CC BY
101
УДК 008(47+57) 65
ББК 87.3(2)
Н.в. Никифорова
HISTORY Of TECHNOLOGY IN RUSSIA: RESEARCH TRADITIONS AND SHIfTS
Предлагается общий обзор историографии науки и техники в России с XIX века до нынешнего времени. В XIX веке институциональное разделение между дисциплинами еще не было очень строгим, и история науки и техники не функционировала как самостоятельная дисциплина, а находилась на службе у политической науки, экономики и государственных интересов. Советская историография описана с точки зрения взаимодействия коммунистической идеологии и дискурсивных стратегий, применяемых историками. В этот период история науки и техники была институализирована. В последнем разделе представлены современные тенденции, методологические подходы, стили, темы, институции и публикации в сфере исследований науки и техники.
Ключевые слова:
историография науки и техники, науковедение, русский космизм, философия техники.
The present article is an attempt to present a general overview of historiography of science and technology in Russia. I will start with the nineteenth century when historical science was shaping around new temporality and the idea of national states. In this period when institutional division between disciplines had not yet been established, we could find examples of technological history scattered around various fields of social thought. Soviet historiography will be described in the light of interrelation between the Communist ideology and strategies implemented by the scholars. In the last section recent trends, methodologies, styles, themes, emerging institutions and publications in science and technology studies in Russia will be introduced.
Nineteenth century. The Birth of History
XIXth century was the age of history for all European countries. Epidemic devotion to history meant the formation of the new system of values, new understanding of personal biographies in connection with big political events of the past and the present. In Russia, this "vaccination with history" was a reaction to the French Revolution and European philosophy. The war with Napoleon in 1812 and the Decembrist revolt of 1825 were the stimulators of this "sublime historical illness". History itself and the idea of historicism (the idea of continuity and succession of historical periods, when life of a man or of a nation started to be understood as a consequence of general historical process) started to be the synonym of world view. Historical science and historical writings were put in the service of the shaping national states. Thus, historical works had manifold symbolical and practical functions.
History as science was shaping gradually, before it distinguished into an independent field, historical writings constituted a part of social, economic, political works. Historical sections primarily had applied function - history supplied knowledge necessary to solve certain problems in the present. For instance, economic works of
the nineteenth century necessarily contained a historical part. Dmitry Mendeleev, famous Russian chemist, was also concerned with issues of economy and industrial development. He wrote numerous works on industrial development of the country, where the narration interspersed with historical information on science and technology, it was called upon to show effective and ineffective cases, give material on the evaluation of contemporary decisions [8; 9].
In the nineteenth century, historical writings were rarely created without a particular reason. Usually they were dedicated to certain events or festivities, and from a certain point -to jubilees. As Konstantin Tsimbaev mentioned, at some point Russia started to have jubilee-mania. This may be explained by the role ascribed to these events - jubilees even more that annual festivities could be used to configure the perception of the past. Through the selection of jubilee events, through the elaboration of festive program a whole historical perspective was built, that could represent a continuous line connecting past with present and with the future. Anniversaries stimulated a dialogue with the past and provoked reflections on the "covered distance". After the 25th anniversary of the 1812 war and 100th anniversary of the Moscow university (1855) the tradition of publication of jubilee books started to be an integral part of the festive program [25]. Special editions dedicated to the history of firms, factories, ministries, educational institutions were among the first examples of historical writings on history of science and technology [2; 3; 14; 18; 19].
Another popular genre was the history of industrial dynasties - Stroganovs (successful merchants, industrialists, who owned salterns in in the region of the White Sea since the sixteenth century), Demidovs (they became famous since the eighteenth century for being favored by Peter the Great, they had mines and weapons factory in Tula region), Eliseevs (successful merchants from Saint-Petersburg), Morozovs (who had tex-
3 \o О
o
3
VO O
tile factories, and were famous patrons of art). These works studied family biographies, but also provided information on the history of an industry. History of technology was interweaved with history of dynasty, political and social context, details about everyday life and material culture.
A profound research on the history of Russian industry and trade was published in 1893 for the World's Columbian Exposition [21]. It was decided that the visitors would not be able to form a judgement regarding the conditions and peculiarities of the history of Russian industry basing only on the exhibit items. So, a book edited by D. Mendeleev covering the history of the main industrial spheres was published. The book was published in Russian and English. In the same period similar works were prepared by the ministries of transport and mining.
Second half of the nineteenth century saw the appearance and development of the genre of regimental stories. After the anniversary of the war of 1812 this kind of texts started to appear in order to provide "moral strength", it was decided that through the acquaintance with past experiences young generation would acquire love and respect for the regiment and ardour for future combat feats. In 1879 a special instruction about the preparation of regimental stories was issued. They had to include the description of the battle actions, mobilization, marching, reconnaissance measures, laager, subsistence and material things used in everyday life. The popularity of the genre influenced on the archival tradition - the regiments started to preserve and organize documentation, keeping a regiment diary started to be compulsory. Regimental stories may be regarded as the first examples of writings on history of military technology and soldiers' everyday life [22].
Thus, history of science and technology did not form a separate self-sufficient disciplinary field before the beginning of the twentieth century (when it was institutionalized by the Soviet government). Its development unfolded in the general context of intellectual trends of the nineteenth century, this implied shaping of historical consciousness, and put history in service of the state interests.
Russian Philosophy of Technology
The turn of the twentieth century saw fertility in philosophical ideas about technology. It is possible to speak about Russian school of philosophy of technology. There was a considerable humanistic movement among the engineering community that was concerned with a broader approach to technology.
The proponent of the philosophy and history of technology in Russia was engineer and thinker Peter Engelmeier. He was the first one in Russia who associated philosophical analy-
sis with the world of machines and material production. He understood technology broadly as "all human knowledge, directed towards practical purposes, and all human skills...it is the scepter of power over nature". The highest level of abstraction needed for generalizing was the philosophy of technology, that in turn could be understood as "the highest stage of self-consciousness of engineers". Engelmeier wrote "as a theory of culture, philosophy of technology raises technology to the level of epistemology, ethics, and aesthetics. With time, it can evolve into a world outlook". The anthropological value of technology expressed itself in human ability to adjust the nature to his needs, to surround himself with special artificial microcosmos, instead of adapting to natural circumstances" (cited by [29]). Engelmeier, and his followers, such as engineer A. Pavlovsky [13] shared technological optimism.
But there was pessimistic philosophical reflection that applied theological perspective on technological progress. Russian religious philosophers Sergei Bulgakov, Nikolai Berdi-aev at the beginning of the twentieth century expressed religious and cultural criticism of technology, which stood against overestima-tion of the role of technology in society. Technology turned into a supermoodern religion where human society equipped with technological knowledge played the role of God.
Another philosophical movement emerged in the second half of the nineteenth century, it centered on the idea of internal unity of humanity and the Cosmos. It was a metaphysical and religious outlook, later labeled as "Russian Cos-mism". It presented a unique blend of futuristic speculations, materialistic science, religious mysticism and esoteric practices. This movement has never developed into a distinct philosophical school with the clear-cut criteria for membership, but was rather a set of themes, ideas and values. Traditions of Russian cosmism were developed by Nikolai Fedorov, Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Alexander Chizhevsky, Vladimir Vernadsky.
Philosophical reflections on science and technology, on the essence of technology and human activity survived only until 1930s, when they were declared idealistic and dangerous and a huge campaign was started against the representatives of the "old technical intelligentsia".
Soviet Period
Soviet history of science and technology has been the focus of a number of sophisticated profound works that were devoted to the themes, methodologies, publication activity, rhetorical strategies adopted by scholars (see [27; 28; 30; 31]). Therefore, the aim of this paragraph is to provide a brief overview of the main circumstances and outcomes of this period.
History of science and technology during Soviet period does not represent a continuous congruent picture, but rather a complex landscape of various layers of meaning and discursive structures. The discipline was under heavy influence of the party, it was put in the service for the Socialist ideals, which at some points granted the discipline with political legitimacy and influence. Humanistic research had to be brought into strict accordance with the ideas of Marxism-Leninism, that suggested class character of ideology and very strict structural deterministic reading of the base/superstructure metaphor, where changes in production relations define the forms of politics, law, and ideology, and everything that does not have direct relation to the means of production has a subordinate role and belongs to superstructure (including science, culture, education). As Slava Gerovitch subtly mentioned in his articles, Soviet historians of science and technology developed a number of discursive strategies in order to manoeuvre between conformity and innovation [28].
The research was concentrated under the auspices of the Academy of Sciences. History of science was institutionalized in the early years of Soviet power. In 1921 a special commission was established within the Academy of Sciences, it was initiated by Vladimir Vernadsky.
The period between 1920-1940 saw extensive study of history of plants and factories. Although these works focused on revolutionary aspects, they may be regarded as examples of technological history. Special publishing commission was created in 1931 and published a journal, and a huge book series. Publication program was inspired and edited by Maxim Gorky. He defined the work on the history of Soviet factories as pivotal for Communist education, for the development of historical science and literature.
In 1932 Soviet Academy of Sciences established the Institute for the History of Science and Technology under the direction of Nikolai Bukharin. In the very beginning a broad range of studies were encouraged. A large number of researches on science and technology were dedicated to the Renaissance epoch [6; 12; 17]. This thematic choice may be explained by being neutral, not subject to the Party's critique.
With the decline of Bukharin's political career and arrest, the Institute was closed as the "center of anti-Soviet plot". Only in 1944 new institution was formed - Institute of History of Natural Science. In 1953 it was renamed after the introduction of the Commission for the History of Technology, the new name was S.I. Vavilov Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology.
As it was mentioned by Slava Gerovicth, Soviet historians mainly adopted internalist approach to science and technology. The inquires
into the development of knowledge focused on internal mechanisms rather than science as social phenomena. Researches dedicated themselves to compilation of data and did not present any analysis. This approach called for "objective" knowledge - the research had to be based on historical evidence and precise sources, rather than on interpretative speculations. This understanding of objectivity lead to creation of works that came down to a chronological list of facts and lack of creative discussion.
Historians of medieval and classical culture were probably the only ones who attempted to adopt externalist methodological approaches with attention to social context of scientific and technical inventions. One of the most prominent historians and philosophers of science was Vasily Zubov. His major works were dedicated to architectural theory of Alberti, the legacy of Leonardo daVinci, he translated and commented Aristotle, Nicole Oresme, Augustine of Hippo, Galilee, Boethius. Zubov's approach became a reference point for generations of historians. He raised social and cultural problems - for instance, social status of an architect in the Renaissance, history of aesthetics. One of the essential features of his works was the attention to the importance of language. Zubov analysed concepts, linguistic structures in order to inscribe scientific knowledge in a bigger cultural picture - for instance, he compared linguistic strategies in the description of church in Machiavelli and daVinci. He claimed that to understand the Renaissnace science it was crucial to perceive that intimate link that connected science and art in this period [4].
The history of technology between 1940s and 1950s had very specific features. Researchers within the academy chose the genre of commemorative events, it was "the great men of science" discourse. Between 1941 and 1945 numerous meetings were held to celebrate anniversaries of scientific discoveries and institutions. History of science and technology was necessarily represented as "annals of majestic conquests of human genius", creative feats that brought about inventions and discoveries that gave humanity power to create "second nature". Russian history of science and technology was described as a revolutionary process of fight against everything reactionary.
Political demand for establishing Russian priority in technological innovations stimulated a large campaign on nationalization of Soviet and Russian science and technology, which took place in the course of the Great Patriotic War and after. This body of research canonized Russian and Soviet scientists, we may recall the case with A. Popov and invention of the radio. Huge debate unfolded around the priority of Soviet and Russian scientists on technological and scientific inventions, including radio, elec-
3 vo O
o
3
VO O
tric lamps, electric transport, steam engine, telephone. There was even place for falsifications like bicycle "invented" by Artamonov, air-balloon allegedly made by Kryakutny [30].
1960s and the Thaw lead to certain changes in thematic preferences among the historians. Soviet authorities began to favor collaboration between Soviet researchers and their Western colleagues. This lead to rehabilitation of entire scientific disciplines - cybernetics, genetics, social psychology, and numerous prominent Russian scientists. But although the heroes changed, methodological approach remained the same. It was still a story about prominent figures, focusing on chronological registration of inventions.
A strategy to raise the status of historical research and to attain it with a science touch was treating the development of science as "natural process" subject to quantitative regulations that could be studied with methods of natural science. A discipline of "naukovedenie" (science studies) that constituted itself as exact science shaped and was institutionalized around 1960s. Soviet specialists in naukovedenie played an important role in turning the formula from the Communist Party Program about science becoming a "direct productive force" to the advantage of the scientific community [32]. Quantitative data helped apply for more financial support.
Perestroika in the USSR fostered both thematic and methodological changes, historians took advantage of newly opened archives and extended their research on the dark spots. Interest of younger generation of researchers was directed towards history in context rather than history in vacuum. Conferences on social history of science and technology held in 1989, 1990 were among the first experiences of new contextual history. Novel perspectives included the engagement of Soviet science and scientists in existing political landscape; the role of foreign expertise in building Russian industrial and transportation system. The emerging trend of the time may be described as the aspiration to go beyond the mere identification of scientific and technological heroes, and look at social and cultural context in order to explain their appearance.
2000s. Recent Trends
After late 1990s researchers' menu of themes and methodological approaches enlarged significantly. This, of course, can be explained by more intensive engagement of historians in international discourse. Many members of the academic community strove to break away from the previous paradigms concerned with building universal models of historical development and searching for big schemes. The shift took place from the universal to the individual, to every day life and micro-history. Interdiscipli-narity and attention to context started to be a
standard for humanistic research. As Daniil Al-exandrov mentioned, social history of science and technology had to take after Lev Tolstoy's War and Peace, rather than resemble chronicles or myths about heroes [1, p. 22].
New themes that appeared in the sight of researchers included transfer of ideas and technologies in pre-revolutionary Russia and Soviet Union; gender aspects of science and technology; Soviet studies and Soviet identity; role of users in development of technology and influence of technology on modernity; interaction of technology and politics, laboratory studies. Methodological spectrum now includes approaches from social and cultural history and cultural studies, social construction and actor-network theory, biografics (updated integrative approach to biography writing), oral history.
A number of noteworthy works on the social history of community of physicists and Soviet atomic project have been published recently [5; 10]. The Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology initiated a project on oral history of Soviet science, that already has a considerable amount of video and audio interviews with scientists available for the researchers on the Internet site [20].
Nowadays the IIET remains the leading research institution under the guidance of the Academy of Sciences, the Institute has a branch in Saint-Petersburg. Since the beginning of 2000s a number of new research centers for history and sociology of technology have emerged. Two centers are located in Saint-Petersburg and operate under the auspices of the European University in Saint-Petersburg - Center for Ecological and Technological History (CETH) [24] created in 2002, and Center for Science and Technology Studies [23] launched in 2011 with the support of the Skolkovo Foundation. These centers maintain academic ties with European and American universities. CETH works with a broad range of topics including Social and cultural history of recreation, oral history of Soviet science and technology projects, technology in Russian modernization.
The courses on Sociology of Technology are offered at a number of higher educational institutions, including Higher School of Economics and The Moscow School of Social and Economic Sciences (MSSES). Some of the researches of MSSES are focused on the sociology of things and understanding of materiality. A collective monograph "Sociology of Things" was published in 2006 [16]. The volume contains translations from Georg Simmel, Erving Goffman, Bruno Latour, John Law.
The Centre for Policy Analysis and Studies of Technologies (PAST-Centre) [11] was founded within the Tomsk State National Research University in 2012, with the support of the Higher
Education Support Program of the Open Society Foundations. Research topics include technology development policy for communal urban infrastructure, the social aspects of the technological modernization of health services, innovative business development policy, cultural policy in the context of technological development, and scientific research teams and networks.
The mentioned institutions are on the cutting edge of historical and cultural research. It is a common practice to deliver lessons and hold conferences in English, German or French there, which significantly simplifies the introduction of international scholarship into Russian academic milieu. At the same time disciplinary division within the Institute of the History of Natural Science and Technology and other "classical" institutions seems to be rather strict, and historical research concerned with registration of events is still separated from the investigation of cultural and social background.
Thejournal "Problems of Natural Science and Tecgnology", founded in 1953 by the Institute remains the major periodical in the field. Current research landscape of the journal remains stable. A detailed description of this edition was presented in a review by Paul R. Josephson [33]. Some changes were introduced - a section on social history of technology was added, some issues contain material on problems of gender and technology, aesthetic problems of science and technology. In 2010 Saint-Petersburg branch of the Institute started to publish an interdisciplinary journal "Sociology of Science and Technology". As it was explained in the first issue, the timeliness of the journal is explained by the necessity expressed by the government and felt by the scientific community to reorganize teaching, research and financing practices; to improve the assessment procedures of the academic institutions; to evaluate factors that affect prestige, effectiveness, academic mobility [26].
In regard to the recent publications, it is pertinent to mention book series published by "Novoe Literaturnoe Obozrenie" (New Literary Observer) publishing house. The most prominent are the book series on the history of science, everyday life culture, visual studies. These series contain translations of foreign works, as well as texts by Russian researchers. Greater part of the books deal with interdisciplinary analysis of science, knowledge distribution, transfer of knowledge, social and cultural aspects of technology and media, material culture and everyday life.
As it is well known, Russia and the Soviet Union have profound tradition of biographical research. Methodological discussions on the renovation of this genre have been on the agenda since late 1990s. These debates resulted in shaping of a separate disciplinary field - biographics. It is hard to call it a structured scientific school,
it is rather a set of approaches and values shared by researchers. Biographics integrates history, sociology, psychology and cultural analysis. The proponents of biographics define it as contextual or hermeneutic biography. It is attentive to emotional aspects of life of its heroes, historical difference of feelings and emotions. The discipline strives to go beyond mere listing of facts, and identify motives, self- assessment of actions and decisions, "scientific emotions" manifested in the course of scientific research [15]. A number of researchers stress the necessity to study the role of love, somatic diseases, religious and occult beliefs in scientific and technical careers. An annual conference has been established -The Right to a Name: Biographics in the 20th Century. Biographies of scientists and engineers compose a considerable part of the researches.
In Soviet institutional structure history of science and technology was separated from sociological and psychological studies, which made sociocultural approach alien. Post-Soviet scholarship inherits Soviet disciplinary division, and still narrow approach reduced to the collection of facts may be observed within history of science and technology. Contextual problems of technological development and innovation are studied within the frames of other disciplines. The discipline of culturology may be cited as example. This discipline was institutionalized after the dissolution of the USSR, and virtually replaced Marxist social sciences to become the backbone of humanistic education. While in Soviet paradigm society was divided into classes and parties, each fighting for power and supremacy, culture had the potential to unite people and transcend social, national, and historical divisions. The unbiased idea of culture was chosen and put in the forefront. So, the mission of culturology was to offer integrative knowledge of the various aspects of social life. Unlike in the West where the so called "cultural turn" stimulated the appearance of a number of interdisciplinary and subdisciplinary fields, Russian culturology became a unified replacement for the previous paradigm. Currently it develops as an integrative discipline attentive to interdisciplinary approaches and problems found at the intersection of various fields. There is a young branch of culturology of technology. The book "Culturology of Technology and Engineering" published in 2011 underpins the field and defines its major problems - social background of science, technology and engineering, axiologi-cal models, interaction between professional community and the public, symbolic dimension of technology, problems of identity [7].
Russian scholarship becomes more sophisticated, new methodologies are mastered and novel themes come into the view. All this contributes to building a complex multivalue discourse.
3 vo O
70 Russian science and technology studies have dation of community of historians, and reassess-been already plotted on the international map, ment of pivotal historiographical problems in but there is still much to do in terms of consoli- order to challenge the entrenched mentalities.
о
3 \o О
Bibliography:
[1] Александров Д.А. Социальная история отечественной науки и техники // Вопросы истории естествознания и техники. - 1995, №1. - С. 21-23.
[2] Глиноецкий Н.П. История Русского генерального штаба. - СПб.: тип. Штаба войск Гвардии и Пе-терб. воен. окр., 1883-1894.
[3] Григорьев В.В. Императорский С.-Петербургский университет в течение первых пятидесяти лет его существования. - СПб.: тип. В. Безобразова и К°, 1870. - 679 с.
[4] Зубов В. П. Архитектурная теория Альберти - СПб.: Алетейя, 2001. - 461 с.
[5] Иойрыш А.И. Советский атомный проект: Судьбы. Документы. Свершения. - М.: Юнити, 2008. - 355 с.
[6] Котов В.Ф. Проблема силы у Леонардо да Винчи. - 1937. - 174 с.
[7] Культурология техники и инженерной деятельности. Коллективная монография / Отв. ред. Н.Г. Багдасарьян. - СПб.: Эйдос, 2011. - 202 с.
[8] Менделеев Д.И. Заветные мысли / Полн. изд. (впервые после 1905 г.). - М.: Мысль, 1995. - 413 с.
[9] Менделеев Д.И. Основы фабрично-заводской промышленности - СПб., 1897.
[10] Научное сообщество физиков СССР. 1950-1960-е годы: документы, воспоминания, исследования / Сост. и ред. В.П. Визгин и А.В. Кессених. - СПб.: Изд-во Русской Христианской гуманитарной академии, 2005. - 720 с.
[11] Научно-образовательный центр «Социально-политические исследования технологий». - Интернет-ресурс. Режим доступа: http://past-centre.ru/ (14.12.2014)
[12] Орбели Р.А. Леонардо да Винчи и его работы по изысканию способа подводного плавания и спусков. - Ленинград, 1936. - 40 с.
[13] Павловский А. Успехи техники и их влияние на цивилизацию. - СПб., 1896. - 70 с.
[14] Пекарский П.П. История Императорской Академии наук в Петербурге: издание Отделения русского языка и словесности Императорской Академии наук. В 2-х тт. - СПб., 1870-1873.
[15] Петровская И. Ф. Введение в биографику. Источники биографической информации о россиянах 1801-1917 гг.. - СПб.: Logos, 2003. - 488 с.
[16] Социология вещей. Сборник статей. Под ред. В. Вахштайна. — М.: Издательский дом «Территория будущего», 2006.- 392 с.
[17] Спешилов П.В. Леонардо да Винчи как анатом. - Саратов: Сарат. гос. им. Н.Г. Чернышевского ун-т, 1930.
[18] Столетие Военного министерства: 1802-1902 / Гл. ред. ген. от кавалерии Д.А. Скалон. - Санкт-Петербург: тип. т-ва М.О. Вольф, 1902-1914.
[19] Столетие Вольного экономического общества. - СПб., 1865.
[20] Устная история, электронный архив. - Интернет-ресурс. Режим доступа: http://oralhistory.ru/ (14.12.2014)
[21] Фабрично-заводская промышленность и торговля России. Под ред. Д.И. Менделеева. - СПб.: Издание Департамента торговли и мануфактур Министерства финансов, типография В.С. Балашева, 1893. - 752 с.
[22] Хохлов И.В. Полковая историография русской армии в конце XIX - начале XX в. // Вопросы истории. - 2008, № 2. - С. 159-166.
[23] Центр исследований науки и технологий. - Интернет-ресурс. Режим доступа: http://www.eu.spb.ru/ en/research-centers/sts (14.12.2014)
[24] Центр экологической и технологической истории. - Интернет-ресурс. Режим доступа: http://www. eu.spb.ru/en/research-centers/ceth (14.12.2014)
[25] Цимбаев К.Н. Реконструкция прошлого и конструирование будущего в России XIX века: опыт использования исторических юбилеев в политических целях // Историческая культура императорской России: формирование представлений о прошлом / Отв. ред. А.Н. Дмитриев. - М.: Издательский дом Высшей школы экономики, 2012. - С. 475-499 с.
[26] Aronovich K. EDITORIAL // Sociology of Science and Technology. - 2010, № 1. - P. 112-114.
[27] Gerovitch S. Perestroika of the History of Technology and Science in the USSR: Changes in the Discourse // Technology and Culture. V. 37 - 1996, № 1 (January). - P. 102-34.
[28] Gerovitch S. Writing History in the Present Tense: Cold War-era Discursive Strategies of Soviet Historians of Science and Technology // Universities and Empire: Money and Politics in the Social Sciences During the Cold War. - New York: The New Press, 1998. - P. 189-228.
[29] Gorokhov V. Technological Enlightenment in Russia // Research in Philosophy and Technology. - 1997, № 3 (2) - P. 106-112.
[30] Gouzevitch I. The History of Technology in Today's Russia // SHOT Newsletter. - 1996, № 72 (June). - P. 13-16.
[31] Graham L. Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History. - Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993.
[32] Josephson P.R. Science and Ideology in the Soviet Union: the Transformation of Science into a Direct Productive Force // Soviet Union. Vol. 8. - 1981, № 2. - P. 159-185.
[33] Josephson P.R. Review of Voprosy Istorii Estestvoznaniia i Tekhniki, ISIS 82. - The University of Chicago Press, 1991. - P. 298-300.
