The first of those possibilities which Radishchev rejected 

 is obviously the hypothesis of "emboitement," and the second, 

 as S. L. Sobol' correctly noted, 24 was very similar to 

 Weisraann's idea about the continuity of germ plasma. 

 Radishchev' s agnostic base for these opinions is obvious. 

 "Continuity . . . how senseless we are! All that cannot be 

 defined by its limits is eternal . "" 



Radishchev opposed another idea: "But why can we not 

 confirm, as we have said above, that the sperm are formed in 

 the wife? For if sensitivity, thought, and all the properties 

 of man (not talking about animals and plants) are formed in 

 him gradually and are improved, why do we not say that the 

 life which is in the sperm and which can exist in a depository 

 until it appears in development, is formed in the organs of 

 man?" 26 



Therefore, Radishchev posed the question about embryonic 

 development epigenetically. In the same epigenetic understanding, 

 he interprets growth of the individual as illustrating his 

 opinion of development of avian egg: 



Take the egg as an example; you know that by means of 

 incubation it can survive and become a bird. But is 

 the chick seen in the egg, although there is no doubt 

 that it is contained there? And if we want to trace 

 the transfer of the egg into a chick and if we will 

 observe it daily, so we shall see its gradual growth. 

 At first the beginning of life appears — heart, then 

 eyes, then waist and other parts gradually up to that 

 hour, after 21 days, when it breaks the egg shell and 

 appears to the creator of light already alive, crying 

 as if to say: to the glorification of you! From this 

 example you recognize how many conditions the egg must 

 pass through before it become a chick. From that you see 

 that all these conditions are continuous and come 

 essentially out of one another. Consequently, the 

 egg and chick essentially develop from one another; 



24. Sobol' , p. 377. 



25. Radishchev, p. 43. 



26. Ibid. 



139 



