1 For example, J . Ellis and R. W. Davies, “The Crisis in Soviet Linguistics,” Soviet Studies, II, No. 3, 209-64; J. Ellis, “A Further Note on the Soviet Linguistics Controversy,” Soviet Studies, III, No. 2, 172-4; W. K. Matthews, “The Soviet Contribution to Linguistic Thought,” Archivum Linguisticum, II, Fasc. 1, 1-23, and Fasc. 2, 97-121; M. Miller, “Marr, Stalin, and the Theory of Language,” Soviet Studies, III , No. 2, 174-84; M. A. Poltorackaja, “Jafeticheskaja teorija Marra ili novoe uchenie o jazyke,” A Guide to Teachers of the Russian Language in America (July, 1950), pp. 1-46; H. Rubenstein, “The Recent Conflict in Soviet Linguistics,” Language, XXVII, 281-7.

2 E.g., C. A. Manning, “Japhetidology,” Language, VII, 143-6, and “Nikolay Marr and Armenian Studies,” Armenian Quarterly, I, No. 2, 214-20; W. K. Matthews, “The Japhetic Theory,” The Slavonic and East European Review, XXVIII, No. 68, 172-92; G. Nandri§, “Old and New Paths in Slavonic Philology,” The Slavonic and East European Review, XXVIII, No. 70, 84-104, V. Polák, “Present-day Trends in Soviet Linguistics,” The Slavonic and East European Review, XXVI, No. 67, 438-51.

3 J. V. Murra, R. M. Hankin, F. Holling, The Soviet Linguistic Controversy (New York, 1951).

4 Edited by V. V. Vinogradov and B. A. Serebrennikov and published in Moscow, 1951-1952. It will be referred to hereafter as Protiv.

5 “A further note … “ p. 172. This same point of view (most clearly stated here) also runs through the article he wrote with R. W. Davis.

6 The article by M. Miller (cited in Note 1, above) makes a deductive Marxist philosopher of Stalin. This assumption, too, is hard to follow in view of the empirical (and often, even, ad hoc) character of some of Stalin's formulations.

7 This is the attitude we find, e.g., in Poltorackaja's article. On p. 3 she informs us that Marr greeted the Revolution enthusiastically and “soon after” joined the ranks of the Communist Party. As a matter of fact, he did not join the Communist Party until 1930. On p. 4 we are informed that Marr, before the Revolution, adhered to the principles of Indo-European theory and that “up to the years 1920-1921 he did not reveal his revolutionary qualities in his scholarly theses.“

8 This viewpoint is espoused, to one or another degree, by Ellis and Davis (who inform us, on p. 211 of their article, that Marr's work before the Revolution and up to 1924 “ … was carried out within the framework of the orthodox method … “) and Rubenstein (p. 282), as well as most of the other authors cited in Note 1 above who, although well aware of Marr's earlier development, tend to place too great an emphasis on his later work.

9 I owe a great deal of information to Professors Gleb Struve and Francis J. Whitfield (of the University of California) and to Professor N. Poppe (of the University of Washington). Professor Poppe, in particular, was most kind in sending me answers to questions concerning the situation in linguistics in the Soviet Union in the 1920's and 1930's. Needless to say, the responsibility for hypotheses put forth in this article is mine.

10 Reprinted in Russian translation (“Priroda i osobennosti gruzinskogo jazyka“) in Izbrannye raboty (hereafter abbreviated IR), I, 14-15.

11 Cf. V. A. Mihankova, Nikolaj Jakovlevich Marr (1949), p. 31.

12 See his “Predvaritel'noe soobshchenie o rodstve gruzinskogo jazyka s semiticheskimi,” reprinted in IR, I, 23-38.

13 For a linguistic analysis and judgment of Marr's procedures in this instance, see Gerhard Deeters, “Die Sprachwissenschaft in der Sowjetunion,” in Bolschewistische Wissenschaft und “Kulturpolitik” (ed. by B. F. von Richthofen), pp. 236-51, and the review by Hans Vogt, Journal asiatique, CCXXII (1933), Bull, crit., 142-5. Cf. also A. Chikobava, “K voprosu ob istorizme v jazykoznanii v svete trudov I. V. Stalina,” Protiv, II, 31-32.

14 See his article, “O chanskom jazyke,” reprinted in IR, I, 39-49.

15 “Kavkaz i pamjatniki dukhovnoj kul'tury,” IAN, Series VI (1912), p. 80.

16 “Jafeticheskij Kavkaz i tretij etnicheskij element v sozidanii sredizemnomorskoj kul'tury,” reprinted in IR, I, 79-124. Cf. particularly pp. 88-89, 117.

17 An excellent example of the technique (applied to the term Iberia) may be found in “Kreshchenie armjan, gruzin, abkhazov i alanov svjatym Grigoriem,” £apiski Vostochnogo otdelenija Imperatorskogo russkogo arkheologicheskogo Obshchestva (referred to, hereafter, as Zv0), XVI (1905), 63-211.

18 These judgments were contained in the speech in defense of his magisterial dissertation and were reprinted, under the title “K. voprosu o zadachakh armenovedenija,” in IR, I, 16-22. For a modern view of the question of linguistic mixture in Armenian, see Hans Vogt, “Armenien et caucasique du sud,” Norsk Tidsskrift for Sprogvidenskap, IX (1938), 321-38, and “Substrat et convergence dans Involution linguistique. Remarques sur l'éVolution et la structure de l'arménien, du géorgien, de I'osséte et du turc,” Festskrift til Konrad Nielsen, Studia Septentrionalia, II (1945), 213-28.

19 “Opredelenie jazyka vtoroj kategorii akhemanidskikh klinoobraznykh nadpisej po dannym jafeticheskogo jazykoznanija,” ZVO, XXII (1914), 39, 40.

20 “Le terme basque udagara ‘loutre',” Jafeticheskij Sbornik, I (1922), 22-23.

21 Old Armenian had continued in ecclesiastical usage up to the Revolution. Armenian patriots demanded its replacement, as a literary norm, by the spoken language. Cf. I. K. Kusik'jan, “Oshibki N. Ja. Marra v osveshchenii istorii armjanskogo jazyka,” Protiv, II, 432.

22 “O chanskom jazyke,” reprinted in IR, I, 39-49. Cf. particularly p. 39, Note 3.

23 “Knizhnye legendy ob osnovanii Kuara v Armenii i Kieva na Rusi,” IR, V, 65.

24 Ibid.

25 “Indo-Evropejskie jazyki sredizemnomorja.” Reprinted in IR, I, 185-6. 26It was not a monogenetic theory as Rubenstein, op. cit., p. 282, would have it. Marr needed a polygenetic theory to support his theory of mixture and to justify the repetition of the selfsame ethnic terms (later “elements“) over the entire Eurasian territory.

27 In “O proiskhozhdenii jazyka,” IR, II, 179-209.

28 Cf. G. Nandris, op. cit., pp. 95-96.

29 For an analysis of these influences and a detailed survey of Marr's linguistic development, see my book, The Linguistic Theories of N. Ja. Marr, in the University of California Publications in Linguistics.

30 M. A. Poltorackaja, for example, states (op. cit., p. 6) that after 1930, Marr “rejected comparative analysis and replaced it with four-element paleontological analysis.” As a matter of fact, Marr never submitted his work to the rigor of a genuine comparative analysis, so that he had nothing to “reject.“

31 “ O roli antimarksistskoj teorii proiskhozhdenija jazyka v obshchej sisteme vzgljadov N. Ja. Marra,” Protiv, I, 47.

32 As, for instance, he is treated by C. A. Manning, opera cit.

33 V. M. Zhirmunskij, “Lingvisticheskaja paleontologija N. Ja. Marra i istorija jazyka,” Protiv, II , 178-9, characterizes Marr as a “romantic nationalist.” This is an accurate evaluation. It explains Marr's constant references, dating from the beginning of his scholarly career, to Indo-Europeanists (and the Indo-Europeans) as “imperialists,” “usurpers” and pretenders to a cultural tradition which really (according to him) be longed to the Japhites. Marr did not change his views on becoming a “Marxist.” Even though he was later to speak of the union of all languages into a future, single, worldwide language, it is important to note that he always insisted that the linguistic heritage of no individual language be neglected in the formation of this future world language. “Obshchij kurs uchenija ob jazyke,” IR, II, 27. There is even reason to assume that he took Stalin's formula of cultures “national in form, socialist in content” at face value.

34 See IAN, Series VI (1909), 723. What we have said concerning Marr's philological work refers only to work done before the Revolution. After the Revolution Marrist philology followed in the footsteps of Japhetidology. For one judgment of this later work, see F. Novotny, “Homer ve svetle jafetidologie,” Listy Filologické, LVIII (1931), 101-14.

35 “Osnovnye dostizhenija jafeticheskoj teorii,” IR, I, 199.

36 “Chuvashi—jafetidy na Volge,” IR, V, 328.

37 “Some Recent Studies in the History of the Russian Language,” Oxford Slavonic Papers, V, 117, Note.

38 Mikhankova, op. cit., pp. 388-90. This internal disagreement was the more dangerous in that it followed upon the disintegration of a special “committee on numerals” which Marr had formed in an attempt at cooperation with the comparativists. They simply did not “talk the same language” as Marr, to quote Mikhankova, p. 387. In the group on numerals were such linguists as A. N. Samojlovich, N. S. Derzhavin, M. G. Dolobko, N. P. Poppe, L. P. Jakubinskij, and V. B. Tomashevskij. Cf. Izvestija CIK, No. 34 (2417) (April 12, 1925), 2.

39 I have based this statement on information received from Professor Poppe.

40 Op. cit., p. 476.

41 Reported in Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv, No. 3/4 (1935), 165.

42 See V. Aptekar', “Na zabytom uchastke teoreticheskogo fronta,” part 2, in Litcratura i iskusstvo, II (1930), 132-3, and V. Aptekar’ and S. Bykovskij, “Sovremennoe polozhenie na lingvisticheskom fronte i ocherednye zadachi marksistov-jazykovedov,” Izvestija GAIMK, X, No. 8/9 (1931), 14.

43 Published in book form in 1931, under the title Za marksistskoe jazykoznanie.

44 Quoted in V. Aptekar’ and S. Bykovskij, op. cit., pp. 31-32.

45 They were all signatories to the Linguistic Front manifesto, pub. in Literatura i iskusstvo, No. 1 (1930), p. 3 of cover.

46 Cf. Russkijjazyk v sovetskoj shkole, No. 1 (1931), 173.

47 Cf. Aptekar’ and Bykovskij, op. cit., pp. 35-36, and F. Filin, “Bor'ba za marksistsko- Ieninskoe jazykoznanie i gruppa ‘Jazykfront',” in Protiv burzhuaznoj kontrabandy vjazykoznanii (= Obrazovatel'naja biblioteka GAIMK, No. 7), p. 32.

48 Loja had attacked Japhetidology even earlier, under the pseudonym of “The Linguist” (Jazykoved). Cf. Aptekar’ and Bykovskij, op. cit., p. 34.

49 See N. Ja. Zolotov, “Protiv burzhuaznoj kontrabandy v jazykoznanii,” in Protiv burzhuaznoj kontrabandy v jazykoznanii, p. 9.

50 This general statement was followed by a ten-point platform of immediate goals: 1) the working out of the main questions of linguistic science on the basis of Marxism- Leninism, with special attention to the problems of the Soviet era, 2) a systematic study of the languages of the USSR, in keeping with the general demands of socialist construction, 3) constant emphasis upon contemporary linguistic problems, 4) a thorough study of the language of the proletariat and of the kolkhoz, 5) active cooperation in the use of language in socialist construction, particularly in the development of national cultures, 6) strengthening of the role of Marxist theory in the solution of normative questions in linguistics, 7) a Marxist reworking of the methodology of language teaching. 8) setting up a five-year-plan goal for a series of Marxist works on the theory, history and practice of language, 9) close cooperation with Marxists in other fields, 10) the maintenance of an attitude of self-criticism. Literature i iskusstvo, No. 1 (1930) p. 3 of cover. Points three, four, and ten were aimed directly at Japhetidology; most of the other points were offered in competition with Japhetidology.

51 It is interesting to note that this insistence, on the part of Indo-Europeanists and members of the Linguistic Front, that the factual constructs of comparativism be preserved, led to a change of Marr's point of view concerning linguistic “facts.” Whereas he had always insisted that his theory was built on facts and facts alone, he now began to stress the point of view that facts, without a proper theoretical orientation, were useless. Cf. his “K voprosu ob istoricheskom processe v osveshchenii jafeticheskoj teorii,” IR, III , 155, and Mikhankova, op. cit., 494, Note 1.

52 See G. Danilov, “Lingvistika i sovremennost',” Literatura i Marksizm, No. 3 (1930), 70-91, T. Lomtev, “Ocherednye zadachi marksistskoj lingvistiki,” Russkij jazyk v soaetskoj shkole, No. 5 (1931), 151 -60, and the report of the discussion which took place in the Section for a Materialistic Linguistics in the Institute of Literature, Art and Language of the Communist Academy (Oct., Nov., Dec, 1930) published in Russkij jazyk v sovetskoj shkole, No. 1, (1931), 172-4.

53 I. I. Meshchaninov, “O jafeticheskoj teorii,” Novyj Vostok, No. 23/24 (1928), p. 313.

54 Aptekar', V., “Shag nazad,” Novyj Vostok, No. 26/27 (1929), 265 Google Scholar.

55 F. Filin, op. cit., pp. 30-31.

56 N. Ja. Marr, K bakinskoj diskusii o jajetidologii i marksizme (Baku, 1932), pp. 37-39. A goodly number of other objections to Marr's theories, including the labeling of some of them as non-Marxist, may be found in the report of the discussion in the Communist Academy, cf. Note 52, above, and in I. I. Meshchaninov, Jafetidologija i Marksizm (Baku, 1930), pp. 38-67. This booklet contains a speech which Meshchaninov delivered before the Scientific Research Association of Marxists of the Azerbaidzhan State Scientific Research Institute in October, 1929, and a stenographic report of the discussion which followed.

57 Cf. T. Lomtev, op. cit., p. 151.

58 Cf., e.g., B. Aptekar’ and S. Bykovskij, op. cit., pp. 40-41, where they accuse Danilov of “great-power chauvinism.“

59 N. Ja. Zolotov, op. cit., p. 12.

60 Cf., e. g., T. Lomtev, op. cit., pp. 152-3, and G. Danilov, op. cit., pp. 76-77.

61 Cf. the “Khronika” section of Russkij jazyk v sovetskoj shkole, No. 5 (1931), 176.

62 The Linguistic Front, in particular, deserves a special study which would be impossible within the limits of this article. Such a study would contribute new evidence to what we know of the doctrinal polemics of the 1920's and 1930's. But what we have said here should be enough to show that Ellis and Davies (op. cit., pp. 217-8) have greatly underestimated its role.

63 Cf., e.g., Jazykovedenie i materialism, ed. by N. Marr (M.-L., 1931), and Marks, Èngels', Lenin i Stalin oproblemakhjazyka i myshlenija, Vyp. 75 oilzvestija GAIMK, (1933).

64 See Murra, et al., op. cit., pp. 11, 72.

65 E.g., A. Sauvageot, “Linguistique et marxisme,” A la lumière du marxisme, I (1935), 163, 167, and M. Schlauch, “Recent Soviet Studies in Linguistics,” Science and Society, I, No. 2 (1937), 162-5. The Swedish Marxist, Hannes Sköld, is also reported to have attacked Marr in his Zur Verwandschaftslehre: die kaukasische Mode (Lund, 1929). This work appears to be unavailable in America.

66 Both quotations are from W. K. Matthews, “The Japhetic Theory,” The Slavonic and East European Review, XXVIII, No. 68, 183.

67 Cf. Problemy istorii dokapitalisticheskikh obshchestv, No. 3/4 (1935), passim. This issue of FIDO is extremely useful to the biographer of Marr; it was a special issue dedicated to his memory and contains many reminiscences, necrologies and decrees as well as a reproduction of scores of articles and notices which appeared in various journals, magazines and newspapers at the time of his death.

68 G. A. Knjazev, Kratkij ocherk istorii Akademii nauk SSSR, pp. 72-73.

69 See Note 67, above.

70 Cf. L. G. Bashindzhagjan, “Institut jazyka i myshlenija im. N. J a . Marra,” Vestnik AN, No. 10/11 (1937), 262.

71 A. Lunacharskij, “Materializm i filologija,” Izvestija CIK, No. 34 (2417) (April 12, 1925).

72 M. Pokrovskij, “N. Ja. Marr,” Izvestija CIK, No. 118 (3352) (May 23, 1928).

73 I owe an expression of gratitude to Professor N. Poppe, who pointed out to me the initial stage of the evolution of Stalin's views in this matter.

74 “ O politicheskikh zadachakh Universiteta narodov Vostoka,” Sochinenija, VII (1947), 133-52. The quotation from this speech which follows is taken from J. Stalin, Marxism and the National Question (International Publishers, 1942), p. 196. This English translation does not contain the whole text of Stalin's speech, but it does have all the material essential to us.

75 I. Stalin and L. Kaganovich, Otchet central'nogo komiteta XVI s'ezdu VKP(b) (1930), pp. 81-83.

76 I. Stalin and L. Kaganovich, op. cit., pp. 89-92.

77 There is one further curious fact to be noted in connection with Stalin's attitude toward the hypothetical single language. In Stalin's Sochinenija, XI, 333-55, we have an article entitled “Nacional'nyj vopros i leninizm.” A section of this article, “Budushchnost’ nacij i nacional'nykh jazykov,” pp. 341-9, is devoted to the problem discussed here. In it he expressed the same views as he did at the Sixteenth Party Congress. According to the date given at the end of the article, it was written March 18, 1929 (although not published until 1949) and, therefore, pre-dated the Sixteenth Party Congress by one year. But what is curious is the fact that the 1930 speech gave a rather garbled version of Stalin's views—so garbled that certain delegates had to be informed that Stalin was not contradicting his views of 1925. The article in question, however (which was presumably written one year earlier), gives a carefully constructed argument—one which wards against any misconstruing. Stalin quotes his statement of 1925 (which we have given in the text, above) and carefully points out that he was really only warring against Kautsky's conception (pp. 344-345). It seems unbelievable that Stalin would have put together a carefully reasoned statement in 1929 only to give a rather confusing one in 1930. In view of this circumstance, in view of the fact that this article, ostensibly written “in reply to comrades Meshkov, Koval'chuk, and others” (and, therefore, in reply to some sort of public demand) in 1929 was not published until 1949, and in view of the fact that the article contains, in embryo, Stalin's doctrine of “zonal languages” (pp. 348-9), which did not appear again, so far as I know, until 1950, I can only conclude that it is a spurious, late inclusion into Stalinist scripture. (Are Stalin's references to himself, in the third person, as “Stalin” further evidence in this direction?)

78 “Osnovnye dostizhenija jafeticheskoj teorii,” IR, I, 216.

79 I. Kusik'jan, “Jafeticheskaja teorija i indoevropeizm,” Vsesojuznyj central'nyj komitet novogo alfavita, N. Ja. Marru, p. 170,

80 For a report of these discussions, see Izvestija AN, Otdelenie literatury i jazyka (hereafter referred to as Olija), V, No. 6 (1946), 505-14, and Olija, VI, No. 3 (1947), 258-64. Ellis and Davies, op. cit., pp. 222-5, consider these episodes as being the first postwar Marrist attempt at establishing a monopoly. This thesis could only be accepted with great reservations. As a matter of fact, the authors themselves are forced to admit (p. 225) that “ … there was no specific attempt to secure the full domination of Marr's teachings.” That the real Marrist offensive came somewhat later may be seen from two articles by Filin: in 1947, he still spoke favorably of such linguists as Peshkovskij, Bogorodickij, Bulakhovskij, Vinokur, and Peterson (“Nauka o russkom jazyke za tridcat’ let,” Olija, VI, No. 5, 411); in 1948, the only linguist worthy of note was Marr (“O dvukh napravlenijakh v jazykovedenii,” Olija, VII, No. 6, 486-96).

81 It is interesting that, although Obnorskij's book was mentioned in the earlier stages of debate (cf. Olija V, No. 6 (1946), 511, 514), and Filin gave it fulsome praise (cf. Olija, VI, No. 5(1947), p. 413, including a favorable book review (Vestnik LGU, No. 10(1947), 109-16), his name was never cited during the later, more violent controversies. In fact, time out was taken to honor him on his sixtieth birthday (Olija, VII, No. 6 (1948), 582-4). Receipt of the Stalin prize evidently put him beyond reach of the Marrists, even though the ideas he represented were very much under attack.

82 Cf. Olija, VII, No. 5(1948), 466-8, Vestnik AN, No. 2(1948), 113-8, and Vestnik AN, No, 10(1948), pp. 120-1.

83 Cf. Olija, VII, No. 5 (1948), 463-6, and Vestnik AN, No. 10 (1948), 123.

84 The leading role in most of the discussions was taken by Serdjuchenko, both in point of space devoted to his views and in point of the virulence of the attack. He was later joined, in his spearheading function, by Filin and Chemodanov. In view of the fact that criticism of the editorial board of the Bulletin was, above all, a criticism of Meshchaninov, and in view of the fact that in the subsequent discussions he always adopted a milder tone than his colleagues, one is forced to the conclusion that he was in the unhappy position of playing strawman to both sides.

86 That the Marrists were trying to capitalize on Lysenko's success may be seen from Meshchaninov's article “O polozhenii v lingvisticheskoj nauke” Olija, VII, No. 6 (1948), 473-85, Filin's article “O dvukh napravlenijakh v jazykovedenii, Olija VII, No. 6 (1948), 486-96, and the Resolution of the Council of the Institute of Language and Thought and the Leningrad section of the Institute of the Russian Language, taken on the 22nd of October, 1948, in the same journal, pp. 497-9.

86 “Jazyk i myshlenie,” IR, III, 96.

87 Cf., e.g., Note 85, above, and Olija, VIII, No. 1 (1949), 85-92; No. 2, 168-73; No. 4, 289-320, 393-5; No. 5, 479-91, 493-5; No. 6, 497-521; Izvestija AN, No. 11 (1948), 71-74; No. 1 (1949), 11-22; No. 11, 18-41; No. 1 (1950), 134-5; No. 3, 44-57; Russkij jazyk v shkole,No. 1 (1949), 70-73; No. 2, 1-11; No. 3, 38-44; No. 5, 71; No. 6, 1-29; No. 2 (1950), 73-75; Voprosy Filosojii, No. 1 (1949), 265-85; No. 3, 326-37; Pravda, Sept. 14, 1949; Nov. 11, 1949; Literaturnaja gazeta, April 6, 1949; Kul'tura i zhizn', May 11, 1949; and such brochures as I. I. Meshchaninov, Novoe uchenie ojazyke, Kiev (Radjans'ka shkola, 1949), and G. P. Serdjuchenko, Rol’ N. Ja. Marra v razvitii materialisticheskogo uchenija o jazyke, Moscow (Izd. “Pravda,” 1949).

88 Cf. e.g., Filin, “O dvukh napravlenijakh … ,” Olija, VII, No. 6 (1949), 490.

89 Ellis and Davies, op. cit., passim, were misled by this constant emphasis on the bad state of linguistics into assuming that this was the main reason for the fall of Marrism. But it is important to note that this charge was always brought by the Marrists, and it was brought against all the linguists who followed traditional practice. What the Marrists blamed each other for was the insufficient amount of “criticism and self-criticism” which had allowed comparativism to flourish. But that is another matter. In any case, to say that the Marrists had failed to “produce” is to oversimplify a bit; their theoretical orientation prevented them from doing much comparative and historical work, but they did produce a great deal of valuable work in descriptive linguistics (and were thus following a trend that has appeared in other countries as well). Cf., in this connection, N. N. Poppe, “Post-War Soviet Linguistics,” Bulletin of the Institute for the Study of the History and Culture of the USSR, II, No. 6, 49-56.

90 See Olija, No. 6 (1949), 497-501.

91 Voprosy Filosqfii, No. 3 (1949), 326-337. A translation of this report may be found in Murra, et al., The Soviet Linguistic Controversy, pp. 1-9.

92 To be explained, perhaps, by an anachronism in Stalin's own reasoning, according to which what was no longer valid for nations and peoples was still valid for the birds and bees?