketch of Music in Russia' (in Century Library of Music, Vol. VII, New York 1901); Montagu-Nathan M., A History of Russian Music and Contemporary Russian Composers' (both London 1914 and 1917, respectively); Newmarch, R., The Russian Opera' (New York 1914); and Pougin, A., 'A Short History of Russian Music' (ib. 1915). In French the list of such works is just as short. Besides Pougin's history, already mentioned in its English translation, the reader of French will find the following variously interesting: Bruneau, A., 'Musiques de Russie et Musiciens de France' (Paris 1903); Marliave, J., 'Musiciens Russes' (In 'Etudes Musicales, ib. 1917); and Soubies, A., 'Histoire de la Musique en Russie' and Précis de l'Histoire de la Musique Russe (both Paris 1898 and 1893, respectively).

The most critical and comprehensive Russian work on the subject is Berizovsky's (Saint Petersburg 1898). There are, besides, a very admirable series of essays by Engel (Moscow

1911), a good historical sketch by Kashkin (ib. 1908), and that most authoritative if not unbiased sketch by César Cui mentioned above, which is available in French as well as in English.

Of course, there is no end of literature treating of various phases of the subject. But limitations of space preclude all special and classified bibliographies, which may be found elsewhere in this and other reference works.

DAVID A. MODELL,

Specialist in Russian Subjects.

9. EDUCATION IN RUSSIA. Educationally, as in other respects, Russia has long lagged behind the more progressive countries of both Europe and America. Neither in their extensity nor in their diversity can the schools of Russia compare favorably with those of Germany, England or the United States.

History. Russia had no schools worth mentioning before the end of the 14th century, when the southwestern part of the country_came into contact with Western civilization. Then, for the first time, well-organized schools appeared in Russia. But these were in no sense national schools and were not intended for the general public. It was not before Peter the Great, three centuries later, that Russian schools assumed Western characteristics. Up to his time all schools and schooling had borne a decidedly ecclesiastical character and depended wholly upon the clergy; but during this monarch's reign Russian education was secularized, extended and rendered more practical. Under subsequent monarchs there were various periods of bitter struggle between educational autonomy and state autocracy, induced by the shifting political aspects of the times, until the Great War and the proclamation of the Russian Federated Republic inaugurated a new educational era.

The Minister of Education appointed by the provisional Kerensky government, Ignatiev, was a progressive educator, who planned many educational reforms for Russian schools - including the elective system, the professional training of teachers, etc. But these and other important educational projects were halted by the Civil War into which Russia was plunged by the Bolshevist coup d'état of 1917, and naturally await the settled conditions of peace for development.

Organization, Etc.- For educational purposes monarchial Russia was divided into 15 districts, with the Ministry of Public Instruction as the supreme central authority. The Holy Synod exercised considerable control over primary schools, while the ministries of War, Marine and Finance maintained their own educational departments for the management of military schools, naval academies and commercial institutes. Save in the Lutheran parishes of the Baltic provinces, education in Russia was neither universal nor compulsory. Although under the Primary School Law of 1864 children of every rank, race and creed were to be admitted to primary schools controlled by the state, not more than one-sixth of the children of school age could be accommodated in Russia for lack of school facilities. Hence the low average literacy - about 21 per cent through the former empire. The course of study was extended in 1872 to three years for ordinary

and six years for urban primary schools, the latter including history, geography, geometry, the elements of physics, science and singing, besides the inevitable three R's and such special subjects as were approved by the Minister of Education. The actual support of primary schools devolved upon the central government, local authorities and private societies, as the case might be. Certain Sunday schools, supported by private funds, also carried on regular primary work with the approval of the Minister of Education. There were besides, many denominational schools engaged in secular teaching throughout the country which were similarly authorized. Before the World War there were, all told, about 126,000 primary schools in Russia, with a total enrolment exceeding 8,264,000 pupils.

The principal schools of secondary grade in Russia before the Revolution were Gymnasia (classical high schools), Realschools (modern high schools), Progymnasia (junior high schools) and commercial schools. The first were intended to lead directly into the universities, while the second prepared pupils for the various technical schools. As many gymnasia students never entered the university, a new kind of secondary school - something between the classical and the modern high school - was under consideration when the war broke out. Besides these types of secondary schools there were many others — teachers' institutes, teachers' seminaries, girls' high schools ("female gymnasia"), etc. A special kind of girls' secondary school, a sort of boarding school similar to Roman Catholic convent schools, was established by Empress Maria, wife of Alexander II, which ultimately necessitated a separate educational department assuming almost ministerial rank. This particular institution is believed to have been the forerunner of numerous girls' high schools in Russia and thus promoted the education of women to no inconsiderable extent. The regular nigh-school course runs from seven to eight years, and in the case of girls includes no classical languages. As in the case of primary schools, many high schools are maintained by private organizations, but all are controlled or supervised by the government. The total number of secondary schools in Russia increased from 760 in 1909 to 2,050 in 1914 and the number of enrolments from 171,687 to about 685,601.

Russian universities resemble those of other countries in many respects. In imperial times they had the usual faculties of law, philology, science, medicine, chemistry, etc., but foreigners were denied admission to all but musical conservatories. Private universities were the exception rather than the rule. The social spirit characteristic of the best European and American universities has in the past been wanting in Russian universities, being replaced by intense political activity-hence the government's repressive measures referred to earlier in this article. The number of applicants for admission always greatly exceeding all possible enrolments, a stiff competitive examination precedes matriculation in Russian universities. As many university graduates land in the civil service, there was always a close connection between the proverbial incompetence of government officials and the unfortunate educational situation just referred to, which often makes