There is general agreement in the historical literature devoted to the reign of Alexander I that Mikhail Speranskij was the most outstanding political figure of the period. But far less agreement is shown when it comes to an appraisal of his political career and to a critical analysis of the basic intent of his reform proposals.

Some historians, like M. N. Pokrovskij for example, see him merely as a puppet in the hands of economic and social forces, the editorial secretary whose job it was to put into legal form the demands of the growing Russian bourgeoisie. Others, with less of a dogmatic socio-economic approach to history, see in him an intelligent imitator and adapter of French or other Western administrative models. The dean of modern Russian historiography, V. Kljucevskij, though recognizing Speranskij's significance and the interest presented by his personality, views him as a theoretician and “idéologue,” very little interested in either the practical results of his plans or the individual welfare of the people, garnering his abstract conceptions indiscriminately from the most disparate sources. And the “cadet” historian of nineteenth century Russia, Aleksandr Kornilov, considers Speranskij a genuine liberal constitutionalist who aimed at replacing an obsolete and tyrannical political system with a limited monarchy whose major features were his own invention.

By common agreement among virtually all political complexions, Lenin's State and Revolution is accepted as the core of his doctrine of revolution and the proletarian dictatorship. A striking indication of the importance and contemporary relevance attributed to the work has been its use as evidence in the trials of the leaders of the American Communist party for conspiring to overthrow the government. And to the present Soviet commentator no less than to his bitterest adversary, State and Revolution sets up the premises from which the Soviet reality of today is considered to be the logical conclusion.

Yet this reasoning cannot be sustained on the basis of logic alone. State and Revolution is a work conforming neither to Lenin's previous thought nor to his subsequent practice. It stands as a monument to its author's intellectual deviation during the year of revolution, 1917.

The role of the army and administrative officials in establishing Soviet authority in the areas occupied by the USSR during the past war is dramatic, and therefore carefully studied by those who analyze Soviet techniques. Much less notoriety attaches to the work of the courts, yet Soviet leaders appear to place considerable reliance upon these agencies in remolding a society in their own image. It was the writer's fate as a member of the Law Faculty of Lvov University to supervise the students' practice in the civil courts of the city of Czernowitz during the first Soviet occupation in 1940-1941. The city, as the capital of the former Rumanian Province of Bukovina, was the heart of the economic and political life of a territory whose northern part was brought under Soviet domination during the period of Soviet-Nazi collaboration in the early stages of the war. As such it was destined to play a key part in the Sovietization of an important segment of Eastern Europe.

The speed of Soviet industrial expansion during the Five Year Plans as measured by the rate of growth of industrial output has evoked keen interest and much controversy among Western observers of Soviet affairs. Soviet industrial development has attracted attention from abroad for three main reasons: i) because of the accompanying rise of the Soviet Union as a great international power, 2) as an example of a centrally controlled and directed economy in action, and 3) as a possible model for the economic development of backward areas. The source of controversy has been the uncertain accuracy of the statistical descriptions of Soviet economic development and especially industrial growth.

Official Soviet measures of industrial output are suspect for reasons connected with the technique of their construction. Until 1950, published statistics on aggregate Soviet industrial output were expressed in prices nominally of the crop year 1926-27.

The inherent weakness of the Socialist movement of Poland was fully revealed at the outbreak of World War I. No single Marxist group could claim for itself a really large following. All of them realized this and it was reflected in their tendency to join forces with groups having similar programs. The Polish Socialist party, or the PPS, formed a confederation with the non-Socialist parties which aimed at restoring Polish statehood in alliance with the Central Powers. The left Marxist groups of Kongresówka formed a loose grouping to pursue in common their radical, international anti-war policy.

Thus the outbreak of the war consolidated the two rival camps within Polish Socialism: that of pacifist and internationalist revolutionaries on the one hand, and that of the “Social Patriots,” on the other.

Sometime in the late 1880's or early 1890's the following conversation took place between Emperor Alexander III and Countess Aleksandra Andreevna Tolstaja, the correspondent, confidante, and cousin of her illustrious namesake, Lev Nikolaevič Tolstoj:

The Emperor. Tell me who you think are the most remarkable and popular persons in Russia. I know how honest you are and I am sure you will tell me the truth. Of course you mustn't think of including me in the list.

Countess Tolstaja (smiling). I won't include you.

The Emperor. But just whom will you include? That's what interests me.

Countess Tolstaja. First of all, Lev Tolstoj.

The Emperor. I expected that. Who else?

Countess Tolstaja (thinking). I'll name you one more person.

The Emperor (impatiently). But who is it? Who is it?

Countess Tolstaja. Father Ioann of Kronstadt.

The Emperor (laughs). I had forgotten about him. But I agree with you.

A summary of British and American evaluations of Anton Chekhov's writings affords an insight into the nature of international literary criticism. Chekhov's slow, steady climb to recognition shows the extent to which non-literary factors influence the formation of critical judgment. It also shows how a critical approach can slowly evolve until it is very useful in explaining novel literary effects.

As might be expected, Chekhov's works were known earlier in France and Germany than in England, and earlier in England than in America. As early as 1888, the year his collection of stories In Twilight received the Pushkin Prize from the Imperial Academy of Sciences, Chekhov began to be mentioned in the annual reviews of continental literature published in the Athenaeum. The first extended notice of Chekhov in England, however, came in 1891, when E. J. Dillon cited Chekhov as an example of the Russian writer whose works suffered because he was subjected to a number of fetters. As important as the rigid governmental censorship, and perhaps stemming ultimately from it, said Dillon, was the tyrannous yoke of a capricious and coarse-minded public, the cupidity of uneducated editors and publishers, and the narrow limits of self-appointed critics.

Many of the names that were used for the peasant during the centuries of Russian history tell much about the people to whom they were applied. To give just a few examples, three of the terms that were employed during the fourteenth to sixteenth centuries, starožilcy, “old dwellers,” novoporjadčiki, “new renters,” and polovniki, “sharers,” were descriptive of tenurial status. Earlier, during the Kievan era (ninth to thirteenth centuries), the mass of the free rural population was known as smerdy (the singular is smerd). This name, though less obvious, is actually more revealing of social position than the examples just given. Philologists have pointed out that in all probability it was derived from an ancient root meaning “man.” Once, they suggest, it may have been used to describe everyone. By the Kievan period, however, the word was used only for the lowest class of free men and had become associated with the verb smerdeti, “to stink.”