He was an earnest and sincere student, mild but demanding, especially of himself. He carefully laid out his projected work for years in advance and maintained a rigid schedule. Any pressure of university duties or unforeseen calls upon his time he met by including in his work schedule all those periods which he had left himself for vacations. When he died in 1952, he was the last of the old generation. He left a gap in Slavic scholarship that has not yet been filled. The interest in Russian on the Pacific coast was reflected not only in the appointment of Golder to Stanford’s history department. In 1918, Henry Lanz was appointed Professor of Russian Literature and Philosophy there. Lanz had been born in Moscow in 1886. He was not a very prolific writer but one of his works on rhythm of language received a prize from Sweden. Just before the outbreak of World War II, he made another trip to Europe and stayed for some time in one of the monasteries on Mount Athos. He died in 1945. Another outstanding figure of the period was Samuel N. Harper (1882–1943) of the University of Chicago. Harper was the son of the first president of the University of Chicago. He studied in the _Ecole des Langues Orientales_ in Paris and was closely associated with the group of English Slavists who, under the leadership of Sir Bernard Pares, K.B.E., gathered at the University of Liverpool and after the war formed the School of Slavonic Studies at the University of London. Harper was in Russia with Pares during the Revolution of 1905 and was very friendly with such liberal Russian leaders as Paul Milyukov. In 1906 he published an English translation of Boyer and Speranski’s Russian Reader and in 1908 a volume on the _New Electoral Law for the Duma_. Through his connections at the university and Charles R. Crane, both Milyukov and Maxim Kovalevsky were brought to Chicago for lectures. Harper was a constant adviser to the United States government on Russian affairs. He was convinced that the Russian people, if they had the power, would definitely accept the Anglo-Saxon theories of democracy, a position which he maintained in his dealing with the Russian emigres after the Revolution. He was solidly anti-Bolshevik but in the thirties he accepted an invitation to visit Moscow, about the same time as Pares did. Harper had a wide knowledge of Russian history, and when he was not traveling, lectured in Chicago and conducted courses in Russian. Yet he did not build a department of Russian and, despite the large Slavic population of the city, showed little interest in introducing other Slavic languages or cultures.