Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna - scientific activity. Living matter by Olga Lepeshinskaya Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

Lepeshinskaya's main scientific works are related to the topics of animal cell membranes and the histology of bone tissue.

She studied the problems of human longevity. She recommended soda baths as a rejuvenating agent.

Lepeshinskaya proposed a method of treating wounds with blood, which was used in wartime.

New cell formation

Photographs of the “yolk ball” at different stages of embryo development according to O. B. Lepeshinskaya.

Lepeshinskaya conducted her research on chicken eggs, fish eggs, tadpoles, and also on hydras.

“It was 1933<…>. One spring, I caught tadpoles that had just hatched from eggs and brought them to the laboratory. I take one and crush it. I put a drop of blood and mucus from a crushed tadpole under a microscope.<…>. Eagerly, impatiently, I look for red blood cells in my field of vision.

But what is it? My gaze is fixed on some balls. I focus the microscope lens. Before me is a completely incomprehensible picture: among the fully developed blood cells, I clearly distinguish some kind of underdeveloped cells - fine-grained yolk balls without nuclei, smaller yolk balls, but with a nucleus beginning to form. It seemed that before my eyes was a complete picture of the birth of a cell..."

In 1934, Lepeshinskaya published a monograph “On the issue of new cell formation in the animal body.” Based on E. Haeckel’s biogenetic law, Lepeshinskaya suggested that the body contains unformed protoplasmic formations like Haeckel’s hypothetical “monera”, which are transformed into cells.

In 1939, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of cellular science, Lepeshinskaya’s new article “The Origin of the Cell” was published, in which Lepeshinskaya named the Swiss anatomist and embryologist V. Gies as her predecessor. This scientist made observations of blood islands inside the yolk sac. According to the historian of science A.E. Gaisinovich, the conclusions of this scientist were caused by the imperfection of the staining technique, and the author himself, being a student of Remak and Virchow, abandoned these views already at the end of the 19th century.

In the same publication, Lepeshinskaya referred to the work of M.D. Lavdovsky, professor of histology at the Military Medical Academy, author of one of the first Russian manuals on microscopic anatomy, who in 1899 suggested the possibility of cell formation from living matter as a formative substance.

Also in her works, Lepeshinskaya referred to the theory of protomers by M. Heidenhain and the symplastic theory of F. Studnicka, “karyosomes” by Minchin.

From left to right: red blood cell, platelet and white blood cell. The picture was taken with a scanning electron microscope

In the 1930s, Lepeshinskaya studied the membranes of red blood cells, noticing that with age they become denser and less permeable. To soften their shells, she suggested using soda. In 1953, in her article “On the principle of treatment with soda baths,” Lepeshinskaya reported that soda can “play a big role in the fight against old age, hypertension, sclerosis and other diseases.” She claimed that if you inject soda into fertilized chicken eggs, the chickens show gluttony and outstrip the control chickens in growth and do not die from rheumatism. Lepeshinskaya also pointed out the beneficial effect of soda solution on plant seeds.

Studying the effect of blood products on healing processes, Lepeshinskaya proposed a method of treating wounds with blood. This proposal was supported by a number of medical leaders. In 1940, she submitted for publication to Soviet Surgery a work on the treatment of wounds with blood entitled “The Role of Living Matter in the Process of Wound Healing.” The article was not published, but in 1942, the newspaper “Medical Worker” published an article by Picus under the heading “Hemobandages,” which stated that the author of the article, a surgeon at a military hospital, successfully used this method of treating wounds in wartime.

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

Lepeshinskaya’s theory of non-cellular living matter was awarded government awards and was opposed to “bourgeois” genetics as a Marxist theory. This teaching was included in secondary and high school textbooks of Stalin's times as a major biological discovery in the field of Darwinism. Lepeshinskaya's book was supplemented with numerous praises for Stalin and republished, and in 1950 its author, who was already 79 years old, was awarded the Stalin Prize.

Since 1949, Lepeshinskaya worked at the Institute of Experimental Biology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, where she headed the Department of Development of Living Matter.

On April 7, 1950, a meeting of the joint Commission of the USSR Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences was held to organize a meeting to discuss the work of O. B. Lepeshinskaya. The chairman of the commission was Academician-Secretary of the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences A. I. Oparin.

The director of the Institute of Animal Morphology of the USSR Academy of Sciences, Professor G. K. Khrushchov, was instructed not only to familiarize himself with the work of O. B. Lepeshinskaya’s laboratory, but also to prepare a demonstration of her preparations, as well as to make an assessment of the results of her work and the prospects for their further development.

From May 22 to May 24, 1950, a meeting on the problem of living matter and cell development took place in Moscow in the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. At this meeting, Lepeshinskaya’s theory was supported by all the speakers, and in particular by T.D. Lysenko. Professor G.K. Khrushchov, who prepared demonstration preparations for the Commission of the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, stated at this meeting that all the material presented by Lepeshinskaya was “completely reliable and repeatable” and that for cytology “it is of great importance.”

Lepeshinskaya’s closest collaborator, V. G. Kryukov, argued in 1989 that the preparation of drugs by G. K. Khrushchov had an “obvious meaning” - the need to “remove all criticism of the “unsatisfactory quality” of Lepeshinskaya’s drugs.” Speaking at the meeting, Professor, Head of the Department of Histology of the 1st Moscow Medical Institute M. A. Baron said:

“Everyone can be convinced of the evidence of these drugs. They make a strong impression."

Lepeshinskaya herself said the following at this meeting about the presence of experimental confirmation of her work:

We have been working on this problem for more than fifteen years, and so far our data have not yet been experimentally refuted by anyone, but there is confirmation, especially recently.

A translation of an article by G. K. Khrushchev, published in the East German newspaper Tägliche Rundschau on July 12, 1950, supporting Lepeshinskaya's teachings, appeared in The Journal of Heredity in May 1951. Directly followed in the same issue of the journal was a translation of Professor Nachtsheim’s article in the West Berlin “Tagesspiegel” dated June 20, 1950, criticizing the teachings of Lepeshinskaya and Lysenko.

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

The ideas expressed by Lepeshinskaya were criticized by biologists N.K. Koltsov, B.P. Tokin, M.S. Navashin, A.A. Zavarzin, N.G. Khlopin and others. In the ensuing controversy, Lepeshinskaya accused them of idealism.

In particular, in 1935 B.P. Tokin, former director of the Biological Institute. Timiryazev, speaking about Lepeshinskaya’s interpretation of the biogenetic law, argued:

“The origin of the cell from the yolk ball in the chick embryo is understood as a recapitulation of an early phase in the evolution of the cell, as Lepeshinskaya does, also “scientifically”, as if these same yolk balls, which are a derivative of cells, wanted to be mistaken for the primary living protein, originating from inorganic matter."

Later, B.P. Tokin, who also put forward the concept of cell ontogeny as its development between two divisions, responding to Lepeshinskaya’s attack, in the 8th issue of the magazine “Under the Banner of Marxism” for 1936, wrote:

“Since we are talking about the de novo formation of cells of modern organisms, which are the product of a long course of evolution, there is nothing to discuss, since such ideas are a long-gone, infant stage in the development of science and are now beyond its boundaries.”

Soviet scientist-pathologist Ya. L. Rapoport wrote:

I remembered the laboratory assistants in the laboratory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya pounding beet grains in mortars: this was not “pounding in a mortar,” but an experimental development of the greatest discoveries in biology, made by maniacal ignoramuses propping each other up.

In 1939, the “Archive of Biological Sciences” published an article by leading Soviet histologists A. A. Zavarzin, D. N. Nasonov, N. G. Khlopin entitled “On one “direction” in cytology.” Analyzing in detail Lepeshinskaya’s work on the yolk of a chicken egg, on sturgeon eggs and on hydra, the authors noted the methodological imperfection of her work. The authors of this article criticized the theoretical conclusions of Lepeshinskaya, concluding that “in all these works, instead of exact facts, the reader is presented with the fruits of the author’s imagination, which actually stands at the level of science of the late 18th or the very beginning of the 19th century,” “sweeps aside all organic evolution and all modern embryology " Concluding their article, the authors noted that all those scientists whom Lepeshinskaya accused of being biased towards her work “must admit to one great guilt, namely: that by their connivance they contributed to the fact that O. B. Lepeshinskaya could develop her non-scientific activities so much time, and were unable to direct its energy along the channel of some other, truly scientific problem.”

On July 7, 1948, an article “On an unscientific concept” appeared in the “Medical Worker” newspaper. Its authors were 13 Leningrad biologists, led by the head of the histology department of the Military Medical Academy, full member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences N. G. Khlopin. In this article, the authors suggested that Lepeshinskaya, by randomly arranging photographs, presented the process of degeneration of the yolk globules as the emergence of cells from “living matter.” The article was signed by full members of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences N. G. Khlopin, D. N. Nasonov, corresponding member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences P. G. Svetlov, professors Yu. I. Polyansky, P. V. Makarov, N. A. Gerbilsky, 3 S. Katsnelson, B. P. Tokin, V. Ya. Aleksandrov, Sh. D. Galustyan, Doctors of Biological Sciences A. G. Knorre, V. P. Mikhailov, Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Sciences V. A. Dogel.

Critics argued that Lepeshinskaya “actually called for a return to the views of Schleiden and Schwann, that is, to the level of science of the 1830s.”

In 1958, a critical assessment of Lepeshinskaya’s theory followed in the journal Science by scientists L.N. Zhinkin and V.P. Mikhailov.

To the family. The father died three years after Olga was born. Brothers - Boris, Alexander (elder) and Dmitry (younger), sister Elizaveta (elder) and Natalya (younger). Mother Elizaveta Fedorovna Dammer (by Protopopov's husband) owned mines, steamships and apartment buildings. According to Olga, she had an energetic, authoritative character of wide scope, “there was something from Vassa Zheleznova in my mother”.

While still studying at the gymnasium, Olga quarreled with her mother. Elizaveta Fedorovna received a complaint from employees about unfair wages and sent Olga to the city of Gubakha to sort out the situation. Having found out in what conditions the miners lived and returned, she called her mother an inhuman exploiter. Subsequently, her mother disinherited her. O. B. Lepeshinskaya was born and lived until 1888 in Verderevsky’s house at the address: st. Sibirskaya, 2.

Lepeshinskaya's ideas about the non-cellular structure of living matter, which she adhered to until the last days of her life, were rejected as not confirmed.

O. B. Lepeshinskaya died on October 2, 1963 in Moscow from pneumonia at the age of 92 years. She was buried at the Novodevichy cemetery, next to her husband P. N. Lepeshinsky.

Many scientific works and articles by Lepeshinskaya have been published. She is the author of the book of memoirs “Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an Old Bolshevik)”, the third edition was published in 1971.

Scientific activity

Lepeshinskaya's main scientific works are related to the topics of animal cell membranes and the histology of bone tissue.

Lepeshinskaya proposed a method of treating wounds with blood (hemobandages), which was used in wartime.

New cell formation (the theory of “living matter”)

Lepeshinskaya conducted her research on chicken eggs, fish eggs, tadpoles, and also on hydras.

In the same publication, Lepeshinskaya referred to the works of the professor of histology of the Military Medical Academy, the author of one of the first domestic manuals on microscopic anatomy, M.D. Lavdovsky, who (according to modern data - erroneously) in 1899 suggested the possibility of cell formation from living matter - formative substances.

Also in her works, Lepeshinskaya referred to the theory of protomers by M. Heidenhain (-) and the symplastic theory of F. Studnicka (-), “karyosomes” by Minchin.

Studying the effect of blood products on the healing process, Lepeshinskaya proposed a method of treating wounds with blood (hemobandages). This proposal was supported by a number of medical leaders. In 1940, she submitted for publication to Soviet Surgery a work on the treatment of wounds with blood entitled “The Role of Living Matter in the Process of Wound Healing.” The article was not published, but in 1942, the newspaper “Medical Worker” published an article by Picus under the heading “Hemobandages,” which stated that the author of the article, a surgeon at a military hospital, successfully used this method of treating wounds in wartime.

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

“Everyone can be convinced of the evidence of these drugs. They make a strong impression."

Lepeshinskaya herself said the following at this meeting about the presence of experimental confirmation of her work:

We have been working on this problem for more than fifteen years, and so far our data have not yet been experimentally refuted by anyone, and there is confirmation, especially recently (works by Suknev, Boshyan, Lavrov, Galustyan, Komarov, Nevyadomsky, Morozov, Harvey and Gravitz ).

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

“Since we are talking about the de novo formation of cells of modern organisms, which are the product of a long course of evolution, there is nothing to discuss, since such ideas are a long-gone, infant stage in the development of science and are now beyond its boundaries.”

I remembered the laboratory assistants in the laboratory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya pounding beet grains in mortars: this was not “pounding in a mortar,” but an experimental development of the greatest discoveries in biology, made by maniacal ignoramuses propping each other up.

Critics argued that Lepeshinskaya "actually called for a return to the views of Schleiden and Schwann, that is, to the level of science of the 1830s."

It is interesting that Lepeshinskaya’s husband, the old Bolshevik P. N. Lepeshinsky, was critical of his wife’s scientific research and, according to Ya. L. Rappoport, in private conversations he spoke about them like this: “Don’t listen to her; She doesn’t understand anything about science and says complete nonsense.”

Unscientific activity, dogmatization, letter to Stalin

In order to defeat the most harmful, reactionary, idealistic teaching of Virchow, which retards the progress of science forward, we need first of all facts, facts and facts, we need experiments that prove the inconsistency and reactionary nature of this teaching. This is necessary in order to accelerate the pace of implementation of Comrade Stalin’s instructions to surpass in the near future the achievements of science outside our country.

Lepeshinskaya considered non-compliance with this point of view to be a violation of party discipline. In the archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences, researchers A.E. Gaisinovich and E.B. Muzrukova found a copy of Lepeshinskaya’s application to the Party Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with a proposal to appoint an investigation into the case of the director of the Biological Institute. Timiryazev B.P. Tokin, one of her first critics and, as she noted in parentheses, the son of a kulak, a Socialist Revolutionary (1935).

“For several years I tried on my own to overcome the obstacles that were placed in my scientific work not only by reactionary scientists who take an idealistic or mechanistic position, but also by those comrades who follow their lead... Works that are a continuation of my previous works , which received high praise from Comrade. Lysenko, leaving my laboratory, are stored in the directorate’s archives, not read and not included in reports.”

Expressing her rejection of the biological theories of Western scientists, O. B. Lepeshinskaya pointed to the justification of differences between people by these theories:

In our country there are no longer classes hostile to each other, and the struggle of idealists against dialectical materialists still, depending on whose interests it defends, has the character of a class struggle. Indeed, the followers of Virchow, Weismann, Mendel and Morgan, who speak about the immutability of the gene and deny the influence of the external environment, are preachers of the pseudoscientific broadcasts of bourgeois eugenicists and all sorts of perversions in genetics, on the basis of which the racial theory of fascism grew in capitalist countries. The Second World War was unleashed by the forces of imperialism, which also included racism in its arsenal.
O. B. Lepeshinskaya “Development of life processes in the precellular period”, report May 22-24, 1950

Main works

1950 meeting

Monographs

Lepeshinskaya O. B. The membrane of red blood cells as a colloidal system and its variability. - M.-L.: Glavnauka, GIZ, 1929. - 78 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Animal cell membranes and their biological significance. - [M.]: Medgiz, 1947. - 130 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1945. - 294 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, 1950. - 304 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. 2nd ed., revised and supplemented. - M.: Publishing house - in the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, 1950. - 265 pp.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of life processes in the precellular period. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - 303 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Animal cell membranes and their biological significance. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, 1953. - 112 p.

Brochures

Lepeshinskaya O. B. Militant vitalism. About the book by Prof. Gurvich ["Lectures on General Histology"]. - Vologda: “Northern Printer”, 1926. - 77 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Why does a natural scientist need dialectics. On the issue of lime deposits in the body. Bone development as a dialectical process... [Sb. articles] - M.: State Publishing House. Timiryaz. Research Institute, 1928. - 67 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell, its life and origin. - M.: Selkhozgiz, 1950. - 48 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell and its origin. - M.: Selkhozgiz, 1951. - 48 p. Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell, its life and origin. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 62 p.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. // “Science and Life”. - 1951. - No. 07.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. - [M.]: "Young Guard", 1951. - 39 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter. Transcript of a public lecture... - [M.]: "Pravda", 1951. - 40 p. Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. Origin of cells from living matter - M.: Voenizdat, 1952. - 76 p.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of cells from living matter. (Lecture material with filmstrip and methodological instructions). - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 32 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of cells from non-cellular living matter. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 54 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. At the origins of life. Lit. recording by V.D. Elagin. - M.-L.: Detgiz, 1952. - 96 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. At the Origins of Life. Literary entry by V. D. Elagin. - M.-L.: Detgiz, 1953. - 104 p. )
Lepeshinskaya O. B. About life, old age and longevity. Ext. shorthand public lecture... - M.: “Knowledge”, 1953. - 48 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. About life, old age and longevity. Expanded transcript of a public lecture. - Mn.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1953. - 60 s.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development and prospects of the new cell theory. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1953. - 56 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Non-cellular forms of life and the origin of cells. (Material for conversations). - Sverdlovsk: [B. i.], 1954. - 11 p.

Editorial work

Extracellular life forms. Sat. materials for biology teachers. Ed. O. B. Lepeshinskaya. - [M.]: Publishing House of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR, 1952. - 244 p.

Memories

Lepeshinskaya O. B. My memories. Lit. recording by G.I. Eysurovich. - Abakan: Khakknigoizdat, 1957. - 102 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an old Bolshevik). - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1957. - 40 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The path to revolution. Memoirs of an old Bolshevik. Lit. recording by Z. L. Dicharov. - Perm: Perm Book Publishing House, 1963. - 118 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an old Bolshevik). 2nd ed. - M.: Politizdat, 1966. - 40 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an old Bolshevik). 3rd ed. - M.: Politizdat, 1968. - 56 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an old Bolshevik). 3rd ed. - M.: Politizdat, 1971. - 56 p.)

Write a review about the article "Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna"

Notes

Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna // Kuna - Lomami. - M. : Soviet Encyclopedia, 1973. - (Great Soviet Encyclopedia: [in 30 volumes] / chief ed. A. M. Prokhorov; 1969-1978, vol. 14).
Kryukov V. G., magazine “Science and Life”, No. 5, 1989
Lysenko T. D.
Gaisinovich A. E., Muzrukova E. B. Science, 1991. - pp. 71-90.
// Aleksandrov V. Ya. Difficult years of Soviet biology: Notes of a contemporary. St. Petersburg: “Science”, 1993.
Rapoport Ya. L.. - M.: Book, 1988. - 271 p.
Speshilova E. Old Perm: At Home. Streets. People. 1723-1917. - Perm: Kursiv, 1999. - 580 p. - 5000 copies.
, table VI
Lepeshinskaya O. B. At the origins of life. - M.-L.: Detgiz, 1952
"Meeting on the problem of living matter and cell development." Verbatim report. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951
Lepeshinskaya O. B. // Meeting on the problem of living matter and cell development, May 22-24, 1950. Verbatim report. M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1951. P. 9-34
Khrushchov G. (1951). "". (English) 42 (3): 121-122.
Nachtsheim H. (German)Russian(1951). "". (English) 42 (3): 122-123.
N. N. Shevlyuk. History of morphology. Volume 140. No. 4. pp. 73-77
Alexandrov V. Ya. St. Petersburg: “Science”, 1993. P.40-47
Zhinkin L.N. and Mikhailov V.P. (1958). "". Science 128 (3317): 182-6. DOI:10.1126/science.128.3317.182.
Engels F. Dialectics of Nature. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1948. P. 245
Engels F. Anti-Dühring. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1950. P. 77.
Engels F. Anti-Dühring. M.: Gospolitizdat, 1950. P. 322.
Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences, f. 1588. op. 1, No. 103, l. 1, op. By Gaisinovich A. E., Muzrukova E. B.// Repressed science. - L.: Nauka, 1991. - P. 71-90.
Archive of the USSR Academy of Sciences, f. 1588, op. 1, No. 114, l. 1., op. By Gaisinovich A. E., Muzrukova E. B.// Repressed science. - L.: Nauka, 1991. - P. 71-90.

Literature

Alexandrov V. Ya.// Difficult years of Soviet biology: Notes of a contemporary. - St. Petersburg. : Science, 1993. - pp. 125-147. - 262 s. - ISBN 5-02-025850-4.
(“Letter of the 13”, authors: N. G. Khlopin, D. N. Nasonov, P. G. Svetlov, Yu. I. Polyansky, P. V. Makarov, N. L. Gerbilsky, Z. S. Katsnelson, B.P. Tokin, V.Ya. Alexandrov, Sh.D. Galustyan, A.G. Knorre, V.P. Mikhailov, V.A. Dogel) // “Medical worker” July 7, 1948

Excerpt characterizing Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna

“But for me,” he said, turning to Rostov, “we just need to ask the sovereign for mercy.” Now, they say, the rewards will be great, and they will surely forgive...
- I have to ask the sovereign! - Denisov said in a voice to which he wanted to give the same energy and ardor, but which sounded useless irritability. - About what? If I were a robber, I would ask for mercy, otherwise I’m being judged for bringing robbers to light. Let them judge, I’m not afraid of anyone: I honestly served the Tsar and the Fatherland and did not steal! And demote me, and... Listen, I write to them directly, so I write: “if I were an embezzler...
“It’s cleverly written, to be sure,” said Tushin. But that’s not the point, Vasily Dmitrich,” he also turned to Rostov, “you have to submit, but Vasily Dmitrich doesn’t want to.” After all, the auditor told you that your business is bad.
“Well, let it be bad,” Denisov said. “The auditor wrote you a request,” Tushin continued, “and you need to sign it and send it with them.” They have it right (he pointed to Rostov) and they have a hand in the headquarters. You won't find a better case.
“But I said that I wouldn’t be mean,” Denisov interrupted and again continued reading his paper.
Rostov did not dare to persuade Denisov, although he instinctively felt that the path proposed by Tushin and other officers was the most correct, and although he would consider himself happy if he could help Denisov: he knew the inflexibility of Denisov’s will and his true ardor.
When the reading of Denisov’s poisonous papers, which lasted more than an hour, ended, Rostov said nothing, and in the saddest mood, in the company of Denisov’s hospital comrades again gathered around him, he spent the rest of the day talking about what he knew and listening to the stories of others . Denisov remained gloomily silent throughout the entire evening.
Late in the evening Rostov was getting ready to leave and asked Denisov if there would be any instructions?
“Yes, wait,” Denisov said, looked back at the officers and, taking out his papers from under the pillow, went to the window where he had an inkwell, and sat down to write.
“It looks like you didn’t hit the butt with a whip,” he said, moving away from the window and handing Rostov a large envelope. “It was a request addressed to the sovereign, drawn up by an auditor, in which Denisov, without mentioning anything about the wines of the provision department, asked only for pardon.
“Tell me, apparently...” He didn’t finish and smiled a painfully false smile.

Having returned to the regiment and conveyed to the commander what the situation was with Denisov’s case, Rostov went to Tilsit with a letter to the sovereign.
On June 13, the French and Russian emperors gathered in Tilsit. Boris Drubetskoy asked the important person with whom he was a member to be included in the retinue appointed to be in Tilsit.
“Je voudrais voir le grand homme, [I would like to see a great man," he said, speaking about Napoleon, whom he, like everyone else, had always called Buonaparte.
– Vous parlez de Buonaparte? [Are you talking about Buonaparte?] - the general told him smiling.
Boris looked questioningly at his general and immediately realized that this was a joke test.
“Mon prince, je parle de l"empereur Napoleon, [Prince, I’m talking about Emperor Napoleon,] he answered. The general patted him on the shoulder with a smile.
“You will go far,” he told him and took him with him.
Boris was one of the few on the Neman on the day of the emperors' meeting; he saw the rafts with monograms, Napoleon's passage along the other bank past the French guard, he saw the thoughtful face of Emperor Alexander, while he sat silently in a tavern on the bank of the Neman, waiting for Napoleon's arrival; I saw how both emperors got into the boats and how Napoleon, having first landed on the raft, walked forward with quick steps and, meeting Alexander, gave him his hand, and how both disappeared into the pavilion. Since his entry into the higher worlds, Boris made himself a habit of carefully observing what was happening around him and recording it. During a meeting in Tilsit, he asked about the names of those persons who came with Napoleon, about the uniforms that they were wearing, and listened carefully to the words that were said by important persons. At the very time the emperors entered the pavilion, he looked at his watch and did not forget to look again at the time when Alexander left the pavilion. The meeting lasted an hour and fifty-three minutes: he wrote it down that evening among other facts that he believed were of historical significance. Since the emperor’s retinue was very small, for a person who valued success in his service, being in Tilsit during the meeting of the emperors was a very important matter, and Boris, once in Tilsit, felt that from that time his position was completely established. They not only knew him, but they took a closer look at him and got used to him. Twice he carried out orders for the sovereign himself, so that the sovereign knew him by sight, and all those close to him not only did not shy away from him, as before, considering him a new person, but would have been surprised if he had not been there.
Boris lived with another adjutant, the Polish Count Zhilinsky. Zhilinsky, a Pole raised in Paris, was rich, passionately loved the French, and almost every day during his stay in Tilsit, French officers from the guard and the main French headquarters gathered for lunch and breakfast with Zhilinsky and Boris.
On the evening of June 24, Count Zhilinsky, Boris's roommate, arranged a dinner for his French acquaintances. At this dinner there was an honored guest, one of Napoleon's adjutants, several officers of the French Guard and a young boy of an old aristocratic French family, Napoleon's page. On this very day, Rostov, taking advantage of the darkness so as not to be recognized, in civilian dress, arrived in Tilsit and entered the apartment of Zhilinsky and Boris.
In Rostov, as well as in the entire army from which he came, the revolution that took place in the main apartment and in Boris was still far from accomplished in relation to Napoleon and the French, who had become friends from enemies. Everyone in the army still continued to experience the same mixed feelings of anger, contempt and fear towards Bonaparte and the French. Until recently, Rostov, talking with Platovsky Cossack officer, argued that if Napoleon had been captured, he would have been treated not as a sovereign, but as a criminal. Just recently, on the road, having met a wounded French colonel, Rostov became heated, proving to him that there could be no peace between the legitimate sovereign and the criminal Bonaparte. Therefore, Rostov was strangely struck in Boris’s apartment by the sight of French officers in the very uniforms that he was accustomed to look at completely differently from the flanker chain. As soon as he saw the French officer leaning out of the door, that feeling of war, of hostility, which he always felt at the sight of the enemy, suddenly seized him. He stopped on the threshold and asked in Russian if Drubetskoy lived here. Boris, hearing someone else's voice in the hallway, came out to meet him. His face at the first minute, when he recognized Rostov, expressed annoyance.
“Oh, it’s you, I’m very glad, very glad to see you,” he said, however, smiling and moving towards him. But Rostov noticed his first movement.
“I don’t think I’m on time,” he said, “I wouldn’t have come, but I have something to do,” he said coldly...
- No, I’m just surprised how you came from the regiment. “Dans un moment je suis a vous,” [I am at your service this very minute," he turned to the voice of the one calling him.
“I see that I’m not on time,” Rostov repeated.
The expression of annoyance had already disappeared from Boris's face; Having apparently thought it over and decided what to do, he with particular calm took him by both hands and led him into the next room. Boris's eyes, calmly and firmly looking at Rostov, seemed to be covered with something, as if some kind of screen - blue dormitory glasses - were put on them. So it seemed to Rostov.
“Oh come on, please, can you be out of time,” said Boris. - Boris led him into the room where dinner was served, introduced him to the guests, calling him and explaining that he was not a civilian, but a hussar officer, his old friend. “Count Zhilinsky, le comte N.N., le capitaine S.S., [Count N.N., captain S.S.],” he called the guests. Rostov frowned at the French, bowed reluctantly and was silent.
Zhilinsky, apparently, did not happily accept this new Russian person into his circle and did not say anything to Rostov. Boris did not seem to notice the embarrassment that had occurred from the new face and, with the same pleasant calm and cloudiness in the eyes with which he met Rostov, tried to enliven the conversation. One of the French turned with ordinary French courtesy to the stubbornly silent Rostov and told him that he had probably come to Tilsit in order to see the emperor.
“No, I have business,” Rostov answered briefly.
Rostov became out of sorts immediately after he noticed the displeasure on Boris’s face, and, as always happens with people who are out of sorts, it seemed to him that everyone was looking at him with hostility and that he was disturbing everyone. And indeed he interfered with everyone and alone remained outside the newly started general conversation. “And why is he sitting here?” said the looks that the guests cast at him. He stood up and approached Boris.
“However, I’m embarrassing you,” he told him quietly, “let’s go, talk about business, and I’ll leave.”
“No, not at all,” said Boris. And if you are tired, let’s go to my room and lie down and rest.
- Indeed...
They entered the small room where Boris was sleeping. Rostov, without sitting down, immediately with irritation - as if Boris was guilty of something in front of him - began to tell him Denisov’s case, asking if he wanted and could ask about Denisov through his general from the sovereign and through him deliver a letter. When they were left alone, Rostov became convinced for the first time that he was embarrassed to look Boris in the eyes. Boris, crossing his legs and stroking the thin fingers of his right hand with his left hand, listened to Rostov, as a general listens to the report of a subordinate, now looking to the side, now with the same clouded gaze, looking directly into Rostov’s eyes. Each time Rostov felt awkward and lowered his eyes.
“I have heard about this kind of thing and I know that the Emperor is very strict in these cases. I think we should not bring it to His Majesty. In my opinion, it would be better to directly ask the corps commander... But in general I think...
- So you don’t want to do anything, just say so! - Rostov almost shouted, without looking into Boris’s eyes.
Boris smiled: “On the contrary, I’ll do what I can, but I thought...
At this time, Zhilinsky’s voice was heard at the door, calling Boris.
“Well, go, go, go...” said Rostov, refusing dinner, and being left alone in a small room, he walked back and forth in it for a long time, and listened to the cheerful French conversation from the next room.

Rostov arrived in Tilsit on a day least convenient for interceding for Denisov. He himself could not go to the general on duty, since he was in a tailcoat and arrived in Tilsit without the permission of his superiors, and Boris, even if he wanted, could not do this the next day after Rostov’s arrival. On this day, June 27, the first peace terms were signed. The emperors exchanged orders: Alexander received the Legion of Honor, and Napoleon Andrei 1st degree, and on this day a lunch was assigned to the Preobrazhensky battalion, which was given to him by the battalion of the French Guard. The sovereigns were supposed to attend this banquet.
Rostov felt so awkward and unpleasant with Boris that when Boris looked at him after dinner, he pretended to be asleep and early the next morning, trying not to see him, he left the house. In a tailcoat and a round hat, Nicholas wandered around the city, looking at the French and their uniforms, looking at the streets and houses where the Russian and French emperors lived. In the square he saw tables being set up and preparations for dinner; on the streets he saw hanging draperies with banners of Russian and French colors and huge monograms of A. and N. There were also banners and monograms in the windows of the houses.
“Boris doesn’t want to help me, and I don’t want to turn to him. This matter is decided - Nikolai thought - everything is over between us, but I will not leave here without doing everything I can for Denisov and, most importantly, without delivering the letter to the sovereign. The Emperor?!... He’s here!” thought Rostov, involuntarily approaching again the house occupied by Alexander.
At this house there were riding horses and a retinue had gathered, apparently preparing for the departure of the sovereign.
“I can see him any minute,” thought Rostov. If only I could directly hand him the letter and tell him everything, would I really be arrested for wearing a tailcoat? Can't be! He would understand on whose side justice is. He understands everything, knows everything. Who could be fairer and more generous than him? Well, even if they arrested me for being here, what’s the harm?” he thought, looking at the officer entering the house occupied by the sovereign. “After all, they are sprouting. - Eh! It's all nonsense. I’ll go and submit the letter to the sovereign myself: so much the worse it will be for Drubetskoy, who brought me to this.” And suddenly, with a determination that he himself did not expect from himself, Rostov, feeling the letter in his pocket, went straight to the house occupied by the sovereign.
“No, now I won’t miss the opportunity, like after Austerlitz,” he thought, expecting every second to meet the sovereign and feeling a rush of blood to his heart at this thought. I will fall at my feet and ask him. He will raise me, listen and thank me.” “I am happy when I can do good, but correcting injustice is the greatest happiness,” Rostov imagined the words that the sovereign would say to him. And he walked past those who were looking at him curiously, onto the porch of the house occupied by the sovereign.
From the porch a wide staircase led straight upstairs; to the right a closed door was visible. At the bottom of the stairs there was a door to the lower floor.
-Who do you want? - someone asked.
“Submit a letter, a request to His Majesty,” said Nikolai with a trembling voice.
- Please contact the duty officer, please come here (he was shown the door below). They just won't accept it.
Hearing this indifferent voice, Rostov was afraid of what he was doing; the thought of meeting the sovereign at any moment was so tempting and therefore so terrible for him that he was ready to flee, but the chamberlain Fourier, who met him, opened the door to the duty room for him and Rostov entered.
A short, plump man of about 30, in white trousers, over the knee boots and one cambric shirt, apparently just put on, stood in this room; the valet was fastening beautiful new silk-embroidered footrests on his back, which for some reason Rostov noticed. This man was talking to someone who was in another room.
“Bien faite et la beaute du diable, [Well-built and the beauty of youth," this man said, and when he saw Rostov he stopped talking and frowned.
-What do you want? Request?…
– Qu"est ce que c"est? [What is this?] - someone asked from another room.
“Encore un petitionnaire, [Another petitioner,”] answered the man with the help.
- Tell him what's next. It's coming out now, we have to go.
- After the day after tomorrow. Late…
Rostov turned and wanted to go out, but the man in the arms stopped him.
- From whom? Who are you?
“From Major Denisov,” Rostov answered.
- Who are you? Officer?
- Lieutenant, Count Rostov.
- What courage! Give it on command. And go, go... - And he began to put on the uniform handed to him by the valet.
Rostov went out again into the vestibule and noticed that on the porch there were already many officers and generals in full dress uniform, whom he had to pass by.
Cursing his courage, frozen by the thought that at any moment he could meet the sovereign and in his presence be disgraced and sent under arrest, fully understanding the indecency of his act and repenting of it, Rostov, with downcast eyes, made his way out of the house, surrounded by a crowd of brilliant retinue , when someone's familiar voice called out to him and someone's hand stopped him.
- What are you doing here, father, in a tailcoat? – his bass voice asked.
This was a cavalry general who earned the special favor of the sovereign during this campaign, the former head of the division in which Rostov served.
Rostov fearfully began to make excuses, but seeing the good-naturedly playful face of the general, he moved to the side and in an excited voice conveyed the whole matter to him, asking him to intercede for Denisov, known to the general. The general, after listening to Rostov, seriously shook his head.
- It’s a pity, it’s a pity for the fellow; give me a letter.
Rostov barely had time to hand over the letter and tell Denisov’s whole business when quick steps with spurs began to sound from the stairs and the general, moving away from him, moved towards the porch. The gentlemen of the sovereign's retinue ran down the stairs and went to the horses. Bereitor Ene, the same one who was in Austerlitz, brought the sovereign's horse, and a light creak of steps was heard on the stairs, which Rostov now recognized. Forgetting the danger of being recognized, Rostov moved with several curious residents to the porch itself and again, after two years, he saw the same features he adored, the same face, the same look, the same gait, the same combination of greatness and meekness... And the feeling of delight and love for the sovereign was resurrected with the same strength in Rostov’s soul. The Emperor in the Preobrazhensky uniform, in white leggings and high boots, with a star that Rostov did not know (it was legion d'honneur) [star of the Legion of Honor] went out onto the porch, holding his hat at hand and putting on a glove. He stopped, looking around and that's it illuminating the surroundings with his gaze, he said a few words to some of the generals. He also recognized the former chief of the division, Rostov, smiled at him and called him to him.
The entire retinue retreated, and Rostov saw how this general said something to the sovereign for quite a long time.
The Emperor said a few words to him and took a step to approach the horse. Again the crowd of the retinue and the crowd of the street in which Rostov was located moved closer to the sovereign. Stopping by the horse and holding the saddle with his hand, the sovereign turned to the cavalry general and spoke loudly, obviously with the desire for everyone to hear him.
“I can’t, general, and that’s why I can’t because the law is stronger than me,” said the sovereign and raised his foot in the stirrup. The general bowed his head respectfully, the sovereign sat down and galloped down the street. Rostov, beside himself with delight, ran after him with the crowd.

On the square where the sovereign went, a battalion of Preobrazhensky soldiers stood face to face on the right, and a battalion of the French Guard in bearskin hats on the left.
While the sovereign was approaching one flank of the battalions, which were on guard duty, another crowd of horsemen jumped up to the opposite flank and ahead of them Rostov recognized Napoleon. It couldn't be anyone else. He rode at a gallop in a small hat, with a St. Andrew's ribbon over his shoulder, in a blue uniform open over a white camisole, on an unusually thoroughbred Arabian gray horse, on a crimson, gold embroidered saddle cloth. Having approached Alexander, he raised his hat and with this movement, Rostov’s cavalry eye could not help but notice that Napoleon was sitting poorly and not firmly on his horse. The battalions shouted: Hurray and Vive l "Empereur! [Long live the Emperor!] Napoleon said something to Alexander. Both emperors got off their horses and took each other's hands. There was an unpleasantly feigned smile on Napoleon's face. Alexander said something to him with an affectionate expression .
Rostov, without taking his eyes off, despite the trampling of the horses of the French gendarmes besieging the crowd, followed every move of Emperor Alexander and Bonaparte. He was struck as a surprise by the fact that Alexander behaved as an equal with Bonaparte, and that Bonaparte was completely free, as if this closeness with the sovereign was natural and familiar to him, as an equal, he treated the Russian Tsar.
Alexander and Napoleon with a long tail of their retinue approached the right flank of the Preobrazhensky battalion, directly towards the crowd that stood there. The crowd suddenly found itself so close to the emperors that Rostov, who was standing in the front rows, became afraid that they would recognize him.
“Sire, je vous demande la permission de donner la legion d"honneur au plus brave de vos soldats, [Sire, I ask your permission to give the Order of the Legion of Honor to the bravest of your soldiers,] said a sharp, precise voice, finishing each letter It was the short Bonaparte who spoke, looking directly into Alexander’s eyes, Alexander listened attentively to what was being said, and bowed his head, smiling pleasantly.
“A celui qui s"est le plus vaillament conduit dans cette derieniere guerre, [To the one who showed himself bravest during the war],” Napoleon added, emphasizing each syllable, with a calm and confidence outrageous for Rostov, looking around the ranks of Russians stretched out in front of there are soldiers, keeping everything on guard and motionlessly looking into the face of their emperor.
“Votre majeste me permettra t elle de demander l"avis du colonel? [Your Majesty will allow me to ask the colonel’s opinion?] - said Alexander and took several hasty steps towards Prince Kozlovsky, the battalion commander. Meanwhile, Bonaparte began to take off his white glove, small hand and tearing it apart, the Adjutant threw it, hastily rushing forward from behind, and picked it up.
- Who should I give it to? – Emperor Alexander asked Kozlovsky not loudly, in Russian.
- Whom do you order, Your Majesty? “The Emperor winced with displeasure and, looking around, said:
- But you have to answer him.
Kozlovsky looked back at the ranks with a decisive look and in this glance captured Rostov as well.
“Isn’t it me?” thought Rostov.
- Lazarev! – the colonel commanded with a frown; and the first-ranked soldier, Lazarev, smartly stepped forward.
-Where are you going? Stop here! - voices whispered to Lazarev, who did not know where to go. Lazarev stopped, looked sideways at the colonel in fear, and his face trembled, as happens with soldiers called to the front.
Napoleon slightly turned his head back and pulled back his small chubby hand, as if wanting to take something. The faces of his retinue, having guessed at that very second what was going on, began to fuss, whisper, passing something on to one another, and the page, the same one whom Rostov saw yesterday at Boris’s, ran forward and respectfully bent over the outstretched hand and did not make her wait either one second, he put an order on a red ribbon into it. Napoleon, without looking, clenched two fingers. The Order found itself between them. Napoleon approached Lazarev, who, rolling his eyes, stubbornly continued to look only at his sovereign, and looked back at Emperor Alexander, thereby showing that what he was doing now, he was doing for his ally. A small white hand with an order touched the button of soldier Lazarev. It was as if Napoleon knew that in order for this soldier to be happy, rewarded and distinguished from everyone else in the world forever, it was only necessary for him, Napoleon’s hand, to be worthy of touching the soldier’s chest. Napoleon just put the cross to Lazarev's chest and, letting go of his hand, turned to Alexander, as if he knew that the cross should stick to Lazarev's chest. The cross really stuck.
Russian and French helpful hands instantly picked up the cross and attached it to the uniform. Lazarev looked gloomily at the little man with white hands, who had done something above him, and, continuing to keep him motionless on guard, again began to look directly into Alexander’s eyes, as if he was asking Alexander: whether he should still stand, or whether they would order him should I go for a walk now, or maybe do something else? But he was not ordered to do anything, and he remained in this motionless state for quite a long time.
The sovereigns mounted and left. The Preobrazhentsy, breaking up the ranks, mixed with the French guards and sat down at the tables prepared for them.
Lazarev sat in a place of honor; Russian and French officers hugged him, congratulated him and shook his hands. Crowds of officers and people came up just to look at Lazarev. The roar of Russian French conversation and laughter stood in the square around the tables. Two officers with flushed faces, cheerful and happy, walked past Rostov.
- What is the treat, brother? “Everything is on silver,” said one. – Have you seen Lazarev?
- Saw.
“Tomorrow, they say, the Preobrazhensky people will treat them.”
- No, Lazarev is so lucky! 10 francs life pension.
- That's the hat, guys! - shouted the Transfiguration man, putting on the shaggy Frenchman’s hat.
- It’s a miracle, how good, lovely!
-Have you heard the review? - the guards officer said to the other. The third day was Napoleon, France, bravoure; [Napoleon, France, courage;] yesterday Alexandre, Russie, grandeur; [Alexander, Russia, greatness;] one day our sovereign gives feedback, and the next day Napoleon. Tomorrow the Emperor will send George to the bravest of the French guards. It's impossible! I must answer in kind.
Boris and his friend Zhilinsky also came to watch the Transfiguration banquet. Returning back, Boris noticed Rostov, who was standing at the corner of the house.
- Rostov! Hello; “We never saw each other,” he told him, and could not resist asking him what had happened to him: Rostov’s face was so strangely gloomy and upset.
“Nothing, nothing,” answered Rostov.
-Will you come in?
- Yes, I’ll come in.
Rostov stood at the corner for a long time, looking at the feasters from afar. A painful work was going on in his mind, which he could not complete. Terrible doubts arose in my soul. Then he remembered Denisov with his changed expression, with his humility, and the whole hospital with these torn off arms and legs, with this dirt and disease. It seemed to him so vividly that he could now smell this hospital smell of a dead body that he looked around to understand where this smell could come from. Then he remembered this smug Bonaparte with his white hand, who was now the emperor, whom Emperor Alexander loves and respects. What are the torn off arms, legs, and killed people for? Then he remembered the awarded Lazarev and Denisov, punished and unforgiven. He caught himself having such strange thoughts that he was frightened by them.
The smell of food from the Preobrazhentsev and hunger brought him out of this state: he had to eat something before leaving. He went to the hotel he had seen in the morning. At the hotel he found so many people, officers, just like him, who had arrived in civilian dress, that he had to force himself to have dinner. Two officers from the same division joined him. The conversation naturally turned to peace. The officers and comrades of Rostov, like most of the army, were dissatisfied with the peace concluded after Friedland. They said that if they had held out any longer, Napoleon would have disappeared, that he had no crackers or ammunition in his troops. Nikolai ate in silence and mostly drank. He drank one or two bottles of wine. The internal work that arose in him, not being resolved, still tormented him. He was afraid to indulge in his thoughts and could not leave them. Suddenly, at the words of one of the officers that it was offensive to look at the French, Rostov began to shout with vehemence, which was not justified in any way, and therefore greatly surprised the officers.
– And how can you judge what would be better! - he shouted with his face suddenly flushed with blood. - How can you judge the actions of the sovereign, what right do we have to reason?! We cannot understand either the goals or the actions of the sovereign!
“Yes, I didn’t say a word about the sovereign,” the officer justified himself, unable to explain his temper otherwise than by the fact that Rostov was drunk.
But Rostov did not listen.
“We are not diplomatic officials, but we are soldiers and nothing more,” he continued. “They tell us to die—that’s how we die.” And if they punish, it means he is guilty; It’s not for us to judge. It pleases the sovereign emperor to recognize Bonaparte as emperor and enter into an alliance with him—that means it must be done. Otherwise, if we began to judge and reason about everything, there would be nothing sacred left. This way we will say that there is no God, there is nothing,” Nikolai shouted, hitting the table, very inappropriately, according to the concepts of his interlocutors, but very consistently in the course of his thoughts.
“Our job is to do our duty, to hack and not think, that’s all,” he concluded.
“And drink,” said one of the officers, who did not want to quarrel.
“Yes, and drink,” Nikolai picked up. - Hey, you! Another bottle! - he shouted.

In 1808, Emperor Alexander traveled to Erfurt for a new meeting with Emperor Napoleon, and in high society in St. Petersburg there was a lot of talk about the greatness of this solemn meeting.
In 1809, the closeness of the two rulers of the world, as Napoleon and Alexander were called, reached the point that when Napoleon declared war on Austria that year, the Russian corps went abroad to assist their former enemy Bonaparte against their former ally, the Austrian emperor; to the point that in high society they talked about the possibility of a marriage between Napoleon and one of the sisters of Emperor Alexander. But, in addition to external political considerations, at this time the attention of Russian society was especially keenly drawn to the internal transformations that were being carried out at that time in all parts of public administration.
Life, meanwhile, the real life of people with their essential interests of health, illness, work, rest, with their interests of thought, science, poetry, music, love, friendship, hatred, passions, went on as always, independently and without political affinity or enmity with Napoleon Bonaparte, and beyond all possible transformations.
Prince Andrei lived in the village for two years without a break. All those enterprises on estates that Pierre started and did not bring to any result, constantly moving from one thing to another, all these enterprises, without showing them to anyone and without noticeable labor, were carried out by Prince Andrei.
He had, to a high degree, that practical tenacity that Pierre lacked, which, without scope or effort on his part, set things in motion.
One of his estates of three hundred peasant souls was transferred to free cultivators (this was one of the first examples in Russia); in others, corvee was replaced by quitrent. In Bogucharovo, a learned grandmother was written out to his account to help mothers in labor, and for a salary the priest taught the children of peasants and courtyard servants to read and write.
Prince Andrei spent half of his time in Bald Mountains with his father and son, who was still with the nannies; the other half of the time in the Bogucharov monastery, as his father called his village. Despite the indifference he showed Pierre to all the external events of the world, he diligently followed them, received many books, and to his surprise he noticed when fresh people came to him or his father from St. Petersburg, from the very whirlpool of life, that these people, in knowledge of everything that is happening in foreign and domestic politics, they are far behind him, who sits in the village all the time.
In addition to classes on names, in addition to general reading of a wide variety of books, Prince Andrei was at this time engaged in a critical analysis of our last two unfortunate campaigns and drawing up a project to change our military regulations and regulations.
In the spring of 1809, Prince Andrei went to the Ryazan estates of his son, whom he was guardian.
Warmed by the spring sun, he sat in the stroller, looking at the first grass, the first birch leaves and the first clouds of white spring clouds scattering across the bright blue sky. He didn’t think about anything, but looked around cheerfully and meaninglessly.
We passed the carriage on which he had spoken with Pierre a year ago. We drove through a dirty village, threshing floors, greenery, a descent with remaining snow near the bridge, an ascent through washed-out clay, stripes of stubble and green bushes here and there, and entered a birch forest on both sides of the road. It was almost hot in the forest; you couldn’t hear the wind. The birch tree, all covered with green sticky leaves, did not move, and from under last year’s leaves, lifting them, the first green grass and purple flowers crawled out. The small spruce trees scattered here and there throughout the birch forest with their coarse, eternal greenness were an unpleasant reminder of winter. The horses snorted as they rode into the forest and began to fog up.
The footman Peter said something to the coachman, the coachman answered in the affirmative. But apparently Peter had little sympathy for the coachman: he turned on the box to the master.
- Your Excellency, how easy it is! – he said, smiling respectfully.
- What!
- Easy, your Excellency.
"What he says?" thought Prince Andrei. “Yes, that’s right about spring,” he thought, looking around. And everything is already green... how soon! And the birch, and the bird cherry, and the alder are already starting... But the oak is not noticeable. Yes, here it is, the oak tree.”
There was an oak tree on the edge of the road. Probably ten times older than the birches that made up the forest, it was ten times thicker and twice as tall as each birch. It was a huge oak tree, two girths wide, with branches that had been broken off for a long time and with broken bark overgrown with old sores. With his huge, clumsy, asymmetrically splayed, gnarled hands and fingers, he stood like an old, angry and contemptuous freak between the smiling birches. Only he alone did not want to submit to the charm of spring and did not want to see either spring or the sun.
“Spring, and love, and happiness!” - as if this oak tree was saying, - “and how can you not get tired of the same stupid and senseless deception. Everything is the same, and everything is a lie! There is no spring, no sun, no happiness. Look, there are the crushed dead spruce trees sitting, always the same, and there I am, spreading out my broken, skinned fingers, wherever they grew - from the back, from the sides; As we grew up, I still stand, and I don’t believe your hopes and deceptions.”

Olga Borisovna Lepeshinskaya(nee Protopopova; August 6 (18), 1871, Perm, Russian Empire - October 2, 1963, Moscow, USSR) - Russian revolutionary and Soviet biologist. Laureate of the Stalin Prize, first degree (1950), academician of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences (1950). His main works are devoted to the study of animal cell membranes and the histology of bone tissue.

The discussion of the (later unconfirmed) theory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya about the new formation of cells from structureless “living matter” became widely known in the USSR. Lepeshinskaya’s theory at a joint meeting of the Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences in 1950 was supported by a number of histologists and all the speakers, including T.D. Lysenko, but subsequently met with condemnation from critics as a politicized and anti-scientific trend in Soviet biology. Professors at medical universities were required to quote Lepeshinskaya’s teachings in every lecture (as the transformation into living things from non-living things). Abroad, her unconfirmed discoveries initially did not find a response.

Biographical facts, participation in the revolutionary movement

O. B. Lepeshinskaya was born on August 6 (18), 1871 in Perm into a wealthy bourgeois family. The father died three years after Olga was born. Brothers - Boris, Alexander (elder) and Dmitry (younger), sister Elizaveta (elder) and Natalya (younger). Mother Elizaveta Fedorovna Dammer (protopopov's husband) owned mines, steamships and apartment buildings. According to Olga, she had an energetic, authoritative character of wide scope, “there was something from Vassa Zheleznova in my mother.”

In 1891, O. B. Lepeshinskaya graduated from the Perm Mariinsky Women’s Gymnasium with the title of “home teacher in mathematics.” In the 1890s. received her initial medical education at the Christmas paramedic courses in St. Petersburg, where she met Inna Smidovich, the sister of the Bolshevik revolutionary P. G. Smidovich. Since 1894, she joined the St. Petersburg “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” becoming its active participant.

In 1897, Lepeshinskaya graduated from the School of Medical Assistants and Medical Assistants with the title of “medical assistant”. In May of this year, she organized a paramedic station at the railway station in Chelyabinsk. In the same year, having become the wife of Panteleimon Nikolaevich Lepeshinsky, she followed him into exile in the Yenisei province. There she served as a paramedic in the village of Kuragino. Together with seventeen exiles, she signed the “Protest of Russian Social Democrats” against the Economists.

In 1898, Lepeshinskaya joined the RSDLP, and after the party split, she joined the Bolsheviks. Since 1900, she participated in the work of the Pskov group to promote Iskra. Then, in 1903, she again followed her husband to Minusinsk in Siberia and organized her husband’s escape from exile. Since 1903, the Lepeshinsky couple was in exile in Switzerland. There O. B. Lepeshinskaya studied at the Faculty of Medicine in Lausanne. In Geneva, she organized a canteen for Bolshevik emigrants, which was the meeting place of the Bolshevik group. In 1906, Olga Borisovna returned to Russia and conducted party work in Orsha until 1910.

In 1915, Lepeshinskaya graduated from the Imperial Moscow University at the Faculty of Medicine with a “Doctor with Honors” scholarship. She worked as an assistant at the university department, but was fired for revolutionary activities. She practiced medicine in Moscow and Crimea. In 1917 she was a member of the revolutionary committee of the Podmoskovnaya station. She organized a commune school for street children in the village of Litvinovichi, Rogachev district, Mogilev province, where Lepeshinskaya lived with her husband’s mother, Panteleimon Nikolaevich. Most of the students then came to Moscow and studied at the experimental demonstration school on Znamenka. Later, this school was named after P.N. Lepeshinsky, and many children from the Government House studied there.

T.D. Lysenko gave an enthusiastic assessment of the activities of O.B. Lepeshinskaya at a meeting at the USSR Academy of Sciences in May 1950; he declared:

“There is no doubt that now the scientific principles obtained by O.B. Lepeshinskaya have already been recognized and, together with other achievements of science, formed the foundation of our developing Michurin biology” (10_80) - he spoke the truth. Indeed, precisely such cornerstones were laid as the foundation of the biology he developed.

But it is unlikely that he could have foreseen, pronouncing these words with great affectation, how quickly this foundation would fall apart, and how soon the entire edifice of “Michurin biology”, erected with such difficulty, built on the bones of so many great Russian scientists, would begin to settle and collapse.

“Lepeshinkovism,” that is, a conglomerate of ideas about the presence of a special, “living” substance in nature, about the possibility of new cell formation through the transition of non-living to living and vice versa, did not last long. Already in 1953, open speeches devoted to the frivolity of these provisions and their anti-scientific nature were made at conferences, in various organs of the Soviet press, and in letters from specialists to the pillars of the new teaching.

From May 5 to May 7, 1953, as mentioned in the previous section, the Division of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences held the 3rd Conference on Living Matter. On it, Lepeshinskaya and her associates repeated already known sets of phrases about living matter, and T.D. Lysenko gave a presentation on species and speciation, stating:

“The works of O.B. Lepeshinskaya provide new materials for a specific solution to the issue of speciation” (10_82). The head of the department of the 1st Moscow Medical Institute, V.G. Eliseev, spoke in support of Lepeshinkovism. Plant physiologist Andrei Lvovich Kursanov joined the ranks of supporters of the “doctrine of living matter.” In his collaboration with E.I. Vskrebentsova’s report, entitled “Respiratory function of the silkworm cavities during the process of metamorphosis,” reported:

"... the cavity fluid of the silkworm can be considered as a living substance" (10_83). However, V.N. Orekhovich “criticized the views of some researchers who take a very simplified approach to the problem of living matter” (10_84). The resolution adopted at the conference had to include points that looked respectable on the outside, but were perceived by everyone as critical of the “new teaching” (10_85).

Scientists, like all Soviet people accustomed to reading between the lines, saw in these points a clear condemnation of the views of both Lysenko and Lepeshinskaya: “It cannot be considered correct that in the struggle for the approval of the materialist idea of development, careful and impeccable experimental evidence was in some cases replaced by insufficiently substantiated hypothetical constructions and declarative statements" ( 10_86).

And although those who held command positions in Soviet biology and medicine - A.I. Oparin, A.A. Imshenetsky, A.L. Kursanov, V.D. Timakov (87) - continued to openly support Lepeshinskaya, this did not scare the critics. News of reasoned attacks on Lepeshinskaya (and, indirectly, on Lysenko) became widely known. Under these conditions, the Presidium of the USSR Academy of Sciences had no choice but to include in the resolution regarding this conference (10_88), along with cliched phrases about “expanding the scope of work” and the development of “materialistic cell theory,” phrases condemning errors: ... . the conference revealed some shortcomings in the problem being developed... expressed in an insufficiently critical assessment of the newly obtained results and enthusiasm for theoretical schemes, sometimes not supported by actual evidence" (10_89).

By inertia, in 1953, many managed to publish articles and books on the inviolability of the doctrine of living matter. A.N. was especially zealous. Studitsky, V.G. Eliseev, M.Ya. Subbotin (Head of the Department of Histology, Novosibirsk Medical Institute) (10_90). Eliseev’s student (graduate student of his department at the 1st Moscow Institute) B.A. Ezdanyan, whose work was highly regarded by his supervisor, allegedly proved that male reproductive cells are formed not from germ cells, as all biologists have believed since the time of August Weismann, but... from living matter. In his article B.A. Ezdanyan (10_91) categorically denied the pattern firmly established in world science and wrote: .... the presence of ancestral cells in the male gonads ... is erroneous" (10_92). He included among the undoubtedly erroneous "the assertion of representatives of bourgeois biological science that that they [these cells - V.S] are direct descendants of the primordial germ cells" (10_93). True, it should be noted that what gave Ezdanyan the courage to reject the conclusions of Western (and, therefore, bourgeois and harmful) science was what came before him there were brave souls who rejected as a delusion the idea of world science about the origins of spermatozoa. A year earlier, an employee of Moscow State University N.S. Strogonova came to the conclusion about the emergence of male reproductive cells literally out of nowhere:

“Spermatogonia develop from anucleate protoplasmic drops, which, in turn, arise from a living intermediate substance” (10_94). Thanks to such publications, Lepeshinskaya’s position remained quite strong, and many people personally involved in Lepeshinskyism, who had stained themselves with previous speeches, tried to support her authority.

Lepeshinskaya did not change her behavior either. She entered into discussions, published memoirs (about meetings with Lenin) and quasi-scientific books one after another, in fact reprinting the same book “The Origin of Cells from Non-Cellular Substance” under different titles.

On June 23-27, 1953, a meeting of the Board was held in Leningrad, which brought together 700 people instead of 60 Board members (315 from other cities). The “introductory” report “Fundamentals of Soviet morphology” (10_98) was made by A.N. Studitsky. Well aware that clouds were gathering over Lepeshinskaya (and, therefore, over himself as the loudest herald of the “doctrine of living matter”), Studitsky tried to present the discussion on the problem of this “substance” as a manifestation of “ideological struggle on the front of morphology” ( 10_99 ).

However, it was not possible to suppress criticism. In 1953, an article by T.I. Faleeva, which reported data that contradicted the ideas of Lepeshinskaya (10_100). The most impressive for a wide circle of biologists and physicians was the criticism of one practical proposal by Lepeshinskaya. At the beginning of 1953, she published an article in a scientific journal about a problem relevant to every person (10_101), and at the same time gave a public lecture on the same topic - “On life, old age and longevity” (10_102). In front of a huge crowd of people, she told in the Great Lecture Hall of the Polytechnic Museum in Moscow that there is a reliable path to longevity, possible only in the Soviet country:

“In capitalist countries, unfavorable social and living conditions accelerate the onset of premature old age among workers who work to the point of complete exhaustion, are overworked, eat poorly, and are poisoned by all kinds of toxic substances at work.

In the USSR developed:

1) protection of motherhood and infancy,

2) development of a network of child care institutions,

3) provision of leave legalized by the Stalin Constitution,

4) development of physical education and sports,

5) properly implemented hygiene and labor protection,

6) health education and, finally, one more important factor:

7) laughter and fun, healing the body, constantly present in the life of Soviet people" (10_4).

Lepeshinskaya’s main conclusion was optimistic: “In our country, scientists have unlimited opportunities for their creativity, relying on the direct support of the Soviet government, the Communist Party and its brilliant leader Stalin... The time will come when for every Soviet person 150 years will not be the limit of life. In our country, blossoming under the sun of the Stalinist Constitution, in a country where everyone sings “I don’t know another country like this, where a person breathes so freely,” there should be no premature old age” (10_105).

How to achieve longevity? Lepeshinskaya stated that she had found the elixir of vigor and longevity - ordinary soda, sodium bicarbonate (10_106). According to her, experiments with frogs and chickens proved the possibility of prolonging life with the help of injections of soda solutions (10_107), and these experiments were enough to move on to the decisive stage of experiments: the use of the achievements of “science” directly for humans:

“We had a need to apply the obtained experimental data to practical medicine, which required testing our research in experiments on the human body. I decided to conduct the first trial experiment on myself. The experiment consisted of taking soda baths. 50-70 grams bicarbonate of soda were dissolved in water for 15-20 minutes. I took baths twice a week. In total, what changes occurred in my body under the influence of soda baths? First of all, a decrease in the acidity of urine was noted. this fact indicates that soda penetrates the body through the skin and affects the chemistry of urine. Then, quite quickly, a slight weight loss occurred in the whole body, and a release of excess fat, so common in old age, and especially belly fat, which is undoubtedly in tight conditions. depending on increased metabolism.

It is important to note that the state of health improved after the baths, muscle fatigue greatly decreased and even completely disappeared" (10_108). The matter did not end with Olga Borisovna herself increasing her tone and losing weight. She was, after all, an ACADEMICIAN of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR. This means that she saw her task not only in order to solve the problem of longevity, the scope of scientific activity was expanded, and it was considered advisable to begin using soda to treat various diseases. According to Lepeshinskaya’s calculations, it turned out that soda is a powerful medicine:

“It turned out that soda ointments promote faster healing of wounds. Soda baths have also proven to be an effective remedy in curing some forms of such a severe and difficult-to-treat disease as thrombophlebitis (inflammation of the walls of venous vessels, accompanied by the formation of blood clots). Some doctors practice administering a one percent soda solution when sepsis (general blood poisoning) and get good results. It should be assumed that the scope of soda as a preventive and medicinal agent will expand over time" (10_109).

Let's think about the meaning of Lepeshinskaya's proposals. She promoted soda as a panacea for all ills! Where scientists already had many ways for treatment, where complex and well-founded schemes for influencing the sick body were used, an overly optimistic but illiterate lady slipped a pinch of soda into a glass of water for the sufferers. And people believed her. After all, she acted not as a private person, not as an old healer, but as a respectable scientist, invested with the high confidence of the best doctors in the country, who elected her a FULL member of the Academy of Medical Sciences. Speculating on this, Lepeshinskaya could not restrain herself. She tried to prove that even plants in the fields grow better under the influence of 1% soda, citing as confirmation not the data of accurate tests, but a youth magazine unrelated to science:

“This... was reported by one young Komsomol collective farmer in a recent issue of the magazine “Young Collective Farmer”; I refer those interested to *3 of this magazine for 1951” (PO). She wrote about the letters she received in which “... the directors of experimental plots treating beet seeds with a 1% soda solution achieved a 37% increase in yield” (10_111).

These references could only increase the indignation of scientists. It was difficult to think of a greater discrediting of science. As Zh.A. Medvedev wrote, having completely moved away from his initial attitude towards Lepeshinskaya and spent a lot of effort on debunking Lysenkoism:

“The results of this discovery were not long in coming - soda temporarily disappeared from stores and pharmacies, and clinics could not cope with the flow of “rejuvenated” people who suffered from a naive belief in the healing power of a pretty old woman, whose work, in the apt expression of T.D. Lysenko, together with other similar “conquests”, firmly formed the foundation of the developing materialistic agrobiology" (10-112).

Lepeshinskaya made a grave mistake in moving from declarations and experiments with “soulless” chicken eggs to practice on humans. The quackery immediately came to light and discredited her. Of course, she tried to give significance to her “discovery” by publishing the article “The Fight against Old Age” (10_113) in many newspapers in the periphery.

But times also became different (with the death of the “universal father,” the country lived in anticipation of change), and the area into which Lepeshinskaya invaded with her set of primitive means was different than, say, Lysenko. Hiding behind Marxist-Leninist phraseology, one could do whatever one wanted in theoretical questions of biology; much was permissible in agronomy and animal husbandry: plants and livestock remained dumb. However, failures in practical medicine immediately became visible.

This failure was quickly followed by others. On December 23-24, 1953 in Leningrad, at a meeting of the local branch of the All-Union Society of Anatomists, Histologists and Embryologists, the most odious absurdities of the adherents of her teaching were criticized by A.G. Knorre ( 10_114). During this meeting, many of those who were forced by threats and repression to temporarily come to terms with Lepeshinskyism again became opponents of this trend, some spoke out against Lepeshinskaya herself. Corresponding Member of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences prof. P.G. Svetlov said that “the whole problem of living matter” has nothing to do with the science of histology (10_115). Professor L.N. Zhinkin showed, using a number of examples, the absurdity of the provisions put forward by Lepeshinskaya and her supporters (in particular, V.G. Eliseev, (see note 10_90). Professor V.Ya. Alexandrov supported the speech of A.G. Knorre, “in which for the first time in In recent years, a scientific assessment of Lepeshinskaya’s views has been given" (10_116).

Concluding the discussion, the chairman is Professor N.N. Gerbilsky, on the one hand, welcomed the “sharp and strong shock to the theoretical foundations of histology” that O.B.’s works produced. Lepeshinskaya, and, on the other hand, noted that:

"... fueled by various motives, the desire to equip the new theory with facts led to the clogging of the histological literature with a number of poor-quality works." (10_117). The report of the meeting quickly appeared in the press. The Lepeshinkovites urgently needed to take retaliatory measures.

A plenum of not the local, but the All-Union Board of this society was scheduled for June 22-24, 1954. They decided to hold it in the “den of enemies” - in Leningrad. Employees of scientific and educational institutes (about 600 people) were gathered from all over the country. Studitsky made a central presentation, demonstrating the transparencies hastily prepared by his students. Wanting to strengthen the impression of objectivity, he constantly sprinkled the names of those whose preparations he demonstrated - several times referring to the “evidence” obtained by Yu.S. Chentsov, also naming V.P. Gilev and his other students (10_118). Studitsky insisted that “the new materialistic cell theory... has received universal recognition,” and that the preparations shown by Chentsov and Gilev irrefutably prove that “new formation of whole muscles occurs from skeletal muscle tissue transplanted in a crushed state” (10_119).

But when the floor was given to the Kyiv scientist V.G. Kasyanenko, he dealt Studitsky and his students a cruel blow:

“V.G. Kasyanenko reported that he tried to repeat A.N. Studitsky’s experiments on rabbits, but it only resulted in tissue resorption, the muscle did not recover” (10_120).

Like the last straw, the Lepeshinkoites, drowned in the oncoming waves of criticism, tried to grab another opportunity. They began to discuss the ability of cells to divide not only through so-called mitosis, that is, the preliminary doubling of each of the chromosomes of the cells and the subsequent exact separation of each of the halves into daughter cells, but also through amitosis - a simple constriction of cells into two halves, in which, of course, it was observed would be a chaotic redistribution of chromosomal material. For a number of years, Lysenkoists insisted that amitosis plays the main role in nature, and not mitosis, as biologists believed. A.A. Prokofieva-Belgovskaya, who worked at the Lysenko Institute of Genetics of the USSR Academy of Sciences in those years, published an article in 1953 in which she stated that amitosis often occurs in the cells of potato tubers (10_121).

At the same time, another cytologist Z.S. Katznelson, using a standard set of phrases designed to castigate bourgeois science and extol the “new cell theory,” which, in his words, “finally undermines the foundations” of the first (10_123), declared:

“Amitosis should be recognized as the same full-fledged method of division [of cells - V.C], as karyokinesis [i.e., mitosis - KS (10_124).

The Lysenkoists, naturally, immediately took advantage of this deviation from the truth of their former opponents. In the laboratory of the person closest to Lysenko in those years, I.E. Glushchenko, a series of articles was prepared on the universal role of amitosis and the possibility of the generation of nuclei from living matter during it (10_131). Once again, public criticism of Lepeshinskaya’s ideas was voiced at a meeting of embryologists in Leningrad in January 1955 (10_132).

The soap bubble of Lepeshinkovism, inflated to incredible sizes, burst. However, no official refutation of the fallacy of Lepeshinskaya’s ideas followed. In 1957, she even tried to revive her ideas (10_133), after which at the next session of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, Professor A.G. Knorre publicly raised the question of the need to cancel the incorrect resolutions adopted during the years of Lepeshinskaya’s accession to the “scientific Olympus”. But it was not there. G.K., who was then acting as academician-secretary of the Department of Medical and Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences. Khrushchov, who at one time himself had worked a lot in terms of smoking incense to Olga Borisovna, stated that he was not sure whether a mistake had been made earlier, that the old resolutions, in his opinion, fundamentally aimed Soviet scientists to follow the dialectical-materialist path, and some details... well, it doesn’t happen to anyone! It's an everyday thing, a common thing. Someone makes mistakes, someone does not fully justify their trust, and does not realize their responsibility. So, are you going to order me to write refutations every time, to rip up the old stuff, to go over the basics? No, that won't do. It’s not for nothing that a good Russian proverb says: whoever remembers the old is out of his sight!

There was no denial. They acted differently with Lepeshinskaya. A few years after Stalin’s death (but still during her lifetime), mentions of living matter, the emergence of cells from structureless elements, the regeneration of bone tissue, the medicinal and preventive value of bicarbonate of soda, as well as the name of the author of these discoveries, quietly disappeared from pages of textbooks and treatises. Today's schoolchildren simply do not know that there was such a highly learned lady with a stern look behind round glasses, an academician and a Stalin Prize laureate, who personally knew both Lenin and Stalin, who threatened (or dreamed) of “setting the sea on fire”, who turned all ideas about the origins upside down life, cells and longevity, which filled its noisy opuses with insults against real specialists and frayed the nerves of many respected scientists and shortened their lives. Needless to say, Olga Borisovna herself, before her death (in October 1963), did not come to terms with anything and did not reject anything. In the last years of her life, she went to work and became interested in a new idea: at a huge dacha in the Moscow region, she and her daughter, Olga Panteleimonovna, collected bird droppings, calcined them on an iron sheet, and then set them on fire. The ash was poured into boiled water, the flask was plugged with a stopper and left warm. Since they were unable to achieve complete sterility (they were terrible microbiologists), after two weeks bacterial or fungal growth appeared in the flasks. Mother and daughter were convinced that, in full accordance with the “theory,” cells were born from the nonliving substance contained in the calcined droppings, but as if it had previously passed the stage of LIVING substance. Naturally, they could not agree that their sterilization was insufficient. Reports about these “discoveries” were not published anywhere, but Olga Panteleimonovna hoped that the hour for a new takeoff would come.

(1950). His main works are devoted to the study of animal cell membranes and the histology of bone tissue.

The discussion of the (later unconfirmed) theory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya about the new formation of cells from structureless “living matter” became widely known in the USSR. Lepeshinskaya's theory at a joint meeting of the Academy of Sciences and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences in 1950 was supported by a number of histologists and all the speakers, including T.D. Lysenko, but subsequently met with condemnation from critics as a politicized and anti-scientific trend in Soviet biology. Professors at medical universities were required to quote Lepeshinskaya’s teachings in every lecture (as the transformation into living things from non-living things). Abroad, her unconfirmed discovery did not find a response.

Biographical facts, participation in the revolutionary movement

O. B. Lepeshinskaya was born on August 6 (18) in Perm into a wealthy bourgeois family. The father died three years after Olga was born. Brothers Boris, Alexander (elder) and Dmitry (younger), sister Elizaveta (elder) and Natalya (younger). Mother Elizaveta Fedorovna Dammer (by Protopopov's husband) owned mines, steamships and apartment buildings. According to Olga, she had an energetic, authoritative character of wide scope, “there was something from Vassa Zheleznova in my mother.”

In 1891, O. B. Lepeshinskaya graduated from the Perm Mariinsky Women’s Gymnasium with the title of “home teacher in mathematics.” In the 1890s. received her initial medical education at the Christmas paramedic courses in St. Petersburg, where she met Inna Smidovich, sister of the Bolshevik revolutionary P. G. Smidovich. Since 1894, she joined the St. Petersburg “Union of Struggle for the Liberation of the Working Class,” becoming its active participant.

In 1897, Lepeshinskaya graduated from the School of Medical Assistants and Medical Assistants with the title of “medical assistant”. In May of this year, she organized a paramedic station at the railway station in Chelyabinsk. In the same year, having become the wife of Panteleimon Nikolaevich Lepeshinsky, she followed him into exile in the Yenisei province. There she served as a paramedic in the village of Kurgan. Together with seventeen exiles, she signed the “Protest of Russian Social Democrats” against the Economists. Accompanying her husband in exile, she worked as a paramedic in the Krasnoyarsk Territory.

In 1915, Lepeshinskaya graduated from the Imperial Moscow University at the Faculty of Medicine with a “Doctor with Honors” scholarship. She worked as an assistant at the university department, but was fired for revolutionary activities. She practiced medicine in Moscow and Crimea. In 1917 she was a member of the revolutionary committee of the Podmoskovnaya station. She organized a commune school for street children in the village of Litvinovichi, where Lepeshinskaya lived with her husband’s mother, Panteleimon Nikolaevich. Most of the students then came to Moscow and studied at the experimental demonstration school on Znamenka. Later, this school was named after P. N. Lepeshinsky, and many children from the Government House studied there.

Since 1919, Lepeshinskaya taught and was engaged in scientific work in Tashkent, then in Moscow, where she worked as an assistant at Moscow University. Since 1926, she worked in the histological laboratory of the Biological Institute named after K. A. Timiryazev. Since 1936 - in cytological laboratories and the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences. Since 1949, she has been in charge of the department of development of living matter. In 1950 she received the State (Stalin) Prize of the USSR. She was awarded the Order of Lenin and the Order of the Red Banner of Labor.

Lepeshinskaya's ideas about the non-cellular structure of living matter, which she adhered to until the last days of her life, were rejected as not confirmed.

Scientific activity

Lepeshinskaya's main scientific works are related to the topics of animal cell membranes and the histology of bone tissue.

Lepeshinskaya proposed a method of treating wounds with blood (hemobandages), which was used in wartime.

New cell formation (the theory of “living matter”)

Lepeshinskaya conducted her research on chicken eggs, fish eggs, tadpoles, and also on hydras.

“It was 1933<…>. One spring, I caught tadpoles that had just hatched from eggs and brought them to the laboratory. I take one and crush it. I put a drop of blood and mucus from a crushed tadpole under a microscope.<…>. Eagerly and impatiently, I look for red blood cells in my field of vision. But what are they? My gaze is fixed on some balls. I focus the microscope lens. Before me is a completely incomprehensible picture: among the fully developed blood cells, I clearly distinguish some seemingly underdeveloped cells - fine-grained yolk balls without nuclei, smaller yolk balls, but with a nucleus beginning to form. It seemed that before my eyes was a complete picture of the birth of a cell..."

In 1939, on the occasion of the 100th anniversary of cellular science, Lepeshinskaya’s new article “The Origin of the Cell” was published, in which Lepeshinskaya named the Swiss anatomist and embryologist V. Gies (1831-1904) as her predecessor. This scientist made observations of blood islands inside the yolk sac. According to the historian of science A.E. Gaisinovich, the conclusions of this scientist were caused by the imperfection of the staining technique, and the author himself, being a student of Remak and Virchow, abandoned these views already at the end of the 19th century.

Also in her works, Lepeshinskaya referred to the theory of protomers by M. Heidenhain (1864-1949) and the symplastic theory of F. Studnicka (1870-1955), “karyosomes” by Minchin.

In the 1930s, Lepeshinskaya studied the membranes of red blood cells, noticing that with age they become denser and less permeable. To soften their shells, she suggested using soda. In 1953, in the article “On the principle of treatment with soda baths” (Clinical Medicine. No. 1), Lepeshinskaya reported that soda can “play a big role in the fight against old age, hypertension, sclerosis and other diseases” (p. 31) . She claimed that if you inject soda into fertilized chicken eggs, the chickens show gluttony and outstrip the control chickens in growth and do not die from rheumatism. Lepeshinskaya also pointed out the beneficial effect of soda solution on plant seeds.

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

Since 1949, Lepeshinskaya worked at, where she headed the Department for the Development of Living Matter.

From May 22 to May 24, 1950, a meeting on the problem of living matter and cell development took place in Moscow in the Department of Biological Sciences of the USSR Academy of Sciences. At this meeting, Lepeshinskaya’s theory was supported by all the speakers who spoke, and in particular by T. D. Lysenko. Professor G.K. Khrushchov, who prepared demonstration preparations for the Commission of the Academy of Sciences and the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, stated at this meeting that all the material presented by Lepeshinskaya was “completely reliable and repeatable” and that for cytology “it is of great importance.”

Lepeshinskaya’s closest collaborator, V. G. Kryukov, argued in 1989 that the preparation of drugs by G. K. Khrushchev had an “obvious meaning” - the need to “remove all criticism of the “unsatisfactory quality” of Lepeshinskaya’s drugs.” Speaking at the meeting, Professor, Head of the Department of Histology of the 1st Moscow Medical Institute M. A. Baron said:

Lepeshinskaya herself said the following at this meeting about the presence of experimental confirmation of her work:

We have been working on this problem for more than fifteen years, and so far our data have not yet been experimentally refuted by anyone, and there is confirmation, especially recently (works by Suknev, Boshyan, Lavrov, Galustyan, Komarov, Nevyadomsky, Morozov, Harvey and Gravitz ).

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

In particular, in 1935 B.P. Tokin, former director of the Biological Institute. Timiryazev, speaking about Lepeshinskaya’s interpretation of the biogenetic law, argued:

“The origin of the cell from the yolk ball in the chick embryo is understood as a recapitulation of an early phase in the evolution of the cell, as Lepeshinskaya does, also “scientifically”, as if these same yolk balls, which are a derivative of cells, wanted to be mistaken for the primary living protein, originating from inorganic matter."

“Since we are talking about the de novo formation of cells of modern organisms, which are the product of a long course of evolution, there is nothing to discuss, since such ideas are a long-gone, infant stage in the development of science and are now beyond its boundaries.”

I remembered the laboratory assistants in the laboratory of O. B. Lepeshinskaya pounding beet grains in mortars: this was not “pounding in a mortar,” but an experimental development of the greatest discoveries in biology, made by maniacal ignoramuses propping each other up.

In 1939, the “Archive of Biological Sciences” published an article by leading Soviet histologists A. A. Zavarzin, D. N. Nasonov, N. G. Khlopin entitled “On one “direction” in cytology.” Analyzing in detail Lepeshinskaya’s work on the yolk of a chicken egg, on sturgeon eggs and on hydra, the authors noted the methodological imperfection of her work (incorrectly colored and poorly made preparations). The authors of this article criticized Lepeshinskaya’s theoretical conclusions, concluding that “in all these works, instead of exact facts, the reader is presented with the fruits of the author’s imagination, which actually stands at the level of science at the end of the 18th or the very beginning of the 19th century.” ", "sweeps aside all organic evolution and all modern embryology." Concluding their article, the authors noted that all those scientists whom Lepeshinskaya accused of being biased towards her work “must admit to one great guilt, namely: that by their connivance they contributed to the fact that O. B. Lepeshinskaya could develop her non-scientific activities so much time, and were unable to direct its energy along the channel of some other, truly scientific problem.”

Critics argued that Lepeshinskaya "actually called for a return to the views of Schleiden and Schwann, that is, to the level of science of the 1830s."

In 1958, a critical assessment of Lepeshinskaya’s theory followed in the journal Science by scientists L.N. Zhinkin and V.P. Mikhailov.

Unscientific activity, dogmatization, letter to Stalin

In order to defeat the most harmful, reactionary, idealistic teaching of Virchow, which retards the progress of science forward, we need first of all facts, facts and facts, we need experiments that prove the inconsistency and reactionary nature of this teaching. This is necessary in order to accelerate the pace of implementation of Comrade Stalin’s instructions to surpass in the near future the achievements of science outside our country.

Lepeshinskaya considered non-compliance with this point of view to be a violation of party discipline. In the Archives of the USSR Academy of Sciences, researchers A.E. Gaisinovich, E.B. Muzrukova found a copy of Lepeshinskaya’s application to the Party Control Commission of the All-Union Communist Party of Bolsheviks with a proposal to appoint an investigation into the case of the director of the Biological Institute. Timiryazev B.P. Tokin, one of her first critics and, as she noted in parentheses, the son of a kulak, a Socialist Revolutionary (1935).

“Dear Joseph Vissarionovich! For several years, I tried on my own to overcome the obstacles that were placed in my scientific work not only by reactionary scientists who take an idealistic or mechanistic position, but also by those comrades who follow their lead... The works, which are a continuation of my previous works, received high praise from Comrade. Lysenko, leaving my laboratory, are stored in the directorate’s archives, not read and not included in reports.”
Monographs

Lepeshinskaya O. B. The membrane of red blood cells as a colloidal system and its variability. - M.-L.: Glavnauka, GIZ, 1929. - 78 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Animal cell membranes and their biological significance. - [M.]: Medgiz, 1947. - 130 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. - M.-L.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1945. - 294 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing House of the Academy of Medical Sciences of the USSR, 1950. - 304 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter and the role of living matter in the body. 2nd ed., revised and supplemented. - M.: Publishing house of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, 1950. - 265 pp.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of life processes in the precellular period. - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Sciences, 1952. - 303 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Animal cell membranes and their biological significance. 2nd ed., rev. and additional - M.: Publishing House of the USSR Academy of Medical Sciences, 1953. - 112 p.

Brochures

Lepeshinskaya O. B. Militant vitalism. About the book by Prof. Gurvich ["Lectures on General Histology"]. - Vologda: “Northern Printer”, 1926. - 77 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Why does a natural scientist need dialectics. On the issue of lime deposits in the body. Bone development as a dialectical process... [Sb. articles] - M.: State Publishing House. Timiryaz. Research Institute, 1928. - 67 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell, its life and origin. - M.: Selkhozgiz, 1950. - 48 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell and its origin. - M.: Selkhozgiz, 1951. - 48 p. Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The cell, its life and origin. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 62 p.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Origin of cells from living matter. - [M.]: "Young Guard", 1951. - 39 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. The origin of cells from living matter. Transcript of a public lecture... - [M.]: "Pravda", 1951. - 40 p. Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. Origin of cells from living matter - M.: Voenizdat, 1952. - 76 p.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of cells from living matter. (Lecture material with filmstrip and methodological instructions). - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 32 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development of cells from non-cellular living matter. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1952. - 54 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. At the origins of life. Lit. recording by V.D. Elagin. - M.-L.: Detgiz, 1952. - 96 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. At the Origins of Life. Literary entry by V. D. Elagin. - M.-L.: Detgiz, 1953. - 104 p. )
Lepeshinskaya O. B. About life, old age and longevity. Ext. shorthand public lecture... - M.: “Knowledge”, 1953. - 48 p. (Reprint: Lepeshinskaya O. B. About life, old age and longevity. Expanded transcript of the public lecture. - Mn.: Publishing House of the Academy of Sciences of the BSSR, 1953. - 60 s.)
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Development and prospects of the new cell theory. - M.: Goskultprosvetizdat, 1953. - 56 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Non-cellular forms of life and the origin of cells. (Material for conversations). - Sverdlovsk: [B. i.], 1954. - 11 p.

Editorial work

Extracellular life forms. Sat. materials for biology teachers. Ed. O. B. Lepeshinskaya. - [M.]: Publishing House of the Academy of Pedagogical Sciences of the USSR, 1952. - 244 p.

Memories

Lepeshinskaya O. B. My memories. Lit. recording by G.I. Eysurovich. - Abakan: Khakknigoizdat, 1957. - 102 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. Meetings with Ilyich (Memoirs of an old Bolshevik). - M.: Gospolitizdat, 1957. - 40 p.
Lepeshinskaya O. B. The path to revolution. Memoirs of an old Bolshevik. Lit. recording by Z. L. Dicharov. - Perm: Book. ed., 1963. - 118 p.
.
A. E. Gaisinovich, E. B. Muzrukova. “Teaching” of O. B. Lepeshinskaya about “living matter”.
About one unscientific concept (“Letter of the 13”, authors: N. G. Khlopin, D. N. Nasonov, P. G. Svetlov, Yu. I. Polyansky, P. V. Makarov, N. A. Gerbilsky, 3. S. Katsnelson, B. P. Tokin, V. Ya. Alexandrov, Sh. D. Galustyan, A. G. Knorre, V. P. Mikhailov, V. A. Dogel) // “Medical worker” July 7 1948

Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna - scientific activity. Living matter by Olga Lepeshinskaya Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

New cell formation

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

Scientific activity

New cell formation (the theory of “living matter”)

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

Unscientific activity, dogmatization, letter to Stalin

Main works

1950 meeting

Monographs

Brochures

Editorial work

Memories

see also

Write a review about the article "Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna"

Notes

Literature

Excerpt characterizing Lepeshinskaya, Olga Borisovna

Biographical facts, participation in the revolutionary movement

Biographical facts, participation in the revolutionary movement

Scientific activity

New cell formation (the theory of “living matter”)

Scientific and political supporters of Lepeshinskaya

Criticism of the theory of “living matter”

Unscientific activity, dogmatization, letter to Stalin

Monographs

Brochures

Editorial work

Memories

We are in social networks

Categories