CHAPTER 8

THE FUTURE TASKS OF SLAVIC AND EAST EUROPEAN STUDIES

It is obviously impossible, under present conditions in America, even to dream of offering any outline for a definite organization of studies of that large area east of Scandinavia, Germany and Italy. We are dealing with several linguistic and cultural entities which historically have been subjected to widely differing influences. Especially in the field of history and of culture in general, the old notion that a boundary could be drawn between the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Churches, or between the Christian and the Islamic Worlds, is definitely antiquated. It was non-existent during the earlier periods of history although it was partially valid for a few centuries. Even at the height of religious separation, the Slavic World was itself divided, the Western Slavs and some Southern Slavs on one side and the Eastern and most Southern Slavs on the other. Today, with the general movements that are sweeping both Europe and Asia, these lines are obliterated.

We are forced, thus, to recognize a far more complicated situation than seemed possible even a few decades ago when the early students of Slavic blindly, though sincerely, followed either the German or the Russian cultural views of the area.

Studies in the United States in these fields must find, despite the many obstacles, a new path, acquire a new breadth of vision, and work out a new outline wherever the old has been shown to be deficient. This can only be done by cooperation among both scholars and institutions. Though the leading colleges and universities have found during the past century their own methods for departmentalizing their courses and faculty, there is hardly one which cannot adapt its resources to contribute to the common cause. We will therefore content ourselves with sketching briefly some of the problems, and their possible solutions, in the field of organization.

_I. Integration in American Consciousness_

At the present time, educated Americans seem to find it impossible to integrate the concepts that have been forced upon them by events since 1914. The older generation, and too large a part of the younger, view the expanded practical concern for Eastern Europe and Asia as a serious and troublesome addition to the range of knowledge which it is compelled to acquire. This attitude has been fostered by the way in which the expansion has occurred. Under the pressure of World War II, and its accompanying developments, the government and the foundations alike have been spending money to train men in present-day problems and have looked askance at what we may call basic work in the evolution of the situation.

Let us glance at this for a moment. Courses in ancient history, chiefly of Greece and Rome, are an established part of all college and university curricula and are even found in many high schools. Yet invariably, these courses fail to discuss Greece and Greek culture after the rise of Philip of Macedon and the Roman conquest of Greece. Studies of the Roman Empire rarely extend beyond the reigns of Diocletian and Constantine, where they are lost in vagueness about the Dark Ages and the barbarian migrations. Even in the earlier period, almost no attention has been given to vestiges of Greek and Roman culture outside of Greece, Asia Minor and the Roman possessions in the West.

Thus, there is a cloudy realization that the Code of Roman Law was finally drawn up in Constantinople, but the historical significance of the past is not keenly appreciated. At the same time, anything that can be labeled Byzantine is either treated separately or not considered at all. There is even no realization that the Scandinavian Vikings extended their activities to the East as well as to the West and such striking evidence of this as the marriage of the daughter of Harold the Saxon, the last Saxon King of England, to Volodymyr Monomakh of Kiev, seems an incredible and isolated event. The scholars at Dumbarton Oaks and the Mediaeval Academy of America are indeed doing work on Byzantine history, culture and institutions but the other scholars working on the foundations and development of the modern Western World have not attempted to take their work into account, and are still limiting the modern Western World to the British Isles, France, Germany, the Holy Roman Empire and its descendants, ignoring the contacts of that world with Byzantium in the early and later Middle Ages.

With a similar lack of understanding, the average student, though aware of the fight between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Popes, rarely knows that the Empire was then pushing into Slavic territory or that Saints Cyril and Methodius, the Apostles to the Slavs, were in Rome as well as Constantinople.

There is a scattered appreciation of such events as the Latin seizure, and the Turkish capture, of Constantinople but only for their impact upon the life of the West. The arrival in Western Europe of scholars from Constantinople is taught as a great influence in the Renaissance but no attention is paid to their origin or where they had studied.

The situation is even worse for later periods. There has been an almost complete neglect not only of the history of the Balkan Slavs but of the Greeks as well. For years after the establishment of the Gennadeion in Athens, one of the few still unplundered collections of Greek and Slavic manuscripts, Slavic scholars were as unaware of the existence of this collection as the classical scholars were unaware of its importance.

One result of this traditional lack of understanding of early Eastern history has been the tendency of American scholars to accept without hesitation either the German view of Eastern Europe as a relatively primitive region, or the Russian view that in some way everything in the East was Russian and that it was only natural that Catherine II of Russia should dream of becoming the Empress of the Byzantine Empire with her capital still at St. Petersburg.

Thus all the peoples of Eastern Europe disappear from European history shortly after the time of Constantine and do not reappear until the foundation of St. Petersburg and the development of the Eastern Question in the late eighteenth century. Even the national struggles in Vienna during the reign of Francis Joseph II are not evaluated, and far too many would-be-students of Eastern Europe are still under the impression that movements for national independence during World War I and the Russian Revolution arose out of thin air.

The complicated events of the last decades pre-empt the concentration of students and give them little time to grasp the background which underlay the past and gave rise to the complexities of the present.

It would be presumptuous to expect adequate and detailed knowledge of Eastern history to be added to the intellectual burden of all students, even though it would be desirable. The most that can be hoped is that students and scholars interested in this field will be able eventually to focus more attention, in the general curricula, on a few of the major trends that worked openly and secretly in Eastern history for over a thousand years, culminating in the present situation.

The last years have seen a few attempts, like those of the late Dr. Bilmanis, Minister of Latvia in Washington, to prepare a history of Latvia. We now have histories of Lithuania, Poland, Czechoslovakia and two or three of Ukraine. But there is still lacking a general survey presenting in readable, popular and general form the outstanding developments in the Slavic area. The development of such a synthesis of the East European culture, in a form that could be included with the more detailed studies of the Western countries, would go far in overcoming the vague and unrealistic ideas which are fostered either by ignorance or by the propagandistic works of the formerly dominating nations.

When we remember that it was nearly the end of the seventeenth century before Eastern Europe acquired the form that it had on the eve of World War I and that this order was seriously challenged throughout the nineteenth century, we can see the necessity of a complete revision of many of the established and traditional concepts. Such a need must be recognized by the educational leaders as a whole, for Eastern Europe has greatly and consistently influenced the West. No greater step forward can be taken than to emphasize this historical fact and to show the important role of Eastern Europe, both positively and negatively, in shaping the world as we knew it at the beginning of the twentieth century.

_II. The Divisions of the Area_

Awakening the American intellectual world to the need for reassessing its concept of Eastern Europe is, of course, an essential problem for Slavic students, but it can be fully accomplished only in cooperation with those individuals and institutions concerned with the general outline of human history. Far more than a mere multiplication of courses, of lectures and of journals is needed. Yet if we assume that steps are being taken toward this end, there still remains the very pertinent question of what divisions and subdivisions of the area are to be used in any detailed study. It is at this moment that we come face to face with the tremendous historical and linguistic complications.

First considering linguistics, Slavic easily can be placed at the center, for the greater number of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe speak one of the Slavic tongues. The traditional point of view, which is now being challenged by linguists, is to divide the Slavs into Western (Czech, Slovak, Polish and Lusatian), Southern (Serb, Croatian, Slovene and Bulgarian) and Eastern (Great Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian), and to emphasize common linguistic aspects.

This is of advantage from the strictly philological point of view; it is less valid when considering culture and history and the influence exerted throughout the last millenium by the neighboring states and cultures. As has been noted already, the constantly shifting line between Eastern and Western churches cuts directly across the Slavic world. On one side are the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Croatians, all of whom have been primarily under Western influence. On the other are the rest of the southern and eastern Slavs who have drawn their original inspiration from Byzantium and have then undergone, in varying degrees, cultural influence from the Latin and Germanic west, the Scandinavian north, the Mongol and Tatar east and the Turkish south. Ukraine, and to a lesser degree Byelorussia (Whiteruthenia), have felt a consistently strong Western influence throughout their history. Western influence among the Serbs has been more spasmodic, while Russia (Moscow) remained relatively free from such influences almost until the time of Peter I.

Furthermore, the area also includes the Uralic-Altaic peoples, the Finns, Estonians, Hungarians, Turks and many less developed peoples. These can hardly all be treated as offshoots of Slavic. The Uralic peoples, especially those who are most highly developed, have shared the influences of the Slavs, and have been closely connected with Western Europe. The Finns and Estonians have had strong Scandinavian contacts and the Hungarians have been closely associated with the Empire, the Poles and the Czechs. The Altaic peoples, largely Mohammedan, have become an inherent part of Islamic culture and yet, despite their distinct linguistic and cultural heritage, their fate has been closely linked with that of the Slavs. In addition, there are the modern Greeks, direct heirs of the Byzantine tradition with their own sharply defined culture; the Romanians, who are proud of their Latin traditions; and the Albanians, who form a distinct Indo-European linguistic group crowded between the Southern Slavs and the Greeks. Neither can there be excluded such peoples of the Caucasus as the Georgians, the Armenians and the Azerbaijanians, nor other Christian and Mohammedan peoples formerly included in the Russian Empire.

The time is long past when all of these national groups can be studied only in terms of the Russian and Ottoman Empires. Their history and their struggles for liberation create many cultural subsections which cut across linguistic boundaries and, in part, natural geographical subdivisions. It is difficult to name satisfactorily these cultural subsections, for they vary in the different periods of history. Yet, the definition of courses of detailed study or area programs, which have become so popular at the present time, demands it.

There is another difficulty which arises. The events of World War II and the creeping Soviet imperialism have succeeded in dominating all of the states which were established, or attempted after World War I. In the western extension of the Iron Curtain, only Finland in the north and Greece and Turkey in the south have succeeded in maintaining a precarious independence. As a result, all of the programs of instruction that have been arbitrarily set up exclude these three countries. Whatever value such a division may have at present, it is certainly no guide to the past, for at times Finland was under Swedish rule, which extended south of the Gulf of Finland. Likewise, for centuries Greece, the Southern Slavs and Romania (then divided between Wallachia, Moldavia and Transylvania), together with Ukraine, formed another definite cultural block, which to a large degree shared the same political fate.

For many years, the nations of the Balkan Peninsula were treated as a Balkan block and, because of the ways these states secured their political independence, they shared years of stormy political life. The term “Balkans” was then, with considerable contempt, applied to Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania and Romania. Yet after World War I, when the Adriatic littoral was added to Serbia and Montenegro to form Yugoslavia and Romania recovered Transylvania and Bessarabia, the name came to have little meaning. Now with Turkey playing a positive role, efforts have been made to use the name Southeastern Europe, but with little success. “Danubian Europe” is worse, for the Danube crosses both Austria and Hungary, and avoids Greece and Albania.

At the present time, the term “Eastern Europe” is probably the least objectionable but it is ridiculous to apply this term to Czechoslovakia and Hungary which are almost in the heart of Europe. Still, this is the term, added to Slavic or Slavonic, used as a general title by both the British _Slavonic and East European Review_ and _The American Slavic and East European Review_. But the culture area also includes all of the former Russian possessions in Asia, for the Urals owe their position as the boundary of Europe more to the fact that they run roughly north and south at the eastern end of the Caspian Sea, and so are useful to cartographers, than to any historical importance.

The term “Mid-Europe” has been introduced lately to cover the history of that strip of countries which won their independence after World War I and lost it after World War II. It is an attempt to unify the non-unifiable, except in terms of their present fate, for during much of the last thousand years the fate of Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary has been intertwined, but Poland has been involved with Lithuania, Byelorussia (White Ruthenia), and Ukraine, while the main relations of Latvia and Estonia have been with the Scandinavian and other Baltic peoples.

For purposes of detailed study then, a division can be made between the eastern Baltic shore in the north, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary in the center, and the states of the Balkan Peninsula, including Turkey, in the south.

What then can we do with Ukraine and Byelorussia, two of the three East Slavic states? For both countries connections with Moscow have been of a special character with a long record of turbulence, opposition and attempts at independence. They have lived their own lives with intermittent contact with the West; in fact, it was through them that most of the purely Western influences drifted into Moscow and the land of the Great Russians, which in ancient times was more closely connected through the Volga River with the Caucasian group of peoples and the Golden Horde.

Attempts to divide the entire area into regional sections with common problems and cultural development produces only confusion, for such divisions are applicable only to short periods in the ever-changing kaleidoscope of history. The realization of this fact presents one of the greatest obstacles to the student of present problems. The idea, fostered in Prague, that the key to all East European problems could be the assumption of a single Slavic history and Slavic culture can be easily proved to be as vain as Pan-Germanism, Pan-Turanianism, and Pan-Asianism.

Yet, today this over-simplification has been twisted by the Russian Messianic concept into a formidable weapon against the rest of the world. The Communist theories, like the old Tsarist theories of Moscow as the Third Rome, cannot be laughed away. They must be met by accurate and careful study and this does necessitate some sort of recognizable division. But, the solution to these contradictions cannot be found in either the Russian or the old Germanic theories; it demands the most serious consideration from the modern scholars of the entire world outside the Iron Curtain.

_III. Undergraduate Courses_

Considering the material that can be reasonably included in the curriculum of the average American college, we must severely limit our expectations. Because the average college aims to give a well rounded education in many fields of knowledge, the number of persons specializing in Slavic and East European subjects will be very limited. The amount of time that the average student can spend on these subjects and the amount of effort that the average institution will expend to make them effective, is limited. Furthermore, there will be few colleges, not connected with universities, either inclined to embark upon an ambitious program, or supplied with the resources to undertake it. But, this does not mean that nothing is to be done or that it is to be done carelessly.

Until that time when the main facts of the history of Eastern Europe and of Eastern European and Slavic culture are included in the general scheme of the development of the modern world or in courses in the development of contemporary civilization, interested persons on the faculty must work out a minimum program. This will vary according to the general content, either in history or literature, and will fall into its proper place in the general curriculum, whether or not a special department is established. There are some things that can be expected and we will divide these into four headings: history, literature, culture and language. We will here consider the first three.

The prime requirement in all these subjects is scientific accuracy, something which is far too often honored in the breach. There has been in the past too great a tendency to accept some superficial treatment composed of half truths. We must remember that ignorance, and conscious ignorance at that, is often better than incorrect knowledge. The problem lies not so much in what a person does not know as in what he knows wrong.

At the present time, there scarcely can be given a course in modern history which overlooks and omits the questions that have been forced upon the attention of the world by Russian Communism. There is, therefore, little or no reason why the main facts of the present situation should not be correctly given with proper weight laid on the Soviet structure and methods. This involves a clear recognition that there are important differences not only between the old capitalistic and the new communistic Russia, but also that there is an ostensible stress which the Soviet Union lays upon the differences between the populations inhabiting her republics, subject as they all are to the same Russianization. There can be no excuse for the oft repeated view that all the people of the Soviet Union are Russians in the old sense of the word. There is no reason for the arbitrary omission of the nationality problem on the ground that it has no validity in fact or experience just because it was denied by the Tsars a century ago. There have been too many instances of even responsible publications omitting from accurate surveys references to such problems, at the will of certain anti-Communist nationalist Russian groups. Although there is available today adequate and easily accessible literature, far too little of it has penetrated the scholarly world which is still burdened with the traditions of the past.

The same can be said of literature. For many years masterpieces of Turgenev, Tolstoy, Dostoyevsky and Gorky have been included in courses on modern European literature. Still, far too often, they have been presented in a vacuum, without any attempt to equate them with Russian life and thought. This is perhaps less common today, but immediately after World War I, it is not extreme to say, there was a Western science of Russian literature almost as far from reality as that first French translation of _Anna Karenina_ which, in the interest of clarity, calmly omitted the entire Levin-Kitty story.

On the other hand, with the number of available translations of nearly all the prominent Russian authors of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, there is no reason why courses on Russian literature in translation should not be offered. The material can be easily gathered to give an adequate picture of the development of the literature for the non-specialist. Whether this is done as part of a general course, or as a special course, will depend upon the program of the institution but it will benefit not only the general student but also the person who is endeavoring to learn the language.

The problem is more complicated for the other East European languages. Perhaps Polish literature is the only one that has been translated with even near minimal adequacy. Still, there are a number of translations from the Czech, especially from Karel Capek, the popular dramatist who was active before World War II. There are some good Ukrainian translations, especially of poetry done by the late Percival Cundy and the selections already in English give a fair representation of all the major Ukrainian authors. The literatures of the other Slavic groups are still poorly represented in translations.

There is a real need therefore for the preparation of a series of anthologies in translation, not only from the Slavic languages, but also from the other literatures of East Europe. There may be difficulties in securing publication of such works, and hesitation in introducing them with success into the various courses, but there is no reason why any college library should not work to build a collection of such works, even if it is not interested in expanding its study in this field.

Where there are courses in one or more of the languages of the area, it will be, of course, easy to prepare courses on the literature with readings in the original. Yet, these can never replace the full need for courses in translation or courses in which the originals are supplemented by translations.

The same applies to courses in the fine arts, especially music and painting, both of which have flourished in Slavic lands. There are special difficulties here that are not present in the literature, for in the past, and especially the nineteenth century, most of the Slavic artists appeared in the Western World as either Russian, Austrian or Italian. As such, their contributions have been hidden even beyond their own desires, for in 1918 the world discovered that many artists, who had been invited as representatives of the dominating empires, rebelled and proudly declared themselves Poles or Czechs, much to the surprise of their audiences.

We can be sadly confident that it will be some time before undergraduate courses in East European history and culture will everywhere acquire a proper direction and clear acceptance. But year by year, as these studies expand in the colleges, an increasing number of students are affected and Slavic studies are coming closer and closer to the academic level and seriousness of the older disciplines. This offers hope for the future and, while we cannot expect a Slavic department to become one of the numerically larger departments, it can rise to its opportunities and exercise its functions both in training specialists and in broadening the knowledge of a larger and larger number of students. The lag in Slavic studies is diminishing with each year and it will soon vanish entirely if developments of the present day are carefully regarded.

_IV. Language Instruction_

The first task of a Slavic or East European language department is of course to teach the language. It should be taken for granted that any person who claims to be a specialist in the history and culture of any country should be able to read, write, speak and understand its language. The language courses in any department are intended to satisfy these requirements. This however is a goal and the merest contact with even good students will show how far it is from being fully realized. Yet it must be the goal even though we accept something far short of it as that which can be reasonably attained.

There is no easy way to learn a foreign language and to maintain fluency in it. And fluency can be best secured by a constant use of the language, hardly possible in the United States despite the aspiration of the student. Somewhere, somehow there must be a compromise.

There are, of course, scattered individuals like the late Professor John Dyneley Prince, who seemed to have a special gift for speaking foreign tongues. As a matter of fact, Prince built his entire scholarly and political career on this inborn gift. His knowledge of spoken tongues was fantastic, but it should be recognized that he maintained it only by a constant preoccupation with language. The time that others spent on bridge and other hobbies, he dedicated to reading dictionaries and annotating grammars. He continued, so long as his health allowed, the labor which made it possible for him to perform his almost incredible feats. Men like Prince are exceptional, but they emphasize the fact that there is no single road to success. Every individual learns languages in his own way and hence there can easily be a wide divergence of educational methods recommended.

There was a time when instruction in modern languages followed the methods used in studying Greek and Latin, with an excessive emphasis on knowledge of grammar and a corresponding neglect both of the finer points of usage and the ability to read fluently. The old joke that the object of learning the classical languages was to be able to distinguish the different uses of the genitive case was true only when scholars ceased using Latin as a medium of communication. While this was a passing phase, it left its mark on the study of modern languages. The Slavic languages, from their inception as subjects of university study, have been subject to this temptation. But even before the application of so-called modern methods, there was a larger proportion of serious students able to express themselves satisfactorily in the Slavic languages than there was in the more common tongues, such as French and German.

On the other hand, the great increase of interest in Slavic languages came during World War II and this left its imprint on the methods of instruction. For military and governmental purposes, speaking knowledge was very important and became even more so when the schools were charged with training men for intelligence work. The emphasis on a speaking knowledge of Slavic languages was important in World War II because the number of young Americans who knew these languages well was seriously declining. Thirty years before, there were many young Slavs who had but recently migrated to the United States or were the children of parents who spoke their native languages fluently though grammatically incorrectly. The children of these people, trained in American schools, have lost most of their facility in their fathers’ tongues and need fundamental training.

At the same time the slow but persistent strengthening of the Iron Curtain and the refusal of the Soviet government to allow free emigration of its citizens has reduced the number of young instructors available. The majority of competent instructors in America have lived in this country since the close of World War I and many of them are unfamiliar with the latest turns of the language as used in the Soviet Union.

The difficulty of obtaining instructors is counterbalanced by the great improvement in methods of recording and reproducing sounds. It is now possible in almost all institutions to give students accurate and well rendered records and tapes of the leading Russian dramas and speeches as recorded and broadcast by the Soviet authorities themselves. It is also possible for the students to record their own pronunciation and compare it with the accepted standards. The use of these modern scientific and technical aids is undoubtedly improving pronunciation, though it is by no means certain that it is equally satisfactory in teaching fluency when the student is called upon to express his own thoughts.

At the same time, the new interest in language often overlooks the fact that students may desire to learn a Slavic language for widely differing purposes. In this respect he does not differ from the average English speaking person who may fully master the language and still be almost completely ignorant of the technical terms (jargon) of some particular profession or activity. Disregarding the notion that a foreign language should be learned only to read _belles-lettres_, we far too often replace it with the ability to carry on ordinary conversations on general subjects. There is of course, in all languages, an irreducible minimum of words of universal applicability, but methods must be found to include special vocabularies for students with special interests. This has been met in part by the production of technical dictionaries for the several sciences but much work remains to be done.

These remarks apply to all the languages of East Europe. However, modern methods have received their fullest application in teaching Russian, although auspicious beginnings have been made for others, especially Polish. It is highly desirable that textbooks and other aids be increased in the near future to provide all Slavic languages with adequate materials, adapted to the use of English-speaking students. Russian is still the language in which most American students are interested. In a way this is natural because Russian, both by its political importance, the number of persons speaking it and the reputation of some Russian writers, is undoubtedly the most important. Other Slavic and East European tongues are adequately taught only in some of the larger universities or in smaller institutions with special interests, be it circumstances of the administration or the character of the student body. Yet it is hardly true that any person interested in the broader studies of Eastern Europe can be adequately equipped if he possesses only a knowledge of Russian, though this does not make the situation as hopeless as it might seem.

There are so many common roots and forms of expression in all Slavic languages that it is possible to prepare a course which will emphasize the salient features of each language, equip the student with a knowledge of any one Slavic language, and still enable him to handle, for scientific purposes, the others without too much difficulty. This was successfully done by Professor Prince at Columbia when, with a fine disregard for special grammatical features of the different languages, he arranged a general reading course in the Slavic tongues. For some years, Professor Manning followed his example. The course was finally dropped because of other departmental needs but there is no reason why such a course could not be standardized and made available in many institutions which are unable to afford a complete university staff to teach the different languages individually.

The greatest obstacle to the study of Slavic languages is the fact that, until very recently, few students reached the graduate level with an adequate background in the languages. This has been somewhat relieved by the introduction of Russian and other Slavic languages in the colleges, but often language instruction could be advantageously introduced in high schools. Furthermore, there are many institutions, largely supported by churches or societies, which give instruction for which colleges should be willing to give appropriate credit.

Such credit could be granted by a rigid insistence upon accomplishment coupled with a liberal reading of the requirements for college entrance. Thus, despite the lesser emphasis paid to definite entrance examinations, it should be possible for educational institutions and state organizations to arrange examinations in East European languages even where they were not learned in a recognized school. In many instances the efficiency of summer courses, such as those given by the Ukrainian National Association under the supervision of the Ukrainian Free University, could be checked by some central body. If instruction were satisfactory, credits could be accepted _in toto_, or the graduates could be given the opportunity of an individual examination in order to receive credit. It would seem that almost all major churches and societies in the United States interested in the study of a foreign language would react favorably if there were any assurance that students in their courses would receive proper recognition.

The American educational system is neglecting, at present, those resources for study of East European and Slavic languages which already exist. While it is true that formerly instruction was often given by ill-prepared and incompetent teachers, the arrival in this country of large numbers of educated DP’s, often with teaching experience in their own lands, has changed the situation, and made it possible to build up a large cadre of language students, prepared to undertake more advanced work at an earlier stage.

In the language field as nowhere else, we can clearly see marked improvement in the past thirty years. There are better textbooks and better instructors. If there is a negative aspect, it is in an excessive emphasis on what is conceived to be a modern system of study, which rests too much upon adherence to hypothetical rules regarding how a language should be learned, and a tendency to look askance at any exceptions to this, regardless of what results may have been attained. There is still much more to be done before the knowledge of these languages is sufficiently spread throughout the intellectual and research organs of the country.

_V. Graduate Work_

Considering the problems of graduate study in American universities, we must not overlook the fact that Slavic studies in Europe developed entirely under the methods and system of German scholarship. Although this may seem surprising, it was at Vienna, Leipzig, and Berlin that the outlines of the modern sciences were laid. The early universities at St. Petersburg and Moscow were largely staffed by Germans and the oldest university in Slavic lands, the Charles University of Prague, lost its Czech character during the Thirty Years War. A Czech section of the university was begun as an adjunct only in the 1880’s and did not recover its original insignia until after the liberation of Czechoslovakia. Hence, the German system of scholarship was considered basic, even though it was greatly altered by later development of Slavic studies at the universities of Prague and Krakow. The influence of Prague and Krakow was natural, for it was in Slavic universities in Slavic lands that Slavic would become the cornerstone of humanistic teaching, acquiring a position similar to that of English and American literature and history in American institutions. We can never hope to equal or surpass the work in these institutions though we can admit it without any sense of failure.

Since American graduate schools have been based on German models, they inherited the German division of faculty with history and its allied subjects separated from literature and philology. Nor have these divisions been changed noticeably by grouping various chairs in allied subjects into departments. While there have been attempts, as at Harvard, to bring together in the Slavic pattern, all courses dealing with Slavic subjects, this practice has not been generally followed. The result is that history and literature have been taught separately and have been combined only in part in more recent Russian and Slavic institutes.

In both general fields, the usual methods and regulations can be applied easily and completely; hence, the introduction of Slavic and East European into the general curriculum has not caused difficulties. There remains only this question: should there be some provision for normally including one or more general courses from either section in the curriculum of the other to augment the background of those students tempted to specialize too closely, who might thus fail to see the general cultural problems which any literature or history presents.

There are, however, certain limitations which the student will encounter, due largely at the present time to the rule in the free world which prohibits a free exchange of students between countries. A student desiring to work in English, French and German history can go freely to the appropriate intellectual center to consult sources; a relatively large number of students in these fields have studied at the universities and archives of the country in which they were interested. This was also true to a certain degree, between the wars, in the so-called succession states when every year students went to the universities of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the Baltic and Greece. Today this is impossible and the administration of students’ programs must take this fact into account. The limitation severely restricts research in certain slightly explored areas such as the remains of Slavic literature from the Middle Ages, the unpublished memoirs and manuscripts of many modern writers, and memorabilia from many periods of historical and economic importance.

These limitations can be partly overcome by increased research in the archives of many of the countries still free. There is doubtless much material in the libraries of Western Europe, the Scandinavian countries, Greece and Turkey which has never been adequately studied by a Slavic expert.

Limitations exist to an even greater degree in archaeology and ethnology, since research before World War I was still in its infancy and subsequent discoveries have been filtered through the exigencies of Russian Communist propaganda. This imposes upon the student the necessity for a most thorough and careful analysis of all Soviet references and newly published material, often edited to suit the policy of the moment, for it often involves a direct contradiction to what the Soviets declared to be true in the period between the two World Wars. This is the situation not only in history, but also in the literature of the past and present. The theses issued by the Communist Party for the three hundredth anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654–1954), after the death of Stalin and under the “new” Soviet policy, stand in sharp contrast to the published statements of Soviet scholarship during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Similarly, the rewriting of the biographies, during the relatively unhampered conditions of the early 1920’s, of such authors as Dostoyevsky, Shevchenko, Franko, Mickiewicz and many others, makes it impossible to accept uncritically either the older Soviet accounts or even much of the material published under the Tsarist regime.

There is then imposed upon faculty and students, the need to recognize that Slavic studies cannot merely accept the latest discoveries and statements as a correction of the past, as in other fields, but must include the most careful consideration of whether in the present or the past they have been more grossly falsified. Reportedly new discoveries in the humanistic and cultural fields may be only a dialectic exercise of the organs of the Tsarist or Communist regimes in order to deceive the outside world. For example, the declaration of the validity of “socialist realism” meant a deliberate misinterpretation of the writings of earlier Communist authors, which can be understood only in terms of politics, not literature. Promulgated ideas were accepted only after the publication of the official list of writings as decided by Communist authorities. Similarly, the original philological theories of Marr soon lost what validity they possessed when they were adopted by Marr’s fellow-Georgian, Stalin, as the Soviet system and were imposed for twenty-five years to serve Communist purposes. Even what remained valid suffered when Marr, after his death, was officially discredited and his original ideas went through a second period of wilful perversion. Such instances could be multiplied by the hundreds, even including Sosyura’s poem _Love Ukraine_, which was deemed worthy of a Stalin Prize only to be condemned, a few years later, as anti-Communist and “bourgeois nationalist.”

This constant shifting of Soviet truth has involved strange deviations by even distinguished scholars who have tried to combine their sense of scholarship and accuracy with their desire to be admitted to the Soviet Union for further study. It has also increased the American public fear of Communism and has aided the rise of the so-called “anti-Communist hysteria” which has restrained men who, though not Communist themselves, are unwilling to be accused by the Soviets of open hostility.

There is still another unsatisfied need in Slavic studies. The Western World, since the seventeenth century, for good or ill, has relegated religion, or the lack of it, to a subordinate place in modern history. While recognition is given both religious and non-religious authors and movements, nowhere have religious motives played the ultimate primary role. The contrary is true in the East European area, where religion, or opposition to it, plays the same role it did in medieval Europe. In Russian literature of the nineteenth century both Leo Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky were absorbed in the world of the Orthodox Church and, in their reaction to it, were leaders of the westernizing intelligentsia. Neither’s influence can be understood without a consideration of the ethos of Russian Orthodoxy, but this is rarely treated as a serious subject, even though it furnishes the key to that Russian Messianistic dream which so frequently emerges in the stream of Russian culture. In a lesser degree, the same can be said of the more negative Messianism of Mickiewicz and other Polish writers, of the goals of Shevchenko and, above all, of the patriotic works of the Serb poet, Nyegosh. In addition, there is the almost completely unknown world of the Russian Old Believers, or Starovyery, who have left an imprint on many fields of Russian culture. Although rarely mentioned, they are far better known in the Russian revolutionary movement, particularly for their preservation of old Russian icons.

Still another field for which material is available, is the history of the Slavs and Slavic culture in the Western World. Professor Jaroslav Rudnyckyj of the University of Manitoba has detailed changes of the Ukrainian language in Canada, and H. L. Mencken has provided startling information on Slavic languages in America, in his _The American Language_, but the full extent of these changes and the effect of American life on Slavic folklore and folk art, as well as the history of the settlements, has not yet been fully studied. At present, because of support given by foundations and the government, stress is laid upon present Slavic conditions and culture. This is only natural, but the present, and indeed the future, can only be understood by the past. There is much historical study to be done with the resources that the United States and Western Europe can furnish. Slavic history has been so consistently neglected, or studied in such narrow contexts, that its general lines of contact with the West and Asia have not yet been established with any degree of certainty, even in the Slavic countries. If interest has been shown in the relations between Kiev and the Scandinavians, it has not been extended to the contacts with Byzantium during all ages. Nor have scholars examined the Swedish-Polish relations from the viewpoint of both countries. The interplay of the Balkan Slavs with both Italy and the Ottomans is still veiled in darkness.

All these subjects can be studied by Slavic scholars in America without limiting the study to an assumed narrow sphere which has, too often, been the fate of studies both in Europe and the Slavic lands. The viewpoint of American students, therefore, with a broader perspective may result in a new school of Slavic studies, oriented by an impartial attitude to either the Russian imperialistic claims or the German desire to treat Eastern Europe, in the broader sense, as a subordinate arena in the world’s history. These traditional viewpoints are today being outmoded rapidly by current history; therefore, the sooner American Slavic and East European scholarship realizes its own possibilities and its subject matter, the more valuable will be its contribution to the welfare of the United States and the world.

_VI. Area Studies_

The development of area studies, which first attracted wide attention during World War II, fills a certain gap in the general organization of Slavic and East European studies. They compensate for a deficiency in the education and application of students but they can never fully replace the work of the graduate school. Area studies are at their best when they train young men and women in a knowledge of regions relatively unknown to the general public, which for one reason or another are so inaccessible that few, if any, of the students will have an opportunity to visit them in the course of their studies. They can then be regarded in two quite different ways, for they are either a desirable prelude to more serious work or they are vocational schools of the highest class. In either respect, they will prove their value if properly handled.

To understand the place of area studies, it must be recognized that the American university system has sharply differentiated between the cultural linguistic phases and historical and economic aspects of any given section of the world. Both areas of understanding require a knowledge of the general geography, the outstanding products of the region, its population and characteristics. It has been far too easy, in the past, for students of Slavic, as well as other cultures, to secure a knowledge of the literature of a period without an adequate realization of the background against which that literature was produced. To cite an example from Russian literature, during the first half of the nineteenth century, very few Russian writers ever visited Kiev and apart from the visit of Pushkin to the south of Russia and the service of Lermontov and Leo Tolstoy in the Caucasus, there are few works which picture anything but St. Petersburg, Moscow and a small area south of Moscow. While the average student does not expect such a limitation of subject matter, it is at once obvious from the most superficial knowledge of the expanse of Russia. We could parallel this case with any number of others.

From this point of view, area studies represent but a slight increase of detailed knowledge over that which the average student acquires before he begins specialization in any linguistic or historical field. This knowledge must be supplemented by detailed studies in one of the accepted fields of learning if the student is not to remain a talented amateur.

But there is another aspect of area studies which has given them their vogue at the present time. The global complexion of World War II brought home to the American government, all far-sighted educators and even to members of the general public, the tremendous ignorance which existed in the United States concerning all parts of the world except some sections of Western Europe. It was urgently necessary to prepare, in the minimum time, relatively large numbers of individuals to serve throughout the world. The involvement of the Soviet Union and the Nazi overrunning of the states to its west further emphasized this need. Area studies were the result.

These studies were definitely geared to educate men and women who could be quickly called in case of need. That need still exists and undoubtedly a large percentage of the students who enter such concentrated programs hope to put their knowledge to practical use, for the most part, outside the universities. There is still a great demand for area courses and if ever the Iron Curtain were lifted and free commercial relations reestablished, we would speedily find that even with all these courses, the demand would outstrip the supply.

But, it seems likely that area studies will diminish in popularity if Slavic and other East European studies find their rightful place in the undergraduate curriculum and provide students with a real appreciation of the significance and general culture of the area. If that were so, they might continue with still greater detail, for an area study including the entire Soviet Union and the satellites becomes almost a contradiction in terms. It would be the same as if a student selected North and South America for a single area study. It becomes very little more than a brief survey of conditions in some particular field. This danger has appeared already in places where area studies have been given on the Slavic lands and have tended to become mere adjuncts of certain phases of Russian and Communist politics and thought.

Taken in the true sense, these courses have amply fulfilled the purpose for which they were intended. They have served to focus attention on many neglected problems. More than this, they have served to round out the point of view of many students, but their unfortunate preoccupation with the present has also created _lacunae_ which can only be filled by other means. Area studies, in their present sense and scope, are a welcome sign of progress but they are not an adequately developed source of our knowledge of Slavic and East European subjects. They are a step in the right direction, have contributed much to overcome the almost complete ignorance with which our country entered World War II, but they fall short of the full needs.

_VII. Summary_

We have now reviewed the history of Slavic studies in the United States indicating their scope, their limitations and their prospects. It remains to summarize all this and, in terms of past experiences, to make some tentative predictions of needs for the future.

The number of students of Slavic and East European subjects increased many times during and after World War II, because public attention was centered on this area. There are now signs which indicate that this marked increase is coming to an end. For propaganda purposes, sometimes deliberate and sometimes based upon ignorance, slackening interest is attributed to the fear of being labeled a Communist. Yet there are deeper reasons, for it is rare that the rush of American students into any subject, whether a science or a humanistic study, lasts more than a few years. One reason is, in many cases, purely materialistic. The overwhelming majority of students who pursue higher studies do so for purely professional reasons, either in government service, scholarship, journalism or business. An added complication today is the fact that most students expect to receive scholarships or fellowships during their period of study, and these have been distributed liberally by the Foundations, colleges and universities. Yet, at the very moment when the number of students in Slavic studies show signs of diminishing, we are also given an intensive barrage of propaganda on the need for increasing the number of students in the natural sciences. There will be increased future assistance for the sciences resulting in more available and far better positions than in the Slavic and East European field.

We must remember, too, that because of the rapid development, most of the key men in Slavic studies, no matter what their fields, are still relatively young. Few are over fifty-five and, unless the mortality rate experienced during World War II is repeated, we can only accept the fact that the rate of promotion will be slow and attrition by retirement and death will be at a low level. Prospects for advancement, then, are not as good as they were even ten years ago although there will always be openings for the well trained scholars.

A need will probably last longest in Eastern non-Russian languages for, with the passing of time, the present lack of competent scholars in many of these countries will be felt more and more. There will also be a lack of those who have really studied the origins of the present situation, the past history of these lands and even of the Russian people and are familiar with those currents which have led to the development of the present situation. We need, in other words, to study the Byzantine relationships with the Slavs, the pre-eighteenth century German contacts with the Slavs, the nineteenth century, and those more specialized subjects such as archaeology, and ethnology, which are still ignored.

The second aspect closely connected to this, both in the present and future, is the furnishing of an instructional staff. In some fields there are still too few men now available and while the younger generation is being trained, the United States is wasting the services of many competent scholars who have arrived since World War II began, who, because of their ignorance of English, are often compelled to take menial and unintellectual positions. This is a tragic waste at a time when so much half-knowledge is being disseminated. There must be more contact between these newly arrived specialists and the general educational system. Some of these men undoubtedly need special training to equip them to function advantageously in the American system, but it is sheer folly for the country and the universities alike to discount them wholly, or to confine them to minor institutions maintained by their own groups. American scholarly societies should make every effort to bring into their membership the newly arrived scholars and to cooperate with those institutions which have been recently transplanted to America, such as the Shevchenko Scientific Society. By neglecting to do so, American education is overlooking a large reservoir of trained personnel with long experience and a wide range of knowledge and ideas.

Another pressing problem is the need for money, money for the payment of faculties, for scholarships, for the expansion and establishment of libraries and museums. The lack of financial resources in the past has often been the greatest handicap, for before World War II contributions for this type of work were few. While the Foundations have contributed handsomely to make the present expansion possible, it is hardly to be expected that they will continue indefinitely. Thus, even now the East European Fund of the Ford Foundation seems to be in the process of liquidation.

Similarly, with the pressure exerted on universities, we can scarcely hope that they, already pressed for funds to conduct research in other branches, will be able to provide the money needed for Slavic and East European studies. At the present time, there is a movement on foot to secure large grants, on a one-time or yearly basis, from many of the larger corporations. The plans offer encouragement but there is always the danger that funds will be diverted to those subjects which promise the most direct advantage to the donors, and while this may set free certain university funds, it may also serve to furnish those favored departments something more than their regular share of the institutional income.

On the other hand, many societies of the larger groups of Slavic and East European peoples possess relatively large sums of money which can be used for cultural purposes. Some of these societies have already awakened to their responsibility and are doing praiseworthy work in publishing materials in English, in supporting refugee scholars and in maintaining cultural institutions. It can only be hoped that all of the societies will consider carefully the opportunities that are offered for aiding in the development of endowment funds and gifts for Slavic and other study.

In connection with this, the universities have an obligation to keep an open mind about these offers and not to judge them in terms of the teaching accepted in Hohenzollern Germany, Hapsburg Austria-Hungary, Romanov Russia and the Communist Soviet Union. This is not asking the universities to alter their demands for objectivity, but it is asking them to recognize that points of view which serve the political aspirations of the old imperialists should not be maintained because of their prestige alone, for they have been challenged in large part by outstanding scholars since World War I. The epigoni of the old Russian professors are by no means as sure of their ground as were their masters and it is ridiculous to suggest that no new ideas have been developed by a reworking of the old and new material. We may still be far from the time when there will be professors in the history and culture of every one of the Slavic and East European groups, in a single institution, but scholarship has advanced beyond the simple view which lumps all the nations of Eastern Europe into one or two convenient sections and accepts the view of the dominant nation as absolute truth.

There is, in addition, a great need for the collection and preservation of material on Slavic and Eastern Europe. At the time of World War I, the American Relief Commission under instructions from its chief, Herbert Hoover, collected enormous masses of material now preserved in the Hoover War Library at Stanford University. Slavic groups, societies and associations have brought together relatively large collections of the most valuable material that has appeared during and after World War II. Much of this material has been saved at tremendous risks, but is still scattered in various repositories, not always under ideal conditions. In addition, the libraries of American universities are becoming so crowded that they often hesitate to accept copies of works which may seem superfluous at first sight.

Thus, it would be highly desirable to form a new institution, sponsored by interested universities and the scholarly societies of the new immigration, to preserve in a convenient place, under modern library conditions, all this material. Such a project, admittedly ambitious, would require assistance from some foundation, the cooperation of all the factions among the new immigration, as well as the American institutions. Administered by a joint board, it could easily be made a center which would soon be unrivalled in the world. Even ephemeral material, such as newspapers and programs, which seem of little or no intrinsic importance, should be preserved, for in a few years they will be hotly bargained for by the greatest libraries. Why should this not now be brought together and made available for duly qualified students? Such a collection would soon prove to be more important than many apparently more valuable sources.

In the same way, perhaps under the same roof, there could be a Slavic museum not only for the major arts but also for articles of domestic use. Early immigrants brought with them home-made utensils, weavings, carpets, and dishes which now seem crude and are discarded. However, their real value is suggested by the fact that the New York State Historical Society has organized in Cooperstown an agricultural museum to preserve similar articles made in the early United States. The disappearance of the old way of life in Eastern Europe, evident even before the Communist wave of devastation and the ravages of the War, have given these articles, now in the United States a value far beyond anything imagined a few years ago. Some organizations such as the Polish Roman Catholic Union in Chicago, the Ukrainian Museums in Ontario, California, Chicago and Cleveland, and other groups have made small scale efforts to establish collections and libraries; some of them, such as the Shevchenko Society library, the Ukrainian Academy of Sciences library and the Hungarian Feleky library, have not yet found proper housing. There are many other small and scattered museums and collections. The development of a project on a continental scale would at once reveal the similarities and dissimilarities existing among the Slavic and East European peoples.

No single institution can possibly hope to achieve all this or to cover adequately the subjects included in a careful survey and study of Eastern Europe. Some new form of cooperation must be devised, if the burden is not to become overwhelming and thus be neglected. It cuts sharply in some respects across some of the American educational traditions but the establishments of atomic laboratories sponsored by several institutions, such as the Brookhaven laboratory, shows that cooperation is possible.

These, then, are but a few possibilities for future expansion of Slavic studies. The Slavic and East European studies in the United States are still in their infancy and American scholars, whether of Slavic or non-Slavic origin, have an enormous opportunity to push forward to solve many of the problems which have, until now, isolated the peoples of Eastern Europe and have barred them from playing their proper role in world affairs.

Bibliography

Aldrich, Col. H. S. “Aims and Techniques in Language Teaching Today.” (abstract) _AATSEEL Bulletin_, V (March, 1948), pp. 60–1.

Andrews, A. I. “University Courses Given in the United States of America on Slavic and other Eastern European History, Languages and Literature.” Reprinted from _Slavonic Review_, 1936.

“Area Study Programs—The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe,” edited by Royden Dangerfield. Institute of Government and Public Affairs, University of Illinois, 1955.

Bennett, W. C. “Area Studies in American Universities.” (_SSRC_), Washington, 1951.

Brozek, Joseph. “Slavic Studies in America. The Present Status.” _Journal of Higher Education_, XIV (1943), pp. 293–7.

Coleman, A. P. “The Teaching of Russian in the U.S.” _Russian Review_, IV (Autumn, 1944), pp. 83–8.

— “The Teaching of Area and Language Courses in the Field of Slavic and East European Studies.” _American Slavic Review_, IV (August, 1945), pp. 185–208.

— “American Area and Language Courses in Slavic and East European Studies 1946–1947.” _American Slavic Review_, V (November, 1946) pp. 162–92.

— “A Report on the Status of Russian and Other Slavic and East European Languages in the Educational Institutions of the U.S.” (_AATSEEL_) New York, 1948.

Coleman, M. M. “A Yale Man Studies Russian. James Gates Percival (1795–1856) and Russian in New Haven a Century Ago.” _Russian Review_, VIII (April, 1949), pp. 127–34.

Coolidge, A. C. “A Plea for the Study of the History of Northern Europe.” _American Historical Review_, II (October, 1896), pp. 34–9.

Cross, S. H. “On Teaching Contemporary Russian Civilization.” _Slavonic Review_, XXI [American Series III] (August, 1944), pp. 93–101.

— “Teaching College Russian,” _Slavonic Review_, XXII [American Series III] (October, 1944), pp. 39–52.

Czubatyj, N. D. “The Meaning of ‘Russia’ and ‘Ukraine’.” _Ukrainian Quarterly_, I (September, 1945), pp. 351–64.

De Francis, John, _ed._ _Report on the Second Annual Round Table Meeting on Linguistic and Language Teaching._ (Institute of Languages and Linguistics, Georgetown University, Monograph Series, No. 1, September, 1951) Washington, 1951.

_Dictionary of National Biography_, New York.

Dorosh, J. T. _The Study and Teaching of Slavic Languages_, Washington: Library of Congress, 1949.

Fenton, W. N. _Area Studies in American Universities_, Washington: American Council on Education, 1947.

Graves, Mortimer. “A Memorandum on Regional Studies.” _Journal of Higher Education_, XVI (November, 1943), pp. 431–4.

— _A Neglected Facet of the National Security Problem._ Washington, 1950.

Halecki, O. “Imperialism in Slavic and East European History.” _American Slavic Review_, XI (February, 1952), pp. 1–26.

Hall, R. B. _Area Studies: with Special Reference to Their Implications for Research in the Social Sciences._ (SSRC Pamphlet No. 6) New York, 1947.

Hall, R. A., Jr. “Progress and Reaction in Modern Language Teaching.” _AAUP Bulletin_, XXXI (Summer, 1945), pp. 220–30.

Hasek, C. W. _The Slavonic Languages and Literatures in American Colleges and Universities._ (Higher Education Circular No. 23) Washington, 1920.

Heindel, R. H. _The Present Position of Foreign Area Studies in the U.S._ (SSRC) New York, 1950.

Huntington, W. C. “The Russian Translation Project Three Years Later.” _Russian Review_, VII (Spring, 1947), pp. 76–87.

Jacques, Agnes. “Why Students Study Russian.” _Modern Language Journal_, XXXI (December, 1947), pp. 525–34.

Kerner, R. J. “Slavonic Studies in America.” _Slavonic Review_, III (December, 1924), pp. 244–58.

— “Coordination of Slavic Studies Between the Fields of the Humanities and Social Studies.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, VII (December, 1949), pp. 33–4.

— “Language Study and American Education.” _PMLA_, LXVIII (September, 1953), pp. 100–16.

Manning, C. A. “The Slavonic Session of the Modern Language Association of America.” _Slavonic Review_, IV (1926), pp. ix-x.

— “The Slavonic Group of the Modern Language Association of America.” _Slavonic Review_, V (1927), p. vii.

— “Slavonic Studies in the United States.” _Modern Language Journal_, XIII (1929), pp. 280–288.

— “Die slawische Wissenschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten.” _Osteuropa_, V (1930), pp. 171–8.

— “Polish and the American Universities.” _Poland America_, XIII (1932), pp. 489–91.

— “Modern Language Association of U.S.A. (Slavonic Group).” _Slavonic Review_, XI (1933), p. 521.

— “Slavonic Studies in the United States.” _Modern Language Journal_, XIX (March, 1935), pp. 425–32.

— “American Slavonic.” _American Speech_, XI (1936), pp. 370–1.

— “The University and East European Cultures.” _Columbia University Quarterly_, XXXIII (1941), pp. 242–51.

Maslenikov, O. A. “Slavic Studies in America, 1939–1946.” _Slavonic Review_, XXV (April, 1946), pp. 528–37.

Matthews, W. K. “The Language Pattern of the U.S.S.R.” _Slavonic Review_, XXVI (April, 1946), pp. 427–51.

Mohrenschildt, D. von. “Russian Studies in the U.S.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, (March, 1953), pp. 46–7.

— “Russian Area Studies and Research since World War II.” _Russian Review_, X (April, 1953), pp. 111–19.

Nagurney, M. J. “The Teaching of Ukrainian in the U.S.” _American Slavic Review_, IV (December, 1945), pp. 186–94.

Noyes, G. R. “Slavic Languages at the University of California.” _Slavonic Review_, XXII [American Series, III] (October, 1944), pp. 53–60.

Ornstein, Jacob. “A Romance Language Instructor Looks at the Slavic Languages.” _Modern Language Journal_, XXXIII (March, 1949), pp. 185–92.

— “A Decade of Russian Teaching: Notes on Methodology and Textbooks.” _Modern Language Journal_, XXXV (April, 1951), pp. 263–79.

— “Facilities and Activities of the Library of Congress in the Slavic and East European Field.” _American Slavic Review_, XII (December, 1953), pp. 549–54.

Parry, Albert. “Teaching Russian in our Schools.” _Tomorrow_, X (December, 1950), pp. 31–5.

Pei, M. A. “A Rational Program for Teaching Languages in American High Schools.” _American Slavic Review_, IV (August, 1945), pp. 138–41.

Posin, J.A. “Russian Studies in American Colleges.” _Russian Review_, VII (Spring, 1948), pp. 62–75.

Riazanovsky, N. V. “Old Russia, the Soviet Union, and Eastern Europe.” _American Slavic Review_, XI (October, 1952), pp. 171–88.

Rose, W. J. _Cradle Days of Slavic Studies—Some Reflections._ (Slavistica No. 23) Winnipeg, 1955.

Rosenbaum, M. W. “Slavonic Studies in America.” _Journal of Higher Education_, XVI (January, 1943), pp. 9–14.

Rosicky, Rose. _A History of the Czechs (Bohemians) in Nebraska._ Omaha, 1929.

— “Russian Studies at Michigan, 1908–1943.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, V (June, 1948), p. 85.

Schmidt, G. P. “Colleges in Ferment.” _American Historical Review_, LIX (October, 1953), pp. 19–42.

Senn, A. “College Russian: Objectives and Methods.” _American Slavic Review_, V (May, 1946), pp. 176–86.

— “Obstacles in the Way of Slavic Studies.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, VI (March, 1949), pp. 59–62.

Smal-Stocki, R. _The Nationality Problem of the Soviet Union and the Russian Communist Imperialism._ Milwaukee, 1952.

Spector, Ivan. “Russian Studies in the Pacific Northwest.” _Slavonic Review_ XXII [American Series, III] (October, 1944), pp. 61–9.

Steward, J. H. _Area Research: Theory and Practice._ (SSRC Bulletin No. 63) New York, 1950, pp. xix and 164.

— “The Slavonic Conference at Richmond (Va).” _Slavonic Review_, III (March, 1925), pp. 684–93.

Tolpin, J. G. “Teaching of Scientific Russian.” _American Slavic Review_, IV (August, 1945), pp. 158–64.

Vakar, N. P. “Teaching Russian Civilization.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, VI (June, 1949), pp. 101–3.

— “Teaching Russian Civilization.” _AAUP Bulletin_ XXXV (Winter, 1949), pp. 651–60.

Wellemeyer, J. F., Jr. and M. H. North. “American Personnel in Asian, African and Eastern European Studies.” [Mimeographed preliminary analysis]. (ACLS) Washington, 1953.

Wiener, Leo. “The Teaching of the Slavonic Languages.” _Training for Foreign Service._ (U.S. Bureau of Education Bulletin No. 27) Washington, 1921, pp. 136–8.

Wiren, A. R. “The Russian Student Fund 1920–1945.” _Russian Review_, V (Autumn, 1945), pp. 104–13.

Zenkovsky, S. A. “Periodicals in the Russian Language Program.” _AATSEEL Bulletin_, XI (September, 1953), pp. 9–11.

Index

Abel, Samuel, 56.

Alliance College, 39, 49, 70, 71.

American Association for the Advancement of Slavic Studies, 68.

American Association of Teachers of Slavic and East European Languages, 70.

American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, 18.

American Committee for Liberation from Bolshevism, 79.

American Council of Learned Societies, 59, 75.

American Council on Foreign Relations, 27, 50, 68.

American Historical Association, 26, 56, 70.

American Relief Commission, 107.

_American Slavic and East European Review_, 68, 69, 89.

Andrews, Arthur I., 33.

Archipenko, Alexander, 49.

_Armenian Review_, 69.

Armstrong, Hamilton F., 27.

Armstrong, John A., 78.

Army Language School, 67.

Bachinsky, Dr., 14.

Bacon, Leonard C., 29.

Baranov, Aleksander, 6, 7.

Barta, Alois, 42.

Bender, Harold H., 33.

Bergson, Abram, 68.

Bienowski, Count, 5.

Bilmanis, Dr., 86.

Birkenmeyer, Joseph, 60.

Bloomfield, Maurice, 25.

Bowring, Sir John, 19.

Brookings Institute, 49.

Bures, Vaclav, 40.

Burnett, Col., 59.

Burnham, James, 77.

Butler, Nicholas M., 52, 62.

Cadet School of Warsaw, 5.

California, University of, 27, 28, 29, 47, 51, 56, 57, 58, 59, 66, 67, 74.

Cambridge University, 25.

Capek, Thomas, 58.

Carnegie Corporation, 81.

Carroll College, 21.

Chekhov Publishing House, 78.

Chicago, University of, 27, 30, 34, 47, 50, 68, 69.

Chubaty, Nicholas, 64, 69.

Churchill, Marlborough, 46.

Chyzhevsky, Dmytro, 72.

Clarke, James F., 79.

Cleveland Public Library, 57.

Coe College, 42.

Coleman, Arthur P., 51, 65, 70.

Colorado, University of, 68.

Columbia University, 25, 31, 32, 33, 47, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 56, 58, 59, 62, 63, 67, 68, 70, 72, 73, 76, 79.

Comenius (Komensky), Jan A., 4.

Conant, Kenneth J., 54.

Coolidge, Archibald C., 26.

Cornell University, 65.

Crane, Charles R., 30.

Creighton University, 47.

Cressey, George B., 68.

Croatian Academy of Liberal Arts and Sciences, 72.

Croatian National Alliance, 12.

Cross, Samuel H., 53, 54, 58, 59, 67, 68, 74.

Cundy, Percival, 92.

Curtin, Jeremiah, 21.

Czechoslovak National Alliance, 12.

Darbinian, Reuben, 69.

Dartmouth College, 48, 52, 69.

Dawson, Clarence, 56.

Denver, University of, 66.

Deutsch, Babette, 34.

Dobriansky, Leo, 76.

Doroshenko, Dmytro, 49.

Drizari, Nelo, 52.

Dubuque College and Seminary, 42.

Duggan, Stephan P., 33.

Dumbarton Oaks, 84.

Dyboski, Roman, 50.

East European Fund, Inc., 78, 105.

Ecole des Langues Orientales, Paris, 32.

Eliseeff, Serge, 48.

Fay, Sidney B., 34.

Faymonville, Philip, 59.

Feleky Library, 108.

Fisher, H. H., 68.

Fitch, Graham D., 46.

Ford Foundation, 78, 81.

Fordham University, 68, 72, 74.

_Foreign Affairs_, 27.

Foreign Language Information Service, 41.

Francis Skorina Society (Kryvian), 71.

Franklin, Benjamin, 17.

Freiburg, University of, 26.

Gallitzin (Golitsyn), Prince Dimitry, 6.

Gent, William, 47.

Georgetown University, 48, 57, 74, 76.

Gerschenkron, Alexander, 68.

Gilman, Pres., 25.

Golder, Frank A., 27, 30.

Golitsyn (Gallitzin), Prince Dimitry, 6.

Granovsky, Alexander, 49.

Graves, W., 59.

Haiman, Mieczyslaw, 38.

Hairenik Association, 69.

Halecki, Oskar, 64, 68, 72.

Hapgood, Isabel F., 23.

Harper, Samuel N., 30, 47, 55, 68.

Harvard University, 4, 6, 25, 26, 27, 28, 41, 47, 48, 53, 54, 56, 58, 67, 72, 73, 98.

Haupt, Paul, 25.

Hayne, Frank L., 59.

Hawkes, Dean H., 53.

Hecker, Julius F., 34.

Herrman, Augustine, 4.

Heyberger, Anna, 42.

Hoover, Herbert, 107.

Hoover War Library, 56.

House, Edward M., 27, 34, 46.

Hrbek, Jeffrey D., 40.

Hrbkova, Sarka B., 41, 54.

Hrdlicka, Ales, 33.

Indiana, University of, 79.

Institute for Advanced Study, Princeton, 79.

Institute for Study of the USSR, Munich, 79.

International Baptist Seminary, 42.

Iowa, University of, 40, 41, 42, 65.

Jakobson, Roman, 64, 68, 73, 74.

Jaszy, Oskar, 40.

Jefferson, Thomas, 7.

Jena, University of, 33.

Joffe, Judah A., 31.

Johns Hopkins University, 25, 31.

Joint Committee on Slavic Studies, 68, 75.

Jones, R. W., 48.

_Journal of Central European History_, 69.

_Journal of East European History_, 69.

Karpovich, Michael, 54, 68, 74.

Kaun, Alexander, 28, 67, 74.

Kaunas, University of, 65.

Kelly, Eric P., 48, 52.

Kennan, George, 22, 79.

Kennan, George F., 79.

Kerner, Robert J., 27, 28, 55, 68, 74.

Knizek, Charles, 42.

Kodiak, 6, 7.

Komensky (Comenius), Jan A., 4.

Komensky Educational Clubs, 40.

Kosciuszko Foundation, 50, 72.

Kosciuszko, Tadeusz, 5, 6, 18.

Koshits, Alexander, 49.

Koukol, Alois E., 32.

Kovach, Michael, 5.

Kovalevsky, Maxim, 30.

Krakow, University of, 29, 60.

Kridl, Manfred, 64, 73.

Lafayette College, 47, 54.

Lanz, Henry, 30, 67.

Leacock, Stephen, 51.

Ledbetter, Eleanor, 57.

Lednicki, Waclaw, 64, 68, 74.

Lee, Charles, 5.

Lerando, Leon Z., 42, 47, 54.

Le Tallec, Paul, 56.

Lewis, John D., 18.

Lewis, William D., 18, 19.

Library of Congress, 56.

Lisovsky, Adm., 21.

Liverpool, University of, 30.

London, University of; School of Slavonic and East European Studies, 30, 48, 52, 55.

Lord, Eric, 56.

Lord, Robert H., 28.

Magoun, Francis P., Jr., 54.

Mandell, Max S., 32, 33.

Manitoba, University of, 101.

Manning, Clarence A., 32, 51, 52, 53, 55, 63, 68, 96.

Marquette University, 72, 74.

Martinovitch, Nicholas N., 49.

Maryland, University of, 48.

Masaryk Institute, 72.

Masaryk, Thomas G., 14.

Maslenikov, Oleg, 66, 74.

Matice Vyssoho Vzdelani, 39.

McCroskey, Benjamin B., 47.

McGill University, 51.

Meader, Clarence L., 33.

Mediaeval Academy of America, 84.

Mencken, H. L., 101.

Menges, Karl H., 53.

Menut, Albert, 65.

Michela, Joseph A., 59.

Michigan, University of, 33, 49.

Mid-European Studies Center, 79.

Milyukov, Paul, 30.

Minnesota, University of, 49.

Mirsky, Prince D. S., 52.

Miskovsky, Louis F., 39.

Missouri, University of, 55.

Mitana, Thaddeus, 49.

Modern Language Association of America, 55, 69.

Mogilat, Elena T., 51, 59.

Mohrenschildt, D. von, 69.

Monroe, Will S., 33.

Morawski-Nawench, Albert, 32.

Mosely, Philip S., 50, 68.

Murray, W. S., 33.

Myshuha, Luke, 14.

NRA, 58.

Nebraska, University of, 34, 40, 41, 47.

New Jersey Normal School, Montclair, 33.

New York Public Library, 56.

New York State Historical Society, 107.

New York University, 33, 77.

Niemciewicz, Juljusz U., 6.

Notre Dame University, 40, 74.

Noyes, George R., 28, 29, 51, 55, 68.

Oberlin College, 39.

Odlozilik, Otokar, 64.

Ohio State University, 42.

Oxford University, 25.

Paderewski, Ignace J., 14.

Pares, Sir Bernard, K.B.E., 30, 55.

Pasvolsky, Leo, 49.

Patrick, George Z., 29, 58, 59, 66, 67, 74.

Pennsylvania, University of, 65, 68.

Percival, James G., 19.

Phelps, William Lyon, 32.

Piatkowski, Romuald, 39.

Pipal, F. J., 40.

Pisek, Rev. Vincent, 58.

Pittsburgh, University of, 54.

_Poland_, 56.

Polish Historical Society, 38.

Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America; _Bulletin_, 64, 71.

Polish National Alliance, 12, 39.

_Polish Review_, 69.

Polish Roman Catholic Union, 12, 38, 108.

Posin, Jack A., 59, 65.

Prince, John D., 31, 51, 53, 67, 94, 96.

Princeton University, 25, 33, 34.

Prokosch, B., 42.

Pulaski, Casimir, 5, 18.

Pupin, Michael I., 14, 31, 58.

Radio Free Europe, 79.

Radosavljevich, Paul R., 33.

Rejcha, Frank, 40.

Reshetar, John, 78.

Rezanov, Nikolay, 6, 7.

Robinson, Rev. Edward, 20.

Robinson, Geroid T., 50, 68, 73.

Rockefeller Foundation, 81.

Rose, William J., 48.

Rosicky, John, 40.

Rostovtseff, M., 48.

Rudnyckyj, Jaroslav, 101.

Rumford, Count Benjamin T., 17.

Russian Orthodox Seminary, 42.

_Russian Review_, 69.

St. Basil’s College, 57, 71.

St. Francis Seminary, 38.

St. Mary’s Seminary, 38.

St. Procopius College, 38, 57.

St. Vincent College, 38.

St. Vladimir’s Russian Orthodox Seminary, 53.

Santa Barbara Mission, 3.

Schmitt, Bernadotte, 34.

Schuyler, Eugene, 21.

Senn, Alfred, 65, 68.

Serb National Federation, 12.

Serb National University, 72.

Seton-Watson, R. W., 55, 56.

Severa, G. F., 39.

Shelikov, Grigory, 6, 7.

Shevchenko Scientific Society, 71, 105, 108.

Shevelov, George, 72.

Shipman, A. J., 34.

Shishmanov, Dimitar, 52.

Simek, Bohumil, 39, 40.

Simkhovich, Vladimir, 33.

Simmons, Ernest J., 53, 55, 65, 68, 73.

Slabey, Rev. Andrew, 42.

_Slavic and East European Journal_, 70.

_Slavonic and East European Review_, 55, 68, 89.

_Slovan Americky_, 38.

Slovanska Lipa Society, 36.

Smal-Stocki, Roman, 72, 74, 77.

Smith College, 34.

Smithsonian Institution, 33.

Social Science Research Council, 75.

Society for Advancement of Slavonic Study, 54, 55.

Southern California, University of, 57.

Spector, Ivar, 57.

_Speculum_, 53, 69.

Stanoyevich, Milivoy S., 32.

Stanford University, 27, 30, 49, 56, 67, 68, 107.

Stepanek, Orin, 41, 47.

Strakhovsky, Leonid I., 48, 68.

Strassburg, University of, 53.

Struve, Gleb, 74.

Subotic, D., 52.

Syracuse, University of, 65, 68.

Talvj, 20.

Texas, University of, 42, 47.

Thomson, S. H., 68, 69.

Tikhon, Patriarch, 13.

Timoshenko, Stephen, 49.

Timoshenko, Volodymyr, 49.

Toronto, University of, 48.

Tufts College, 33.

Turkevich, Rev. Leonid, 42.

Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences, 71, 108.

Ukrainian Free University, 49, 96.

Ukrainian Museums, 108.

Ukrainian National Association, 12, 63, 96.

Ukrainian Providence Association, 12.

_Ukrainian Quarterly_, 69.

Ukrainian Workingmen’s Association, 12.

Unbegaun, Boris, 53.

Van Deman, Ralph, 46.

Vasilieff, A. A., 48.

Vasmer, Max, 53.

Vernadsky, George, 48, 68.

Vienna, University of, 32.

Vocadlo, Otakar, 52.

Walsh, Rev. Edmund, 57.

Washington, University of, 57.

White Ruthenian Institute of Arts and Sciences, 71.

Whitfield, Francis J., 68.

Wiener, Leo, 26, 27, 28, 53.

Wisconsin, University of, 28, 33, 42, 47, 60.

Yale University, 19, 21, 25, 32, 56, 68.

Yarmolinsky, Avrahm, 32, 34.

Yeaton, Ivan, 59.

Zeboroski (Zabriskie), 3.

Zenger, John Peter, 5.

Zinzendorf, Count, 4.

-----

Footnote 1:

W. H. Prescott, _Conquest of Peru_, Philadelphia, (1902), II, p. 199.

Footnote 2:

Professor Otokar Vocadlo of the University of Bratislava visited in 1929 some of the missions and came to the conclusion that they included Slavic monks.

Footnote 3:

M. Haiman, _Polish Past in America, 1608–1865_ (Chicago: _Polish Roman Catholic Union_).

Footnote 4:

J. D. Prince, “The Jersey Dutch Dialect,” _Dialect Notes, III_, (1910), pp. 459–484. The usual modern form is “Zabriskie.”

Footnote 5:

Thomas Capek, _Augustin Herrman zakladatel Bohemia Manor r. 1660 a autor mapy statu Virginie a Marylandu_. (Praha: Vytiskla statni tiskarna, 1930); _Dictionary of American Biography_ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1932), VIII, p. 592.

Footnote 6:

Robert J. Kerner, _Bohemia in the Eighteenth Century_ (New York: Macmillan, 1932), p. 315.

Footnote 7:

Clarence Manning, _Soldier of Liberty, Casimir Pulaski_ (New York: Philosophical Library, 1945), p. 253.

Footnote 8:

M. Haiman, _Poland and the American Revolutionary War_ (Chicago: Polish Roman Catholic Union, 1932).

Footnote 9:

For data on Major General Charles Lee, see _ibid._, p. 4.

Footnote 10:

For data on Prince Gallitzin (Golitsyn), _cf._ _Dictionary of American Biography_ (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1932), VIII, p. 113; D. Sargent: _Mitri, The Story of Prince Demitrius Augustine Gallitzin_, 1770–1840 (New York: Longmans, Green and Co., Inc., 1945).

Footnote 11:

H. C. Brown, _Valentine’s Manual of the City of New York_, New Series I (New York: Valentine Co., 1916), p. 24.

Footnote 12:

Haiman, _op. cit._, p. 178.

Footnote 13:

Clarence Manning, _Russian Influence in Early America_ (New York: Library Publisher, 1953), pp. 17–142.

Footnote 14:

Thomas Capek, _History of the Bohemians (Czechs) in America_ (Chicago, 1920); Rose Rosicky, _A History of Czechs (Bohemians) in Nebraska_ (Omaha; Czech Historical Society of Nebraska, 1929), p. 33 ff.

Footnote 15:

There is a large literature on various facets of this mass immigration: T. Capek, _The History of the Bohemians (Czechs) in America_; the works of various Polish sociologists; _Propamyatna Knyha_ (_Jubilee Book_ of the Ukrainian National Association), (Jersey City, N.J.: Svoboda Press, 1936); M. I. Pupin, _From Immigrant to Inventor_ (New York: Chas. Scribner’s Sons, 1923).

Footnote 16:

Clarence A. Manning, _Russian Influence in Early America_; also, the following articles on the history and development of Russian institutions—Bishop Leonty, “History of Russian Orthodox Church in America,” _Russian Orthodox Journal_, Vol. XVI, No. 11, 12 (March-Apr. 1943); Vol. XVII, No. 2, 4, 11 (June, Aug. 1944, March 1945); Vol. XVIII, No. 2, 4, 11 (June, Aug. 1945, March 1946); Vol. XIX, No. 4, 6 (Aug., Oct. 1946).

Footnote 17:

Cf., A. P. Coleman, “A New England City and the November Uprisings,” _Annals of the Polish Roman Catholic Union Archives and Museum_, (Chicago, 1939), IV, p. 31 ff.

Footnote 18:

_Dictionary of American Biography_, XI, p. 226; L. Wiener, _Anthology of Russian Literature_ (New York: G. P. Putnam’s 1902–3), I, viii; II, v.

Footnote 19:

_Dictionary of American Biography_, XIV, p. 460; A. P. Coleman, “James Gates Percival and Slavonic Culture,” _Slavia_, (San Francisco), XVI, No. 3, pp. 65–75.

Footnote 20:

For Talvj (Mrs. Edward Robinson), see _Dictionary of American Biography_, XVI, p. 55; L. Wiener, _op. cit._, I, ix.

Footnote 21:

_Dictionary of American Biography_, IV, p. 608.

Footnote 22:

_Ibid._, XVI, p. 471.

Footnote 23:

_Ibid._, X, p. 331.

Footnote 24:

_Ibid._, VIII, p. 233.

Footnote 25:

For the general history of Slavic studies during the period, see: Kerner, “Slavonic Studies in America,” _Slavonic Review_, III, pp. 244–258; Manning, “Slavonic Studies in the United States,” _Modern Language Journal_, XIII (1929), pp. 280–288; XIX (1935), pp. 425–432; “Polish and the American Universities,” _Poland America_, (N.Y.) XIII, pp. 489–491.

Footnote 26:

For Coolidge, see _Dictionary of American Biography_, IV, p. 393.

Footnote 27:

For a recent description of this, see George Kennan, _Russia Leaves the War_, (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1956).

Footnote 28:

_Cf._ _Propamyatna Knyha_ (Jubilee Book), especially, O. Stetkevych (Joseph Stetkewych), “Ukrayinske Shkilnytstvo v Amerytsi,” pp. 325 ff.

Footnote 29:

Thomas Capek, _History of the Bohemians (Czechs) in America_, p. 241 f.

Footnote 30:

Facts concerning the history of Alliance college have been supplied by President Coleman.

Footnote 31:

Concerning Oberlin, cf. “Teaching of Area and Language Course in the Field of Slavic and East European Studies,” _American Slavic and East European Review_, IV (1945), pp. 85 ff.

Footnote 32:

Rosicky, _op. cit._, pp. 412 ff.

Footnote 33:

_Ibid._, pp. 422 ff.

Footnote 34:

Thomas Capek, _History of Bohemians (Czechs) in America_.

Footnote 35:

C. W. Hasek, _The Slavonic Languages and Literatures in American Colleges and Universities_ (Washington, 1920); Manning, “Slavonic Studies in the United States,” _Modern Language Journal_, XIX, (1935), pp. 425 ff.; “Slavonic Group of the Modern Language Association of U.S.A. (Slavonic Group),” _Slavonic Review_, XI (1933), p. 521; “The University and East European Cultures,” _Columbia University Quarterly_, XXXIII (1941), pp. 242–251; “Die slawische Wissenschaft in den Vereinigten Staaten,” _Osteuropa_, V (1930), pp. 171–176.

Footnote 36:

Kelly left Slavonic studies in 1929 to take up journalism. For details on his career, _cf._ _Who’s Who In America_, Vol. 29, p. 1380.

Footnote 37:

_Bulletin of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America_, I, p. 161, carries the obituary of Joseph Birkenmeyer.

Footnote 38:

Oleg Maslenikov, “Slavic Studies in America, 1939–1946,” _Slavonic Review_ (1947), XXV, pp. 528–537.

Footnote 39:

Obituaries of these leaders appear as follows: Prince, _American Slavic and East European Review_, IV; Cross, _ibid._, V; Lanz, _ibid._, IV; Patrick, _ibid._, IV; Kaun, _ibid._, IV.

Footnote 40:

M. J. Nagurney, “The Teaching of Ukrainian in the U.S.,” _American Slavic and East European Review_, IV (1945), pp. 186–194.

Footnote 41:

Noyes, “Slavic Languages at the University of California,” _Slavonic Review_ (American Series III, 1944), XXII, pp. 53–60.

Footnote 42:

I. Spector, “Russian Studies in the Pacific Northwest,” _Slavonic Review_ (American Series III, 1944), XXII, pp. 61–69.

Footnote 43:

P. N. Malevsky-Malevich, _ed._, _Russia-USSR_ (New York, 1933), p. 65.

Footnote 44:

_Third Annual Report_, 1953–1954, The East European Fund, Inc. (New York, 1954), pp. 48, 86.

Footnote 45:

_Area Study Program—The Soviet Union and Eastern Europe_, (University of Illinois, 1955), p. 37.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

THE MARQUETTE SLAVIC STUDIES

Published by the Marquette University Press Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin

I. _The Doctrine of Anarchism of Michael A. Bakunin_ (1955) by Eugene Pyziur.

II. _Hitler’s Occupation of Ukraine (1941–1944)_ (1956) by Ihor Kamenetsky.

III. _History of Slavic Studies in the United States_ (1957) by Clarence A. Manning.

_Available in paper or case bindings._ _Prices on application._

History of Slavic Studies in the United States

Both World Wars during the twentieth century originated in the Slavic countries and in the efforts of various Slavic groups to obtain and retain their national independence and the right to their own language and culture. Currently, Russian Communist imperialism overshadows the Slavic countries, once again threatening their national heritage and creating new world tensions.

Since aggression in the Slavic countries has twice resulted in global wars, the United States, as well as the entire Western world, has begun to concentrate attention upon the Slavs, their history, their culture, their aspirations.

One phenomenon which sharply differentiates the scope of Slavic and East European studies in the United States from the purely academic studies elsewhere in the world, is the presence in this country of ten million Slavic immigrants and their descendents, who have played an increasingly vital role in our national culture by blending their native qualities, knowledge and traditions into the American heritage.

Public and educational leaders in the United States are seriously supporting attempts to develop a Slavic scholarship commensurate with American educational traditions. _A History of Slavic Studies in the United States_ points to the gradual evolution of Slavic and East European studies in this country and points out some of the more hopeful paths for future education, so that the United States may make the best use of the resources, both intellectual and material, that it has at its disposal.

[Illustration: MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PRESS]

THE MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY PRESS 1131 W. Wisconsin Avenue, Milwaukee 3, Wisconsin

------------------------------------------------------------------------

TRANSCRIBER’S NOTES

● Typos fixed; non-standard spelling and dialect retained. ● Used numbers for footnotes, placing them all at the end of the last chapter. ● Enclosed italics font in _underscores_.