1. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 17.
2. DO, 39; LCR, 59.
3. ARAN 259.2.1093.
4. For an excellent analysis of inhibition as science and metaphor, see Smith’s Inhibition.
5. E. Laganskii, “U Ivana Petrovicha Pavlova,” Literaturnyi Leningrad, November 1, 1935.
6. ARAN 259.1a.39: 28.
* The name is pronounced ee-VAHN pee-TRO-veech PAHV-loff.
1. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 40; I. P. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 447.
2. Freeze, Russian Levites, 3.
3. Belliustin, Description, 142.
4. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 39; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia Ivana Petrovicha Pavlova, 3. This latter unfootnoted manuscript represents the authorized biography of Pavlov, but, so far as I have been able to determine, it was never published. ARAN holds only the part dealing with Pavlov’s life through the 1890s. Dmitriev-Krymskii secured Pavlov’s full cooperation in 1933 and apparently completed the manuscript in 1941. He was granted access to Pavlov’s archive, consulted closely with Pavlov’s wife Serafima and oldest son Vladimir, and interviewed some fifty coworkers and other members of Pavlov’s circle. The family reviewed the manuscript closely, and Vladimir termed it “the first complete and, so far, the only biography” of his father. Together with Serafima’s memoirs, he testified, it covered Pavlov’s life completely—leaving only “unimportant additions and details” for future biographers (ARAN 259.7.196). It must of course be used with caution (especially as it conjures dialogue and the thoughts of various actors)—but is valuable as a reflection of the mature Pavlov’s narrative of his own life.
5. I. P. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 448; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 39; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 4.
6. I. P. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 448–449; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 4.
7. Riazanskie gubernskie vedomosti, September 7, 1863.
8. My thanks to Vera Podguzova for kindly sharing her notes from GARO on the history of the Pavlovs, the Uspenskiis, and the Nikolo-Vysokovskaia Church. She gives the archival locations as GARO 627.108.37 (1848), 627.249.187 (1848), 627.249.47 (1835), and 1280.1.253 (1847). Other sources are Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 5; S. V. Pavlova, “Iz vospominanii,” 99.
9. Belliustin, Description, 110–111; Freeze’s introduction to Belliustin, 2.
10. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 79.
11. Freeze, Parish Clergy, 208, 265.
12. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 41,44, 45, 49, 68, 83–84, 90; P. D. Pavlov’s formuliarnyi spisok, RGVIA 316.69.116; “Iubileinoe Prazdnovanie po sluchaiu ispolnivshagosia piatidesiatiletiia sviashchennosluzheniia o. blagochinnago Riazanskikh gradskikh tserkvei protoiereia Petra Dmitrievicha Pavlova,” Riazanskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, December 15, 1898, 834–842; “Nekrolog,” Riazanskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, August 1, 1899, 495–496.
13. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 55, 58.
14. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 58–59.
15. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 63–64. One marriage that bent these rules was that between Petr Dmitrievich’s son Sergei and the granddaughter of his brother Ivan Dmitrievich (the alcoholic comic), Anna. On incentives to perform secret marriages, see Freeze, Parish Clergy, 57–58, and Russian Levites, 177–178.
16. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 8, 44–46.
17. PS, III, 246.
18. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 103–108.
19. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 23–24; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 79, 99.
20. Orlov, Vospominaniia; Pavlov’s self-description is cited by Gantt, AMC, box 191, folder 6, 1; I. P. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 445–446; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 9; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 4.
21. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 23; for Pavlov’s replies to Filipchenko’s eugenics questionnaires (one for “academicians,” the other for “outstanding scholars”), see ARAN razriad 4 opis’ 9 dela 3–4; for conclusions based on discussions with Pavlov that Varvara Ivanovna was “abnormally unbalanced,” see Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 24, and Anokhin, Pavlov, 27–29. Pavlov’s later attribution of his initial interest in psychiatry to his friends’ mental crises at the university (see chapter 3) probably concealed this earlier, more powerful, and uncomfortable source.
22. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 18–19; Babkin draws upon Serafima Pavlov’s memoirs in recounting this tale in Pavlov, 8–9.
23. S. V. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 431.
24. M. K. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 6.
25. Orlov, Vospominaniia and Pavlov, Moi vospominaniia.
26. Belliustin, Description, 72–74.
27. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 32.
28. GARO 1280.1.381: 360 and 1280.1.383: 24; Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 9–10; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 34.
1. Russians did not use the term “middle class,” but I employ it here for those who recognized fellow members of this stratum by their common income, education, reading habits, dress, lifestyle, and values—and who would certainly have been recognizably “middle class” to their Western counterparts. See Stearns, “The Middle Class,” and Balzer, Missing Middle.
2. Pashutin, Kratkii ocherk, 19; see Friedan, Russian Physicians.
3. N. V. Shelgunov, cited in Vucinich, Science in Russian Culture, 3; Machtet, “Iz stat’i,” 465.
4. Belliustin, Description, 73–74, 90, 93–94, 106–108; Freeze, Parish Clergy, 139.
5. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 441; Orlov, Moi vospominaniia and Vospominaniia vracha; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 39–42.
6. On seminary cultural events, see http://www.history-ryazan.ru/node/10617#19.
7. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 35. Khvoshchinskaia published her novels under the pseudonym V. Krestovskii. See her Sobranie sochinenii, Vol. II, 235–236, 244.
8. On the seminary, its dorms, and its regime: GARO 1280.1.406: 13–22, 1280.1.410–412 (unpaginated files); 1280.1.393: 23.
9. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 37.
10. GARO, 1280.1.393: 57–63, 188–194; 1280.1.413: 166.
11. GARO 1280.1.412: Obzor prepodavaemykh urokov (1867).
12. GARO 1280.1.408: 4–5, 14.
13. GARO 1280.1.399 (1865–1866): 13, 107, 245, 490, 809–810; 1280.1.408 (1867–1868): 4–5, 14, 490.
14. Based on Glebov’s detailed course outline in GARO 1280.1.412 (unpaginated) and his textbook Psikhologiia.
15. Glebov, Psikhologiia, 1–2.
16. Glebov, Psikhologiia, 25, 28, 33, 43, 46, 53, 59, 88, 101, 107–109; GARO 1280.1.412.
17. Glebov, Psikhologiia, 109, 115–122.
18. RGIA 14.3.16665: Lichnoe delo studenta Ivana Petrovicha Pavlova.
19. GARO 1280.1.412 (unpaginated file); Letter from the Holy Synod, August 8, 1866, GARO 280.1.399: 374 (pernicious ideas); GARO 1280.1.427: 1rev, 50, 157rev–158, 244–244rev (reforms and class ranks).
20. Machtet, “Iz stat’i,” 543 (Shchedrin quotes); Riazanskie gubernskie vedomosti 1864, no. 20 and 1865, no. 21.
21. GARO 1280.1.408 (1867–1868): 28, 32; 1280.1.409: 9; 1280.1.427: 160; for the court and ecclesiastical censor on Wundt and Sechenov, see Todes, “Biological Psychology,” 533–539.
22. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 51–55; Liozner-Kannabikh, “Iz vospominanii,” 580–582; Pavlov, Popalsia, [July 18,] 1879, 17–19 and [July 4,] 1879, 7.
23. Chernyshevskii, Selected Philosophical, 94, 96, 133.
24. Pisarev, Sochineniia, III, 129; V. A. Zaitsev, “Bibliograficheskii listok,” Russkoe slovo 1863, 5: 72; N. V. Shelgunov, “Progressivnaia reaktsiia,” Delo 1879, 4: 148.
25. Pisarev, “Realisty,” Sochineniia, III, 82, 119, 122–126, 129, 137. This essay was originally published as “Nereshennyi vopros” in Russkoe slovo (1864). His essay on Darwin, “Progress v mire zhivotnykh i rastenii,” also appeared in Russkoe slovo (1864); available at http://aacsb.ru/p/pisarew_d/text_1864_progress.shtml.
26. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 50–59.
27. Orlov, Vospominaniia.
28. From Hughes’s introduction to Smiles, Lives, 11–12, 14; aphorisms from Self-Help, 416, 305, 144, and 150.
29. On Sechenov’s research on inhibitory centers, see his Autobiographical Notes, 105, 108; his articles on these centers are reprinted in his Izbrannye. Iurkevich’s “Iazyk fiziologov i psikhologov” appeared in Russkii vestnik 38 (1862). On Bokova and the connection to Sovremennik, see Sechenov’s letter in his Neopublikovannye, 235.
30. Citations from Sechenov, Selected Works, 290–291, 322, 333. For a detailed analysis of this text and Sechenov’s later retreat from these arguments, see Todes, From Radicalism, 249–292 and Joravsky, Russian Psychology, 53–62, 125–134. For censorship deliberations, see Todes, From Radicalism, 113–122 and “Biological Psychology,” 535–539.
31. Pavlov’s recollection of his youthful response to Lewes was recorded by two coworkers, Babkin (Pavlov, 214) and Frolov (Chetvert’ veka, 9).
32. RGIA 777.2.7: 2 (censor on Bernard); Gureeva, “Uchastie,” 1159; Pavlov, Neopublikovannye, 77.
33. Riazanskie gubernskie vedomosti, April 20, 1866 and April 23, 1866; Riazanskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti, August 15, 1866; GARO 1280.1.410.
34. Pavlov, “Moi vospominaniia,” 447; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia o Petre Dmitrieviche Pavlove, 41–42. The archbishop forced Pavlov to resign his position at Nikolo-Vysokovskaia Church and to “request transfer” to Lazarev Cemetery Church by appointing a second priest, Nikolai Smirnov, to divide his duties at the former. This insult also dramatically reduced Pavlov’s prospective income. Pavlov’s well-known practice of performing questionable marriages probably played a role. The same issue of Riazanskie eparkhial’nye vedomosti that announced Smirnov’s appointment carried an item reaffirming the unacceptability of performing marriages contrary to “the rules of either Church or State” (October 1, 1868: 62, 64). On Pavlov’s transfer, see the issue of October 15, 1868: 88–89.
35. ARAN 259.4.2.
1. Description of Nevskii Prospekt from Chesnokova, Nevskii Prospekt; Ignatova, Zapiski; and Koni, Peterburg; on the working class, Zelnick, Labor and Society and Lincoln, Sunlight, 150–151.
2. RGIA 14.3.16665: 1–10; ARAN 259.7.3; on the dining halls, Samoilov, Pavlov, 20, and Svetlov, Peterburgskaia, 59.
3. Pavlov, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 441–442.
4. Todes, Darwin, 104–122 and 45–61.
5. TsGIA SPB 14.1.6780: 1rev, 8–10rev, 17–17rev.
6. TsGIA SPB 14.1.11328: 108rev–109rev; TsGIA SPB 14.1.6670: 1, 5, 33, 39; TsGIA SPB 139.1.6538:1.
7. For Pavlov’s accounts of Bystrov’s malady, see his Zakonomernost’ and PKS, III, 42–43. On Chel’tsov’s, PKS, I, 360, 621–622. On Pavlov’s neurosismus, TsGIA SPB 14.3.16665: 7, 11–12; and Grekova, “‘Neurosismus.’”
8. RGIA 14.3.16665: 15, 34, 36, 41, 43.
9. Pavlov, Popalsia, [July 18,] 1879, 17–19.
10. Pavlova, “Iz Vospominanii,” 102.
11. Pavlov, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 442; Pavlov to Tsion, September 13, [1897], in ARAN 259.7.167: 3–4; Pavlov, Neopublikovannye, 11.
12. TsGIA SPB 14.1.6670, 139.1.6712; 139.1.6538; Nozdrachev, “Il’ia Tsion”; Protokoly zasedanii konferentsii Imperatorskoi Mediko-Khirurgicheskoi Akademii za 1872 god (St. Petersburg, 1873); Sechenov, Neopublikovannye, 51–52.
13. M. N. Katkov to K. P. Pobedonostsev, June 21, 1887, in K. P. Pobedonostsev, 715; citation from physiologist Ukhtomskii in Sechenov, Fiziologiia, 84.
14. Mechnikov, Stranitsy, 45; Kagan, “Elie de Cyon,” 332. According to Kagan, Tsion was raised as an Orthodox Jew. He later converted to Christianity, which did not, of course, deter anti-Semites from deriding him as a “Yid.”
15. Fokin, “Pamiat’ zhivet v vekakh,” 2; ARAN 259.7.167: 3–4; on Tsion’s lab, see also Kichigina, Imperial, 257–283.
16. TsGIA SPB 14.1.6884, 14.1.6950: 161rev–163, 14.1.7286: 3; Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 15–18; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 9–10.
17. Tsion, Kurs fiziologii (1873), 6–7.
18. Tsion, Kurs fiziologii (1873), 7.
19. Tsion, Kurs fiziologii (1873), 8. These were all central arguments in Bernard’s An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine (1865).
20. Tsion, Kurs fiziologii (1873), 10–15.
21. Tsion, Kurs fiziologii (1873), 1, 15; Kurs fiziologii (1874), 8–9; Pavlov, DO, 39; LCR, 60.
22. On Bernard’s approach, see Coleman, “Cognitive,” Holmes, Bernard, and Latour, “Costly.”
23. Popel’skii, Istoricheskii ocherk, 80–82; PSS, VI, 326.
24. TsGIA SPB 14.3.16665: 26; PSS, I, 27; TsGIA SPB 14.1.11332: 25 and 14.3.14814: 14; Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 18–19; PSS, II, 49–68. For Pavlov’s notes on studies of the pancreas, ARAN 259.1.28. For the relationship between Tsion’s research and Pavlov’s research projects, see Nozdrachev, “Il’ia Tsion.”
25. Pavlov, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 442; TsGIA SPB 14.3.16665: 17–18, 20; Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 183. Admitted formally into the second year at the Academy in fall 1875, he was soon transferred to the third year after passing an exam in practical anatomy.
26. Pavlov, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 442.
27. Mikhailovskii, “Strannye protivorechiia,” no. 7, 33; for the minority and majority reports, see Protokoly zasedanii konferentsii Imperatorskoi Mediko-Khirurgicheskoi Akademii za 1872 god (St. Petersburg, 1873). Citations from p. 122.
28. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 10–11.
29. Tsion, Serdtse i mozg, 2.
30. Tsion, Serdtse i mozg, 7–15, 19, 29.
31. Tsion, Serdtse i mozg, 29.
32. Tsion, Serdtse i mozg, 21.
33. Tsion, Serdtse i mozg, 23–24.
34. On similar sentiments in the United States, see Warner, “Ideals.”
35. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 11; Chistovich, Dnevniki, 367–368; GARF fond 109, delo 254 chast’ I (1874): 3–6.
36. GARF 109.254.ch.I: 4–6.
37. The events leading to Tsion’s downfall are extensively documented in GARF 109.254.ch. I (which is inconsistently paginated). For this information, reel 5 (1874), 288; Mikhailovskii, “Strannye protivorechiia,” no. 7: 22–46 and no. 8: 123–157.
38. GARF 109.254, ch. I: 11 and reel 7, report of November 28, 1874, 288.
39. Tolstovskii Muzei, 53.
40. GARF 109.254, ch. I (1874), reel 2: 109–174, and reel 7: 161; Chistovich, Dnevnik, 430–432. In a practice the Bolsheviks would continue, expelled students were often reinstated after writing a formal letter of repentance. These are collected in 109.254 (1874) ch. II (reel 2).
41. GARF 109.254.ch.II: 275; TsGIA SPB 139.1.6816: 97–103.
42. S. V. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, in IPPPN, 45; Pavlov, O russkom ume, 12. Recounting this tale in later years, Pavlov emphasized the students’ anti-Semitism and inexcusable refusal to take Tsion’s exam. See Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 10–13; Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 26; Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 115–116.
1. Kichigina, Imperial, 131–162; and Samoilov, Pavlov, 49–66.
2. Kichigina, Imperial, 158–159, and her Physiology, 117 (for citation).
3. As of 1886, about 25 percent of Institute graduates had become professors—half of these at the Academy itself, and another half at universities—while another 10 percent were employed as lecturers. Samoilov, “Vnedrenie,” 231.
4. PSS, I, 72–82, 74.
5. Stal’, Perezhitoe, 119–120; Samoilov, Pavlov, 75.
6. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [February] 5, [1881], in IPPPN, 158.
7. Pavlov’s articles of this period are reprinted in PSS, I, 28–68, and PSS, II, 1, 9–89.
8. PSS, II, 1, 10–13; Trudy Sankt-Peterburgskogo obshchestva estestvoispytatelei VIII (1877): 84–85.
9. PSS, I, 29, 72, 77.
10. PSS, I, 77.
11. PSS, I, 77–78.
12. PSS, I, 49–68.
13. PSS, II, 1, 69–87; citation on 87.
14. On Tarkhanov, see Popel’skii, Istoricheskii ocherk, 97–137; Todes, From Radicalism, 293–330; and Saakashvili, Tarkhanov. On Chir’ev and Bakst’s “campaign” against him, see Kaufman, “Za kulisami pechati,” 110.
15. Trudy Sankt-Peterburgskogo obshchestva estestvoispytatelei 7 (1876): CXIX–CXXI. For Pavlov’s version, see Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 13–14; and Babkin, Pavlov, 15.
16. Popel’skii, Istoricheskii ocherk, 106, 130.
17. PSS, I, 35, 60–62.
18. Rita Rait-Kovaleva related this to me in a conversation of March 1977. As we were in the presence of a “watcher,” I could not press her to elaborate. Having entered Pavlov’s lab long after Sechenov’s death, she could not have known this from personal experience. She was, rather, passing on a bit of the considerable lore about Pavlov that his coworkers communicated across generations—in this case, lore that was politically incorrect by Soviet standards.
19. For two slightly different accounts of Petr’s death: A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 103; and M. N. Bogdanov’s preface to the publication of Petr’s ornithological observations of Riazan published in 1879 and cited in Nozdrachev, IPPPN, Vol. 2, 291. A. F. Pavlov writes that all four sons—Ivan, Dmitrii, Petr, and Sergei—were present at the accident; Bogdanov places Dmitrii, Petr, and Sergei at the scene; and Dmitriev-Krymskii (Biografiia, 116) only Sergei and Petr. Ivan was certainly in St. Petersburg at the time (as documented by a dated experiment), and it seems highly unlikely that Sergei alone could have dragged his wounded brother home from the woods. So I suspect that Bogdanov is correct.
20. Belogolovyi, Botkin; Kichigina, Imperial, 221–225; Stal’, Perezhitoe, 124–126, 139–141. Citations from Budko, Velikii Botkin, 135; and BabkinMS, 40.
21. My thanks to Marina Sorokina for reviewing and helping me analyze the archival material on Pavlov’s initial failing of his medical exams. On this episode, see especially RGVIA 316.69.214: 5, 37–38, 64–64rev, 92–93rev, 98rev–99; RGVIA 316.69.116: 239–240rev and 316.40.1855.
22. Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 24.
1. Information on her early life is from the multiple drafts and fragments of her autobiographical manuscripts in Vospominaniia (ARAN 259.1.169), Otdel’nye glavy (259.1.170), Detskie rasskazy (259.1.171), and Iz vospominanii (259.1.85). Inscribed photos from her days at the gymnasium are preserved in the Pavlov family albums now held by MMK.
2. Draft letter from Serafima Pavlova to [Evgeniia Sikorskaia], ARAN 259.1.171: 254–256, on 254.
3. Stites, Women’s Liberation, 82–85.
4. Pavlova, Detskie rasskazy, 22–23. Among Serafima’s acquaintances at the Courses were Vera (“of an entirely revolutionary mood”), Nadia (whose brother had been exiled for his radical activities), and Natasha (whose older brother had been hanged in Kiev). This in Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 105.
5. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 23.
6. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 107; for a fragment of her novel, see 423–424. Serafima’s literary tastes may have here, again, shaped her self-portrayal: in his celebrated speech on Pushkin in 1880, Dostoevsky pointed to these same two characters as exemplars of the nobility of Russian womanhood.
7. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 396.
8. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, in IPPPN, II, 35.
9. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 432.
10. Pavlov, Popalsia, 1; Chudnye, 20–21.
11. Pavlov, Popalsia, May 26, 1879, 1.
12. Pavlov, Chudnye, August 21, 1879, 35–36.
13. Pavlov, Popalsia, July 11, 1879, 29–31.
14. Pavlova draft letter to Sikorskaia, 254rev; Raisa Khmel’nitskaia to Serafima Karchevskaia, Sept 23, [1879], ARAN 259.9.95: 15.
15. Pavlova, “Iz vospominanii,” 98.
16. Pavlov refers to “Our Dostoevsky” in a letter of [February] 3, [1881], in IPPPN, 161. This is a copy of one of several letters that either is at MMK and not ARAN or that I missed during my research in ARAN, so I cite it from this published version.
17. Letopis’ zhizni i tvorchestva F. M. Dostoevskogo, 392.
18. I am using the version of her encounters with Dostoevsky in Detskie rasskazy, 250–251, 261–267. For a slightly different version, see IPPPN, 90–2, 97–100. She mistakenly writes that Turgenev spoke first and Dostoevsky afterwards—an error that probably reflects the climactic quality of Dostoevsky’s appearance for her.
19. Pavlova, Detskie rasskazy, 251. In the version that she sent to Babkin in a letter of 1937 (and which was subsequently published in Babkin’s Pavlov), Serafima repeated that she “simply [did] not remember” who supplied her coat and how she went home. In another, self-contradictory, version—apparently written later or cobbled together from various drafts—she adds that “Later I discovered that Ivan Petrovich [Pavlov] accompanied me” and briefly describes their walk through St. Petersburg after the literary evening. Perhaps she wrote these other passages when, shortly after Pavlov’s death, she prepared to speak at Koltushi about that literary evening, or perhaps when she prepared selected parts of her memoirs for publication in the 1940s. See her letter of June 2, 1937, to Babkin in OLAC 390/22/2/21; Babkin, Pavlov, 29–30; Nesterov, Pis’ma, 406–407, 444. The later version was published in “Iz vospominanii” (1946), 116–117, and then in IPPPN, 90–92. For the selection that so moved her, see Dostoevsky, The Adolescent, 171–177 (Part One, chapter 9, section V).
20. As Volgin notes (Poslednii, 393), such was Dostoevsky’s aura as a psychologically insightful prophet that many, especially among the youth, appeared at his apartment in search of advice.
21. Pavlova, draft letter to Sikorskaia, 254.
22. This inscribed photograph remains among her papers at MMK.
23. Pavlov refers to her admission in his letter of Thursday, [November] 6, [1880], in IPPPN, 142. Nowhere in his letters about “our Dostoevsky” does he even allude to Serafima’s private discussions with the writer. In 1937, more than a year after Pavlov’s death, Serafima provided Babkin only her description of the literary evening itself, omitting entirely her intimate meetings with the writer. See her letter of June 2, 1937, in OLAC 390/22/3/21, and Babkin, Pavlov, 29–30, where he adds to her account that “Unfortunately, Serap hima Vasil’evna does not tell us what Dostoevsky said to her.” An inquiry from her sister Evgeniia (the archival draft of Serafima’s response is cited above), probably also written after Pavlov’s death, reveals that, despite the intimacy of their relationship, Evgeniia, too, was privy only to the broad outlines of what had occurred. Whether by Serafima’s decision or that of a censor, her account of the content of her discussions with Dostoevsky did not appear among the excerpts from her memoirs published in Novyi mir (1946).
24. Pavlova, draft letter to Sikorskaia, 254rev.
25. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 433.
26. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 433.
27. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 433–435.
28. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 435.
29. Raisa Khmel’nitskaia to Serafima Karchevskaia, March 3, 1882, ARAN 259.9.95: 32rev; Sergei Karchevskii to Serafima Karchevskaia, November 26, 1880, ARAN 259.9.41: 20.
30. A typed copy of this declaration, dated August 14, 1880, is preserved in ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
31. Pavlova, “Iz vospominanii,” 119.
32. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 435.
33. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Sunday morning [September 28, 1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1. Typed copies of about seventy of Ivan’s letters to Serafima in 1880–1881, authenticated and signed by Serafima years later, are held in ARAN 259.2.1300/1 and 259.2.1300/2. I had the opportunity to check two of these copies against the originals, which remain in private hands. I have dated them through their content and use of a historical calendar.
34. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday, [September] 11, [1880], in IPPPN, 116.
35. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday [November] 5, [1880], and Wednesday [November] 26, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
36. For example, see letters of Wednesday [November] 5, [1880], and Wednesday [November] 26, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1; and Saturday [September] 20, [1880], and Wednesday [April] 29, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
37. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Sunday [October] 19, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
38. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday [November] 5, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
39. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Saturday [September] 20, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
40. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Saturday [October] 11, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/2. The same sentiments and language appear, for example, in his letters of Friday, 8 a.m. [October 3, 1880?], Wednesday, 8 a.m. [October 1880], Saturday, [October] 11, [1880], and Friday, [October] 3, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
41. Pavlov wrote about The Brothers Karamazov in letters of September 8, 14, 17; October 7; and November 21, 1880; about Dostoevsky’s Diary of a Writer in three letters of September and one of October; and on Dostoevsky’s funeral in four letters from January 20 to February 3, 1881.
42. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [September] 17, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
43. Pavlov to Karchevskaia [October] 7, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
44. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [September] 17, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1; Dostoevsky, The Brothers Karamazov, 584. In the novel, not Karamazov himself but his creation, the “gentleman visitor” (the Devil), says these words.
45. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [September] 13, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
46. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [October] 7, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
47. Pavlov to Karchevskaia [September] 28, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
48. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [October] 7, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
49. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [September] 28, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
50. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [September] 17, [1880] (Karamazov); Sunday morning [September 28, 1880] (Mephistopheles); and [October] 17, [1880] (Karamazov again), ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
51. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday, [September] 17, [1880], 8 a.m. and Friday [October] 3, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1. On this “practical” resolution of the mind/body problem, see Pavlov’s comments below on scheduling and exercise.
52. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [January] 31, [February] 1, and [February] 3, 1881, in IPPPN, 156–161. “Russian socialist” (160), “As have we” (161). Volgin devotes much of his Poslednii god to a very interesting discussion of Dostoevsky’s attitudes that makes Suvorin’s revelation quite plausible.
53. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday, [September] 17, [1880], 8 a.m. and Friday [October] 3, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
54. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Friday [September 18, 1880], 8 a.m., ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
55. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Friday [October] 3, [1880], 12 midnight, ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
56. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Friday [September 1880], 8 a.m., in ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
57. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Tuesday [September] 9, [1880], 10 a.m., ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
58. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Tuesday morning [March 3, 1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
59. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday, [March] 9, [1881], Tuesday [March 10, 1881] (terribly guilty), Friday, [March] 27, [1881] (suffering), ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
60. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Thursday [October] 6, [1880] 8:30 a.m., Wednesday [November] 5, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1 (here he cites passages from Serafima’s letters).
61. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Wednesday, [October?] 9, [1880?], 9 a.m., ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
62. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday, September 8, 1880; [September] 13, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
63. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday, September 8, 1880, [September] 13, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1; and Tuesday [September] 16, [1880], Saturday [September] 20, [1880], Tuesday [September 23 or 30, 1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
64. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Thursday [September] 25, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/2. He was here alluding to the Russian proverb “God guides the brave, the devil rocks the drunkard.”
65. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Friday [November] 7, [1880], and Wednesday, [November] 26, [1880] 1300/1], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
66. Pavlova, Detskie rasskazy, 437.
67. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday, [March] 16, [1881], Wednesday [March] 4, [1881], Sunday [March] 22, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
68. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, [Saturday], [November] 15, [1880], ARAN 259.2.1300/1.
69. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday [March] 2, [1881] and Wednesday [March] 4, [1881], ARAN 59.2.1300//2.
70. RGVIA, 316.43.1471; and Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Thursday [March] 5, [1881] and Monday [March] 9, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
71. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday [March] 16, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
72. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Saturday [April] 4, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
73. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday [March] 16, [1881], in ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
74. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Tuesday [April] 7, [1881], Thursday [April] 9, [1881], and [April 11, 1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
75. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Saturday [April] 25, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2. Serafima writes in her memoirs, erroneously, that he passed all his doctoral exams before their wedding. Contrary to his assertion that this was the “first” exam that he had failed, Pavlov had earlier failed his medical school exams in April 1879.
76. Pavlov to Karchevskaia, Monday [May] 4, [1881], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
77. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 121.
78. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob Ivane Petroviche Pavlove, 2.
79. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 122.
1. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 435.
2. Undated draft letter from Serafima Karchevskaia to [Evgeniia Sikorskaia], ARAN 259.1.171: 254.
3. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 122.
4. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 122; letters from Anna Dobuzhinskaia to Serafima Karchevskaia, March 4, 1882; and from Raisa Karchevskaia, March 3, 1882, ARAN 259.9.34: 10, 95.
5. RGVIA 316.43.1471:15.
6. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 29, [1882], [July] 5, [1882], [July] 8, [1882], and [July] 9, [1882]; and, similarly, letters of [June] 28, [1882], [July] 5, [1882], [July] 7, [1882], and July 14, [1882]; in ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
7. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 12, [1882] and July 27, [1882], in ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
8. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 10, [1882], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
9. Babkin, Pavlov, 42–43.
10. The thesis is republished in PSS, I, 87–250. For a later article on his original thesis topic, see PSS, I, 308–365.
11. See Gaskell’s “Preliminary” and “Rhythm.” The latter appeared just as Pavlov was completing his thesis. The term “trophic” referred to the regulation of physiological processes through control of nutritive conditions, a subject that also intrigued Pavlov.
12. Babkin, Pavlov, 189–202. In Gaskell’s later authoritative review of the literature, “Contraction,” he ignored Pavlov’s contribution.
13. PSS, I, 197; Pavlov to Pavlova, June 13, [1883], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
14. PSS, I, 117, 120, 125, 197.
15. RGVIA 316.43.1471:15–20.
16. In 1885, Tarkhanov wrote an extended critique of Pavlov’s thesis and other works as a judge in the competition for the Academy of Science’s Makar’evskaia Prize for original scientific research. His scathing review torpedoed Pavlov’s candidacy and, alongside legitimate objections, also clearly reflected his personal pique at the author. ARAN 2.1-1884, no. 1: 68–88.
17. Pavlov to Pavlova, May 22, [1883], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
18. Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 130.
19. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 9, [1883], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
20. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 11, [1883], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
21. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 63; Pavlova to Sikorskaia, ARAN 259.1.171: 254.
22. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 64–65. Even in her final years, after enduring numerous tragedies—including the death of another son and many friends and family members during Russia’s civil war—Serafima recalled Mirchuk’s death as the great tragedy of her life.
23. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 10, [1883] and Saturday [June 1883], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
24. RGVIA 316.43.2245 and 316.69.220 (1884): 51, 59rev, 66.
25. RGVIA 316.69.220: 51 and, RGVIA 316.69.221. My thanks to Marina Sorokina for helping me review archival materials and analyze this episode.
26. On Stol’nikov’s apparatus and the results of Pavlov’s research in Leipzig, see PSS, I, 374–393, 419–457; Babkin, Pavlov, 193. On the Ludwig lab, see Frank, “American Physiologists”; Fye, “Carl Ludwig”; Lombard, “Life and Work”; and Schröer, Carl Ludwig.
27. Ivan Pavlov to Vladimir Pavlov, September 14, [1912], ARAN 259.2.1303: 1–2rev.
28. Pavlov, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 443.
29. PSS, VI, 108.
30. PSS, VI, 108.
31. PSS, VI, 24–26.
32. PSS, VI, 26, 104–105.
33. PSS, V, 270.
34. PSS, VI, 107.
35. Fye, “Carl Ludwig.”
36. Lombard, “Life,” 368, 370.
37. Pavlov to Pavlova, Wednesday [May] 27, [1887]; Friday, April 10, 1887; Tuesday May 19, 1887; [May] 27, [1887]; Tuesday [May 26, 1887?]; Monday [June 1 or 8, 1887]; in ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
38. Pavlov to Pavlova, Sunday [April 5, 1887] and Friday, April 10, 1887, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
39. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 339–340.
40. For Pavlov’s copy of his letter to Delianov, October 20, 1887, see ARAN 259.4.222 (which gives the location of the original as RGIA 733.153.172532: 155); for its processing by the bureaucracy, see RGIA 733.150.137:155–167. Pavlov’s letter to Florinskii was published in Dionesov and Mikhailov, “O naznachenii,” 387.
41. RGIA 733.150.137: 162, 167; RGIA, 733.150.367: 217.
42. Pavlov to Pavlova, Sunday February 14, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
43. Pavlov to Pavlova, February 23 and 27, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
44. Pavlov to Pavlova, February 27, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
45. Pavlov to Pavlova, February 29, 1888 and March 3, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
46. PSS, II, 1, 96–132; citation from Heidenhain on 97.
47. Pavlov to Pavlova, March 12, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2. The preliminary communication appeared in Vrach and Centralblatt für Physiologie in 1888; it is republished in PSS, II, 1, 132–135. Pavlov now wrote of Botkin with disdain, characterizing him as a “brute” for his rough treatment of one of Pavlov’s advisees, A. V. Timofeev, during his doctoral defense. Pavlov viewed this as part of a pattern of unprincipled behavior through which Botkin sought to weaken potential competitors to his younger son, E. S. Botkin (whose thesis research Pavlov had supervised). See his letters to Serafima of March 21, 1888 and April 6, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
48. Pavlov to Pavlova, February 29, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
49. Pavlov to Pavlova, March 9, 1888, and March 12, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
50. PSS, II, 1, 108–113; Pavlov to Pavlova, March 19, 1888, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
51. Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 346–347; V. Dobrovol’skii to Pavlov, August 3, 1888, ARAN 259.2.994.
52. RGVIA 749.43.3319:37; Pavlov, Vstupitel’noe slovo.
53. Vrach, IX, no. 51 (1888): 1035.
54. V. M. Florinskii to I. D. Delianov, December 17, 1888, RGIA 733.150.367: 215–217.
55. RGIA 733.150.367: 215.
56. Pavlov apparently never considered enlisting Botkin’s help. By this time, their relations were strained, and in any case, the clinician’s power, never the equal of Tolstoy’s, was ebbing along with his health. He died in December 1889.
57. Florinskii to Delianov, February 22, 1889, RGIA 733.150.367: 245–247.
58. A. S. Dogel’ to Pavlov, February 27, 1889, ARAN 259.2.1138.
59. RGIA 733.150.367: 242rev, 245, 260–270rev.
60. Vrach, March 16, 1889.
61. Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 341.
62. Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 33.
63. Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 245, 340–341, 346–348. On tabes, see contemporary psychiatrist P. Rozenbakh’s “Spinnaia.”
1. RGIA 733.150.446: 108, 110rev, 124, 126rev, 126, 137rev, 145.
2. RGVIA 316.40.1855: 49, 466–466rev; and 316.43.3926.
3. RGVIA 316.40.1855: 327-329rev.
4. RGVIA 316.40.1855:12rev–17rev.
5. RGVIA 316.40.1855: 18–18rev.
6. RGVIA 316.40.1855: 18–20rev.
7. Vitte [Witte], Vospominaniia, 564, and Mosolov, Pri dvore, 145. On Prince Ol’denburgskii and the early history of the IEM, see Todes, Factory, 3–40.
8. On the early history of the rabies station, see Todes, Factory, 9–11.
9. Vrach, 1886, no. 10: 195.
10. Todes, Factory, 10–11.
11. Vrach, 1890, no. 39: 901; Todes, Factory, 11–13.
12. Vrach, 1890, no. 45: 1037; Bol’nichnaia gazeta Botkina 1, no. 44–45 (1890): 1079.
13. Vrach, 1890, no. 47: 1083.
14. Tsar Alexander III to Prince A. P. Ol’denburgskii, December 6, 1890, TsGIA SPb 2232.1.1: 1–2.
15. Wortman, Scenarios, 159–306.
16. Vrach, 1890, no. 48: 1099–1100.
17. Kamenskii, “Moe znakomstvo,” 104.
18. Vrach, 1890, no. 48: 1109.
19. Vrach, 1890, no. 50: 1148; Kamenskii, “Moe znakomstvo,” 105. Serafima (Detskie rasskazy, 353) writes that, though she was “sorely tempted by the director’s house,” her husband “refused without hesitation” this and every other administrative post offered by Ol’denburgskii. According to an unsigned biographical fragment found in Pavlov’s personal papers (ARAN 259.1.58: 64–65), the prince originally intended to appoint physiologist V. Ia. Danilevskii as director, but was unable to do so because Danilevskii was Jewish.
20. Ushakov, “Iz istorii,” 195; Kamenskii, “Moe znakomstvo,” 104–105.
21. A. P. Ol’denburgskii to S. Iu. Witte, March 21, 1893, in RGIA 565.5.20018: 110–111.
22. On the praktikanty at the IEM, see Todes, Factory, 27–32. The number of praktikanty is from Imperatorskii Institut, 55, and Ol’denburgskii’s annual reports in TsGIA SPB 2282.1.113, 145, 162, 163, 221, and 222. These numbers exclude praktikanty in the practical divisions.
1. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 353.
2. From Pavlov’s response to Iurii Filipchenko’s eugenic questionnaire, ARAN razriad 4 opis’ 9 delo 3: 99.
3. Cited in Lincoln, War’s Dark Shadow, 18.
4. Mendeleev, “Zavody”; Lincoln, War’s Dark Shadow, 285.
5. Ascher, Revolution, 15.
6. Babkin, PavlovMS, 249–250.
7. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 353; A.F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 33–34. The above was his usual routine from 1895 to 1914; in 1890–1894, as professor of pharmacology, he lectured Tuesday, Thursday, and Friday afternoons.
1. BabkinMS, 96.
2. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 351.
3. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 487; for her stories and hymns, ARAN 259.9.126.
4. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 10–13, 20.
5. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 10–13, 20, 133–137.
6. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 505–508.
7. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 534.
8. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 537.
9. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 79.
10. ARAN razriad 4 opis 9 delo 3: 99.
11. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 55.
12. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 343–345.
13. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 523. I am indebted to Igor Dmitriev of the Mendeleev Museum in St. Petersburg for sharing with me a letter of November 30, 1882 in which Mendeleev expressed his high opinion of Dmitrii’s potential. He gives the archival source as RGIA 769.1.17: 169–170. In the 1990s, I was told by several members of the Pavlov Documentary Commission that Dmitrii was an alcoholic and died of syphilis.
14. The Jewish Kamenskii converted to Eastern Orthodoxy either before or shortly after their marriage. His first name is sometimes given as “David” and sometimes as “Dmitrii.”
15. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 485.
16. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 91–108. Sergei had never graduated from the Theological Seminary, and so did not have the necessary credentials for this priesthood—but a deal was struck by which a second priest, the nephew of the local bishop, divided priestly duties with him.
17. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 257.
18. Pavlov, O samoubiistvakh, 5.
19. The citations on gymnastics are from Leporskii, “Moia rabota,” 151; BabkinMS, 278; Kashkadamov, “Iz vospominanii,”110; D. A. Biriukov in Sergeev, Rasskazy raznykh lits, 38; Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 7; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 75.
20. On durachki, A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 73; Kamenskii, Vospominaniia.
21. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 144.
22. Valkenier, Russian Realist and Valentin Serov. My thanks to Elizabeth Valkenier for kindly discussing with me Dubovskoi’s relationship to the developments she discusses in these books.
23. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 145, 5. According to him, these were the only two paintings in Pavlov’s collection as of 1917.
1. Hydrotherapy and balneology were overlapping areas of medical expertise; the former addressed the use of waters to ease pain and illness, the latter was oriented toward practices at spas and concerned the therapeutic use of baths, moving waters, vapors, and clays.
2. For a friendly account of Pashutin’s scientific career, see Avrorov, Istoricheskii ocherk, 173–244.
3. RGVIA 316.69.228: 5–6; Babkin, PavlovMS, 116–117; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 346.
4. RGVIA, 316.69.230: 2rev–4.
5. Pavlov did support the formation of a Department of History of Medicine, but joined with Bekhterev in giving greater priority to a Department of Psychology, which, they argued, should encompass psychology, psychophysics, and physiology of the central nervous system. Only four of the seven members of the faculty committee supported the creation of such a department. RGVIA 316.69.230: 282–287.
6. BabkinMS, 120–121; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 344.
7. RGVIA 316.69.233; BabkinMS, 124. Pavlov told Babkin that Pashutin had died after becoming “extremely irritated” at a comment by Professor Skorichenko—but no such comment is recorded in the protocols, which have Pashutin expiring after his exchange with Pavlov, another faculty member’s call for a vote, and Pashutin’s abortive attempt to read the search committee report.
8. Pavlov’s relations with Tarkhanov apparently improved after this turnabout. Pavlov continued to dismiss him as a lightweight, but his hostility waned, and he provided Tarkhanov with dog technologies for his lectures at the university. For an account of the Tarkhanov-Kosturin-Pavlov episode heavily dependent on Pavlov’s telling, see BabkinMS, 106–107.
9. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 252.
10. BabkinMS, 116; Sergeev, Iz vospominanii, 1; Pikunov, “Akademik,”10.
11. BabkinMS, 109.
12. Sergeev, Iz vospominanii, 1.
13. Orbeli,Vospominaniia, 16; Neits, “I. P. Pavlov,” 156; BabkinMS, 112–113.
14. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 13.
15. Sergeev, Iz vospominanii, 3; Signikova, Moi vospominaniia, 3.
16. Sergeev, Iz vospominanii, 3; Signikova, Moi vospominaniia, 3.
1. Pavlov’s laboratory budget for 1891 was 3,200 rubles: TsGIA SPB 2282.1.396:164. His nearest competitor was Tarkhanov at the Military-Medical Academy, with 600 rubles. See Popel’skii, Istoricheskii, 118.
2. I have identified praktikanty from Pavlov’s yearly reports to Ol’denburgskii in TsGIA SPB 2282.1; Kvasov, Fiziologicheskaia shkola; and Gureeva et al., Letopis’.
3. Kamenskii, “Moe znakomstvo.”
4. Alfred Nobel to Emmanuel Nobel, June 21, 1893, TsGIA SPB 2282.1.47:1–3. For more on this gift, see Todes, Factory, pp. 83–84.
5. PSS, II, 1, 275–276.
6. Bernard, Introduction, 141; PSS, II, 1, 275.
7. From Pavlov’s annual reports in TsGIA SPB 2282,1 and Kvasov and Fedorova-Grot, Fiziologicheskaia shkola.
8. BabkinMS, 139.
9. S. A. Ostrogorskii, Vrach, 1898, 7, 212.
10. These assistants, with their years of service, were V. N. Massen (1891–1893), lu. M. Iablonskii (1893–1894), E. A. Ganike (1894–1936), E. A. Kotliar (1895), N. I. Damaskin (1895–1898), and A. P. Sokolov (1899–1909). G. A. Smirnov (1893–1934) was an unpaid “member-coworker,” who was granted use of lab facilities in return for fulfilling the same duties as the assistants but chose his research topics independently.
11. Sokolov, 25 let, 31; BabkinMS, 138, 165 (I have corrected minor spelling errors in the typescript); Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 505.
12. PSS, II, 2, 286.
13. LRGPZ, 22; LWMDG, 4; see also PSS, VI, 289.
14. On the history of the gastric fistula and the isolated sac, see Davenport, History, esp. 138–143.
15. PSS, VI, 290, 309, 312, 313. He noted that one dog in five possessed a “favorable individual predisposition” that enabled it to survive the operation with relative ease. For the concession that the pancreatic fistula was “not ideal,” see LRGPZ, 27–28; LWMDG, 8.
16. Pavlov cited the Russian edition of Heidenhain’s work (Geidengain, Fiziologiia, 150). On the history and complexities of this issue, see Todes, Factory, 125–126, 407.
17. PSS, II, 1, 138–141, 175–199; Ketcher, “Refleks s polosti”; Sanotskii, Vozbuditeli, 9–10, 19–20. For the experimental and interpretive complexities here, see Todes, Factory, 126–132.
18. PSS, II, 1, 251. For the trials and tribulations of this operation, Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 12–33.
19. On the “Heidenhain stomach,” see Davenport, History, 14, 140. On Pavlov’s modifications, PSS, II, 1, 279. The isolated sac was sometimes referred to as the “Heidenhain-Pavlov sac.” The difficulty of convincing Russian clinicians that the isolated sac reflected normal gastric secretion is evident in the discussion at the Society of Russian Physicians in 1894. See TORV, Sept. 1894, 64, 38–46; or an abridged version in PSS, VI, 40–45. Two related assumptions were built into the “Pavlov stomach”: that exciters of the gastric glands did not act locally (in just one part of the stomach) but rather generally (distributing any excitation to the small sac as well), and that mechanical stimulation of the stomach wall played no role in gastric secretion (since such stimulation was exerted by food upon the large stomach but not upon the isolated sac). These assumptions contradicted a loose consensus among physiologists and a firm one among physicians, yet they were central to Pavlov’s claim that what took place in the isolated sac mirrored normal digestive processes.
20. The acknowledged influence of the psyche was the most important source of these interpretive moments, but hardly the only one. As experience with various surgical operations increased, even dogs-as-technologies acquired a “personality” of sorts. For example, the size of the isolated stomach varied from dog to dog, requiring some mathematical recalculations to compare the secretory responses in two animals. Similarly, in later years, with a growing appreciation of the differences between the fundal and pyloric regions of the stomach, the location of the isolated sac acquired significance. See, for example, Zavriev, Fiziologiia, 155.
21. LRGPZ, 102, 104; LWMDG, 73, 75; and PSS, II, 1, 304–305.
22. Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia, 30–31, 32–33.
1. TsGIA SPB 2282.56.1 (1894): 98; Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 153.
2. Ushakov, “Laboratoriia,” 248.
3. PSS, V, 26.
4. LRGPG, 11–12; LWMDG, ix.
5. The literature review almost invariably obeyed the following sequence: first, a statement about the fundamental importance of methodology; second, summaries of earlier research conducted in various laboratories; third, a statement about the cardinal methodological achievements of the Pavlov lab; and fourth, summaries of recent research, almost exclusively that of the Pavlov lab.
6. Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, 35; Sanotskii, Vozbuditeli, 19, 16, 11, 51, 39. The only two exceptions I have found illustrate the rule: both Popel’skii and Tolochinov refer in their work to “my” decisions and conclusions—and each subsequently clashed with the chief. See Popel’skii, O sekretorno-zaderzhivaiushchikh, Tolotschinoff, “Contribution,” and chapters 16 and 17 of the present volume.
7. BabkinMS, 137.
8. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 260; Babkin, Pavlov, 116–117.
9. For the work to improve the dog technology, see Vasil’ev, O vliianii, and Iablonskii, Spetsificheskoe zabolevanie; on exciters of pancreatic secretion, Dolinskii, O vliianii, Shirokikh, “Spetsificheskaia vozbudimost’,” and Damaskin, “Deistvie zhira”; on nervous control, Popel’skii, O sekretorno-zaderzhivaiushchikh; on secretory patterns, Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, and Krever, K analizu.
10. See Borissow and Walther, “Zur Analyse”; Savich, “Mekhanizm”; Bukhshtab, “O rabote.”
11. Ivan Pavlov to Vladimir Pavlov, May 23, [1912], in PP, 427.
12. BabkinMS, 138. The terms “borrowed senses” and “directing mind” are Bernard’s, from his discussion of a relationship between experimenter and assistant in Introduction to the Study, 21–24.
13. See, for example, Strazhesko, “Vospominaniia,” 225.
14. BabkinMS, 227–228.
15. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 255.
16. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 255; BabkinMS, 255, 138.
17. Samoilov, “Obshchaia kharakteristika,” 203–204.
18. Orbeli, “Pamiati”, IPVV, 163–164.
19. Kashkadamov, “Iz vospominanii,” 109; Orbeli, “Pamiati,” 164.
20. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 256.
21. Orbeli, “Pamiati,” 171. See Boldyrev, Periodicheskaia. This episode also demonstrates how the acknowledged importance of the psyche could be used to explain away discordant results.
22. For example, frequent indications of possible humoral mechanisms in gastric secretion were systematically ignored or explained away. On Pavlov’s temper, see Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” where the former praktikant recalls that, when dissatisfied, Pavlov frequently screamed at coworkers and at himself: “Those surrounding him at such times girded themselves tightly, since at such a moment it was easy to fall victim to his hot hand” (259).
23. Boldyreff, “I. P. Pavlov,” 224. Gerald Geison suggested the term “literary products” in his very helpful response to an earlier version of this manuscript.
24. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 263.
25. BabkinMS, 229.
26. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 263. We have already encountered it twice, in the quotations from Babkin and Orbeli cited in notes 17 and 18 above.
27. For a similar observation regarding Pasteur, see Geison, Private Science, 237.
28. BabkinMS, 229. For an especially dramatic change in direction, see Krever, K analizu. See also Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia rabota, 104 (for a tentative suggestion) and 117 (where, in a summary, it becomes a “quite definite conclusion”); similarly, compare Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia rabota, 89, 98.
29. Sanotskii, Vozbuditeli, 9; Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, 23, 38; Bukhshtab, Rabota, 45–46.
30. Kazanskii, Materialy, 22.
31. Vasil’ev, O vlianii, 23; Krever, K analizu, 20; Zavriev, Fiziologiia i patologiia, 92; Kazanskii, Materialy, 27.
32. Kazanskii, Materialy, 23–24.
33. An especially interesting case in point is the Pavlov sac. I have identified only one laboratory in which scientists claimed, by 1904, to have created one in their own dog. Investigators there used this dog technology not to verify or elaborate Pavlov’s claims but rather to pursue their own clinical interests (one studied the effect of sugar upon gastric secretion; the other investigated the action of various medicines). See Clemm, “Über die Beeinflussung,” and Riegel, “Über medikamentöse.” In subsequent years, the “stereotypical secretory curves” that Pavlov constructed through use of this sac fell into obscurity. The Pavlov sac itself, however, remained (and remains) useful to physiologists and so continued to be a source of his authority. Among Western scientists who had, by 1904, requested permission to come to St. Petersburg to study laboratory technologies were Walther Straub (ARAN 259.2.1286), Waldemar Koch (ARAN 259.2.1116), Hermann Munk (ARAN 259.2.1208), Johann Orth (ARAN 259.2.1216), G. Stewart (ARAN 259.2.1250), Ernest Stadler (ARAN 259.2.1284), F. A. Steeksma (ARAN 259.2.1285), and Alois Velich (ARAN 259.2.1119).
34. PSS, II, 1, 286. Pavlov offered a dog with esophagotomy and fistula to Robert Tigerstedt during the latter’s visit to St. Petersburg in 1901 on behalf of the Nobel Prize Committee. See Tigerstedt’s letters to Pavlov of Sept. 5 and Dec. 17, 1901, ARAN 259.2.1017:2, 13–14; Russian translations of these letters are published in PP, pp. 193–194. Pavlov also presented Tarkhanov with a dog technology for use in his lectures at St. Petersburg University. See BabkinMS, 24.
35. Among the Western physiologists who asked Pavlov for samples of the gastric juice produced in his lab were H. J. Hamburger (ARAN 259.2.182), Carl Lewin (ARAN 259.2.1188), F. Rollin (ARAN 259.2.1232), Paul Mayer (ARAN 259.2.1375), and Nobel Prize Committee members Robert Tigerstedt and Karl Morner.
36. For the history of Pavlov’s “small gastric juice factory,” see Todes, Factory, 259–288.
37. These future physiologists (with their dates in the lab) were A. F. Samoilov (1892–1895), L. B. Popel’skii (1896–1897), A. A. Val’ter (1896–1902), V. V. Savich (1900–1904, 1907, 1915), V. N. Boldyrev (1900–1911), B. P. Babkin (1902–1904, 1912), L. A. Orbeli (1901–1915), and I. S. Tsitovich (1901–1903, 1911). Val’ter, Savich, Boldyrev, Orbeli, and Babkin developed long-term working relations with the lab atypical for praktikanty; the chief clearly perceived them as the beginnings of a “Pavlov school.” His favorite, Val’ter, died in a train accident in 1902. Boldyrev and Babkin emigrated after the Bolsheviks took power in 1917 and built successful careers as physiologists in the United States and Canada. With Pavlov’s help, Savich became a professor of pharmacology (a discipline that Pavlov viewed as properly the province of physiology), and Orbeli became a renowned physiologist and powerful scientific entrepreneur, inheriting his mentor’s empire upon Pavlov’s death.
38. PSS, II, 1, 270.
1. Sanotskii, Vozbuditeli, 84–85, 43. Sanotskii noted that the results of his experiments promised to give the very notion of “appetite” a more defined physiological character and, “so to speak, a material form. A greater or lesser appetite while ingesting food would mean...a more or less plentiful secretion of gastric juice and, consequently, a more or less rapid, successful, and complete digestion of food substances in the stomach.”
2. Sanotskii, Vozbuditeli, 84–85.
3. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 24–26. For details on this surgical feat, see Todes, Factory, 132–137; Ganike, Vospominaniia; Babkin, Pavlov, 99. Some thirty years later, Pavlov spoke warmly about Khizhin’s courage in the face of repeated failures, which “threatened him with complete failure in his career.” See Zhuravlev, “Moi vpechatleniia,” 91.
4. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 12, 26–27, 48–49.
5. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 31–32.
6. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 30–31.
7. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 24.
8. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 33, 46–8.
9. Ivan Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, June 3 and June 5 [1894], ARAN 259.7.1300/2.
10. On this logic regarding peptone, see also Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia, 68–69, and Foster’s Text-Book, 309.
11. This data, from Khizhin’s Otdelitel’naia, 130–131, is reproduced in Todes, Factory, 138–140.
12. For the error with peptone, see LRGPZ, 131; LWMDG, 96–97. As so often in the history of science, this epilogue to the peptone experiments is a prelude to another epilogue: current physiology texts consistently include peptone as an exciter of the gastric glands.
13. He also conducted forty-three trials with mixed food, but this was soon discarded as a meaningless category.
14. Even in 1929, biostatistician Halbert Dunn, having reviewed two hundred articles on physiology and medicine in U.S. journals, noted that “in over 90 per cent [of the articles] statistical methods were necessary and not used.” See his “Application,” 276. Historian William Coleman (“Experimental,” 201) observes that “the serious use of statistical methods in experimental physiology” began only after 1900.
15. For Pavlov in 1897, curves b and g, c and e, and d and f were “stereotypical pairs” establishing the identity of gastric secretory patterns in two different dogs. The first pair were meat curves; the second, bread curves; and the third, milk curves. Curve a represents the results of a sham-feeding trial.
16. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 107, 116–117.
17. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 118, 108, 81–82, 95.
18. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia and “Otdelitelnaia,” see especially 24; Khigine, “Activité”; on Pavlov’s use of the curves, see chapter 14.
19. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 43.
20. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 40–41.
21. PSS, II, 1, 25.
22. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 120, 148. This disclaimer appears in the part of the thesis immediately following Khizhin’s discussion of experimental results. Such tentativeness is entirely missing from the conclusion to the thesis, however, where the specific excitability of the nerves of the mucous membrane of the stomach is accepted as fact—a characteristic result of Pavlov’s editing.
23. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 12, 119, 149–150.
24. PSS, II, 1, 250.
25. Mendeleev, “Zavody,” 100–104; PSS, II, 1, 252.
26. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 56, 58, 59, 60, 116, 117 (pravil’nyi and pravil’nost’); 75, 76 (zakonno); PSS II, 1, 254 (shablon).
27. Like many others, Pavlov often erroneously invoked Darwin’s theory to reinforce this belief in perfect adaptation—a belief that, as Darwin was at pains to point out, was actually rooted in the traditional theological view that organisms had been created by a perfect deity for a particular environment. Lamarckian theory, which had been deeply incorporated into Russia’s pre- and post-Darwinian evolutionary tradition, incorporated this view of perfect adaptation and sought to explain it on the basis of natural processes. For Pavlov, the word adaptation was usefully ambiguous. Beginning with Khizhin, it was employed in lab publications to imply that the different secretory curves expressed the purposive adjustment of glandular secretions to the differing chemical requirements for the optimal digestion of various foods. When this broad claim was challenged, the term adaptation was defended more narrowly as an expression of the narrower empirical claim that the glands simply responded differently to different foods.
28. Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia, 33.
29. Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia, 21–22.
30. Khizhin’s data sometimes presented an obstacle here, but this was dispensed with by a simple change in counting procedure. See Todes, Factory, 175–176.
31. Lobasov, Otdelitel’naia, 41–44.
32. Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, 38.
33. Vasil’ev, O vliianii.
34. Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, 177.
35. Val’ter, Otdelitel’naia, 110.
36. Bukhshtab, Rabota, 68. See also Krever, K analizu, 20–24, 30. For discussion of this and the similar “verification” of results with Druzhok, see Todes, Factory, 207–211.
37. Volkovich, Fiziologiia, 41–42.
38. Volkovich, Fiziologiia, 69.
39. Volkovich, Fiziologiia, 57–58, 68.
40. PSS, I, 553–554; on the new line of investigation, PSS, II, 2, 247–284; and Todes, Factory, 299–302, 414.
1. LRGPZ, 20; LWMDG, 2.
2. LRGPZ, 20. In LWMDG, 2, the distinction between factory and manufactory, and the reference to kustarnyi lad, disappear. The factory metaphor is also muffled by the translation of Pavlov’s introductory phrase “the digestive canal, is obviously, a chemical factory” as “the digestive canal may be compared to a chemical factory.”
3. LRGPZ, 57; LWMDG, 36.
4. For a breakdown of the various knowledge claims in Lectures and the praktikanty whose experiments Pavlov cites, see Todes, Factory, 357–362.
5. LRGPZ, 66, 105–106; LWMDG, 45 (where the Russian word for “mind” is translated as “instinct”), 75–76.
6. LRGPZ, 67; LWMDG, 45. As a result of this attitude, he failed to pursue indications of humoral mechanisms—for example, Dolinskii’s discovery in 1893 that hydrochloric acid excites the pancreas.
7. LRGPZ, 104; LWMDG, 74–75.
8. LRGPZ, 101–103; LWMDG, 72–74.
9. LRGPZ, 102, 104; LWMDG, 73–74.
10. LRGPZ, 20; LWMDG, 2.
11. LRGPZ, 57; LWMDG, 36.
12. LRGPZ, 56; LWMDG, 35.
13. LRGPZ, 43, 49, 41; LWMDG, 23, 29, 21.
14. LRGPZ, 43; LWMDG, 23–24.
15. LRGPZ, 50; LWMDG, 29–30.
16. LRGPZ, 57, 64; LWMDG, 36, 40, 42.
17. LRGPZ, 66; LWMDG, 45.
18. LRGPZ, 109, 116; LWMDG, 81–82.
19. LRGPZ, 42; LWMDG, 22.
20. Khizhin, Otdelitel’naia, 71–72.
21. LRGPZ, 42; LWMDG, 22.
22. For more detail—and for Pavlov’s analogous procedure regarding the data for proteolytic power—see Todes, Factory, 204–207, 425 (notes 17, 19).
23. LRGPZ, 42; LWMDG, 22. Pavlov’s Russian phrase is “v dvukh opytakh iz piati ili okolo togo,” which means “in two experiments out of five, or about that.” In Val’ter’s German translation (Pawlow, J. P., Die Arbeit, p. 28), the phrase becomes “two experiments out of about five” (“in zwei Versuchen von etwa fünf”). In the English edition (translated from the German), it becomes simply “two experiments out of five.”
24. LRGPZ, 172; LWMDG, 129. Thompson’s English translation renders “artistic mechanism” (khudozhestvennyi mekhanizm) as “skilled mechanism” and replaces Pavlov’s reference to purposiveness with the more scientifically acceptable notion of adaptedness.
25. LRGPZ, 176; LWMDG, 132.
26. LRGPZ, 176, 178, 181, 179; LWMDG, 132–133, 134, 137, 135.
27. LRGPZ, 181; LWMDG, 137.
1. Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 257.
2. Testimonial from a Dr. Zal’tsman, cited in Bellen, Osobennosti, 29.
3. Fedotov, Putevoditel’, 197–198.
4. Minchenkov, Dubovskoi, 33.
5. Bellen, Osobennosti, 59.
6. Illiustrirovannaia spravochnaia, 25, 60; Fedotov, Putevoditel’, 182–187.
7. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 353.
8. Entsiklopedicheskii slovar’ Brokgauza-Efrona, Vol. 29 (St. Petersburg, 1900), 874.
9. Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia, 104.
10. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 42; Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia, 104.
11. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 113–117.
12. Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 203. This schedule did change a bit over the decades, and there are slight discrepancies in the memoir literature. In what follows, I describe what seems to have been his daily schedule in the years around the turn of the century.
13. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 27; Stroganov, “Pervoe znakomstvo,” 230.
14. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 24; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 353; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 76.
15. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 354; V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 24–25.
16. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 22–23; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 353–354.
17. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 90.
18. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 90–91; Minchenkov, Dubovskoi, 49; Dobuzhinskii, Vospominaniia, 104.
19. Minchenkov, Dubovskoi, 49.
20. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 75.
21. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 354.
22. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 53.
23. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 354–355.
24. Kosmachevskaia et al., “Biblioteka,” 431–432.
25. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 39; V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 81–82.
26. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 76.
27. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 83–84.
28. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 47; V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 85–89.
29. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 41–41a.
30. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 82.
31. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 71,115.
32. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 145.
33. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 204.
34. Tsygankova, Peizazhi, 41.
35. Cited in Tsygankova, Peizazhi, 2.
36. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 54.
37. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 204.
38. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 355.
1. PSS, II, 1, 275, 271.
2. PSS, I, 536–549. For the horrified response of one anti-vivisectionist (and a good description of Pavlov’s presentation), see “Nauchnoe ‘naslazhdenie.’” For Pavlov’s later account of the anti-vivisectionist reaction, see Dmitriev-Krymskii, Biografiia, 72–75. On Pavlov’s relationship to clinicians, see Todes, Factory, 290–302.
3. Babkin, Pavlov, 83.
4. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 318; Iu. Laudenbakh, review of LRGPZ in Russkii arkhiv patologii, klinicheskoi meditsiny i bakteriologii VI, 5 (1897), 599–600.
5. Tarkhanov, “Fiziologiia,” 768; Chir’ev, Fiziologiia, 303–334.
6. Gol’dshtein, “Estestvoznanie,” 372.
7. Cited in Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 86.
8. Pawlow, Die Arbeit, ix.
9. W[ilhelm] O[stvald], review of Pawlow, Die Arbeit, in Zeitschrift fűr Physikalische Chemie 26 (1898), 757; J. Boas review in Archiv fűr Verdauungs-Krankheiten 4 (1898), 98–99; H. Munk review in Centralblatt fűr Physiologie 26, 552. For more on physiologists’ reviews, see Todes, Factory, 305–309.
10. Boas review, 98–99; anonymous review in Lancet 2 (December 6, 1902), 1552–1553.
11. Mendel, “Professor Pawlow’s,” 648–649.
12. Howell, American Text-Book (1896), 181; and American Text-Book (1900), 240–241. Similarly, “Dolinsky, working upon dogs under more favorable experimental conditions” (1896, p. 177) becomes “Dolinsky, working upon dogs by Pawlow’s methods” (1900, p. 236).
13. Physiologist Graham Lusk’s assessment is from his introduction to the English edition of Tigerstedt’s Lehrbuch (Tigerstedt, A Text-Book, xi); Tigerstedt to Pavlov, April 16, 1898, ARAN 259.2.1017; Pavlov’s preface to the Russian edition appears in PSS, VI, 163–164 (citation on 164), and his notes and additions to the Russian edition follow on 165–171. On the Pavlov-Tigerstedt relationship, see Merkulov, “Materialy.”
14. Riegel, “Über medicamentose”; Clemm, “Über.”
15. On these contacts, see Todes, Factory, 311–312.
16. Steeksma to Pavlov, January 8, 1905, in PP, 214–215.
17. Gross to Pavlov, June 5, 1902, and April 4, 1905, in PP, 204–205; on Gross’s research, see Davenport, History, 192–194.
18. Cohnheim to Pavlov, November 3, 1902; June 9, 1907; November 18, 1910; in PP, 206–209. For Cohnheim’s research, see Matthews, Protein Absorption, 39–43.
19. Abderhalden to Pavlov, October 10, 1904; September 22, 1905; September 9, 1924; in PP, 210–212.
20. LRGPZ, 106; LWMDG, 76. For the history of the gastric juice factory and its product, see Todes, Factory, 259–288.
21. LRGPZ, 30; LWMDG, 10.
22. Virshubskii, “Staroe,” no. 25–26, 8.
23. Finkel’shtein, “Lechenie,” 964–965.
24. Data from the annual budgetary reports of Pavlov’s lab, in TsGIA fond 2282.
25. PSS, V, 105–106.
26. Shepoval’nikov, Fiziologiia; PSS, II, 2, 257–258.
27. See his comments during a discussion of March 1901 in PSS, VI, 180.
28. See, for example, Edkins, “Mechanism,” 551, and Howell, Text-Book of Physiology (1896), 176.
29. Babkin, Pavlov, 243; Delezenne and Frouin, “La sécrétion,” 693; Delezenne and Frouin, “Nouvelles,” 455.
30. Babkin’s findings are summarized in Boldyrev et al., Referaty trudov, 77.
31. See the assessment of one of Pavlov’s greatest admirers, Johns Hopkins University physiologist William Howell, in his Text-Book (1909), 4.
32. BabkinMS, 193–195, dated this scene “about 1900”; it probably occurred in 1902–1903. Babkin’s first year in the lab was 1902, and the articles by Popel’skii that provoked Pavlov’s wrath appeared in 1901–1903. No doubt echoing Pavlov, Babkin portrays Pavlov’s outburst as a reflection of the chief’s passion for scientific truth. Had Popel’skii marshaled his own experimental evidence to contradict Pavlov’s views—rather than identifying “small discrepancies in the figures or illogical presentation of facts” in the relevant works of coworkers—the chief would presumably have had no objection. For more on this episode and Popel’skii’s critique of Pavlov, see Todes, Factory, 320–326.
33. Popel’skii, O sekretorno, unnumbered page following 118.
34. Among these were his “O tselesoobraznosti” (1901); “O tselesoobraznosti” (1902); “Prichiny raznoobraziia” (1902); “Ob osnovnykh” (1903); and “Über die Zweckmassigkeit” (1903).
35. Popel’skii, “O tselesoobraznosti” (1901), 5; “O tselesoobraznosti” (1902), 1242.
36. Popel’skii, “O tselesoobraznosti” (1902), 1242–1243.
37. Popel’skii, “O tselesoobraznosti” (1902), 1242–1244.
38. Popel’skii, “Prichiny raznoobraziia,” 683–684. Contrary to Pavlov’s (and Babkin’s) later claim, he also produced data from his own experiments to support this argument.
39. On the “humoralist tide,” see Silverstein, History, 38–58.
40. Bainbridge, “On the Adaptation”; Edkins, “The Chemical Mechanism.”
41. Bayliss and Starling, “Mechanism,” 343, 353; Starling, “Chemical Correlation,” 424.
42. Bayliss and Starling, “Chemical Regulation,” 66–67; Starling, “Chemical Correlation,” 502.
43. For more detail, see Todes, Factory, 326–330.
44. Langlois, “Iwan Petrowitsch Pawlow,” 186–187.
45. See Bayliss, Principles, 370–371.
46. Langlois, “Iwan Petrowitsch Pawlow,” 187.
1. Ostrogorskii, Temnyi; PSS, II, 1, 282–283.
2. LRGPZ, 94; LWMDG, 66–67.
3. LRGPZ, 94; LWMDG, 66.
4. Vul’fson, Rabota, 27–28.
5. Vul’fson, Rabota, 55.
6. Vul’fson, “O psikhicheskom,” 113; Rabota, 53, 43, 56.
7. Vul’fson, Rabota, 54; “Rabota,” 456.
8. Pavlov’s remarks on Vul’fson’s “Rabota,” 458–459.
9. Snarskii, Analiz, 4–6.
10. Snarskii, Analiz, 9–10.
11. Snarskii, Analiz, 10.
12. Snarskii, Analiz, 47.
13. Snarskii, Analiz, 48, 52–54.
14. Stenogram of remarks to coworkers, December 27, 1926, ARAN 259.1.203.
15. BabkinMS, 325–326.
16. Tolochinov, “Pervonachal’naia razrabotka,”1278. For discussion of these experiments, see Todes, Factory, 233–238.
17. Tolochinov, “Pervonachal’naia razrabotka,” 1281–1282.
18. Tolochinov, “Pervonachal’naia razrabotka,” 1281–1282. For the analysis of these reflexes in Bekhterev’s clinic, see, for example, Bekhterev’s “O fenomene,” “O refleksakh,” “O nekotorykh,” and “O glaznom.”
19. For example, Tolochinov, “K voprosu” (1913, no. 2), 56.
20. Tolotchinoff, “Contribution,” 43–45.
21. See Tolochinov’s “Pervonachal’noe primenenie” and “Pervonachal’naia razrabotka” of 1912 and his two-part “K voprosu” of 1913. For Pavlov’s account, see ARAN 259.1.203, and Todes, Factory, 252–254.
22. Tsitovich, Vospominaniia, 14. For more on Pavlov’s response to the discovery of secretin, see Todes, Factory, 240–241.
23. Orbeli, “Pamiati,” 172. See Todes, Factory, 228–232.
24. DO, 14; LCR, 39. On his interest in the issues of determinism and freedom, inborn character and experience, and the nature of human psychology, see chapter 5 of the present volume.
25. Savich, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 18; Samoilov, “Obshchaia kharakteristika,” 214.
26. Pavlov, Zapisi lektsii, 18–18rev.
27. Pavlov had previously denied that mechanical irritation of the roof of the mouth excited salivation. He now conceded that it did—and this unconditional reflex served as the basis for psychic secretion (that is, for the conditional reflex). See Todes, Factory, 248–252.
28. The information on coworkers’ assignments is from TsGIA SPB 2282.1.201 (1903), 222 (1904), 239 (1905), 252 (1906), 263 (1907).
29. Tolochinov, “Pervonachal’naia razrabotka,” 1281.
30. Orbeli, “Pamiati,” 172. For example, Pavlov uses the word uslovnyi to mean “tentative” in PSS, V, 164. The only earlier use of the word bezuslovnyi that I found in the lab’s earlier works was in Lobasov’s Otdelitel’naia, where it is a synonym for “indubitable.”
31. DO, 28; LCR, 51.
32. DO, 29; LCR, 52.
33. As Pavlov put it in 1904 (PSS, II, 2, 364), “our old physiological reflex is constant, unconditional, while the new reflex fluctuates all the time, and so is conditional.”
34. DO, 30; LCR, 52–53.
35. DO, 30, 42, 60; LCR, 53, 62–63, 77; Babkin, Opyt, 3
36. PSS, VI, 231.
37. DO, 39; LCR, 59.
1. Letter from President Pachoutine et al. of the Military-Medical Academy in St. Petersburg to the Nobel Committee, January 1901. In “Betänkande år 1901 angående J. P. Pawlow,” in the archival section P. M. Försändelser och Betänkanden, NA.
2. W. H. Howell to the Nobel Committee, January 2, 1901, in “Betänkande år 1901,” NA.
3. Liljestrand, “Prize,” 152. Committee representatives also made a site visit to the facilities of one of Pavlov’s competitors, Niels Finsen, in order to witness firsthand the results of his light therapy for lupus vulgaris.
4. Liljestrand, “Prize,” 136; Todes, Factory, 83–84.
5. Liljestrand, “Prize,” 139.
6. Rapport afgifven till den Medicinska Nobelkomitens fran J. E. Johansson och Robert Tigerstedt, July 1901, 1; in “Betänkande år 1901,” NA.
7. Rapport...fran J. E. Johansson och Robert Tigerstedt, 4, NA. Experiments to demonstrate the characteristic secretory curves would have taken one day for each foodstuff tested. Johansson and Tigerstedt’s comment about the amount of gastric acid contains no quantitative data, and also suggests that Pavlov did not measure the proteolytic power of the gastric secretions elicited by these experiments.
8. Rapport...fran J. E. Johansson och Robert Tigerstedt, 8, NA.
9. Liljestrand, “Prize,” 152.
10. Rapport...fran J. E. Johansson och Robert Tigerstedt, 8, NA.
11. Robert Tigerstedt, memo to the Nobel Committee, July 1901, 1; in Betänkande år 1901, NA.
12. Tigerstedt memo, July 1901, 9–10; in “Betänkande år 1901,” NA.
13. Tigerstedt memo, July 1901, 3, NA.
14. Tigerstedt memo, July 1901, 1–2, NA.
15. K. A. H. Mörner, memo to the Nobel Committee, July 30, 1901; in “Betänkande år 1901,” NA.
16. As Windholz and Kuppers point out, Pavlov’s record of self-authored publications was indeed unimpressive compared to that of other physiologists. “For instance, Tigerstedt, who was four years younger than Pavlov, had already written two specialized treatises on physiology and five textbooks...whereas Pavlov’s only book consisted of read lectures.” (“Pavlov and the Nobel Prize Award,” 157). The same point could be made about many of Pavlov’s other admirers, such as Langlois and Howell.
17. These phrases appear in the appendix to Tigerstedt’s memo of July 1901, NA.
18. Pavlov to I. F. Tsion, September 4, [1901], ARAN 259.7.167: 5. See Izvestiia Voenno-Meditsinskoi Akademii, September 1901, 90, which cites as its source the newspaper Novoe Vremia; and Vrach, August 18, 1901, 1026. This rumor enhanced interest in Pavlov’s work, resulting, for example, in Mendel’s article “Professor Pawlow’s” (1901).
19. Liljestrand, “Prize,” 185.
20. Liljestrand, “Prize,”185.
21. Tigerstedt’s letter to “Sehr gelehrter Herr College,” dated December 17, 1901, and his letter to “Lieber Freund,” dated September 20, 1902, are held ARAN 259.2.1017.
22. See Tigerstedt’s letters to Pavlov of September 5, 1901, and December 17, 1901, in ARAN 259.2.1017.
23. For his letter of thanks to Pavlov, October 26, 1902, see ARAN 259.9.1206.
24. Tigerstedt’s nomination letter is dated October 26, 1901, and was sent from Stockholm. Tigerstedt was not on the faculty of the Karolinska Institute, so he was not a member of the five-person committee. Johansson, who was a member, probably informed Tigerstedt immediately of the committee’s decision. Pavlov was also nominated in 1902 by L. Fredericq, W. Masius, and I. P. Nuel in Liège, V. Roth in Moscow, and C. von Voit in Munich.
25. For Tigerstedt’s letters to Pavlov of March 26, 1902, and [?] 14, 1902, see ARAN 259.2.1017.
26. Babkin, Pavlov, 82.
27. Babkin addressed the influence of alkaline soaps upon pancreatic secretion, and Sokolov presented new information on psychic secretion in the gastric glands.
28. K.A.H. Mörner, memo to the Nobel Committee, August 1902, 3; “Betänkande år 1902 angående J. P. Pawlow,” NA.
29. Pavlov and Parashchuk’s report was soon published in both TORV and Bol’nichnaia gazeta Botkina; it is republished in PSS, II, 2, 334–343. They responded to criticisms in another article published in the same two journals later that year: PSS II, 2, pp. 344–346. Pavlov employed here the same mode of reasoning as he used in organ physiology: identifying a basic pattern, he reasoned from that pattern to an underlying mechanism. (In this case, he thought that the proteolytic power associated with pepsin and the coagulating power associated with rennet varied in parallel, and so concluded that these were the same ferment.)
30. O. Medin, memo to the Nobel Committee, July 1902, 2; “Betänkande år 1902,” NA.
31. Mörner memo, August 1902, 3; “Betänkande år 1902,” NA.
32. K. A. H. Mörner, memo to the Nobel Committee, July 26, 1902, 2–3; and Medin memo of July 1902, 1; in “Betänkande år 1902,” NA.
33. Mörner memo, August 1902, 5; “Betänkande år 1902,” NA.
34. This account of the discussion comes from the committee’s report to the Karolinska Institute’s Faculty Collegium, September 25, 1902, in Protokoll m.m. Nobel Arenden, 1901–1910, NA.
35. Aside from Tigerstedt and Johansson, N. Uzinskii (Warsaw University), S. Leont’ev (Kazan’ University), and V. Razumovskii (Kazan’ University) nominated Pavlov in 1903.
36. Memo from K. A. H. Mörner to the Nobel Committee, July 23, 1903, 14; in “Betänkande år 1903 angående J. P. Pawlow,” NA.
37. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 14, NA.
38. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 13–14, NA.
39. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 13, NA.
40. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 13–14, NA.
41. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 7, NA. He was referring here to Popielski, “Ueber die Zweckmassigkeit.”
42. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 7, NA.
43. For Mörner’s comments on Popel’skii, see his memo of July 23, 1903, 7–9, NA; citation on 7.
44. On gastric and salivary secretion, see Mörner’s memo, July 23, 1903, 8–9, NA; for his account of Popel’skii’s theory, see 8.
45. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 9, 14, NA. Mörner did note (9) that Popel’skii’s statements should be viewed “with a certain caution,” since he had earlier disputed the existence of enterokinase, only to subsequently concede error.
46. P. M. ofver forelag till 1903 Ars prisutdelning inom prisgruppen fysiologi och medicin, 48–49; on 48.
47. Mörner memo, July 23, 1903, 3, NA.
48. P. M. ofver forslag till 1903, 48–49, NA. Almquist supported Koch, while Holmgren, Medin, Mörner, and Sundberg voted for Finsen.
49. Santesson also contributed an article to the 1904 volume of Arkhiv honoring Pavlov’s twenty-fifth jubilee.
50. C. G. Santesson and J. E. Johansson, nominating letter to the Nobel Committee, January 23, 1904; “Betänkande år 1904 angående J. P. Pawlow” in P. M. Försändelser och Betänkanden, NA.
51. In a letter of September 20, 1902, Tigerstedt informed Pavlov: “It will perhaps interest you to know that a young physician here, Dr. Hornberg, has repeated your investigations on the psychic secretion of gastric juice [through experiments] on a patient with an (almost entirely) blocked esophagus—and has in all essentials confirmed your data. Since this investigation will serve as the theme of his doctoral dissertation, I ask you to send me the works on secretion of gastric juice that have been produced in your Institute and published only in Russian. With the help of my son-in-law, we will read them without difficulty.” ARAN 259.2.1017.
52. Santesson and Johansson, nominating letter of January 23, 1904; “Betänkande år 1904,” NA.
53. J. E. Johansson, Report to the Nobel Committee, September 24, 1904, 1; “Betänkande år 1904,” NA.
54. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 4, NA. Johansson provided as references the relevant doctoral theses by Khizhin and Lobasov.
55. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 9, NA. Here Johansson mentioned the doctoral theses of Kudrevetskii, Popel’skii, Dolinskii, Damaskin, Val’ter, Vasil’ev, Iablonskii, and Lintvarev.
56. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 12–13, NA.
57. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 9, NA.
58. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 9–12, NA.
59. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 11, NA.
60. Johansson, report of September 24, 1904, 14, NA. He also mentioned Pavlov’s latest research—in which he used “salivary secretion as an indicator of so-called psychic phenomena”—as an example of the continued fruitfulness of the Russian’s methodological ingenuity. Pavlov had recently reported on this research to the International Congress of Physicians in Madrid (1903).
61. Nobel Committee report to the Karolinska Institute’s Faculty Collegium, September 24, 1904; in Protokoll m.m. Nobel Arenden, 1901–1910, NA.
62. Karl Mörner to I. P. Pavlov, October 21, 1904, ARAN 259.2.575.
63. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 318–319. Serafima mentions that they first heard the good news from Tigerstedt. It seems unlikely that she would err regarding such a memorable moment, but Tigerstedt was not on the Nobel Committee, and his letter of congratulations was sent weeks after Mörner’s. Perhaps Tigerstedt informed the Pavlovs in some other way that left no archival trace. This raises another, more intriguing question: to what extent was Tigerstedt privy to the Committee’s deliberations in 1901–1904, and what did he relay to his “dear friend”? Did Pavlov’s fury during Popel’skii’s visit to his lab in 1902–1903 reflect inside information from Tigerstedt about how badly the former praktikant had damaged his prospects? I suspect so.
64. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 319–320.
65. Mörner’s speech of December 10, 1904, was translated into Russian by Ganike and published in the first issue of Russkii vrach for 1905. It is available in English at the Nobel e-museum: www.nobel.se/medicine/laureates/1904/press.html.
66. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 319–320. As a state servant and faculty member at the Military-Medical Academy, Pavlov could indeed have worn various ornaments of rank, but he disliked doing so and wore them only with great reluctance at official state occasions.
67. PSS II, 2, 366.
68. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 320.
1. December 10 by the Western calendar.
2. Novosti i birzhevaia gazeta, Dec. 13, 1904, 2; Dec. 18, 2.
3. Lincoln, War’s Dark, 291.
4. Pavlov, Osnovy kul’tury, 29; on Russian liberalism, see Ascher, Revolution, 29–30, 33.
5. BabkinMS, 343.
6. BabkinMS, 343–345.
7. BabkinMS, 343–345; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 77.
8. Konradi, taped interview.
9. BabkinMS, 210.
10. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 10.
11. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 50.
12. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 53. Orbeli’s Soviet-era memoirs seem reasonably reliable on Pavlov’s political views, shading them by omission but not by fabrication.
13. On the technocratic tradition in prerevolutionary Russia, see Bailes, Technology, and Graham, Ghost.
14. Tyrkova-Vil’iams, To, chego, 247.
15. For the police report, see RGIA 1284.188.32 (I have used a microfilm copy in ARAN razriad XV.1.167); on the union campaign, see Lincoln, War’s Dark, 316.
16. These letters are held in ARAN 259.4.126; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 54.
17. Nasha Zhizn’, January 20, 1905, 5.
18. Neits, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 156; BabkinMS, 335.
19. Konradi, I. P. Pavlov, 13–15; on London, see BabkinMS, 294–301.
20. Ushakov, “Laboratoriia,” 249.
21. Lincoln, War’s Dark, 329; Ascher, Stolypin, 158–161.
22. Lincoln, War’s Dark, 333–334.
23. BabkinMS, 336.
24. Geifman, Thou Shalt, 21.
25. Prince Ol’denburgskii, who was ill disposed toward Zabolotnyi for his membership in a leftist workers’ party, initially suspected that he might have played a part in the killing of von Launitz.
26. Letter from N. V. Savich to Iu. N. Miliutin [n.d.], RGIA 869.1.1556: 1–2. In “Pavlov and the Bolsheviks” (p. 381), I erroneously wrote that “nothing came of” the Octobrists’ recruitment efforts.
27. See Rus’, February 8, 1907, 3.
28. Novoe Vremia, February 5, 1907, 2.
29. Novoe Vremia, February 9, 1907, 4.
30. BabkinMS, 338.
31. Pavlov, O samoubiistvakh, 10–11.
1. Pavlov to K. G. Ozerov, June 1, 1907, ARAN 259.7.327.
2. Pavlov’s annual salary was itself quite substantial. As of 1907, he received 4,000 rubles annually from the IEM and 3,873 rubles from the Military-Medical Academy. ARAN 4.4 no. 4025: 23.
3. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 321.
4. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 82. Petrova also records Pavlov’s complaints about Serafima’s hostility toward his research (Vospominaniia, 50–51). Here he was justifying an extramarital affair, but he was also telling the truth.
5. This is quite plausible, but we have only two thirdhand, undocumented sources. V. L. Merkulov told this story to the writer and discerning longtime student of Pavlov’s life B. G. Volodin, who relates it in his “Bozhe!” (pp. 49–58). Merkulov could not have known this firsthand. A physiologist who knew Pavlov in his later years, he spent many years collecting and systematizing oral lore and archival materials about Pavlov’s life. The same story, with some embellishment, also appears in Galkina’s novel Villa Reno, which drew upon reminiscences of those in the Pavlov circle but is of course undocumented. On Kronshtadskii, see Murav’eva, Vek, 192–195.
6. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 176; Tsitovich, “Kak ia uchilsia,” 257.
7. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 78.
8. See, for example, Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 78–79, and Stroganov, Vospominaniia, 4-5. For an enlightening analysis of this story, see Vinogradov, “Vinoven.”
9. Ivan Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, April 1916, ARAN 259.2.1300:3.
10. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 80. See also A.F. Pavlov, Vospminaniia ob akademike, 177–178.
11. Vera was first listed among the personnel in his smallest lab, at the Academy of Sciences, in 1911. Her name then disappears from the yearly roster until the 1920s. She may well, however, have continued to conduct research informally, as she reported on experiments about “trace conditional reflexes” to the Society of Russian Physicians in 1913.
12. Elizaveta Vasil’evna Kiune, Dnevnik, ARAN 923.2.48:9.
13. V. A. Dogel’ to E. V. Kiune, [1914], ARAN 923.3.120:2.
14. E. V. Kiune to V. A. Dogel’, March 17, [1905], and May 30, 1905, in ARAN 923.3.121:10, 15.
15. Ivan Pavlov to Vladimir Pavlov, September 14, [1912], ARAN 259.2.1303:2.
16. E. V. Kiune to V. A. Dogel’, [1913], ARAN 923.3.121: 39–40.
17. E. V. Kiune to V. A. Dogel’, January 9, 1914, ARAN 923.3.121: 51–51rev.
18. Viktor Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, ARAN 259.9.105: 19–30.
19. Viktor Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, July 4, [1914], ARAN 259.9.105: 38.
20. Viktor Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, July 19, [1914], ARAN 259.9.105: 42–43.
21. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 345–346.
22. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 345.
23. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 317–319.
24. Pavlova, Imperatorskii Aleksandrovskii.
25. Vsevolod’s letters home from April to July 1912 are preserved in ARAN 259.9.110: 4–22.
26. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 315; Viktor Pavlov to V. A. Dogel’, June 2, 1914, ARAN 923.3.66.
27. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 341rev.
28. Vsevolod Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, June 15, [1911], ARAN 259.9.110:1, and Viktor Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, July 18, 1911, ARAN 259.9.105: 11.
29. Vsevolod Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, June 15, [1911], ARAN 259.9.110:2. Pavlov’s “little bull” is preserved in a glass case in the family’s former apartment at Koltushi.
30. Vladimir Pavlov to Ivan Pavlov, September 23, [1912], ARAN 259.9.106: 49.
1. As Alexander Chizhevskii put it perceptively after a visit to Pavlov’s lab (“O poseshchenii,” 465): “Saliva drops and logic—the two apparatuses animating the new world of higher nervous activity.”
2. Among thousands of experimental trials, I have found only three in which a bell was used, and these experiments were in each case peripheral to the main lines of investigation.
3. Shaw citation from July 1935 letter to W. Horsley Gantt, cited in AMC, Box 191, folder 12 (manuscript from March 1940, 1): “Pavlov is the biggest fool I know; any policeman could tell you that much about a dog.” Savich, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 18.
4. Babkin, Opyt, 28–32. On the history of the reflex, see, for example, Fearing, Reflex, and Boakes, From Darwin.
5. PSS, VI, 258; and III, 2, 322.
6. See note 8.
7. DO, 39, 63; LCR, 59, 80.
8. See, for example, TsGIA SPB 2282.1.201:15 (1903), 2282.1.222: 3 (1904); 2282.1.239:4 (1905); 2282.1.252: 4 (1906); 2282.1.263:9 (1907); 2282.1.322: 17 (1911); 2282.1.337:29 (1912); 2282.1.372:4 (1913–1914); and 2282.1.373:23rev (1914).
9. See, for example, Ivanov-Smolenskii, I. P. Pavlov, 29–30.
10. For Pavlov, following Spencer (his “favorite author” of 1880), instincts were nothing other than URs.
11. Babkin, Opyt, 95.
12. For an expert essay on the complexities of all CR phenomena, see Rescorla, “Pavlovian Conditioning.”
13. ARAN 259.1.59/2. This small brown notebook contains notes largely from 1911–1913, with some from the war years.
14. DO, 140; LCR, 139–140. Although this method was ingenious and fruitful, it by no means eliminated problems of interpretation. For example, Orbeli used it in his doctoral thesis to conclude that dogs are color-blind, a conclusion that was vigorously contested by experimenters in Bekhterev’s lab. See Orbeli, Uslovnye.
15. See chapters 22 and 29.
16. As Bernstein points out (Sovremennye, 86–101), many of these metaphorical concepts had long been current among the “cell localizationists” that Pavlov studied during his polemics with Bekhterev in 1907–1909.
17. Samoilov, “Obshchaia kharakteristika,” 204.
18. Vinnitskii, taped interview.
19. DO, 65; LCR, 82.
20. DO, 81; LCR 95.
21. Pavlov, “Fiziologiia,” 202, 203.
22. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 81.
23. ARAN 259.1.59/2: 3.
24. See chapter 24 of the present volume.
25. Pavlov hinted at this mode of explanation in his first speech on CRs to an international audience, in 1903. The naturalist needn’t worry about “the essence” of psychic phenomena, he argued: “Guided by the similarity or identity of the acquired objective data [saliva drops] with external manifestations [behavior and affect], science will sooner or later bring them to our subjective world.” DO, 39; LCR, 59.
26. Petrova’s assessment (Vospominaniia, 17) is almost identical to that of her friend Speranskii, in his Ivan Petrovich Pavlov.
27. PS, II, May 30, 1934, 415–416.
28. Gubergritz, Izbrannye, 20.
29. See chapter 29 of the present volume.
30. PS, II, October 18, 1933, 60–61.
31. See chapter 38 of the present volume.
32. E. Laganskii, “U Ivana Petrovicha Pavlova,” Literaturnyi Leningrad, November 1, 1935 (“transfer to myself”); PS, I, January 21, 1931, 113. He made the same point in his response in 1932 to Schilder’s critique of his work on experimental neurosis (DO2, 2, 149; LCR2, 84).
33. ARAN 259.1.59/4: 27.
34. LRB, 404; CR, 386.
35. PS, II, November 2, 1933, 95.
36. On the five principles, see chapter 37 of the present volume; on nervous types, chapters 36, 38, 44; on excitability and inhibition, chapter 35; on hypnosis and sleep, chapters 26, 45; on nature and nurture, chapter 44; on experimental neurosis and psychiatry, chapter 45; on analysis and synthesis in the cortex, chapters 46, 48.
1. Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 10.
2. In June 1907 Pavlov was awarded the Military-Medical Academy’s highest rank, academician, by a vote of 30–0. RGVIA 316.41.2490.
3. He did permit Babkin and Boldyrev to pursue their continued interest in digestion, and also accepted foreign visitors interested in that subject.
4. Boldyrev was dissector and Savich assistant until 1912, when Fol’bort became “assistant manager” of the lab—fully assuming the unenviable task of preparing experimental demonstrations for Pavlov’s lectures.
5. Pavlov to A. S. Famintsyn, May 19, [1907], ARAN 2.17, no. 115: 1–4.
6. ARAN 1.1a no. 154: 10, and ARAN 2.17.115:5. He was granted membership retroactive to December 1, 1907.
7. ARAN 1.1a.155: 147, 174.
8. The assistants were Sokolov from 1904 to 1907 and Orbeli from 1907 to 1914 (with a break of two years to study abroad, during which time he was replaced by Zavadskii).
9. DO, 125–126; LCR, 129–130.
10. Pavlov’s letter of January 12, 1910, is preserved in ARAN 259.1.8 On the Ledentsov Society, see Vucinich, Science, 210–212.
11. DO, 126–146, citation on 138; LCR, 131–143, citation on 138.
12. DO, 146; LCR, 143.
13. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.323:8–11, 55–59; ARAN 259.1.8.
14. Pavlov to Ol’denburgskii, June 5, 1912, in TsGIA SPB 2282.1.323: 61–62.
15. Pavlov to P. P. Lazarev, October 10, [1917], ARAN 259.4.119: 36. Pavlov had consulted with Lazarev, a physicist, about the production of “pure tones” and other precise stimuli for experiments.
16. Like so many of his countrymen, Pavlov was slow to grasp the significance of the Bolshevik takeover, probably because he believed their tenure in power would be short, so he and Vladimir wrote notes on January 16, 1918, and May 3, [1918], respectively, seeking the transfer of the Ledentsov funds to St. Petersburg. ARAN 259.4.119: 40–41.
17. BabkinMS, 255.
18. Sergeev, Rasskazy, 33. Podkopaev tells this story as if he had been present, but his tenure did not overlap with that of the naval physician, Kudrin. Perhaps he heard the story from Pavlov, or perhaps it was simply part of lab lore.
19. For example, Zelenyi, Materialy; Orbeli, Uslovnye; Nikolaev, K fiziologii; and Rozhanskii, Materialy.
20. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 74.
21. RGVIA 316.69.249 (May 2, 1913, item 17): 327.
22. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 59.
23. Rozhanskii, “Stil’,” 195.
24. Neits, “Pavlov,” 156.
25. Zavadskii, “I. P. Pavlov v laboratorii,” in IPVV, 97–100; on 98.
26. Rozhanskii, “Stil’,” 193.
27. Rozhanskii, “Stil’,” 193.
28. Rozhanskii, “Stil’,” 194.
29. Rozhanskii, “Stil’,” 196.
30. Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 2.
31. Krasnogorskii did not measure the children’s salivary reactions to various stimuli; rather, he registered the reflexive movements of their mouth and throat during experiments. See his “Opyt polucheniia” and “Ob uslovnykh.”
32. PSS, VI, 299.
33. BabkinMS, 259.
34. DO, 167–168; LCR, 162.
35. Krasnogorskii, O protsesse; DO, 159; LCR, 156.
36. RGVIA 316.69.248 (1911):163 and 316.69.252 (1915). See Krasnogorskii, Razvitie.
37. BabkinMS, 284; Savich, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 18.
38. Ivan P. Pawlow, “The Huxley Lecture on Scientific Investigation of the Psychical Activities or Processes in the Higher Animals,” The Lancet, October 6, 1906: 911–915. The standard English translations of Pavlov’s works consistently and erroneously render as “bell” the Russian word zvonok, which means “buzzer.” This stimulus is often further identified in the original Russian as electricheskii zvonok (electrical buzzer). When English speakers refer to such a device as a “door bell,” of course, they are not referring to the type of “bell” that this mistranslation evokes in the iconic image of “Pavlov ringing a bell.” Pavlov and his coworkers used that type of bell only in a very few, unusual instances peripheral to the main lines of investigation, and in those cases it is referred to as a kolokol’chik. For the history and logic of Pavlov’s term uslovnyi refleks (conditional reflex), see chapter 17 of the present work. In two earlier works, I wrote that uslovnyi refleks “can be translated as either `conditioned reflex’ or ‘conditional reflex,’” though the “latter is much closer to Pavlov’s original meaning” (Todes, 1997, 952; also Todes, Factory, 244–245). Further rumination and research—particularly on the history of the translation of this phrase—has convinced me that I here carried historicism to an erroneous extreme. “Conditioned” is simply an error.
39. Robert Yerkes to Pavlov, November 20, 1908; December 24, 1908; February 11, 1909; March 9, 1909; March 28, 1909; and May 11, 1909, in ARAN 259.2.342.
40. Yerkes and Morgulis, “The Method,” 259 (footnote 3). On Gantt’s translation, see chapter 37 of the present work.
41. Cannon’s letters to Pavlov from 1912–1936 are preserved in ARAN 259.2.381, 1185, and 1306; Benedict’s in ARAN 259.2.69; Kellogg to Pavlov, June 17, 1907, ARAN 259.2.379:2.
42. A. V. Hill to O. S. Rosental, November 10, 1936, ARAN 259.7.285:19.
43. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 293–294. Pavlov took this incident to heart and later used it to his own purposes (see chapter 28).
1. BabkinMS, 175.
2. There exists no scholarly biography. See Kozulin, Psychology, 49–61; Joravsky, Russian Psychology, 83–91; Lomov, Kol’tsova, and Stepanova, “Ocherk”; and Lerner, Margolin, and Witztum, “Bekhterev.”
3. Chizhevskii, Vsia zhizn’, 194; BabkinMS, 148–149.
4. Andreeva, “Pavlov”; Andreeva and Kosmachevskaia, “Nauchnye sviazi.”
5. Gerver, “O vliianii,”150–151 (for Bekhterev on associative centers, 167). Among these works were Gorshkov, “O lokalizatsii”; Belitskii, “O vliianii”; and Bekhterev, “O korkovom” and “O refleksakh.” On Flechsig’s centers, see Finger, Origins, 308–310.
6. PSS, VI: 201–205; for this exchange and the significance of Geiman’s analysis to Pavlov’s changing views, see Todes, Factory, 248–252.
7. ARAN 259.1.203.
8. Frolov, Chetvert’, 17; Babkin, Opyt, 20–25, 27, 38, 163–164. Bekhterev served on the thesis committees of Snarskii (1901), Babkin (1904), Zel’geim (1904), Geiman (1904), Perel’tsveig (1907), Zelenyi (1907), Pimenov (1907), and Mishtovt (1907).
9. TsGANTD 2282.1.251: 5–7; Richter, “Brain Commission.”
10. See Bekhterev, Zadachi.
11. Tikhomirov, Opyt.
12. See, for example, the literature review in Tikhomirov, Opyt, 44–55; and El’iasson, Issledovanie, 121–133.
13. ARAN 259.1.87: 2.
14. Bekhterev, “Ob”ektivnoe,” 518–519 (simple versus acquired reflexes), 521 (Pavlov and his students), 521–522 (line of investigation). Bekhterev also described (525–530) the usefulness of this methodology for illuminating questions of cortical localization.
15. Bekhterev, “Ob”ektivnoe,” 530–531. In 1908 (“Issledovanie,” 170), he argued that his own term, “associative reflex,” was preferable to Pavlov’s, because “conditional reflex” implied that the relationship between cause and effect was “loose” (rykhlaia), when in fact it was “extraordinarily constant.”
16. BabkinMS, 243–245. Pavlov’s fears were hardly unfounded—and must have been exacerbated by reading Yerkes and Morgulis’s review of CR research in 1910. Here, alongside an extended description of Pavlov’s research, they also described Kalischer’s. Furthermore, they cited the opinion of G. F. Nicolai—a colleague of Kalischer’s at Berlin’s Physiological Institute who had visited Pavlov’s lab—that Kalischer’s “training method” offered a superior variant to Pavlov’s focus on salivary CRs. They also identified Nicolai as Pavlov’s “student” and cited his assessment of the possibilities of CR research in terms that must have made Pavlov cringe: “One can show experimentally that a dog learns by subsuming certain new ideas under general ideas which he has already acquired in the course of the experiment.” See Yerkes and Morgulis, “The Method,” 10–11.
17. Bekhterev, Psikhologiia, 6–8. There exists no systematic study of Bekhterev’s life and research, so the actual historical relationship between his “associative reflex” and Pavlov’s research is unknown.
18. DO, 16; LCR, 40–41.
19. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 125–126; BabkinMS, 172–173. An understanding of the precise impact of Pavlov’s CR research upon Bekhterev’s notion of movement reflexes would require careful study. Judging by timing, general content, and Bekhterev’s indubitable familiarity with Pavlov’s research, it seems to me that this influence was much more profound—and conscious—than Bekhterev ever admitted. Yet, as Pavlov himself recognized, it was also true that some of the concepts that underlay the doctrine of CRs and his discussion of their dynamics—such as the notions of irradiation, concentration, and Bahnung (the creation of nervous pathways between nerves that were repeatedly excited simultaneously)—were quite common among researchers of the anatomy and physiology of the nervous system, including Bekhterev, by the late nineteenth century. For a thorough discussion of this, see Bernshtein, Sovremennye, especially 86–101.
20. DO, 82–88; LCR, 97–98; for the discussion, PSS, VI, 274–280.
21. See El’iasson, Issledovaniia; Orbeli, “K voprosu”; Makovskii, “K ucheniiu”; Toropov, “Uslovnye.”
22. BabkinMS, 176, 183.
23. For a detailed account of the exchanges from a presentist, pro-Bekhterev perspective, see Arkhangel’skii, “Istoriko-fiziologicheskii.”
24. DO, 85, and LCR, 99.
25. Pavlov, “O znachenii” (this was not reprinted in DO, LCR, or PSS).
26. For the discussion, PSS, VI, 288–299; for the citations from Pavlov, 294.
27. PSS, VI, 296–297. Pavlov and Bekhterev sparred again at the May meeting of the Society, at which Toropov presented further experimental evidence against the existence of a “sound center.” Pavlov again prodded Bekhterev for his promised experimental demonstration, “after which we will talk about the salivary center.” PSS, VI, 301–302.
28. BabkinMS, 183–185; citation on 184. Following English-language convention, Babkin uses the word “conditioned” rather than “conditional.” I have replaced it in brackets to avoid confusion.
29. BabkinMS, 184.
30. OPN 1909, 2: 120–123. Bekhterev edited this latter account.
31. TsVIA 316.69.245, Protokoly for March 7, 1909.
32. TsVIA 316.69.245, Protokoly for March 7, 1909.
33. TsVIA 316.69.245, Protokoly for March 7, 1909.
34. Larionov, “Uslovnye”; Zavadskii, “Gyrus”; OPN 1909, 5: 306.
35. BabkinMS, 178–179; OPN 1909, 5: 307–318; citation on 307. So unseemly was the discussion that, in a departure from usual practice, the editors of the Works of the Society of Russian Physicians did not publish the remarks (instead merely listing the names of discussants). In his autobiographical notes, published in 1907, Sechenov had observed that, like Bernard a generation earlier, Pavlov enjoyed the reputation as the “most artful vivisector” in Europe (Sechenov, Avtobiograficheskie, 11).
36. From Pavlov’s synthesis of his lab’s extirpation experiments, delivered to the Society of Russian Physicians in September 1912, in DO, 208–224, citation on 210; LCR, 193–204, citation on 194. For an earlier sketch, see his speech in October 1908, in DO, 86–89; LCR, 100–102. Pavlov claimed no originality for these views and clearly drew heavily upon those of Hermann Munk, sometimes adding his own emphasis and terminology. See Bernshtein, Sovremennye, pp. 66–78.
37. Herlighy, Alcoholic, 3–13; citation on 7.
38. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 399. Pavlov and his wife remained lifelong prohibitionists. See, for example, his letter of 1928 in ARAN 259.2.1067.
39. On Chelyshev, see Hutchinson, “Science,” 234–235, and Herlighy, Alcoholic, 34, 84–85, 133–134.
40. V. M. Bekhterev, Dokladnaia zapiska ob obrazovanii i deiatel’nosti Protivoalkogol’nogo Instituta [1914?], TsGIA SPB 2265.1.952: 16–17rev; citation on 16rev.
41. This document was published in the proceedings of the Anti-Alcohol Commission: Ob ustroistve laboratorii dlia izucheniia vliianiia alkogolia na organizm i dlia issledovaniia alkogolizma v’ naselenii, in Trudy postoiannoi Komissii po voprosu ob Alkogolizme i Merakh bor’by s nim, Series II-a, vyp. 13 (1915): 24–28.
42. Pavlov’s and Vvedenskii’s critiques were published in the above-cited issue of Trudy postoiannoi on 28–31, followed by discussion on 31–52. For the editors’ annotation of Bekhterev’s arguments, see 38–40.
43. Pavlov, “Eksperimental’nyi Institut,” no. 20.
44. Pavlov, “Eksperimental’nyi Institut,” no. 20.
45. Pavlov, “Eksperimental’nyi Institut,” no. 22.
46. From a discussion at the St. Petersburg Club of Social Activists, November 22, 1912, ARAN 259.1.97.
47. For Pavlov’s statement and the resolution of the physico-mathematical division of the Academy of Sciences, see ARAN 1.1a.1912: 168, 172; and ARAN 2.17.115: 29–31, 40, 40–40rev. The latter source also includes the defensive response of the Ministry of Finances.
48. Russkii Vrach 1912, no. 24: 10.
49. Trudy postoiannoi Komissii po voprosu ob Alkogolizme i Merakh bor’by s nim, Series II-a, vyp. 13 (1915): 114.
50. For his terse note of February 6, 1913, see TsGIA SPB, 2265.1.952.
51. TsGIA SPB 2265.1.942: 4–35rev.
52. For Gerver’s speech, see Trudy postoiannoi Komissii po voprosu ob Alkogolizme i Merakh bor’by s nim, Series II-a, vyp. 13 (1915): 84–91; for the discussion, 91–115. In November 1912, PNI physician S. A. Vladychko echoed Gerver’s new version in a speech to St. Petersburg’s Club of Social Activists on the “Scientific Struggle with Alcoholism.” Pavlov attended that meeting and criticized the proposed Institute in his usual terms, but also reported to the Academy of Sciences that the PNI’s change of position attested to the importance of the struggle against the original proposal and of the Academy’s resolution against it. See ARAN 2.17.115: 30rev–31; and, for Pavlov’s and Gerver’s comments at the Club, ARAN 259.1.97. I have been unable to determine how, precisely, the projected facilities of the new Institute compared with those envisioned in the original, rejected proposal. (Construction was, in any case, interrupted by the outbreak of war.) The interministerial meeting of May 7, 1912, decided to grant the Institute the full 400,000 rubles originally requested (TsGIA SPB 2265.1.529: 34), yet Bekhterev later claimed that for two years (that is, until June 1914) the Institute received no state funding, and that it proved a financial liability (TsGIA SPB 2265.1.959: 4–5).
53. Typed copy of Sadko, “Dva Akademika,” Odesskie Novosti, 16 June 1912 (no. 8745), in TsGIA SPB 2265.1.529: 9rev–10rev.
54. A. A. Dvukraev to Prince V. N. Orlov, April 17, 1914, RGVIA 970.3.1329: 35–36. Dvukraev hastened to add that institutes like Bekhterev’s could prove quite useful for combating alcoholism.
1. Stites, Women’s Liberation, 83–85, 174–175.
2. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 31.
3. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 31.
4. As Pavlov later explained, these and other such experiments demonstrated that there was “not the slightest difference” between so-called “natural” and “artificial” reflexes—and so the distinction was dropped. See DO 70; LCR, 86.
5. Kasherininova, Materialy (citation on 43); Voskoboinikova-Granstrem, “Teplota.” For discussion of these women’s contributions, see Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, iii. Pavlov cited Kasherininova’s and Voskoboinikova-Granstrem’s experiments in his landmark London address in honor of T. H. Huxley in 1906 (DO, 73, 75–77; LCR, 86, 89–90).
6. PSS, VI, 247–248.
7. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 43.
8. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, x. The relationship between the older term razdrazhenie (irritation) and the more modern vozbuzhdenie (excitation) was fluid, and each had its own set of overlapping metaphorical associations. For example, a razdrazhitel’nyi personality was “irritable,” while a vozbudimyi personality was “excitable.” Pavlov often used these terms synonymously.
9. Erofeeva describes Bogen’s research in Electricheskoe, x.
10. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 4–8.
11. Petrova, K ucheniiu, 10.
12. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 8–15.
13. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 10.
14. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 11–12, 16.
15. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 18.
16. As usual, these difficulties were fully reported in the doctoral thesis, but not in Erofeeva’s more public reports and articles or in Pavlov’s generalizing statements about the progress of research. For the fluctuations in the secretory results of electrical shock and the experimenters’ interpretation of them, see, for example, Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 22, 24–25, 28–34. Erofeeva claimed that both dogs finally differentiated between electrical shock to the leg (reinforced by feeding) and to the back, side, and head (unreinforced), Shalun doing so after 315 reinforced and 125 unreinforced repetitions, Chernukha after 339 reinforced and 128 unreinforced repetitions.
17. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 22.
18. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 42–47.
19. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 48–52; citation on 52.
20. Erofeeva, Elektricheskoe, 55–58.
21. ARAN 259.1.59/2: 12.
22. DO, 201–202; LCR, 188. Gantt tones down Pavlov’s claim in his translation.
23. Rozhanskii, Lichnye, 10; Pavlov, Osnovy kul’tury, 14–15. This speech is discussed in chapter 29 of the present volume. In his 1915 account of Erofeeva’s experiments, Morgulis repeats Pavlov’s point about “the apparent insensitiveness to excruciating pain demonstrated by many martyrs of a creed or an ideal”—but this does not appear in Erofeeva’s thesis. Perhaps he picked it up from Pavlov secondhand; in his article, Morgulis acknowledges the help of Jacques Loeb’s former coworker, the biochemist and physiologist Thorburn Robertson, who had recently visited Pavlov’s lab. Pavlov probably explained this implication of Erofeeva’s research to Robertson, who passed it on to Morgulis. See Morgulis, “Pawlow’s Theory,” 375.
24. On the reinterpretation of Erofeeva’s and Pavlov’s conclusions, see PS, I, 208–209 (March 23, 1931) and 230–231 (April 11, 1932); Maiorov, Istoriia, 242; Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 34; and discussions of “experimental neurosis” in chapters 36 and 45 of the present volume.
25. ARAN 259.1.59/2: 6.
26. Bezbokaia, Materialy, 18–19.
27. Bezbokaia, Materialy, 19.
28. Bezbokaia, Materialy, 20–21.
29. ARAN 259.1.59/2: 7. For his later formulation, see LRBP, 193–194; CR, 182–183.
30. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 19.
31. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 19.
32. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 18.
33. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 20.
34. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 20.
35. RGVIA 316.69.249 (May 2, 1913, item 17): 327–331. The Scholarly Secretary decided to omit these unseemly remarks by Pavlov and Kravkov from the published minutes.
36. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 21.
37. RGVIA 316.69.249 (2 May 1913, item 17): 327.
38. RGVIA 316.69.249 (18 May 1913, item 18): 333–335.
1. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 37–38.
2. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 56. Coworker Zavadskii (“I. P. Pavlov,” 99) also observed that “As a true biologist, Ivan Petrovich liked beautiful people (krasivykh liudei).”
3. Author’s interview with L. V. Balmasova, July 21, 2001; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 31.
4. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 29. Petrova purged her personal papers of every mention of her maiden name, probably to conceal her father’s identity and activities as a prominent military priest under tsarism. My thanks to Eleonora Filippova for the superb detective work to discover this information.
5. Birzhevye vedomosti, May 15, 1909, 3; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 28–29.
6. On Petrov’s theological views and relationship to the church hierarchy, see Hedda, His Kingdom, 106–125, 179–182; Khristianstvo, 342–343; Rumanov, Sviashchennik; Voronets, “Itogi”; Kozitskii, “O literaturnoi”; Petrov, “Moe literaturnoe.”
7. Rumanov, Sviashchennik, 8–9.
8. Voronets, “Itogi,” 324.
9. “Perhaps too pretty” was the verdict on Petrov’s style by an anonymous columnist for Sankt-Peterburgskie Vedomosti, December 22, 1902, 2; Voronets, in “Itogi,” concluded that Petrov offered “much milk” but no “solid food.”
10. Kozitskii, “O literaturnoi,” 936.
11. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 30–31.
12. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 31.
13. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 31–32.
14. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 33.
15. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 34–35.
16. Petrov, Sbornik, 19–20.
17. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 11. Pavlov was at this time occasionally coming to the lab during evenings in order to witness Erofeeva’s experiments. So either Petrova was quite lucky or she must have known that her work in the lab was not sanctioned—and watched and waited to see if the coast was clear.
18. Petrov, Pis’mo.
19. Cited in Rumanov, Sviashchennik, 33–35.
20. Novoe Vremia, February 15, 1907, 4; Rumanov, Sviashchennik, 71–75.
21. Citation from Rech’, the unofficial newspaper organ of the Kadets, in Rumanov, Sviashchennik, 119. See also the front-page story on Petrov in Rech’, February 22, 1907.
22. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 35–36.
23. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 11–12.
24. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 12–13.
25. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 42.
26. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 39.
27. Pavlov cited these experiments of November 1913 in LRBP, 190–191; CR, 178–179.
28. LRBP, 166; CR, 154. My thanks to Katya Guenther for discussion of this point.
29. Petrova, K ucheniiu, 243.
30. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 43.
31. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 45.
32. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 45.
33. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 46–47.
34. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 49.
1. Cited in Lincoln, Passage, 42.
2. “St. Petersburg” was not a German name, but rather a Dutch one—a Russianized equivalent (Sankt Piter Burkh) of the Dutch Sint-Pietersburg, named after Peter the Great’s patron saint, St. Peter.
3. Zimnitskii, taped interview; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 50.
4. Ten-Kate, Vospominaniia, 1.
5. Pavlov to N. M. Kulagin, September 19, 1914, ARANM 445.3.834: 17. The tsarist army did not draft eldest sons, but Vladimir volunteered to work on communications at the front.
6. Pavlov to A. F. Samoilov, December 29, 1914, ARANM 652.2.161:2.
7. Pavlov to N. M. Kulagin, April 21, 1915, ARANM 445.3.834: 13–14.
8. Boiko, Vospominaniia, 22–23.
9. Lincoln, Passage, 315.
10. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 24.
11. Pavlov’s annual reports for 1914 and 1915, in TsGIA SPB 2282.1.383:23 and 2282.1.3714: 27–28.
12. Ten-Kate, Vospominaniia, 2–3.
13. Gubergrits, “Vospominaniia,” 15–16.
14. Gubergrits, “Vospominaniia,” 19.
15. Gubergrits, “Vospominaniia,” 17.
16. Gubergrits, “Vospominaniia,” 18.
17. Gubergrits, “Vospominaniia,” 18. Here one might argue that Pavlov and Gubergritz were consciously “training” a dog (to submit to experiments in the stand), but this was but preparation for their goal, which resided in those experiments themselves.
18. For “The Reflex of Purpose” (January 1916), see DO, 306–313; LCR, 275–281; for “The Reflex of Freedom” (March 1917), see DO, 340–345; LCR, 282–286. Here Pavlov was developing a theme that he had introduced in his inaugural lecture of the 1913–1914 academic year, which he devoted to an analysis of suicide among animals and humans. See Pavlov, O samoubiistvakh.
19. DO, 312–313; LCR, 280–281.
20. DO, 340–345, on 345; LCR, 282–286, on 286. Pavlov delivered his speech on “The Reflex of Freedom” after Russia’s February 1917 revolution, but was scheduled to deliver it earlier, and would have done so if not for illness. This speech contains no reference or even allusion to the February events, to which, as we shall see, he initially responded pessimistically.
21. RGIA 733.156.386.
22. RGIA 1284.188.32 (I have used a microfilm copy in ARAN razriad XV.1.167).
23. Francis Benedict to Pavlov, May 15, 1916, ARAN 259.2.69.
24. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 49.
25. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 50–51.
26. Petrov was at the time forbidden to live in St. Petersburg and was probably still residing nearby, just across the border in Finland. So, if Petrova’s account is accurate, he must have been in the city very briefly and surreptitiously.
27. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 58.
28. Ivan Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, April 9, 1916, ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
29. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 56–57.
30. Obscidian’s Dictionary of Pantheons, http://web.raex.com/~obsidian/SlavPan.html#Prince%20Ivan; and Forrester et al., eds., Baba Yaga, xxvi. My thanks to Steve Dodson for pointing me to this latter source.
31. Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 12.
32. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 247; PKS, I, 88.
33. Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 13.
34. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 60–61.
1. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 247.
2. Smirnov, taped interview. One of those “fools” was Evgenii Kreps (see his O prozhitom, 19), a leftist medical student at the Academy who was working in Pavlov’s lab there and who would become a longtime coworker and later, as director of the Murmansk Biological Station, a pioneer in the use of CR methodology in comparative physiology.
3. Lincoln, Passage, 344.
4. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 221.
5. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 61.
6. Pavlov to Petrova, April 1, [1917], ARAN 767.2.17:4.
7. ARAN 2.1-1917.40: 8.
8. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.409 (1917): 11rev.
9. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.409:11rev–19rev.
10. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.409: 22–24.
11. PSS, I, 9–11.
12. Svobodnaia assotsiatsiia, 5.
13. Svobodnaia assotsiatsiia, 5–6.
14. Svobodnaia assotsiatsiia, 20–21.
15. Pavlov, “Nauchnyi Institut,” 26.
16. Pavlov to A. A. Petrovskii, October 16, [1917], ARAN 259.1a.44. On the brief history of the Association after the Bolshevik seizure of power, see TsGA SPB 2555.1.73.
17. V. I. Pavlov to S. V. Pavlova, July 24, 1917, ARAN 259.9.110: 74.
18. Lincoln, Passage, 349–350.
19. For testimony about this during an official Soviet inquiry of 1921, see Sokolov, Predvaritel’noe.
20. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 83.
21. Pavlov to V. L. Omelianskii, cited in Gureeva et al., Letopis’, 175.
22. The IEM composed a list of 109 people to leave the city. Pavlov, accompanied by three members of his family and two servants, was to flee for Rostov on the Don. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.412: 33.
23. V. I. Pavlova, Vospominaniia o Sillamiagakh, 128–129.
24. Pavlov’s comment to Gantt, AMC, box 191, folder 3 (entry for December 3, 1928).
1. Rozhanskii, Lichnye, 4; Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 83.
2. Mawdsley, Russian, 5–6.
3. By 1920, there also emerged a peasant-based “Green” military resistance to both Reds and Whites, as well as various armed groups seeking national independence.
4. Musaev, “Byt,” 63.
5. Lincoln, Passage, 457–462.
6. Letter from the leadership of the Academy of Sciences to SNK, Dec. 7, 1920, ARAN 2.1-1917.43: 539–541.
7. Krementsov, Stalinist, 18–19.
8. Kurepin, Nauka, 39, 47.
9. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 148.
10. ARAN 1.1a-1917.164: 300.
11. TsGIA SPB 2282.1.409 (1917): 90–90rev.
12. Vsevolod Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, November 6, 1917, ARAN 259.9.110: 84–85.
13. Vsevolod Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, December 10, 1917, ARAN 259.9.110: 90–91.
14. Kolchinskii, “Nauka,” 413; Musaev, “Byt,” 61–62 (with citation from Serge).
15. Musaev, “Byt,” 66–67.
16. Musaev, “Byt,” 63–66; Kolchinskii, “Nauka,” 409.
17. Dobuzhinskii, “Peterburg,” 103.
18. Bogen, “Kak skladyvalsia,” 11, 13.
19. For a list, see Kolchinskii, “Nauka,” 411.
20. Kolchinskii, “Nauka,” 412–413.
21. Karpinskii to Narkompros, March 1919, ARAN 2.1-1917.42: 448.
22. Pavlov to Soviet of Petersburg University (1919?), TsGA SPB 7240.14.34: 102.
23. For Golubtsov’s comments on firewood and Pavlov’s illness, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.21: 29. For Pavlov’s concern about his paintings, see Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 32. It is not clear how many paintings Pavlov had in 1918–1921. At the very least, he had the two very precious ones acquired before 1917, Dubovskoi’s Sillamiagi scene and Yaroshenko’s portrait of Vladimir. Sometime after 1917 his collection swelled to massive proportions, but I have been unable to establish precisely when. In his taped interview, Popov recalls that he visited Pavlov’s apartment in 1919 and that it was “full of paintings,” but he may have been referring to a later visit.
24. TsGANTD 181.1-1.21: 79rev; taped interview with Popov.
25. In September 1919, the six “course elders” of the Academy’s student body marked Pavlov’s seventieth birthday with a certificate appreciating him as “not only an international scientist giving us exceptionally substantive lectures, but also a favorite teacher who, with unusual simplicity and clarity, analyzes life phenomena and summons us to work, science, and truth.” This is held in Pavlov’s family papers at MMK.
26. Pavlova, Otdel’nye, 121.
27. ARAN 767.2.17: 6. This note is among the fifteen letters and two postcards from Pavlov preserved in Petrova’s personal papers.
28. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 186.
29. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 191.
30. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 186–187.
31. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 187–188.
32. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 49.
33. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 34.
34. Lincoln, Red Victory, 82.
35. ARAN 259.1a.1.
36. On these speeches, see chapter 29 of the current volume.
37. Petrova, Vospominaniia, p. 66. See also taped interview with Bilov. On Viktor’s letter from the SNK, see ARAN 259.4.25:8. Pavlov and Bonch-Bruevich had become acquainted in prerevolutionary days at the home of their mutual friend, the psychiatrist Alexander Timofeev, so the letter may well have resulted from a personal request.
38. ARAN 259.4.25:1.
39. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 343, 468; PKS, III, February 19, 1936, 407–408; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 158. The dedication remained intact in the Soviet-era republications and collection of Pavlov’s works, but, oddly, the word “sacred” was omitted in Anrep’s English translation.
40. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 108.
41. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 190–191; author’s phone interview with L. V. Balmasova, January 2, 2013.
42. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 64–70.
43. On the fate of Serafima’s brother, see A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 130; on the tragedies visited upon the Prokopovich-Kamenskii family, see Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 460–461; on Inostrantsev’s suicide, see the biographical sketch in Inostrantsev, Vospominaniia, 14–15; on A. S. Dogel’, see Fokin, ed., Chelovek, 131–132. Among arrested colleagues at the IEM were Pavlov’s friend and former director, Sergei Luk’ianov (who had also served as Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod). On Luk’ianov’s arrest, see TsGANTD, 181.1-1.21; on other arrests at the IEM, see Grekova, “Institut.” Among the arrested members of the Academy of Sciences with whom Pavlov was most familiar were Orientalist Sergei Oldenburg, biogeochemist Vladimir Vernadskii, and, among corresponding members, geneticist Nikolai Kol’tsov. See Kurepin, Nauka, 90–91.
44. For his very similar reports on his Institute labs in 1918 and 1920, see TsGA SPB 482.4.5:33, 192.
45. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 172.
46. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 32; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 188.
47. Pavlov to L. A. Tarasevich, September 30, [1918], in ARANM 1538.4.259: 7–8.
48. Production at the gastric juice factory declined from over 15,000 flagons in prerevolutionary years to 1,599 flagons in 1918, 1,800 in 1919, and zero in 1920. See TsGANTD 182.1-1.8: 70b (1918), 182.1-1.24:2 (1919), 182.1-1.34 (1920), and 182.1-1.42:33 (1921). The citation on hunger and experimental results is from a report of 1924 on the care and feeding of lab dogs, in TsGA SPB 2555.1.728: 3–7rev.
49. Rozental’, “Vliianie” (1921), 9.
50. TsGANTD 181.1-1.21 (1919): 79rev; and 182.1-1.29 (1920): 8.
51. On his mother and uncles, see chapter 1 of the present volume; on Bystrov, Chel’tsov, and his neurosismus, see chapter 2; on his hysteria and tabes, see chapter 6.
52. Memoir of Timofeev’s daughter, T. A. Ozeretskovskaia, in ARAN 259.7.343.
53. For Pavlov’s jottings in his notebook, ARAN 259.1.59/2: 23–26; for his articles and reports of these years on the physiology of sleep and hypnosis, DO, 299–305, 359–360, and 373–390. The last two are translated in LCR, 294–295 and 305–318. Pavlov and Petrova developed this analysis in an article of 1932 on hypnotic states, in DO2, 133–146.
54. DO, 346–354; LCR, 287–293.
55. E. Enchmen to M. N. Pokrovskii, January 4, 1921, RGASPI 5.1.125: 7–9.
1. Fragment in Pavlov’s hand, accompanied by a copy in Serafima Pavlova’s hand and a typed copy, ARAN 259.1a.2.
2. On the metaphorical meanings of nervous processes, see Smith, Inhibition.
3. Pavlov, Ob ume, 1-1rev. These speeches were delivered to raise money for that institution. For an advertisement, see Vechernee slovo April 25 (12), 1918, no. 29.
4. Pavlov, Ob ume, 2.
5. Pavlov, Ob ume, 12.
6. Pavlov, Ob ume, 4.
7. Pavlov, Ob ume, 4–4rev.
8. Pavlov, Ob ume, 6.
9. Pavlov, Ob ume, 6rev–7.
10. Pavlov, Ob ume, 8.
11. Pavlov, O russkom, 2.
12. Pavlov, O russkom, 4rev.
13. Pavlov, O russkom, 5.
14. Pavlov, O russkom, 8–8rev.
15. Pavlov, O russkom, 8rev–9.
16. Pavlov, O russkom, 9–12.
17. Pavlov, O russkom, 14rev.
18. Pavlov, O russkom, 18–18rev.
19. Pavlov, Osnovy, 6–7.
20. Pavlov, Osnovy, 8.
21. Pavlov, Osnovy, 10–12.
22. On this earlier interpretation, see Chapter 26 of the present volume.
23. For these experiments and Pavlov’s earlier interpretation of them, see Chapter 24 of the present volume.
24. Pavlov, Osnovy, 15–16.
25. Pavlov, Osnovy, 20–21.
26. Pavlov, Osnovy, 25–26.
27. Pavlov, Osnovy, 26.
28. Pavlov, Osnovy, 26–27. One might expect that his typology would include three types: overinhibited, balanced, and overexcitable. He indeed developed a more symmetrical typology during the 1920s. The asymmetry in his typology of 1918 probably reflected his preoccupation with the insufficiency of inhibition in “the Russian type.” He was not concerned at this time with the imbalances produced by the dominance of inhibition.
29. Pavlov, Osnovy, 29–30.
30. Pavlov, Osnovy, 30–35, citation on 32–33.
31. Pavlov, Osnovy, 35–36, 36–37, 38–39.
32. Pavlov, Osnovy, 39, 41.
33. Pavlov, Osnovy, 42–45.
34. Pavlov, Osnovy, 47–48.
1. Pavlov, O russkom, 4rev.
2. Lincoln, Red Victory, 423.
3. Pavlov to SNK, June 11, 1920, ARAN.259.1a.6. Esakov cites from RGASPI the slightly different final version in “I Akademik,” 78–79.
4. See, for example, the letters from A. P. Karpinskii to Narkompros in March 1919 and to the SNK in October 1920, in ARAN 2.1-1917.43: 448–449, 537–538rev.
5. Ol’denburg to SNK, May 17, 1921, ARAN 2.1-1917.43: 552.
6. Pavlov to V. K. Trofimov, cited in Trofimov, Stranitsa.
7. Letter from Axel Odelberg, January 22, 1921, CMA ESS/E-16/6. Odelberg, who was associated with the Swedish Red Cross, had recently visited Pavlov.
8. A. V. Lunacharskii to V. I. Lenin, June 21, 1920, cited by Esakov, “I Akademik,” 79.
9. V. I. Lenin to G. E. Zinoviev, June 25, [1920], RGASPI 2.1.14476.
10. Zinoviev’s note accompanies Lenin’s letter in RGASPI 2.1.14476.
11. Pavlov to V. D. Bonch-Bruevich, June [15, 1920], ARAN 259.1a.7.
12. Pavlov’s draft of this letter is held in ARAN 259.1a.7; the copy received by Bonch-Bruevich is in RGASPI 5.1.125:7.
13. Bonch-Bruevich, “V. I. Lenin,” 35.
14. Lunacharskii, Nauka, 51.
15. Lenin to Gorky, September 15, 1919, in Koenker and Bachman, Revelations 229.
16. See Finkel, “Purging,” and David-Fox, Revolution.
17. TsGA SPB 2995.1.7:83.
18. TsGA SPB 2995.1.60: 33, 216 and 2995.1.60: 45–46, 92, 94, 96.
19. Esakov, “I Akademik,” 82.
20. V. D. Bonch-Bruevich to Pavlov, June 28, 1920, ARAN 259.2.1112: 2.
21. V. D. Bonch-Bruevich to G. A. Zinoviev, June 29, 1920, RGASPI 5.1.125: 3–4.
22. Pavlov to Bonch-Bruevich (copy), n. d., ARAN 259.7.174. Bonch-Bruevich received the letter on July 3 and later published it in “V. I. Lenin,” 36–37. The Russian letters “V” and “B” are sufficiently alike that Pavlov apparently mistakenly wrote “V” in reference to his friend Berggol’ts.
23. V. D. Bonch-Bruevich to Pavlov, October 11, 1920, ARAN 259.2.112: 4.
24. The Journal of the American Medical Association reported on September 3, 1921 (p. 801) that one year earlier a Viennese newspaper had announced Pavlov’s removal from his professorship at St. Petersburg University [sic], that another paper had reported that he was sentenced to death after delivering a public lecture critical of the Bolsheviks, and that a Budapest newspaper had recently printed the testimony of “medical man recently returned from a Russian prison” that Pavlov had died of hunger and cold in January 1921. Benedict and Cannon replied in the September 24, 1921, issue of the Journal (pp. 1039–1040). Benedict assured readers that although “the sufferings, privations and moral depression which a man of this remarkable caliber must be going through may, indeed, make death preferable,” Pavlov was alive and “not in precarious health.” Cannon reported that the Red Cross was sending food to the Pavlovs, but that their sons “have not been heard from for two years” and that Pavlov would much appreciate any information about their fates. Pavlov had, in fact, learned of Viktor’s death in a letter of 1919, and Vladimir was living at home. On Schafer’s concern about Pavlov: letter from Bayliss to Schafer, October 29, 1920, CMA, ESS/E-16/5. The sum of 120 pounds was pledged at the Physiological Society meeting of October 18, 1919, but Arrhenius reported on January 31, 1920, that he had been unable to deliver it and hoped to get it to Pavlov shortly through the Danish Red Cross. This in CMA SA/PHY/C.1 Box 26, minutes for October 18, 1919, and January 31, 1920. Axel Odelberg finally gave Pavlov the money during his visit to Petrograd, probably in January 1921.
25. TsGA SPB 7384.11.57: 269 and 1000.4.119: 101; TsGA SPB 2995.1.4: 4.
26. GARF 130.4.90: 8; 130.4.180: 176, 181; 130.4.206: 389; 130.4.741: 97–98.
27. TsGA SPB 100.4.68: 161, 269; 100.4.74: 445; 100.4.224: 172–173. Sometimes Pavlov made the request in a personal note, sometimes through his assistant Rozental’.
28. ARAN 1.1a. 68 and 1.1a.168.
29. ARAN 259.1.81.
30. The Red Cross affair is documented in RGASPI 2.1.16771, 2.1.16795, and 5.1.125. Stiernstedt’s letter of November 9, 1920, was received on December 31; it is held in 2.1.16771: 1–2.
31. RGASPI 2.1.16771: 1rev.
32. Cannon to A. I. Ringer, March 15, 1921, FCL, box 37, folder 459.
33. Axel Odelberg to Edward Schaefer, January 22, 1921, CMA ESS/E-16/6. The Swedish Red Cross also figured in a report in the Parisian émigré journal Poslednie Novosti (October 21, 1920) that Pavlov was “living in the most abject misery in the outskirts of Petrograd,” adding that he would probably not survive the approaching winter without help and calling for “a concerted appeal from French and British scientific men to the International Red Cross, requesting that the representative of this organization in Scandinavian countries should take what action they can to secure his release.” This item was translated from the Russian by an assistant to George Nuttall at Cambridge University, whose alert to British and U.S. scientists led each to raise money for Pavlov. The British monies were given to Pavlov by Odelberg of the Swedish Red Cross, and the American monies were administered by Tigerstedt in Helsingfors.
34. Semashko’s note of January 10, 1921, to Gorbunov is held in RGASPI 2.1.16795: 12. As Lenin composed his reply, Gorbunov informed him of an embarrassing leak to the émigré press: the January 1, 1921, issue of the German émigré newspaper Rul’ included an article by M. Rostovtsev in which Pavlov’s earlier exchange of letters with the SNK was described with great accuracy. Perhaps H. G. Wells, who had met with Pavlov during his visit to Petrograd the previous fall, had obtained and passed along this information. “Has Wells read the correspondence between Pavlov and Lenin—this howl of a scientist who insists on his right to leave?” This from a copy of Gorbunov’s note of January 15, 1921, to Lenin, Zinoviev, Pokrovskii, and Semashko, in RGASPI 5.1.125:16–17.
35. E. Enchmen to M. N. Pokrovskii, January 4, 1921, RGASPI 5.1.125: 7–9. This letter was forwarded to Lenin, whose marks are found on the copy in 2.1.16795.
36. RGASPI 2.1.16813 2.
37. This decree is translated in Babkin, Pavlov, 165.
38. Typed copy of letter, without signature, from Narkom po Prosveshcheniiu [Lunacharskii] to Pavlov, January 25, 1921, RGASPI 5.5.125 24.
39. Axel Odelberg to Edward Shaefer, January 22, 1921, CMA PP/ESS/E.16/6.
40. ARAN 259.1.170: 123.
41. See citation to note 54 below.
42. Draft letter from Pavlov to Bonch-Bruevich, n. d., ARAN 259.1a.11.
43. See GARF 4737.1.1 on the SNK decree “On Measures for the Improvement of the Situation of Scholars of the RSFSR.”
44. In a letter of November 13, 1926 to I. A. Gruzdev (in LI, PG-r1 12-1-19), Gorky derided Pavlov as “the founder of the church of reflexology. But I have long rejected the nimbus of holiness surrounding his bald head. He is not my kind of person.” My thanks to Galina Propolianis for kindly helping me decipher his handwriting.
45. Taped interview with Il’inskii; Vladimir Pavlov, Dve vstrechi. See also Gor’kii, “Iz vospominanii.”
46. Pavlov to Kristi, February 9, 1921, TsGA SPB 2555.1.235: 420.
47. Mitrofanov to Gorbunov, January 29, 1921, RGASPI 5.1.125:26. Lunacharskii understood Pavlov’s motivation clearly, but found it politically naive: “With regard to his personal comforts he declined our proposal, saying that he could accept this only if we provided the same comforts to all scientists and not to him alone. He did this because he is a narrow-minded man in the realm of the social sciences.” This in his Nauka, 51.
48. The standard academic paek contained fifteen pounds of meat, five pounds of fish, thirty-five pounds of flower, twelve pounds of groats, six pounds of beans, two and a half pounds of sugar, two pounds of salt, a pinch of pepper, one-half pound of surrogate tea, three-quarters of a pound of tobacco, one pound of soap, and five boxes of matches. This from TsGA SPB 2995.1.7:46 (KUBU protocols for August 1921). The monthly norm for workers was four pounds of meat or fish, thirty pounds of bread, twenty pounds of vegetables, one pound of salt, one-half pound of fats, one-half pound of sugar, one-quarter pound of soap, one-quarter pound of surrogate coffee, and two boxes of matches. This from RGAE 1953.1.125:25. Distribution of these parcels did not end the hunger of Russian scientists. Gorky reported in mid-June 1921: “Scientists continue to die; the academic ration is received by only one half of those in Petrograd, and recently the most vital parts of the rations (bread, meat, butter) have been replaced by herring.” This in TsGA SPB 2995.1.5:207. For the classification of various Petrograd scientists in 1921–1923, see TsGA SPB 2995.1.166a: 1-61, 2995.1.23, 2995.1.447. For general information on the rationing system, see A. V. Khalatov, “Doklad SNKu RSFSR o rabote TsKUBU” (May 1926), in LI, BIO 16-82-1; GARF 4737.1.33, 4732.1.142, 2328.144, 2328.1.387, 2328.1.388; GARF 4737.1.250 (1928–1929); and TsGA SPB 2995.1.60, 2995.1.23, 2995.1.166a, 2995.1.447. For a concise published account, see Kurepin, Nauka, 48–50. For Volgin’s cynical assessment of the rations’ political usefulness, see ARAN 2.1-1917.43:54.
49. Narkomprod informed the SNK in a letter of January 31, 1921, that the Pavlovs were already receiving this monthly package. Letter from RSFSR Pravlenie delami Kommissii po snabzheniiu rabochikh pri Narkomprode to the Secretariat of the SNK, January 31, 1921, GARF 130.5.63: 25; and RGASPI 5.1.125: 20, 23.
50. Sergeev, Rasskazy, 11. It remains unclear when and how, exactly, the provisions from Pavlov’s special food ration actually reached the family pantry. Pavlov’s letter to Kristi declining this ration was written two weeks after the Commissariat of Supplies reported that he was receiving that very ration.
51. Related by S. V. Kurakin in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 11.
52. Cannon to Haven Emerson, March 14, 1923, and Gantt to Cannon, May 31, 1923, FCL, box 37, folder 459.
53. TsGA SPB 2307.1.211: 2, 17, 21, 24–25; and 2.1.21384; ARAN 2.1-1921.10:264.
54. My thanks to Tilli Tansey for sharing with me this discovery and the notes from her review of Medical Research Council records. She gives the archival location as Minute Book #2, 1915–1926, item 26, February 25, 1921.
55. Pavlov to Commissar of Popular Enlightenment [Lunacharskii], April 23, 1921, TsGA SPB 2307.2.557: 41–43.
56. V. Aminikov to Pavlov, May 7, 1921, ARAN 259.4.152.
57. Pavlov to Benedict, April 28, 1921; and Benedict to Pavlov, May 27, 1921, ARAN 259.2.107.
58. A copy of the June 7, 1921, cable from Olds and the cover letter from Bicknell to Cannon, June 9, 1921, are held in FCL, box 37, folder 459. I have been unable to determine who told the Red Cross “Flexner anxious have Pavloff go America.”
59. Flexner to Cannon, June 14, 1921; and telegram from Flexner to Bicknell, June 14, 1921, FCL, box 37, folder 459.
60. Cannon to Flexner, June 16, 1921, FCL, box 37, folder 459.
61. Flexner to Cannon, June 23, 1921, FCL, box 37, folder 459.
62. Pavlov to Sergei Ivanovich [Metal’nikov], November 2, 1921, BA. The letter is typed, without signature, and bears the heading “Not for the Press.”
63. Pavlov to SNK, November 3, 1921, TsGA SPB 2307.2.557: 31–32. This same archival location contains the bureaucratic back-and-forth regarding Pavlov’s request.
64. Pavlov to Cannon, April 15, 1922, FCL, box 37, folder 460.
1. V. M. Zernov, Meditsinskie pokazaniia o bolezni V. I. Lenina progressivnym paralichem (1964), in Zernov Family collection, BA. Pavlov claimed that one of the physicians who performed the autopsy told him of Lenin’s syphilis. This was probably his colleague at the Military-Medical Academy, V. P. Osipov. Rumor has long had it that Lenin had syphilis, and a circumstantial case was made in Lerner, Finkelstein, and Witztum, “Enigma.” A neuropathologist and a Russian historian teamed up recently to dispute this assertion and argue that he was incapacitated by strokes brought on by cardiovascular disease and died of seizures that attested to poisoning, perhaps at Stalin’s behest. Gina Kolata, “The Death of Lenin: Tracking a Suspect,” New York Times, May 8, 2012.
2. For Bekhterev’s portrayal of his approach to psychology as a “biosocial” perspective compatible with Marxism, see his Psikhologiia, refleksologiia i marksizm. He quickly adopted a supportive posture toward the Bolshevik state, became a member of the Leningrad Soviet, enjoyed the patronage of Leningrad Party boss Zinov’ev, and prospered as head of his Institute of Brain Research. He died suddenly in Moscow in December 1927, and a persistent rumor held that he had been poisoned at Stalin’s orders after incautiously sharing his diagnosis of the Bolshevik leader as a paranoiac. For the considerable circumstantial evidence to this effect, see Lerner, Margolin, and Witztum, “Vladimir Bekhterev,” 222–225. Shortly after Bekhterev’s death, Pavlov inquired about the future of his Institute (ARAN 259.4.48: 3rev).
3. On Soviet science in the 1920s, see Krementsov, Stalinist, 16–30; on the NEP years in higher education, see David-Fox, Revolution; and on the changing style of Soviet Marxism, see Joravsky, Soviet, and Todes and Krementsov, “Dialectical.”
4. Pavlov to Petrova, August 16, 1925, ARAN 767.2.17:12–13.
5. In her Vospominaniia (268), Serafima mentions their stay in Kellomäki in 1921–1922 and the beginning of Pavlov’s relationship with Nesterov. In 1924, Pavlov received permission from the IEM to travel to Finland (presumably to Kellomäki) “for literary activities” (182.1-1.63:27). Letters from the Pavlovs to Babkin also attest to his presence there periodically during summers in the 1920s. He reiterated his dissatisfaction with dacha life in Kellomäki in a letter of August 29, 1926, in PP, 409.
6. Serafima Pavlova to Boris Babkin, September 13, 1924, OLAC 390/22/3/1.
7. Serafima Pavlova to Boris Babkin, November [1926?], OLAC 390/22/3/7; Kosmachevskaia and Gromova, “Pavlovskii,” 351–353. In 1930, by which time Kellomäki had become a popular dacha site for the Soviet intelligentsia, Pavlov purchased a property there for Vladimir and his family. Serafima and Vera joined them during summers, but Pavlov himself summered in Koltushi, which he much preferred. (Author’s interview with L. V. Balmasova, June 27, 1991.)
8. For Vera’s official work record, see ARAN, 153.3.782. The lore among Pavlov’s coworkers was that she had hoped to marry Babkin and had been heartbroken by his emigration.
9. Vsevolod Pavlov to Ivan Pavlov, November 18, 1924, ARAN 259.9.110: 95–96, and Pavlov to Serafima Pavlova, July 31, 1926, in PP, 406–407.
10. Sokolov, Istoriia, 7. I am very grateful to the late author’s wife, Pavlov’s granddaughter M. V. Sokolova, for sharing this manuscript with me.
11. Vladimir Pavlov to Vasilii Polenov, October 15, 1924, GTG, fond 54 delo 3387.
12. Vladimir Pavlov to Vasilii Polenov, November 30, [1924], GTG, fond 54 delo 3390.
13. Vladimir Pavlov to Vasilii Polenov, June 2, 1925, GTG, fond 54 delo 3388. Vladimir turned to Polenov again in June 1926 for authentication of another work that they had purchased: an artist’s copy of his Christ and the Sinner, the original of which hung in the Russian Museum. See his note of June 30, 1926, GTG, fond 54 delo 3389. For Vladimir’s letter of February 29, 1924, to Vasnetsov about payment “on my father’s behalf” for the artist’s Snow Maiden, see GTG, fond 66 delo 142.
14. Sokolov, Istoriia, 8–9. This was Vasnetsov’s programnaia zapis’ of the work, completed one year earlier than the version hanging in the Tret’iakov Gallery.
15. Sokolov, Istoriia, 9–10.
16. Author’s interview with L. V. Balmasova, June 27, 1991.
1. I have made much use in this chapter of Merkulov’s unpublished account, Pervaia.
2. On Russia’s evolutionary tradition, see Todes, Darwin.
3. Russian Marxists adopted a wide variety of positions on this issue, as they did on other scientific topics. See Todes and Krementsov, “Dialectical,” 347–355, and Gaissinovitch, “Origins.”
4. Kol’tsov, “Trud,” 397.
5. DO 273; LCR 236; see also DO, 281; LCR, 242.
6. Studentsov, “Nasledovanie,” 317–318.
7. See W. Horsley Gantt’s letter to Cannon of May 31, 1923, explaining the nature of Pavlov’s current research. FCL, box 37, folder 463.
8. Kol’tsov, “Trud,” 397.
9. Pavlov to Commissariat of Popular Enlightenment, TsGA SPB 2307.2.576:51–52. France and Germany were later added to Pavlov’s itinerary. In two of his letters from abroad to Serafima, he remarked that the trip was physically too arduous for the two of them to have managed it alone—implying that they (or he) had made the correct decision regarding which two Pavlovs should take it. See, for example, his letter of June 15–18, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301:3–4.
10. For the bureaucratic history of Pavlov’s request, see TsGA SPB 2307.2.576: 56, 58–59, 87; and TsGA SPB 2555.1.618: 4, 8. On Kristi, see Chapter 30 of the present volume.
11. In a letter to Pavlov on October 9, 1922, Cannon noted the parallel evolution of their scientific interests. Enclosing copies of his recent publications in a letter of October 1922, he added: “You will quickly perceive that the tendency here has been somewhat analogous to that in your Laboratory, for we have passed from an interest in the digestive organs to an interest in the bodily changes accompanying psychical processes.” ARAN 259.2.381: 3. The methodology of the two scientists was so different, however, that neither cited the other’s work on either subject.
12. Gantt to Cannon, April 16, 1923, FCL, box 37, folder 463. On Cannon’s Russian relief efforts, see Wolfe, Barger, and Benison, Walter B. Cannon, 128–131.
13. Cannon to Gantt, May 9, 1923, FCL, box 37, folder 463; and to Pavlov on that same date, ARAN 259.2.381:6–6rev.
14. Gantt to Cannon, May 31, 1923, FCL, box 37, folder 463.
15. Pavlov to Pavlova, ARAN 259.2.1301:1. The letter is incorrectly dated May 1—probably precisely one month earlier than its composition—perhaps as a result of Pavlov’s disorientation by travel.
16. Pavlov to Pavlova, ARAN 259.2.1301:2. Pavlov incorrectly dated the letter as May 5; it was probably written on June 5, 1923.
17. Cannon to Pavlov, May 26, 1923, box 37, folder 460; Cornelia Cannon, Friendship, 1.
18. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 12, [1923], and June 15–16, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301:2, 3–4.
19. Time, July 23, 1923, p. 20. The New York Times reported only once on Pavlov’s trip, on July 14, 1923 (p. 3), by which time he had already departed.
20. Pavlov to Petrova, June 20, [1923], ARAN 767.2.17:7–7rev.
21. Phoebus Levene to Cannon, June 24, [1923]; Cannon to Levene, June 25, [1923]; and Cannon’s later account in a letter to Gustav Eckstein, January 14, 1937. FCL, box 37, folders 463 and 483.
22. Cannon to Levene, June 25, [1923]; Cannon’s later account in a letter to Gustav Eckstein, January 14, 1937; letter from Jacques Loeb to Cannon, June 25, [1923]. FCL, box 37, folders 463 and 483.
23. Yerkes, “Znakomstvo,” 281.
24. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 1, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301: 4–6.
25. Kol’tsov, “Trud,” 398. Kol’tsov recalls, however, that Morgan heard Pavlov in New York—where Pavlov did not speak.
26. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 8, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301:7.
27. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 8, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301:7.
28. Pavlov, “New Researches,” 360–361. Boldyrev’s translation follows the English-language convention and refers to “conditioned” reflexes and a “bell” (sometimes, to an “electric bell”; that is, to an electrical buzzer).
29. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 19, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1.301:7–8.
30. New York Times, July 14, 1923, p. 3. Science reprinted this article under the title “Professor Pavlov’s Trip to America” in vol. 58, no. 1490 (July 20, 1923): 45–46.
31. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 19, 1923, ARAN 259.2.1301: 7–8.
32. Pavlov to Petrova, July 19, [1923], ARAN 767.2.17: 8.
33. Time, July 23, 1923, pp. 20–21.
34. See the report on Pavlov’s speech in “International Physiology Congress,” 257. In this translation, Studentsov’s CS is misidentified as a “bell.”
35. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 27, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301: 9.
36. The Lancet, August 18, 1923, 348. Interestingly, the report refers to “conditional reflexes.”
37. Pavlov to Pavlova, July 31, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301: 10.
38. Pavlov to Pavlova, August 5, [1923], ARAN 259.2.1301: 10.
39. GARF 2307.2.576:81. My thanks to Michael David-Fox for kindly providing this document from his own research.
40. Author’s interview with Vyrzhikovskaia. She did not come to know Pavlov until a few years later when her husband began working for him in 1925, but spent much informal time with him at Koltushi beginning in 1926.
41. T. H. Morgan to William Bateson, February 27, 1924, Bateson papers, American Philosophical Society, Philadelphia, microfilm #26, reel E, section 32, index 4. My thanks to Sandy Gliboff for finding this document and bringing it to my attention.
42. MacDowell, “Experiments,” and Vicari, “Non-inheritance” (citation on 303). MacDowell was based at Cold Spring Harbor, Vicari at the Zoological Laboratory of Columbia University.
43. Morgan, “Acquired Characters,” 729, 717, 714, 715–716.
44. Kol’tsov, “Noveishie,” 160–162.
45. Morgan and Filipchenko, Nasledstvenny; Sadovnikova-Kol’tsova, “Geneticheskii” (1925, 1928).
46. Kol’tsov, “Trud,” 398. According to his report of 1933 on his scientific investigations, Ganike began work on the inheritance of conditional reflexes in mice in 1925 (TsGANTD 182.1-1.344). In the annual report on his Physico-Physiological Division at the IEM, Ganike wrote in 1931 that “as in recent years, work was conducted on the acquisition of conditional reflexes in white mice with the goal of investigating the hereditary transmission of acquired reflexes.” TsGANTD 182.1-1.225:38. In my interview with Galperin in 1991, he claimed that this issue was indeed on Pavlov’s mind at Koltushi.
47. Based upon his conversation with Pavlov in 1925, Kol’tsov wrote: “There appeared in the American journal Science an article signed by [Pavlov] but, as he admitted to me later, not written by him.” Kol’tsov, “Trud,” 398.
48. Nature, November 3, 1923, p. 664; Wilhelmine Key to Pavlov, May 5, 1925, ARAN 259.2.327.
49. Jerome Davis to Pavlov, August 21, 1925, ARAN 259.2.246; M. V. Gopalaswami to Pavlov, August 5, 1926, ARAN 259.2.416; John Kendrick to Pavlov, February 27, 1928, ARAN 259.2.380.
50. V. K. Gutten to Pavlov, February 19, 1927, ARAN 259.2.245. M. Levin, E. Smirnov, “Problema nasledovaniia priobretennykh priznakov,” Pravda, May 13, 1927, p. 4.
51. CR, 285. This note never appeared in Russian editions of this work.
52. Cannon to Pavlov, Sept. 21, 1923, ARAN 259.2.381: 7; Yerkes to Pavlov, October 1, 1923, ARAN 259.2.342:12.
1. Pavlov to Babkin, December 22, 1923, OLAC 390/22/1/11.
2. For the reconstitution of the Pavlov Commission in April 1923, see TsGA SPB 2555.1.618 and TsGANTD 182.1-1.56: 18.
3. For Pavlov’s slush fund, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.163: 3; for IEM salaries, TsGANTD 182.1-1.118:3. In 1926, the IEM’s director received a yearly salary of 2,700 rubles, Pavlov received 2,400 rubles, and other division chiefs received 1,800. Pavlov’s bonus fund that year was 6,668 rubles.
4. TsGANTD 182.1-1.46:3, 24.
5. A. A. Vladimirov to Narkomzdrav, September 24, 1923, TsGANTD 182.1-1.56: 9.
6. See Vladimirov’s note of September 24, 1924, to Rozental’ in TsGANTD 182.1-1.56. Similarly, see 182.1-1.81: 45–46rev. So important was it to satisfy Pavlov’s requests that in August 1923 the Commissariat of Health Protection transferred monies from a special fund for fighting epidemics to construction of Pavlov’s Towers of Silence. This in TsGANTD 182.1-1.56: 6.
7. For Pavlov’s equipment needs—which the state readily paid for in scarce hard currency—see TsGANTD 182.1-1.62. For Ganike’s trip to Europe in January 1924 for the necessary equipment, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.59.
8. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 39.
9. For the staff and coworkers at his IEM lab in 1920–1924, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.33:11 (1920), 182.1-1.42: 3–4 (1921), 182.1-1.51:2 (1922), 182.1-1.59 (1923), and 182.1-1.81: 30 (1924). It is sometimes difficult to establish precisely who worked where, because Pavlov moved coworkers among his three labs regardless of their official status.
10. TsGANTD 182.1-1.118:17 (1926).
11. In 1921, the 670 flagons were credited to Ganike’s Physico-Physiological Division, TsGANTD 182.1-1.42: 33; for 1927, see 182.1-1.151: 2.
12. These coworkers were: Konstantin Bykov (eleven years), who would become chief of the Division of General Physiology at the IEM and a member of the prestigious Academy of Medical Sciences (AMN); Dmitrii Fursikov (ten years), who became director of the Section on Higher Nervous Activity at the Communist Academy of Sciences; Petr Anokhin (seven years), chair of the Department of Physiology at the Nizhnii Novgorod Medical Institute and a member of the Academy of Medical Sciences (AMN); Boris Birman (four years), director of the Nervous-Psychiatric Hospital in Leningrad; Mikhail Brestkin (three years), chair of the Department of Physiology Military-Medical Academy and later laboratory of Aviation Medicine in Moscow; Lev Fedorov (seven years), director of the Leningrad Section on Health Protection and later of the All-Soviet Institute of Experimental Medicine (VIEM); Vera Iakovleva (sixteen years), scientific coworker at the V. M. Bekhterev Brain Institute; Mikhail Kalmykov (three years), chair of the Department of Physiology at the Omsk Medical Institute; Maria Petrova (twenty-four years), director of the Laboratory of Experimental Pathology and Therapeutics of Higher Nervous Activity at the Institute for the Improvement of Physicians, and member of the AMN; Ivan Razenkov (three years), chief of the Physiology Division at the VIEM, and later Director of VIEM and member of the AMN; Iosif Rozental’ (twenty-two years), chief of the Laboratory of Higher Nervous Activity in Man at IEM; Aleksei Speranskii (five years), director of the Division of General Pathology at the IEM and member of AMN; and Ekaterina Speranskaia (six years), director of the Endocrinology Laboratory at the IEM and corresponding member of AMN. Of the three exceptions, Vsevolod Siriatskii spent three years with Pavlov and died young, and Nikolai Studentsov spent two years with Pavlov, during which he conducted experiments on the inheritance of CRs that led to embarrassment for the chief.
13. Because the Wednesdays were preceded by regular discussion sessions in each lab, coworkers at each thought they had originated in their lab. See Anokhin, “Neskol’ko,” 29; Konradi, “O Pavlove,” 123; Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 42; Stroganov, “Pervoe,” 233; Kuimov, “Iz vospominanii.”
14. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 5, 8, 9, 12. Konradi mentions Pavlov’s complaint about his diminished memory in “O Pavlove,” 123.
15. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 11, 15.
16. Konradi, “O Pavlove,” 19.
17. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 39–40.
18. For one description and analysis of a dog’s inability to “work” in the Towers, see Fedorov, “Issledovaniia,” 243.
19. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 22–23.
20. See chapters 35 and 36 of the present volume.
21. Pines, “Interes,” 185.
22. Stroganov, “Pervoe,” 230–235.
23. AMC, Box 191, folder 3 (entry of April 8, 1929). See, for example Zelenyi’s “K teorii.”
24. TsGA SPB 482.25.183: 1–5.
25. N. A. Podkopaev, in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 23–24. Recounting this story decades after the fact, he recalled that it occurred in 1928, but Pavlov did not lecture at the Military-Medical Academy after 1924. Perhaps two separate incidents—one at the Military-Medical Academy and another at the Academy of Sciences—are conflated here. Or, perhaps Semashko simply forwarded Zelenyi’s letter to Lunacharskii. Konradi, who heard the story through Podkopaev, recalls that the gist of Zelenyi’s letter was that Pavlov was too old to capably supervise scientific work and could not synthesize laboratory results with Marxism, so “it was necessary to create a new institution to do this—with [Zelenyi] as its chief.” Konradi, “O Pavlove,” 124–125.
26. TsGA SPB 482.25.183: 9–10; AMC, Box 191, folder 3 (entry of April 8, 1929). For Pavlov’s later lamentation of Zelenyi’s renegade beliefs, see PS, III, 49.
27. ARAN 4.2-1923.16: 9, 20, 22–27rev.
28. Pavlov to the Administration of the Russian Academy of Sciences, July 28, 1924, ARAN 4.2 (1924).22: 30–30rev.
29. Podkopaev to Administration of the Russian Academy of Sciences, September 16, 1924, ARAN 4.2 (1924).22: 25.
30. ARAN 4.2-1924.22: 27.
31. TsGA SPB 2555.1.728.
1. Taped interview with V. P. Adlerberg-Zotova, who was present at this lecture.
2. RGVA 24703.1.292:42–43; on the exploding vial, see Konradi, “O Pavlove,” 124.
3. Bogen, “Kak skladyvalsia”; S. Ginzberg, “1924–1925.”
4. RGVA 24703.1.169: 266, 276–278, 309–310.
5. Nasha Iskra, February 1924, p. 4.
6. Sergeev, Rasskazy, 22–23.
7. Cover letter from Koperina accompanying her lecture notes, Fiziologiia.
8. Koperina, Fiziologiia, 26.
9. The Bolsheviks adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1918, making the change by omitting the first thirteen days of February 1918, so the “Great October Revolution” of October 24, 1917, was thereafter celebrated on November 7.
10. Koperina, Fiziologiia, 30.
11. RGVA 24703.1.2:22. The Bubnov citation is from Finkel, “Purging,” 161.
12. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 1. Pavlov’s personal library in the archive of MMK contains three of Bukharin’s works, including a well-marked copy of Proletarian Revolution and Culture. Fol’bort provided a transcript of this lecture to Horsley Gantt, who smuggled it out of Russia by diplomatic pouch. He or his wife translated it, and the translation is preserved in AMC, Box 194, folder 4. Gantt’s cover note to this manuscript relates the detail, which he heard from Fol’bort, about the guards closing the doors to the auditorium. This translation has been published (Rose, Levold, and Hiltzik, “Ivan Pavlov”). Translations that follow are my own, from the Russian typescript in Pavlov’s papers.
13. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 3–5.
14. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 5–6.
15. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 6–7.
16. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 10.
17. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 9–10.
18. Pavlov, Lektsiia na vtorom, 11.
19. From the report on Zinov’ev’s speech to the All-Russian Congress of Scientific Workers, in Krasnaia Gazeta, November 9, 1923, p. 3; and Trotskii’s in Krasnaia Gazeta, November 24, 1923, p. 1.
20. Bukharin’s reply, O mirovoi, also appeared in the January issue of Krasnaia Nov’. The OGPU (the state political police, formerly the Cheka) reported that, instead of confining himself to physiology, Pavlov had indulged in “a critique of Bukharin’s History of Culture” and “finds fault with Soviet power and the Party for every little thing before the entire auditorium.” Cited in Izmozik, Glaza, 128.
21. Bukharin, O mirovoi, 3.
22. Bukharin, O mirovoi, 13–22 (Mendeleev and Newton on 13, the myth of objectivity on 32).
23. Bukharin, O mirovoi, 48–50.
24. Bukharin, O mirovoi, 59–62.
25. Bukharin, O mirovoi, 65.
26. I have not located a complete transcript of this speech or even Pavlov’s notes for it. In this account, I rely upon two sources: an English-language summary written by Horsley Gantt based upon Vladimir Fol’bort’s account, in AMC, Box 194, folder 4, and the critique of Pavlov’s speech in Gredeskul, “Uslovnye,” 149–164.
27. Gantt (from Fol’bort), AMC, Box 194, folder 4.
28. Gantt (from Fol’bort), AMC, Box 194, folder 4.
29. ARAN 259.2.1190.
30. I searched in vain both in Pavlov’s papers and in the archives of the Military-Medical Academy at RGVA for official archival traces of Pavlov’s resignation. Perhaps he never formally resigned, but simply ceased his activities there. The official report on the Department of Physiology at the Academy for 1923–1924 (submitted in April 1925 by Fol’bort) notes that Pavlov served as head of the Department, delivered his basic course on physiology, and in the spring offered a course on CRs. Fol’bort does not mention his resignation. This in RGVA 24703.1.295:111–113.
31. Pavlov’s statement to the faculty and a short account of the resulting discussion were transcribed in the protocols of the faculty conference of February 18, 1922. A typed copy is preserved in ARAN 259.4.129.
32. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 29–30.
33. This account of Pavlov’s resignation is drawn from the recollections of Strel’tsov, in Sergeev, Rasskazy, and Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 29–30. Kovaleva recalls that her friend—alone among the purged students—was finally reinstated. Pavlov’s comment on his resignation is from his letter to Babkin of January 29, 1928, in OLAC, 390/22/1/15. Orbeli replaced Pavlov as professor of physiology.
34. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 24. She related this same incident to me in a conversation of 1977. In my “Pavlov and the Bolsheviks,” I attributed this comment to 1929, but now think that it dates from his return from a trip to Paris in December 1925.
1. Podkopaev, Bykov, Biriukov, and Kupalov, among others, had served in the White Army.
2. I have not been able in all cases to establish whether or not coworkers were members of the Party and from what year. The following were definitely members while working in one of Pavlov’s labs in the years preceding the Great Break of 1929: Lev Fedorov (1923–1934), Petr Anokhin (1922–1928), Semen Dionesov (1923–1927), Georgii Skipin (1923–1934), and Fedor Maiorov (1925–1936). The following coworkers during this period joined the Party in a year that I have not ascertained: Dmitrii Kuimov (1927–1928), Ekaterina Speranskaia (1920–1924), and Nikolai Vinogradov (1925–1936). Iurii Frolov (1913, 1917–1924) and Ivan Razenkov (1923–1925) pursued graduate studies at the Communist Academy in Moscow, which indicates proximity to, but not necessarily membership in, the Party. Also close to the Party, but not a member, was Dmitrii Fursikov (see below).
3. See, for example, RGASPI SPB fond 1728 delo 308501: 1–3, and RGASPI SPB, fond 1728 delo 234546. Party officials with a murky record before and during the civil war were hardly rare. Fedorov’s civil war record became an issue in the early 1930s (see chapter 43).
4. For these testimonials, see RGASPI SPB fond 1728 delo 30850 (in the unnumbered pages that record discussions of him during a purge). On Stalin’s image management in the 1920s, see, for example, Service, Stalin.
5. L. N. Fedorov to the Organizational Department of the Leningrad City Committee of the Russian Communist Party, November 19, 1925, in RGASPI SPB, 1728.234546.
6. Letter from Pavlov, November 1, 1925, in RGASPI SPB 1728.234546.
7. TsGANTD 182.1-1.145: 19. This was outgoing director A. A. Vladimirov’s account of Pavlov’s recommendation. The latter journal was the direct successor to the Russian Physiological Journal founded by Pavlov and his fellow creators of the Russian Physiological Society in 1916.
8. Fedorov to Sergei Kirov, April 25, 1930, RGASPI SPB, 1728.234546.
9. TsGANTD, 182.1-1.145: 16.
10. Author’s interviews with M. V. Sokolova and with L. V. Balmasova (April 27, 1991). Balmasova related, for example, that on the eve of the Soviet Union’s invasion of Finland in 1939 Fedorov warned her family to cancel its vacation plans there.
11. In his annual reports, Pavlov included Fursikov among his lab workers at the Military-Medical Academy every year from 1914 to 1919 except for 1918, and then from 1920 to 1925 as one of his two assistants at the IEM.
12. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 17.
13. Sketchy biographical information is available in the two anonymous obituaries titled “D. S. Fursikov” listed in the bibliography.
14. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 17; Fursikov to Pavlov, June 15, 1926, ARAN 259.2.892:1.
15. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 17–18.
16. ARANM 350.1.188: 31. My thanks to Nikolai Krementsov for sharing with me these archival documents. When seeking to convince Pavlov, it made good sense for Fursikov to avoid dialectical materialist phraseology and portray his notion of mutual induction as an extension of Sherrington’s concept. Conversely, in his address to the Communist Academy it was rhetorically effective to ignore Sherrington and invoke dialectical principles. (In that same speech, he also used Marx’s famous construction metaphor for human society to characterize URs as the “base” and CRs as the “superstructure” of higher nervous activity.) Available material does not permit us to know how, precisely, these two sources, along with the experimental data itself, shaped his formulation of that concept.
17. Adapted from Fursikov, “Iavlenie,” 199.
18. Fursikov, “Iavlenie,” 215.
19. Fursikov, “Iavlenie,” 204–206; Babkin (BabkinMS, 374) cites a letter of 1932 from Savich about mutual induction as deus ex machina.
20. Fursikov, “Iavlenie,” 197.
21. From Fursikov’s speech to the General Meeting of Members of the Communist Academy, January 29, 1927, ARANM 350.1.85. Information on the origins of these first primate studies is scanty, but see, Firsov, “Iz istorii,” 200, and Firsov, I. P. Pavlov.
22. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 34–35. Human-like behaviors and emotions were doubtless much more striking with chimps than dogs, all the more so as dogs were bound to their experimental stands, while the primates were not. Yet, contrary to Kovaleva’s comment about “forbidden terminology,” Pavlov and Kovaleva herself frequently used anthropomorphic descriptions at this time to describe their experimental dogs.
23. On these later primate studies, see chapters 43, 44, and 46 of the present volume.
24. My characterization of the Communist Academy is from Krementsov, Stalinist, 23–25, as is the translation of the passage from Lenin’s article. On the Communist Academy and Soviet science and educational policy, see David-Fox, Revolution; on dialectical materialism and Soviet science, see Joravsky, Soviet Marxism, and Todes and Krementsov, “Dialectical.”
25. ARANM 351.1.1: 62–63.
26. See his 1926 plan of work (ARANM 350.1.33: 158–160) and reports to the Communist Academy of January 29, 1927 (ARANM 350.1.85) and January 19, 1928 (ARANM 350.2.359).
27. “Russian Film Shows Brain in Action,” New York Times, March 5, 1928, and Mordaunt Hall, “Mekhanika Golovnogo Mozga (1926). The Screen; A Scientific Study,” New York Times, November 20, 1928.
28. For discussion of Pudovkin’s film, see Mini, Pudovkin’s. I suspect that many of the differences that Mini identifies between the narrative structure of the film and Pavlov’s expressed views resulted from Fursikov’s role as “scientific editor.”
29. “D. S. Fursikov,” in Vysshaia, vi.
1. Chizhevskii, “O poseshchenii,” 463; Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 22–23.
2. For more on the Napoleonic Postrel, the brilliant John, and the knightlike Postrel, see chapter 45 of the present volume.
3. Nikiforovskii, Farmakologiia, 19–20.
4. Teplov (“Problems,” 6) identifies seventeen doctoral theses of 1908–1916 that invoked this tripartite typology.
5. See, for example, Solomonov, O teplovykh; Shishlo, O temperaturnykh; Vasil’ev, Diferentsirovanie; and Rozhanskii, Materialy.
6. Cited in Maiorov, Istoriia, 99.
7. Pavlov, DO, 290–298 and 299–305.
8. For Pavlov’s comments, see DO, 295–296, 389; for Petrova’s, K ucheniiu, 154–159. The three key theses on sleeping dogs were Vasil’ev (1912), Rozhanskii (1913), and Petrova (1914).
9. See chapter 29 on Pavlov’s speeches.
10. Kreps, “Opyt,” 119. Here the experimenter really used a bell (kolokol’chik).
11. Petrova related the results of the first three years of work with these two dogs in four articles: “Razlichnye vidy,” “Patologicheskoe otklonenie,” “Lechenie,” and “Ostroe narushenie.” The above descriptions of Milord and Postrel are from “Razlichnye,” 61, and “Patologicheskoe,” 200.
12. Petrova, “Razlichnye,” 61–64, and “Patologicheskoe,” 201. When Milord exhibited behaviors incompatible with her argument, these were minimized or explained away. See, for example, “Patologicheskoe,” 200. Even the selected data charts included in these articles reveal highly variable results. For example, Postrel’s response to the positive kololka ranged from 6–28 drops in various three-minute trials, and his response to the negative kololka ranged from 0–22; Milord’s response to the positive kololka ranged from 0–21 drops and to the negative kololka from 0–7 (see “Razlichnye,” 65–67). Petrova made good use of the newly enshrined principle of mutual induction to explain these and other discordant results.
13. Petrova, “Patologicheskoe,” 201.
14. Cited by Gantt, “Pavlov and the Academy” (entry for November 11, [1928]), AMC, box 191, folder 3.
15. PS, I, 112.
16. Sulloway, Freud, 54–61, citation on 63. Gay, Freud, 79–80.
17. Translations of Freud’s works into Russian began with his Interpretation of Dreams in 1904, accelerated in the 1910s, and exploded in the early 1920s. In 1921 the Russian Psychoanalytic Society was founded, followed the next year by the State Psychoanalytic Institute. A “psychoanalytic library” series translated the work of Freud’s international disciples, popular journals published an avalanche of articles and commentaries, and Russian philosophers and psychologists debated the relationship of Freudianism to Marxism. See Leibin, “Istoriia,” and Miller, Freud.
18. Trotsky to Pavlov, September 27, 1923, ARAN 259.1a.13; taped interview with Konradi. In her Vospominaniia (192–193), Petrova recalls that Pavlov read Trotsky’s letter aloud to her and was clearly delighted at the recognition. The subsequent suppression of Freudianism in Stalinist Russia was probably in part motivated by its association with Trotsky. Subsequent Soviet accounts of the history of research on experimental neurosis ignored Pavlov’s acknowledgment of Freud’s influence. Soviet commentators instead commonly attributed this line of investigation to experiences during the Leningrad flood—an event that occurred about a year after Pavlov and Petrova embarked upon this research. Existing sources do not allow us to establish the precise manner in which this Freudian inspiration influenced Pavlov and Petrova’s early experiments.
19. See the discussion of Erofeeva’s experiments in chapter 24 of the present volume.
20. These experiments were conducted on the eve of World War I, written up for publication in 1916, and finally published five years later in Shenger-Krestovnikova, “K voprosu” (citations from 27, 41).
21. Petrova, “Patologicheskoe,” 201–202. Petrova offers only scanty data, so we cannot judge the consistency of her positive results. At one point, presumably offering a relatively successful day, she demonstrates the formation of a positive “food response” to shock in twelve separate trials, which yielded the following number of drops: 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0, 6, 0, 0, 7. This, she claims, demonstrates the gradual formation of a positive CR, a conclusion that certainly entailed some interpretive license. By the early 1930s, Pavlov saw the formation of a CR to shock as murky and uncertain (PS, I, 208–209, 230–231).
22. Petrova, “Patologicheskoe,” 202–203.
23. Petrova, “Patologicheskoe,” p. 202. The “absoluteness” of differentiation and responses to CIs was taken as a standard measure of the strength of the inhibitory process. That is, the response to, say, the prodding of the kololka at a spot on the skin that had never been reinforced with feeding should be absolutely zero. When a dog instead salivated a few drops, this reflected a weakness of inhibition.
24. Petrova, “Patologicheskoe,” 202–204. If Milord broke “toward inhibition,” why did even his inhibitory responses disappear? Not only did this not contradict her analysis, Petrova claimed, it explained a common phenomenon among humans: “The development of inhibition requires a certain excitability of the nervous system, so with the decline of excitability below a certain level, as is often observed among the elderly...or in certain pathological states...inhibition also declines or entirely disappears.” This, then, explained the tendency of the elderly to babble.
25. Petrova, “Lechenie,” 4. These formations remained unchanged in Pavlov’s summary of results in an article of 1926, in DO2, 35–48; translated in LCR, 339–349.
26. Petrova, “Lechenie,” 5.
27. Petrova, “Lechenie,” 4–16, citation on 5. For the later experiments on Postrel, see Fedorov, “Issledovaniia.”
28. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 48; Pomeranets, “Dva navodnen’ia.”
29. Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 48; Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 30; Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 4.
30. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 30.
31. From Speranskii’s anketa in NAR 1.8/2.86.
32. Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 15–16, 25–26.
33. See chapter 39 of the present volume.
34. In my interview with Galperin on October 20, 1990, he told me that Speranskii was the only coworker he had ever noticed speaking to Pavlov with the informal ty. Two former coworkers, and another habitué of the Pavlov Society in the 1990s, told me confidently that Speranskii was an informer. Relevant archives are closed, and I do not know if this is true. Petrova alludes to this rumor and to Pavlov’s eventual acceptance of it in her Vospominaniia, 148–149. (See chapter 42 of the present work.) An IEM report of 1933 proclaimed that Speranskii’s research on the trophic functions of the nervous system constituted “an entirely new chapter in medicine: on the participation of the nervous system in the development of illness. The achievements of Prof. Speranskii are so remarkable that one can without exaggeration speak of a fundamental restructuring of entire chapters of medical theory.” This from TsGANTD 182.1-1.319: 9. Galperin told me that Fedorov once characterized Speranskii as “an even greater scientist than Pavlov.”
35. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 3–4.
36. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 6–7.
37. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 10.
38. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 17; Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 32; Frolov, Chetvert’ veka, 49.
39. DO2, 66; LCR, 365.
40. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 23–24.
41. Speranskii, “Vliianie,” 24.
42. DO2, 63–70; LCR, 363–369.
43. DO2, 63; LCR, 363.
44. DO2, 64–65, 68; LCR, 363–364, 366–367.
45. DO2, 69; LCR, 367.
46. See Mendelsohn, Cultures and “Like.” My thanks to him for pointing out the similarities between bacteriology and physiology in a discussion of this chapter.
47. DO2, 69–70; LCR, 368.
1. Pavlov to Cannon, April 15, 1922, FCL, box 37, folder 460.
2. Cannon to Pavlov, June 2, 1922, ARAN 259.2.381: 3.
3. Pavlov to Cannon, December 25, 1922, in PP, 266–267 (Merkulov’s translation from German to Russian).
4. LRBP, 404; CR, 386.
5. These were: 1) “Strogo-ob”ektivnoe izuchenie vsekh vysshikh proiavlenii zhizni zhivotnykh,” delivered to the Academy of Sciences in September 1921 and published in its protocols; manuscript in ARAN 259.1.101; republished in DO, 355–358; 2) “Die normale Tätigkeit und allgemeine Konstitution der Grosshirnrinde,” delivered to the Society of Finnish Physicians in Helsinki in April 1922 and republished in DO, 361–372, and LCR, 296–304; and 3) “Novyi fiziologicheskii ocherk vsego povedeniia zhivotnogo,” delivered to the Petrograd Society of Naturalists in November 1922, in ARAN 259.1.102. Related notes, probably from 1922 and entitled Obshchaia kartina deiatel’nosti bol’shikh polusharii, are preserved in ARAN 259.1.35.
6. LRBP, 199; CR, 188.
7. See Pavlov’s discussion of the history of this problem on February 7, 1934, in PS, II, 229–234; citation on 229. Available sources do not make clear which exciters Mishtovt actually used; the “light” and “metronome” are my own inventions.
8. For Pavlov’s discussion of these issues in 1910, see DO, 92–106; LCR, 103–14. For Fursikov’s efforts, see his “O tsepnykh” and “O sootnoshenii.”
9. LRBP, 216; CR, 204.
10. Andreev, “Velikii,” 19; Savich, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 18. For Pavlov’s later self-diagnosis as a “cycloid,” see chapter 45 of the present volume.
11. Andreev, “Velikii,” 20. For continuing doubts in later years, see Biriukov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 60.
12. DO, 19; LCR, 43. Republished in Russia in 1923, 1924, 1925, 1927, and 1931, this book became a major source of income for Pavlov. It was first translated into German under Fol’bort’s editorship in 1926.
13. Pavlov, Lektsii o rabote, ARAN 259.1.83. These three lectures are written in his wife’s hand with Pavlov’s extensive handwritten revisions. Pavlov had first introduced several lectures on CRs into his lectures in the 1921–1922 academic year. The following year he omitted them, as he terminated his lecture course early to embark on his trip to Europe and the United States.
14. Yentis, “Minds and Hearts.”
15. Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 12–13.
16. Starling to Pavlov, April 11, 1924, ARAN 259.2.801:3; Cushing to Pavlov, November 22, 1924, ARAN 259.2.457; Cannon to Pavlov, November 22, 1924, ARAN 259.2.381:13. Perhaps expressing the rivalry among émigré former coworkers, Babkin labeled Anrep’s lectures a total failure. But his bottom line was the same: what a shame that people were learning about Pavlov’s research secondhand from people who were “insufficiently knowledgeable.” This in his letter of October 28, 1924, in ARAN 259.2.982:4. Gantt was also aware that the threat that a coworker would write a book on CRs finally forced Pavlov to do so himself (AMC, box 191, folder 9, 1–2).
17. Among Anrep’s consultants in the search for appropriate English-language terms was Starling, who informed Pavlov: “Anrep has found it necessary in translating your lectures from the Russian to invent certain words, or at any rate to use words in a specific and more limited sense than is generally attributed to them. We must, that is to say, build up a certain collection of technical terms for the elucidation of your new discoveries and views since it represents practically a new chapter in science. After this translation by Anrep has made its appearance future works in English on the same subject should make use of the same terms, unless we are to get inextricable confusion among those studying and writing on the subject.” Starling to Pavlov, May 21, 1926, ARAN 259.2.801:4. Pavlov’s esoteric language is today often incomprehensible even to physiologists attempting to follow his investigative leads, as I have learned from inquiries by contemporary investigators.
18. Anrep to Pavlov, May 13, 1926, and September 21, 1926, ARAN 259.2.36: 21, 32; Starling to Pavlov, May 21, 1926, ARAN 259.2.801:4.
19. LCR, 79. Gantt’s translation of the third edition of Pavlov’s collection, under the title Lectures on Conditioned Reflexes: Twenty-five Years of Objective Study of the Higher Nervous Activity (Behavior) of Animals (referred to in the present volume as LCR), also included five articles written in the interim between the first and third editions (thus the title refers to “Twenty-five Years” rather than Pavlov’s original “Twenty Years”). This volume also included Gantt’s laudatory biographical sketch of Pavlov and an introduction by Cannon joining Pavlov to the behaviorist tradition. In a letter to Pavlov of February 1927 (ARAN 259.2.381:17), Cannon lamented Gantt’s decision (and Pavlov’s assent) to publish the volume with the leftist International Publishers rather than with the academic press Williams and Wilkins, as Cannon had suggested.
20. BabkinMS, 328 (he softened this a bit in Pavlov, 141); Babkin to Pavlov, March 27, 1927, and July 7, 1927, in ARAN 259.2.982: 23, 26rev.
21. LRBP, 216; CR, 204.
22. LRBP, 11; CR, xi.
23. LRBP, 18; CR, 4.
24. LRBP, 18–20; CR, 4–5.
25. LRBP, 21–22; CR, 7; PS, II, May 30, 1934, 415–416. In a letter of the 1930s (ARAN 259.2.1093), Pavlov expressed his differences with the behaviorists implicitly and revealingly: “Behaviorism resulted mainly from the practical inclination of the American, accustomed to evaluate people not by their words and the internal experiences [perezhivaniiami] expressed by those words, but by deeds.” It was precisely those “experiences”—“the torments of our consciousness”—that Pavlov hoped to address.
26. LRBP, 22–23; CR, 7–8.
27. LRBP, 25–28, 36–37; CR, 11–12, 22–23.
28. LRBP, 30, 33–34; CR, 30, 33–34.
29. LRBP, 33; CR, 17–18.
30. LRBP, 39–40; CR, 25–26.
31. LRBP, 199; CR, 188.
32. LRBP, 216–217, 231; CR, 204, 219. For Pavlov’s tentative effort to capture these interactions in satisfyingly pravil’nye curves, see LRBP, 223; CR, 211. His reference to the cortex as a “switchboard” (doska) develops his analogy from earlier in the text between URs as fixed, direct telephone connections and CRs as temporary, changeable connections completed by an operator.
33. LRBP, 251; CR, 244.
34. LRBP, 263, 279; CR, 251, 265.
35. In the English edition (CR, 285), Pavlov added to his discussion of nervous types a footnote retracting the claims he had made about the inheritance of CRs during his trip to the West in 1923.
36. LRBP, 301–304; CR, 285–289.
37. LRBP, 315–316; CR, 299–300.
38. LRBP, 329–334; CR, 313–318.
39. LRBP, 336, 344, 376, 393; CR, 320, 328, 361, 376.
40. LRBP, 394–395; CR, 377–378.
41. LRBP, 395–396; CR, 378.
42. LRBP, 413; CR, 394.
43. LRBP, 414; CR, 395; the unpublished notes are preserved in ARAN 259.1.87:3.
44. LRBP, 415; CR, 395–396.
45. LRBP, 417–418; CR, 397–398.
46. LRBP, 430–432; CR, 408–410. Some forms of fear and cowardice—such as “panicked flight and certain servile postures”—did not fit this analysis, since they involved movement rather than motionlessness. Noting that in such cases CRs disappeared, Pavlov suggests that these were URs originating in centers just below the cerebral hemispheres and stimulated to activity by an inhibited stage of the cortex.
47. From Pavlov’s notes on CRs (1926 or 1927) for his monograph, ARAN 259.1.87:3.
48. For example, when asked by London’s Christian Evidence Society in 1931, “Do you consider that man is in some measure responsible for his acts of choice?” he answered, “Yes, he is responsible.” This questionnaire is held by MMU.
49. AMC box 191, folder 1 (entries for December 27, 1925, and April 10, 1927); box 191, folder 3 (“Pavlov and the Academy,” entry for October–November 1928).
50. In 1930, having turned toward the more active, holistic dimension of higher nervous activity in studies of the dynamic stereotype and systematicity (see chapter 47), he commented that this research might eventually allow man “to successfully master” his psyche and “more precisely define the content of the notion of his ‘free will.’” This in PS, I, 7. Replying sometime in the 1930s to a layperson’s query about the malleability of an individual’s qualities (ARAN 259.2.1092), he emphasized the great elasticity of the nervous system: “For the human individual, this opens up a great possibility to change, direct, improve his habits, and to a great extent to regulate the inborn strength or abilities of his nervous system.” On science and the problem of free will, see Smith, Free Will.
51. LRBP, 433; CR, 411.
52. Stenogram of Pavlov’s remarks, December 27, 1926, recorded by his coworker P. S. Kupalov, ARAN 259.1.203.
53. The first Russian edition sold out quickly, so a second, identical edition appeared in 1927. In a brief preface, Pavlov apologized for the lack of necessary “additions and changes.” Yet the third edition, which appeared in late 1935, remained unchanged. In a short preface written several months before his death, he noted that a true synthesis of his lab research would require “a large work, the composition of which I put to myself as my last scientific task. This work will certainly require more than one year.” By this time, however, he was engrossed in many new lines of investigation and was no nearer to that synthesis than he had been in 1926. There are no indications in his personal papers that he seriously undertook to write another synthetic monograph. For the prefaces to the second and third editions, see LRBP, 13–14.
1. See Pavlov’s declaration of 1927, in ARAN 153.1 (1927).2: 2.
2. Petrova, “Laboratornoe.”
3. Petrova, “Vzaimootnoshenie.” On Pingel, see Narbutovich, “K ispytaniiu.”
4. DO2, 77–88, citation on 86; LCR, 370–378, citation on 377.
5. DO2, 85; LCR, 376.
6. DO2, 87; LCR, 377–378.
7. See chapter 45 of the present volume.
8. DO2, 89–105, citations from 102–103; Anrep’s translation from the Russian appears in LCR, 379–391, citations on 389 and 391.
9. Walter Duranty, “Dr. Pavlov Defines Causes of Insanity,” New York Times, June 24, 1928.
10. These reports were written by Pavlov’s coworkers and published in his in-house journal, TFL. With the great growth in the 1920s of his contingent of coworkers and of outlets for their work at conferences and in various journals, Pavlov no longer demanded that all presentations and publications first be cleared with him. He approved for publication in TFL, however, only articles with which he agreed, and he edited these closely. This from taped interview with Konradi and his “O Pavlove,” 125.
11. Vinogradov, “Slabyi,” 217.
12. DO, 132–133; and LRBP, 328–329; CR, 312. Pavlov hypothesized that the investigative reflex probably generated the “reflex of caution” through positive induction.
13. Vinogradov, “Slabyi,” 217.
14. Vinogradov, “Slabyi,” 236.
15. Vinogradov, “Slabyi,” 244–245.
16. Vinogradov, “Slabyi,” 244.
17. Vyrzhikovskii, “Tormoznoi,” 57.
18. Vyrzhikovskii, “Tormoznoi,” 58.
19. Vyrzhikovskii, “Tormoznoi,” 59.
20. Vyrzhikovskii, “Tormoznoi,” 69.
21. Kuimov, “Mekhanizm,” 142–143.
22. Ivanov-Smolenskii, “Passivno-oboronitel’nye,” 208, 228. Although published only in 1932, this research was conducted from September 1927 through January 1929, and the Garsik case occupied Pavlov’s attention and influenced his ideas about nervous types during those years. On the relationship between Pavlov’s analysis of Garsik and his plans for Koltushi, see Rikman, Kratkie dannye, 2.
23. PS, I, 82.
24. PS, II, 28–29.
25. Pavlova, “Odin,” 57.
26. ARAN 259.1.43. An archivist’s note suggests the possible date of 1928, but this manuscript probably dates from 1930, when Pavlov was using the three categories of strength, balance, and lability in his attempt to develop a workable typology at Koltushi.
27. E. Laganskii, “U Ivana Petrovicha Pavlova,” Literaturnyi Leningrad, November 1, 1934.
28. On Pavlov’s constant self-observations at the experimental bench, see, for example, three memoirs by his coworkers: Andreev, “Velikii,” 15; Biriukov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 57; Speranskii, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 222. For his own higher nervous processes, aging, and memory, see PS, II, 62, and Anrep, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 13. Writing in English, Anrep translates Pavlov’s word uslovnye as “conditioned.” I have changed it to “[conditional]” to avoid confusion.
29. For Pavlov as choleric, see Petrova, Vospominaniia, 25, 82; for the inner thoughts of an excitable dog, PS, Vol. I, 113.
30. A copy of Rozental’s article “Pavlov,” inscribed to Vsevolod, is preserved in Pavlov’s papers in ARAN 259.7.285 (citation on 2707)—a further indication of his positive feelings about it.
1. On the pre-Pavlov history of Koltushi, see Bolondinskii, Pavlov v Koltushakh, 6–11. A detailed history of the Biostation, Kratkie dannye, is preserved in ARAN 895.4.902. The anonymous author draws upon official state and Institute documents. I agree with Iu. A. Vinogradov, an expert on the Pavlov holdings, that the author was Viktor Rikman, Pavlov’s close associate who played a central role in the creation of this facility, and will refer to him as its author. According to Rikman, “the idea of the organization of a small village (khoziaistvo) near the city for the maintenance of experimental animals and for Ivan Petrovich’s summer rest belonged to professors Fursikov and Bykov.” Iosif Rozental’, who played an increasingly important administrative role at Pavlov’s IEM lab from the mid-1920s, also helped choose the parcel of land for this project.
2. Bolondinskii, Pavlov v Koltushakh, 13–14; Rikman, Kratkie dannye, 1–2.
3. Kupalov, “Pervaia.”
4. Kupalov, “Pervaia.”
5. Kupalov, “Pervaia.”
6. Kupalov, “Pervaia.”
7. Bolondinskii, Pavlov v Koltushakh, 18–19; Rikman, Kratkie dannye, 2. For what appears to be the original proposal for Koltushi, approved by Semashko, see TsGA SPB 2555.1.618:9. For another report on the personnel at Koltushi at this time, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.163:8, 10.
8. TsGA SPB 2555.1.618:9; Rikman, Kratkie dannye, 2. In an exception that illustrates the rule, Bykov actually used a bell (not a buzzer)—as he was seeking to determine the simple fact of the formation of a CR in a variety of farm animals rather than using CRs as a methodology for constructing a model of higher nervous processes and mapping that model upon the behavior and psyche of his animals. Therefore, he did not require the same precise control over the duration and quality of his CS as did standard Pavlovian experiments.
9. TsGANTD 182.1-2.163:8rev.
10. ARAN 259.1.59/3:6; on “an improved human type,” see “Novaia Biologicheskaia Stantsiia akad. I. P. Pavlova,” Izvestiia, August 11, 1933.
11. TsGANTD 182.1-1.180: 7rev.
12. ARAN 895.2.92: 101. For the results of these trials, see chapter 44 of the present volume.
13. For Pavlov’s assessment of Fedorov, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.145: 19; for the budgets, see Rikman, Kratkie dannye, 2–3.
14. TsGANTD 182.1-1.268: 9.
15. TsGANTD 182.1-1.163:9. The auto appears as an item in the Physiology Division budget (1,200 rubles, presumably for fuel and maintenance) in 1927. It was apparently “rented” by appointment from the auto pool of the Regional Trading Division (Obltorgotdel), which charged other entities for its use. See, for example, TsGA SPB 1000.13.22: 106, 167. Pavlov did not at this time receive additional salary for his directorship of Koltushi, which was formally attached to his IEM lab.
16. S. V. Kurakin in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 13–15. Pavlov’s comment about the Lincoln being his only personal privilege appears in letters of 1929 or 1930 to I. S. Rozental’, directing him to haggle with the authorities over increasing his access to the Lincoln or, alternatively, gaining access to a horse-drawn carriage. This in ARAN 259.2.1347: 1-2, 18. On the punctual horn, see Biriukov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 54.
17. For the annual report for 1927, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.163 (1927): 8. For the report of 1926 (which mentions the cerebral cortex and the inheritance of CRs), see TsGANTD 182.1-1.118:70.
18. TsGANTD 182.1-1.151: 2, 182.1-1.180: 7rev, and 182.1.1.224:4rev.
19. For a typical budget of the late 1920s, see TsGANTD 182.1-2.163:9–9rev; for the monthly allotment of hard currency, see, for example, 182.1-1.145:3.
20. ARAN 4.2 (1924).22:39 and 4.2 (1925), no. 18: 16rev, 17–18, 26, 31, 40–43, 52–53, 56–86. The rat problem is discussed on 67, the need for two labs on 17.
21. ARAN 2.1-1926.38:1–1rev; 4.2 (1925) no. 18: 203–204; 153.1 (1926) no. 1: 63; 2.1-1927, no. 43: 2; 153.1 (1927), no. 2: 1.
22. Kuimov, “Dva goda,” 141–143; Ivanov-Smolenskii, I. P. Pavlov, 29–30.
23. Konradi, “O Pavlove,” 122–123; Biriukov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 53. Similarly, Andreev, “Velikii,” 14–25.
24. Chizhevskii, “O poseshchenii,” 463–466. Chizhevskii visited Pavlov’s lab several times in the 1920s and 1930s, and, as is clear from internal evidence, this part of his memoir blends together memories of those different visits. These passages probably refer to a visit of 1926.
25. Maiorov, Istoriia, 202.
1. The following is from Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 218–231, and Petrova, Vospominaniia, 87–102, which provide lengthy accounts of Pavlov’s illness. Pavlov’s efforts at self-diagnosis and treatment are discussed at length in Petrova’s memoirs, and she coauthored with Pavlov an article on his “postoperative neurosis of the heart” (Petrova, “Posleoperatsionnyi”). For a brief press report, see Vrachebnaia gazeta, 1927, no. 11–12, p. 918.
2. Serafima Pavlova to Boris Babkin, February 7–9, 1927, and April 27, 1927; in OLAC, 390/22/3/3 and 390/22/3/4.
3. Krasnogorskii, Schastlivyi den’; Kamenskii, Vospominaniia; Gantt (entry for November 25, 1928), AMC, box 191, folder 3.
4. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 90.
5. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 93.
6. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 96.
7. For another of Pavlov’s “rational physiological” approaches to his illness, see Sergeev’s account (in Rasskazy, 30–32) of his “swimming” in cold water in his hospital bed to recover his energy.
8. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 124; author’s interview with L. V. Balmasova, June 27, 1991; Gantt (entry for November 20, 1928), AMC, box 191, folder 3.
9. Pavlov to Babkin, August 28, 1927, OLAC 390/22/1/14.
10. TsGANTD 182.1-1.145: 29, 33.
11. On the Wells essay and the response to Pavlov’s monograph, see chapter 41 of the present volume.
12. Barcroft, “Prof. I. P. Pavlov,” 484.
13. Sergei Metal’nikov to Pavlov, May 3, 1928, ARAN 259.2.551:11.
14. Merkulov, Letopis’, in his entry for June 6, 1928, cites a letter of that date (formerly held by the archive of the IEM) from Lev Fedorov, in his capacity as vice director of the IEM, to the Foreign Affairs section of the Leningrad Regional Committee requesting that Vladimir’s foreign passport be extended so he could travel to Turkey.
15. Biriukov, “Pavlov,” 55.
16. Biriukov, “Pavlov,” 55–56.
17. Fox, Revolution.
18. I rely on the basic narrative of the Bolshevization of the Academy of Sciences in Perchenok, “Akademiia.”
19. ARAN 2.1-1928.89: 308. The copy of this letter in Pavlov’s personal papers (ARAN 259.4.100) is written in Vsevolod’s hand, the address on the envelope in Pavlov’s.
20. Taped interview with Korotin.
21. Ol’denburg, Zapiska, 41.
22. Gantt (entries of November 11, [1928], January 8, 1929, April 8, 1929), AMC, box 287/501 302 row 69-4-7.
23. Pavlov’s remarks were reported to the SNK in a document that summarized the January 17 meeting and has been published in Istochnik 3 (1996): 130–133.
24. The elderly geologist Franz Levinson-Lessing joined Pavlov in his walkout. Apprised of Pavlov’s remarks, the Politburo assigned Bukharin to respond to them at the next general meeting of academicians. Perchenok (“Akademia,” 189) notes that the journal Chudak publicly vilified the academicians who had voted against Ol’denburg’s proposal, publishing the portraits of eight of the nine dissidents. The only portrait missing was Pavlov’s, a reflection of his special status.
1. Cannon to Pavlov, January 24, 1929, FCL, box 47, folder 465; Merkulov, Letopis’ for March 17 and April 20, 1929; ARAN 2.1-1929.37: 19–20.
2. AMC, box 287/501 302 row 69-4-7 (entry for April 25, 1929).
3. Gantt’s recollection is in AMC, box 191, folder 13 (manuscript of April 24, 1940, 1). Pavlov’s personal papers (ARAN 259.4.48) contain lists of about a thousand English words written on the backs of old letters and envelopes (dating from October 1928–August 1929). The words he was studying (such as rebuke, elusive, trunk, eclipse, malicious) were clearly not selected for purely scientific discourse. Letter of May 21, 1929, from E. Voronov to Zimin [Central Committee of Communist Party], Orgaspred, Komissiia po vyezdam, Poskrebyshev [Stalin’s secretary], and Ugarov [Leningrad Communist Party], GARF 8429.5.15. Voronov added another reason for allowing Pavlov to make the trip: the USSR was hoping to host the next International Physiological Congress in 1932. “Under propitious circumstances, the delegation to the United States could make this invitation”—but (Voronov left the obvious unsaid) that invitation would only carry weight with the international physiological community if it were tendered by Pavlov himself. My thanks to Natal’ia Ismailova for finding this letter and making it available to me.
4. Voronov’s letter of July 15, 1929, to Poskrebyshev and his letter of July 27, 1929, to Prikhod’ko, in GARF 8429.5.15.
5. Pavlov to Petrova, August 27, [1929], ARAN 767.2.17: 15.
6. K. J. Franklin, diary of XIV Congress, CMA, GC/71/14, 11.
7. Wells, “Mr. Wells Appraises.”
8. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 17.
9. From Dr. Cushing’s Note on the [XIII] Physiological Congress, which is attached to a memoir on the Congress by John Fulton, in CMA, GC/71/13, 24–26; on 24. Citation from Fulton in same file, 18–19.
10. Dr. Cushing’s Note, 25; accompanying manuscript by Fulton, 13. Impressed, Pavlov several years later ordered a similar device, designed by Cushing, for his own laboratory (ARAN 259.4.139).
11. Dr. Cushing’s Note, 25–26.
12. Pavlov to Petrova, August 27, [1929], ARAN 767.2.17: 15–16.
13. Pavlov to Bukharin, April 6, 1933, in Esakov, Akademiia, 136.
14. See, for example, Langfeld, “Ninth,” 366. Pavlov’s talk was revised and published as “A Brief Outline of the Higher Nervous Activity,” in Murchison, Psychologies of 1930. Vladimir Pavlov to Boris Babkin, Sept. 11, 1929, in OLAC 390/22/2/1.
15. Konenkov, Moe znakomstvo.
16. “Physiological Congress,” Time, September 2, 1929.
17. “Psychologists,” Time, September 16, 1929.
18. W. Horsley Gantt, “A Man Who Speaks His Mind in Russia,” New York Times, June 30, 1929; “Physiological Congress,” “Pavlov Hailed as Science Dean,” New York Times, August 25, 1929; “Physiological Congress,” Time, September 2, 1929; “Psychologists,” Time, September 16, 1929.
19. Vladimir Pavlov to Boris Babkin, September 11, 1929, Babkin papers, OLAC 390/22/2/1.
20. Ruiz, Sánchez, and De la Casa, “Pavlov in America”; Liddell, “Book,” 501.
21. Liddell’s visit to Pavlov’s lab elicited a discussion of this situation at the Wednesday meeting of April 25, 1934. See PS, II, 349–350. See also PS, I, 12, 231; and PS, III, 253, 258. I. R. Rozental’, “Uchenie ob uslovnykh refleksakh za granitsei,” Izvestiia, September 22, 1934, no. 227. In 1934, Pavlov used his foreign contacts to dispatch Rozental’ to Great Britain and L. A. Andreev to Canada in an attempt to “transplant” CR methodology to these recalcitrant nations.
22. Letter from L. N. Fedorov, N. N. Nikitin, and F. P. Maiorov, September 18, 1929 (addressee unknown), in Esakov, Akademiia, 67–68; Voronov’s undated note to Bukharin, as well as Rykov’s and Kuibyshev’s written comments, are published on 68.
23. “Pis’ma N. I. Bukharina,” 44. Emphasis is Bukharin’s.
24. GARF 5446.1.50:111. The niceties of state independence from the Party were not observed here: on the basis of the Politburo resolution, a resolution from the SNK was published in Izvestiia and Pravda on September 27, 1929, but only formally adopted by the SNK at its meeting of October 11, 1929. On the next day, the SNK resolved Pavlov’s complaints about noise from Lopukhinskaia St. by mandating the redirection of street traffic. For another Communist commentary on Pavlov’s revolutionary science and reactionary politics, see the article by Commissar of Health Protection Nikolai Semashko, “Politika i Nauka (K 80-letnemu iubileiu akademika Pavlova),” Vecherniaia Moskva, October 1, 1929.
25. ARAN 2.17.115:125–126.
26. New York Times, September 28, 1929; Time, October 7, 1929.
27. S. V. Pavlova to her sisters E. V. Sikorskaia and R. V. Khmel’nitskaia, in Vinogradov, Golikov, and Grekova, I. P. Pavlov, 336.
1. Pavlov to M. N. Shaternikov, September 23 and October 3, [1929], ARAN, 259.7: 33, 35. As Irina Poperno has shown, it was chronologically impossible for Sechenov and Bokova to have served as Chernyshevskii’s model. See her Chernyshevskii, 133–136.
2. Perchenok, “Akademiia,” 208–223. Figatner’s report is published in Esakov, Akademiia, 82–85. After a harrowing captivity, Shtakel’berg was saved by a biographical accident: her mother, who had hidden Stalin in pre-revolutionary years, traveled to Moscow and convinced him to order her release. See Perchenok, “Akademiia,” 212; and Shtakel’berg, “Kruzhok.”
3. Pavlov to the Presidium of the Academy of Sciences, December 2, 1929, ARAN 259.7.60.
4. ARAN 259.1.108.
5. ARAN 259.1.108.
6. ARAN 259.1.108.
7. ARAN 259.1.108. This file contains the typescript of Pavlov’s speech with his handwritten editing of its two climactic paragraphs. These were omitted from the Soviet-era version (Neopublikovannye, 84–88) and, inexplicably, from the post-Soviet version in Golikov and Lange, I. P. Pavlov, 211–214. My account of the audience reaction is based on my interview with Leibson, the taped interview with Traugott, and Rait-Kovaleva, Vospominaniia, 17.
8. We do not know how many of these letters Pavlov actually sent. The final, received version of a number of draft letters in his personal papers have not been located in the appropriate archive. Conversely, a number of his letters discovered in the Communist Party Archive do not have analogous drafts in Pavlov’s papers. We do know, however, that by the time Molotov received Pavlov’s letter of December 21, 1934, such missives were sufficiently familiar for Molotov to forward it to Stalin with the comment: “Today the Sovnarkom received a new nonsensical letter from Academician Pavlov.”
9. Draft of Pavlov’s letter of August 20, 1930, to the SNK, ARAN 259.1a.19. The actual letter received has not, to my knowledge, been found. On the wave of arrests at the IEM, see Grekova and Lange, “Tragicheskie.”
10. Serafima Pavlova to an unidentified relative, December 22, [1931?], cited in Kosmachevskaia and Gromova, “Pavlovskii gorod,” 361; Pavlov’s notebook, ARAN 259.1.59/3: 38.
11. Pavlov to SNK, n. d. (draft letter), ARAN 259.1a.9. Pavlov’s phrase “the majestic year 1812” refers to the fact that Tsar Alexander I ordered the Cathedral of Christ the Savior built to commemorate Russia’s victory over Napoleon. On the history of the cathedral, see Gentes’s excellent “The Life.” Pavlov’s emphasis on his feelings as a “Russian by nationality” may have been a reference to Stalin (a Georgian), but more likely indicated that he shared the widespread sentiment blaming the destruction of the Cathedral on Lazar Kaganovich, the only Jewish member of Stalin’s Central Committee. This decision was of course made by Stalin, while others (Molotov, Kaganovich, and Kriukov) played lesser roles. As Gentes points out (81), Kaganovich always minimized his role and told Kirov and Ordzhonikidze (who also voted to destroy the church) that “he knew that as a Jew he would be singled out [for blame], as indeed he was.” Decades later, in 1982, Molotov labeled the exaggeration of Kaganovich’s role “an anti-Semitic lie.”
12. Cohen, Bukharin; Medvedev, Nikolai Bukharin; Bukharina, Nezabyvaemoe. Bukharin’s miscellaneous tasks included coaxing chemist-academician V. N. Ipat’ev to return from America to the USSR and the aged president of the Academy of Sciences, Karpinskii, to join the Academy in its move from Leningrad to Moscow in 1934. See Esakov, Akademiia, 129, 162.
13. From accounts of conversations with Bukharin in Nicolaevsky, Power, 14–16, and Ikramov, Delo, 163–164. The latter report is actually thirdhand, related from Bukharin to I. A. Kassirskii to Ikramov. These accounts, however, are totally consistent, differing only in emphasis and detail: in his conversation with Nicolaevsky, Bukharin apparently portrayed this encounter as the beginning of a sincere relationship; in his narrative to Kassirskii, he emphasized his skillful tactics in overcoming Pavlov’s reticence.
14. The reference to “terrorists” is from the taped interview with a Communist Party member, Korotin, who encountered Pavlov at this time. E. G. Ol’denburg mentions Pavlov’s invitation to Bukharin in her diary entry for October 28, 1928, in Zapiska, 208. Pavlov’s visit to Bukharin in Moscow is mentioned in Medvedev, Bukharin, 47–48.
15. Galperin, Velikii, 10; taped interview with Konradi; taped interview with Abuladze.
16. In his obituary to Pavlov (“Pamiati”), Bukharin wrote “I fell in love with this person, and he responded mutually.” Bukharin’s letters to Pavlov of July 24 and December 14, 1931, are in ARAN 259.1a.41:1, 3.
17. Pavlov, Zakonomernost’. Bukharin took his time responding editorially to Pavlov’s article. Ten months later, in a letter of October 6, 1932, Pavlov inquired about its fate (ARAN 259.1a.36).
18. Pavlov to Bukharin, December 27, 1931, ARAN 259.1a.42. I have divided the single long paragraph in this draft into separate paragraphs.
19. Taped interview with Abuladze.
20. Pavlov to Bukharin, October 6, [1932], ARAN 259.1a.36. Pavlov had asked Bukharin for a different type of help four months earlier. Having written a letter to the SNK that he now viewed as intemperate, he asked Bukharin to pour oil on the waters. Bukharin explained to that body’s executive secretary that Pavlov had written the letter under the influence of “a series of lamentable facts” and now wanted the letter returned and the incident considered closed. See Bukharin’s letter to P. M. Kerzhentsev of May 15, 1932, in ARAN 259.1a.23. Thirty-seven thousand people in Leningrad province were arrested in 1932, according to a secret police report cited in Khlevniuk, Master, 66.
21. Pavlova to the Babkins, October 22, 1929, OLAC 390/22/3/6; Pavlova to Evgeniia Sikorskaia and Raisa Khmel’nitskaia, November 8, 1930, and May 5, [1931], in Kosmachevskaia and Gromova, “Pavlovskii gorod,” 358, 360.
22. Pavlova to Evgeniia Sikorskaia and Raisa Khmel’nitskaia, December 22, [1931?], in Kosmachevskaia and Gromova, “Pavlovskii gorod,” 361; Pavlova to Babkins, March 29, [1931?], and April 13, [1933], OLAC 390/22/3/8–9.
23. Pavlova to the Babkins, March 29, [1931?], December 17, 1932, January 3. [1933?], April 13, [1933], January 1, 1934, in OLAC 390/22/3/8,11,12, 9, 13; and to relatives in 1929–1932, cited in Kosmachevskaia and Gromova, “Pavlovskii gorod,” 356–362; author’s interviews with L. V. Balmasova, July 3, 1997, and summer 2003, and with M. V. Sokolova; Kozlov, “Moi nobelevskii.” Pavlov discussed Vera’s experiments several times during his Wednesday conferences; see PS, I, 153; PS, II, 313–314; PS, III, 264–268. For his formal replacement of Vera with Asratian, see ARAN 153.3.1; his letter about this to Vera on October 23, 1932, is preserved at MMK. According to Vera’s official curriculum vitae (ARAN 153.3.782), she was thereafter affiliated with her father’s lab at the IEM, but her name does not appear on the annual lab rosters. She received her candidate’s degree in biology weeks before her father’s death. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 84, writes that both Vera and Vsevolod were “undoubtedly ill” (she claims Pavlov came to believe this as well) and that Pavlov “loved his family, loved his children, but unfortunately experienced no real familial happiness, at least over the last twenty-four years of his life, the period of my close acquaintance with him.” For Pavlov’s typological analysis of his granddaughters, see PKS, II, 95.
24. Esakov, Akademiia, 122–123, 177–178.
25. Author’s interviews with L. V. Balmasova, January 26, 1991, July 1, 1997, and summer 2003, and with M. V. Sokolova; Leonid Kozlov, “Moi nobelevskii.” Vladimir’s cultivation of the authorities paid dividends after his father’s death. A number of his colleagues were arrested—including his friends, the famous physicists Lukirskii and Krutkov—and he lived in fear, a suitcase packed in preparation for nocturnal arrest, but survived the terror and preserved considerable privileges. He and his family continued to live in Kelomiaki.
26. E. S. Pavlova, “Iz vospominanii”; ARAN 259.4.162.
27. Esakov, Akademiia, 163–164, 177–178.
28. The inscribed works are preserved in Petrova’s papers; these two in ARAN 767.1.110/6 and /9. On this research, see chapter 45 of the present volume.
29. Pavlov to Petrova, September 3, 1932, ARAN 767.2.17:19.
30. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 79–80, 127, 144. On Speranskii’s research, see, for example, the report of 1933 on the IEM in GARF 182.1-1.319.
31. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 119.
32. The NKVD account of the Speranskii episode is from an agent’s report of September 13, 1934, misfiled in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757: 5–9; citation on 8–9; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 148–149.
33. Serafima Pavlova to the Babkins, July 17, 1932, OLAC 390/22/3/10.
34. See the excellent analysis of the Stalinization of science in Krementsov, Stalinist, 31–53.
35. For Pavlov’s slush fund, see GARF 5446.12.2584: 2. For Salazkin’s assessment of the resources allotted to the IEM by the Five-Year Plan, see TsGANTD 182.1-1.197 (1929). The gastric juice ad appeared in Krasnaia Gazeta January 27, 1930; on the subsequent fate of the gastric juice factory, see TsGANTD 7384.77.28 (1951): 1–2. In the Physico-Physiological Division, Ganike continued to develop technical aids for Pavlov’s research and, as he had since 1925, to research the inheritance of acquired characteristics in mice (“the problem of Lamarckism in white mice”). See, for example, his report on the Division’s activities in 1930 and his report to the Leningrad Society of Physiologists in 1933 in TsGANTD 182.1-1.225: 38 and 182.1-1.344:1–3.
36. Typed copy of undated letter from Pavlov to V. V. Kvetnevskii, ARAN 259.4.114.
37. My overview of Pavlov’s enterprise and employees draws on: (for the main IEM lab) TsGANTD 182-1-1.309: 1–3 (gastric juice factory), 182.1-1.338: 108, 182.1-1.344; 182.1-1.508: 7, 14, 22–24, 28–29, 33; 182. 1-1.495: 46–54; 182.1-1.528: 35; and (on the organization and activities of Pavlov’s clinics) 182.1-1.495: 51–53 and ARAN 767.3.7 (Petrova’s copy of the plan for 1936); (for Koltushi) ARAN 806.1.1-1936: 224–226; and (for the Institute at the Academy of Sciences) ARAN 153.1-1931, no. 2:14, 46; 259.4. 105, 259.4.106; 259.4.110; 259.4.117; on the reorganization and renaming of the Institute: ARAN 153.1-1934.1 and Izvestiia October 4, 1934.
38. Esakov, Akademiia Nauk v resheniiakh, pp. 163–164. On the Communist coworkers, see chapter 43 of the present volume.
39. ARAN 259.2.246, GARF 5446.15.2912, RGASPI SPB 24.2v.[sviazka 567].757: 5–6. Note that in his letter Pavlov implicitly dismisses Horsley Gantt and his Pavlovian Lab at Johns Hopkins. Seeking to reverse the SNK’s decision, Lindberg appealed to Molotov, stressing that Pavlov vouched for his scientific credentials and very much wanted him to go. He added rather nervily that it could not possibly be the “principled position of our leading organs” to obstruct ties with foreign scientists, and that this “completely unmotivated refusal” would make a “strange impression” upon foreign scientists. To no avail (but neither, apparently, was he arrested).
40. Serafima Pavlova to the Babkins, July 17, 1932, OLAC 390/22/3/10.
41. Taped interviews with Fadeeva and Demin.
42. On Stalin’s speech, a manuscript titled Kopii stenogrammy “Sred” za 1934g. Vyderzhki iz neopublikovannykh, in Merkulov papers, VMAK. This consists of four unpublished comments by Pavlov to the Wednesdays of 1934.
43. ARAN 259.7.60 (lab is not factory); SPF ARAN 1.1-1929.252: 42 (impossible); copy of letter of August 31, 1930, in ARAN 259.4.103 and also 280.1.5: 188–189 (cannot predict).
44. TsGANTD 182.1-1.211; citation on 11.
45. Copy of Pavlov’s letter of August 31, 1930, in SPF ARAN 259.4.103 and 280.1.5:188–189; on socialist competition with the Zoological Institute, ARAN 153.1-1931, no. 2: 46.
46. For the new workweek at the Academy of Sciences, see Tsirkuliarnyi material po administrativno-organizatsionnym voprosam 1925–1930, ARAN 153.1 (1925) no. 2: 21–22; for Pavlov’s replies, p. 33 of that same file and 153.1-1930, no. 1: 12.
47. On Pavlov’s “religiosity,” RGASPI SPB 2019.2.50: 27.
48. Taped interview with Vinnitskii; citation from Pavlov’s letter to N. S. Derzhavin, May 9, 1934, ARAN 827.4.676.
49. L. N. Fedorov, in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 7–10. Fedorov was busy daily at the IEM and so either knew in advance of the professor’s visit (and so arranged to be there) or heard this story secondhand.
1. On the Great Break and the ideology of science, see Joravsky, Soviet; for criticisms of Pavlov’s “mechanism” at the Behavioral Congress of 1930, see Joravsky, Russian Psychology, 380–384. On dialectical materialism and Soviet science, see Graham, Science, and Todes and Krementsov, “Dialectical.” On the Stalinist science system of the 1930s, see Krementsov’s Stalinist and “Big.”
2. In a manuscript of 1931 or early 1932, Maiorov noted that there were nine Communists in Pavlov’s labs (Kritika, 115). Lev Fedorov, who had been the lone Communist when he arrived in 1923, was now joined by Ezras Asratian, Petr Denisov, Alexander Dolin, Solomon Galperin, Fedor Maiorov, Nikolai Nikitin, Georgii Skipin, and Vasilii Stroganov. The Communist presence in Pavlov’s research milieu was somewhat greater than this list indicates. For one thing, there were occasional Communist graduate students, such as Anna Dolinskaia. Petr Anokhin joined the Party sometime in the mid-1920s and worked in Pavlov’s lab at the IEM from 1922 to 1926 and then as a graduate student at the Academy of Sciences until 1929. He departed Leningrad in 1930 but maintained contact with the chief. Semen Dionesov was a Party member from 1920 and a member of Pavlov’s lab while a student at the Military-Medical Academy from 1923 to 1927. Afterward, he continued to attend the Wednesday meetings and served as Secretary of the Organizational Committee of the XVth International Physiological Congress. Dmitrii Kuimov, who worked in Pavlov’s lab in 1927–1928 and also attended the Wednesday gatherings, joined the Party at a date I have been unable to establish. Pavlov’s circle also included a number of coworkers and former coworkers—such as Frolov, Fursikov, Razenkov, and Voskresenskii—who spent time at the Communist Academy but were not, so far as I know, Party members.
3. Biographical information on Maiorov is from his Communist Party dossier in RGASPI SPB 1728.30945 and his file at ARAN 225.4a.24 (citation on 6); on criticism of Maiorov’s failure to adopt a more sweeping leftist critique of Pavlov’s doctrine, see ARAN 225.4a.24: 117. Maiorov’s reports, one with the notation “to Comrade A. O. Dolin,” a fellow Communist in Pavlov’s lab, are also found among Nikitin’s papers. The late director of the Historical Museum of the IEM in St. Petersburg, K. A. Lange, kindly permitted me to study these before they were catalogued for the archive there. Grekova cites their current archival location in her “Pervyi.”
4. Maiorov, Kritika, 63, 67, 72–74. He observed in standard Marxist fashion that Pavlov, like the French Enlightenment philosophers and so many progressive thinkers of Pavlov’s generation, combined a “materialism from below” with an “idealism from above.” That is, he attributed developments in nature to mechanical-materialist laws, but ascribed developments in the social world not to Marx’s underlying materialist laws, but rather to the influence of ideas, education, and especially science. This in Kritika, 75–76. In “Response of a Physiologist to Psychologists,” Pavlov indeed repeatedly refers to man as a machine. See DO2, 153–188; LCR2, 117–145.
5. Maiorov, Kritika, 105–106, 111–112. Maiorov mentioned that Bukharin—who was then under attack as a rightist (and so as a philosophical mechanist)—shared Pavlov’s incorrect notion of “balance.”
6. Maiorov, Kritika, 63–66, 114, 116. Maiorov and Fedorov had both defended Pavlovian research at the Conference on Behavior (Maiorov, “Uchenie”; Fedorov, “Metod”). Pavlov’s Communists of course had a personal stake in this. Their attempts to broaden Pavlovism and bring it into line with the Marxism of the Great Break would demonstrate that the scientific orientation in which they worked was not inherently bourgeois and reactionary, but rather required the same liberation from bourgeois ideology as did other areas of science, and so merited support even after the chief’s death.
7. Maiorov, Kritika, 18–23. In Osnovy povedeniia cheloveka, Savich argued that “social relations are a consequence of reflexive reactions,” attributed revolutions to the sexual instinct, and compared them to amoeboid reactions.
8. Maiorov, Kritika, 96–97. Maiorov’s characterization of Pavlov’s criticism of Ivanov-Smolenskii was fully accurate. See PS, I, 97–98.
9. Maiorov, Kritika, 98–101.
10. Maiorov, Kritika, 101–103.
11. Maiorov, Kritika, 115–116. The italics are mine.
12. The four Communists who studied anthropoids were Denisov, Galperin, Maiorov, and Skipin. There were of course good reasons other than a Communist ideological agenda for coworkers to study anthropoids. Pavlov’s anti-Communist coworkers Podkopaev and Lindberg, for example, were both interested in chimps and worked with them at the Sukhumi primate center. But the Communist coworkers were clearly disproportionately involved in this research. It is more difficult to determine which coworkers concentrated on the problem of systematicity—and to what degree this reflected their wishes rather than Pavlov’s desires—but the Communists who described their own research using this term included Asratian, Denisov, Dolin, Maiorov, and Skipin. Archival materials indicate that the Communist coworkers discussed Maiorov’s manuscript, but there exists no record of those discussions. That manuscript was at least one or two years in the making and to a great extent codified elements of Soviet Marxist thinking that were not original to him. Available materials make it impossible to judge the extent to which his arguments themselves shaped Communist practice—as opposed to simply expressing views that were already well understood and being implemented. Nor is it clear how, precisely, Pavlov’s Communist coworkers obtained his permission to research these strategically chosen subjects. This probably resulted from a combination of organizational clout (the Communists increasingly occupied managerial positions in the various branches of Pavlov’s enterprise) and their ability to convince Pavlov on scientific grounds—that is, to frame their research plans as well-grounded initiatives in areas that addressed issues in his labs’ experimental work and promised to extend the range of his research (as Fursikov had done years before).
13. Biographical information on Dolin is from his files at RGASPI SPB 1726.385023 and ARAN 259.7.221.
14. Biographical information on Denisov is from his file at ARAN 153.3.22. Denisov was clearly aware that his involvement with a non-Bolshevik leftist organization during the civil war constituted a potential problem in his political history, and noted in the autobiographical summary for his Communist Party dossier that his account of his participation in the struggle against the Whites in Siberia and his involvement with the Socialist Revolutionaries was confirmed during a verification of Communist Party documents in Leningrad. The political circumstances of his recall to the Veterinary Institute are described in a letter of October 20, 1931, from the Institute’s director to the Leningrad Regional Bolshevik Committee, RGASPI SPB 2019.2.61: 26. For biographical sketches, see Grekova, “Denisov,” and Firsov, “Iz istorii.”
15. Denisov’s letter of October 3, 1932, to the Academy of Sciences, as well as a copy of Pavlov’s endorsement of his trip to France, are in ARAN 2. 1 (1932).55: 12–12rev. For Voronoff’s transplantation experiments, see Hamilton, Monkey; for the endocrinological context of his project, Oudshoorn, Beyond, and Sengoopta, Most Secret; for the Soviet context of primate studies and hybridization experiments, see Rossiianov, “Beyond.”
16. Pavlov mentions this “accidental gift” in his manuscript Intellekt. In an interview published in Pravda, July 16, 1934, no. 194, he also makes clear that these were “gifts to one of my coworkers, P. K. Denisov, from Doctor Voronoff.”
17. See chapter 35 of the present volume.
18. General information on Sukhumi is from GARF 5446.8.1355:6; GARF 5446.10.2163 (1929); GARF 182.1-1.254; GARF 182.1-1.254; and Voskresenskii’s letter of December 30, 1930 (in which he also mentions elements of his first letter), ARAN 259.2.170. In a taped interview, Vinnitskii, who filmed experiments at Koltushi, mentioned that Pavlov watched Voskresenskii’s film with surprise and delight (and, apparently, for the first time) years later—after his interest had already been engaged by Roza and Rafael.
19. N. A. Podkopaev to Pavlov, August 18, 1930, ARAN 259.2.664. Pavlov’s comments on the reports of Voskresenskii, Podkopaev, Dolin, Maiorov, and Galperin from Sukhumi are recorded in PS, I, 29 (December 18, 1929), 77 (October 8, 1930), 86–87, 90 (November 5, 1930), 152 (October 7, 1931), and 154 (October 14, 1931).
20. See chapter 46 of the present volume.
21. Petrova (Vospominaniia, 117); taped interview with Konradi.
22. Biographical information on Nikitin comes from his file at ARAN 225.49.31 and from the remnants of his personal papers at the Historical Museum of the IEM in St. Petersburg (see note 3). For Nikitin’s activities as propaganda chief for the Leningrad Regional committee, see RGASPI SPB 24.7.66: 30 and 24.7.68: 25. For his general views on science and socialism, see his “Estestvennaia”; his articles on Pavlov for the Communist press included “Na peredovykh pozitsiiakh nauki,” Leningradskaia Pravda, September 27, 1929, and “Velichestvennye perspektivy,” Leningradskaia Pravda, August 9, 1935. For a biographical sketch, see Grekova, “Pervyi.”
23. ARAN 225.49.31: 12–17.
24. TsGANTD 182.1-1.221 (1930): 3–3rev, 10.
25. Nikitin to Pavlov, February 23, 1932, ARAN 259.1a.22. Two drafts of this letter are preserved in Nikitin’s papers at the Historical Museum of the IEM.
26. Nikitin to Pavlov, February 23, 1932, ARAN 259.1a.22.
27. For Pavlov’s evolving analysis of Serko, see PS, I, 135–137, 238, 253, and 312.
28. PS, II, 89–96. Nikitin finally published his results in three articles of 1933–1934 in ABN.
29. Nikitin, draft letter to Stalin, n.d., Historical Museum of IEM.
30. Nikitin, draft letter to Stalin, n.d. (a different letter than that cited in note 29), Historical Museum of IEM.
31. Cited in Grekova, “Pervyi,” 255–256, 260–261.
32. ARAN 1.1-1930.255: 216–219.
33. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.50: 6.
34. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.75 (1932): 12–13; Volgin to Pavlov, January 5, 1932, in ARAN 2.1-1931.61: 109.
35. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.75 (1932): 13.
36. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.75 (1932): 8–10rev.
37. On the purge meeting of the Koltushi collective on October 21, 1933, and Denisov’s criticism of Vorob’ev, see RGASPI SPB 340 sviazka 1 opis 2 delo 2 listy 1–35; on Blinkov, see RGASPI SPB 2019.2.61: 17–18rev.
38. Grekova, who gained access to the secret police file on Denisov, writes of Dolinskaia’s accusation in her “Denisov,” 266–267. According to Fedorov’s official autobiographical statement (anketa) of 1935, he “took an active part” in the Bolshevik Revolution and became president of the Communist Party’s Executive Committee in his division at the front. According to a well-informed denunciation of that year, however, he served under Kolchak in the White Army in 1920. Interrogated by Leningrad Party officials during the purge of 1935, Fedorov’s ex-wife claimed that his White Army history was well known to Stalin, who had therefore decided against appointing him Commissar of Health Protection. See RGASPI SPB fond 1728 delo 308501: 1–3. Sometimes the Stalinist leadership considered a flaw in a comrade’s credentials to be an advantage, since it made him or her more likely to toe the line and easier to destroy should the need arise. In any case, Fedorov easily weathered successive Party purges and became a leading state bureaucrat. In a later anketa, he admitted to serving as a physician in the White Army in 1918–1919. See RGASPI SPB, fond 1728 delo 234546.
39. Biographical information on Asratian is from his files at RGASPI SPB 1728.791606 and ARAN 153.3.1. Copies of Pavlov’s laudatory letters of 1932 and 1935 are preserved in both the former (4–5) and the latter (9–10). He also worked in Orbeli’s lab and earned equally high praise from him. Asratian describes his confrontation with Pavlov about working on Sundays in his “Stranitsy,” 44. On Pavlov’s affection for Asratian, taped interview with Fadeeva.
40. RGASPI SPB 1728.791606: 14; RGASPI SPB 2019.2.75: 40.
41. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.75: 40; and RGASPI SPB 2019.2.126: 6–7. When I interviewed Galperin on October 20, 1990, he still recalled indignantly that Asratian laughed at anti-Soviet jokes. Not wanting to tell me that these jokes originated with Pavlov, he attributed them to Podkopaev.
1. Pavlov to Fedorov, October 18, 1929, TsGANTD 182.1-1.204: 11; the lengthier explanation of Koltushi’s goals is from a report on Pavlov’s IEM lab in TsGANTD 182.1-1.224: 4rev; Vyrzhikovskii’s letter of July 14, 1932, on pure types is in GARF 5446.13.2012: 29; Pavlov to Molotov, August 2, 1932, on acquiring a greatly improved nervous system, in GARF 5446.13.2012: 12–13. Standard descriptions of Koltushi’s tasks are found in two archival “historical essays” on the IEM, both composed in 1932—in TsGANTD 182.1-1.271 and 182.1-1.268. The same formulation is found in the official plans for “Big Koltushi” in 1933: Bezpalov’s Proektnoe, 3. For Pavlov’s comment on eugenics, see “Novaia Biologicheskaia Stantsiia akad. I. P. Pavlova,” Izvestiia, August 11, 1933. The Russian word vospitanie, which I translate here as “upbringing,” commonly refers to a broad range of activities and influences, as in the “moral upbringing” of children as opposed to their mere “education” (obrazovanie).
2. ARAN 259.1.59/3:6. On the history of eugenics, see Adams, ed., Well-Born Science; Bashford and Levine, eds., Oxford Handbook; Comfort, Science of Perfection; and Kevles, In the Name of Eugenics.
3. On Soviet eugenics, see Adams, “Eugenics,” and Krementsov, “Eugenics.” For Davidenkov’s unpublished eugenics manuscript, Nashi evgenicheskie perspektivy (1931), see ARAN 450.5.29.
4. Pavlov to Fedorov, October 18, 1929, TsGANTD 182.1-1.204: 11; Fedorov’s reports of 1930 on construction problems, TsGANTD 182.1-1.217: 4, 33, 59; Pavlov to SNK, April 4, 1931, ARAN 259.4.122; Pavlov to Kadetskii, May 16, 1931, and Kadetskii’s follow-up, ARAN 259.4.122: 3–4; Pavlov to SNK, March 1932, and Vyrzhikovskii’s reminder about the upcoming Congress, GARF 5446.13.2012: 29, 32, 36.
5. Pavlov to Molotov, July 18, 1932, ARAN 259.4.122: 13; Pavlov to Molotov, August 2, 1932, GARF 5446.13.2012: 12–13.
6. Pavlov insisted that Vsevolod, as his personal secretary, coordinate the new construction effort with Fedorov. Vsevolod’s tenure ended unhappily, however, in a few months. Resigning in a huff, he complained to Fedorov that “The fundamental problem...is that you do not recognize me as the head of construction, which makes the work situation unreliable.” He was replaced by F. T. Sadovskii, and the building of Koltushi (as Fedorov no doubt preferred) passed entirely into the hands of the construction administration at the IEM, which was now formally a branch of the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine (VIEM) created in Moscow. Vsevolod, however, remained active at Koltushi. The authorities distrusted his motives, and the tension between him and Fedorov continued, as is clear from the dossier on Koltushi in ARAN 259.4.124: 77, 99–102. A surveillance report of September 13, 1934, claimed that Vsevolod hoped to free Koltushi from Fedorov’s authority by having it declared an “all-Union or even world center of conditional reflexes” with himself as director. RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757 Perepiska (1934): 5–9.
7. Bezpalov, Stroitel’svo, 12–13.
8. Grekova, “Koltushskii.”
9. Bezpalov, Stroitel’stvo, 1–7.
10. N. Baskakov, “Biologicheskii Kombinat v Koltushakh,” Krasnaia gazeta (vech.), March 31, 1933. For other press coverage, see for example Leningradskaia Pravda, April 3, 1933; Izvestiia, August 11, 1933, September 18, 1933, and September 23, 1933.
11. Baskakov, “Koltushi,” Krasnaia Gazeta (vech.), September 29, 1933.
12. Baskakov, “Koltushi,” Krasnaia Gazeta (vech.), October 3, 1933. Bold print in the original.
13. For their suspicions and evidence, see Golovanov’s letter of February 15, 1935, RGASPI SPB 1728.308501. Under Stalin’s protection, Fedorov would survive and prosper despite these allegations.
14. Reports of December 30, 1932, and September 3, 1933, on construction problems at Koltushi, ARAN 259.4.124: 48, 85; of 1934, TsGANTD 182.1-1.446; letters of March 1935 between Pavlov, Fedorov, and Molotov on the construction of Koltushi, ARAN 259.4.122: 25–26.
15. Bezpalov, Stroitel’stvo, 8–9. Writing in 1949, Bezpalov identifies Kaminskii by his post rather than by name, since he had been executed in 1937 and his name was unmentionable. For the same reason, Denisov’s name is missing and Vyrzhikovskii’s is crossed out.
16. Certified copy of note from Pavlov to the administration of the VIEM, September 14, 1934, in Merkulov papers, VMAK.
17. Vyrzhikovskaia, Koltushi, and author’s interview with her.
18. Author’s interviews with M. V. Sokolova, L. V. Balmasova (January 26, 1991, and July 21, 2002), and Vyrzhikovskaia; M. V. Nesterov to E. P. Nesterova, August 22, 1933, in Nesterov, Pis’ma, 378.
19. Kurakin, in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 40.
20. Nesterov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 337–340; and Nesterov to P. I. Neradovskii, May 29, 1930, and July 9, 1930, in Nesterov, Pis’ma, 355–356.
21. Nesterov to E. A. Prakhova, August 26, 1934, in Nesterov, Pis’ma, 388–389; and to M. M. Obletsova, September 7, 1934, GTG, fond 100 delo 7.
22. Nesterov, Pis’ma, 356, 377–379, 385–389; Nesterov, “I. P. Pavlov”; Nesterov to M. M. Obletsova, April 5, 1936, GTG, fond 100 delo 17.
23. Medvedev, Istoriia; New York Times, December 27, 1936; Cannon, Friendship, 6–7.
24. Vyrzhikovskii and Maiorov, “Materialy.”
25. On “pathetic cowards,” see PS, II, 588.
26. PS, II, 252.
27. For a typical discussion, see PS, II, 64–65; on “intermediate types,” see PS, III, 264–265.
28. For example, he had long relied upon the “law of strength” to characterize experimental animals. In its original formulation, this law decreed that, when the CS was a “weak exciter” (such as a flashing light) the dog should respond to it with less salivation than to a CS that was a “strong exciter” (such as a buzzer). Dogs that responded otherwise were diagnosed as neurotic or in an ultra-paradoxical state (see chapter 45 of the present volume). By the 1930s, however, the frequent violations of this law of strength had generated many explanations and amendments. For example, a dog’s experience might influence its response to a stimulus, and the metronome, long considered a “medium stimulus,” elicited transmarginal inhibition in two dogs, leading to reconsideration of its status. A related problem was that diagnostic tests that had long been used to measure the strength or balance of nervous processes were revealed to be too sensitive to other factors for them to serve as reliable indicators of any specific characteristic of a dog’s nervous processes. See PS, I, 77, 139; II, 365–373.
29. On Serko, see PS, I, 135, 312; on Burka, PS, II, 587; on strong cowards, PS, II, 308.
30. PS, I, 88, 304–305.
31. On Boy, see PS, II, 43–44; on Zolotistyi, II, 45 and 58–61. In his comments on Zolotistyi as exemplary phlegmatic, Pavlov admitted that he knew only one other dog that exemplified the phlegmatic type so clearly. On Umnitsa, PS, I, 73, 83; on August, PS, I, 188, and PS, II, 29; on Postrel, PS, I, 139–140 and 188–189; on experience and typology, PS, I, 188.
32. PS, II, 28–29, 44.
33. PS, II, 28–29, 252, 357, 400.
34. On the varying results of diagnostic tests, see PS, II, 99; the more indicators, the better, PS, II, 238. In an undated manuscript, probably from 1933–1934 (ARAN 259.1.214), Maiorov listed eight procedures for typing dogs, which Pavlov amended and supplemented with another thirteen tests. At the meeting of May 9, 1934, Pavlov finally decreed the series of diagnostic tests to be used at Koltushi. These included: for the strength of excitation, testing the response to high-strength exciters (could the dog endure it, did the exciter generate defensive, transmarginal inhibition, could the dog form a CR to the exciter?); for the strength of inhibition, testing the rapidity of the formation of a CI and differentiation; and for lability, the dog’s ability to form trace reflexes, to “rework” a CI into a CS (and vice versa), and to respond accurately to altered “stereotypes” (that is, to the altering of the order of a series of exciters). For this and other discussions of diagnostic tests and their value, see PS, II, 26–34, 99; 238–243, 252–254, 357, 363–373, 400–401, 439.
35. On Satyr, see PS, II, 252–258; for a later diagnosis of Satyr as “intermediate type,” PS, III, 264–265; and Pavlova, “Odin,” 57. Among the many other dogs that led to similarly intractable problems were Avgust, Belyi, Burka, Hercules, Mampus, Mirta, Serko, Trezor, and Umnitsa.
36. Pavlov’s library at Koltushi contained many works in genetics that Kol’tsov and others sent to him—but the pages of most are uncut, and there is no indication that he read, let alone studied, them. For his confession that he had “read little on genetics,” see PKS, II, 169. After Pavlov’s death, Kol’tsov reviewed the “experimental genetics of higher nervous activity” at Koltushi and found it virtually worthless, advising Pavlov’s successor to start from scratch. See N. K. Kol’tsov to L. A. Orbeli, June 19, 1938, ARAN 895.3.556.
Pavlov’s high regard for Mendel and hereditary ratios need not have led him to reject the possibility of the inheritance of acquired characteristics, and there is no evidence that he did so. My thanks to Nikolai Krementsov for making the point about the specific areas of expertise of Pavlov’s consultants in genetics (in a personal communication) and to Nathaniel Comfort for sharing with me his expertise on the state of genetics at this time.
37. Taped interview with Kryshova; PKS, II, 169. Davidenkov was well aware of the difficulties in typing dogs and identifying the basic elements of higher nervous activity that might be inherited. In a letter to Orbeli in 1940, he suggested, however, that Pavlov’s three elements of strength, balance, and lability served both purposes—especially as these three “varied independently of one another, which is very important for genetics.” This is ARAN 895.4.244: 2, 7.
38. PS, II, 382–383, 399, 408–410; PS, III, 101.
1. Pavlov to Gantt, December 1, 1930, AMC, box 51, folder 30.
2. On Pavlov and clinical analysis, see Gray, Pavlov, 18–19; Gantt, LCR2, 13–16; and Windholz, “Pavlov’s Concept” and “Pavlov’s Conceptualization.” For the citation on “fusion,” see DO2, 151–152; translated somewhat differently in LCR2, 71–72; PS, I, 98 and PS, III, 9.
3. He relied mostly on Janet (especially for the symptoms and etiology of hysteria and psychasthenia), but also upon Kretschmer (for paranoia, inversion, and other miscellaneous pathologies) and Bleuler (for schizophrenia). Pavlov’s reliance upon Janet and Kretschmer probably made his own analysis seem outdated to his Western European audience. The texts upon which he most relied dated from the early 1900s to the early 1920s; by the time he began addressing Western European neurologists and psychiatrists in the 1930s, the categories used to describe and classify psychopathologies had changed a great deal. See Micale, “Disappearance”; Berrios, History; Berrios and Porter, History. Pavlov very rarely cited Russian authorities in the field.
4. The identification of mental illness with hypnoid states was quite common. See, for example, Janet, Major, 22–65, 104–109, and 114–116, and Kretschmer, Hysteria, 6–12.
5. DO2, 77–88; LCR, 370–378.
6. Pavlov’s comments at the meetings at the Balinskii Clinic from October 1929 through June 1, 1930, are from Merkulov’s summaries of the transcripts in Letopis’ (paginated separately by year). For the above, see the entries for 1929, 8, 31, 33–34, and 39; and for 1930, 1–2, 6, 8–9, 12, 14–16, 18–19, 21–24, 26, and 28–29. Merkulov gives the archival source for these transcripts as ARAN 259.4.59.
7. Pavlov’s article, originally published in French, is translated in DO2, 126–132, and LCR2, 39–43. The view that inhibition of the cortex freed the “unruly subcortex” was based on Hughlings Jackson’s notion of a psychodynamic hierarchy. This principle was widely accepted; Pavlov probably read it in the works of Janet, who invoked it frequently.
8. He frequently emphasized the need to treat mental patients more humanely, commenting once of a “feebleminded” inmate that he might well recover if treated with the same “gentleness and care” as had dog Umnitsa in his lab. This in PS, I, 28, 52. For the redesigning of the psychiatric clinic in 1934, see ARAN 259.7.18. On the longstanding belief of leading Russian psychiatrists, and at the Alexander III Home in particular, that a peaceful setting for patients was important, see, for example, Kannabikh, Istoriia, and Kratkii istoricheskii.
9. PS, III, 69. On delusions, obsessions, and paranoia, see DO2, 251–267; LCR2, 150–161.
10. Mirta before Copenhagen in PS, I, 205, 227; Pavlov’s report at Copenhagen, DO2, 235–239; LCR2, 95–97; Pavlov to Petrova, September 3, 1932, ARAN 767.2.17:19; Mirta after Copenhagen, PS, I, 227, 233, 253–254, 278, 292–293, 311, and II, 171–174 and 271–273; alcohol experiments, PS, III, 64–65, 101–102, 112–116, 256–258, 291–294. Petrova described these experiments briefly in an interview with Leningradskaia Pravda, August 2, 1935.
11. ARAN 259.1.59/3: 16; PS, II, 186 (inexhaustible).
12. One or two of Pavlov’s coworkers had earlier suggested castrating dogs, and the chief had briefly considered it as a way to avoid the distortion of experimental results by the “sexual reflex.” Two dogs—one male, one female—had been operated upon. The oophorectomized female became a “complete invalid,” which Pavlov explained by one of his surprisingly few references to the gender of his dogs: “One can expect more profound disturbances in [castrated females], since sexual activity plays a larger role in their life than it does in male dogs” (PS, I, 120). On endocrinology and castration, see Sengoopta, Most Secret.
13. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 75.
14. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 76. These epigraphs are found in ARAN 767.1.1/2: 2 (Joy), 767.1.1/5: 2 (John), and 767.1.1/2/4:1 (Mampus).
15. On Joy’s travails, see Petrova, “Vliianie,” 1–24; PS, I, 64, 70–71, 73, 88, 107, 111, 113–114, 119, 132, 138–139, 172; PSS, II, 113, 271–273, 323, 365. Pavlov described Joy once as “strong” and once as a “middle balanced type” (PS, I, 88, 119). For his initial diagnosis of hysteria, see PS, I, 64; for his thoughts about castration upsetting the balance between excitation and inhibition, see PS, I, 71–73.
16. On Hop, see Petrova, “Vliianie,” 35–42; PS, II, 31, 179, 310–311, 352–353, 605. Pavlov agreed that weak dogs were unable to handle excitation of their nervous systems by the sexual hormone (PS, II, 31).
17. Petrova, “Vliianie,” 42–69, 80–112; PS, I, 81–82, 230, 238, 276, 279, 292–293, 315; PS, II, 12–15, 24, 116–118, 246–250, 435–438; PS, III, 103. Her lab notebooks for these dogs are found in ARAN 767.1.1 and 767.1.2.
18. On John, see Petrova’s Vospominaniia, 77–78; “Vliianie,” 69–80; and “Sluchai eksperimental’noi fobii.” She mentions that Pavlov termed John a “genius” in her “Materialy,” 45. For Pavlov’s comments, see PS, II, 109, 323–324; PS, III, 52–53, 197–199, 333.
19. Eckstein, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” 169. Eckstein interviewed Pavlov at length, met his family and coworkers, toured his labs, and collected material from Walter Cannon and others, but never completed the biography.
20. Petrova, “Vliianie kastratsii,” 69–80; “Sluchai”; and Vospominaniia, 77–78. For Pavlov’s comments, see PS, II, 323–324; PS, III, 52–53, 67, 93–94, 127–129, 197–199, 272, 333, and 385–388.
21. Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 26. I am using the 1938 typed version preserved in the Merkulov papers, which includes details missing in the handwritten 1936 version preserved in ARAN 895.4.280.
22. Pavlov, “Les sentiments,” 853; translated in DO2, 245–250 (citation on 249) and in LCR2, 146–149. Gantt’s mistranslation turns Pavlov’s thought on its head: “I wish here to emphasise the incoherence, the absurdity of a reconciliation between the subjective and the mechanical state” (149).
23. On the Psychiatric and Nervous clinics, see Pavlov’s reports for 1933 and 1934 (ARAN 259.4.110 and 259.4.117); Ivanov-Smolenskii’s report on the Psychiatric Clinic in 1934 (ARAN 259.7.18); and Ivanov-Smolenskii’s and Davidenkov’s reports for 1935 and 1936 (TsGANTD 182.1-1.495:46–54; 182.1-1.508: 22–23; 182.1-1.528: 35–37, 97).
24. PKS, III, 150; BabkinMS, 325 (for Savich’s letter of 1932). Like PS, these volumes were edited to remove Pavlov’s politically incorrect remarks (for example, those opposing the persecution of religion and evincing an interest in genetics). References to individuals who had since been arrested were also omitted. In taped interviews, Airopeniats, Demin, and Traugott all mention instances of such editing, as did Fadeeva in an interview with me. According to Demin, sometimes the stenographers pointedly held their pens in the air during Pavlov’s politically incorrect commentaries. The difficulties involved in transcribing rapid conversations also resulted in inaccuracies and garbling.
25. Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 1–5, 11, 24, 36.
26. Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 27–28. Here as elsewhere, Evlakhov’s account corresponds tightly to the stenographic record. See PKS, II, 561–576.
27. Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 4, 8–9.
28. Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 16–18; PKS, II, 41–42. According to Evlakhov, Ostankov also told him that he did not challenge Pavlov’s pronouncements in order not to “insult the old man” (p. 4).
29. PKS, I, 11–13. The popularity of hypnosis as treatment had long passed. Pavlov, however, agreed with his favorite authority on the neuroses, Janet, that hypnosis was indeed efficacious and had been abandoned for no good reason. See Janet, Psychological, 207.
30. DO2, 195–218, citation on 214–215; LCR2, 102–116, citation on 113–114. Pavlov’s theory of two signal systems perhaps represented his translation into the CR lexicon of Janet’s idea of five levels of psychological function. Pavlov’s first signal system encompassed Janet’s “reality function” and his second system Janet’s “imagination.” Pavlov relegated Janet’s three other levels (disinterested habitual activity, emotional reactions, and useless muscular movements) to the subcortical URs and standard CRs. In any case, it is clear from the Clinical Wednesdays that Janet’s descriptions of hysterics and psychasthenics played an important part in framing Pavlov’s theory.
31. DO2, 213; LCR2, 112–113; for characterization of artists and thinkers, PS I, 268 and PS, III, 10; on Janet and Kretschmer as artists and himself as thinker, PS, I, 202, 317–318.
32. PS, II, 56; DO2, 336; LCR2, 179.
33. Pavlov recognized that by his new definition of hysteria and psychasthenia, dogs could have neither malady, since they lacked a second signal system. This was an awkward conclusion in view of his use of experiments on dogs to shed light on neuroses. He now speculated that in dogs an imbalance between the subcortex and cortex might result in analogous hysteria-like symptoms. See articles of 1930 and 1935 in DO2, 195–214, 344–349; LCR2, 102–117, 162–165; and PS I, 64, 73, 88, 197–198, 200, 207, 213–214, 227, 230, 268; PS II, 214; PS III, 10; PKS I, 248–249; PKS, III, 91–95, 145–146.
34. On psychasthenia, see PKS I, 227, 249, 267 (true psychasthenic); PKS, II, 188–190, 192, 201–203, 207, 209, 220, 248–249, 267–268; PKS, III, 188–190, 192, 201–203, 207, 209, 220, 268, 282, 287; and in the 1935 speech, DO2, 347; LCR2, 163.
35. Izvestiia, January 25, 1936. Izvestiia had reported on May 5, 1930, that Pavlov received about 500 letters every month. Many are preserved in his personal papers at ARAN. Pavlov did reply to some letters, and on at least one occasion was moved to meet a patient. For that encounter, see PKS II, 557–561; PS, III, 123–125; PKS, III, 351; and Pavlov’s letter to her father of December 17, [1934], cited in TsGANTD 182.1-1.527 (1936), 220.
36. DO2, 217; LCR2, 115 (training); PS, I, 198 (vain); PKS, II, 485 (pointless journey).
37. On the history of sleep research and therapy, see Kroker, Sleep, and Williams and Webb, Sleep.
38. Windholz, “Sleep”; Williams and Webb, Sleep, 8–11.
39. For Pavlov’s correspondence with Sereiskii, see ARAN 259.7.42.
40. PKS, III, 430.
41. On the sleep trials, see Windholz, “Pavlov’s Concept of Schizophrenia,” 522; Kroker, Sleep, 188–191; PS, III, 121, 156; PKS, III, 308–309, 350–352, 430–472.
42. On Semen, see PKS, III, 356–361, 464–468. In a taped interview, Traugot recalled that Pavlov was greatly disturbed by his account of burning icons and noted that this part of their exchange was omitted from the published version of the Clinical Wednesdays. As an example of “weak people” who turned to religion, Pavlov offered the British physiologist and recent Nobel Prize winner Charles Sherrington, whose agnosticism about the relationship between body and mind—in The Brain and Its Mechanism (1933)—upset Pavlov greatly. Pavlov suggested that this resulted from the seventy-year-old scientist’s “aging and decrepitude.” Even his religious wife Serafima would never voice such a “distorted” view of the mind/body relationship. This in PS, II, 445–448.
43. “Pis’mo akad. I. P. Pavlova,” Izvestiia, February 4, 1936. Soon after Pavlov’s death, the Cloetta Mixture was abandoned both in Western Europe and Russia. Clinicians turned to the use of other drugs and to electrically induced sleep. Pavlov’s clinics began investigating electronarcosis by 1935 in collaboration with the Biophysics Laboratory at the VIEM. See the plan of work in TsGANTD 182.1-1.495: 48.
44. On self-observation and introspection to predict and understand experimental results, see PS, II, 227 and PS, III, 7; on himself as psychasthenic, PS, III, 7; as excitable or unrestrained type, PKS, III, 185; as cycloid, PS, II, 533.
45. PS, II, 533.
46. PS, II, 533. Perhaps he was also thinking of himself when he jotted down a note that read: “Naturally there are not a few great people among cycloids, since they are strong—and their nervous systems are understandably especially fragile, since they are unbalanced. Here emerges the much-discussed theme of geniuses and madness.” Undated note, ARAN 259.1.67.
1. On the telephone analogy, see for example, DO, 117; LCR, 123. Pavlov mentioned systematicity in his monograph of 1927 (PSS, IV, 231 244; CR, 219, 232), but it became central only in 1929–1930, growing steadily in importance until his death.
2. PKS, II, 451.
3. PS, II, 95.
4. CR bigger than UR (PS, I, 17, 19); amount of food (PS, I, 206–207; II, 103–106, 115–116, 205–208, 220–223); duration of simultaneity (PS, I, 24); varied UR-CR interactions (PS, I, 89); “law of strength” problems (PS, I, 35–36, 60, 77; PS, II, 365–366, PS, III, 237–239; “law of summation” problems (PS, I, 60); influence of varying intensities on irradiation and concentration (PS, I, 194, 227, 300; PS, III, 375–378); interaction of traces (memories) and new CRs (PS, I, 207).
5. Important experimental details of this failure to establish a second-order CR: Lindberg established a metronome’s beat as a CS. He then attempted to establish a rotating object (vertushka) as a second-order CS. Just as the metronome had elicited salivation (a first-order CR), now, after repeated trials in which the dog was exposed to the rotating object before the metronome sounded, that object alone elicited salivation. So far, so good. The metronome was a CS because it signaled the imminent arrival of food, and the rotating object was apparently a second-order CS that elicited salivation because it signaled the imminent sounding of the metronome. But further trials seemed to disprove this: the significance of the metronome was changed by repeatedly following it not with food, but rather with an unpleasant stimulation (probably electrical shock) to which the dog responded defensively. After repeated trials, the metronome, then, ceased to be a CS and its beat elicited no salivation. But the rotating object continued to elicit salivation. This, alas, indicated that the action of the rotating object rested not upon its connection to the metronome, but rather upon its direct connection to food. This in PS, I, 240, 242. Pavlov later assigned Maiorov to this same problem. Discussing Maiorov’s results during a Wednesday meeting of February 1934, he concluded that the variable results of attempts to develop second-order reflexes seemed to depend upon the interplay of excitatory and inhibitory processes. Despite decades of experiments, the dynamics of this interplay had not “fallen into our hands.... Elucidation of the mutual relations of these fundamental processes is our constant theme, which nevertheless remains fundamentally unresolved.” During this session, Pavlov again reviewed the history of lab research on second-order reflexes. This in PS, II, 229–234; citation on 229.
6. DO2, 106–125 (citation on 106), 384–408, 219–234, 240–244; LCR2, 44–59 (citation on 44), 60–70, 86–94, 98–101. The first of these appeared initially in English, in Murchison, Psychologies of 1930, alongside contributions by Alfred Adler, John Dewey, Pierre Janet, Wolfgang Köhler, and William McDougall.
7. DO2, 106–107; LCR2, 45–46. See especially Pavlov’s dialogue with Konorski at two sessions in October 1934 (PSS, II, 468–475, 480–490). See also PSS, II, 536–539, 557–559; Kimmel, “Notes: Pavlov’s Law”; and Windholz and Wyrwicka, “Pavlov’s Position.”
8. DO2, 240–243; LCR2, 98–99.
9. DO2, 241–242; LCR2, 98–99.
10. DO2, 243–244; LCR2, 100.
11. PKS, III, 407–409. He had suffered the death of his second son, Vsevolod, just three months earlier; the fact that here he recalled the death of Viktor fifteen years previously attests to Viktor’s special place in his father’s heart.
12. Pavlov, Zakonomernost’; DO2, 244; LCR2, 100–101; PKS, III, 42–43.
13. DO2, 407–408; LCR2, 69; and PS, III, 231. For elaboration of the analogy between chemist and physiologist, see PS, II, 564–565.
14. PS, II, 242 (reasonable); PS, I, 20, 91 57. On Gestalt psychology, see Ash, Gestalt, and Harrington, Reenchanted; on Gestalt, behaviorism, and the 1929 congress, see Sokal, “Gestalt.”
15. Izvestiia, September 8, 1933. Pavlov’s illness and busy schedule prevented him from summering at Koltushi in 1935. Pavlov met Yerkes during his trip to the United States in 1923, and thereafter the two exchanged publications and friendly letters (which did not prevent Pavlov from sometimes speaking acerbically at the Wednesdays about Yerkes’s scientific views). Yerkes sent Pavlov his The Mental Life of Monkeys and Apes (1924) and The Mind of Gorillas (1927). Yerkes and his daughter visited Pavlov’s lab and home in June 1929. In a letter of March 12, 1934, Yerkes informed Pavlov that he had received a letter from Denisov asking if “we would be willing to have him visit our laboratories to observe our provisions for the care and use of anthropoid apes,” to which Yerkes responded that he would be happy to do so. (In order to avoid the political vulnerability occasioned by receiving foreign mail, Denisov had asked Yerkes to reply to Pavlov.) On the exchange of works and personal relations: Yerkes to Pavlov, December 3, 1927; Pavlov to Yerkes, March 15, 1929; and Yerkes to Pavlov, November 3, 1929; in ARAN 259.2.342. For Yerkes’s response of March 12, 1934, to Denisov’s request, ARAN 259.2.1153.
16. Koehler, Mentality and Gestalt, 57, 280, 298–299. The latter work, aimed at American psychologists, appeared originally in English. Pavlov read the later German edition, Psychologische Probleme (1933). He no doubt read the first work in the original German. See Kimmel, “Notes: Gestalt.”
17. I am following, with some emendations, the periodization first suggested by Windholz in “Pavlov vs. Koehler,” 27.
18. PS, II, 68 (investigative reflex); 384 (food versus freedom); 517 (negative induction).
19. The four sources for this description of experiments are Denisov, “Analizatornaia” (1958); Pavlov’s comments at the Wednesdays of May 16, October 24, and November 28, 1934 (PS, II, 385, 517, 573–574), and Pavlov’s unfinished manuscripts, Nabliudeniia and Intellekt. Denisov delivered a short summary to the Physiological Congress in 1936, but his detailed article of 1958 was completed after Pavlov’s death and published only decades after his own. Here he rarely gives the dates for various trials, some of which he conducted after Pavlov’s death. Pavlov did not edit this article, and Denisov’s interpretation of later experiments does not reflect Pavlov’s thinking at the end of his life.
20. Taped interviews with Demin and Vinnitskii.
21. PS, II, 293–297, 385–387. Note that in this final citation Pavlov speaks of “associations” rather than “conditional reflexes,” an indication that he was already finding it easier to describe the chimps’ behavior in the general terms of the former than in the specific terms of the latter. Some months later (PS, II, 516), he put it this way: “In all this ‘thinking’ there really is nothing other than our conditional reflexes and chains of these associations.” Here the relationship between CRs and associations is ambiguous—are they synonymous or not?
22. PS, II, 429–432, 571–574.
23. PS, II, 388 (repulsive); 564–569 (word game, Levin, sack of cucumbers); 586 (most basic and true); PS, III, 43 (dualism and war with Köhler).
24. PS, II, 430–431. The observation about the importance of the monkey’s hands to its intellect was not, of course, original to Pavlov. Indeed, among many who had commented on it were Friedrich Engels in his essay on the role of labor in the transformation of primates into humans, a manuscript that was published to great fanfare in the USSR.
25. PS, III, 16–17 (water and fire); 120 (key and fire).
26. Pavlov, Intellekt, 1–4. I date this manuscript from roughly January–March 1935 based on Pavlov’s references to particular experiments and their durations, which I cross-referenced with his comments on experiments during the Wednesdays (where dates are clearly established). A second manuscript on chimps in Pavlov’s papers, Nabliudeniia, appears to be notes written at some earlier date.
27. In the margins, Pavlov noted a partial alternative or addition to his notion that the growing proximity of food provided the subcortical drive, and so the cortical “tonus,” behind this process: “the reflex of goal”; that is, as he had suggested long ago, goal seeking was itself a basic drive, the satisfaction of which would, then, reinforce associations.
28. Pavlov, Intellekt, 3–7.
29. Pavlov, Intellekt, 7.
30. PS, II, 578–579; PS, III, 135, 196–197.
31. PS, III, 261.
32. PS, III, 262.
33. PS, III, 262.
34. PS, III, 262.
35. PS, III, 263. Two Communist coworkers later described this as an important clarification (Maiorov) or reformulation (Asratian) of Pavlovian doctrine. Maiorov, Istoriia, 298–299; Asratian, Ivan Petrovich Pavlov, 241–245. For the significance of this within the later context of debates about Pavlovism and cybernetics, see Gerovich, “Love-Hate.” Pavlov may have been influenced by a passage in Köhler’s The Mentality of Apes, a book he had studied very closely. Here Köhler emphasized this same distinction between temporary signals, on the one hand, and the “material, inner relation” between two things, on the other (228–229). This was precisely the task that Pavlov was now pursuing, having opened the door by distinguishing between associations in general and CRs in particular.
36. Pavlov, Psikhologiia. This file includes Pavlov’s handwritten draft, a copy of that draft in a more legible hand, and a final typed version with insertions in Pavlov’s hand. Citations are from the typed manuscript.
37. Pavlov, Psikhologiia, 11–12.
38. Pavlov, Psikhologiia, 12.
39. Narbutovich and Podkopaev, “Uslovnyi.”
40. In his introduction to Twenty Years of Experience (1923), Pavlov recognized Thorndike’s priority in setting an objectivist path for psychology in his Animal Intelligence (1898), yet recalled that he became acquainted with that work only years after launching his own studies of CRs (DO, 15; LCR, 39–40). Thorndike’s research proceeded along a path much different from Pavlov’s, and Pavlov made no substantive reference to the American until 1934: PS, II, 571–572, 576–578. Pavlov’s first use of the term “trial and error” followed soon after he turned to Thorndike in this later context.
41. Thorndike’s Law of Effect cited from Boakes, From Darwin, 74. Narbutovich and Podkopaev emphasized this point about maintaining the necessary “tonus” for a cortical association in “Uslovnyi,” 7–9, 23–25.
42. Pavlov, Psikhologiia, 13–13rev.
43. Pavlov, Psikhologiia, 13rev–14.
44. PS, III, 393–395, 414–415.
1. Chizhevskii, “O poseshchenii,” 467. This memoir conflates his visits to Pavlov’s lab several times in the 1920s and 1930s. Recounting this episode, he mentions seeing Bezpalov’s statue memorializing the dog’s contributions to physiology, which dates this visit from no earlier than August 1935, which corresponds precisely to other times Pavlov expressed the sentiments he records.
2. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 85. In a letter of November 25, 1932 (ARAN 259.4.176), the Committee on Scientists and Educational Institutions expressed the state’s grateful recognition of Pavlov’s decisive role in having the XVth Congress convened in the USSR.
3. The secret police, initially the Cheka, became the GPU in 1922, the OGPU in 1924, and the NKVD in 1934. Perchenok (“Akademiia,” 190) relates thirdhand information to the effect that by the 1930s the NKVD possessed five volumes of surveillance reports on Pavlov. Iu. A. Vinogradov, drawing on a secondhand conversation, told me the same thing in 1991. My many attempts over the years to gain access to these reports all failed. By fortunate accident, I found five of them—for the period September 13–October 5, 1934—misfiled in RGASPI SPB. (These reports were supposed to have been returned promptly to the NKVD.) Two of these agenturnye zapiski are from separate informers whose case officers are identified and are themselves referred to by the cover names “KR” and “Nikolaevskii.” Three are in the form of a “special report” (spetssoobshchenie) from Leningrad NKVD chief F. D. Medved and his assistant head A. R. Stromin to the Leningrad Regional Communist Party’s Second Secretary M. S. Chudov. One is also directed to Fedor Ugarov of the Leningrad Party Committee. These special reports draw upon more than one source, one of whom clearly had access to private Pavlov family discussions.
4. Denisov, “Pavlov,” 41–42.
5. Author’s interview with Fadeeva.
6. Gantt, Pavlov: A New Science at 84, AMC, box 191, folder 13, chapter V, 3.
7. Tucker, Stalin, 238–268, 354–355, 282–288; Cohen, Bukharin, 34, 347–348, 357; Medvedev, Bukharin. The new constitution was adopted after Pavlov’s death and in practice guaranteed precious little to the citizens of Stalin’s time.
8. Tucker, Stalin, 303–308; Rimmel, “Microcosm.”
9. NKVD surveillance report of September 13, 1934, in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 6–7.
10. Khlevniukh, Stalin, 496–497.
11. N. Bukharin, “Ivan Petrovich Pavlov,” Izvestiia, September 27, 1934. Pavlov carefully read articles about himself in the leading Soviet press—and once protested when Izvestiia published an article of his without permission—so Bukharin and others could frame such articles however they pleased but also needed to be basically accurate in order to avoid displeasing the famous scientist.
12. NKVD surveillance report of October 11, 1934, in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 17–21.
13. ARAN 259.4.209: 2.
14. NKVD surveillance report of September 28, 1934, in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 10–12.
15. NKVD surveillance report of September 28, 1934, in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 10–11.
16. NKVD surveillance report of September 28, 1934, in RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 10–12. It was during this trip that Kapitsa, who had been working in England, was forcibly detained in the USSR and refused permission to leave the country. A second NKVD informer reported that Pavlov was very well inclined toward Kapitsa and deeply disturbed by this affair, but had expressed to Kupalov and Rozental’ some acceptance of the state’s argument that Kapitsa had “sold out the homeland.” Rozental’, who probably suspected that this source worked to the NKVD, commented that he had previously planned to invite Kapitsa to dinner but now would not, since he was “a traitor to the homeland.” This from an NKVD report of October 5, 1934, in RGASPI SPB, fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 15–16.
17. TsGA SPB 1000.70.36: 13–15; ARAN 259.4.209.
18. Pavlov to G. N. Kaminskii, October 5, 1934, ARAN 259.4.209: 9.
19. Author’s interview with Galperin; A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 110; personal communication of Boris Volodin in February 1991. Pavlov’s relationship with Kirov was sufficiently comfortable and routine for him to turn to the Bolshevik leader for help in the relatively minor task of arranging the celebration of the thirtieth jubilee of Sergei Davidenkov’s scientific work. RGASPI SPB fond 24 opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757: 3.
20. RGASPI SPB 2019.2.142: 83.
21. “Beseda akademika I. P. Pavlova s delegatsiei kolkhoznikov,” Pravda, January 1, 1935. Pavlov never attended the meeting, but his delegate’s ticket remained among his personal papers at ARAN.
22. Draft of letter from Pavlov to Molotov, probably written in mid-1935, ARAN 259.1a.39.
23. This account is based on the remarks recorded in a typed, unsigned document in ARAN 259.1.112 (apparently preserved from the stenographer’s record, though excised from the published version of the Wednesdays), and the recollections of Fadeeva (author’s interview) and Traugott (taped interview). In Traugott’s version, Pavlov said of the prospect of free elections: “this is not [merely] a swallow, this is spring.”
24. Pavlov’s letter to Molotov of December 21, 1934 (unrelenting terror), is discussed below. The full extent of his efforts is still coming to light and cannot be judged by available material. He often acted by phone or telegram, and these—like the records of those Soviet citizens who were not actually “repressed” and imprisoned—remain largely unavailable to historians.
25. Grekova, who examined Denisov’s NKVD file, discusses this arrest and two subsequent ones in her article “Denisov.” Denisov mentioned Pavlov’s intervention to a fellow prisoner when he was arrested again after Pavlov’s death. See Dicharov, Raspiatye, 50. Both Vyrzhikovskaia (author’s interview) and Denisov’s wife Gul’ (taped interview) also recalled that Pavlov saved Denisov in 1935. Vyrzhikovskaia and Galperin (author’s interviews) both told me that Pavlov saved Maiorov with a phone call. Maiorov’s Communist Party dossier (RGASPI SPB 1728.30945) records that he was excluded from the Party in 1935–1936 and then fully restored to membership, but makes no mention of an arrest. At least two other Communists in Pavlov’s circle were also endangered in 1935: Fedorov was denounced as a former White, but, apparently with Stalin’s support, survived (RGASPI SPB 1728.308501: 1–3); Dolin was expelled from the Party in January 1935 but was inexplicably reinstated one month later.
26. Vyrzhikovskii’s widow (author’s interview) told me of Pavlov’s intervention to save her husband and shared her suspicion that it was Denisov, who worked with Vyrzhikovskii at Koltushi, who had denounced him. She added that Pavlov saved Krasnogorskii at the same time. Leibson (author’s interview), a student in the Nervous Clinic at the time, also testified that Pavlov twice saved Krasnogorskii from arrest and that he had heard an account of this from Krasnogorskii’s son.
27. Pavlov’s letter of May 27, 1935, to the Leningrad Soviet on behalf of Barkhatova is preserved in ARAN 135.1 (1935): 6. My thanks to Iu. A. Vinogradov, who discovered this document, for bringing it to my attention.
28. “‘Poshchadite zhe Rodinu,’” 143–144. In a taped interview, Adlerberg-Zotova gratefully recalled Pavlov’s intervention and its successful results. According to Kurakin (Sergeev, Rasskazy, 18), Pavlov also saved Leningrad University Professor of Physiology A. A. Ukhtomskii from arrest in mid-1935. On petitioners at Pavlov’s apartment, see Rimmel, “Microcosm,” 539. Rimmel’s source recalls that Pavlov forbade his wife from opening the door to these petitioners, helped only one or two relatives, and “categorically refused” the rest. Those last conclusions, as we have seen, were false. But Pavlov knew that he could only help an infinitesimal fraction of the terror’s victims and had learned that the regime was most likely to respond positively when he could personally vouch for the “loyalty” of a victim, so he certainly adopted some criteria to guide his interventions. Clearly, he helped people in his “extended family” (both personal and scientific) and was especially moved by those victimized for their religious beliefs—but available information does not allow us to estimate their number or understand the principles of this sad triage. Pavlov’s efforts on behalf of victims were clearly much more extensive than documented to date. Vsevolod’s wife recalled the various procedures that Vsevolod and his father adopted to petition on behalf of the regime’s victims (E. S. Pavlova, Iz vospominanii); some left no archival trace and the records of a number of these avenues have not been explored. For example, Molotov’s copy of Pavlov’s letter to him of December 8, 1935, refers to three people, M. A. Lemnitskaia, G. I. Men’shikov, and P. M. Elagin, whose banishment was lifted at Pavlov’s request. Yet archival evidence of Pavlov’s intervention on their behalf has not been located. This in “Poshchadite,” 143. That Pavlov suffered deeply over the repression, acted on behalf of many victims, and agonized about his limited ability to do so is unquestionable.
29. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 129.
30. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 331–332.
31. Pavlov to SNK, December 21, 1934, in “Poshchadite,” 139–140.
32. ARAN 259.1a.38.
33. “Poshchadite,” 140–141.
34. “Poshchadite,” 141.
35. “Poshchadite,” 141.
36. “Poshchadite,” 142.
37. For this and another successful intervention on behalf of Sechenov’s niece, see “Poshchadite,” 142–143.
38. Podkopaev reported on Pavlov’s illness to the Wednesday gathering of May 31, using extracts from the medical bulletins. His report appears in PS, III, 164–166. I have relied here also on Serafima’s account in Vospominaniia, 251–253; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 129–136; Vsevolod’s letter to Iosif Rozental’, April 26, 1935, ARAN 259.7.285: 15; letters from Vera and Savich to Babkin, as cited in BabkinMS, 385–387; and Serafima Pavlova to Babkin, May 13, 1935, in OLAC 390/22/3/14.
39. Pavlova to Babkin, May 13, 1935, OLAC 390/22/3/14; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 251–252; Kurakin, in Sergeev, Rasskazy, 12.
40. Pavlov to Pavlova, June 15, [1935], ARAN 259.2.1300/2.
41. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 139–140. The official position was that he had “completely recovered” (Pravda, July 25, 1935).
42. “Akademik Pavlov o Sovetskoi Rodine,” Izvestiia, July 6, 1935.
43. Maiskii, Vospominaniia, 277.
44. New York Times, July 29 and 31, 1935.
45. Sunday Express, August 4, 1935.
46. Letter from British Union for the Abolition of Vivisection, August 2, 1935, ARAN 259.3.1: 42. Upon his return, while inspecting the new statue honoring the dog that he had designed for the VIEM, he commented: “In London I couldn’t show myself at all. An antivivisectionist journal poured buckets of abuse upon me: ‘Bandit. Barbarian.’ I should photograph this memorial and send it to them.” This in Izvestiia, August 8, 1935.
47. Maiskii, Vospominaniia, 278.
48. Pravda, July 16, 17, 23, 25, 26, 30, 31 and August 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8; Izvestiia, July 23, 24, 27, 29, 30 and August 3, 5, 6. Vladimir’s contributions appeared in Izvestiia of July 27, July 29, and August 5.
49. Pravda and Izvestiia, August 6, 1935.
50. This account of the exchange between Fedorov, Kaminskii, and Pavlov (Pravda, August 8, 1935) differs only in minor details from that in Izvestiia the same day. In Izvestiia’s version, Pavlov’s concern about “justifying” expenditures was elicited by a “question” from Kaminskii about Koltushi, and Pavlov’s wording is somewhat different. It would have been characteristic to express the same sentiments in basically the same words in two separate exchanges.
1. The other two members of the state committee were Gleb Krzhizhanovskii, former head of the State Committee for Planning (Gosplan) and author of Lenin’s program for national electrification, and Nikolai Krestinskii, a former ally of Trotsky’s who had since renounced his heresy but was clearly doomed.
2. Orbeli, Vospominaniia, 85–88.
3. Bukharin to Pavlov, March 4, 1933, ARAN 259.1a.25. On the same day as he wrote to Pavlov about Shtern, Bukharin dashed off a note to Vsevolod (ARAN 259.1a.25), asking him urgently to intervene. “This is absolutely necessary to avoid various unpleasantnesses that could arise.” An NKVD surveillance report of September 13, 1935, warned that Vsevolod and his allies had almost persuaded Pavlov to “write a letter of apology to his foreign colleagues, saying that he had been mistaken to invite them to conduct the work of the next International Congress in the USSR.” RGASPI SPB opis’ 2v sviazka 567 delo 757. Perepiska (1934): 5–6.
4. Stetskii’s letters and Bukharin’s note to Stalin, in Esakov, Akademiia, 134–137.
5. Ukhtomskii, XV Mezhdunarodnyi, 5.
6. TsGANTD 182.1-1.486 and 182.1-1.489; TsGA SPB 7384.18.62 and 1000.71.178; GARF 5446.16.3345 and 5446.16.3151.
7. Cannon to Gustav Eckstein, January 14, 1937, FCL, box 37, folder 483.
8. Fulton, Trip, 3–6; Izvestiia, August 9, 1935.
9. Fulton, Trip, 6–7; Cannon, Friendship, 5.
10. The prepared typed text of Pavlov’s remarks with handwritten revisions is in ARAN 259.1.114. There are indications that not only Kaminskii but also Petrova and Fedorov spoke to him about this speech. In my interview with him, Galperin commented that Pavlov “would not have spoken against war if Maria Kapitonovna [Petrova] had not asked him”—and suggested that Fedorov had urged her to do so.
11. Wolfe, Barger, and Benison, Cannon, 333–354. On Cannon’s speech in the context of his career, political views, and analogical thinking regarding the body and society, see Cross and Albury, “Cannon”; and Benison, “Cannon.”
12. Fulton, Trip, 6b; Pravda and Izvestiia, August 10, 11, and 17, 1935.
13. Fulton, Trip, 8.
14. Izvestiia, August 11, 1935; Fulton, Trip, 11–13.
15. Fulton, Trip, 13–18. Pavlov’s remarks were published in Izvestiia the following day (August 16); for his manuscript draft, see ARAN 259.1.68.
16. Izvestiia, August 15, 1935; Cannon, Friendship, 5–7; Fulton, Trip, 16–17.
17. “Beseda s akademikom I. P. Pavlovym,” Izvestiia, August 18, 1935.
18. Izvestiia, August 18, 1935; Fulton, Trip, 17–18.
19. Barger’s speech was published in Pravda, August 18, 1935.
20. Taped interview with Demin.
21. Fulton, Trip, 19; Chuev, Molotov, 537–538. In an interview with Chuev, Molotov characterized Pavlov as a “patriot” who “did not like the Communists.” Molotov’s speech and Pavlov’s toast were published in Izvestiia, August 20, 1935.
22. Izvestiia, August 20, 1935; Franklin, “Short History,” 320.
23. Cannon, “Friendship.”
24. Izvestiia, August 20, 1935.
25. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 96.
26. Orlov, Moi vospominaniia. On the catastrophic history of collectivization in Riazan, see Viola, et al., Riazanskaia.
27. A. F. Pavlov, Vospominaniia ob akademike, 96–97, 188–203; Amanova, Vospominaniia o priezde I. P. Pavlova v Riazan’, in MMU; Orlov, Moi vospominaniia; Merkulov, Letopis’, entries for August 18–21; Izvestiia, August 20, 1935; Pravda, August 21, 1935; Leningradskaia Pravda, August 21 and 22, 1935.
1. E. S. Pavlova, Iz vospominanii; Bezpalov, Stroitel’stvo; Rozhanskii, Lichnye, 14–15; Pavlov to Maiskii, October 20, 1935, ARAN 259.7.217: 15; Maiskii, Vospominaniia, 278; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 150; taped interview with Vinnitskii.
2. Pavlov to Maiskii, October 20, 1935, ARAN 259.7.217: 15.
3. Taped interview with Vinnitskii.
4. Nesterov, “I. P. Pavlov,” 344–346; Nesterov, Pis’ma, 396–398; Nesterov, Davnie, 301, 330–332; E. S. Pavlova, Iz vospominanii; “V gostiakh u akad. I. P. Pavlova,” Izvestiia, August 27, 1935; Maiskii to Pavlov, September 28, 1935, ARAN 259.7.217.
5. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 144–146.
6. Nesterov, Davnie, 302.
7. Nesterov, Davnie, 302; Eckstein, “Pavlov,” 37; Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 36; Pavlova, “Iz vospominanii,”143; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 145.
8. Pavlov’s handwritten remarks at Vsevolod’s grave, ARAN 259.1.133.
9. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 155; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 254.
10. Izvestiia, October 31, 1935.
11. My account of Vsevolod’s death and funeral is drawn from E. S. Pavlova, Iz vospominanii, 8; Evlakhov, Vospominaniia, 36; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 155; Izvestiia, October 31 and November 2, 1935; Pravda, October 31, 1935; Leningradskaia Pravda, November 1, 1935; Pavlov, Ob odnom. Pavlov’s analysis ignored Serafima’s genetic contribution.
12. Serafima Pavlova to E. I. and B. P. Babkin, December 23, 1935, OLAC 390/22/3/15; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 254.
13. For Molotov’s request, the Academy of Science’s inquiries, and Pavlov’s reply, see ARAN 2.17.168, 2.17, no. 115: 148; 259.17.15: 146; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 151. Molotov accepted Pavlov’s explanation, so his report was postponed to this later date, by which time Pavlov had passed away. On Molotov’s directive to Kol’tsov, see Medovoi, Mikhail, 170–172. According to this source, Molotov directed Kol’tsov to criticize also the similar views of another privileged “bourgeois intellectual,” biogeochemist Vernadsky.
14. Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 129; V. I. Pavlova to E. I. and B. P. Babkin, January 2, 1936, OLAC 390/22/2/4.
15. ARAN 2.17.115.
16. ARAN 259.4.17.
17. Za Industrializatsiiu, January 14 and 16, 1936. On Stakhanovism, see Siegelbaum, Stakhanovism. Encouraged by Pavlov’s response, Lenin’s widow Nadezhda Krupskaya tried to enlist him in her efforts to popularize science among the masses. Acknowledging the importance of this task, he demurred: “My aging head, apparently, is already overstressed by current...and necessary scientific-investigative work.” He offered, however, to delegate a coworker to help. ARAN 259.2.1175 and 259.7.141.
18. ARAN 259.1.72. This statement first appeared in two publications aimed at the April 1936 meeting of the Young Communist League, the popular science journal for youth Tekhnika Molodezhi and the collection Pokolenie Pobeditelei. It has been republished many times—for example, in PSS, I, 22–23 (where it is incorrectly dated as 1935).
19. On Kir’ianova, see ARAN 259.2.186: 41–43. I am unable to determine her fate. For another petitioner at the time, see ARAN 259.2.130.
20. G. A. Bogomolov to Pavlov (n.d.), ARAN 259.2.87. For Gannushchenko, see ARAN 259.2.187.
21. Bogomolov to Pavlov, ARAN 259.2.87.
22. “Poshchadite,” 143–144. On December 2, 1935—six days before Pavlov wrote this letter—Pravda quoted Stalin’s comment that “A son is not responsible for his father,” signaling an easing of discrimination against children of repressed parents. On December 29, the Politburo lifted the prohibition against enrollment of these children in higher education. Two months later, it allowed children of those exiled from Leningrad in 1935 to return to the city. See Khlevniuk, Master, 134–136.
23. Cannon, Friendship, 6–7; “Poshchadite,” 143–144; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 159–160. Drafts of his letter and essay (ARAN 259.1a.39) consist of three parts: 1) a draft of the first part of the essay in Pavlov’s hand (1–4rev), followed by a transcription in another hand (5–9rev), a typed copy with Pavlov’s corrections (10–15), and a second, incomplete typed copy (16–18); 2) a draft of the second part of the essay in Pavlov’s hand (19–23), a transcription in another hand (23–27rev), and a typed copy of that transcription (28–31); and 3) a letter in Pavlov’s hand (32–32rev), a transcription of that letter in another hand (33–34rev), and a typed copy of that transcription (35–36). Pavlov’s corrections to his first draft, and the differences (other than length) between his arguments in the essay and those in his letter, were minor.
24. ARAN 259.1a.39:10, 16. Throughout this section, I use the page numbers from the final typescript of this document and letter. To avoid confusion for non-Russian speakers, when I cite Pavlov using the words sluchainost’ and its plural form sluchainosti, I cite them in the nominative form rather than in their various declensions.
25. ARAN 259.1a.39:12. On religious belief as a “purely personal matter” and “an achievement of cultural progress,” see 11rev and 17rev.
26. ARAN 259.1a.39: 28.
27. ARAN 259.1a.39: 28–29.
28. ARAN 259.1a.39: 29–29rev. Pavlov’s analysis of religion in some ways resembled Freud’s, but the latter emphasized that the religious response to such dangers was very harmful.
29. ARAN 259.1a.39: 10rev.
30. ARAN 259.1a.39: 22rev (in Pavlov’s hand), 27–28 (in another hand), 31rev (typed version). In his reference to Jesus’s teachings about equality and his comment about the Communists’ “undeniable service,” Pavlov uses the word ideino, which I have translated in both cases as “moral concept.”
31. Taped interview with Demin. He was probably reading here from one of a number of unpublished manuscripts that circulated informally after Pavlov’s death and contained excerpts of his unpublishable remarks during the Wednesdays. (During the interview, Demin cited a number of Pavlov’s comments that, as he pointed out, had been expurgated from PS.) Such manuscripts may have originated with one of the stenographers or with somebody who had access to the editorial work for PS. Some of these excerpts are preserved, their source unattributed, in the uncatalogued Merkulov papers at VMAK. Other former coworkers also recalled the gist of Pavlov’s remarks at this session. Demin, who was interviewed by Iu. A. Vinogradov in 1968, made clear that he disagreed with Pavlov’s sentiments, which demonstrated the “lack of breadth in his political views; not everything was good in this great man.”
32. Chizhevskii, “O poseshchenii,” 467–468. Internal evidence indicates that this discussion occurred during Chizhevskii’s visit sometime after the 1935 Congress.
33. Author’s interview with Vyrzhikovskaia. For a profound analysis of the relationship—and perceptions of the relationship—between Jews and the Communist Party, see Slezkine, Jewish Century, 105–308.
34. Chizhevskii, “O poseshchenii,” 467–468.
35. In a portion of her memoirs composed in 1937, Pavlova wrote that, as a veteran of the movement to “serve the people” in the 1870s who loved her homeland and the Russian people, “I cannot but sympathize with the restructuring of life [by Soviet power] for the happiness of the people. I see great mistakes in this restructuring, but consider them inevitable during such an enormous task (people often err even in small new tasks), and hope that in the final analysis everything will turn out well.” She added that “I am certain that Communism will triumph everywhere as a new form of society. But for long? I do not know.” She considered the three most important errors of the regime to be the persecution of religion, the destruction of the traditional role of women, and the facilitation of “popular drunkenness.” Pavlova, Otdel’nye glavy, 393–400.
36. Petrova, Vospominaniia, 105–109; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 254–255, and her letter to the Babkins of March 22, 1936, in OLAC 390/22/3/17.
37. Bezpalov, Stroitel’stvo, pp. 17–18.
38. Lindberg, Poslednii; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 254–255, and her letter to the Babkins of March 22, 1936, in OLAC 390/22/3/17.
39. Serafima Pavlova to the Babkins, March 22, 1936; Pavlova, Vospominaniia, 254–255; Speranskii, Pavlov; Petrova, Vospominaniia, 164–165; Istoriia bolezni I. P. Pavlova, in ARAN 259.4.59. Pavlov’s death certificate attributed his death to “influenzal pneumonia of both lungs” (ARAN 259.4.60). According to Speranskii, an autopsy revealed that he indeed had edema of the brain.
1. N. Izgoev, “U groba,” Izvestiia, February 29, 1936. The pages of Pravda, Leningradskaia Pravda, Izvestiia, and other official organs were full of items about Pavlov’s death and funeral, accounts of memorial speeches and memorial meetings, and assessments of his scientific contributions and patriotic sentiments from February 28 through early March.
2. “Rech’ tov. Kaminskogo,” Pravda, March 2, 1936; for Dolin, TsGANTD 182.1-1.527: 197–198; for Komarov, Bor[is] Galin, “Poslednii put’,” Pravda, March 2, 1936; Bukharin, “Pamiati.”
3. N. K. Kol’tsov to L. A. Orbeli, June 19, 1938, ARAN 895.3.556.
4. For analysis of the contradictory developments during Pavlov’s last years and their resolution by high Stalinism, see Getty, Origins, and Schlögel, Moscow.
5. Nauchnaia sessiia; Pollack, Stalin, 136–167.
6. Maiorov, Istoriia.
7. Gureeva, Chebysheva, and Merkulov, Letopis’; Merkulov, Letopis’. For a partial list of these interviews, see the Bibliography.
8. On the West, see Ruiz et al., “Pavlov in America”; and Michaels, Lamaze. On Russia, see Krementsov, Stalinist Science, 260–275; Gerovich, “Love-Hate”; Joravsky, Russian Psychology; Pollack, Stalin; Rüting, Pavlov; and Zajicek, Scientific Psychiatry.
9. Bayliss, Principles, 371; for an introduction to these disagreements, see Babkin, Secretory.
10. See, for example, Rescorla, “Pavlovian.”