2i4 [August, 1902.] 
IMPERIAL INSTITUTE JOURNAL. 
Vol. VIII. No. 92. 
LECTURES AND PAPERS. 
“MEREJKOVSKI’S RESURRECTION OF THE GODS.” 
{By Miss Helen Colvill.) 
(ANGLO-RUSSIAN LITERARY SOCIETY.) 
At the meeting of the A.R.L.S. on July I, Mr. E. A. Cazalet, the president, took the 
chair, and Miss Helen Colvill (Catherine Wylde), author of several popular novels, read an 
interesting paper entitled “ Merejkovski’s Resurrection of the Gods.” 
In introducing the lecturer Mr. Cazalet spoke of the unfair treatment which Merejkovski 
had received at the hands of many of the Russian critics, who entirely failed to appreciate him. 
The chairman rejoiced to think that the A.R.L.S. would be instrumental in bringing this 
talented young writer to the notice of the British public, and in promoting his estimation at 
his true worth. 
Miss Colvill Said that in spite of the growing interest in the language and literature of 
Russia, most English people still read Russian novels in translations which unfortunately 
often failed to give the full force and meaning of the originals. This was notably the case 
in the French version of Merejkovski’s Resurrection- of the Gods. The translator had 
certainly produced a brilliant story, but it was suitable merely to beguile a railway journey, 
or to wile away a few idle hours. He had completely lost sight of the interesting philosophy 
and mystical ideas to which Merejkovski’s novels — especially his historical novels — gave 
expression. These ideas were introduced chiefly in tire form of symbols and parables, so that 
it was quite possible to find the novels brilliant, interesting and historically instructive 
without penetrating below the surface. To the more serious reader, however, the theories 
worked out in Merejkovski’s books would be readily apparent. He believed that the 
Christian and Pagan spirit were complementary, and not contradictory to each other, and 
that in the next age the superior being who might succeed man might combine the charac- 
teristics both of the profane and the Christian systems. Certain noteworthy men had arisen 
who were forerunners of the future being. To this class belonged the men whom Merejkovski 
had selected as the heroes of some of his novels ; for instance, the Emperor Julian in 7 'he 
Death of the Gods, and Leonardo da Vinci in The Resurrection of the Gods. Finally 
Miss Colvill gave an interesting description and analysis of this latter work, which was to 
appear immediately in English under the title of “ The Forerunners.” It contained a 
delightful account of the great artist, with vivid pictures of his contemporaries and of the life 
of his day. 
Among others, Professor Ilovaiski, of Odessa University, an eminent Russian 
Professor of Political Economy and kindred sciences, and Mr. Davison, took part in the 
remarks which followed the lecture. Mr. Marchant compared Merejkovski’s treatment of 
Christian and pagan systems to that of other authors — George Eliot, Maikov, etc. 
Mrs. Rosa Newmarch drew attention to the interesting fact that Merejkovski’s novels 
dealt with very different scenes and subjects from those handled by the majority of his 
countrymen. His inspirations seemed to have been drawn from foreign history and foreign 
countries, a somewhat unusual thing for Russian authors. 
Mr. Kinloch thought that Merejkovski could never become a popular writer. Ills works 
were suitable for men of learning and were more like dissertations than novels. 
The lecturer explained that M. Merejkovski was leading up to a new work, of winch 
Peter the Great and his reforms would be the subject. 
The chairman, in submitting a vote of thanks to the lecturer, pointed out that 
M. Merejkovski was a young man of ideas and ideals, whose object was to supersede the 
vulgar and sordid element, now rampant in some sections of Russian literature, and to replace 
it by the higher aspirations of art and classical beauty. 
In this respect the author was following the lead of Pushkin, who in the last years of 
his life devoted his genius to pure art in literature, discarding politics and polemics, etc. in 
his writings. 

PROCEEDINGS OF INSTITUTIONS. 
THE LONDON CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
An address on the Monroe doctrine was given by Sir Frederick Pollock, at a 
meeting of the Chamber, on the nth ult., when Mr. Martin Deed occupied the chair. 
Sir Frederick Pollock, after an historical survey of the origin of the doctrine, pointed 
out that President Monroe’s declaration was contained in a domestic, not an international, 
document, being addressed to the Congress of the United States only. Even if it had been 
formally adopted by Congress as a declaration of the policy of the United States, it could 
not have varied or added to the law of nations, and it did not purport to do so. Statesmen 
of the United States had, with very few exceptions, not expressly referred to Monroe’s 
message, or the Monroe doctrine by name, in communications made to other Powers. The 
Monroe message did not lay down any claim of right, but stated the principles which would 
guide the United States in exercising its rights and defending its interests. Strictly, 
Monroe’s declaration was not of any formal validity at all. It was not binding on anyone 
but his own Ministers. Its importance was derived from its substantial but informal adop- 
tion by successive Presidents and by the people of the United States. 
As there was nothing binding in the literal terms, so there was nothing to prevent 
development of the principle on new occasions. The application of the Monroe doctrine 
was not to be found so much in particular historical and diplomatic incidents as in the whole 
course of American policy, as, for instance, in connection with the French expedition to 
Mexico. 
In 1866-67 the French evacuated Mexico, but, meanwhile, extensions of the doctrine 
were attempted in two directions : — First, to support acquisitions of new territory in the 
west and south, nominally as a national security, really as new ground for slavery. That 
was one principal motive for the conquest of part of Mexico and the annexation of Texas, 
though the acquisitions were not now to be regretted. Then there was the objection to the 
existence of even ancient possessions of European Powers in America. In England an 
influential school at that time regarded the separation of the colonies from the mother- 
country as inevitable and not far distant. 
The people of the United States might well feel strongly that, if England were to quit 
Canada, no other European Power must be allowed to acquire sovereignty or predominance 
there. There was also the feeling that the existence of a colonial dependency of any 
European State on the North American Continent was in itself contrary to the principles 
and interests of the United States. This feeling was strong among American publicists 
down to our own time. Whatever might have been said for it once, it was now founded on 
error in a vital fact. The self-governing Commonwealths of the British Empire were not 
Dependencies, and their union under the Crown, so far from being likely to entangle them 
in any aggressive policy of Great Britain, was more likely to restrain them from any rash 
adventures on their own account. 
Down to a recent time, many persons in the United States supposed the British monarchy 
to resemble the despotic monarchies of the Continent. II alluded to the support which 
Canning gave to the Monroe doctrine, and said the sympathy of the British Government 
with it had been acknowledged by United States Ministers. We should be well advised, 
perhaps, to let it be known that not only did we not regard the doctrine in its true intent 
as anti-British, but that, on the contrary, we were quite willing to take our share in main- 
taining it, should the necessity arise. lie was not sure that we might not have something to 
learn from the Monroe doctrine in other parts of the Empire. It was conceivable to him 
that we, including our new Dutch citizens, might find occasion for something like a Monroe 
doctrine in South Africa — possibly in the lifetime of some of those present. The Monroe 
doctrine really stood for the determination of the English-speaking nations to preserve their 
ideals of political and spiritual freedom against all external interference. It was defensive, 
not aggressive ; a securit for peace and progress in the civilised world. 
THE LIVERPOOL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE. 
Under the auspices of the Liverpool Chamber of Commerce, Mr. J. E. 
Waller, M.I.C.E., consulting engineer to the South Lancashire, Hastings, Isle 
of Thanet, St. Leonard’s and Bexhill, and Colombo Tramways, delivered an address 
on “Through Traffic on Tramways for Passengers and Goods,” at the Exchange 
Station Hotel, Liverpool, on the 21st ult. In the unavoidable absence of Sir Alfred Jones, 
Mr. G. II. Cox presided, and expressed his conviction that the cheapening of inland transit 
was really of much greater importance to the great body of manufacturers in the country 
than the question of tariffs and subsidies. If they had anything like as cheap transit as in the 
United States and in other countries, manufacturers would be able to compete not only on 
as favourable but on better terms for the international trade of the world than their 
Continental rivals. 
Mr. Waller referred to the facilities for through traffic on tramways. Although a 
journey might take longer by tramcar than railway, it must be remembered that the tramway 
passengers would not be confined to a limited time-table, but would have a frequent service, 
so that they might start when they were ready and return when convenient. Moreover, the 
cars would pick up a large percentage of passengers practically at their own doors, and the 
fares would be cheaper, which would cause many people to prefer the cars even if journeys 
occupied a little longer. There was probably no other district which could offer such 
facilities for through traffic on tramways as South Lancashire. 
The proposed carriage of goods by tramways was in no sense novel, and in the South 
Lancashire district there was an enormous goods traffic. The purely local traffic consisted 
principally of coal, bricks, building materials, hardware, and machinery, of which there was 
an immense amount. This was at present carted, for it was impossible for the railway com- 
panies to deal with it, there being no sidings to connect the lines with mills and brickfields. 
The cost of double handling and cartage involved over and above the railway rates rendered 
a single cartage from the works cheaper, as well as more convenient and expeditious. A 
considerable amount was conveyed by canal and cart, a large traffic in raw cotton being 
dealt with in the latter way both from Liverpool and Manchester, as the rates were cheaper, 
excessive handling and transhipment being avoided, and the delivery being more expeditious. 
The existence of that considerable road traffic indicated pretty clearly that, if a cheaper and 
more expeditious service for goods on the tramways were organized, a very large traffic would 
he available. 
In connection with the South Lancashire tramways it was proposed wherever practicable 
to lay sidings to the large collieries, works and depots along the tramway routes, and already 
a number of probable customers had signified their desire to have such sidings connected 
with their establishments. To accommodate through traffic it would be necesssaryto provide 
depots at convenient points of the tramway system. The depots of the company, whether at 
the Liverpool Docks or at any point on the company’s system, would all Ire worked in a 
similar manner. The process proposed might be illustrated by taking the case of goods 
coming to Liverpool by sea for delivery within the district. Such goods would be loaded 
from the quays or dock warehouses on to an ordinary road lurry, but the lurry would be 
provided with one or more of the company’s crates, and the goods, where practicable, would 
be packed in such crate. The lurry would then proceed alongside the stage or platform at 
the receiving depot, be rolled off by means of rollers on to the stage, whence it would be 
transferred to a deck wagon on an adjoining siding, A train of wagons would then be ready 
to proceed on its journey during the following nighttime. The traffic would be conveyed 
at considerably less cost than at present. It was believed that if facilities were given to 
organize such a traffic the advantages would be so fully appreciated that it would grow rapidly 
to the full carrying capacity of the tramways, and inaugurate facilities hitherto unobtainable 
for the distribution of goods. Replying to a vote of thanks, Mr. Waller said they were going 
to help in a small degree in the solution of cheap carriage. 
THE SOCIETY OF CHEMICAL INDUSTRY. 
The Society of Chemical Industry held its annual general meeting on the 9th ult., in the Arts 
Theatre of University College, Liverpool. Illness prevented the attendance of the president, 
Mr. Ivan Levinstein, of Manchester, and the chair was taken by Dr. Joseph W. Swan, 
F.R.S. The report of the Council stated that the number of members on the register was 
now 3,786, as compared with 3,635 at the last annual meeting. In January the Council 
acceded to the application of 32 members and 21 candidates for membership residing in the 
Dominion of Canada, to form a Canadian section of the society. Professor W. R. Lang, of 
the University of Toronto, was subsequently elected chairman, with Mr. Alfred Burton as 
hon. local secretary. The medal had this year been awarded to the ex-president, Dr. Joseph 
W. Swan, F.R.S., for conspicuous services to applied science. An invitation had been 
received from the New York section to hold the annual general meeting of the society in 
that city in 1904. 
The presidential address, prepared by Mr. Levinstein, was read by Mr. Thomas Tyrer 
(London), a past president. The subject was “ Education and Legislation — their Influence 
on Trade and Industry.” Mr. Levinstein’s address began by stating that the expectation of 
Cobden and other free-traders of half a century ago that England would become the 
emporium and workshop of the world had been realized for a time, but that we had now 
passed into a new stage. We had already lost the premier position in the world as manu- 
facturing country, to the United States. The question for us now was to maintain the second 
position in face of the increasing rivalry of Germany. What were the factors that made for 
Germany’s advance in industry and commerce? (1) Superior economy and attention to detail ; 
(2) the possession of more trained brains than any other country ; (3) a close alliance between 
legislation and science on the one hand and industry and trade on the other ; (4) a national 
system of railways and canals, with internal and external freight charges averaging less than 
one-third of our own ; (5) cheaper skilled labour, with longer hours than our own ; (6) a 
large supply of “unskilled labourers” trained to habits of punctuality and discipline by 
military service ; (7) protective tariffs ; and (8) patent law system protecting the interests of 
the public as well as those of the inventor. Four measures required our immediate 
attention — (1) The appointment of a competent and expert Minister of Commerce ; 
(2) nationalization and extension of our canals and waterways ; (3) a measure for very largely 
extending and improving our system of secondary education ; and (4) a reform of our patent 
laws. Parliament, largely composed of men who regarded it as a first-class club, was 
indifferent to commercial matters ; the Board of Trade was directed by distinguished but 
overworked officials naturally adverse to changes. 
The question of cheap freight demanded our closest attention. Government control of 
railways and canals in Germany, intelligently exercised, had been of immense value to 
German commerce. From our railway companies there was little hope ; they were over- 
capitalized, and their working expenses were greater than those of our competitors. But 
