Question: What was the population of Kiev the year that Matveyev managed to secure it? Passage 1:Because his father - Sergey Matveyev - was a notable diplomat, Artamon Matveyev was brought up at the royal court since the age of thirteen, where he would become close friends with Alexius I. Matveyev started his career as a government official, who worked in Ukraine and took part in some of Russia's wars with Poland. He was a member of the Russian delegation at the conclusion of the Treaty of Pereyaslav in 1654 and Russian diplomatic mission to Poland in 1656-1657. As the head of the Streltsy Department, Matveyev participated in suppression of the Copper Riot in 1662. Seven years later, he was put in charge of the Malorossiysky Prikaz, i.e. Ministry of the Ukrainian Affairs, and in 1671 - head of the Posolsky Prikaz (foreign ministry) and other ministries. Matveyev was known to have considered unification of Ukraine and Russia as the most important issue of the Russian foreign policy. He once said that it was even possible to temporarily forget about the struggle with the Swedes for the Baltic Sea for the sake of unification with Ukraine. In 1672, Matveyev managed to secure Kiev for Russia during the talks with Poland.
 Passage 2:The third son of Edmond Prideaux, he was born at Padstow, Cornwall, on 3 May 1648. His mother was a daughter of John Moyle. After education at Liskeard grammar school and Bodmin grammar school, he went to Westminster School under Richard Busby, recommended by his uncle William Morice. On 11 December 1668 he matriculated at Christ Church, Oxford, where he had obtained a studentship. He graduated B.A. 22 June 1672, M.A. 29 April 1675, B.D. 15 November 1682, D.D. 8 June 1686. In January 1674, Prideaux recorded in his letters a visit to his home of William Levett; with Levett came Lord Cornbury, son of the Earl of Clarendon, Levett's principal patron. In other letters, Prideaux mentioned alliances with Levett in ongoing church political maneuverings. At the university he was known for scholarship; John Fell employed him in 1672 on an edition of Florus. He also worked on Edmund Chilmead's edition of the chronicle of John Malalas.
 Passage 3:Where the fact of evolutionary change was accepted by biologists but natural selection was denied, including but not limited to the late 19th century eclipse of Darwinism, alternative scientific explanations such as Lamarckism, orthogenesis, structuralism, catastrophism, vitalism and theistic evolution were entertained, not necessarily separately. (Purely religious points of view such as young or old earth creationism or intelligent design are not considered here.) Different factors motivated people to propose non-Darwinian evolutionary mechanisms. Natural selection, with its emphasis on death and competition, did not appeal to some naturalists because they felt it immoral, leaving little room for teleology or the concept of progress in the development of life. Some of these scientists and philosophers, like St. George Jackson Mivart and Charles Lyell, who came to accept evolution but disliked natural selection, raised religious objections. Others, such as the biologist and philosopher Herbert Spencer, the botanist George Henslow (son of Darwin's mentor John Stevens Henslow, also a botanist), and the author Samuel Butler, felt that evolution was an inherently progressive process that natural selection alone was insufficient to explain. Still others, including the American paleontologists Edward Drinker Cope and Alpheus Hyatt, had an idealist perspective and felt that nature, including the development of life, followed orderly patterns that natural selection could not explain.

Output: 1