I am most grateful for a combined International Research Exchanges Board-Fulbright-Hays exchange grant to visit the Soviet Union, which provided the opportunity to collect much of the material for this essay. The epigraphs can be found in Georg von Rauch, Studien über das Verhdltnis Russlands zu Europa (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1964), 201; Denys Hay, “Geographical Abstractions and the Historian,” Historical Studies 2 (1959): 15.

1. Gorbachev, Mikhail, Perestroika (New York: Harper and Row, 1987), 180, 191, 194-195, 197-198Google Scholar, and idem, Toward a Better World (London: Hutchinson, 1987), 344, 348. For dissident opinions see Olzhas Suleimenov, Az i la. Kniga blagonamerennogo chitatelia (Alma Ata: Zhanzushi, 1975); F. F. Nestorov, Sviaz’ vremen (Moscow: Molodaia gvardiia, 1980); Agursky, Mikhail, “The Prospects of National Bolshevism,” in The Last Empire, ed. Conquest, Robert (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1986), 103–105 Google Scholar. On Suleimenov see Jack V. Haney, “The Consequences of Seeking Roots,” Ethnic Russia in the USSR, ed. Edward Alworth (New York: Pergamon, 1980), 69-76.

2. Hauner, Milan, What is Asia to Us1﹜ (Boston: Unwin Hyman, 1990)Google Scholar; Goehrke, Carsten, “Einige Grundprobleme der Geschichte Russlands im Spiegel der jüngsten Forschung,” Jahrbuch für Geschichte Osteuropas 34 (1986): 225–229 Google Scholar.

3. On Russia and Europe see Masaryk, Thomas G., Russland und Europa, 2 vols. (Jena: Diederichs, 1913)Google Scholar; von Schelting, Alexander, Russland und Europa in russischen Geschichtsdenken (Bern: Francke, 1948)Google Scholar; Chizhevsky, Dmitrii, ed. Europa und Russland (Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, 1959)Google Scholar; Groh, Dieter, Russland und das Selbstverstdndnis Europas (Neuweid: Luchterhand, 1961)Google Scholar and the Soviet rebuttal by Gol'dberg, A. L., “Diter Gro otluchaet Rossiiu ot Evropy,” Istoriia SSSR 5 (1963): 208–212 Google Scholar; Reinhard Wittram, Russia and Europe, trans., Patrick and Hanaluise Doran (London: Thames and Hudson, 1973). Also see the discussion in Slavic Review 23 (1964): 1-30. On Russia and Asia see Utechin, S. V., “The Russians in Relation to Asia and Europe,” in The Glass Curtain between Asia and Europe, ed. Iyer, Raghavah (London: Oxford University Press, 1965), 87–101 Google Scholar; Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, “Russia cenand Asia: Two 19th Century Views,” California Slavic Studies 1 (1960): 170-181; idem, “Asia through Russian Eyes,” in Russia and Asia, ed. Wayne S. Vucinich (Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1972), 3-29; Emanuel Sarkisyanz, “Russian Attitudes toward Asia,” Russian Review 13 (October 1954): 245-254; idem, Russland und der Messianismus des Orients (Tubingen: Mohr, 1955); Stephan, John J., “Asia in the Soviet Conception,” in Soviet Policy in East Asia, ed. Zagoria, Donald S. (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1982), 29–56 Google Scholar. Of more limited use are Dallin, David J., The Rise of Russia in Asia (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1949)Google Scholar; A. Lobanov-Rostovsky, Russia and Asia (Ann Arbor, Mich.: George Wahr, 1965).

4. With the exception of Ladis Kristof's innovative studies, very little serious scholarly attention has been given to the question of geographical images of Russia. See L. K. D. Kristof, “The Historical and Political Role of a Nation in Space,” (Ph.D. diss., University of Chicago, 1969); idem, “The Russian Image of Russia,” in Essays in Political Geography, ed. C. A. Fisher (London: Methuen, 1968), 345-387; idem, “The State-Idea, the,National Idea and the Image of the Fatherland,” Orbis 11 (1967): 238-255.

5. Parker, W. H., “Europe: How Far?” Geographical Journal 126 (1960): 278 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tozer, H. F., A History of Ancient Geography, 2nd ed. (New York: Biblo and Tannen, 1964), 67–69 Google Scholar.

6. T-in-0 maps depicted a circular world divided into three continental segments by the Tanais, Nile, and Mediterranean. The arrangement of the rivers assumed a rough T shape. Wright, John K., The Geographical Lore of the Time of the Crusades (New York: Dover, 1965), 66–68, 71Google Scholar; Raymond Beazley, C., The Dawn of Modern Geography, 3 vols. (New York: Peter Smith, 1949) 2:576–580ffGoogle Scholar; David Woodward, “Medieval Mappaemundi,” in The History of Cartography, ed. J. B. Harley and David Woodward, 6 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987-) 1:296-297.

7. Compare Sigismund Gerbershtein [Herberstein], Zapiska o moskovitskikh delakh, trans. A. I. Malenin (St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1908), 105.

8. Gollwitzer, Heinz, “Zur Wortgeschichte und Sinndeutung von ‘Europa’,” Saeculum 2,2 (1951): 165 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Louis, Herbert, “Über den geographischen Europabegriff,” Mitteilungeh der Geographischen Gesellschaft in München 39 (1954): 75 Google Scholar. On the changing concept of Europe see Hay, Denys, Europe: The Emergence of an Idea, 2nd ed. (Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1968)Google Scholar; Christopher Dawson, The Making of Europe (Cleveland: Meridian, 1966); Heinz Gollwitzer, Europabild und Europagedanke, 2nd ed. (Munich: Beck, 1964); Jürgen Fischer, Oriens-Occidens-Europa. Begriff und Gedanke “Europa” in der späten Antike und imfruhen Mittelalter (Wiesbaden: Steiner, 1957)Google Scholar; Denis de Rougemont, The Idea of Europe, trans. N. Guterman (New York: Macmillan, 1966); Bernard Voyenne, Histoire de I'idée européene (Paris: Payot, 1964); Actes du colloque international sur la notion d'Europa (1961) (Paris: PUF, 1963).

9. Hay, Europe, 4; Burke, Peter, “Did Europe Exist before 1700?” History of European Ideas 1 (1980): 22–23 Google Scholar.

10. This complex process is described very well in Hay, , Europe, 73–95 Google ScholarPubMed.

11. Kiernan, V. G., “Europe in the Colonial Mirror,” History of European Ideas 1 (1980): 39 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Jörg-Geerd Arentzen, Imago Mundi Cartographica (Munich: Fink, 1984), plate 76; Hay, Europe, frontispiece.

12. Samuel Purchas, Purchas his Pilgrimes, Haklyut Society, Extra Series, 20 vols. (Glasgow: James MacLehose, 1905), 1:248; Hay, , Europe, 120–122 Google ScholarPubMed.

13. Parker, “Europe: How Far?” 281-283.

14. Kliuchevskii, V. O., Kurs russkoi istorii, 5 vols. (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Sotsial'no-Ekonomicheskoe, 1937) 3:303 Google Scholar. On Muscovite attitudes to the west, see Kazakova, N. A., Zapadnaia Evropa v russkoi pis'mennosti XV-XVI vekov (Leningrad: Nauka, 1980)Google Scholar; Günfher Stökl, Das Bild des Abendlandes in den altrussischen Chroniken (Cologne: Westdeutscher, 1965); Bickford O'Brien, C., Russia under Two Tsars 1682-1689 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1952), 43–61 Google Scholar.

15. A. N., Pypin, Istoriia russkoi literatury, 4 vols., 4th ed. (St. Petersburg: Stasiulevich, 1911) 3:317 Google Scholar; Schafly, Daniel L., “The Popular Image of the West in Russia at the time of Peter the Great,” in Russia and the World of the 18th Century, ed. Bartlett, R. P. et al. (Columbus, Ohio: Slavica, 1988), 2 Google Scholar. On busurmany (a variant of basurmany) see Vladimir Dal', Tolkovyi slovar’ zhivogo velikorusskogo iazyka, 4th ed., 4 vols. (St. Petersburg: Vol'f, 1912) 1:134.

16. Sobolevskii, A. I., Perevodnaia literatura Moskovskoi Rusi X1V-XVII vekov (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1903), 45–47, 52-78Google Scholar; D. M. Lebedev, Geografiia v RossiiXVII veka (dopetrovskoi epokhi) (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1949), 209.

17. “Kosmografiia sirech’ vsemirnoe opisanie zeml',” in Izbornik slavianskikh i russkikh sochinenii i statei, vnesennykh v khronografy russkoi redaktsii, ed. A. N. Popov (Moscow: Mamontov, 1869), 478; Mordovtsev, D. L., O russkikh shkol'nykh knigakh XVII veka (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1862), 61–63 Google Scholar; K. N. Serbina, ed., Kniga Bol'shomu Chertezhu (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1950), 29, 192; Iu. V. Arsen'ev, “Opisanie Moskvy i Moskovskogo gosudarstva po neizdannomu spisku Kosmografii kontsa XVII veka,” Zapiski moskovskogo arkheologicheskogo instituta (1911), 4; Ditmar, A. B., “K istorii voprosa o granitse mezhdu Evropoi i Aziei,” Uchenye zapiski Iaroslavskogo Ped. In-ta. Seriia geografiia 20(30), 1 (1958): 38–39 Google Scholar.

18. It was not until the early eighteenth century that any mention was made at all in Russia of a northern extension of the Don boundary, and that in geography texts translated from Dutch and German under Peter the Great: Geografiia ili Kratkoe zemnogo shara opisanie (Moscow: v tip. Moskovskoi, 1710), 11-12, 57; lagan Gibner, Zemnovodnogo kruga kratkoe opisanie …. trans. P. B. Inokhodtsev (Moscow: n.p., 1719), 8, 311-312, 343.

19. Gerbershtein, Zapiska o moskovitskikh delakh, 99, 107. The nineteenth century Russian editor of these Muscovite texts, for whom the question of Russia's relationship to Asia had a very different significance, was quite understandably struck by this point as well. Mordovtsev, O russkikh shkol'nykh knigakh, 61n.

20. For excellent overviews, see Sumner, B. H., Peter the Great and the Emergence of Russia (New York: Collier, 1973)Google Scholar; Reinhard Wittram, Peter 1. Czar und Kaiser, 2 vols. (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck und Ruprecht, 1964).

21. V. N. Tatishchev, Leksikon rossiiskoi … in Izbrannye proizvedeniia (Leningrad: Nauka, 1979), 271.

22. N. A. Voskresenskii, ed., Zakonodatel'nye akty Petra I (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1945), 155; Wittram, Peter 12:462-463; R J. Rollins, “Emperor, Russian use of the title of,” in Modern Encyclopedia of Russian and Soviet History, ed. J. L. Wieczynski, 53 vols. (Gulf Breeze, Fla.: Academic International Press, 1979) 10:200-201. On Peter's imperial vision see E. V. Anisimov, “Petr I: rozhdenie imperii,” Voprosy istorii 7 (1989); idem, Vremia petrovskikh reform (Leningrad: Lenizdat [forthcoming]).

23. This distinction was captured in the contrast that emerged in the eighteenth century between the terms russkii and rossiiskii. Pushkarev, S. G., Dictionary of Russian Historical Terms (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1970), 31 Google Scholar; “Rossiia,” Sovetskaia Istoricheskaia Emsiklopediia, 16 vols. (Moscow: Sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1969) 12:210; Kristof, “The Russian Image of Russia,” 349-353.

24. Lebedev, D. M., Geografiia v Rossii petrovskogo vremeni (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1950), 315 Google Scholar; V. Korsakova, “Vasilii Nikitich Tatishchev,” Russkii Biograficheskii Slovar’ (St. Petersburg: Obshchestvennaia Pol'za, 1912) 19:339; A. I. Andreev, “Trudy V. N. Tatishcheva po geografii Rossii,” in Tatishchev, V. N., Izbrannye raboty po geografii Rossii (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel'stvo geograficheskoi literatury, 1950), 5–6 Google Scholar. On Tatishchev also see A. I. Iukht, Gosudarstvennaia deiatel'nost’ V. N. Tatishcheva v 20-kh—nachale 30-kh godov XVIII v. (Moscow: Nauka, 1985); Grau, Conrad, Der Wirtschaftsorganisator, Staalsmann und Wissenschaftler Vasilij N. Tatisiev (1686-1750) (Berlin: Akademie, 1963)Google Scholar; Daniels, Rudolph L., V. N. Tatishchev (Philadelphia: Franklin, 1973)Google Scholar; Edward C. Thaden, “V. N. Tatishchev, German Historians, and the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences,” Russian History/Histoire Russe 13 (Winter 1986): 367-398.

25. “Russia ili kak nyne zovut Rossiia,” in Tatishchev, Izbrannye raboty po geografii Rossii, 108-112; Daniels, V.N. Tatishchev, 68-69.

26. Tatishchev, “Russia,” 112ff.

27. Entries Don and Evropa in Tatishchev, Leksikon rossiiskoi, 266, 271; idem, “Vvedenie k gistoricheskomu i geograficheskomu opisaniiu Velikorossiiskoi imperii,” Izbrannye raboty po geografii Rossii, 156; Ditmar, “K istorii voprosa o granitse,” 40-41.

28. Philipp-Johann von Strahlenberg, Das Nord- und Ostliche Teil von Europa und Asia … (Stockholm: In Verlegung des Autoris, 1730), 106-107; M. G. Novlianskaia, Filipp Iogann Stralenberg (Moscow-Leningrad: Nauka, 1966), 76-77; Parker, “Europe: How Far?” 285-286. Strahlenberg was thus the first actually to suggest in print that the Urals be taken as the boundary between Europe and Asia. Some years later, however, Tatishchev claimed that he had been the one to suggest it first to Strahlenberg. Ditmar emphatically endorses Tatishchev's claim to the authorship of this boundary, apparently seeing in it a victory of sorts for Russian science. V. N. Tatishchev, Istoriia Rossiiskaia, 7 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1962) 1:414; idem, “Obshchee geograficheskoe opisanie vseia Sibiri,” 50; Ditmar, “K istorii voprosa o granitse,” 40-42. For the dissenting view of a Soviet historian, however, see Bodnarskii, M. S., Ocherki po istorii russkogo zemlevedeniia (Moscow: AN SSSR, 1947), 95 Google Scholar. Tatishchev wrote a substantial commentary on Strahlenberg's book for the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences, which has recently been published, along with translations into Russian of parts of the book itself: Zapiski kapitana Filippa Ioganna Stralenberga … ,2 vols. (Moscow-Leningrad: AN SSSR, 1985). On Tatishchev and Strahlenberg see Grau, , Der Wirtschafisorganisator, 43, 47–49, 174-177Google Scholar; Novlianskaia, Stralenberg, 30, 77; Thaden, “V.N. Tatishchev,” 374-376.

29. Pushkin, A. S., Polnoe sobranie sochinenii, 10 vols. (Leningrad: Nauka, 1977-1979) 5:224–225 Google Scholar. On Muscovite maps see Bagrow, Leo, A History of Russian Cartography up to 1800 (Wolfe Island, Ontario: Walker, 1975)Google Scholar; Rybakov, B. A., Russkie karty Moskovii XV-nachala XVI veka (Moscow: Nauka, 1974)Google Scholar. On Peter's concern for accuracy and modernization of maps, see Goldenberg, L. A. and Postnikov, A. V., “Development of Mapping Methods in Russia in the 18th century,” Imago Mundi 37 (1985): 63–80 CrossRefGoogle Scholar; A. V. Postnikov, Razvitie krupnomasshtabnoi kartografii v Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1989), 33-53. On maps and imperial administration in the eighteenth century, see Harley's, J. B. stimulating essay, “Maps, Knowledge, and Power,” in The Iconography of Landscape, ed. Cosgrove, D. and Daniels, S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 277–312 Google Scholar. See also Kirilov, I. K., Atlas Vserossiiskoi Imperii … (St. Petersburg, 1734)Google Scholar; Lebedev, , Geografiia v Rossii petrovskogo vremeni, 247–250 Google Scholar; Atlas rossiiskoi … (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1745); Bagrow, History of Russian Cartography, 190-192

30. Polunin, F. A., Geograficheskii leksikon Rossiiskogo gosudarstva … (Moscow: Imp. Mos. Universitet, 1773), 275, 419Google Scholar; Cherbotarev, Kh. A., Geograficheskoe metodicheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii … (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografiia, 1776), 91 Google Scholar. Taking Tatishchev one step further, some works even relegated Russia's two regions to entirely different parts of the book: those devoted to Europe and to Asia. Baumann, L. A., Kratkoe nachertanie geografii, trans. Ivanov, V. (Moscow: Universitetskaia tipografia, 1788), 103–104 Google Scholar; Vvedenie v geografiiu … 2nded. (St. Petersburg: Kompaniia Tipograficheskaia, 1790), 146-148, 256ff.

31. [Antonovskii, M. I. et al.], Noveishee povestvovatel'noe zemleopisanie … 5 vols. (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1795) 1:5 Google Scholar.

32. Gmelin, Iogann Georg, Perevod s predisloviia sochinennogo professorom Gmelinom k pervomu tomu flory sibirskoi (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1749), 44–47 Google Scholar; Vinsgeim, Kh. N., Kratkaia politicheskaia geografiia … (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1745), 227 Google Scholar; M. la. Klevetskii, Rukovodstvo k geografii… 3 vols. (St. Petersburg: Sukhoputnyi: kadetskii korpus, 1773) 1:98. M. V. Lomonosov, O sloiakh zemnykh i drugie rabotypo geologii (Moscow-Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo geologicheskoi literatury, 1949), 19; Karmannyi atlas Rossiiskoi imperii (St. Petersburg: Akademiia Nauk, 1773), first map facing last page of text. See Vvedenie v geografiiu, 161; I. [V.] N[ekhachin], Sposob nauchit'sia samim soboiu geografii (Moscow: Universitskaia tipografiia 1798), 66, 72, 75, map between 28 and 29. Also see Cherbotarev, , Geograficheskoe metodicheskoe opisanie Rossiiskoi imperii, 50–51, 105-107Google Scholar; Noveishaia vseobshchaia geografiia … 2nd ed. (n.p.: Sytin, 1793), 172.

33. Grech, I. M. and Nakoval'nin, S. F., Politicheskaia geografiia … 3 vols. (St. Petersburg, 1758-1765) 1:28 Google Scholar; Polunin, Geograficheskii leksikon, 275-276; Pallas, P. S., “Nachertanie obshchego topograficheskogo i fizicheskogo opisaniia Rossiiskoi imperii,” Akademicheskie Izvestiia 4 (January 1780): 108 Google Scholar; Iakovkin, I. F., Zrelishche sveta ili vsemirnoe zemleopisanie, (St. Petersburg, 1789), 5–9 Google Scholar; Gakman, I. F. and Iankovich, F. I., Vseobshchee zemleopisanie, 2nd ed., 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: Vil'kovskii, 1795-1798) 1:19–20 Google Scholar; M. A. Matinskii, Sokrashchenie vseobshchei geografii… (St. Petersburg: Meditsinskaia tipografiia, 1800), 20; A. Kh. Gaspari, Noveishee i podrobnoe zemleopisanie Evropy, Azii, Afriki, Ameriki, i luzhnoi lndii … (St. Petersburg: Glazunov, 1810), 1-2; E. F. Ziablovskii, Zemleopisanie Rossiiskoi imperii …, 3 vols. (St. Petersburg: Departament Narodnogo Prosviashcheniia, 1822) 1:203, 3:10; K. 1. Arsen'ev, Kratkaia vseobshchaia geografiia, 4th ed. (St. Petersburg: K. Krai, 1827), 42. I have examined only one geography text from this period that described a Urals-Caspian boundary similar to that of Tatishchev: Severgin, V. M., Opyt mineralogicheskogo zemleopisaniia Rossiiskogo gosudarstva, 2 vols. (St. Petersburg: Imperatorskaia Akademiia Nauk, 1809) 1:69 Google Scholar.

34. Instruction de sa majesté impériale CatherineII (St. Petersburg: Académie des Sciences, 1769), 3.

35. Petrovich, Michael B., The Emergence of Russian Pan-Slavism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1956), 32–34 Google Scholar.

36. Danilevskii, N. la., Rossiia i Evropa. Vzgliad na kul'turnye i politicheskie otnosheniia Slavianskogo mira k Germano-Romanskomu, 5th ed. (St. Petersburg: Panteleev, 1895)Google Scholar. On Danilevskii see MacMaster, Robert E., Danilevsky (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1967)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kohn, Hans, Pan-Slavism. Its History and Ideology, 2nd ed. (New York: Vintage, 1960), 190–210 Google Scholar; Petrovich, Emergence of Russian Pan-Slavism, 69-77; Pitirim A. Sorokin, Social Philosophies in an Age of Crisis (Boston: Beacon, 1950), 49-71.

37. Danilevskii, Rossiia i Evropa, 72-75ff.

38. Ibid., 60-61.

39. Ibid., 58.

40. Ibid., 58-59.

41. Krause, Karl C. F., Das Urbild der Menschheit, 2nd ed. (Dresden: Arnold, 1819), 251–262 Google Scholar; Peschel, Oskar, Geschichte der Erdkunde, 2nd ed. (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1877), 807 Google Scholar; F. G. Hahn, “Zur Geschichte der Grenze zwischen Europa und Asien,” Mitteilungen des Vereins für Erdkunde zu Leipzig 1881, 83-84; Parker, “Europe: How Far,” 288. In 1870, the celebrated geomorphologist Oskar Peschel wrote that he could tolerate the continued designation of Europe as a continent only as a “courtesy,” and in the following decade the Viennese geologist Eduard Suess coined the term “Eurasia” to refer to the combined European-Asiatic landmass. Peschel, Oskar, Neue Probleme der vergleichenden Erdkunde (Leipzig: Duncker und Humblot, 1870), 153, 167Google Scholar; Suess, Eduard, Das Antlitz der Erde, 3rd ed., 4 vols. (Vienna and Leipzig: Tempsky-Freitag, 1908-1909) 1:768–771 Google Scholar; Robert Dorr, Über das Gestaltungsgesetz der Festlandsumrisse … (Liegnitz: Kaulfuss, 1873); Louis, “Über den geographischen Europabegriff,” 75-76. On Suess and the development of plate tectonic theory, see Greene, Mott T., Geology in the 19th Century (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1982), 144–191 Google Scholar; Wood, Robert M., The Dark Side of the Earth (London: Allen and Unwin, 1985), 32ffGoogle Scholar.

42. This discomfort was clearly apparent, for example, in the equivocation of a learned encyclopedia in the 1870s to the effect that Europe, while “by its special nature” an independent continent, was at the same time “by its location” a western peninsula of Asia. Russkii Entsiklopedicheskii Slovar', 16 vols. (St. Petersburg: Mordukhovskii, 1874) 6:599.

43. Danilevskii, Rossiia i Evropa, 56-57; emphasis added.

44. Ibid., 21-22.

45. Ibid., 531; Kristof, “The Historical and Political Role,” 55n. On traditional colonial views of Siberia, see Mark Bassin, “Inventing Siberia: Visions of the Russian East in the early 19th Century,” American Historical Review, forthcoming.

46. Danilevskii, Rossiia i Evropa, 22.

47. Ibid., 532.

48. See V P. Semenov-Tian-Shanskii's memorial appreciation: “Vladimir Ivanovich Lamanskii kak antropogeograf i politikogeograf,” Zhivaia Starina 24 (1915): 9-20. On Lamanskii also see Lapteva, L. P., “Vladimir Ivanovich Lamanskii,” Slavianovedenie v dorevoliutsionnoi Rossii (Moscow: Nauka, 1979), 214–217 Google Scholar; Petrovich, Emergence of Russian Panslavism, 63-64ff.

49. Lamanskii, V. I., Tri mira Aziiskogo-Evropeiskogo materika, 2nd ed. (Petrograd: Novoe Vremia, 1916), 1–2 Google Scholar. In developing this point, Lamanskii leaned heavily on the works of Peschel and others cited in n. 41 above. See, for example, 31-32n.

50. Lamanskii, Trimira, 17-18;idem, Ob istoricheskom izuchenii greko-slavianskogo mira v Evrope (St. Petersburg: Maikova, 1871), 42.

51. Lamanskii, Trimira, 5, 53.

52. Ibid., 9, 17, 19-20.

53. Ibid., 9. Semenov-Tian-Shanskii, “Lamanskii kak antropogeograf,” 11-15.

54. Danilevskii, Rossiia i Evropa, 133 (italics in original).

55. Lamanskii, Tri mira, 48. Swept away with poetic fervor, the ardent pan-Slav Fedor Tiutchev described an even more grandiloquent view in his poem “Russian Geography,” in which this middle world becomes almost unrecognizable: “From the Nile to the Neva, from the Elbe to China— / From the Volga to the Euphrates, from the Ganges to the Danube,” Stikhotvoreniia (Berlin: Slovo, 1921), 114-115

56. Lamanskii, Tri mira, 49, 52.

57. Ibid., 56.

58. Ibid., 15-16.

59. Ibid., 12, 15, 50-51. On the persistent Russian self-identification as a European country when the contrast was between itself and Asia, see Sarkisyanz, Emanuel, “Russian Imperialism Reconsidered,” in Russian Imperialism from Ivan the Great to the Revolution, ed. Hunczak, Taras (New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers University Press, 1974), 45-81Google Scholar, esp. 66; Riasanovsky, “Asia through Russian Eyes,” 8; Utechin, “The Russians in Relation to Europe and Asia,” 98.

60. Savitskii, P. N., “Dva mira,” Na putiakh (Moscow-Berlin: Gelikon, 1922), 26 Google Scholar; Pipes, Richard, Struve. Liberal on the Right (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1980), 387 Google Scholar. For fuller accounts of Eurasianism, see Böss, Otto, Die Lehre der Eurasier, Veröffentlichungen des Osteuropa-Instituts Munchen, Band 15 (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz, 1961)Google Scholar; Nicholas V. Riasanovsky, “The Emergence of Eurasianism,” California Slavic Studies 4 (1967): 39-72.

61. N. S. Trubetskoi, Evropa i chelovechestvo (Sofia: Rossiisko-Bolgarskoe knigoizdatel'stvo, [1920]).

62. Trubetskoi, N. S., “Verkhi i nizy russkoi kul'tury,” Iskhod k Vostoku (Sofia: Balkan, 1921), 93–97, 100Google Scholar; Boss, Die Lehre der Eurasier, 64.

63. Trubetskoi, Evropa i chelovechestvo, 76; Riasanovsky, “Emergence of Eurasianism,” 56.

64. In the years before the revolution, Savitskii had been one of Peter Struve's most gifted students in St. Petersburg. Personal communication from Struve's son, Gleb P. Struve, Berkeley, California, March, 1982; Pipes, Struve, 357. On Savitskii and Trubetskoi, see Jakobson, Roman, ed., N, S. Trubetskoy's Letters and Notes (The Hague: Mouton, 1975), 21, 106, 135ffGoogle Scholar; Boss, DieLehre der Eurasier, 7.

65. Savitskii, P. N., “Geograficheskii obzor Rossii-Evrazii,” Rossiia. Osobyi geograficheskii mir (Prague: Evraziiskoe knigoizdatel'stvo, 1927), 27 Google Scholar.

66. Ibid., 25-26.

67. See Dokuchaev, V. V., Uchenie o zonakh prirody (Moscow: Gosudarstvennoe izdatel'stvo geograficheskoi literatury, 1949)Google Scholar; idem, Russkii chernozem (St. Petersburg: Deklaron i Evdokimov, 1904); G. F. Morozov, Uchenie o lese, 3rd ed. (Leningrad: Gosudarstvennoe Izdatel'stvo, 1926); Glinka, K. D., Pochvy Rossii i prilegaiushchikh stran (Moscow: Izdatel'stvo, 1923)Google Scholar; A. N. Krasnov, Geografiia rastenii (Khar'koy: Darre, 1899). Savitskii repeatedly acknowledged his debt to these scholars. As well, he carefully followed work of such contemporary Soviet botanists as B. A. Keller and V. V. Alekhin, who continued research into ecological zones, and he was most anxious to demonstrate how their findings corroborated his own geographical conclusions. P. N., Savitskii, “Za tvorcheskoe ponimanie prirody russkogo mira,” Zapiski Russkogo nauchno-issledovatel'skogo ob”edineniia v Prage 10 (o.s. 15), no. 76 (1940): 155–180 Google Scholar; Evraziiskaia Khronika 9 (1927): 80-81. For an interesting new work on ecology theory and practice in postrevolutionary Russia, see Wiener, Douglas R., Models of Nature (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988)Google Scholar.

68. Savitskii, “Geograficheskii obzor Rossii-Evrazii,” 52.

69. Ibid., 33ff, 49-51, 53-57, 27. The Russian Far East, however, remained foreign to Eurasia and geographically a part of Asia proper (ibid., 47).

70. Chkheidze, K. A., “Iz oblasti russkoi geopolitiki,” Tridtsatye gody (Paris: de Navarre, 1931), 113 Google Scholar; Kristof, “The Historical and Political Role of a Nation in Space,” 71.

71. I. R. [N. S. Trubetskoi], Nasledie Chingiz-Khana (Berlin, 1925); Riasanovsky, “The Emergence of Eurasianism,” 51. The Eurasian interpretation of Russian history was most fully developed in the work of George Vernadsky. See his Opyt istorii Evrazii (Berlin: Izdanie Evraziitsev, 1934); Nachertanie russkoi istorii. Chast’ I (Prague: Evraziiskoe knigoizdatel'stvo, 1927). Trubetskoi, “Verkhi i nizy russkoi kul'tury,” 97-100; idem, “O turanskom elemente v russkoi kul'ture,” K probleme russkogo samopoznaniia (Paris: de Navarre, 1927), 34-53; Iakobson, R. O., Kkharakteristike Evraziiskogo iazykovogo soiuza (Paris: de Navarre, 1931)Google Scholar.

72. V. T., , “Poniatie Evrazii po antropologicheskomu priznaku,” Evrasiiskaia khronika 8 (1927): 26–31 Google Scholar.

73. Savitskii, “Geograficheskii obzor Rossii-Evrazii,” 28-33; idem, “Kontinent-Okean,” Iskhod k Vostoku, 104-125; Boss, Die Lehre der Eurasier, 30-33. While he consistently acknowledged his debt to Russian scientists, Savitskii gave no indication he was aware of the extent to which fundamental aspects of his geographical approach to Eurasia harmonized with conceptual developments in western academic geography, most notably in Germany and Scandinavia. Böss points to the affinities with Landschaftskunde, or landscape science, and especially the notion of Kulturlandschaft as developed by Friedrich Ratzel, Otto Maull, and others. Even more pertinent, it would seem, was the considerable methodological discussion in the 1920s and 1930s about the concept of geographische Ganzheiten or “total geographical regions,” understood in a sense very close to that of Savitskii's mestorazvitie. See W. Volz, “Geographische Ganzlichkeit,” Bericht der sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaft (Math-Physikal. Klasse) 84 (1932): 91-113; Hettner, Alfred, “Der Begriff der Ganzheit in der Geographie,” Geographische Zeitschrift 40 (1934): 141–144 Google Scholar; Wörner, Rolf, “Das geographische Ganzheitsproblem vom Standpunkt der Psychologie aus,” Geographische Zeitschrift 44 (1938): 340–347 Google Scholar; Granö, J. G., “Geographische Ganzheiten,” Petermanns Mitteilungen 81 (1935): 295–302 Google Scholar; idem, “Reine Geographie,” Acta Geographica 2, 2 (Helsinki: A.-B. F. Tilgmann, 1929), 35ff; Richard Hartshorne, The Nature of Geography (Lancaster, Penn.: n.p., 1949), 265-266. Indeed, both Grano and Savitskii use the same term, geographical individual, to refer to these entities.

74. Savitskii, “Geograficheskii obzor Rossii-Evrazii,” 59. For a very different use of the term geosophy, see John K. Wright, “ Terrae Incognitae: The Place of Imagination in Geography,” Annals of the Association of American Geographers 37 (1947): 13-14; Billinge, M. D., “Geosophy,” in Dictionary of Human Geography, ed. Johnston, R. J. et al. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1981), 138 Google Scholar.

75. Savitskii, “Geograficheskii obzor Rossii-Evrazii,” 65-67; Chkheidze, “Iz oblasti russkoi geopolitiki,” 108; on Danilevskii and the Eurasians see Riasanovsky, “Emergence of Eurasianism,” 60; Böss, Die Lehre der Eurasier, 123, and Trubetskoi, N. S., “Obshchevraziiskii natsionalizm,” Evraziiskaia Khronika 9 (1927): 28 Google Scholar. For a contemporary hostile reaction, see Saltykov, Alexander, “Predislovie,” in Mendeleev, D. I., Kpoznaniiu Rossii (Munich: Milavida, 1924), lxxvi–lxxxii Google Scholar. On the collapse of Evraziistvo, see Mikhail Agurskii, Ideologiia natsional-bol'shevizma (Paris: YMCA, 1980), 98-102.

76. Pokshishevsky, V., Geography of the Soviet Union, trans., Fidlon, D. (Moscow: Progress, 1974), 223, 225Google Scholar; Bol'shaia sovetskaia entsiklopediia, 1st ed. (Moscow: OGIZ, 1926-1947) 1:676; 24:169; 2nd ed. (Moscow: BSE, 1950-1958) 1:491; 15:382; 3rd ed. (1970-1981) 1:282; 9:15. During the somewhat relaxed atmosphere of the post-Stalin thaw, the Europe-Asia boundary question was briefly reopened for discussion by the Russian Geographical Society. The debates over the issue make for interesting reading, but the delimitation at the Urals was not challenged and the alterations eventually proposed were of an entirely minor nature. See Efremov, Iu. K., “Obsuzhdenie voprosa o granitse Evropy i Azii v moskovskom filiate Geograficheskogo Obshchestva SSSR,” Izvestiia AN SSSR (Seriia Geograficheskaia) no. 4 (1958): 144–146 Google Scholar; Prokaev, V. I., “Eshche raz o granitse mezhdu Evropoi i Aziei v sviazi s voprosom o krupnykh edinitsakh fiziko-geograficheskoi kharakteristiki,” Izvestiia Vsesoiuznogo Geograficheskogo Obshchestva 92, 4 (1960): 361–365 Google Scholar; E. M. Murzaev, “Gde zhe provodit’ geograficheskuiu granitsu Evropy i Azii?” Izvestiia AN SSSR (Seriia Geograficheskaia) no. 4 (1963): 111-119