EDITORIAL COMMITTEE DMITRY ČIŽEVSKY Harvard University OLEKSANDER GRANOVSKY University of Minnesota ROMAN SMAL STOCKI Marquette University VOLODYMYR P. TIMOSHENKO Stanford University

EDITOR MICHAEL VETUKHIV New Yor\ City

The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S. are published quarterly by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., Inc. A Special issue will take place of 2 issues.

All correspondence, orders, and remittances should be sent to The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S. II /2 West 26th Street, New York 1, N. Y. SINGLE COPY: $1.50 ANN UAL SUBSCRIPTION PRICE: $6.00 A special rate is offered to libraries and graduate and undergraduate students in the fields of Slavic studies.

Copyright 1952, by the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., Inc.

Entered as second class matter October 29, 1952, at the Post Office at New York, New York, under the Act of Congress of March 3, 1879. THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY OF ARTS AND SCIENCES IN THE U. S., INC.

W in te r , 1952

CONTENTS page The Traditional Scheme of “Russian” History and the Problem of a Rational Organization of the History of the Eastern Slavs . . . Mychaylo Hrushevsby 355 Ukrainian Common-Law Procedure . . Andrij Yahpvliv 365 The Ethical and Political Principles of “Istopiya Rusov” ...... Olexander Ohloblyn 388 An Innovation in the Understanding of Mendeleyev’s Periodical Law . . Nicholas Efremov 401 REVIEW ARTICLES An Important Work in Ukrainian Onomastics Yury Šerech 435 A Study of Bolshevik Power .... Michael Luther 444 An Important Contribution to the Social History of Late B yzantium ...... lhor Šcvčen\o 448 Symposium of Soviet Science .... Michael Vetubjiiv 460 BOOK REVIEWS J. Holub and F. Kopečný, An Etymological Dictionary of the Czech Language...... Dmitry Čiževsky 465 Max Vasmer, Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch Dmitry Čizevsby 467 Jan Kucharzewski, The Origins of Modern Russia Ivan L. Rudnytshy 471 Yury Šerech, Nary s Suchasnoyi U krayinśkpyi Literaturnoyi M ovy...... Petro Odarchen\o 473 Ukrainian Arts (compiled by O. Dmytriw, edited by A. M itz ) ...... Yahiv Hnizdovsky 476 OBITUARIES Vasyl Krychevsky...... 478 Gregory M a k h iv ...... 478 Vasyl Lorchenko...... 479 CHRONICLE...... 480 A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION...... 483 C O N T R IB U T O R S ...... 484

THE TRADITIONAL SCHEME OF “RUSSIAN” HISTORY AND THE PROBLEM OF A RATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE EASTERN SLAVS* MYCHAYLO HRUSHEVSKY

The consideration by the Congress of Russian Philologists of a rational outline of Slavic history for the proposed Slavic Encyclo­ pedia makes opportune a discussion of the problem of the presen­ tation of Eastern Slav history.1 On more than one occasion I have touched upon the question of irrationality in the usual pre­ sentation of “Russian” history.2 At this time I should like to dis­ cuss the problem at greater length. The generally accepted presentation of Russian history is well known. It begins with the pre-history of Eastern Europe, usually with the colonization by non-Slavs, and continues with the migra­ tion and settlement of the Slavs and with the organization of the Kievan State, the history of which is brought up to the second half of the 12th century. It then shifts to the Principality of Vo- lodimir the Great; from the latter — in the 14th century — to the Principality of Moscow; and then continues with the history of the Moscow State and, subsequently, of the Empire. As for the Ukrainian-Ruś and Byelorussian lands that remained

* Special reprint from Zborni\ stattey po slavyanovedeniyu ( “Symposium of Slavic Studies”), Imperial Academy of Sciences, I, St. Petersburg, 1904. This is the fourth in the series of translations of Ukrainian source materials (v. The Annals, No. 1.). 1 Written in connection with the plan for a Slavic History, prepared by the Historical Sub­ section of the Congress. 2 See my remarks in the Zapys\y Nan\ovoho Tovarystva Imeny Shevchenka (“Annals of the Shevchenko Scientific Society”), Vol. XIII, XXXVII, and XXXIX; bibliography reviews of the works of Miliukov, Storozhev, Zahoskin, Vladimirsky-Budanov. See also Ocherkt Istoriyi U\rayins\ago Naroda ( “Outline of the History of the Ukrainian People”), ready for publication. £May I also point out that Professor Filevich, in his review of P. Miliukov’s work, pub­ lished in the newspaper “Novoye Vremya,” made use of the comments I made relative to Miliukov’s work Ocherhj po Istoriyi Russ\oy Kultury (“Outline of the History of Russian Culture”), but with their meaning distorted]].

355 356 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY outside the boundaries of the Moscow State, several of the more significant episodes in their history are sometimes considered — the State of Danilo, the organization of the Great Duchy of Lithu­ ania, the Union with Poland, the Church Union, and the Khmel- nytsky wars. But with their annexation by the Russian State these lands cease to be the subject of this history. This is an old scheme which has its beginnings in the historio­ graphic scheme of the Moscow scribes, and at its basis lies the genealogical idea — the genealogy of the Moscow dynasty. With the beginning of scientific historiography in Russia, the scheme served as a basis for the history of the “Russian State.” Later, when chief emphasis was transferred to the history of the people, of the social structure and culture, and when “Russian history” tended to become the history of the Great Russian people and its cultural life, the same scheme was retained in its most important phases, except that some episodes were omitted. As time went on, this occurred with ever greater frequency. The same arrangement, in simpler form, was adopted in the science of “the history of the Russian Law.” This consisted of three divisions: the Law of the Kievan State, of Muscovy and of the Empire. Thus through tradition and long usage, people have become accustomed to this scheme; and its inconveniences and irrationali­ ties do not disconcert them especially, even though it is full of irrationalities, and great ones at that. I shall point out a few, with­ out presuming to enumerate them all. In the first place, it is quite irrational to link the old history of the Southern tribes, of the Kievan State and their socio-political organi­ zation, laws and culture with the Volodimir-Moscow Principality of the 13th and 14th centuries, as though the latter were the con­ tinuation of the first. This may have been permissible insofar as the Moscow scribes were concerned. The genealogical approach may have satisfied them. Modern science, however, looks for gene­ tic connections and thus has no right to unite the “Kievan Period” with the “Volodimir Period” (as they are inappropriately called), as phases of the same political and cultural process. We know that the Kievan State, its laws and culture, were the creation of one nationality, the Ukrainian-Ruś, while the Volodi- TRADITIONAL SCHEME OF "RUSSIAN” HISTORY 357 mir-Moscow State was the creation of another nationality, the Great Russian.3 The Pogodin theory aimed to eradicate this differ­ ence by pointing out that the Dnieper regions of the 10th-12th centuries were colonized by Great Russians who emigrated from there in the 13th-14th centuries, but I doubt whether anybody today will defend the old historical scheme on the basis of this risky and almost neglected theory. The Kievan Period did not pass into the Volodimir-Moscow Period, but into the Galician-Volhynian Period of the 13th century and later to the Lithuanian-Polish of the 14th-16th centuries. The Volodimir-Moscow State was neither the successor nor the inheritor of the Kievan State. It grew out of its own roots and the relations of the Kievan State toward it may more accurately be compared to the relations that existed between Rome and the Gaul provinces than described as two successive periods in the politi­ cal and cultural life of France. The Kievan government trans­ planted onto Great Russian soil the forms of a socio-political or­ ganization, its laws and culture — all nurtured in the course of its own historical process; but this does not mean that the Kievan State should be included in the history of the Great Russian na­ tionality. The ethnographic and historical proximity of the two nationalities, the Ukrainian-Ruś and the Great Russian, should not give cause for confusing the two. Each lived its own life above and beyond their historical meetings and encounters. By attaching the Kievan State to the beginnings of the govern­ mental and cultural life of the Great Russian people, the history of the Great Russians remains in reality without a beginning. The history of the formation of the Great Russian nationality remains un­ explained to this day simply because it has been customary to trace it from the middle of the 12th century. Even with the history of the Kievan State attached, this native beginning does not appear

3 This is slowly invading the sacrosanct realms of scholarship. Mr. Storozhev, the com­ piler of Russ\aya Istoriya s drevneyshykji vremen (“Russian History Since Earliest Times”), for example, expresses the idea fairly clearly. The book was published by the Moscow Circle to Aid Self-Education. (Moscow, 1898). The author stressed the fact that the Dnie­ per Ruś and the Northeast Ruś are two different phenomena and their histories the result of two separate parts of the Russian nationality. To avoid confusion connected with the theory “of the oneness of the Russian nationality” it would be better to say “two nation­ alities” instead of “two parts” of a Russian nationality. 358 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY quite clear to those who have studied “Russian history.” The pro­ cess of the reception and modification of the Kiev socio-political forms, laws and culture on Great Russian soil is not being studied thoroughly. Instead, they are incorporated into the inventory of the Great Russian people, the “Russian State,” in the form in which they existed in Kiev, in Ukraine. The fiction of the “Kievan Period” does not offer the opportunity to present suitably the his­ tory of the Great Russian nationality. And because the “Kievan Period” is attached to the governmental and cultural history of the Great Russian people, the history of the Ukrainian-Ruś nationality also remains without a beginning. The old viewpoint persists that the history of Ukraine, of the “Little Russian” people, begins only with the 14th-15th centuries and that before this it was a case of the history of “all-Russia.” On the other hand, this “all Russian history” concept, both consciously and un­ consciously, is at every step substituted for the governmental and cultural history of the Great Russian people, with the result that the Ukrainian-Ruś nationality appears on the historical arena dur­ ing the 14th-16th centuries as something quite new, as though it had not existed before and was devoid of a history of its own. The history of the Ukrainian-Ruś nationality is left not only with­ out a beginning but appears in piecemeal fashion as disjecta mem­ bra, disjointed organically, the periods separated one from the other by chasms. The only period that is distinct and remains clearly in mind is that of Cossacks of the 17th century. I doubt, however, whether anyone studying “Russian history” according to the accepted scheme would be able to connect this period with the earlier and later phases of Ukraine’s history and to perceive this history in its organic entirety. The Byelorussian nationality fares even worse under this tra­ ditional scheme. It is lost in the histories of the Kievan State, of the Volodimir-Moscow State and even in that of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Though nowhere in history does it appear clearly as a creative element, its role nonetheless is not insigni­ ficant. One might point out its importance in the formation of the Great Russian nationality or in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where the cultural role among the Slav peo- TRADITIONAL SCHEME OF "RUSSIAN” HISTORY 359 pies, in relation to the less developed Lithuanian tribes, belonged to the Byelorussians. The one-sidedness and shortcomings of the traditional scheme were supposed to be improved by the inclusion of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the “history of Russia.” It seems that it was Ustryalov who first, with considerable emphasis, brought forth this idea in historical writing. Ilovaisky, Bestuzhev-Ryumin and others tried to present in parallel fashion the history of “Western Ruś,” that is of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, and of “Eastern Ruś,” that is of the Moscow State. In the history of law, the school of Professor Vladimirsky-Budanov propagandizes the need of in­ cluding the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, though it has offered neither a general course in the “history of Russian law” where the Grand Duchy of Lithuania would be included, nor a separate course in the law of Lithuania itself. This is a correction but the correction itself needs various cor­ rections. The Grand Duchy of Lithuania was a highly heterogen­ eous body, not at all homogeneous. Recently the significance of the Lithuanian factor has not only been depreciated, but has actually been ignored. Research into the inheritance of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania from the old Ruś law and the significance of the Slav element in the process of the creation and development of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania has led the contemporary re­ searchers in the internal organization of that State to extremist conclusions, in that they tend to ignore completely the Lithuanian element. They even fail to present data concerning its influences, though we certainly must take them into consideration in connec­ tion with the laws and organization of the Grand Duchy of Lithu­ ania (to mention only, exempli gratia, the institute of “Koymint-

S yThe ” } · Lithuanian element aside, the Slav element of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania itself was not homogeneous. We have here two nationalities — the Ukrainian-Ruś and the Byelorussian. The Ukrainian-Ruś lands, with the exception of Pobuzhe and Pinsk region, were connected only mechanically with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. They stood apart, lived their own life, and with the Union of Lublin became part of Poland. The Byelorussian lands, 360 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY on the other hand, were very closely connected with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Their influence was considerable in the coun­ try’s socio-political organization, in its laws and culture, while at the same time they came under the powerful influence of the socio­ political and cultural processes of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, remaining part of it to the end. Thus the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania is much more closely linked with that of the Byelorussian nationality than with the history of the Ukrainian- Ruś nationality, which came under its influence but had little in­ fluence in return (indirectly, insofar as the Byelorussian nationality transmitted its laws and culture which stemmed from the Kievan State; and also indirectly, by way of the political activities of the Lithuanian government, the Ukrainian-Ruś nationality adopted certain features from the Byelorussians as, for example, the ele­ ments of legal terminology in use by the Lithuanian government). The inclusion of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in “Russian history” will not therefore take the place of the prag­ matic outline of the particular histories of the Ukrainian-Ruś and Byelorussian nationalities. In the historical presentation of the so­ cial and cultural processes in the development of the Ukrainian- Ruś nationality, one might note several incidents in the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania that were of particular signifi­ cance.4 The greater part of this would also be included in the history of the Byelorussian nationality; but to include the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania as a whole in the “history of Russia” is unreasonable if it is to be not a “history of Russia,” meaning a history of all that took place on its territory, of all the nationalities and tribes that live there (it seems that nobody pre­ sents the problem just that way though it might be done), but a history of the Ruś nationalities or East Slav nationalities.6 (I some­ times employ the latter term to avoid confusion which results from the inaccurate use of the word “Ruśky”.)

4 The fine beginning made, for instance, by the work of Korsakov, Mery a і Rostov shoye knyazheniye ( “Merya and the Rostov Reign”), was not later developed. 5 It was in this vein that I tried to make use of the history of the Grand Duchy of Lithu­ ania in Vol. IV of my lstoriya UĄrayiny-Rusi ( “History of Ukraine-Ruś”), dealing with the period from the middle of the 14th century to 1569. TRADITIONAL SCHEME OF “ RUSSIAN’” HISTORY 361

In general, the history of the organized state plays too great a role in the presentation of “Russian history” or of the history of the East Slavs. Theoretically it has long been accepted that in recording the life of a nation emphasis should be transferred from the state to the history of the people and society. The political factors and those of statecraft are important, of course, but in addi­ tion there are many other factors — economic, cultural — which may be of greater or lesser importance and significance, but which in any event should not be left out. In the case of Ruś or of the East Slav tribes, the factor of state­ craft was of greatest significance and was most closely associated with the life of the people in the Great Russian nationality, (though here too, outside the boundaries of the Volodimir-Moscow State, we came across such forceful phenomena, as the “viche” system of Novhorod-Pskov). The Ukrainian-Ruś nationality has lived for centuries without a national state and has come under the influence of various organized states. These influences on its national life should be noted; but the political factor in the course of centuries of statelessness must inevitably play a less important role than the economic, cultural and national factors. The same should be said about the Byelorussian nationality. In this case the Great Russian national state becomes an historical factor beginning with 1772. Its influence on Ukraine was a cen­ tury earlier, but was not felt extensively. The unique and exclu­ sive significance that the history of the Great Russian State has in the current scheme of “Russian” history arises out of the substi­ tution of the term the history of the “Russian people” (in the mean­ ing of the Ruś people, the East Slavs) for the history of the Great Russian people. Generally speaking, what is referred to as “Russian history” involves a combination of several concepts or rather competition between several concepts: 1. The history of the Russian State. (Formation and growth of the state organization and the territory involved.) 2. The history of Russia, that is, the history of the events that took place on its territory. 362 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

3. The history of the “Ruś nationalities.” 4. The history of the Great Russian people (in terms of state organization and cultural life).

Each of these concepts, logically pursued, might become a justi­ fiable subject for scientific presentation, but by combining these various concepts, none receives a complete and logical evaluation. The subject most relevant to the term “Russian history” is that of the history of the Russian State and of the Great Russian people. With some pertinent changes it can be transformed into a logical and fully developed history of the g r e a t Ru s s i a n p e o p l e . “Honor and renown” to the history of this largest of Slav nationalities, but regard for its priority and its significant historical role in no way excludes the necessity for just as complete and consequential a treatment of the history of the other East Slav nationalities: the Ukrainian-Rus and the Byelorussian. The history of the Great Russian people can never take the place of the history of the East Slavs and of the governmental and cul­ tural processes involved. No amount of rationalization offers any­ one the right to ignore the history of the Byelorussian nationality and still less that of the Ukrainian-Rus; or, as is the practice now, to provide substitutes out of the sporadic episodes of the two na­ tionalities and patch them into the history of the Great Russian people. For that matter, I am sure that as soon as “Russian history” is honestly and consequently reformed into a history of the Great Russian people, its national and cultural processes, the histories of the Ukrainian-Rus and Byelorussian nationalities will in turn find their proper places alongside that of the Great Russians. But first of all, one must bid farewell to the fiction that “Russian history,” when at every step the history of Great Russia is substituted for it, is the history of “all-Russia.” This point of view is still quite tenacious. In my opinion, inso­ far as it is not the handmaiden of politics, it is an anachronism — the old historical scheme of the Moscow historiographers, adapted to a certain extent to the demands of modern historiography. Basically it is quite irrational. The history of Great Russia (that TRADITIONAL SCHEME OF "RUSSIAN” HISTORY 363 is, its history beginning with the 12th-13th centuries) with the Ukrainian-Ruś (Kiev) beginning attached, is but a crippling, un­ natural combination, and not a history of “all-Russia.” There can be no “all-Russian” history (obshcheruss\aya),' just as there is no “all-Russian” nationality. There may be a history of all the “Rus­ sian nationalities,” if anyone wishes to call it so, or a history of the East Slavs. It is this term that should take the place of what is currently known as “Russian history.” I have no intention of outlining in detail a plan for a new ar­ rangement of the history of the East Slav peoples. For fifteen years I have been at work on the history of the Ukrainian-Ruś people, drawing up a scheme for use in general study courses and in works of a special nature. It is according to this scheme that I am arranging my history of Ukraine-Ruś, and it is in this manner that I conceive the history of the “Ruś” nationalities. I see no difficulties in the presentation of the history of the Byelorussian nationality in a similar manner, even though it should appear less rich in detail than the history of Ukraine-Ruś. The history of the Great Russian nationality is almost ready. All that is needed is to rearrange its beginning (in place of the usual Ukraine-Kievan ad­ junct) and to cleanse its pages of the various episodes lifted out of the histories of Ukraine and Byelorussia. Great Russian historians and society have almost done this already. It seems to me, that the most rational approach to the entire problem would be to present the history of each nationality sepa­ rately in accordance with its genetic development, from the begin­ ning until the present. This does not exclude the possibility of a synchronized presentation, similar to the treatment of historical material of the world as a whole, both in the interests of review as well as for pedagogical reasons. But these are details, and they do not interest me very much. The main principles involved are to do away with the current eclec­ tic character of “Russian history,” to cease patching up this his­ tory with episodes from the histories of various nationalities, and consequently reorganize the history of the East Slav nationalities, and to present the history of statecraft in its proper place, in rela­ tion to the other historical factors. I think that even the adher­ 364 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY ents of the current historical scheme of “Russian history” agree that it is not without fault and that my observations are based on the errors found within it. Whether they approve of the principles which I should like to see applied in its reorganization — is an­ other matter.

Lviv, 9 (22)— IX—1903. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE ANDRIJ YAKOVLIV

Legal customs, as the outgrowth of a national law-consciousness, were the primary and, for a long period, the unique source of law among all peoples. The origin of common law among the ances­ tors of the Ukrainian people stems back to a prehistoric age. His­ tory finds the Slavic tribes of Ruś-Ukraine on quite a high level of cultural development; they have already succeeded in creating a considerable number of generally accepted, generally required legal practices by which they governed themselves in public and private relationships. In referring to prehistoric times, the Chronicle notes that the ancestors of the Ukrainian people had “their own customs, the law of their forefathers, and their traditions.” And the oldest compilation of Ukrainian common law, RuśĄa Pravda,* stabilizes in its first article the common-law norm concerning the regulation of the institute of family revenge by limiting its practice to the circle of closest relatives. This was one of the oldest common-law procedures and, at the same time, of legal norms generally; as is known, procedural norms preceded material norms. Following the formation of the state, there appeared in Ruś- Ukraine a new source of justice — law as created by organs of the state government. The creative activity of the national law-con­ sciousness, however, did not cease; common law continued to be an active source of law, in conjunction with a few Statutes of the princes. Most of the norms collected in Rus\a Pravda pertain to common law, especially to legal procedure, in force not only dur­ ing the period of the Ruś/{a Pravda but also much later, and sub­ sequently became the foundation of the common-law procedure norms of a later period. The decline of the Ukrainian state in the 13th century and the transfer of the center of national life to the Galician-Volynian state were the reasons that legal customs became the only source of law in the central Ukrainian lands. During this period, these central

* Ruska Pravda—Ruś Law. 365 366 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY lands were governed by their own native law, and the population was tried in local communal courts which subsequently acquired the name kopni courts (derived from the word \opa or Хира— an assembly of neighbors for the purpose of conducting court pro­ cess functions). The Ukrainian lands were incorporated into the Lithuanian- Ruś state system in the 14th century, together with their “anti­ quity” — their common law. With the announced principle of “not disturbing antiquity, not introducing innovations,” the grand princes of Lithuania confirmed the ancient common-law norms for the Ukrainian lands and favored the further develop­ ment of the native lawl-creativeness. Furthermore, this law, based on the ancient principles of the people’s law-consciousness, was so appealing to primitive Lithuania that within a short time it was adopted throughout the whole Lithuanian-Ruś state. The docu­ ments of the Lithuanian Metrykfl (Register) and the juridical documents of the Lithuanian-Ruś courts of the pre-Statute period (15th and the beginning of the 16th centuries) testify that the an­ cient Ukrainian common law, especially the court procedures, was prescribed and continually practiced in the Lithuanian-Ruś state. “In magno ducati nostro Lithvaniae nullis legum statutis Uteris indicia fiebat, alias justitia sola consuetudine et juxta uniuscujusque capitis prudentiam atque conscientiam ministrabatur. . . .”1 It is stated in the Privileges of Bilsk of 1564: “Justice in our dominion even before this (the Statute of 1529) . .. was an ancient custom; however, it was not explained in writing and was not approved.” The first codification of law for the whole Lithuanian-Ruś state was made in 1529. In it is found a substantial number of norms of Ukrainian common-law procedures. The unwritten national law was transformed in this manner into norms of written law and became the obligatory law for the whole state. At the same time, the Lithuanian Statute did not abolish those norms of com­ mon law which were not included in the Statute. On the contrary,

1 F. Leontovych, Islochniki russkp-litovskflgo prava, “Izvestiya Varshavskago Universiteta”, 1894, No. I, p. 17. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 367 it recognized their full power as active law. “We also affirm,” says the Statute, “that even though we have furnished the whole land with a written law by which trials must be conducted, neverthe­ less, all the laws cannot be immediately and exhaustively compiled; furthermore, these laws could not incorporate all of the articles to the very last. Should the judges be confronted with a case not cov­ ered by the Statute, it is then left to the decision of the judges, on their conscience, who must, calling upon God, make a decision according to the ancient custom” (Sect. VI, Art. 37). For this reason, even after the publication of the Statutes, common law con­ tinued to be active in the Lithuanian-Ruś state, and native law- creativeness continued to establish new common-law norms. Com- mon-law norms were used in the state courts, as well as in the kopni (communal courts) and poliubovni (arbitration courts). In the kopni courts, common law played an exclusive and dominat­ ing role. In the compilation of the second and third editions of the Lith­ uanian Statute in 1566 and 1588, the editors again incorporated a considerable number of common-law norms, mostly norms of trial procedures used in \opni courts. The creation of zemsky (county), grodsky (municipal) and pidkptnorsky (dealing with land bound­ ary) courts based on Polish models of the second half of the 16th century did not bring about any substantial changes; following ancient tradition, the new courts continued to use the norms of common-law procedure, and the kopni courts were incorporated into the system of state courts, common to all strata of the popu­ lation, and were placed under the supervision of the municipal courts as the higher authority. During the 17th century, the kopni courts were active in all the territories of the Lithuanian-Rus state. Only at the end of that century a change in the conditions of state and social life reacted unfavorably on their activities. There were increased occurrences of opposition to the jurisdiction of the kopni courts by the ruling classes; despite this, however, the activities of the kppni courts con­ tinued until the end of the 18th century. The latest known docu­ ment concerning kppni courts is dated 1773, but it does not show 368 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY any changes in the activity of \opni courts then which would indicate that after this date the \opni courts ceased to exist.“ In the Cossack state (the “Zaporozhian Host”), the Cossack courts, which were organized after the revolution of 1648, were guided by the law active in those lands prior to the revolution — that is, by the Lithuanian Statute of 1588 and the common law. In the northern district of the Zaporozhian Host, \opni courts were also in use, information concerning these being given in court documents, the latest of which are dated 1722 and 1754.“ In 1763, Hetman K. Rozumovsky revived in Ukraine the judi­ ciary system of the Lithuanian-Ruś state (zems\i, grods\y and pid\omorsky courts), which remained in practice there, with a short interruption during the reign of Catherine II, until the 30’s of the 19th century. After the complete incorporation of the Ukrainian lands by Russia and the unification of the legal system and the extension of Russian law over the Ukrainian lands (contrary to the agree­ ment between Bohdan Khmelnytsky and the Moscovite Tzar in 1654, the validity of which was ratified by subsequent Tzars to suc­ ceeding Hetmans), the development of Ukrainian common law was greatly checked but still did not cease. The alien law, based on different principles, did not satisfy the law-consciousness of the Ukrainian people. The population continued to adhere to its own native law, to its own ancient customs, employing them in its daily life and in its village courts. In some instances Russian law even permitted the “generally accepted local customs” to be used in courts (Art. 130, Ustava Grazhdans\ago Sudoproizvodstva [[Sta­ tutes of Civil Law Proceedings]). Ukrainian common-law proceedings survived even the revolu­ tion of 1917 and were in existence in Ukraine during the Soviet regime.4

2 I. Cherkasky, Hromadshy {kopný) sud na Ukrayini-RuH, Works of the Commission for Studies of the History of Western Ruś and Ukrainian Law. “Vseukrayinska Akademiya Nauk (VUAN),” Kiev, 1928, p. 68. 8 I. Cherkasky: Ibid., p. 69. 4 As is testified by recent investigations of common law in Ukraine during and after the 1917 revolution (Works of the Commission for Study of Ukrainian Common-Law. VUAN, 2nd issue for 1929, pp. 62-88, 231-270, 416-443), when the activities of the state courts of UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 369

Even while written law existed and was preserved after its publi­ cation in the form of prepared, unchangeable and exactly formu­ lated norms, regardless of how and when enforced, the unwritten common law was preserved in the people’s memory and law-con- sciousness, manifesting itself outwardly only at opportune mo­ ments in the form of action corresponding to its inner content. Disclosed in such manner, common law was gradually recorded in written monuments and became available for scientific research. The norms of the Ukrainian common-law proceedings are recorded in such collections as the Rus\a Pravda, the Statutes of County Privileges (Vstavni Zemskj Hramoty) of the Lithuanian Grand Princes, and in the Codices — the Law Code of Kazimir of 1468, in the Lithuanian Statute, and primarily in the court documents of the Lithuanian Register (Metry \a), and in the documents of the county, municipal and hfipni courts, and the Cossack courts. On the basis of these historical monuments, we are here present­ ing, briefly at least, the major characteristic features and peculiari­ ties of the Ukrainian common-law procedures.

I Ancient Ukrainian court procedure, in the form given in the Ruska Pravda, has many features which testify that it developed during a very ancient transition period from a primitive form of lynch-law into the original common-law norms. These had as their aim the limitation of private law through definite participa­ tion of communal courts, and later — at least in the final stages of the process — of state judicial organs. The main and most active role in the procedure is still played by the injured party. He, him-

the old regime were curtailed, the ancient norms of the common-law procedure began to be used throughout almost the whole territory of Ukraine. The population used them in private courts against criminals, horse thieves, robbers, hooligans, and law breakers and disturbers of the peace in cities and villages. “The difference between the village private courts and those of the cities was that the former were almost formal, conducted in a skjiod or in a committee which handed down a sentence. These courts used torture, ques­ tioning concerning other crimes, demanded povolannya (public announcement) and the revelation of accomplices; that is to say, this court, in toto, resembled the ancient \opni courts.” (Works of the Commission, 3rd issue, p. 233). See also V. Vobly: Zvidomlennya z Sums\oho rayonu, p. 280; E. Savchenko-Sakun: Zvidomlennya z Zmiyevs\oho rayonu, p. 302. Dokumenty i Materiały, p. 312. 370 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY self, of his own initiative, as in lynch-law, prosecutes the malefactor if he knows him; or searches for him if he does not know him; “follows hot traces” in the city (hórod), in the village environs (verv), and over the fields; and, after catching him, brings him by force before witnesses for questioning (m ú\a) ; and, finally, after gathering sufficient evidence, he accuses the criminal or male­ factor before the witnesses, his neighbors, before the community in the “circle” (judicial circle); and only then takes him to the state organs for final judgment and punishment, in which, at times, he participates himself. It was entirely up to the injured party whether the procedure was to begin and be continued to the end or be discontinued; whether the malefactor should be punished or pardoned for his transgressions; whether the wrongdoer should be deprived of his life and property or whether he should be pardoned and the in­ jured party satisfied with a certain material compensation. The role of the court organs in this primitive procedure was reduced to the minimum, to a certain control in the execution of the com­ mon-law rules, and to acquisition of viry (bloodwite), a fine pay­ able to the prince, and various court fees for the benefit of the judicial organs. The court organs only “assist” the injured party, “whom they aid,” as is stated in Rus\a Pravda (Art. 99). A later document, dated 1510, mentions that die court fee to the dits\y (a court official) is payable only when he “zvodyv and sviv” (has in­ vestigated and proved) the law for the injured party and “the court put an end to it” (R.I.B. Lithuanian Metryka, I, No. 44). In this old procedure there is no organ of public accusation; criminal offenses are not differentiated from material damages. Crime is still considered from the viewpoint of material loss, the size of which is determined by the position of the injured party in society. The procedural acts of svod or zvod, honenie slidom (following tracks), sochennya (informing), гаЩу\ na torhu (public announce­ ment), proba-múha (questioning), rota-prysyaha (oath), posłuchy- svidky (witnesses), correspond to ancient Ukrainian common-law procedure. In their basic features, and even in many details, these oldest UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 371 forms and rituals of the Ukrainian common-law procedure were factors in the state courts as well as in the popular courts of the Lithuanian-Ruś state and in the Cossack courts of the Hetman state. Parallel with these ancient common-law norms, the national law-consciousness created new common-law norms, new proce­ dural regulations corresponding to new circumstances of life; the fundamentals and spirit of the ancient common law, however, re­ mained without any changes. Modern scholars of Ukrainian com­ mon law have found traces of it in the activities of the provisional communal courts during the revolution of 1917-1918 and during the first years of the Soviet occupation of Ukraine.

II The norms of common law, as has already been noted, manifest themselves outwardly in appropriate lawful acts. Acts, as the ex­ ternal form of common law, have profound and important signi­ ficance. Therefore, from time immemorial, they have been accom­ panied by special rituals, which gradually, through repetition, have acquired as important a significance as the common-law norms themselves, and have become symbols of justice. Without rituals there is no legality, and the violation of rituals becomes looked upon as a violation of the legal norms.0 A characteristic feature of Ukrainian common-law procedure is the richness, diversity and splendor of its ritual. There is al­ most no legal action or legal institution which does not have its own ritual. Established long ago, these rituals, unchanging and precise in every detail, have been observed for centuries. To sub­ stantiate the foregoing, we present here several examples of ritual procedures. A. FOLLOWING CLUES (TRACES), SVOD AND SOK. In case of murder, robbery or other crime or material damage, the injured party in the first place searches for clues left by the crimi­ nal or malefactor. According to the Ruska Pravda: “if a land boundary has been disturbed, or a landmark (mezha), or game, or

” S. Borysenok: Zvychayeve právo Lytovs\o-Ruskpyi derzhavy na pochat\u XVI v. VUAN. Zbirnyk Sots.-ekonom. Sektsiyi, No. 18, Kiev, 1928, p. 81. 372 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY a net,” one should “search for the criminal (tatya) in the village” (R. P. Troitsky Spysok, Art. 63), and one should follow the “traces,” . . . “with neighbors and with witnesses” (posłuchy) (Art 70). The injured party, with his companions, begins to track the malefactor, and following the traces hastens to the place where the tracks lead. If the tracks are lost on the highway (hostynets) where there is neither a village nor people, then the injured party naturally must search some other way. If the tracks lead to a vil­ lage, then the village or the owner of the dwelling to which the clues lead must, upon demand of the injured party, come out to him, follow the clues away from the village or dwelling and together with the injured party and his witnesses and neighbors follow the tracks to another village or dwelling. If a village does not come out and follow traces away from itself and in general refuses to take part in tracking down the traces (otobyutsya, as is stated in RuśĄa Pravda), then such a village must itself pay both a tatba (compensation to the injured party) and prodazhu (a fine to the prince) (Ruśka Pravda Art. 70). In this norm of common law, written in the Ruska Pravda, we find regulations and rituals on how to follow traces, stipulations as to the duty of following traces and following them away from one’s self, and the presumption of guilt on the part of those who refuse to follow tracks or lead them away from themselves. The procedure of following traces in all its detailed ritual is found also in later common-law documents. In 1407, Prince Vitovt released the villages owned by Lord Vya- chevych in the Lutsky and Volodymyrsky districts from the obliga­ tion to follow tracks: . . .“And in those possessions are not obliged to follow tracks: to whom wrong was done, let him go after his own, but the people of the Lord Ilyin should not be taken for tracking.” 6 Exception from a generally compulsory regulation con­ firms the existence of this law at the beginning of the 15th century. In the judicial documents of the Lithuanian Metryka (Register) of 1520, the ritual of following tracks is described as follows: “Twelve pigs were stolen from my people, complained Lord Mar­ tin Khrebtovych, and my servants and my people, without my

β M. Dovnar-Zapolsky, A \ty Litovs\o-Rus$\ago Gosudarstva. “Chteniya Moskovskogo O-va Istoriyi і Drevnostey”. Vol. IV, p. 2-4. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 373 presence, followed the tracks of those pigs into the courtyard of Lady Olekhnova and found five pigs in the yard of Horyachka (one of Olekhnova’s young farmhands) and other pigs were given away by Horyachka to his lodgers. At the time, Olekhnova’s over­ seer, Kolokol, was there, ‘and he was called by my servants and people to follow the tracks, but he refused!’ ” The court sentenced him to pay a fine because he had refused to go and follow the tracks.7 So it was until the Statute of 1529. The Statute included the custom of following traces in Article 2 of Section XIII: “We also rule that if someone was led by an informer (sok), or if the tracks led to someone’s house and he (the injured) is not permitted to have a look because he does not have with him a court official, then he has the right to search the house with witnesses. How­ ever, if he is chased away by the person, or led away from fresh tracks . . . then such a person must pay a fine . . . and be blamed for the crime and must find the criminal himself.” According to the practice of the kopni courts, the following of tracks was con­ ducted by the kflpa (assembly of people) on the basis of the same regulations and with the same rituals as existed in the period of the Ruska Pravda. In the decree of a kopni court of 1583, it is stated: Matys Khorlovsky, telling about the burning of his farm­ stead, in the court house of Lutsk, said: “In the morning, having gathered together good people, close neighbors and neighbors of Rozhyts, I followed the tracks with that whole assembly. Start­ ing from the burned-out place, the assembly, picking up the traces from my village of Kobcha, followed the traces up to the border of Rozhyts’ land, not far from the limits of one little village, Svy- nok, where the herdsmen live. There, on those traces, the whole assembly halted and dispatched a messenger to the little village, calling the inhabitants to follow the tracks, so that they would go on from the village border following the tracks of the criminals, the whole assembly taking them up and following them from Roz­ hyts’ land, according to ancient custom, to another border.” 8 As

7 Russ\aya \storiches\aya Biblioteka. Vol. XX. “Litovskaya Metrika,” pp. 1438-39. 8 N. Ivanyshev, 0 Drevni\h Sels\i\h Obshchinakji, Priložcnic III. 374 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY is evident, the procedure is described in interesting detail, but the essence of the legal procedure is the same as described in the Ruê\a Pravda. Other documents mention cases when “tracks are lost on a highway.” ’ Again, in other cases, the kppni court places the guilt on those who did not participate in the following of traces or did not lead them away from themselves.10 The Statutes of 1566 and 1588 also established this common-law norm (1566, Sect. XIV, Art. 6; 1588, Sect. XIV, Art. 9). Finally, the custom of following tracks was also in force in the Hetman state. The injured party, after inspecting the place of damage or crime, sends out a pursuit in all directions with the help of his neighbors, looking for tracks, and if they are discovered he follows along the tracks (shlya\uye).u When a criminal left no trace at the place of his crime or damage, then the injured party turns to his neighbors, questions them, makes a public announcement at the fair, etc. The person who knows the malefactor or criminal and supplies definite information to the injured party and leads him to the tracks is called a sot{ according to common law and receives a reward for his services — proso\. There is information about the functions of the so1{ in the Ruíka Pravda (Art. 70 and 108), in the Law Code of Casimir (Art. 1 and 15), in the Decrees of the Grand Prince Alexander of 1499,“ and in the Acts of the Lithuanian Metryka.“ In those instances when no tracks were found and no sol{ had volunteered, a long period of time might pass from the day when the crime was committed or damage done with no information being discovered about the criminal or the malefactor. Sometimes it happened that an injured party recognized his horse, his arma­ ment or some other items in the possession of a stranger. The Ru!\a Pravda had already noted the common-law norm which forbade the taking away by force of one’s belonging from a new owner; instead, the ancient common law established a special ac­

* Akty Vilenskoy Archeolohicheskoy Komissii, Vol. XVIII, Nos. 370, 440 and others. 10 I. Cherkasky, Op. cit. V. II, pp. 311-316. 11 I. Cherkasky, Svidomleniya, Zbirnyk, Soc.-Ekonom. Sektsiyi VUAN, No. 18, p. 436. “ Abjy Zapadnoy Rossiyi, Vol. I, No. 148. 1Я R.I.B., Vol. XX, p. 38, Doc. 36. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 375 tion concerning the reclamation of stolen or lost property, in con­ formity with an interesting ritual. The legal action was called svod, later zvod, and consisted of the following steps: The injured party approached the new owner of the object and inquired where he had secured the same. If the latter had acquired it legally, then, to prove his innocence, he had to name the person from whom he had acquired it. Then they went for a svod to that person, who was also called a svod, and later zavodtsya. He, the zavodtsya, in turn, was supposed to identify his zavodtsya, in which case they went to the second svod, then to the third and, ultimately, to the final one. According to the Rus\a Pravda, in a town the investi­ gation had to be made of all the svods residing there: “The searcher must continue until the end of that svod.” However, “from a town into the country there is no svod.” If a svod was conducted beyond the city “in the fields,” then they follow the procedure in the fields only to the third svod. The rightful owner takes posses­ sion of his property (lytse) at the third svod and the third svod has to conduct the search for “his loss and his reward,” leading the svod until the final svod.1* The ritual of svod is similar to the ritual of following tracks, with the difference that in the case of svod they do not follow tracks but go to those svods who had been in possession of the stolen or lost objects. Each zavodtsya was supposed to lead the guilt away from himself, leading the searchers to a new svod from whom he had acquired the object, until they come finally to the malefactor. This ritual of svod was used in the pre-Statute courts in the Lithuanian-Ruś state. In the court act of 1510, we read: “I recognized, declares the plaintiff, my horse . . . in the possession of Matsko, a servant of the Princess of Slutzk . . . and Matsko revealed to us (the Grand Prince) a zavodtsya, a man named Patsko Malyshevych. And he made this declaration before us, hold­ ing on to the horse: ‘It’s my horse; I bought him from the curate Master Letavorov for threescore and a half of money.’ And he was taken then to a svod."1 ' The common-law norm on svod was

14 Ruska Pravda, Troitsk,y SpisoĄ, Art. 31. 15 R.I.B. XX. Lithuanian Metryka, I, No. 12. З 76 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY written into the Lithuanian Statute in 1529 (Sect. XIII, Art. 17- 18) ; it was also in force in the kopni procedures. In 1590, the accused Yuvko told at the \opa\ “Denys, after catching me, pre­ sented me as a zavodtsya to a certain Semen Chykal and to that Hats Borysovych whose horse it was. And I, there in the office in Kodno, myself turned quickly to a zavodtsya, to Volodymyr .. . and to Nestor.” ” B. LYTSE. In the ancient common-law procedure, a great role was played by lytse, which term in common law is primarily understood as the corpus delicti. In the Ruska Pravda, lytse re­ ferred to stolen or lost articles (Art. 28, 31-33, 35 Tr. Sp.) Refer­ ence is made to lytse in the Code of Casimir of 1468, in the Lith­ uanian Statute and in juridical documents. A discovered lytse is considered not only the best proof of guilt, but it also increases punishment to the highest degree: a thief found with a lytse, called a zlodiyi prylychni, was punished most severely by the common law. The important role played by lytse in common-law proce­ dures is testified to by the fact that at times the whole legal investi­ gation was referred to as obly\, ly\, polychny.” Lytse also played an important role in the ritual of the common- law procedure; common law associates numerous rituals with lytse. First of all we find special rituals whose aim was to confirm the lytse, to identify it by definite markings so as to preclude any de­ nials, and to preserve this proof for the court. As is evident from legal documents of the pre-Statute period and after it, the lytse which was discovered by the injured party “had to be properly marked before witnesses”; for this purpose, for example, they lychkuvaly horses “by cutting off a piece of an ear and passing on the piece za ruky (into the hands) of the witnesses,” or they nicked the feet of a bird. In an Act of 1510 we read: “I recognized my own horse . . . in the possession of Mashchuk Hrynkovych, a servant of the Princess of Slutzk, and having examined and marked (oblychkftvavshy) the horse, I placed him on the farm of Minynsk” (R.I.B. Vol. XX,

16 Ar\hiv Yugo-Zapadnoy Rossiyi. Part 6. Vol. I, No. 82. 17 N. Ivanishev: Dod, III. A. Yakovliv. Vplyvy staro—ches\oho prava na pravo u\rayins\c doby lytovskpyi. Praha, 1929, p. 64. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 377

Lithuanian Metryka, I., No. 12). In another document of the same year, upon the court’s inquiry whether when the injured party had identified his horse he “had cut its ear and had passed it on za lyudy (to the people) and the injured party answered nega­ tively, the court announced the following decision: “It seems to us that he caught and bound the man Ruzanyn improperly” {Ibid., p. 48). In one document of the \opni court we read that a vozny (court official) “for purposes of identification signed and marked” a “beehive” which had been found during a search con­ ducted on a suspected thief.18 The ritual of lychkuvannya must also be identified with the cutting off of a piece of clothing of a person caught in adultery; this piece, cut from the coat or sheep­ skin, was used as lytse in court against the accused. The documents of the Cossack courts in the Hetman state also mention the cut­ ting off of a piece of clothing from a person caught in vshetechen- stvo (adultery).“ Common-law procedure demanded that the lytse, the markings and other objects which were evidence in the crime, damage or guilt of the accused, be “shown” to the witnesses. This is men­ tioned in the Rus\a Pravda (Art. 60-61, Tr. Sp.), the Lithuanian Statute of 1529 (Sect. VII, Art. 2, 17, 21 and others), as well as in court documents. Finally, common law demanded that the lytse be presented to the judges at court as indisputable evidence of crime or damage or guilt. In 1520, at the court of the Lords of the Council, Lady Maryna Chyzhovaya appeared and “showed the Lords of the Coun­ cil, their honors, her beaten and wounded servants, as well as those killed and drowned,” which she had brought for that pur­ pose to Vilno. It happened that the criminals did not appear in court — they were being sought everywhere — and for that reason the matter had to be postponed to Sunday, then to Tuesday, Thurs­ day and Friday, and on every one of these days Lady Chyzhovaya

18 A \ty Vilenskjoy Archcologicheskpy Komissiyi, V.A.K., XVIII, No. 82.

10 I. Cherkasky: Zvidomlennya, p. 437. Or. Levytsky: Ocher\i narodnoy zhizni v Malorossiyi, Kiev. Staryna. 1901, book IX, pp. 171-3. 378 THF. ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADF.MY

“brought in the beaten and wounded servants, and the corpses into the courtyard.” “ The lytse was always brought in and shown in the kppni court: “a stolen mare,” “a beehive,” “pork meat and the hide of a heifer,” “a chopped up ox placed on a wagon and brought there.” ” The ritual of “presenting lytse” was strictly adhered to in the Cossack courts as well.22 C. ZAKLAD (wager). In ancient Ukrainian common-law pro­ cedure a special decisive proof in the form of a zaklad was used. The accuser or the accused, in order to prove his right or his asser­ tion, put up a wager, and the opposing party accepted or rejected the zak}ad. In the first instance, the struggle of both parties con­ tinued with respect to the object attested to by the wager. In the second instance, if the second party (the accused) refused to wager, it lost the case. A court document of 1444 calls this wager­ ing metaniye. “The Krupovyches wagered (metatysya) twenty rubles.” “ The legal fee paid to the court or to the court official was called vymetne. The terms metatysya and vymetne lead us to believe that the practice of wagering was still in existence during the period of the Ruska Pravda, because among the list of court fees therein we find a fee to the metelny\ or metalny\ (Art. 99, Tr. Sp.) probably for services rendered as a metaniye between two parties. In other instances, also in ancient documents, the wager is called a vydachkfl'. In the decree of 1507 of Alexander, Grand Duke of Lithuania to the land of Kiev, we read: “About the vydachka·. when both put up a wager and throw down their hats, then it is a vydachka.”11 At times they used the word vykynutysya: “Litavor, a marshal, and Lord Yury Illinych before the great prince . . . vykynulysya at the table with 100 rubles”,2" or vydavatysya: "Lord

20 R.I.B., Vol. XX, pp. 1400-1404. 21 Akty V.A.K., XVIII, Nos. 245, 82, 243. 23 Or. Levytsky: op. cit. 23 Akty Yu.—Z.. R, Vol. 1, No. 22. 24 Akty Zapadnoy Rossii, Vol. I, No. 120; Vol. II, No. 30. 45 M. Lyubavsky, Oblastnoye Deleniye. . . p. 685. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 379

Voytekh from Narkovychi vydavdysya with our brother the King with 100 rubles, and the guilty party had to pay another 100 rubles to the innocent party,”20 or vyrehatysya·. “Lord Hryhory Ostyko- vych vyrehjya (wagered) against his guilt with the great prince in the sum of 1,000 rubles of money.”эт The vydachka-zaklad (wager) was usually made in money, but at times there were other kinds of wagers — of one’s whole property or even of life. The wager had been used since ancient times in all the courts of the Lithu- anian-Ruś state and also in the Cossack courts of the Hetman state, where it was called by the old term of vykydshchynaГ Common-law procedures created a whole series of rituals for wagering: 1. Putting down or throwing down a hat (metaniye) symbol­ izes proposing a wager; and putting down a hat alongside the first symbolizes accepting the wager. Here is how the ritual of putting down a hat is described in the documents. The legal de­ cree of Princess Anna of Slutsk of 1494 says about the Ihumen of the Holy Trinity monastery that “both sides put down their hats;” " a court act of 1510 states: “A Tartar man, being in a law suit with him (Sopron), put down a hat on five scores of money . . . and he (Sopron), put down his hat too” (R.I.B. Vol. XX, Lith. Metryka, p. 61); “the voyevoda (governor) of Trotsk (the plain­ tiff) put down his hat on a wager of 100 rubles and the Molod- chans (the defendants) did not wish to put down their hats” {Ibid., p. 581); “the Boyar-lady Dovgovskaya Vyatychevych put down her hat” {Ibid., p. 897); “And the Lord Governor Vylensky let it be known that he had put down his hat with 1,000 scores of money . . . and Lord Olbrekht (the governor of Polotsk) did not accept” {Ibid., p. 847). The kpP™ courts strongly adhered to the practice of putting down a hat, as is evidenced by numerous documents of these

M R.I.B., Vol. XX, p. 529, Document of 1507. и Ibid., p. 747, Doc. of 1511. и I. Cherkasky, Op. cit., p. 438. 29 Akty Yu.—Z. R., Vol. I, No. 232. 380 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY courts.” The final moment of this ritual was the picking up of the hats by the metelný the ditsky or some other court official. The court officials received a legal fee—vymetne—for “picking up the hats in court,” as in the time of the Řmkfi Pravda 2. Another ritual of wagering consisted of placing a “foot to a foot” or a “shin to a shin.” At the \opni court in 1582, “Phillip . . . said to the old man Mykyta: If it be untrue that he (Mykyta) did not tell me that, then here is my foot and his foot until I will prove it properly against him. . . . The elders and the whole \opa observed Phillip’s proper and brave placing of his foot to the foot. . . .’,S2 Another instance occurred in 1624, also at a \opni court, regarding the theft of a cow. When the wife of Ivan Struha at first said that she knew the criminal, but later retracted this statement, the people of Lord Bolshak who had heard her words about the criminal, “desiring to prove that they had heard them from her, placed their shins to hers.” (Ibid., Doc. 241).** 3. Occasionally the object wagered was something other than money. In 1592, the \opni court reviewed the case of a pine tree laden with bees. The defendant . . . said: “If this is your pine tree, put up a wager and show how you can identify it.” The serf of the Lady of Pavlovoye Tyshynoye, putting up his cow as a wager and climbing up the pine tree, designated a place on the top and on the bottom and said: “Try here, in this place which I have indicated . . . and if you will not find my identification, let me lose also, together with the pine tree and bees, my cow which I have wagered.” 34 4. Finally, instead of putting up a wager, the adversary was sometimes called out to a duel. In a court document of 1516, there is recorded such a case at the trial of a grand prince: A law suit was being tried between Prince Konstantyn of Ostrog and the Governor of Lidu, Lord Juri Ilynych. The servants of the

80 I. Cherkasky, Op. cit., Sect. II, pp. 355-359. 81 Archiv Yu. Z.R., Part 8, Vol. 5, Doc. 34. 82 Akty V.A.K., Vol. XVIII, Doc. 63. 33 A. Yakovliv: Vplyvy cheśkpho prava na právo uk}'ayins\e . . . pp. 66-69. M Akty V.A.K., Vol. XVIII, Doc. 124. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 381

Prince of Ostrog, in contradicting the defendant, Lord Ilynych, who stated that he had not wrenched a prisoner away from them, said: “If you did not wrench that criminal away from us and did not beat us, then each of us, having taken an oath to that effect, is ready to duel with you, whichever of us you will choose.” But the defendant was only willing to swear that he had not wrenched the prisoner away from them.85 In this case it did not result in a duel; however, the statements by which a duel was being provoked are proof that in the eyes of the court the proposing of a duel was not unusual. D. ROTA-PRYSYAHA (sworn testimony or oath). The Ruśkfi Pravda presents the rota-prysyaha of both parties and witnesses as sworn testimony in court. Sworn testimony, or the oath, was also used after the Rušila Pravda in all courts in the following form: proof of the accusation—the oath of the plaintiff; proof of inno­ cence—the oath of the defendant; the oath of both parties and witnesses, and also of witnesses alone. The term rota (oath) in Ruska Pravda, however, was later used to denote the text of the oath: “And he presented a rota in writing for the purpose of reading.” M Such expressions in the Ruska Pravda as: “He himself should go to the rota” (Art. 44), or “The one who kept the goods in his possession should go to the rota’ (Art. 45), suggest that the oath might be given elsewhere than in a court and that definite rituals had been established. Documents of a later period, in fact, show that common law had instituted quite an elaborate ritual for swearing the oath. Usually both parties gave their oaths separately (“upheld the law”), or one party proposed that the other give his oath. For example, in a document of 1517 we read: The plaintiff declares: “Let Petrukhno uphold the law to that effect;” ST or in a document of 1510, in answer to the proposition by the plaintiff: “Swear to this, and if you wish, I will swear myself,” the defendant Yanko gave his oath {Ibid., Doc. 47). If one party decides to give sworn

85 R. I. B., Vol. XX, p. 921. ” Akty V.A.K., Vol. XVIII, Doc. 295, 329. 81 Lith. Metryka, R.I.B., Vol. XX, p. 986. 382 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY testimony and the other party agrees to permit it to do so, the court then designates the date on which the oath will be taken. According to ancient tradition, this was the third day: “and we designated the third day for taking the oath, according to custom” {Ibid., Doc. 323). On the designated date, the party which had permitted its adversary to take oath was obliged “to escort him to the oath.” “If Lavryn (the defendant) agrees to escort me to the oath, then I am willing to swear to it.” 83 During the escorting to the oath and during the oath itself, a court official—dits\y, vyzh, or vozny—was present (Ibid., p. 490). The ritual of “escorting to the oath” was of such great significance that if a party did not appear on the designated date or appeared but refused to escort the other party to the oath, it lost its right in court: “And should one or the other party not appear on the designated date or refuse to escort the other party to the oath, it loses its rights” (Ibid., p. 133). The same consequences followed if the party which was to take the oath did not appear. As is evident from documents of the \opni courts, the party which was to escort the other had the responsibility of arranging everything for the taking of the oath: they must arrange for a priest, write out the text of the oath (rota) or deliver this to the vyzh or vozny. It is evident from the documents that the oath was usually given in church, in the pres­ ence of a priest. From the ritual of escorting to the oath, the phrase: “bringing to oath” has been preserved to the present, but now it designates only the act of taking the oath itself. When both parties agreed to take oath, the court ordered them to cast lots (les), which decided which of the parties was to take the oath and which was to escort the other. In a legal document of 1514 there is noted such a decision: “If both parties wish to take oath, they must cast a lot (les) between them; whoever wins the toss will swear” (R.I.B., Vol. XX, p. 147). This norm of common law was incorporated in the Lithuanian Statute of 1529 (Sect. VI, Art. 30). The ritual established by common law for the oaths of the plain­ tiff and defendant was also practiced in regard to the witnesses:

89 R.I.B., Vol. XX, p. 123. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 383 the party which agreed to allow witnesses to testify was obliged to appear on the designated date and lead the witnesses to the oath. Non-appearance on the designated date or refusal to escort the witnesses to the oath brought the same consequences as at the oath-taking of the principals. E. In the most serious criminal cases (horlovykh), common- law procedure also established a notable number of complicated rituals. Herewith are the two most interesting. The first is the ritual of povolannya or obvolannya— announcement over the corpse of a victim. In 1629, a court official, Lassota, “taking the corpse of S. Kalenykovych from the kppa to Berest castle . . . showed it to the governor and, carrying it all over the castle as well as in the market place . . . obvolav and o\azav” (announced and displayed the corpse).“ In 1660 the corpse of M. Holozychyn, who had been drowned in a river, was brought to the court of Lutsk for presentation, and a court official “inspected the body, and in such places as the Lutsky castle, in the city and in the mar­ ket place, as well as at the funeral in the Lutsky monastery . . . he announced it.” 40 From these examples it is evident that the ritual of announcement over the corpse of a murdered person was conducted by a court official; the vozny, alone, or together with relatives of the victim, volav over the corpse, that is, he publicly announced to everyone the identity of the victim and the name of the murderer, etc.41 The second ritual had to do with cases where the murderer had been caught. Then instead of the mere announcement of his name over the corpse of his victim, he was chained or tied to the coffin and left thus until the burial of his victim. In 1700, when Tymko Kuzmanko was caught in the act of murdering the woman inn­ keeper Hapka, the Poltava regimental court gave the order to “chain him to the body of the deceased Hapka, until her body was buried, and after the burial . . . he was to be placed in jail.” 42 In

39 I. Chcrkasky: Povolannya nad trupom zabytoho. Works of the Commission for the Study of Western-Ruś and Ukrainian Law. VUAN, 1st issue, Kiev, 1925, p. 91. Archiv Yu. Z.R. Part 6, Vol. I, Supplement 9. 11 Ibid., details. 42 Or. Levytsky: Ocher\i narodnoy zhizni v Malorossiyi, Kiev. Staryna. 1901, book IX, p. 202. 384 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

1783, in the Chernihiv region, after the Requiem over the mur­ dered Cossack Bidenko, the daughter of a Cossack, Christina Vody- anykivna, was chained to the coffin.4" The execution of a court sentence was also accompanied by defi­ nite rituals, especially in punishment by penalties that shamed the offender, as, for example, the hanging of a bridle or horse collar on the neck of horse thieves and putting them on show for public scorn, or driving them out beyond the city limits by the execu­ tioner. Not having the opportunity to dwell on the details of these rituals here, we will merely cite, as an example, one such ritual. In Section II, Art. 12 of the Lithuanian Statute of 1529, there is recorded the following common-law ritual: “If one person should insult another by name-calling as: ‘You are a bastard’ and could not prove this, then we declare that such a person must retract such insult by saying these words: ‘When I said you were a bastard, I was barking like a dog.’ ” The Statute does not indi­ cate whether it was sufficient to recite the mentioned phrase in court, calling himself a “dog,” or whether it was necessary to ful­ fill some other ritual. However, in Cossack courts of the Hetman state, at defamation trials a ritual of “revocation” was conducted. Here the guilty one, on orders from the court, had to pretend he was a dog right in court, crawl on all fours under the bench on which the judges sat, bark like a dog and then recite the formula of the Statute. With time, this ritual was dropped from practice and replaced by a declaration: “I take my infamous words back into my own mouth.” “

III Common law is preserved in the people’s memory and law-con- sciousness; it is generally accepted and known to wide masses of the population. The documents which have preserved informa­ tion about the activity of the courts during the common-law period, testify that, during this period, the judges and both sides in the

43 Or. Levytsky: Op. cit., p. 203. u I. Cherkasky: Zvidomlennya, p. 447. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 385 trials showed great understanding of law: they often cited legal norms, narrating their contents in concise sentences. These, through constant usage for a long period of time, were transformed into concise but richly eloquent formulae and to the eyes of researchers appear as crystallized principles of the national law and national law-consciousness. Already in the R uí\a Pravda we encounter some examples of such formulae, as for instance: “A serf should not climb upon the law” (Article 81, Troitsky SpysoQ, meaning that a serf cannot be a witness in court; or “There is no trust in a slave, male or female” (Article 84); or “If there is no criminal, then he follows the tracks” (Article 70 and others). By far the greatest number of such formulae are preserved from the pre-Statute period, when the courts were guided by the un­ written common law, and from the period of the \opni courts. As illustration we cite a few such formulae: “And a slave, male or female, should not be believed and they should not be permitted to take part in the rituals.”45 “Only a guilty person does not an­ swer the court,” which means that the one who refuses to give answers at the trial is guilty.“ “It is honorable always to believe a court official” (Ibid., p. 231); or “No one can override a court official;”4’ “Who gets his land back acquires compensation” (rul­ ing of the land court of 1551, S. Borysenok, p. 100) ; “Whoever weds that maiden should also acquire her property;” ** “Whoever is found guilty in the forest is also guilty of robbery.” “ “Whoever sets someone on fire without any reason, himself earns burning.” “ “Whoever is out on bail should not be arrested”.51 “Whoever does not quote witnesses will lose his object”.“ “It is improper to testify

Lithuanian Metryty, p. 1494. M Lithuanian Metryka, pp. 1517-1519. 47 The Statute of 1529, Sect. VIII, Art. 19. i8 R. I. B., Lithuanian Metry\a, p. 1173. 40 Lithuanian Metryka, Knyha Zapisey, Vol. XV, pp. 94-95. 60 R.I.B., Lith. Metr., p. 1521. Б1 S. Borysenok, Op. cit., p. 89. 62 Ibid., p. 89. 386 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY against the honor of someone else”.“ “Whatever the judges decide about them, they have to bear;”“ or “Whatever the law says, they have to bear.” Examples of formulae from the practice of kopni courts are: “They gather neighbors together into kppas in order to apprehend the criminal” “ “Whoever does not come out to follow tracks must always pay damages” is a classic formula which standardized the norm concerning the guilt of the person who did not go out to follow tracks, or go to the court, to the oath, etc. Finally, here is an example of the formula of declaration of appeal in the Cossack courts: “Lord judges, since your sentence appears to me not to be in conformity with the law, I appeal to the higher court.” " Some of the formulae, through their constant usage, were ab­ breviated and became procedural terms, as for example: “to answer in court,” ” “to appear before law” (Ibid.); “to uphold the law (testify under oath) (Ibid.); “to give proof” (Ibid., p. 989); “to question” (carry out an investigation) (Ibid., p. 987); “to prove by law” (to prove one’s righteousness in court) (Ibid., p. 711); “to clear oneself through witnesses” (Ibid., p. 267) and others. The formulae of the Ukrainian common-law procedures, by crystallizing into concise but accurate expressions the fundamental quintessence of common-law norms, have been conducive to the development and stabilization of legal language and terminology.

IV Study of historical documents of the period of the Ruskß Pravda, of the Lithuanian-Ruś state and of the Cossack state of the 17th to 18th centuries discloses that the common-law procedures active in the Ukrainian lands for more than a thousand years were con­ structed on the principles of the ancient common law of Ruś- Ukraine. The principles and spirit of the common law of the

и R.I.B., Vol. XX, pp. 90, 86]. “ Ibid., pp. 340, 342, 347. “ Akty Ѵ.А.К., Vol. VI, Doc. 62. и F. Chuikevych. Sud i Rosprara. 57 R.I.B., Vol. XX, Lith. Metr., p. 1290. UKRAINIAN COMMON-LAW PROCEDURE 387 period of the Rus\a Pravda furnished the vital link which bridged the period of the coexistence of the Cossack and Lithuanian state with the ancient era of the Ruskß Pravda, the period full of de­ velopment of common-law procedures, with the era of prehistoric primitivism. Permeated with a thousand-year-old tradition and ancient ritual, Ukrainian common-law procedure appears to the eyes of researchers as a uniform and unique body of law which has experienced no organic changes and which, in its development, has met no long and ruinous interruptions. It appears before us as the creation of one people. The creator of this law was the Ukrainian people. This people, during a thousand years—disre­ garding changes in the political and social conditions of life— sensed and nurtured in the depths of its national spirit, the histori­ cal tradition of this law. Only this people acknowledged this law always as its own, obeyed its principles and preserved its norms in its law-consciousness. THE ETHICAL AND POLITICAL PRINCIPLES OF “ISTORIYA RUSOV” *

OLEXANDER OHLOBLYN

One hundred and six years ago, owing to the assiduous efforts of a Ukrainian scholar, a book of a “Ukrainian Titus Livy” (to quote Pańko Kulish1) was published in Moscow. Its significance in the development of the Ukrainian Idea can hardly be overesti­ mated. “No other works,” says Professor Dmytro Doroshenko, “have wielded in their time so great an influence on the formation of Ukrainian national thought as The Kobzar by Taras Shevchenko . . . and the Istoriya Rusou.”2 Though the History had been discov­ ered twenty years earlier, it was first published in 1846 by O. Bodian- sky under the title, History of the Ruthenians or of Little Russia, by the Byelorussian Archbishop Yury Konysky? and only then be­ came available to large sectors of the Ukrainian people and the world in general. Time passed, peoples changed, political ideologies took on dif­ ferent forms, and literary tastes varied. Many books once popular joined the ranks of the dead numbered volumes on the shelves of libraries. But the Istoriya Rusov did not pass out of the picture. It outlived its predecessors, as well as many of its contemporaries, and even volumes that came after it. Moreover, the one hundredth anniversary of its publication has failed to mar its freshness and ideological significance.

* History of the People of Ruś, sometimes translated as “History of the Ruthenians.” 1 P. Kulish, Chernaya Rada (Black Council), Moscow, 1857. Epilogue, pp. 240 and 241 (In Russian) See also, L. Maikov, Malorusskiy Tit-Liviy (The Little Russian Titus-Livy), “Istoriko- Literaturnye ocherki”, 1895, pp. 273-291 (In Russian) 2 D. Doroshenko, Nad Vyrishennyam odnoyi istorychnoyt zahadky· Do pytannya khto buv avtorom ‘Istoriyi Rusov* (The Question Relating to a Certain Historical Mystery. Who Was the Author of the ‘History of the Ruthenians’), U\rayins\a Diysnist, Prague, 1943. No. 14. (In Ukrainian) 8 'Istoriya Rusov' Hi Ualoy Rossii Ar\hiepis\opa Byelorus\ago Georgiya Konis\ago, (His­ tory of the Ruthenians or of Little Russia by the Byelorussian Archbishop Yury Konysky), Moscow, 1846 (In Russian)

388 PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOV” 389

In the course of these hundred years, the book has passed through many trials and tribulations. For a time it lost its import­ ance as a source of history and its reputation as a work of history. Many a researcher has referred to it condescendingly as “a histori­ cal pamphlet” 4 or as “a journalistic product.” It lost ground through the years as a literary work, many critics complaining about its stylistic deficiencies.' It lost even its author, since all can­ didates for authorship—including Yury Konysky—were eliminated.” At the beginning of the second century after its publication the Istoriya Rusov thus remains a work without an author in the Ukrainian historiography. Its background is further complicated by the fact that many so-called original manuscripts of the History have been “lost” and many documents destroyed; and without these it will be very difficult ever to resolve the important questions relating to this unique work.

4 G. Karpov, Krltichcshjy obzor razrabot\i giavnykh rtisshjhji istochnikov, do istorii Malorossii otnosyashchy\hsya (A Critical Survey of Main Russian Sources Relative to the History of Little Russia), Moscow, 1870, p. 51 (In Russian) c L. Janowski, O ta\ zwanej 'Historii Rusów1. Pamiatkpwa \siega ku uczczeniu 45- lełniej pracy Prof. Dr. Józefa Tretia\a, (A Memorial Volume in Honor of 45 Years of Work of Professor Dr. Joseph Tretiak), Crakow, 1913, pp. 292-294 (In Polish); also M. Vozniak, Pseudo-Konysky і Pseiido-Poletyka, 'Istoriya Rusov# v literaturi і nauci (The ‘History of the Ruthenians’ in Literature and Science), Lviv-Kiev, 1939, pp. 89-90 (In Ukrainian) 6 M. Vozniak, Op. cit.; D. Doroshenko, Op, cit. Grave doubts about Yury Konysky’s authorship of the Istoriya Rusov were already current in the middle of the 19th century. Modern Ukrainian historiography considers it an impossibility. Among some of the other “candidates” as author, one might mention Hryhory Poletyka, his son Vasyl Poletyka, Prince Repnin, Vasyl Lukaševych, Prince A. A. Bezborodko. In our opinion, the most likely to have been its author was Opanas K. Lobysevych (1732-1805), one of the most outstanding representatives of the Ukrainian intelligentsia of the second half of the 18th century, writer and man of public affairs, a pioneer in the development of Ukrainian literature in the language of the people. See the article by N. Petrov, Odin iz predshestvennihpv I. P. Kotliarevs\ago v u\rains\oy literature XVIII ve\a. Afanasiy Kirilovich Lobysevich (One of the Predecessors of I. P. Kotliarevsky in 18th Century Ukrainian Literature), Statti po Slavyanovedeniyu, Vol. I, St. Petersburg, 1904, pp. 57-63 (In Russian) Also an article by this writer, Opanas Lobysevych (1732-1805) in Literaturno-Nau\ovy Zbirny\, No. 3. Korigen-Kiel, 1948, pp. 3-10. (In Ukrainian) We believe that the Istoriya Rusov was the work of Ukrainian patriotic circles in Novhorod-Siversk toward the end of the 18th century. It was actually written somewhere between 1802 and 1805. See the article by this writer, Do pytannya pro avtora 'Istoriyi Rusov*, Ubjrayina, No. 2, Paris, 1949, pp. 71-75 (In Ukrainian) 390 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

Nevertheless, the History has wielded an enormous influence on the formation and development of Ukrainian national conscious­ ness, more so than any other work of similar nature. In addition, scholarly interest in it has continued. Several generations of Ukrainian scholars have tried to solve the mystery of how it came to be written and who the author really was. The book continues to reign over Ukrainian historiography today no less than it did one hundred years ago. Wherein lies the magic of this unprece­ dented interest, the secret of its historical charm? Its importance lies in the book itself, as well as in the historical conditions under which it came into being. To resort to the much abused term, it can be described as the “Bible of Ukraine”. The political principles in the work (or political rules, to use the words of the author’) express the age-old yearnings of the Ukrainian people for national independence.6 The ethical principles (“moral rules” *) are the moral fundamentals of the Ukrainian as an indi­ vidual as well as of the Ukrainians as a nation. In the inspired probing of the author into the truth about Ukraine’s past is heard the prophecy of the future liberation of the country. The political principles alone, however, would be insufficient to give the book permanent value, to make of it a spirited expres­ sion of the Ukrainian national idea. Its chief power lies in its lofty ethical concepts, in the union of its political and moral prin­ ciples. The author of the History often speaks as one inspired, in the manner of “a prophet and apostle.” 10 Researchers, unfor­ tunately, have been least interested in its ideological concepts. The first extensive study of this phase of the work, that of Pro­ fessor Alexander Hrushevsky, K Khara\teristi\e Vzglyadov ‘ls- torii Rusov’ (Toward an Appraisal of the Ideas Expressed in the

7 Istoriya Rusov, p. 139. 8 I. Krypiakevvch, Istoriya Rusov, Zhyttya i Znannya, 1928, p. 177 (In Ukrainian) D Istoriya Rusov, p. 139. 10 The words of T. V. Kalinsky, Ukrainian patriot and writer of the 18th-19th centuries. (Quoted by D. Miller, Ocherkt iz istorii і yuridiches\ago byta Staroy Malorosii. Prevrash- chenie \ozac\oy starshiny v dvoryanstvo (Notes on the Historical and Juridical Status of Old Little Russia. The Cossack Starshina Transformed Into a Landed Gentry), Kievs\aya Starina, 1897, No. IV, pp. 10-11). (In Russian) PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOV” 391

‘Istoriya Rusov’), (1908)11 only partly carried out its purpose and is now largely outdated. Among recent historiographers, one of the first to pay particular attention to the problem was Professor Dmytro Doroshenko in his valuable study, ‘Istoriya Rusov’ ya\ pamyat\a ufyayinskpyi politychnoyi dumky druhoyi polovyny XVIII st. (1921).12 The very interesting study of Professor Borys Krupnytsky, Beiträge zur Ideologie. Die “Geschichte der Reussen” (Istoriya Rusów) (1945),13 appeared at a time unpropitious for scholarly pursuits and received insufficient attention. The Doro­ shenko and Krupnytsky studies of the ideology of the History, were, however, not definitive, though they offered very interesting observations. More important, they paved the way for further research. At the root of the philosophy animating the History lie the ideas of truth and justice, divine and human. On this base the author builds the idea of the general good (“the common good” or “social well being”). A deeply religious person, he writes: “It has been proven that where there is no permanence of reli­ gion and good habits, there can be no permanence of govern­ ment.” “ Again, he quotes Hetman Bohdan Khmelnytsky: “ ‘What is more important in the world than to keep the faith of one’s ancestors.’ ” 10 For the author of the History, a rationalist after the manner of the 18th century philosophers,1“ the most important criterion in judging human actions is truth.

11 A. Hrushevsky, K bjiara\teristi\e vzglyadov ‘Istorii Rusov’ (Toward an Appraisal of the Ideas Expressed in the Istoriya Rusov), Izvestiya Otdeleniya RussĄago Yazy\a i Sloves- nosti Imp. A\adcmii Nauf{, St. Petersburg, 1908, Vol. I (In Russian) 12 D. Doroshenko, ‘Istoriya Rusov' ya/{ pamyathfi ti\rayins\oyi politychnoyi dum \y druhoyi polovyny XVIII stolittya (Istoriya Rusov’ as a Monument of Ukrainian Political Thought of the Second Half of the 18th Century), Khliborcbska U\rayina, Vol. Ill, 1921, Vienna, pp. 183-198. (In Ukrainian) 18 B. Krupnytsky, Beiträge zur Ideologie. Die ‘Geschichte der Reussen9 (Istoriya Rusow), Berlin, 1945 (In German). See also B. Krupnytsky, Do svitohlyadu 4lstoriyi Rusov\ Ukrayins\i Visti, Neu Ulm, 1950, No. 3-4 (364-365), (In Ukrainian) 14 Istoriya Rusov, p. 135. 16 Ibid., p. 118. 16 B. Krupnytsky, Beiträge, pp. 2-10. (In German) 392 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

If “there is no truth in Christianity,” he writes, “one may search for it among those of another faith.” 17 From this, among other things, springs the author’s fundamental religious tolerance, de­ spite the depth and sincerity of his Ukrainian Orthodox Chris­ tianity. All action, individual, social, national and world-wide, must be guided by the principles of truth and justice. All that coincides with these is good. All who conform to these principles are in truth heroes, in the eyes of the author. All that does not coincide with them is evil, no matter what the subterfuge or what the reasons for the act. These principles are most difficult to adhere to in the field of politics, and the statesman is often hard put to abide by them. But in stressing moral and ethical values, the Istoriya Rusov makes no exceptions. “Do not wish upon another what you would not wish for yourself.”“ “What we have measured out to others will be meas­ ured out to us.”“ “All that is done in justice will be imbued with strength, for God Himself is then our champion.” 80 These are precepts that should be basic for both man and nation. Among the most interesting of the ideas in the book are those that relate to ethical principles in government and international affairs. “Every being has a right to defend his life, freedom and posses­ sions. . . . God Himself or Nature has endowed him with the proper means for this,” 21 writes the author. “ ‘All the peoples of the world have defended and will continue to defend themselves, their freedom and what belongs to them’” “ The latter words, which author ascribes to Bohdan Khmelnytsky, are a mirror of the author’s own ideas. They coincide also with those of the Declaration

17 Istoriya Rusov, p. 166. 18 Ibid.. “ Ibid., p. 80. 20 Ibid., p. 245. 21 Ibid., p. 111. ” Ibid., p. 62. PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOv” 393 of Independence of 1776 and of the Déclaration des droits de l’homme et du citoyen of 1789. The Declaration of Independence in particular, in giving expression to man’s right to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness,” accords with the basic ideas about hu­ man rights in the Istoriya Rusov. The author is decidedly on the side of democracy, an enemy of all tyranny: “No government by force and tyranny, like that in Ruś, has ever been noted for strength or permanence. Based on coercion and lacking the power that comes from mutual interests and coopera­ tion, it has in the end always been destroyed, collapsing in a tu­ mult of fury.”“ On the other hand, “ . . . righteousness, justice and mercy, these constitute the real achievements of the rulers of the world. The laws which govern mankind and protect it from all harm consti­ tute the mirror for emperors and rulers, to show them how they should conduct themselves; and they must be the first to enforce and defend such laws.” “ The socio-political set-up of Muscovite state contrasted completely with the ethico-political, humanist and democratic ideals of the author of the History: “Serfdom and slavery in the highest degree reign among the Muscovite people and . . . with the exception of what God created and the Tsar donated they have nothing of their own and can have nothing. It is as if the people were created only that they might become serfs,” he writes.2“ In the words of Hetman Mazeppa, a sharp rebuke is directed against the Russian political regime: The Russian Tsar (Peter I), “ ‘although . . . of the branch of the family chosen by the people, from their nobility, appropriating power without limit, administering punishment at will. Not only the freedom and possessions of the people but life itself is at the mercy of the Tsarist will and caprice. . . . By his savage death- penalties, brought about by informers and confessions under duress

28 Ibid., p. 59. 21 Ibid., p. 229. 25 Ibid., p. 98. 394 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY of the kind no people could endure, he has destroyed many whole families.’ ” M No wonder that the Russian monarch “because of his cruelty and assumption of limitless power has been likened to the most terrible despots—despots the like of which darkest Asia or Africa has probably never seen.” 27 Even so, cruelty is not a characteristic of Peter I or of Russian rulers alone: it is in the nature of all tyranny, Russian included. In describing the terrible days of Biron (1730-1740), the author says caustically: “All who believe in Biron and carry out his will are declared safe, but those who do not, and who resist, are doomed.” 28 A tyrant always looks upon the people as “dumb cattle and like the dung under foot.” M The epithet “bloodthirsty” is closely linked with the word “tyrant,” ” and every despotism is an irrevocable enemy of man and nation, for “personal and national laws have no meaning for him.”“ Still greater is the tyranny imposed by a government in the enslavement of other peoples and countries. “To plunge peoples into slavery and rule them as serfs and slaves is a matter for an Asian tyrant, not for a Christian mon­ arch,”82 said Hetman Polubotok in his well-known address to Peter I. “The Moscow Tsar, an enemy of all peoples of the world, is eager to subject them to his yoke,”“ and is thus a menace to all nations. A despotic state such as Muscovite is a threat not only to its own citizenry and peoples subservient to it, but to all its neighbors and even to all Europe. “Neighboring states and all of Europe, which has stood by calm-

20 Ibid., pp. 202-3. 27 Ibid., p. 202. 28 Ibid., p. 243. “ Ibid., p. 203. 30 Ibid., p. 55. и Ibid., p. 51. “ Ibid., p. 230. M Ibid., p. 209. PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOv” 395 ly while all this went on” [[Russia’s expansionist imperialism] “will to its shame witness Russian expansion from almost nothing into a large Empire, to such a degree that it will endanger many nations and may in time even bring about their collapse.” “ That is why “wars... with the Muscovite state are inevitable and endless for all nations.” 85 The author is not concerned about which government it is where tyranny rules over enslaved peoples. His words against the Polish state in its rule over Ukraine are bitter: “The most flagrant abuses,” he writes, “have been imposed upon the Ukrainian people.”“ There have been incidents of so gross violence that “even the most cruel” 87 of the darkest East could hardly conceive them. Ukraine had reached a stage of com­ plete ruin because of Poland. Neither individual, family nor prop­ erty was safe, and none knew how long it would continue.88 It is interesting to note that the writer of the History here very definitely defends freedom of thought and speech: “God, the Creator,” he writes, “gave man lips through which to speak, but the Poles have issued orders that these be silent” . . .8“ True to his democratic principles, the author considers the strug­ gle of a people or peoples against tyranny their sacred right and obligation. Every people must stand staunchly “by its own truth.” 10 “ . . . What kind of a people is it that is not concerned with its own well being and does not try to forestall an evident danger? . . . Such a people resembles the unfeeling creatures, scorned by all.” 11 The writer challenges all types of tyranny. Every nation, he points out, has a right to bring to task a government which abuses its powers. He refers to an uprising in the Muscovite state as “a

“ Ibid., p. 138. E Ibid., p. 134. M Ibid., p. 79. 37 Ibid., p. 55. M Ibid., pp. 56-7. “ Ibid., p. 70. 40 Ibid., p. 71. 41 Ibid., p. 204. 396 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY lesson to governments and officials on how they must not behave with regard to their people. . . “ Every government which sus­ pects its people of designs against it invites the people to action they may not yet have conceived or planned.” “ Istoriya Rusov seems to re-echo the words of the Declaration of Independence: “Whenever any form of government becomes de­ structive of these ends” [tries to deprive people of their unalien­ able rights] “it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.” Most important, according to the History, is a people’s resis­ tance against foreign tyranny. It is the sacred duty of the entire people, and of the leadership in particular, to wage a struggle against it. Otherwise, writes the author, quoting Hetman Mazepa, “ ‘our descendants, turned into slaves by our ineptness,’ ” may, because of their grievances and suffering, accuse us, their ancestors.“ The most succinct ideas on the subject are ascribed to Bohdan Khmelnytsky: “ ‘It is better and more admirable for us to fall in battle on the field of war in behalf of our country and our faith than to be defeated in our homes. If we perish defending our faith, not only will the glory of our effort and our knightly cour­ age gain renown in Europe and other lands far and wide, but hav­ ing given our lives for a noble cause, we shall gain immortality and be rewarded by God with a crown of thorns.’ The Ukrainian Cossacks of those days expressed themselves in similar vein: “ ‘It is better to wage continuous war in behalf of freedom than to take upon ourselves the new chains of servitude and enslave­ ment,” “ and “ ‘it is better to die gloriously than to live in infamy.’ ” 17

42 Ibid., p. 198. 43 Ibid., p. 164. 44 Ibid., p. 203. 45 Ibid., p. 71. “ Ibid., p. 99. 47 Ibid., p. 110. PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOV” 397

No wonder that Bohdan Khmelnytsky advises the Muscovy en­ voys that “ ‘the people ruled by me are a free people, always ready to give their lives to the last man in behalf of freedom. This trait being an inborn quality, they do not bear enslavement gracefully.”“ “ ‘The martyrs, the innocent victims, appeal to you from their graves, demanding that you avenge their deaths and that you de­ fend yourselves and your country.’ ”* “ ‘Divine justice, observant of human action, could not suffer such cruelties and inhumanity,” ’ [this refers to Poland’s treatment of the Ukrainian people in the 17th century] “ ‘and impelled the people to defend themselves, choosing me as a feeble instrument to carry out their will.’ ”w “ ‘Di­ vine righteousness inspired unprecedented courage in defense of the people’s freedom and liberty.’” 61 Discarding revenge for its own sake, the author of the History quotes Khmelnytsky: “ ‘I do not desire or seek revenge, a trait that is base in the eyes of Christianity and humanity in general. Revenge belongs to God alone and His Day of Judgment, the day when all the tsars of earth, the rulers of the world, will be punished for all who perished because of them, and for the blood of the innocents.’ ” “ Not human justice but divine is the highest and most exacting measure in weighing man’s good and especially his evil. The History reminds us of the words of Christ: “That upon you may come all the righteous blood-shad upon the earth.” (Math. 23:35)“ Commenting on the banishment of Menshikov, the author writes: “Therefore, the blood of the many dead, innocently shed in the Ruś land, has been perceived at the throne of the Almighty, and the Lord has poured the chalice of His anger upon the head of the murderer and his home.” “ This refers to the massacre of the inhabitants of Baturyn in the year 1708. “ Ibid., p. 87. “ Ibid., p. 63. " Ibid., p. 79. 51 Ibid., pp. 135-6 “ Ibid., p. 80. “ Ibid., p. 213. “ Ibid., p. 232. 398 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

Recounting the terrible persecutions of the Ukrainian people by the Russian Ministerial Chancery at Hlukhiv in the 1730’s, the His­ tory states: “the place where the Ministerial Chancery stood is gen­ erally known... and if the hand of God were to hollow out a bit of earth at that spot, the human blood shed by the Ministerial hand would spurt up in a fountain.” “ Moral rules apply also to international relations. The author of the History lashes out against subterfuge and lies in international affairs: “Christian oaths and attestations alone,” he writes, “often seem to be mere pretexts under which lurk the treachery and the lies of nations; and their most important public acts, called politics and diplomacy, are but expressions of clever fraud. The greater and more dangerous the deception, the higher the rank achieved by the perpetrators, who are referred to as the only wise men, the great, the outstanding statesmen in political affairs.” “ This should not be the case. Bohdan Khmelnytsky speaks of the “ ‘obligation of holding sacred all treaties among peoples,’ ” and “ ‘agreements among nations,’ ” so that there “ ‘may be mutual trust and mutual help.’ ” " Again he says, “ ‘pledges exacted by force are not valid . . . and God, the All-seeing, will turn them against those who use coercion in exacting them and who use His name in vain. Divine, natural and human laws always make naught of such pledges; you too are free of them; for greater than any such oath is your duty to your country—by very nature itself, and by your holy faith, its symbol, in which you believe.’ ” " These words ascribed by author of the History to Bohdan Khmelnytsky reveal most aptly the ideas of the author himself. He is against one-sided alliances and coalitions of states directed against other nations:

“ Ibid., p. 238.

" Ibid., p. 118. Ibid., p. 137. “ Ibid., p. 136. “ Ibid., pp. 63-4. PRINCIPLES OF “ iSTORIYA RUSOV” 399

“ Ί am eager to hold the alliance and friendship of all nations,’ ” said Bohdan Khmelnytsky, “ ‘and I shall never betray them, even as I would not betray a gift from Providence or a duty owed to all mankind.’ ” “ A foe of aggressive war, the author writes: “Only natural self-defense is permissible against any and all enemies. To wage war, aggressive war against mankind, to in­ flict torture, and to be guided by violence for the sake of personal caprice, this is an act of inexcusable savagery and bestiality. . . .” " “It is better that a man be deprived of everything in the world than that he transgress these Christian and humanitarian laws.” ’2 “No political laws permit a government to enter another peo­ ple’s country with armed force,” except that it be invited to come in by a legally authorized government.“ Even sharper is the author’s condemnation of fratricidal war. “It is a deadly sin to shed the blood of one’s own countrymen and co-religionists.” “ Bohdan Khmelnytsky expresses his idea on the subject, founded on justice and virtue itself, that “ ‘to war against a Christian government of a people of the same faith and blood, and in behalf of foreign claims at that, is a grievous sin against God and a grave transgression before the entire world.’ ” 05 On the other hand, “defense of one’s own country is the right of every people.”00 When the Ukrainian people “set out with arms against the Poles, they did this in self-defense, as a last resort, and this is the irrefutable right of every people of the world.”" The cause of self-defense, however, must be genuine — not an excuse for plunder. “What kind of justice and politics is it when governments pretend defense of their rights while tolerating tyr­ anny and robbery, and even try to justify them ?” 1,8

00 Ibid., p. 96. 81 Ibid., p. 87. 02 Ibid. “ Ibid., p. 81. " Ibid., p. 215. * Ibid., p. 87. “ Ibid., p. 95. 67 Ibid., p. 139. 03 Ibid. 400 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

War that is not in defense of and in behalf of liberation is “unjustifiable,” writes the author.*’ Throughout the History runs the thread of the idea of national unity. It is essential that all members of a nation “always remain in concord and brotherly amity, for without them neither state nor community can stand.” 70 “Every nation or state divided with­ in itself cannot last, and every house divided will become empty.” 71 The History is most significant in the development of the Ukrai­ nian Messianic idea. In the words of Serhiy Yefremov: “The author of the History aroused among the Ukrainians the somno­ lent idea of the freedom of their native land. He was the first to draw up clearly the concept of Ukrainian autonomy, carrying it over the heads of traitors and turncoats to later days when it could be applied to new growths and built on new foundations. The History was, so to speak, a prophecy of the coming nation­ al renaissance of Ukraine and a forerunner of the new literature from which this renaissance developed.”73 In describing Ukraine’s national catastrophe (after the Poltava defeat of 1709), which brought about for the next two centuries the enslavement of the country by imperialist Russia, the author wrote: “If in the words of the Savior Himself bloodshed will be demanded of the generation to come, what punishment should be meted out in expiation for the blood of the Ruś people from the days of Hetman Nalyvayko to our own times—blood shed in great streams only because the people wanted freedom and a better life on their own land, and because they dreamed in terms com­ mon to all mankind!”73 The political and ethical ideology of Istoriya Rusov is the age- old ideal of the Ukrainian nation. In this lies the invincible strength of this unique work and the secret of its influence on generations of Ukrainians.

• Ibid., p. 173. n Ibid., p. 140. 71 Ibid., p. 85. 72 S. Yefremov, Istoriya u\raytns\oho pysmenstva, Kiev, 1911, p. 117. 78 Istoriya Rusov, p. 213. AN INNOVATION IN THE UNDERSTANDING OF MENDELEYEV’S PERIODIC LAW NICHOLAS EFREMOV “ . . . the periodic law, therefore, must be expressed not by geometric lines, always implying continuity, but rather in the manner in which the theory of numbers is treated—intermittently.” Mendeleyev, Principles of Chemistry

INTRODUCTION The greatness of Mendeleyev’s law lies in the fact that it does not represent a frozen form, an orthodox scheme, but possesses an inner capacity for development. New facts and new scientific tendencies invariably define its form more accurately, expand its content, and put into its formu­ lation new interpretations which supplement and at times signifi­ cantly enlarge its deep significance. Thus in this historical process of evolution, the law plays its role both in the science of our times and in the science of the future. D. I. Mendeleyev himself has described in detail how his idea worked in the investigations of those coordinates which were fin­ ally to give us the natural system of the elements — the future periodic system. On what properties and on what constants is this system based P Examining a series of variable traits of individual atoms, Mende­ leyev, as we know, stops at the atomic weight, considering this as the most fundamental, unchanging property of the element. Arranging all the elements known at that time in the order of increasing atomic weight, Mendeleyev noted that many chemical and physical properties of the elements changed regularly with the increase in atomic weight, and at the same time a repetition of the properties was observed through a certain number of ele­ ments (cf. modern periodic table I and table la). Thus, two important concepts which lie at the base of the Mende­ leyev table were immediately noticed: a definite sequence, and the presence in this sequence of separate segments, i.e., periodicity. Since the atomic weight according to which the elements were

401 402 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY arranged was not subject to periodicity, then logically the follow­ ing situation ensued: that some properties did not disclose the periodic movement, whereas others — and these were in the ma­ jority— did follow the law of periodicity. The course of Mendeleyev’s thoughts becomes clear with the creation of the periodic system. The role of the number in the periodic system of Mendeleyev is sufficiently clear. It seems to us however, that the significance of numbers and of numerical laws for the understanding of the periodic law itself is still underesti­ mated. Let us turn our attention to such a series of numbers as: atomic numbers : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8... 92,93,94,95,96... valency : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8 principal quantum numbers : 1,2,3,4,5,6,7

The universal role of a series of numbers in understanding the various physico-chemical properties of the atoms of chemical ele­ ments is clear. Our investigation has been directed toward finding more gen­ eral numerical relations between the chemical elements, or, more correctly, between ions. We are inclined to assert that the periodic law appears as the expression of a universal, and at the same time simple, mathematical law. We have set ourselves the task of re­ vealing this purely mathematical basis for the periodic law of Mendeleyev. Taking two fundamental concepts underlying the Mendeleyev table — sequence and periodicity — we have set ourselves the task of linking the chemical elements (ions) in the successive order of numbers which periodically repeat themselves and are dropped in succession. In other words, we have attempted to express the idea of the periodic law of Mendeleyev through the successive order of peri­ odically repeating and successively disappearing numbers. When this is done, the periodic system represents a matrix of numbers, complex, and at the same time very simple. In this matrix we dis­ card the symbols of the chemical elements, substituting numbers M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 403 for them. According to the relation between numbers, we can judge the relation between chemical elements (ions), predict their geochemical properties and behavior, determine the laws of the migration of the chemical elements in magmatic basins unknown to us and judge their isomorphic tendencies. All this in accord with the observations of Mendeleyev in his Principles of Chemistry, quoted above. We are surprised that, despite the 80-year lapse of time since the discovery of the periodic law, the attempt to express this law in numbers has not previously been undertaken.

ON THE ROLE OF THE PERIODIC LAW IN GEOCHEMISTRY In the fields of petrology, mineralogy and geochemistry the peri­ odic law of Mendeleyev has played a leading role. Indeed, it would be difficult to name any areas and problems within these disci­ plines which are not concerned with the law of Mendeleyev, and in which it does not appear as a guiding thread, even in the solu­ tion of purely practical problems. The entire history of the discovery of the rich mineral complex in the Chibina Tundra1, the only one of its kind in the world, appears as a colorful illustration of how the deep theoretical con­ cepts in the treatment of the periodic law may lead to brilliant practical results. But despite this, very little has been done as yet in the matter of establishing relations between the periodic laws and the laws of natural geochemical processes. The deep relations which exist be­ tween the nature around us and the chemical laws of the atom are still far from being explained. As yet, we in geochemistry and mineralogy are two-fold empiri­ cists, since our laws have a purely empirical character and their formulation is purely qualitative. But we have posed as our task the attainment of the exact number, at which we can arrive only after intense theoretical work. The important role of the number has already been established from the analysis of the periodic sys-

1 In its entirety the mineral raw material in the Chibina complex is worth billions of dollars.

T able і . — T he M odern P eriodic T a b l e III > > - 3 - o 'Ú a. з î o VII VIII Ί? H (l)

1.008

r» (9)0 He(2) Li(3) Be(4) B(5) Zl N(7) 0(8) PO) 4 6.94 9.02 10.82 14 16 19 Ne(10) N a (ll) Mg(12) Al(13) Si (14) P(15) S(16) Cl (17) 20.2 1 23 24.32 26.97 28.06 31.027 32.064 35.46 A(18) K(19) Ca(20) Sc(21) Ti(22) V (23) Cr(24) Mn(25) Fe(26) Co(27) Ni(28) 39.91 ! 39.096 40.07 45.10 47.90 50.95 52.01 54.93 55.84 58.94 58.69 Cu(29) Zn(30) 1 Ga(31) Ge(32) As(33) Se(34) Br(35) 63.57 65.38 ! 69.72 1 72.60 74.91 78.96 79.92 Ut Kr(36) Rb(37) St (38) і У (39) Zr(40) Cb(41) Mo(42) Ma (43) ! Ru(44) Rh(45) Pd(46) 83.7 85.44 87.63 88.92 91.22 93.3 96.0 1 101.7 102.91 106.7 ►нC) î Sn(50) Te (52) o S 5. ° « Ag(47) Cd(48) In(49) Sb(51)

N Rn(S6) (87) Ra(88) Ac(89) 1 Th(90) Pa(91) U(92) 222 225.97 228 232.12 234 ? 238.14

•The following elements, which are commonly called the rare earths, have atomic numbers between 57 and 72: La(57), 138.92; C e(58)f 140.13; Pr(59), 140.92; NdfeO), 144.27; 11(61), ?; Sm(62), 150.43; Eu(6á), 152; Gd(64), 157.3; Tb(65), 159.2; Dy(66), 162.46; Ho(67); 163.5; Er(68), 165,2; Tm(69), 169.4; Yb(70), 173.04; Lu(71), 175. All of these elements have approximately the same properties and are regarded as occupying the same position in the periodic table. Numbers in parentheses refer to the atomic numbers of the elements, i.e., to their order in the table. Numbers below the symbols of the elements refer to the atomic weights of the elements. T able Ια. — Mendeleyev's Periodic Table of 1871 404 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY tern of Mendeleyev; and the works of Paneth, Hevesy, Harkins, Walter and Ida Noddak, V. M. Goldschmidt, Pauling, Grimm, Born, Bragg, Werner, Niggli, Sonder, Vernadsky, Cartledge and Gruner have also pointed out this role. Particularly clear is the search for numerical relations between the chemical elements in the field of geochemistry, in the works of Fersman who writes: “And thus the values N-V-R (where N is the atomic num­ ber of the element, V is the valence, and R is the radius of the ion), in their combination among themselves for various atoms in various values, define thereby the fate of the given element. We are inclined to believe that all the laws of geochemistry, crystallo-chemistry and general chem­ istry will be deduced from these values in the future and that each property, both of an element itself and of its compounds (hardness, melting point, thermal capacity etc.) will be connected in the corresponding equation with these primary values.”2

The search for mathematical relationships between the values mentioned above — i.e., the atomic number, valence and the ionic radius — has been this author’s work over the last few years. The first step in this work has been completed to such a degree that the results may now be published. As a result of these investi­ gations, an interesting numerical dependence between the place of the chemical element (ion) in the periodic system, the valenci, the ionic radius, the atomic radius, and also other physico-chemical quantities has been established.

PERIODIC SYSTEM OF THE IONS The visual expression of the chemical properties of elements ap­ pears, as we know, as a table of the periodic system of Mendeleyev. The table in which are most clearly expressed those properties of chemical elements which have a particular significance in the pro­ cesses taking place in the body of the earth, and first of all in the

2 A. E. Fersman, Gcokjiimiya (Geochemistry), Moscow, 1928, Vol. Ill, p. 262 (in Russian). m e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 405 parts most accessible to us — the earth’s crust, is often called the geochemical table of elements. Various geochemical tables have been suggested up to the pres­ ent time by Fersman, Goldschmidt, Andropoff, Zavaritsky, etc.; but it is not necessary for us to analyze these here. All these tables have one thing in common with the table of Mendeleyev which is accepted in chemistry: they are concerned with neutral atoms, and therefore they bear a static character. Meanwhile the processes of geochemistry demand comparisons with ions, not atoms, because the migration of chemical elements is linked only with ions. For example, in the Mendeleyev table one place has been put aside for sulphur (as of course for all the chemical elements). At the same time, S2‘ and S®f are both geo- chemically and atom-physically widely different as our chart illus­ trates quite clearly. It is evident that many such examples can be given. In this connection we have suggested a periodic system of the most important and typical ions (Table II) including the ele­ ments of zero valence, i.e., the inert gases. Let us look at the basic traits in the construction of our chart, concerning ourselves first of all with its general form. Comparing our suggested table of a periodic system of ions with that of Mendeleyev, which is now accepted (see Table II), we see that our table first of all is distinguished by its arrangement of the beginning and the end of the system. What advantage does our form have? To what degree is it justi­ fied? First of all, our form of the periodic system of ions follows in the direction of the evolutionary understanding of the periodic system, going from the simple to the complex. It makes concrete the old idea of Prout. The genealogical tree of the periodic system is represented so that its roots begin with the most simple chemical elements, i.e., hydrogen (1), and helium (2), and it ends with the most complex elements known to us: americium (95), and curium (96) and others. Mendeleyev, in creating his system, considered that chemical ele­ ments were unalterable and, so to speak, equal, but ideas about the 406 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY interrelation of elements have changed substantially in our time. We know that hydrogen must be regarded as a certain component of other chemical elements which follow it, and the first is helium. Thus it is logical that the root of the system, i.e., hydrogen, is found at the bottom and not at the top of the system as it has been heretofore. It is no less logical that in our form of the table the ordinal numbers of the elements, i.e., the numbers of Moseley, the atomic weights, the ionic radii, etc., grow upwards and not vice versa. As the stories of a house are counted from the bottom to the top, so are the rows of elements, these “stories” of the system. More examples could be introduced to confirm the fact that the growth of many physico-chemical quantities proceeds in accord­ ance with our order and not vice versa. The main axis of our table (see Table III) consists of the elements of the inert gases (He, Ne, Ar, Kr, X, and Nt) and, al­ ternating with them, triplets of elements (Fe-Ni-Co, Ru-Rh-Pd, Os- Ir-Pt). We distinguish in this way six periods in the periodic sys­ tem of ions, (counting from bottom to top):

1. The helium period or the period K (n— 1) 2. The neon " // // // L (n = 2 ) // // // 3. The argon " M (n = 3 ) 4. The krypton " // /Г // N (n = 4 ) 5. The xenon " // // // O (n = 5 ) 6. The niton " // // // P 0 = 6 )

In this arrangement we distinguish 10 horizontal rows in the periodic system of ions. The ions in each of these rows have the same number of electrons. (See Table III).

ON THE QUESTION OF THE ROLE OF SYMMETRY IN THE TABLE OF THE PERIODIC SYSTEM OF THE IONS In introducing the concept of the axis in the periodic system of ions, we have also introduced the concept of symmetry in the ar- M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 407 rangement of the chemical elements (ions) in our chart. We shall devote special attention to this point. Strictly speaking, we have two axes in the chart: the main axis, which separates the positively and negatively charged ions; and the secondary axis, which sepa­ rates the positively charged ions and passes through the tetravalent elements (see Table III), i.e., C, Si, Ti, Ge, Zr, Ce, Hf, Th. Thus, the second axis divides the positive ions into two parts, e.g., Li, Be, B, C C, N, O, F Let us now examine the questions connected with the main axis of symmetry of our chart.

T able III

S er ie s OF I o n s H a v in g THE Sa m e N u m b e r o f E le c t r o n s a b c d Є f g h і j k 6 Pb4-—АЄ- 86 Nt-period Nt 86 Fr1+— 86 P 6 6 5 78 Pt-row Pt 78 Au1+—At7+ 78 O 5 5 5 Sn4-—J1- 54 X-period X 54 Cs1+— 54-68 o 5 5 4 46 Pd-row Pd 46 A g1+- r 46 N 4 4 4 Ge4-—Br1- 36 Kr-period Kr 36 Rb1+—Tc7+ 36 N 4 4 3 28 Ni-row Ni 28 Cu1+—Br7+ 28 M 3 3 3 si4-—c i1- 18 Ar-period Ar 18 K1+—Mn7+ 18 M 3 3 2 C4-—F1- 10 Ne-period Ne 10 Na1+—Cl7+ 10 L 2 2 1 H 1- 2 He-period He 2 Lil+—F7+ 2 K 1 1 0 Nn-period Nn 0 H 1+ 0 a b c d e f g h і j k a. Number of periods; b. Quadruple groups of the negative ions; c. The numbers of electrons of the negative ions; d. Periods; e. The elements of the axis; f. The numbers of the electrons of the elements of the axis; g. Groups of the positive ions; h. The num­ bers of electrons of the positive ions; i. Symbols of the electronic shells; j. Principal quan­ tum numbers; k. Our quantum numbers for calculation of ionic radii (Cf. Table IV).

We should like to point out that the periodic system of ions can be pictured as arranged in a certain system of coordinates. In this system we have arranged on the ordinate axis the elements of the 408 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY inert gases and the triplets of elements, since the center of the sys­ tem is taken by a neutron with the atomic number zero and a val­ ence of zero. If in accordance with this we arrange the remaining chemical elements and follow definite mathematical rules, we shall find that the ions with the positive charge will occupy the right side of the abcissa, while the ions with the negative charge will occupy the left side of the abcissa.

Si P S Cl Ar K Ca Sc Ті 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

c N o F Ne Na Mg A1 Si 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Nn

4' 3‘ 2' r 0 Γ T 3+ 4+ <------>

It is not difficult to observe that if to the right of the axis are ar­ ranged the ions with valences of Γ, T, 3+, 4*, then to the left of the axis of the ordinate, the ions with valences of Γ, 2", 3’, 4" are corre­ spondingly arranged. This symmetry in the arrangement of ions with positive and negative valences in relation to the axis of symmetry represents in itself a clear confirmation of our idea of the role of the number in the periodic system. Also deserving attention is the fact that in our chart the important element as oxygen (O) has a valence of 2'. In the Mendeleyev table, oxygen is located in group six with a valence of 6\ Yet the valence of 6* is not as characteristic as the valence of 2' since in the composition of minerals oxygen always has a valence of 2*. It is interesting to note the mnemo-technical role of our table as a visual pedagogical aid. Without doubt it facilitates comprehen­ sion and memorization of the formulae of various chemical com­ pounds and permits us to predict possible chemical compounds. M e n d e l e y e v ’s p e r io d ic a l l a w 409

With this in mind, let us examine the horizontal series of ions belonging to the neon period.

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

C N O F Ne Na Mg Al Si 4- з" τ r ο v t v ? <------► Proceeding from the principle of symmetry, we can easily fore­ see those chemical compounds which may be obtained from the ions of the neon series, not taking the valence into account. Thus, for example, for those pairs of elements whose places appear as the mirror image of each other we can foresee the exist­ ance of such chemical compounds as Na + F = NaF A1 + N = A1N Mg + O = MgO Si + C = SiC As we know, all these chemical compounds really exist. To a like degree we can foresee that such chemical compounds exist as

Na2 -)- O = Na20 Mg -f- F2 = MgF2

Ab + Оз = АЬОз Al + Fa = AIF3

Si —[~ O2 — S1O2 Si ~ F 4 — SÍF4 And indeed they do exist. It is obvious that we can increase the number of examples intro­ duced, though it is unnecessary to do so here. In the Mendeleyev table, hydrogen, with an atomic number of 1, occupies the first place. As the electrical charge of its nucleus it equal to 1, there could exist before hydrogen another particle with a charge equal to zero. As much as twenty-five years ago Rutherford predicted the possi­ bility of the discovery of such a particle and emphasized that it would have wonderful qualities: that it would be a real material particle and penetrate freely into matter. Rutherford was correct 410 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY in his predictions: the particle was discovered and it received the name neutron. Proceeding from our form of the chart and taking into account the existence of the hydrogen ion—the homologue in the vertical row—H-Li-Na-K-Rb-Cs, we must of necessity put neutron in the place of the zero element of the Mendeleyev system. As we know, scientists have succeeded in obtaining neutron gas and thus finally substantiated the isolation of neutron as a separate element. By placing neutron in its place in the vertical row Nn-He-Ne- Ar-Kr-X-Nt we obtain new corroboration for the hypothesis of the existence of still another unknown elementary particle which is now called “negative proton”. This elementary particle should take its place at the bottom of the vertical row: “negative proton”- H'-F-Cl-Br-J. Or, in other words, “negative proton” should take its place to the left of neutron, since to the right of it is located hydrogen—the analogue of the alkali metals. It is not hard to become convinced that such an arrangement of negative proton and hydrogen is predetermined by the laws of symmetry, if the place in the center between them is occupied by neutron. Justice forces us to remark that at first this hypothesis of a “nega­ tive proton” was met with disbelief, but it is now rather widely accepted even in circles of physicists. “Hydrogen,” wrote Rabinovich and Thilo, “can be equally regarded as the first element in the series of alkali metals or in the row of halogens. From the standpoint of the spectroscopy and electrochemistry, there exists a great analogy between hydrogen and the alkali metals; as for the remaining physical properties, on the other hand, hy­ drogen must be regarded as the very lightest halogen; many of its chemical compounds are also completely ana­ logous to the chemical compounds of the halogens.”3 It is very important to note this transitory position of hydrogen and consequently to see its dual “place” in the periodic system.

3 E. Rabinovich and E. Thilo, Periodiches\aya Sistema (Periodic System) Moscow, 1930, p. 32t M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 411

Thanks to this “dual nature of hydrogen” various authors have located it in various “places” in the periodic system; i.e., some in the rectangle above the halogens, while others, with no less a basis, have placed it in the rectangle above the alkali metals. There arises the question: what is the actual place of hydrogen? The periodic system of ions gives a specific answer to this ques­ tion; the periodic system of elements is not in a position to do this. On the basis of the principle of symmetry, the periodic system of ions predicts a place for two types of hydrogen ions: one to be placed in the vertical row of halogens (i.e., to the left of neutron), and the other to be placed in the vertical row of alkali metals (i.e., to the right of neutron). As we shall see, hydrogen does not appear to be an exception in this respect. When we turn our attention to helium (He), we shall see that our table predicts the existence also of two types of helium: neu­ tral helium (He) occupying the place in the vertical row of inert gases (i.e., with a valence of zero) ; and helium with a valence of 2* in the vertical row of earth alkali metals. It is evident that proceeding from this same principle of sym­ metry, helium must take its place in the periodic system of ions in the vertical series: He2+, Be2+, Mg2+, etc. In this aspect the close paragenetic bond between helium and beryllium, which up to this time has not yet received its explanation in geochemistry, becomes understandable.

THE PERIODIC SYSTEM AS A MATRIX The order of arrangement of elements in the Mendeleyev sys­ tem is based on the number of positive charges of the atomic nu­ cleus, called the atomic number. The system must follow a series of simple numbers from one to 92. These Moseley arrived at from a very simple equation. The atomic number was obtained experi­ mentally, appearing as the square root of the frequency of the characteristic lines of the x-ray spectrum. The problem of the place of an element in the periodic system was solved in this wonder­ fully simple way. 412 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

Thus, the atomic number is not just an ordinal number but one of the basic physical constants of the atom. It appears that it is not the atomic weight which determines the position of an ele­ ment in the system, nor even the structure of the atom, but the number of charges of the nucleus of the atom. Have we come to the last step in the understanding of the es­ sence of the Mendeleyev system? Are the relations between the chemical elements (ions) ex­ hausted in only the atomic numbers or the numbers of Moseley? We have come to the conclusion that between the ions of the chemical elements there exists still another kind of relationship. These relationships can be expressed by the system of the sequence of a series of numbers which are periodically repeated and which are periodically dropped. This system of numbers in its complexity may be represented in the form of a matrix originally worked out by us (See Table IV). In this matrix the chemical element is replaced by a number and we seem to deal thus only with numbers. The consecutive series of numbers of our matrix, as we see, de­ picts three four-membered columns. The increasing series of numbers begins at the bottom with the first quadruplet and goes from right to left and from bottom to top in the following order: 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 8765 4 321 Ot

The successive numbers (e.g., 1, 2, 3, etc.) are periodically re­ peated every eight elements in the first periods. We have especially noted this important point which is at the very basis of our matrix and which has great significance for our further deliberations4. Besides this it is important to emphasize that on the strength of definite mathematical principles which lie at the basis of the con­ struction of our matrix, the matrix numbers for the tetravalent

4 As vve know, in Mendeleyev’s system the repetition of the properties of chemical elements (the periodicity of properties) is expressed in the fact that the analogous properties are re­ peated every nine elements in the first periods. M e n d e l e y e v 's pe r io d ic a l l a w 413 positive ions C, Si, Ti, Zr, Ce, Th (c.f. the vertical row of numbers in the third column of the matrix) are equal to the total quantum number (n), i.e., correspondingly, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Th-6 n -6 Ce-5 n-5 Zr-4 n-4 Ti-3 n-3 Si-2 n-2 C-l n -1

This point also is important for the understanding of the prin­ ciple upon which our matrix is constructed. Let us examine then the construction of our matrix, writing un­ derneath the symbol of each chemical element (ion) the matrix number corresponding to it (see Table IV). One can see that the regularity of occurrence of the successive series of numbers of our matrix is the factor which determines the order in which we have arranged our chemical elements (ions). After this short introduction into the essentials of our numerical system we can see that the periodic system of ions has made appar­ ent a peculiar kind of matrix in which the elements (ions of ele­ ments) have acquired the matrix numbers corresponding to them. Examining the column of low-valenced ions (those with val­ ences of 1, 2, 3, 4), and analyzing the relation of the matrix num­ bers within it, we see the following regularities: The homologous elements, strange as it may seem at first glance, do not possess equal matrix numbers. The ions of homologous elements standing in the vertical rows are joined together in a rising successive series of whole numbers. Thus, for example, the ions of the alkali metals are linked in this series: 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and the ions of the alkali-earth metals are linked in this series: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, Be Mg Ca Sr Ba Ra 3 4 5 6 7 8 Li Na K Rb Cs 4 5 6 7 8 T able IV — P eriodic S ystem of I ons B ased on the P rinciple of M atrix N u m b e r s . M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 415

On the other hand, the ions belonging to one and the same hori­ zontal series (e.g. the ions of the helium period: Li, Be, B, C, or the ions of the neon period: Na, Mg, Al, Si) are linked together in a descending successive series of whole matrix numbers, e.g., Na Mg Al Si 5 4 3 2 Li Be В C 4 3 2 1 <— If our matrix numbers have any kind of physical meaning, we must conclude from the comparison of these two directions (verti­ cal and horizontal) that a geochemical affinity exists, not only be­ tween the homologous ions (e.g. Li, Na, K, Rb, Cs), but also be­ tween the neighboring ions (Si-P, Ti-V and others). This last proposition has its confirmation as we shall see later. Here we consider it proper to show that between the ions of the horizontal series there exists still another interesting numerical rela­ tionship which finds its expression in the rule of constant numbers. As we have already pointed out, the ions of each period (or the ions of each horizontal series) are linked by the constant numbers. With this we have established the rule of constant numbers which says: 1. The sum which is obtained from adding the matrix numbers of the four ions arranged in the order of increasing atomic num­ ber, e.g. Na -11, Mg -12, Al -13, Si -14, and the valence number of these ions appears as the definite constant number for the given four ions, e.g.:

Atomic number 11 12 13 14 Element Na Mg Al Si Matrix number 5 4 3 2 Valence 1 2 3 4 Constant number 6 6 6 6 416 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

It is evident that the following rule will also be observed: 2. The sum obtained from adding the matrix numbers of four elements (arranged in the order of increasing atomic number, e.g. Na-11, M g-12, Al-13, Si-14) and of the corresponding atomic numbers appears also as a definite constant number for the given four elements, e.g.:

Element Na Mg A1 Si Atomic number 11 12 13 14 Matrix number 5 4 3 2 Constant number 16 16 16 16

Moreover, from the analysis of the relationships of the matrix numbers still another interesting fact is established. It appears that, although in our matrix the ions of homologous elements do not possess equal matrix numbers, nevertheless the ions of elements arranged along the diagonals do possess equal matrix numbers. From the foregoing we conclude that in at least three directions [^vertical—(Mendeleyev), horizontal and diagonal] in the periodic system there apparently exists, to a greater or lesser degree, a geo­ chemical relationship between the chemical elements. We must point out at once that the diagonal connects ions between which there exists a geochemical relationship of the first category, so to speak. Further on we shall attempt to point out to what degree our sup­ positions are substantiated in the relationships between ions which succeed one another in both diagonal and horizontal directions in the periodic system.

THE DIAGONAL DIRECTION The diagonal direction, up to this time little known in chemistry, is acquiring more and more significance with the analysis of na­ tural combinations of chemical elements in the magmas as well as with observing phenomena of isomorphism in minerals. Let us M e n d e l e y e v ’s p e r io d ic a l l a w 417 examine several pairs of ions standing along the diagonals, as, for example: Be2+ and Al3+ Al3+ and Ge4+ 3 3 3 3 Li1+ and Mg2+ Na1* and Ca2ł 4 4 5 5 Mg2ł and Sc3ł Ca2* and Y3+ 4 4 5 5

If we now suppose that the numbers of our matrix have some sort of physical meaning, then it follows that univalent lithium (Li) has a closer chemical relationship to the bivalent magnesium (Mg), than to its homologue (analogue) sodium (Na), and biva­ lent beryllium (Be) demonstrates a closer chemical relationship to trivalent aluminum (Al) than to its homologue (analogue) biva­ lent magnesium (Mg). In just the same way it appears that alkaline univalent sodium (Na) has a greater geochemical affinity for the bivalent alkali-earth calcium (Ca) than for its univalent alkali homologue, potassium

If this phenomenon does indeed have a general implication, then it follows that ions with dissimilar valence but with equal matrix numbers have a higher degree of geochemical (and sometimes also chemical) affinity one for the other than equi-valenced ions, i.e., the homologues or the analogues of Mendeleyev. Can this be proved ? We shall be convinced that it is actually so when we examine the facts and, first, the geochemical facts. Unfortunately these facts are not very well known by chemists even today. The works of such authors as V. M. Goldschmidt, Machatschki and Grimm point to their importance, however. The geochemical facts testify to the regularities which the ions of chemical elements follow in their combination in the crystalline lattices of these minerals which comprise the earth’s crust. Analysis of these geochemical data demonstrates that indeed the ions with dissimilar valences but equal matrix numbers very readily replace 418 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY each other in the crystalline lattices whereas this cannot be said of the equi-valenced homologues. Let us observe as an example two pairs of equi-valenced ions — homologues which are frequently found in nature: Na1+ and K1+ Mg2+ and Ca2+ 5 6 4 5 6 : 5 = 1.20 5:4= 1.25 Between the equi-valenced ions, like Na and K and also between Mg and Ca, the phenomenon of full isomorphism in crystals is never observed. Moreover, Goldschmidt and other authorities in the field of geochemistry are inclined in general to negate the possi­ bility of isomorphism between Mg and Ca. However, the ions having equal matrix numbers like Na and Ca show full ideal iso- Na and Ca 5 5 5 : 5 = 1 morphism, so to speak. A classic example of such an isomorphism (diadochism) is the most important group of rock-forming minerals, the plagioclases, where Ca2tAl3+ is usually replaced by Na1+Si4\ Ca + A1 -* Na + Si 5 + 3 5 + 2 The plagioclases (see table below) represent a continuous series of isomorphic mixtures from pure anorthite CaAhSÍ20e to pure albite—NaAl SisOs. Plagioclase Minerals Siû2 АЬОз CaO Na20 D Albite Ab 68.2 19.4 — 11.8 2.61 Oligoclase АЬт5АП25 62.1 23.9 5.2 8.7 2.65 Andesine AbsoAmo 55.7 28.3 10.3 5.7 2.69 Labrador АЬзбАпвб 51.9 31.8 13.3 4.0 2.70 Bytownite АЬібАП85 46.9 34.2 17.2 1.6 2.75 Anorthite An 43.3 36.6 20.1 — 2.77 M e n d e l e y e v ’s p e r io d ic a l l a w 419

In order to note the full importance of the role of the diagonal direction in the periodic system, which comprehensively explains the composition of the plagioclases, we must repeat that the plagio- clases appear to be the most abundant minerals in nature, and, ac­ cording to the data of G. Berg, they comprise more than 40 per cent of the weight of the entire lithosphere. It is not difficult to see that ions with equal numbers are arranged along the diagonal of the periodic system of chemical elements. Such diagonals can be observed in the following eight cases: 1. Be--A1- Ge 2. B- Si 3. Rb -Ba 4. K - Sr-i(No 57-No 71) 5. Na -Ca -Y- (Ce) 6. Li- Mg - Sc--Zr 7. Ti-•Nb -Ta -W 8. Mo -Re

The mutual isomorphic substitution in the crystals of such abso­ lutely different chemical elements as lithium (Li), magnesium (Mg), scandium (Sc) and zirconium (Zr), or rubidium (Rb) and barium (Ba), shown in this table—a fact which is completely in­ admissible from the point of view of classical chemistry—actually does exist and is very widespread in the kingdom of crystals. As we can see, the ions of these elements with different valences indeed have equal matrix numbers and these isomorphs lie along the diagonal in the table. Thus, the geochemical data un­ failingly obey the principle of matrix numbers which we have set forth for the periodic system of ions. We find similar corroboration of our ideas in well-known, established chemical facts. In connection with this I should like to quote from Menshutkin, and Ephraim: “The first three elements of the second period (lithium, beryllium and boron) remind one of the chemical proper­ ties of the second, third and fourth period: lithium has 420 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

much in common with magnesium, beryllium with alumi­ num, and boron with silicon. Long before the appearance of the periodic law of Mendeleyev this similarity served as an obstacle in determining the correct atomic weight of beryllium and boron.”* “However, sometimes even the elements with different valences form combinations which are very similar to each other. This takes place, for example, for the pairs of ele­ ments: Be-Al, Li-Mg, В-Si, i.e. for such elements which are not arranged in the system according to series nor directly underneath each other but obliquely (above and to the right, and below and to the left). This similarity may be very significant; thus between the chemical com­ pound of beryllium and aluminum the likeness is so great that for a long time there was doubt whether beryllium was indeed a bivalent element, and many control experi­ ments took place in order to verify its valency. We find this sort of similarity also in the middle section of the peri­ odic table between vanadin and molybdenum; niobium, tantalum and the rare earths also can form compounds which, despite the different valency of these elements, are very similar to each other.”7 “Thus, for example, as we know, titanium resembles nio- Ьіит!’ѣ As we see from what has been cited, not only the geochemical, but the chemical data indicate that the diagonal direction in the periodic system of elements (ions) lin\s similar chemical elements having the same matrix numbers. The physical significance of our matrix numbers comes forth just as clearly. Further, we shall see that this very diagonal direction characterizes a whole series of other important physico-chemical data in the periodic system.

6 V. N. Menshutkin, Kurs obshchey Khimiyi (Neorganiches\oy), [[Course in General Chem­ istry (inorganic)], Moscow, 1940. p. 234. 7 F. Ephraim, Neorganiches\aya Khimiya (Inorganic Chemistry) Part I, Moscow, 1932. pp. 57-58. Part II, p. 304. [Note: Both Be and A1 (K = 3 ), both V and Mo (K = 13), both Ті and Nb (K =14) have the same matrix number (K )] M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 421

THE HORIZONTAL DIRECTION As we have already pointed out, the ions of the elements in each period are linked with each other according to what we term the rule of constant numbers. This rule has not yet focused attention on itself, but has great significance in chemistry, geochemistry and crystallo-chemistry. The rule of constant numbers has shown us that the elements linked in groups by fours—as is true in general in chemical families, e.g., the iron family—despite the various sizes of the charge and the valence are joined so that their properties change gradually without skipping. In the geochemical aspect this means that on the one hand they are usually found together in nature, and on the other hand, with the separation of such a family, the migration of ions goes in the order of the series, either from the left to the right or from the right to the left depending on the course of the process. It is important to note that the rule of constant numbers prede­ termines a combination of elements in the geochemical system. Here is what such an authority as A. E. Fersman writes on this matter in his monumental work: “The horizontal connection of elements is much deeper than it would seem at first glance; it is observed even be­ tween elements which are often quite different chemi­ cally, such as Na, Mg, Al, Si; already Niggli in 1928 pointed out quite correctly that the place of the peaks of the even “clarkes”* which proceed in pairs (as in the given example Mg and Si) always pull the nearest odd neighbors, Na and Al, upward, so that a certain elevation of the whole section of the horizontal series in the form of a wave is obtained. This idea was developed in an espe­ cially interesting way by I. Zaslavski. Thus, this phenome­ non, as was quite correctly noted, crosses as a red line across all the mineral complexes.”9

*Note: The average percentage of abundance of an element has been called "clar\e” in honor of the American geochemist, F. Clarke, according to Fersman’s proposition. 9 A. E. Fersman, Op. cit., p. 29. 422 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

And indeed, if we turn to an examination of the typical families of chemical elements, we can be sure that they are tied by the same constant numbers. For example, the tetrad of ions of elements (Na-Mg-Al-Si, etc.) are linked by the constant number 6. The elements of the family of rare earths Nos. 57-71 appear as an interesting example, linked by the constant number 141 (see p. 429). We find this same dependency when we begin to examine the families of triplet elements: Family Fe-Co-Ni Family Ru-Rh-Pd and Family Ir-Os-Pt

All three families of triplets appear together not only in the earth magmas—the hyperbasic rocks—but in the composition of the cosmic bodies, in the iron meteorites. It is interesting to point out such examples as the joint appear­ ance of the elements of the iron family (i.e. Ті, V, Cr, Mn). As can be seen, this classical tetrad of ions is also connected by the same constant number, namely: Ions Ті V Cr Mn Valence 4 5 6 7 Matrix number 14 13 12 11 Constant number 18 18 18 18

By this method we find the explanation of the joint appearance of element-neighbors, as for example, titanium and vanadin, which are linked by the same constant numbers. “Vanadin is closely linked with titanium in its first mag- matic manifestations,” writes G. Berg. “The large mag- matic discharges of titanomagnetite astound us by their richness in vanadin.”10

10 G. Berg, Vorkommen der chemischen Elemente auf der Erde, Leipzig, 1932, p. 13. M e n d e l e y e v 's pe r io d ic a l l a w 423

ON THE NEW METHOD OF CALCULATING THE EFFECTIVE IONIC RADII (For the crystalline lattice of the type NaCl)

Two of the most important indices of the properties of the atom (ion) which determine the basic characteristics of its migration and its behavior in the crystalline structure (lattice) in all natural processes are the effective ionic radius and the atomic radius. Contemporary crystallo-chemists have succeeded in arriving at the radii of ions not only as the theoretical values but as one of the most important indices of chemical balances. It is difficult to find in the history of science another instrument of greater practical significance than that which was brought about in chemistry, physics and mineralogy through the establishment of the effective ionic radii. Thorough investigations on this question were carried out for the most part by such scholars as W. L. Bragg, V. M. Goldschmidt, I. A. Wasastjerna, L. Pauling and W. M. Zachariassen. We introduce below the table of ionic and atomic radii accord­ ing to Goldschmidt (see Table V). The initial point for all of Goldschmidt’s calculations were the radii: F1" = 1.33 AE; O2' = 1.32 AE which Wasastjerna computed with the aid of refractometric investi­ gation. In 1927 Pauling theoretically computed the effective ionic radii for almost all the chemical elements, basing his computations on the wave mechanics of Schroedinger. For him the basic facts were the inter-ionic intervals, which were found empirically for NaF, KC1, RbBr, CsJ, and LÍ2O. The paths which Goldschmidt and Pauling had followed were essentially different. Whereas Goldschmidt, beginning with the ionic radii O2' and F1”, obtained each new radius from the empiri­ cally found interval between the ions in the actual crystalline struc­ tures of the given type, Pauling found all the radii as a result of theoretical computation, and in addition, he began with the inter- T he A tomic and I onic R adii ( T he L atter in the C rystalline L a t t ic e s of the T ype of N a C l ) A ccording to V. M. G o l d s c h m id t M e n d e l e y e v 's pe r io d ic a l l a w 425 ionic interval of five chemical compounds of the alkali metals and did not take into consideration any other real studied structures. When we compare the tables of ionic radii of Goldschmidt and Pauling we see that the figures of both these authors generally co­ incide, a fact which Goldschmidt repeatedly noted in his works. But in a whole series of cases we also find significant differences between the figures of Goldschmidt and Pauling. We see these differences in the figures for the negative hydrogen ion: according to Goldschmidt H 1* = 1.27 ; according to Pauling H 1" = 2.08 ; similar differences exist between the figures of these authors for Li1+ ( + 0.18 AE), for Mg2+ ( + 0.13 AE), for Ag1+ (—0.13 AE), for Ge4+ (—0.09 AE), for Sn4' (—0.79 AE), for Si4’ (—0.13 AE), etc. We shall now set forth our approach to the question of the com­ putation of effective ionic radii. In our reasoning, we have proceeded from the premise that the effective ionic radii are an exact and clear example of the quantized physical values. Likewise we have supposed that the total quan­ tum number (n) has a greater universal significance than it has been accorded up to this time and that it characterizes the quanta of ionic radii, and should therefore play a definite role in the cal­ culation of the effective ionic radii. Let us divide the periodic sys­ tem of ions (with our matrix numbers for each ion) into definite periods (see Table VI), i.e., into the periods K, L, M, N, O, P and designate these periods by their corresponding total quantum num­ bers (n), i.e.: K L M N O P 1 2 3 4 5 6

It becomes clear that the quanta increase if we proceed from the bottom of our table upwards. As is evident from the table, we thus obtain (counting for convenience from the right) three vertical four-membered columns of ions: A group of ions with valences 4+, 5+, 6+, T A group of ions with valences Γ, 2\ 3+, 4+ A group of ions with valences Γ, 2', 3", 4‘ M atrix of the C oefficients for the C alculation of the E ffective I onic R a d ii by M eans of O ur Q uantization M e t h o d

NOTE: Factor multiplying the original quanta (P = 0.0145 AE and P1 =: 0.011 AE) increases upwards in accordance with the magnitude of principal quantum numbers (n). M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 427

For example, from the table we see that the four-membered group of ions relating to the helium period: C4ł N5ł Oe* F7* 12 11 10 9 is characterized by fully determined matrix numbers (12, 11, 10, 9) on the one hand, and by the total quantum number (n— 1) on the other hand. We explain the physical meanings of these numbers thus: the ion F7+ is characterized by the main quantum number 1 and a matrix number 9. In other words, the ion F7+ has 9 portions, the ion Oe+ has 10 portions, the ion N5+ has 11 portions and the ion C4+ has 12 portions of effective ionic radii. If we now accept the fact that the value of one portion (P) for the effective ionic radii of those ions which belong to the series of inert gases is 0.01462369, or in round numbers 0.0146 AE ( P = 0.0146 AE), and for the ions belonging to the series of triplet ele­ ments is 0.0109677 AE, or in round numbers 0.011 AE (Рг= 0.011 AE), then, taking as the basis of our calculations our matrix of coefficients we can calculate the effective ionic radii. For this we can make use of the simple formula: R = P X n x K or R = P1 x η X K where R is the ionic radius; P is the portion value = 0.0146 AE; or P1 is the portion value = 0.011 AE; n is the main quantum number; K is the matrix number. Thus, for example, the calculation of the ionic radius C4+ gives: R (C4ł) = 0.0146 x 1 x 12 = 0.17

As we know, R (C4+) according to Goldschmidt was <0.20 AE and according to Pauling 0.15 AE. By this means we can calculate the ionic radii for all high-valenced ions which are arranged in the right four-membered column. If we now go over to the middle vertical four-membered column where the ions with the valences of Г, 2*, 3+, 4* are found then we must carry out the calculation of the ionic radii according to a somewhat changed formula. 428 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

For example, the calculation of the ionic radius for Al3+ would be:

R (ΑΓ) = 13P X K or R (A P ) = 13P x 3 = 39P 39P = 0.0146 x 39 = 0.57 AE R (AT) = 0.57 AE

As we know, R (Als+) according to Goldschmidt = 0.57 AE and according to Pauling 0.50 AE. In this way we can calculate R for the ions with a negative valence 1", 2", 3', 4") which are to the left in the four-membered column, for example:

R (F1-) = 13P x K — 13P x 7 = 91P R (F1’) = 91P 91P = 0.0146 x 91 = 1.33 AE R (F1-) = 1.33 AE

As we know, R (F1") according to Wasastjerna (as well as ac­ cording to Goldschmidt) — 1.33AE, and according to Pauling = 1.36AE. In Table II (see p. 405-6) we introduce the ionic radii calculated according to our method. The numbers of the portions of effective ionic radii in Table II (compare page 405-6) for each ion are placed below the ionic radii. For trivalent lanthanum (La-57) the matrix number is equal to 6. This means that its portion number (the portion number signi­ fies the number of the portions — of ionic radii) will be equal to 84 (6 x 14). In turn, for the trivalent cerium (Ce-58) the portion number will not be 84 but 83 (i.e. 5-13/14 x 14). (This calculation will be clear from examination of our matrix.) For lutecium (Lu-71) the portion number will be only 70 (i.e. 5 x 14). From an examination of the change in the value of the portion numbers of the ions of the rare earth elements we can establish a very simple principle: The portion number directly decreases by one with the direct increase of the atomic number of the rare earth elements by one (see table below). As a consequence, the constant number for the ions of the rare M e n d e l e y e v 's pe r io d ic a l l a w 429 earth elements (which consists of the sum of the atomic number and the portion number) will be equal to 141 (see Table VII).

T a b l e v ii

Ions La Ce Pr Nd II Sm Eu Gd Atomic number 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 Portion number 84 83 82 81 80 79 78 77 Constant number 141 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

Ions Tb Dy Ho Er Tm Yb Lu Atomic number 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 Portion number 76 75 74 73 72 71 70 Constant number 141 141 141 141 141 141 141

Thus the ions of the rare earth elements represent an exceptionally interesting group, characterized clearly by the reverse expression of the proportional relationship between the atomic number and the portion number (or, the number of portions of the effective ionic radii). We have an analogous phenomenon only in the following quad­ ruple group of ions: C4+N°O G+F7+ (as well as in the group of actinides).

Ions C N O F Atomie number 6 7 8 9 Portion number 12 11 10 9 Constant number 18 18 18 18

Here also, according to the increase in atomic number by one, there is observed a decrease in the portion number also by one. 430 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

In view of what has been said, the specific position of the rare- earth elements also finds its explanation in the periodic system. Quite apart from this, we see that the rare-earth elements occupy a completely proper place in the periodic system, governed strictly by the numerical principle which results from our matrix. As a basis for judging the grade of accuracy of our suggested method for the calculation of effective ionic radii we have intro­ duced the tables of ionic radii at the end of this work. The values for ionic radii according to V. M. Goldschmidt, L. Pauling and N. Efremov and the constant numbers for the periods K, L, M, N, O, P, are brought together there. [A recent and very interesting idea concerning ionic radii, given by L. H. Ahrens (Geoch. et Cosm. Acta 1952, v. 2, 3), has come to my attention since submitting this paper for publication (in January 1952)3- In conclusion we would like to point out that although we can­ not but agree with the school of Goldschmidt that the formation of crystalline lattices is regulated primarily by the laws of volume, i.e., the value of the radii of the atoms and ions, nevertheless at the present we must become more and more convinced of the tremen­ dous role of stereometry itself, the symmetry of crystals and their coordinate numbers. It would be a great mistake to interpret too broadly the scheme of Goldschmidt and to think that the law of the radii of the ions in and of itself determines the distribution of elements in crystalline lattices. There is no doubt whatsoever that by this method we could not have explained, for example, the absence of the rare earths in the plagioclases (where Ca could easily have been replaced in the peg­ matites by the energetically more powerful rare earths of similar radii); this, and other phenomena would not have been under­ standable if we had not taken into consideration what Niggli ad­ vanced in his remarkable series, Stereochemie der Kristallverbin­ dungen: the substitution of ions follows not only the law of the similarity of volume but also the peculiarities of structure, i.e., the capacities of the ion to take a place in the lattice of a given type. We may crudely compare this phenomenon to the influence of the M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 431 form of a brick in the construction of a building; it is not enough merely to have bricks of the same volume; it is also necessary that their form should correspond to the structure, since, for example, a round brick, or a tetrahedral, could hardly be packed well and firmly together with a normally rectangular brick, although their volumes might be completely identical. Thus, the solution of the problem of the entrance of ions into lattices becomes more complex than V. M. Goldschmidt imagined. And this is already evident from the fact that the effective ionic radii represent definite functions of those matrix numbers which characterize particular ions. It is necessary also to mention the analogy which exists between the formulas suggested by us for the calculation of the effective ionic radii on the one hand, and the generalizing formula which Balmer found for the calculation of the frequency of all the lines of the spectrum of atomic hydrogen. All the known series of spectral lines of atomic hydrogen may be represented in this general formula of Balmer:

where v is the frequency of oscillation and R is the constant of Ryd- berg; m has in each given series a constant value (m = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) and я is a series of whole numbers beginning with the number which is one more than m. As we know, along with the series of Balmer, a number of other series in the spectrum of atomic hydrogen were discovered which are represented by completely analogous formulas. Such is the series of Laiman:

Balmer’s own series: 432 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

Pashen’s series:

Brackett’s series:

Pfund’s series:

From an examination of the series introduced it is evident that for the calculation of the frequency of the serial lines of any kind of linear spectra whatsoever, we make use of the constant of Ryd- berg and the numerical designations m and n, which represent the members of the successive series of whole numbers. For the calcu­ lation of the effective ionic radii we also use certain constant quan­ tities: P = 0.01462369 AE and P1 = 0.0109677 AE (which we call the quantum of effective ionic radii) ; our matrix numbers ; and the principal quantum numbers. As we have already demonstrated, our matrix numbers (as well as the principal quantum numbers) represent also successive series of whole numbers, i.e.: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, etc. Our quantum of effec­ tive ionic radii (P1 = 0.0109677 AE) may be obtained by the mul­ tiplication of the Rydberg constant for atomic hydrogen (R = 109677) expressed in reciprocal angstrom units (i.e. 0.00109677 AE) by the factor 10, i.e.: P1 = 0.00109677 AE x 10 = 0.0109677 AE Aside from what has been demonstrated sofar still another even deeper analogy exists. However, we are devoting a special work to that problem.

A cknowledgments I wish to express my gratitude to the Research Program on the USSR which helped make this study possible. M e n d e l e y e v 's p e r io d ic a l l a w 433

B ibliography A. V. Andropoff, “Eine neue Form des periodischen System ” Zeitschrift für angewandte Chemie. 1926 XLIX, (p. 722) G. Berg, Vor\ommen der chemischen Elemente auf der Erde, Leipzig, 1932. W. G. and W. L. Bragg, Roentgen rays and the Structure of Crystals, 1930. G. H. Cartledge, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1928. pp. 2855, 2863. F. Efraim, N eorganiches\aya \himiya (Inorganic Chemistry), Part I. Mos­ cow, 1932. pp. 57-58. (In Russian) N. Efremov, “Classification of some Magnesial Silicates and their Alumo- Analogues”. Comptes Rendus (“Doklady”) of Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1939, Vol. XXIV, No. 3. “On the systematic of Minerals of the Serpentine Group”, Ibid. Vol. XXII, Nc. 7, Moscow, 1939. “Neuigkeiten aus der Mineralogie der Ukraine und Russlands”, Fort­ schritte der Mineralogie, Stuttgart, 1950/51. 29/30 Heft. 1. “Interdependence between the Values of Ionic Radii and the Valence of Ions”, Te\hnichni Visti, Munich, 1947, Part II. (In Ukrainian) Die Entwicklung der chemischen Elemente, Part I., Munich, 1946; Part II., Munich, 1947. Part I., second edition ( Versuch einer Radiogeo­ chemie), Koningstein im Taunus, 1948. “Establishment of a General Formula for Calculation of Ion Radii”, Nau\ovy Byuleteń UTHI, Augsburg, 1951, No. XX-XXII. (In Ukrai­ nian) “ A New Form of Periodic System of Chemical Elements as Reflexion of the Evolution of Inorganic Matter”. Nau\ovy Byuleteń UTHI, Neu- Ulm, 1950, No. IX-XII. (In Ukrainian) “Geochemische Gesetzmässigkeiten der magmatischen Materie und ihr Zusammenhang mit den Gesetzmässigkeiten des periodischen System”, Fortschritte der Mineralogie, Stuttgart, 1950/51, Bd. 29/30. “Periodic System of Ions”, Byuleteń of the Society of Ukrainian Engineers in America, New York, 1952, No. 2. (In Ukrainian) A. E. Fersman, Geo\himiya (Geochemistry), Vol. Ill, Moscow, 1928 (In Russian) V. M. Goldschmidt, “Geochemische Verteilungsgesetze der Elemente,” Kris­ tiánu, 1923, 1924, 1925. V. M. Goldschmidt, op. cit., also: “Krystallchemie”, Fortschritte der Mineral­ ogie. 1931, XV, 2. 434 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

V. M. Goldschmidt and Peters, Geohjiimiya berilliya (Geochemistry of Beryl­ lium), “Gos.Chim.Tekh.Izdat.”, Moscow, 1932. (In Russian) J. W. Gruner, “An attempt to arrange silicates in the order of reaction ener­ gies”, American Miner alio gist, 1950, No. 3-4. 0 . Hassel, Krystallchemie, 1934. D. 1. Mendeleyev, Izbrannye trudy, Periodichesfyy zakon ( “Selected Works”, Periodic Law), Academy of Sciences of USSR, Moscow, 1934. (In Russian) B. N. Menshutkin, Periodiches\iy za\on (Periodic Law), Moscow, 1928 (In Russian) V. N. Menshutkin, Kurs obshchey kjiimii (neorganiches\oy) (General Inor­ ganic Chemistry.) Moscow, 1940. p. 26. (In Russian) F. Paneth, “Heutiger Stand unserer Kenntnisse über das natürliche System der Elemente.” Naturwissenschaften, 1930. pp. 964-976. L. Pauling, Journal of the American Chemical Society, 1927. pp. 49, 165. E. Rabinovich and E. Thilo, Periodiches\aya Sistema (Periodic System), Moscow, 1930. (In Russian) 1. Wasastjerna, “Mechanical Significance of the app. Radii of Atoms and Ions”. Comment. Physico-Mathem. Helsingfors, 1932. VIII, 20. “Forces between Atoms and Ions”, Ibid. VI, 22., 1933. “Forces Acting between Atoms and Ions and Elastic Properties of Cry­ stals”, Ibid., VIII, 20., 1935. W. M. Zachariassen, Zeitschrift für Kr y stallo graphie, 1930, pp. 80, 137. A. N. Zavaritski, Vvedeniye v petro\himiyu izvierzhennych porod (Introduc­ tion into Petrochemistry of Igneous Rocks), Moscow-Leningrad, 1950. APPENDIX TABLES FOR CALCULATION OF THE EFFECTIVE IONIC RADII ACCORDING TO OUR QUANTIZATION METHOD. FOR COMPARISON OF OUR MAGNITUDES OF THE IONIC RADII PAULING’S AND GOLDSCHMIDT’S DATA ARE GIVEN.

He - Period

t Ъ c d e * g h і F 9 0,07 0,13 0,0146* 1 x 9 7 16 0 Ö 0,09 0,146 0,0146x1 x 10 6 16 N 7 0,1 0,11 0,16 0,0146x 1 x 11 5 16 C 6 0,20 0,15 0,17 0,0146x1 x 12 4 16 C 6 0,20 0,15 0,17 0,0146x12 x 1 4 5 В 5 0,20 Of35 0,0146x12 x 2 3 5 Be 4 0,34 0,31 0,52 0,0146 ХІ2 x 3 2 5 Li 3 0#78 0,60 0,70 0,0146x12 x 4 1 5

He 2 0

H 1 1,27 2,06 1,05 0,0146 xl2 x 6 -1 5

a—IONS, b—ATOMIC NUMBERS, c—IONIC RADII IN AE AC­ CORDING TO V. M. GOLDSCHMIDT, d—IONIC RADII AC­ CORDING TO LINUS PAULING, e—IONIC RADII ACCORDING TO EFREMOV (i.e.R = f x g), f—(P x n)L or (P1 x n) and (P x K)2 or (P1 x K) in AE, g-NUMBER OF PORTIONS, h-VALENCE, i—CONSTANT NUMBERS (i = g + h).

1 P = 0.0145 (exactly 0.1462369 AE), P1 = 0.011 (exactly 0.0109677 AE), n = 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. 2. P = 0.0145 AE or P1 = 0.011 and K = 12, 13, 14, 15, 16. lit - Period a Ъ e d e t % h 1 Cl 17 0,30 0,26 0,29 0,0146 x 2 x 10 7 17 S 16 0,34 0,29 0,32 0,0146 x 2 x 11 6 17 P 15 0,37 0,34 0,35 0,0146 x 2 x 12 5 17 Si 14 0,39 0,41 0,30 0,0146 x 2 x 13 4 17 Si H 0,39 0,41 0,30 0,0146 x 13 x 2 4 6 Al 13 0,57 0,50 0,57 0,0146 x 13 x 3 3 6 Me 12 0,70 0,65 0,76 0,0146 x 13 x 4 2 6 Na 11 0.96 0.95 0.95 0.0146 x 13 x 5 1 6

Ne 10 0

P 9 1,33 1.36 1,33 0,0146 x 13 x 7 •1 6 0 6 1,32 1,40 1,51 0 ,0146 x 13 x 8 •2 6 H 7 1,30 1,71 1,70 0,0146 x 13 x 9 -3 6 G 6 2,60 1,89 0,0146 x 13 x 10 -4 6

Ar - Period a Ъ e d e t β h і Mn 25 0,45 0,46 0,40 0,0146 x 3 x 11 7 18 Cr 24 0,50 0,52 0,54 0,0146 x 3 x 12 6 18 V 23 0,56 0,59 0,56 0,0146 x 3 x 13 5 18 Ті 22 0,64 0,60 0,61 0,0146 x 3 x 14 4 18 Ті 22 0,64 0,60 0,61 0,0146 x 14 x 3 4 7 So 21 0,03 0,01 0,01 0,0146 x 14 x 4 3 7 Ca 20 1,06 0,99 1,02 0,0146 x 14 x 5 2 7 K 19 1,33 1.33 3-.22 0,0146 x 14 x 6 1 7

Ar 1? 0

Cl 17 1,01 1,01 1,62 0,0146 x 14 x 8 -1 7 S 16 1,74 1,04 1,03 0,0146 x 14 x 9 •2 7 P 15 1,76 2,12 2.03 0,0146 x 14 x 10 -3 7 Si 14 1,90 2,11 2,23 0,0146 x 14 x 11 -4 7 (F· - Ni) - Row a Ъ C d e f g h і Br 35 0,32 0,39 о,зб 0,011 x 3 x 11 7 le Se 34 0,36 0,42 0,40 0,011 x 3 x 12 6 18 Aa 33 0,40 0,47 0,43 0,011 x 3 X 13 5 1* Ge 32 0,44 0,53 0,46 0,011 x 3 X 14 4 18 Oe 32 0,44 0,53 0,46 0,011 x 14 X 3 4 7 Ga 31 0,62 0,62 0,62 0,011 x 14 X 4 3 7 Zn зо 0,03 0,74 0,77 0,011 x 14 X 5 2 7 Cu 29 0,96 0,93 0,011 x 14 X u 1 7 Ni 2d 0 Co 27 0 Fe 26 0 Mn 25 Cr 24 V 23 Ti 22

Kr - Period a b 0 d e f g h 1 Te 43 0,70 0,0146 x 4 x 12 7 19 Mo 42 0,75 0,0146 x 4 x 13 6 19 Nb 41 0,69 0,81 0,0146 x 4 x 14 5 19 Zr 40 0,07 0,87 0,0146 x 4 x 15 4 19 Zr 40 0,87 0,80 0,87 0,0146 x 15 x 4 4 8 T 39 1,06 0,93 1,08 0,0146 x 15 x 5 3 β Sr 30 1,27 1.13 1,30 0,0146 x 15 x 6 2 8 Rb 37 1,48 1,48 lf 52 0,0146 x 15 x 7 1 8

Kr 36 0

Br 35 1,96 1,95 1,96 0,0146 x 15 x 9 -1 8 Se 34 1.91 1,98 2,17 0,0146 x 15 x 10 -2 8 Aa 33 1,84 2,22 2,39 0,0146 x 15 x 11 -3 8 0# 32 2,76 2,61 0,0146 x 15 x 12 4 e (Ru - Pd) · Row a b c d e f e h i J 53 0,48 0,50 0,53 0,011 x 4 x 12 7 19 Te 52. 0,58 0,56 0,57 0,011 x 4 x 13 6 19 Sb 51 0,63 0,62 0,62 0,011 x 4 x 14 5 19 Sn 50 0,84 0,71 0,66 0,011 x 4 x 15 4 19 Sn 50 0,84 0,71 0,66 0,011 x 15 x 4 4 8 In 49 0,92 0,81 0,83 0,011 x 15 x 5 3 8 Cd 40 0,03 0,97 0,99 0,011 x 15 x 6 2 8 Ag 47 1,26 1,16 0,011 x 15 x 7 1 8 Pd 46 Rh 45 Ru 44

X - Period

a b 0 d e h 1 _ r · e i Re 75 N 74 Ta 73 Hf 72 Ce 58 1,02 1,01 1,02 0,0146 x 14x 5 4 9 La 57 1,22 1,15 1,22 0,0146 x 14x 6 3 9 Ba 56 1,43 -1,35 1,43 0,0146 x 14x 7 2 9 Ce 55 1,64 1,69 1,63 0,0146 x 14x 8 1 9

X 54

J 53 2,20 2,16 2,04 0,0146 x 14x10 -1 9 Te 52 2,11 2,21 2,24 . 0,0146 x 14x11 .2 9 Sb Я 2,04 2,45 2,44 0,0146 x 14x12 -3 9 8b 50 2,15 2,94 2,64 0,0146 x 14x13 -4 9 (Os - Pt) - Hov

â Ъ e d e f e h і At 85 0,71 Po 84 0,77 0,011 x 5 x 14 6 20 Bl 83 0,73 0,74 0,82 0,011 x 5 x 15 5 20 Pb 82 0t84 0,84 0,88 0,011 x 5 x 16 4 20 Pb 82 0,84 0,84 0,88 0,011 x 16 x 5 4 9 Tl 81 1,05 0,95 І , öS 0,ÔÏ1 x lô x t> T 9 fig 80 1,12 1,10 ö ,ö li x 16 x 7 2 9 Au 79 1,57 1,41 0,011 x 16 x 8 I —-9 — —- ' TH;· Ѵй Ir 77 Os 76

Ht - Pe:rîod

a ъ 0 d e t g h 1 u 92 0,86 0,98 0,0146 x 6 x 15 6 21 Pa 91 1,00 1,04 0,0146 x 6 x 16 5 21 Th 90 1,10 1,13 0,0146 x 6 x 17 4 21 Th 90 1,10 i t13 0,0146 x 13 x 6 4- 10 Ao 89 1.32 0,0146 x 13 x 7 3 10 Ra 88 1,48 1,50 0,0146 x 13 x 8 2 10 Fr 87 1,70 0,0146 x 13 x 9 1 10

Nt 86

At 85 2,07 0,0146 x 13 x 11 -1 10 Po 84 2,26 0,0146 x 13 x 12 •2 10 BI 83 2,45 0,0146 x 13 x 13 -3 10 Pb 82 2,15 2,64 0,0146 x 13 x 14 -4 10

REVIEW ARTICLES AN IMPORTANT WORK IN UKRAINIAN ONOMASTICS YURY ŠERECH

Q. В. Rudnyćkyj, The Term and Name “Ukraine,” Ukrainian Free Academy of Sciences, Onomastica, No. 1. Winnipeg, 1951. 131 + 1 PP·]

For nearly two years a discussion has been carried on in the Ukrainian American press concerning the original meaning and semantic development of the word UЦгарпа. Newspapers, however, are not the best means for scientific discussion and it is not surprising that in the majority of articles on the subject there has been much patriotic good will but very little erudition. The new work by Rudnyćkyj carries the discussion onto a scientific plane and is published as one volume of a scientific series. Yet the problem is hardly solved definitively by Rudnyćkyj. While everything is clear to journalists, it is not always so to scholars; scientific research as a rule only approaches the solu­ tion of a problem. But now with Rudnyćkyj s work, scientific discussion of the subject becomes feasible: some of Rudnyćkyj’s deductions are quite convincing, and the entire problem has been greatly clarified. Rudnyćkyj presents a detailed analysis of the word and name Ukraine: a grammatically formal one (root, prefix, suffix, accent) and a semantic one— explaining the historical development of both on the basis of extensive factual material and with parallels drawn from other Slavic languages. Obviously, the bulk of the material has not been taken from original sources but from second­ ary ones (Šelukhin, Tymčenko, Sreznevskij, Synjavskyj); the quotations from Šelukhin probably require verification; and perusal of the original texts would undoubtedly augment the material.1 However, access to original texts is almost impossible in Canada, and we are grateful to Rudnyćkyj for having at least given us the fullest compilation of known facts to date, and for having in some instances supplemented them with new material. Rudnyćkyj’s thesis is that the original attested meaning of the word U\rajina was (1) “borderland” (mezivna zemlja); whence, through the meaning of (2) “little land,” evolved the meaning of (3) “country” in general and (4) “the country of the Ukrainian people” (\rajina U\rajinś\oho narodu) in particular. I feel that Rudnyćkyj fully succeeds in proving the first meaning, “border­ land,” as his point of departure. The third, “country,” in general raises no

1 Compare this, for example, with the supplement of Metropolitan Ilarion in “Naša Kultura,” 1952, pp. 5-8, based on “Slova Hryhorhija Bohoslova” of the 11th century.

435 436 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

doubts.2 But proof for the second, “little land,” seems very insubstantial in the semantic evolution of the word and name. Moreover, even in the examples Rudnyckyj gives, one sees that the word may not have had the meaning of “little land” at all. The quotation, “Načala otrimati luzi і оиЦгаіпу zemV ou Petrovich dete 'f (... and they began to take away the meadows and the pieces of land from Peter’s children) (p. 54), induced Sreznevskij to translate the word ou\raina as ‘a small piece of land,’ ‘a parcel.' But one would have as much right to assume, since land was surely parcelled out not from the center of a territory but from its borders, that even here the word might have meant “borderland,” as Rudnyckyj demonstrates so convincingly, not only for that epoch but the future as well. The word Ukrajina has been interpreted arbitrarily as ‘a little lanď in the analysis of examples found in the Gospel of Peresopnycja (p. 56). Correspond­ ing with the Greek χώρα and with the Latin regio, the word here denotes ‘a locality,’ ‘a country,’ yet with no connotation of size. The meaning of ‘a country’ or ‘a locality’ is a natural development from the original meaning of the word—-‘that which is situated near the border’ —> ‘that which has a bor­ der.’ But the nuance of smallness is evident neither in the former nor the latter meanings of the word. Rudnyckyj feels that this intervening mean­ ing is essential to explain expressions like “Podolian Ukraine” (p. 57), “Kievan Ukraine,” “Bratslav Ukraine” (p. 58), etc. Actually these fit very well into the sense of ‘borderland* because these regions were at that time the frontiers touching the Tartar Steppes, and at times they appear in the more recent meaning of ‘country,’ ‘locality.’ The name Ukrajina, denoting the territory and state of the Ukrainian people, theoretically may be derived from the meaning ‘country,’ ‘locality.’ This would be the logical development of meaning from the general to the specific. As in the expressions, “I am going to town,” not naming the town, or “I am going to the factory,” not naming the factory, one means “one's own” city or factory, so ‘country’ may easily become specific when it is used in concrete cases. Thus it may acquire the meaning of “our country” and eventu­ ally become a proper name. When we consider this phenomenon in its con­ crete historical perspective, however, we are inclined to believe that the proper name Ukrajina has developed directly from the original meaning of “border­ land,” and not from the secondary meaning of “country,” “locality.” While this latter meaning remained as a peripheral doublet of the word \rajina, it neither eliminated the latter word nor was accepted into the literary language, with the exception of poetic song genres. We must seek the cause for the transition of meaning from ‘borderland’

2 It is worth noting that Potebnja had called attention to these meanings. He wrote that as far back as the 13th century the word Ukrajina meant any “borderland of anything at all,” based on the Chronicles which mention Perejaslav, Haly 6 and Berest ja Uhraji nas. Further­ more, in his opinion, the meaning of ‘country* developed, and even that of the ‘whole world*: “Veš svit—Ukrajina” (Zametli o malomsskpm narečii. Voronež, 1870, p. 2). A NEW WORK IN UKRAINIAN ONOMASTICS 437 into the proper name Ukrajina in the development of the Cossacks. It was specifically the land of the Cossacks (originally the borderland, both from the point of view of the Ukrainian people and in relation to the Polish state8) which became the very center of the national development of the whole coun­ try. The Cossack became the ideal of both the Ukrainian peasant and the townsman. The sovereign state of Bohdan Khmelnytsky and of his successors was in name and in essence the Cossack state. Hence the name of Ukraine as the land of the Cossacks—State of the Cossacks extended throughout the entire territory of the Hetmancy up to Starodub. Within these geographical boundaries this appellation is encountered until the middle of the 19th cen­ tury. With the expansion of the Cossack state spread the notion of Ukraine. Although Rudnyckyj fails to evaluate this concept of the meaning of the word Ukraine as the “Cossack land,” all his examples dating from the 17th and 18th centuries prove the existence and preponderance of this meaning. When Boh­ dan Khmelnytsky in 1649* speaks of Ukrajina, Voly nia and Podolya as equal in meaning, then Ukraine is here equal to the Kiev Province ( vojevidstvo) and perhaps also to the Bratslav (p. 86). The quotation from K. Sakovyč contradicts Rudnyckyj *s interpretation and proves that to Sakovyč Ukraine meant ‘the Cossack land.’ Here is the quotation: “Ukrajina tym vojs\om vcale zostavajet, A hde zaporozcov nit, tataryn vpa-■ da jet. ... Svid\amy toho sut (ox) mista podols\iji I \raji podhors\iji, až ty& і beizet je, Hde mnoho pohany n \rve \hrystyjans\oji rozljal, A zyvo pozostałych —ty\h v nevolju zabral..." (Ukraine remains safe because of these military forces [the Cossack Army]], and wherever there are no Zaporozhians, the Tartars invade. . . . The Podolian cities witness this fact and the lands near the mountains, as well as the Belz lands, where much Christian blood was shed by the pagan, while those remaining alive were taken into slavery) <ρ·89>· In Sakovyc’s opinion, Ukraine remains safe—thanks to the Cossacks; it is their land, whereas Podolya, Galicia (Pidhirja) and Belz, where there are np Cossacks (that, in other words, are not Ukraine) suffer from the Tartars. The quotation from Obukhovyč (“Khmelnytsky extended his high-handed bands all over Ukraine to such a degree that all nobility fled from the Provinces of Volynia, Kiev, Bratslav and Podolya” ) (p. 89) likewise does not include Volynia or Podolya within Ukraine but merely attests to the flight of the nobility therefrom because of fear of Khmelnytsky’s widespread action in Ukraine. According to the tenor of this quotation, Kiev and Bratslav, as cities, but not as districts, could have been included in Ukraine. None of the many

* Any discussion concerning the question whether Ukrainians alone used the term Ohyapna denoting ‘borderland,* or if Poles did the same, is nonsensical. Words, not being purely objec­ tive but objectively subjective, change their sphere of established concept depending on by whom and where they are used. This, however, does not compromise these words from any point of view. 4 A misprint in the text: 1640. 438 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

citations quoted from historical sources by Rudnyckyj on pp. 90-91 goes be­ yond the bounds of this very meaning of Ukraine as ‘the Cossack land.’ The same concept is predominant in Ukrainian folklore. I will add some proverbs to Rudnyckyj *s material which was taken from popular songs: “Za KhmelnyŁhpho Juras ja pusta Ukrajina zvelasja, a za Pavla Teteren\a— ne popravyťsja j tepererí\a”; “Pišov na V\rajinu, na stepy na vol*ni zemli” ( “Under George Khmelnytsky Ukraine became a waste, while under Paul Teterenko—nothing will improve.” “He set out for Ukraine, for the steppes, for the free land” )5. But we must proceed even further and see that this meaning prevailed until the 70’s of the 19th century. At that time, Volynia, Galicia, Bukovyna and the Carpathian Ukraine were not Ukraine. M. Lev- čenko narrowed down this concept too far when he wrote: “Ukrainians are the inhabitants of the Province of Kiev, which is called Ukraine,” 6 but he thereby attested that at the time of “Osnova,” the name Ukraine had only a local meaning, with its center the Kiev region. K. Mykhalčuk, a prominent authority on Ukrainian dialectology, and to some extent an authority on ethnography, who was an active member of the Ukrainian cultural-liberation movement, has this to say in the 1870’s: “Since the end of the 14th century to the present, the region inhabited by the Polans became known as Ukraine, and its inhabitants as Ukrainians. Now this term has spread to the East, West and South, along both sides of the River Dnieper, namely all over the terri­ tory of the former Cossack land as well as throughout the neighboring regions formerly occupied by the nomads.” The same authority gives a second mean­ ing of the word Ukrajina: “The word Ukraine has also a general connotation in the vernacular, in the sense of the characteristics of the country, consisting of broad, level fields, dotted with groves.” 7 In light of this, a far more convincing interpretation can be made of two other facts pointed out by Rudnyckyj. The first is that Ševčenko, although using the name Ukrajina, calls her inhabitants Cossac\s, not knowing the word Ukrajinec (Ukrainian) (pp. 100-101). The reason was not that Šev­ čenko, so to speak, intentionally avoided the use of the word Ukrajinec be­ cause “it did not contain any national-sovereign tradition.” Ševčenko simply followed the historical tradition: first there was the idea and term Cossac\; later appeared the word Ukraine to signify the country of the Cossacks. Natu­

6 M. Nomys: Ukraiński pry kaz ky, piłyslivja і take inse. SPB 1864. pp. 264, 275 (Numbers 13440, 14011). It is interesting to point out that in folklore we find the etymology of the name Ukrajina taken directly from the verb ukrajaty (to cut off) : “U nas Ukrajina: treba sobi samomu khliba ukrajaty” (We have Ukraine: one must cut (ukrajaty) some bread by himself” [243, No. 12279]). θ M. Levčenko: Města ziteVstva i mestnyje nazvanija rusinov. Osnova, 1861, I, p. 264. 7 K. Mykhalčuk: Narecija, podnarccija i govory juznoj Rossii v svjazi s narecijami Galiêiny. Trudy etn ografičeski - statistic e$koj ekspedicii v zapadno-russkij kraj, Vol. 7, under the editorship of P. Čubinskij, SPB. 1872, p. 460. A NEW WORK IN UKRAINIAN ONOMASTICS 439 rally, there was no need for yet another term to denote the inhabitants of that country. Another fact is connected with the pseudonym of Lesya Ukrayinka. The choice of this pseudonym is not explained by pan-national patriotism (pp. 105-106). When Lesya Ukrayinka sent her earliest, rather puerile, poems to Galicia for publication, L. Kosač wished to stress that she hailed from another portion of the national territory, not from Red Ruś but from the Cossack land. It was a nom de plume of the type which frequently occurs in the current press, as Poltaveč or Podolja\, except that in addition to a regional significance it contained also an historic and traditional implication. In the later years of Lesya Ukrayinka’s creativeness, the word Ukraine had assumed a pan-national meaning, but by then it was pointless to change the pseudonym. The adoption of the name Ukrajina for r.he entire national territory, and for the entire population, begins to be felt distinctly from the 1870’s, though the westernmost corners of the Ukrainian land were affected only recently, in our own generation. This occurs in conjunction with the fact that the new national rebirth is being carried out largely under the banner of a romantically per­ ceived Cossack tradition. This nuance in :he name Ukrajina was still strong at the end of the 19th century. In proportion as the name “Ukraine” continues to expand, the term “Little Russia” acquires a negative coloration, although the latter term originated in Ukraine and was not at all originally “artificially propagated by foreign occupants.” The term was still in use in the 19th century by such prominent figures as Potebnja and Mykhalčuk, and even in the 20th by A. Krymśkyj who reserved the name Ukraine for only the southeastern portion of the country. To apply present facts and interpretation to the past is neither his­ torical nor objective. Thus the development of the meaning of the word and name Ukrajina is simple enough; but it is firmly bound with the circumstances of Ukrainian history and conditioned thereby. It may be outlined thus:

1. 11th century ‘Borderland’ і 1 1 2. 16th-17th century A. ‘Country, locality’ B. ‘Cossack land’

3. 19th century The name of the Ukrainian nation­ al territory and state.

Rudnyćkyj merits praise for contributing to our knowledge of the meaning of (1) and for pointing out its development in the direction of (2) (A ). I do not agree with Rudny ćkyj’s explanation of the word o\rajina, how­ 440 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY ever. He believes that this word came into existence in the 16th century at the time when the word u\rajina began to lose the meaning of ‘borderland’: it arose from the necessity of expressing this latter meaning (pp. 70-72). This is wholly impossible. First, as we have seen, the meaning of ‘borderland’ was preserved longer. Second, in the Ukrainian phonetic system, the initial unac­ cented ο-, whenever not associated with the prefix ob-, was generally not dis­ tinguished from u-\ o\rip-u\rip (boiling water), obrus-uhrus (table cloth), oc\ur-uc\ur (cord) are given in both forms as late as Hrincenko’s dictionary. The word o\rajina never did and never could spring up as an independent word in the Ukrainian language, except as it could exist as a facultative pho­ netic variant of u\ra)ina. This is a Russian word—normally never used in the Ukrainian language, but spread artificially lately in the language of Ukrainian emigrants (attestations of the Russifying dictionary under the editorship of M. Kalynovyč cannot be taken seriously after all). The Ukrainian equivalent for this word is o\olycja. I take issue with Rudnyckyj also in the matter of syntax. Following in the steps of I. Ohienko, Rudnyckyj asserts that the proper construction should be v U\rajint (in Ukraine) instead of na U\rajini (on Ukraine) since, as it were, the new conception of the word ‘country, state, nation’ demands this change (p. 95). However, language—whether it pleases anyone or not—is not con­ structed according to politico-national principles. Various categories are re­ flected in the Ukrainian grammatical system, but there is no category of sov­ ereignty. Otherwise, the expression u Halyčyni would definitly sound strange, because Galicia is not a sovereign state! And what should be said about the construction of na Rusi—even though it is clear that Ruś was a sovereign state? Generally speaking, a scientific work might fare better if it kept aloof from standardizing rules. The question could be posed as to the reasons why the construction na U\rajini is predominant (and that it is pre­ dominant is proved by the fact that for over twenty-five years purists have been combatting it!), but to solve this query one would have to accumulate sufficient material on the syntactic use of prepositions in connection with geo­ graphical names in general—and not make conclusions from a priori non- linguistic criteria. Whereas the semantic development of the word Ufyajina may be pretty well traced in different texts, the origin of the word itself reaches back into ancient times and may be reconstructed only hypothetically. For this purpose, Rudnyckyj successively analyzes the constituent parts of words: accent, prefix, root and suffix. In the matter of accent, he relies on the conclusions of V. Okhrymovyč (Z.N.T.S., 133), whose works he considers exemplary (p. 35). Like Okhrymovyč, Rudnyckyj believes that the original accent in nouns with the suffix -yn (a)—but without a prefix—was on the suffix: dytyna (child), rujina (ruin), hodyna (hour); in prefixed nouns, on the root: prohâlyna (clearing), roz\6lyna (gap). Therefore he considers the original accent to be A NEW WORK IN UKRAINIAN ONOMASTICS 441

Όkrajina and that U\rajtna originated under the retroactive influence of the word krajina (country). Aside from a question as to the reasons for the secondary shifting of the accent, these conclusions seem plausible. But Okhrymovyc’s argumentation with such examples as \alyna (snowball blossom), \ ^ агУпа (small cottage), rodyna (family), etc., was amateurish and is not reliable. The fact of the matter is that original accentual relationships with the suf­ fix -yn(a) [_-in(aY\ were rather complicated. This was one of the reasons that compelled the admission of the dual origin of the vowel -/- in this suffix: on the one hand from *i with an acute intonation and, on the other hand, from *ei with a circumflex intonation8. The first drew its accent according to the rule of de Saussure; the second, naturally, did not. This extreme intricacy of the accentual correspondences led to equalization according to semantic classi­ fications, which, however, has not been thoroughly accomplished. Thus, when we consider the unprefixed formations, singulative nouns in the contemporary Ukrainian language are stressed on the suffix— zernyna (grain), rybyna (fish), as are names of places—verkhovyna (highland), dolyna (valley), but serêdyna (middle), nyzyná (lowland), Вй\оѵупа and Bu\ovyna. On the other hand in geographical names ending in -scyna, -cyna, the generally accepted accent falls before the suffix—Poltávsčyna, Niméččyna. In modern times, however, the tendency has been in several such nouns to place the accent upon the suffix—Poltavsčyna, Kharkivscyna. In the abstract nouns, the accent common­ ly applied was on the flection— davynâ (antiquity), vysoêynâ (height). The same applies in some collective nouns, although not so consistently— sadovyná (fruit), jaryna (spring corn), but vsjâcyna (variety), svynyna (pork). The suf­ fixes -jatyna, -anyna have separate rules, and there is no purpose in considering them as mere variants of the suffix -yn (a)? Moreover, in the Ukrainian lan­ guage there is not just the one suffix -yn(a), but there are variously accented and sometimes homonymous suffixes of this type. Consequently, the transfer of the accent U\rájina - » Ukrajina is not to be viewed as a “poetic analogy” (p. 35), but as a manifestation of the tendency to generalize the rule of accentua­ tion on the suffixes for the entire category of words denoting space. This pro­ cess is still continuing and is being applied to terms ending in -sčyna, -iyna, as has been mentioned above. Rudnyćkyj convincingly maintains that the suffix -yn(a) is appended only to nominal roots (p. 43) (although it could be added that the same applies also to participles), and that is why the word Ukrajina cannot be derived directly from the verb kra1aty—u\rajaty. The question of the prefix has not been solved satisfactorily. The questions

8 W. Vondrák: Vergleichende Slavische Grammatik. /. Göttingen, 1924, pp. 543, 546. • Cf. O. Synjavlkyj; Normy u\rapiníkpp literaturnoji movy. Vviv, 1941, pp. 120-121. 442 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY to be raised are whether the word Ukrajina originated (1) from the noun u\raj-\-sn&.\ -in(a); or (2) is the later addition of the prefix u- to the sub­ stantive Xrajtna; or, finally (3) whether it originated from a prepositional phrase: the preposition u-1—the noun \raj {\raju)-\-suffix -/я(я), as is exem­ plified in the modern language in such words as zalissja (the land beyond the woods), pidhirja (the land below the mountain), which are composed respectively of za-\-lis(pm)-\-ja; pid-\-hor(oju)-{-ja. In this last case, u- would not be a prefix at all but a preposition, from the historical point of view. Of the three possibilities suggested here, (2) must be excluded because the prefix u· basically is not a nominal one, but a verbal one. Here are words with this prefix u- from Hrincenko’s Dictionary: ubir, uvered, uvolo\a, uhoda, uhrivo\, udača, udato\, uzyto\, uzyno\, uzir, u\lad, u\az, uzjato\, u\rav\a, u\rivlja, ulamo\, ulyva, umysel, umova, umolot, uplit\a, upodoba, upo\ij, upruh, uraza, urožaj, uro\y, urjad, usluha, usmi\h, ususo\, utyno\, uti\ha, utoma, utory, utrata, u\hvala, učyno\, uč ta, u java. It is not incidental that all these words have a corresponding verb prefixed with u-, but only a surpris­ ingly small minority of the verbs has a corresponding noun without the The only exception is the word ubiè with a prefix manifestly of prepositional origin. It is characteristic that a great number of these forms are ancient. This prefix, in modern times especially, outside of a purely perfectivizing meaning, does not belong to productive prefixes. At present the prefix w- in the word Ukrajina has merely a perfectivizing meaning, “empty” from the viewpoint of semantics ( \omple\tuvaty-u\omple- fyuvaty)™ But among its old meanings was that of “séparer ou enlever,пП that is “moving off” or “moving away from the nearness of a given object,” as for instance in the Church Slavonic verbs: urezati, uruvati, usefyioti™ Just this meaning of the prefix is to be supposed in the word Ukrajina, since the word occurs in the most ancient manuscripts. This negates Rudnyckyj’s thesis (p. 38) that in the verb u\rajaty the prefix had only the meaning of achieving an action of perfectivizing), while in the noun ulyraj it only “preserved its [the noun’s] original meaning” (p. 40). This apparent contradiction between the facts that the suffix -in(a) is added only to noun stems, whereas the prefix u- is added only to verbal ones, may be reconciled by accepting the noun u\raj as the intervening link; and this is aptly emphasized by Rudnyćkyj. This noun is not used in the Ukrainian

10 S. Agrell: Przedrostki postaciowe czasowników polskich. MPK] VIII, Kraków, 1918, p. 13 and others vainly endeavors to show the durative meaning of the prefix u A Vaillant: Manuel du vieux slave I, Paris, 1948, p. 324. 13 S. Słoński: Funkcje prefiksów w jeżyku starosłowiańskim. Warszawa, 1937, pp. 286, 3, 274. A NEW WORK IN UKRAINIAN ONOMASTICS 443 language but in the Byelorussian,18 and it can easily be imagined as derived from the verb u\rajaty. Then its original meaning would be: “something cut off, remote, on the edge of.” Thus, having attained the meaning of a locality ( ‘borderland’), the word naturally adopted the typical suffix of this category, -,in(a). The rise of the word u\rajina by adding the suffix -in(a) to the prepositional phrase u \raja—a variant, from which it is still easier to obtain the meaning of ‘borderland’—is also possible. However, this process of development seems less credible, since this type of derivation is supposedly of a more recent date; also for this type of development the suffix -in(a) itself is not typical. Of course the eventual choice of one of the two variants requires further detailed study of the subject matter, and it would be fine indeed if they came from the pen of Rudnyckyj himself. Rudnyckyj’s work would gain if it were abridged. In particular, the enu­ meration by the author of all known words with the stem u\ra)in-, as well as the name of newspapers and the like containing the word Ukraine, Ukrainian, etc., is superfluous, and also incomplete. It would be useful to remove the references to articles and pamphlets by persons who, though deserving of public recognition, are only amateurs or compilers in research, and to elimi­ nate unnecessary patriotic generalities, as well as ordinary repetitions. This would make the scientific analysis more convincing and would add to the clarity and objectivity of the style. Here, unfortunately, Rudnyckyj some­ times follows the popular style which has become pronounced in Ukrainian scholarly research among the emigres. However, aside from these external cbnrrcomings, Rudnyckyj *s book is the first all-embracing, scientific work in the field. In reviewing it here, I have emphasized some of the further prob­ lems to be solved. But it is certain that all future studies in this area will not be able to omit Rudnyckyj’s work.

18 Rudnyckyj considers as an accomplished fact the existence of the word in the Russian language (pp. 39-40). This is doubtful. To use Dahl as an authority is not convincing be­ cause Dahl presents the word with a notation “archaic.” In his quotation, Dahl uses the "Siovar cerhovno-slavjans\ogo і russbjogo jazy\a” of 1847 (s.v.), which takes it from Pskov Chronicle. However, the old Pskov dialect is closer to the Byelorussian language than to Russian, as I endeavored to indicate in my work, “Problems of the Formation of Byelorus­ sian.” Therefore, as far as is known, no proof exists that the word u\raj has been used either in the contemporary or in the ancient Russian language. A STUDY OF BOLSHEVIK POWER MICHAEL LUTHER

[Waldemar Gurian, Bolshevism: An Introduction to Soviet Com­ munism. Notre Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 1952, 189 pp.]

Dr. Waldemar Gurian, long an authority on Soviet affairs and at present Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame and editor of the quarterly Review of Politics, is noted for his Bolshevism: Theory and Practice, a remarkable analysis of the Soviet regime, its ideological and politi­ cal origins and development, published in this country in 1932. More recently, he edited a symposium, The Soviet Union: Background, Ideology, Reality. (See the review by Dr. John Reshetar in the Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences, Vol. I, No. 2, Fall, 1951.) His present volume, Bolshevism: An Introduction to Soviet Communism, appears to be a restatement of many of the points made in his earlier work on Bolshevism, but with the omission of much of the vivid descriptive material depicting Russia undergoing transformation from a backward agrarian society to a modern industrial one. As in the earlier work, Dr. Gurian has taken as his point of departure a counterbalancing of the Bolshevik “atheistic” religion and the more traditional Christianity of the West, and has shown how the Bolsheviks have replaced the traditional institutions and goals of the Church and the Kingdom of Heaven with immanent, secular forms of the Party and the future, perfect society of man. Having thus set the tone of the exposition, he proceeds with a review of the major periods which have marked Soviet history: War Communism and the NEP, Stalin’s rise to power, the period of the first five-year plans, the great purges of the middle and late 1930’s, the rapprochement with Germany in foreign relations, the wartime and post-war periods. There follows a description of the workings of the Soviet totalitarian system of control, with a consideration of the techniques which enabled a small group of intellectual and practical revolutionaries to seize, retain, exer­ cise, and extend power up to the present.,He concludes with a series of ques­ tions which ask, in effect, “Where do we, who are the targets of this ever- expanding power, go from here? Why did Bolshevism arise in the first place? What are the causes for its ready acceptance by wide sectors of the world’s population? How can it be successfully opposed?” His plea is for a rediscovery of the “real world of human imperfections” and for the demolition of the Bolshevik belief in the “self-sufficiency of society in this world”—the ideologi­ cal basis of Marxism and the Bolshevik state. As in his earlier work, so here, the expositional part of the book is followed by a series of excerpts from the writings of Marx and Engels, Lenin and

444 A STUDY OF BOLSHEVIK POWER 445

Stalin, setting forth the Weltanschauung upon which the Soviet state was founded and directed. Included in this collection are excerpts from policy­ making articles in current issues of Soviet newspapers and journals—especially those dealing with control over the arts and literature, and with the nationality problem. These serve as illustrative material for the issues raised by the author. As a summary presentation of the workings of the Soviet regime, Dr. Gurian’s latest work does cast light upon the more outstanding events and factors which have helped shape Soviet politics in the past and have made the Soviet power function as it does at present. It is an examination of the system from the real point of view by a person who saw an analogous political machine come to power in his native Germany. His discussion of the original dual nature of the Bolshevik leadership (the romanticrintellectual versus the practical) and its subsequent bureaucratization affords a very valuable insight not only into Soviet but post-war satellite developments as well. Of equal interest is his analysis of the factors shaping Soviet foreign policy through the years and especially in the post-war period. Here his attention is centered upon the ideological appeal which the Bolshevik policy has for disgruntled sectors of the population in the West, the Middle and Far East. That this ideological appeal has proven influential is in part the result, states the author, of “the experience of the successful conquest of a great empire, . . . because it justifies the shifting of means to accord with the power situation . . . and finally, because this ideology is grasped by many not in its effects but only in its promises.” While affording certain insights into the developmental and functional aspects of the Bolshevik regime, the study, because of the vast amount of material it seeks to synthesize on the one hand, and the brevity of treatment on the other, cannot but be a very oversimplified, and at times, cursory treatment of the subject. What evolves is a schematic presentation of power: Lenin makes the revo­ lution, and then, with Stalin as his successor, rules the Bolshevik Party leader­ ship; this leadership rules the bureaucracy; the bureaucracy, in turn, rules the nation; and, throughout, is felt the coercion and oppression of the political police. Though references are made to instances where the legislative-executive- administrative chain of command breaks down somewhere along the line, the overall picture is of a smoothly operating machine in which the gears are finely meshed. Though much of this is undoubtedly true, the available evi­ dence tells us that the workings of the system present, in reality, a tortuous development of alignments and realignments of competing power groups even after Stalin’s rise to power, and of action and reaction of differing, and at times antithetical, policies. A few examples will serve to illustrate the point. In the nationality sphere, the NEP period is characterized by the author as one of political centralization of power in Moscow, a development ‘‘camouflaged” by a policy which op­ posed the remnants of Tsarist Great Russian chauvinism. A perusal of the 446 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

pertinent evidence will show a much more complex picture: that while such Party leaders as Piatakov and Bukharin sought to ignore the national mo­ ments in the formation of the Soviet state, others, including Stalin, Osinsky, Skrypnyk, and Rykov fought for concessions to national consciousness, but that both groups were in favor of centralized control by the Party. The concessions granted to the non-Russian nationalities were for the express purpose of gaining the loyalty of the large masses of peasantry and intelli­ gentsia of these nationalities. Indeed, no secret was made of the fact that such a policy must not infringe upon the dominant position of the centralized Party. Neither could such a policy be construed as one of “apparent conces­ sions to non-Russian nationalism” (p. 74). Concessions were made, not to nationalist, but to national sentiment, the resulting atmosphere being condu­ cive, however, to the fostering of nationalism, a development attacked no less severely by the non-Russian Party leaders than by their Russian counterparts. Actually, this period, embracing roughly the 1920*s, was in essence ą period of conflict between those who favored maintaining and extending the con­ cessions in the nationality sphere, and those who strenuously fought to curb and reverse the trend, a period in which several competing policies existed side by side. Only the Gleichschaltung of the society in the 1930’s, with a deemphasis of the significance of the non-Russian, and a corresponding in­ crease in the historical and actual role of the Great Russian, nationalities put a seeming end to this conflict. The entire treatment of the purges within Party and government is also vague. The great purges did not begin with the Stalin epoch or with the assassination of Kirov in 1934. The instrument of the purge, as a technique for ridding the Party of questionable elements, had already been an accepted practice while Lenin was still alive. As even Gurian demonstrates in his earlier work on Bolshevism, the purge of 1921 saw not less than one-third of the Party members expelled (pp. 165-66). What is true is that Stalin, unlike Lenin, had his opponents together with their following either exiled or condemned to death, a development making for the complete disillusionment and de­ moralization of many of the intellectuals among the Party membership and for the capture of the Party apparatus by careerist bureaucrats. We also read that the policy of collectivization resulted “in death through hunger, or in deportation to labor camps” (p. 48). While extremely few will deny the cost in human misery engendered by this policy of forced collectivi zation, the effects can easily be given a wrong perspective. There is ample testimony to show that while many K ula\ and even poorer peasant elements found their way into forced labor camps, by no means was this the fate of all such persons. It is perhaps more accurate to say that the majority of these unfortunates were forcibly resettled by the simple, yet terrible, expedient of confiscating their worldly possessions and prohibiting them from settling in certain designated areas including their native villages and towns. This is not to say that embitterment against the regime was any more reduced, but it A STUDY OF BOLSHEVIK POWER 447 does mean that at least some acres of Soviet territory are not encompassed by barbed wire. The danger of such oversimplification is quite apparent: it presents a Soviet Union composed of millions of persons languishing in either a literal or figura­ tive prison, waiting for some foreign power to come and liberate them. That many are in such a state cannot be denied in the face of the available evidence. But how many of them there are, and to what extent and degree there is dissatisfaction, these are the questions which must be asked. In other words, is the society, controlled by the totalitarian power machine described by Dr. Gurian, one solely of tensions, without any compensating strengths stemming either directly or indirectly from the policies of the state? In this connection, it would have been of interest had Dr. Gurian discussed the effects of the substitution of the religion of man for the religion of God from the point of view of the strengths and weaknesses in Soviet society. In his earlier book, the author was careful to point out that though many of the Soviet policies were ruinous for a great number of persons, many others were satisfied with other compensatory policies, which answered desires or needs raised either before or during the Soviet rule. This aspect of the working of the regime and the Party is, unfortunately, little touched upon in the present work. In spite of its shortcomings, this latest study of Bolshevism has an im­ portant message for all who are interested in their tomorrows. It is the lesson of how power came to be seized in the name of the many, but exercised for the benefit of the few. Dr. Gurian’s solution—a reexamination of the founda­ tions of our existence and social order, with the aim of rediscovering “the real world of human imperfections,” a world of “an infinite variety of men and human groups . . . expressing and emphasizing the manifold aspects of human nature”—is an appeal to reason, tolerance, and moderation. But whether this is a real solution to the questions raised by Dr. Gurian in his analysis of the Soviet system will remain an open issue. AN IMPORTANT CONTRIBUTION TO THE SOCIAL HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM IHOR ŠEVČENKO

[Georgije Ostrogorski, Pronija, Prilog istoriji feudalizma u Vizan- tiji i u južnoslovenshjm zemljama,=Srpskii Akademija Nauka, Po- sebna izdanija, knjiga CLXXVI, Vizantoloski Institut, knjiga I, Beo­ grad 1951. (G. Ostrogorski, Pronoia, A Contribution to the History of Feudalism in Byzantium and in South-Slavic Lands, Belgrade, 1951, 200 pp.)]

Conditional grants of land or other natural resources awarded by emperors to their subjects eis pronoian (for care) constituted one of the basic features of the economic and social order of the late Byzantine empire from the middle of the eleventh century. From Byzantium the pronoia system spread to other parts of the Balkans, especially to Serbian territory. There it oudived Byzan­ tium itself, although in a somewhat modified form, and influenced in turn developments under Turkish rule. The living language preserves an inexact reminder of this feudal institution: in modern Serbian, pm javor designates a^ village belonging to a monastery. Pre-revolutionary Russian Byzantinologists, who made many a pioneer venture in the field of Byzantine social history, are to be credited with having grasped the essential characteristics of the pronoia system. Quite recently American scholarship1 has also contributed worthwhile general observations on the subject.1*1 However, earlier research concentrated mainly on the Serbian phase of the pronoia system and could not draw upon the rich material published subse­ quently from the archives of the Athonite monasteries. One scholar, Mutaf- čijev, who utilized almost all the sources available to him, went much too far in denying the pronoia grants a military character.8 Thus the need has remained for an exhaustive study, which would draw fully upon all the sources now available for clarification of the many problems raised by this

1 P. Charanis, “The Monastic Properties and the State in the Byzantine Empire,” Dumbar­ ton Oa\s Papers IV (1948), 53-118; cf. idem, “The Aristocracy of Byzantium in the XIII Century,” Studies in Economic and Social History in Honor of Allan Chester Johnson (Princeton 1951), 336-355. la Western European Byzantinists as well have given precise, although succinct, definitions of the pronoia system: cf., p. ex., F. Dölger, “Die Frage des Grundeigentums in Byzanz,*’ Bulletin of the Intern. Committee of Hist. Sciences t V (1933), 14. * P. Mutafčijev, “Vojniški zemi i vojnici v Vizantija prez XIII-XIV v.,*’ Spisanije na Bul· garskßta A\ademi)a na nau\ite XXVII (1923), 1-113, esp. pp. 37-61.

448 HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM 449

institution. Among the main problems are these: the features which distin­ guish a pronoia from other types of grants, such as stratioti\a \temata (mili­ tary holdings) or \haristi\ia (lease of revenues from church or monastic property); the difference between a pronoia and private property; the services demanded in exchange for pronoia grants, the period of time for which they were bestowed and the type of revenue derived from them; the status of the peasants tilling the pronoia land; the ultimate ownership rights to the pronoia; and finally the history of the institution, especially the attempts made by pronoia holders to secure more control over the lands given them in trust, the vicissitudes of their struggle with the monasteries, which constituted the other principal class of landowners in Byzantium, and the attitude taken by the Byzantine state in this struggle. Ostrogorski’s book offers a definitive answer to most of these questions.8 His conclusions are important to the student of history, though the language in which they are set down may be unfamiliar to him. Therefore a somewhat detailed summary may be advisable here.4 Ostrogorski views the pronoia as a temporary (pp. 22-3), revokable grant of state-owned land, usually awarded for life in exchange for the obligation of military service by the pronoia holder and by the peasants who cultivated the land allotted him. The difference between the stratioti\a \temata of the middle Byzantine Empire and the pronoiai lies not so much in their purpose, which is in both cases military, or in their legal status, since neither grant constituted the unqualified private property of the holder, but in the social status of the recipients of these grants (p. 10). Whereas the hereditary “mili­ tary holdings” were given to free peasant soldiers, the non-hereditary pronoiai, large and small, were allotted to feudal lords (p. 12). It is true, of course, that the pronoiai were not given exclusively to military persons, especially in the initial phase of the institution, which was a period of rule by the anti- military bureaucracy. On the other hand, private property and even church and monastic possessions were burdened with certain military obligations. But the military purpose of pronoiai asserted itself quite soon and remained domi­ nant thereafter (p. 15). Ostrogorski is able to trace this development defi­ nitively back to the time of Alexius I Comnenus, (d. 1118) (p. 24). The feature which distinguishes a pronoia from the \haristi\ion, a counter­ part of the western beneficium, is not the social status of the holders but the

* Some other questions are not discussed, however, such as the “social genealogy” of pronoia. Cf., on this subject, the interesting remarks by F. Dölger in Byzantinische Zeit­ schrift XXVI (1926), 108 f. ‘ The author himself provided a German resumé of the results of his research (pp. 187- 200). For another presentation of his main theses in a Western language, cf. G. Ostro­ gorski, “Le système de pronoia à Byzance et en Serbie médiévale/* Actes du Vie Congrès d'Études Byzantines (Paris 1950), 181-189. A French translation of the complete book is being prepared by Professor H. Grégoire. 450 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY lack of any obligation of public, especially military, service on the part of a kharistihßrios. This differentiating principle was somewhat blurred by the initial use of the term pronoia for the hjiaristikion type of grants (pp. 11-12; 14). A pronoia differs from private property in that it cannot be sold, bequeathed or even donated to a church or monastery. The Serbian Law Code of King Stephen Dušan (14th century) explicitly forbids such donations (pp. 93, 134). When, in late fifteenth-century documents, the term pronoia comes to mean any type of land holding, including private property (pp. 172, 174), we may consider the history of the institution closed. For it was the state which re­ mained the owner of the pronoiai (pp. 44-7), and the distinction between the pronoia and private property provided the legal basis for many a law suit (p. 47). The pronoiarios (This term for pronoia holder, although standard in Serbian and Venetian documents under the form pronijar, proniarius, is all but ab­ sent from the Byzantine sources: p. 12) derived his revenue not from the direct exploitation of the land but mainly from the seignorial rent paid in money by the peasants (pp. 58, 66, 70). (Their obligations, which varied ac­ cording to the size of their families and their possessions, were determined by imperial plenipotentiaries and set down in a charter called pra\ti\on. The sum total of the data of the pra\ti\on constituted posotês, the basic rent, of the pronoiarios). As the rent is the essential advantage derived from the pronoia, it follows that any grant from which a posotês is obtained may be given as pronoia. Thus, documents of the thirteenth century refer to fishing rights bestowed eis pronoian (pp. 55-58). The fact that the rent of a pronoiarios is determined exclusively in money is a feature peculiar to the Byzantine pronoiai, for peasants attached to the monasteries were subject not only to payments in money but also to assess­ ments in kind and to corvées (p. 77). On the other hand, at least in the one known case, the rent paid by the pronoia peasants was somewhat lower than that required from peasants attached to the monasteries or to privately owned land. This was due, Ostrogorski surmises, to the obligation of military service lying not only on the pronoiarios but also on his peasants (p. 80, cf. pp. 120-1). On the whole, however, the exploitation of the pronoia proceeded along the same lines as the administration of monastic and private property. The pronoiarios, although a conditional owner, was the real lord of his estate and of the peasants, who were called his paroi\oi (serfs) (pp. 23; 47-48). These basic similarities, Ostrogorski maintains, derive from the fact that all three types of property operated within the framework of feudal economy (p. 75). Ostrogorski’s stand on the much discussed question of the existence of a feudal economy in Byzantium is firm and positive. He admits Byzantium differed in political structure from the western medieval world in not knowing the HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM 451 western hierarchical gradation of feudal dependencies;40 thus, all Byzantine pronoiarioi held their grants directly from the emperor. But for all that, pronoia is for Ostrogorski (pp. 37Ά) a counterpart of the western fief.8 He corroborates this observation by citing the often quoted lines of the Chronicle of Morea, which show that the western occupation did not bring about any upheaval in the social structure of former Byzantine territories after 1204. The conquerors strove to acquire new fiefs, and the Byzantine lords were readily reconciled to the new regime provided their pronoia holdings were confirmed. As for Ostrogorski’s contention that the oath of fidelity was not known to the Byzantines (p. 37), this is now subject to some qualifications.0 The institution of pronoia, itself a symptom of the feudalization of the em- pire, added in turn to the weakening of the central authority in late Byzan­ tium. The history of the pronoia system is also the history of independence gained progressively by the pronoiarioi. The fiscal immunity granted a pronoia meant that, in addition to seignorial rent, the state transferred to the pronoi· arios its rights to most of the additional taxes required from the peasants. It is true that three \ephalaia (“chapters,” i.e. tax categories: indemnities for manslaughter, rape and for the finding of a treasure) were in most cases excluded from the immunity granted. But sometimes even the levying of a part of these “taxes” was left to the pronoiarios. The authorities thus gradu­ ally delegated to him partial or complete judiciary powers.over the inhabitants of his pronoia (pp. 78-9). But, as a rule, the immunity did not free him from the obligation of (military) service (p. 84). The final stage of this develop­ ment is reflected in the charters granted the great humanist, Gemistos Plethon, and his sons (15th century). We see there how large pronoiarioi supplanted the state authorities and became \ephalatiI{euontes (governors) of the terri­ tories they held as pronoia (pp. 123-6; for similar developments in Zeta, cf. p. 150). Even in this double capacity, however, they were duty bound to per­ form douleia (service, which, it is to be noted, is not explicitly stated as being military). In Byzantium pronoia as an institution never turned into unquali­ fied private property (p. 127).

4a As Byzantium thus lackcd one of the essential feudal characteristics, it is quite probable that Ostrogorski’s conception (a conception implied rather than explicitly stated) of what constitutes the determining traits of a feudal system will be challenged by some critics. We may gloss over this point, for the differences would be more of a terminological than of essential nature and would affect but little Ostrogorski’s definition of pronoia. ° For an example of similar views, followed by unexpectedly different conclusions, cf. E. Gerland, “Kannten die Byzantiner das Lehnswesen?,” Eis Mnêmên Sp. Lamprou I (1935), pp. 52-54. This note on pronoia might have been mentioned in Ostrogorski’s introductory chapter, where earlier literature on the subject is reviewed (pp. 1-5). 6 N. G. Svoronos, “Le serment de fidélité a l’Empereur Byzantin et sa signification con- stitutionelle,” Revue des Études Byzantines IX (1951; appeared in 1952), 106-142, esp. pp. 136ff (Not all the conclusions of Svoronos’ article can be accepted.) Cf. for the XIV cen­ tury, A. V. Solovjev, in Byzantinoslavica IV (1932).. 164. 452 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

But the decisive step in loosening the control of the state over the pronoiai was made when the emperors allowed them to become hereditary. It is no coincidence that our first sources on this transformation date from the reign of Michael VIII Palaeologus (d. 1282), a usurper whose success depended on his ability to secure for himself the support of the landed aristocracy (p. 62f). Nor is it due to chance that especially rich information on the changing of the pronoiai into hereditary possessions should be forthcoming from the period of the civil war (1341-1354) between John V Palaeologus and John VI Cantacuzenus, for both contending parties tried to satisfy their sup­ porters and win waverers over to their side (pp. 83ff). A hereditary pronoia was still not identical with private property; as a rule it could not be sold or donated and was passed on to the male heir so as to guarantee, Ostrogorski adds, the fulfillment of the military obligations connected with it (pp. 89, 9If, 125). The rare departures from this principle required special imperial per­ mission (p. 87f). Even in the first known documentary testimony on pronoia, dating from 1162, there are mentions of litigations between pronoiarioi and a monastery. These litigations are a salient feature of the subsequent history of the institu­ tion. As the bulk of our source material comes from the Athonite monasteries, it may be argued that this circumstance favored the preservation of cases of lawsuits between “pronoiatic” and monastic property. Our direct documentary evidence on pronoia is extremely scanty. Only one pra\ti\on for a pronoiarios has as yet been published (cf. pp. 75ff), compared with about thirty similar documents issued to monasteries. Even that one charter has been preserved in the dossier belonging to a monastery. This circumstance is due to the fact that a certain number of pronoia lands came into the possession of the monas­ teries together with their deeds. (This characteristic of our evidence may sometimes be misleading. Thus it is difficult to subscribe entirely to Ostro- gorski’s thesis that the earlier attempts at secularization of monastic properties and their transformation into pronoiai, attempts undertaken by the Byzantine state in the first half of the fourteenth century, were a failure because all the charters which have been preserved indicate that the monks had regained their properties [p. 108]. It is to be assumed that documents containing con­ ditions favorable to the monasteries were kept with special care.) However, there is much more than the peculiarities of the transmission of source material behind our information on the struggle between the monas­ teries and the pronoiarioi. Up to the beginning of the fourteenth century the inroads made by each upon the other’s possessions were dictated by the expan­ sionist tendencies of both of these feudal groups. The state intervened as an umpire. But the collapse of Byzantine sovereignty in Asia Minor spurred Andronicus II, a friend of the monks, into attempting to secularize some monastic properties to use them for military purposes (Pachymeres, II, 390, 3-7, Bonn). We hear more of these state attempts in documents from the second quarter of the fourteenth century (pp. 105-108). Finally we learn from HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM 453

a charter of the year 1408 that soon after the battle of Maritza (1371) the Emperor, aware of the imminent Turkish danger, ordered the secularization of half the monastic properties and their transfer to the pronoiarioi (pp. 109ÎÏ). This measure remained valid at least as late as the year 1420 (p. 117). Even when the rights to certain properties were returned to the monasteries, the seignorial rent derived from them augmented by some other taxes, normal­ ly reserved for the state, went to the pronoiarioi (charter of 1409, pp. 11 Iff). These actions of pious Byzantine authorities do not represent an anti-monastic attitude. When the state finally sided with the pronoiarioi in their struggle with the monasteries, it was motivated by the consideration that the pronoia system was the most dependable basis for the military organization of the empire (p. 119). The disastrous experiences of fourteenth-century Byzantium with mercenaries must have strengthened this belief. But Ostrogorski passes much sterner judgment on the system. While he warns against underrating the military efficiency of the pronoia institution, he sees a source of weakness for the state in the centrifugal tendencies engenderd by it and considers pronoiai inferior to the middle Byzantine system of military holdings, whose successor the pronoia had been (pp. 118ff; cf. 9f). The pronoia system in the medieval Serbian state (date of the first docu­ mentary mention is 1299-1300) and in Zeta under Venetian domination (where most of the evidence concerns the fifteenth century, although the pronoiai seem to have existed earlier, cf. p. 152) is fundamentally similar to its Byzan­ tin e prototype. This is only natural considering the manner in which the institution penetrated into Serbia. The conquering Serbian rulers assumed sovereign rights over the state-owned pronoiai previously granted by Byzan­ tine emperors. Whether or not the pronoia system was known in Serbia much before 1300, as Ostrogorski suggests (p. 128), it is from these conquered ter­ ritories that it spread into original Serbian lands. Here, as in Byzantium, pronoia remained a grant given conditionally in exchange for military service. The military character of pronoia is more explicitly stated in Serbian docu­ ments than in Byzantine sources. However, along with similarities we en­ counter significant differences. Seignorial rent was paid by Serbian serfs mainly in kind (p. 137), marking the more primitive economy prevailing in Serbia. Also, the pronoia here has an exclusively hereditary character from the outset (p. 129, cf. 135, 147f, 169ff). Moreover, we learn of pronoiarioi in the service of churches, for which they are bound to perform military duties (p. 129; cf. 143). In 1361 we even see an Epirote landlord of western origin who has a pronoiarios of his own (p. 141f). Ostrogorski refuses to attach too much weight to this isolated instance but concedes that under Serbian rule some western “hierarchical” feudal characteristics were grafted onto what was originally a Byzantine formation (p. 143). It is also to western influences that Ostrogorski attributes the facility with which the Bosnian king transformed a pronoia into private property in 1458 (p. 149). In Zeta, under the rule of the Serenissima, the pronoiarioi, whose Byzantine, counterparts normally en-. 454 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY joyed immunity, were obliged to pay certain taxes (p. 163). This measure, by which Venice symbolically asserted its sovereignty over its pronoiarioi, was also practiced by Serbian kings (pp. 136; 164). In both eases, the real payers were the serfs, as the pronoiarios directed only a part of his seignorial rent to the state treasury (p. 165). The Serbian pronoia policies in the time of the great expansion under Stephen Dušan are, one might say, somewhat similar to the policies of the lords of the fourth crusade. The Serbian conquest resulted in the expropria­ tion of some Byzantine pronoiarioi and the allotment of their holdings to Ser­ bian lords. Later, when the conquest was consolidated, the Law Code of Dušan guaranteed their possessions to Serbian and Greek landlords alike. As, however, the highest positions of the administration and church were reserved for Serbians, the losers in the change were Byzantine great nobles and high dignitaries of the church (p. 139). In this context we may find a clue to the favorable treatment accorded the Athonite monasteries by Dušan, especially those involved in litigations with the Byzantine pronoiarioi. The King, who for reasons of prestige aimed at the title of protector of orthodoxy, had no in­ terest in favoring Byzantine landlords (cf. p. 140). Moreover, his monastic policies resulted indirectly in the weakening of the class which militarily and socially came to be the backbone of the Byzantine empire. Most of Ostrogorski’s conclusions are based on minute and penetrating analysis of a great number of charters, since the narrative sources are, as he himself points out (p. 17), notoriously vague in their terminology. Ostrogorski uses the historians whenever necessary; he also exploits literary texts. Thus a sad scène de genre from the correspondence of John Apocaucus (thirteenth century) enables him to depict the status of serfs on a pronoia in the despotate of Epirus (pp. 59-61). With the help provided by Ostrogorski’s scrutiny of the documentary evidence, it is possible to connect other vague references in narrative texts with the pronoia problem, to understand them better and often confirm Ostrogorski’s findings. One almost wishes Ostrogorski had done more of this work himself, especially as his book is an attempt at an exhaustive treatment of the subject. This can be illustrated by a few examples. The frequent use of charters which employ the term stratiôtês (soldier) for a pronoia holder constitutes Ostrogorski’s main argument as to the mili­ tary character of pronoia grants (pp. 24, 38, 51 and passim). This is necessary if he is to prove his point, since in Byzantine official documents the “services” required from the pronoiarioi are very rarely specifically said to be military. Moreover, to prove the participation of pronoia-serfs in military campaigns, Ostrogorski had to use a charter issued by a large “regular” landowner (p. 120f). If the pronoiai are military in character, it follows that the “soldiers” holding them belong to the upper class. On this latter point fourteenth-century narrative sources are quite explicit. In Cantacuzenus' History, stratiôtai appear as a special group within the armed forces and are generally associated with the “best citizens,” nobles and HISTOÄY OP LATE BYZANTIUM 455

“senators.” Thus wc encounter the distinction between stratiotai on one hand and “other armored warriors” and “lightly armed bowmen” on the other.7 After his proclamation as Emperor in 1341, Cantacuzenus catered to the “powerful ones of the cities and . . . the soldiers”.8 The protostrator Syna- denos, who plots in Thessalonica against the popular government, has confi­ dence in the “powerful ones” and the “army” of this city.0 In the social strug­ gle of the forties, the pro-Cantacuzenian “army,” mentioned along with the “best among the citizens,” is opposed to “the people,” the lower classes.10 In 1343, the great constable Michael Monomachus, a loyalist, expects that “most of the army” and “other elements of the Byzantine aristocracy” will go over to Cantacuzenus.11 Elsewhere, Cantacuzenus mentions the “soldiers” as be­ longing to the Byzantine upper class.12 The anti-Zealot assembly summoned in Thessalonica by the son of Apocaucus consisted of “aristocrats, army, other most influential people.” 18 When reference is made to different elements of the population of Berrhoia, the phrase goes: “not only the vulgar mob, but also the soldiers and quite a few from among the members of the senatorial class.” 14 The “soldiers” and the “army” of these and other passages15 are not

7 Cantacuzenus, II, 187, 17 Bonn: to Pamphiloti hama \hiliois phrourounta stratiotais ten te a\ropolin heterois hoplitais \a i psilois toxotais hc\aton. * Cant.y II, 162, 8-9: idia te tous dynatous ton poleôn \ai tous par* he\astois stratiôtas gram ma sin hypepoteito. In this passage, do the “soldiers’* form the suites of the dynatoi? 9 Cant., II, 233, 19-21: ou monon he stratia hoi esan ou\ oligoi, alia \ai ton politon hoi dynatoi . . . hois etharrhei. 10 Cant., II, 297, 21-298, 2: eis dyo diairetheisai (sc. cach of the cities) stratia men \a i hoi allot aristoi ton politon . . . hoi de demoi . . . 11 Cant., II, 371, 7-10: stratias te gar to pleiston \ai hoi allot ton Rhômaiôn aristoi e\eino (sc. Cantacuzenus) prosekhousin. The great constable Michael Monomachus is of course identical with the pronoiarios Michael Monomachus, whose pra\ti\on is the only published example of its kind. It is difficult to follow Ostrogorski who says (book under review, p. 8If, and Byzantinoslavica IX [1948], 295) that the government of John V confiscated Monomachus’ possessions at Chantax during the early stages of the civil war. The sources know him as a reasonable but never wavering supporter of John V (in spite of Dolger’s interpretation of Cant., II, 191, 16ff.: cf. Eis Mnêmên Sp. Lamprou I (1935), 27). The only authentic—if it is authentic—Greek document on the transfer of Chantax (Act Zographou no. XXXIB) speaks of Monomachus as of oi\eios doulos tes basileias той (1. 19), hardly a description of a disgraced person. 13 Cant., II, 506, 7Я: Cantacuzenus* enemies are polemioi tón para Rhomaiots aristôn pantôn, ou monon hoson en ctigencsin en, alla . . . \a i stratiôtais kßi fois ton politeiôn he fastes poleôs proe\housin. 18 Cant., II, 573, 10-12: e^lêsian . . . synagagôn e{ te ton aristôn \a i tes stratias \a i ton allôn politôn ton malista en logô. 14 Cant., III, 120, 11 : ou démode monon o\hlon, alla \a i stratiôtas k.ai ou\ oligous ton sygklêtikpn. 16 Cant., I, 322, 22; II, 84, 6; 179, 16; 311, 16, 574, 15. 456 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY common soldiery or mere army “officers.” 10 The meaning of these terms here is no less technical than in the documents. They describe the class of feudal knights (cf. the western use of miles), serving on horseback (to be inferred e. g. from Nicephorus Gregoras, 708, 22ff, Bonn). At least some of them de­ rive their yearly rent ( Cant., II, 81, 15; II, 367, 19 Bonn) from revokable land allotments ( Cant., I, 164-5, and 167, Bonn: Andronicus III asks his grand­ father not to dispossess the “soldiers” he rewarded with land bringing in a yearly rent of ten chrysia.17) They are forbidden to practice agriculture and commerce (Cant., I, 238, 6, Bonn). That exploitation of peasants provided revenue to these “soldiers” is borne out by a passage of Demetrius Cydones* Lament for the Nobles Killed in Thessalonica (during the popular uprising of 1345). Describing the “death march” of the prisoners, when usual social relations were turned upside down, he says: “Here, the slave pushed before him his master . . . the rustic, the commander, the peasant, the soldier.” “ To make sense, the translation of the last words should be :“the serf, his landlord” or rather “his pronoiarios” In his life of the Patriarch Isidorus, Philotheos Kokkinos describes at length but rather obscurely the litigations connected with settlements between the victorious supporters of Cantacuzenus and the partisans of the official regime who had appropriated the confiscated possessions of the former.1* It was the “vessel” of the senatorial class and of the army which was most troubled in the aftermath of the civil war.80 From historical sources (Cant., II, 614, 13; III, 11, 5-15, Bonn; Nie. Greg., 790, 16-791, 16, Bonn), somewhat imprecise on this important point, we learn that the restitution of landed property (açroi, \temata) was also involved in the moderate terms of the settlement. This in itself would be inconclusive, if we did not know that during the civil war many a pronoia changed hands (p. 82f). It seems that a more precise meaning may be implied in the word “army” in Philotheos* passage, namely

“ Mutafčiiev, Vo]niš\i zemi, p. 50, had to resort to this artifice in order to dissociate the p r o n o i a “soldiers” from the elusive army of peasant-soldiers he postulated' for the thirteenth to fourteenth centuries. 1T This low rate of rent should not dissuade us from considering these ex-mercenary sol­ diers as newly-backed pronoiarioi. From charters we know of small pronoiarioi whose rent amounted to 10-12 nomismata only (Act Kutlumus no. 20). Narrative sources mention different classes of pronoiarioi (Cant., II, 81, 16: to misthophorikpn tes stratias \a i ton e \ \hori6n tas prosodous ekjiontôn tous dynatóterous paralabón. . .). 18 Mignę, PG СІХ, col. 648D: entautha doulos men ton despotên ôthei . . . ton de stratêgon ho agroikps: kai ton stratiôtên, ho geórgos. “ Vita Isidoři ЦЦ57-60, ed. A. Papadopoulos-Kerameus, “Žitia dvukh vselenskikh patriark- hov XIV v., sw . Afanasia І і Isidora I,” Zapiski ist.-fil. ja \. imp. S.-Petersbursfago Uni- versiteta LXXVI (1905). •° Ibidem, p. 125, 4-5: tara\hes to kpinon tês politeias kßi malista tôn tes sygklêtou fai tou stratou peplêrôto s\aphos. HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM 457 that of “pronoia holders.” If so, we gain literary confirmation for an a priori plausible belief that pronoiai were among possessions restored to some of the supporters of Cantacuzenus in 1347. Ostrogorski’s discussion of the secularization measures employed by the statè in the fourteenth century, by which parts of monastic possessions were allotted to pronoia holders, helps us to reinterpret one important ineditům. Ever since Sathas and, after him, Tafrali published excerpts from Nicolaus Cabasilas’ Logos peri ton paranomôs tois ar\housi epi tois hierois tolmômenôn, this pamphlet has been considered by all scholarship (including Ostrogorski, cf. Geschichte des Byzantinischen Staates []1940], 371) to be not only an attack on the revolutionary zealots of Thessalonica but also the chief source for the reconstruction of the Zealotic social program. The main reason for this as­ sumption must have been that the expropriation of monasteries and churches, fought against in Cabasilas’ Logos, could be imputed only to revolutionaries and in no case to pious Byzantine authorities. The study of Cabasilas’ text reveals that it is more than doubtful that these adversaries (ecclesiastical as well as lay) were the Zealots. Moreover, none of their actions differs from the official measures and usages of the government under Andronicus III, John V or even Cantacuzenus. Cabasilas accuses the authorities in particular of secularizing the revenues of the land ( \horon to\ous) bequeathed to the monasteries by pious donors, sometimes even of confiscating the land itself and appropriating it or giviing it with its peasants to “others” (e.g. Par. Gr. 1213, fol. 245v). The officials explained their actions by defense needs (stratiô- tas . . . hoplisomen, we shall arm the soldiers, ibid. fol. 246v).20a All of this sounds like a literary parallel to the documents discussed in the ninth chapter of Ostrogorski’s book. We shall have to look elsewhere for the sources of the Zealotic program, for Cabasilas’ work belongs to the class of documents illustrating the endeavors undertaken by the Byzantine state to ward off its military collapse.81 In some parts of Ostrogorski’s work one misses a discussion of narrative passages which might be at variance with his thesis. Such is the obscure but important sentence of Pachymeres (II, 209, 9-13 Bonn, sub anno 1296; cf. also II, 69, 2-5) referring to the measures taken by Andronicus II to stall the Turkish advances in Asia Minor. In quite technical terms it seems to speak of a contribution (syndosia, cf. Pach., II, 293, 9, Bonn, where it is mentioned among the tax exactions of the government; cf. also F. Dölger, Aus den Schatz\ammern des Heiligen Berges [[1948]], note ad no. 4, 86, with refer­ ences) ruthlessly imposed (anedên teloumenon, cf. telein tina: impose taxes on one) on the pronoiarioi and being equivalent to the de katon of the pronoia (tithe, cf. Dölger, ibidem, note ad no. 31, 12). Of course, the pronoiarioi, hard- pressed (sphôn ekneiruzomenôn: for the meaning cf. Pach., II, 209, I) passed

** Cf. fol. 253r: stratiôtas trephousin; fol. 253v: nous ektesanto ka* hopla fyt strati ôtas. n I have prepared the text of Cabasilas* Logos for publication. 458 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY this burden onto their paroi\oi. Thus we may encounter tax-paying prono- iarioi, whose existence Ostrogorski postulates in Serbian and Venetian-domi- nated territories only, in Byzantium as well. If rigidly adhered to, Ostrogorski’s very definition of pronoia excludes, at least for the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, the possibility of the existence of non-military, let alone that of monastic, pronoiai (pp. 33, 79, 97, 103, 114). One would expect a refutation p. ex. of Fach., II, 390, 3-7 Bonn, where both these types of grants are implied as existing. Cantacuzenus II, 63, 12, men­ tions members of the senatorial class and great nobles, along with the “sol­ diers,” among pronoia holders. Ostrogorski’s stand on this point might have to be qualified, for the charters themselves mention pronoiai or oi\onomiai (synonymous with the former, cf. Ostrogorski, pp. 6, 36) of monasteries (ibidem, p. 69 f). In the charters the formerly “pronoiatic” lands are said to be given to monasteries under the same conditions as those formerly enjoyed by their pronoiarioi. The conditional character of the pronoia grants, as op­ posed to monastic property, which was supposedly always granted uncondi­ tionally, cannot be considered a sufficient argument against the existence of monastic pronoiai. At least in the eyes of the fourteenth-century officials whom Cabasilas opposed, monasteries (or churches) did not have the unlim­ ited right of disposal of some of their property, while retaining the revenues deriving from it.82 The few examples quoted above suggest that while official documentary material must remain the basis for every socio-economic study of Byzantium, one need not be deterred by what often seems vagueness in the narrative sources. Ostrogorski’s valuable contribution could perhaps profit from more liberal quotations from them, even if these quotations would more often con­ firm than modify the results of his study. Many passages of Ostrogorski’s book are indirect polemics against Mutafči- jev, to whom we owe the most thorough earlier investigation of the pronoia system. Indeed, in their polemical form, Ostrogorski’s and Mutafcijev’s theses are diametrically opposed. For the latter,23 there is no analogy between the western beneficium and the pronoia. This institution should not, in his mind, be connected with military considerations and needs. For Ostrogorski the feudal military character of pronoia is its most important feature. But if one goes into the details of the argument, one notices not only that the mate­ rial covered by both authors is much the same, but also that qualifying state-

22 Par. Gr. 1213, fol. 248: \a i pôs an eiê despotas autous proseipein /ton ouden excstin authous apodosthai oute kharisasthai, oute agron oute oikjan out*alio ton ana\etmenôn tois hierois? Answer of Cabasilas: et men oun hai \hôrôn \ai oikôn \ai ton allôn \têseôn despotas einai bjirê toutous nomizein, mêpô zêtômen; hoti de kßi ton \arpon \ai tón proso- dôn hai ton \têsamenôn entolai \y rions einai boulontai ta men eis tên autôn he\astou bjireian, ta d’ets to \oinon analis\ein, ou\ an deoi logou deihnynai. 28 Vojniïbj Zemi, p. 53. HISTORY OF LATE BYZANTIUM 459 merits bring their positions nearer together. Mutafčijev admits that some pronoiarioi belonged to the military class.24 He even grants that under Manuel Comnenus they constituted an essential element of the military organization.85 He believes that in late Byzantium the soldiers of the middle Byzantine type co-existed with the military pronoiarioi.20 On the other hand, Ostrogorski, while stressing that the overwhelming majority of pronoiai were of military character, concedes the existence of non-military holders of these grants and that of military obligations imposed on other types of property. He does not deny that a few peasant-soldiers existed in the late Byzantine empire. It would be misleading, however, to reduce the two standpoints to mere differ­ ences in stress. By refusing to recognize the pronoia-\io\à\ng stratiôtai as the chief element of the late Byzantine armed forces, and by forcing the meaning “peasant-soldier holding” on the word pronoia of the literary texts, Mutafčijev did confuse the issue. On the whole, Ostrogorski’s position will now have to be adopted by scholarship. It is impossible, even in a lengthy review, to do justice to all of the new views presented by Ostrogorski or to note all of the textual and chronological corrections he makes in passing. His book is not only a final word on most aspects of pronoia, it is also a tribute to the achievements of international Byzantine research. For it is from recent publications of documents that Ostrogorski has drawn a considerable part of his material. The synthesis in which he has used these elements is the most valuable single contribution to the social history of Byzantium made in the past several decades.

24 Vojniskj Zemi, pp. 41, 51. 85 Ѵо]піЩ Zemit p. 48. M Vojnil\i Zemi, p. 61. SYMPOSIUM OF SOVIET SCIENCE MICHAEL VETUKHIV

[Soviet Science, a Symposium arranged by Conway Zirkle and Howard A. Meyerhofï, edited by Ruth C. Christman. Washington, D.C.: American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1952.]

Scientists in the free countries and others who desire information about science in the USSR will find this Symposium helpful, though its nine arti­ cles, by American authors, are in the main based only on the available Soviet scientific literature. In his foreword Howard A, Meyerhof! stresses the presence of “political and ideological barriers” which make impossible the publication of much information on the science in the Soviet Union; and the prominent biologist, Conway Zirkle, in the preface rightly points to the fact that, while “science, like music and art, has hitherto been a truly international enterprise,” this principle is unfortunately not observed in the Soviet Union. Hence the importance of even this slight volume. Theodosius Dobzhansky's article, “Russian Genetics,” is one of the most interesting in the symposium, for Dobzhansky lived and worked in the USSR for a long time, having had personal contact with many prominent geneticists. Dobzhansky’s description of the “Lysenko period” in Soviet science gives an accurate analysis of the events of recent years. He correcdy notes that, while Lysenko is recognized by Soviet science as a Darwinist, cleansed of course from Weissmanism—Mendelism—Morganism, actually, as his works show, Lysenko is a Lamarckist. He is a reactionary as compared to Darwin, in that he turns the development of science back to pre-Dar- winian times. As an illustration, Dobzhansky discusses Lysenko’s treat­ ment of the problem of inheritance of acquired characteristics. Perhaps the only manifestation of Lysenko’s “adherence” to Darwin's theory may be said to be his recognition of the theory of pangenesis. Dobzhansky is also correct in his characterization of Lysenko as an anti-evolutionist, as well as in his estimate of Lysenko's latest works concerning the transformation of one species into another (the hard wheat into the common bread wheat), since Lysenko’s theory contradicts the principles established by genetics and Darwinism. Lysenko himself, on the contrary, states that he has overcome “the flat Darwinian evolution.” Surveying the general situation in Soviet science, Dobzhansky observes that after the close of the Second World War the Soviet rulers, in their attempt to promote extreme nationalism in all spheres of life, introduced it also into the field of science. Dobzhansky’s article could have been still more informative had he analyżed the reasons behind the changes in the science of genetics over the course of years in the USSR. This could be helpful

460 SYMPOSIUM OF SOVIET SCIENCE 461

toward aň understanding o£ the immediate situation as it obtains in the Soviet Union, that is, the actual liquidation of genetics there. Had he done so, there should have been less surprise that Lysenko could publicly pro­ claim: “The Central Committee of the Party has examined my report and approved it.” As a matter of fact, such a statement is a brilliant characteri­ zation of the general situation of science in the USSR. The article, “Russian Physiology and Pathology,” by W. Horsley Gantt is not as effective as Dobzhansky’s. More attention to the theoretical essen­ tials of Pavlov’s work would have contributed to a better understanding of the present situation in this field of science. Gantt surely could have done this since he worked with Pavlov for 8 years. In his description of the pre- Pavlovian period of Russian physiology, Gantt gives an adequate characteri­ zation of such scientists as Tarkhanov and Borodin, omitting, however, such very important physiologists as Chiriev, Chagovets, Danilevsky, Vvedensky, Uchtomsky, Gurvich and others. Gantt devotes much attention to the post- Pavlovian period, i.e. to the activities of. Pavlov’s students. There are, un­ fortunately, some errors of fact; for example, he describes Speransky as a student of Pavlov. This is not an accurate statement, for it is known that Speransky worked on the subcortical centers. There is also some inaccuracy in his estimate of the history and the present standing of Pavlov’s doctrine in the USSR. For instance, he mistakenly mentions 1936 as the last year of Pavlov’s experimental research. Although Pavlov died in 1936, he had actu­ ally ceased most of his important experimental work by 1920. By 1927 all remaining experimentation was at an end. And in truth it was not until 1932 that Pavlov was officially put on a pedestal. Thereafter, although he was inactive as a scientist, the Soviet rulers tried to make an i\on out of him. His glorification became even greater after his death in 1936. Then his theories were transformed into dogma, although the development of physiological science was forcibly prevented from following the very princi­ ples he had established. In view of this situation, the material of Gantt’s inadequate analysis of the mutual antagonism between the schools of Bykov and Orbelli could be of considerable interest. It would have been worthwhile also to have shown how the Soviet rulers distort Pavlov’s theories and the reasons for this distortion. However, Gantt’s comments on the purges in the fields of physiology and pathology are useful in understanding the pres­ ent situation of science in the USSR. The last sections of Gantt’s article: “Comparison of Bolshevik and Ameri­ can Scientific Attitudes,” “Effect on Russian Science,” “Pavlov and Russian Medicine,v “Russia—Past and Future,” as well as his “Conclusion,” devote more attention to general problems than to the problems of physiology and pathology in the USSR. Some of his observations are certainly such as to invite exception. A short article by Ivan D. London, “Russian Psychology and Psychiatry,” is very informative, showing the changes in these sciences caused by changes 462 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY in official Soviet dogma. As a typical example, the author mentions the case of Rubinstein, who received the Stalin prize for his textbook in 1942, but who 5 years later was officially attacked and accused of many sins. London stresses the fact that in spite of political interference, nevertheless, Soviet psychology did achieve some progress in the field of physiological psychology, for instance, in physiological optics and acoustics. His characterization of Pavlovian dogma in the field of psychology and psychiatry is very well done. He shows that Pavlov’s ideas do exist as official dogma, although in actual fact their application may be nil. I think London is quite right in asserting that psychology as a science has no future in the USSR, as no free and objective thought is permitted. Concerning the article, “Scientific Method and Social Science: East and West,” by Russell L. Ackofï, I should like to point out that it is impossible to compare the reasons which respectively deterred the development of American and Soviet social science, since the suppression which exists in the Soviet Union can not be compared with conditions in the countries out­ side the Iron Curtain. The course of development of the Soviet social sci­ ences is fully determined by the Soviet system. It seems to me that in characterizing Soviet social science Ackofï does not take the present political situation in the USSR fully into account. He states that in the USSR the social sciences are at the bottom of the scientific ladder. This statement is debatable. In reality a great deal of attention is paid to the social sciences, but they are purposely directed to serve the political ends of the Soviet. Ackoff’s description of the place and methods of social science in the USA is of great interest, but we are under the impression that Soviet science is the primary concern of this. book. J. S. Joffe’s article, “Russian Contribution to Soil Science,” does not seem fully to meet the aims of this symposium in dealing with Soviet science. For instance, the introduction and the first section, “Soil Science under Czar- dom,” as well as parts of the succeeding sections, do not fit into the general scheme of symposium. Joffe’s article, written on the basis of information acquired while visiting the USSR or gained directly from Soviet literature on the subject, provides a mass of information. Joffe took part in the Second International Congress of Soil Science held in Russia in 1930 and at that time succeeded in gaining considerable information which enables him to give a detailed characterization of Soviet soil science. However, the role of Williams and his influence on soil science could have been described more appropriately, as well as his connections with Lysenko and Michurin. It would also have been desirable to have indicated more exactly the field of activities of the other scientists noted, as for instance, Vilensky. Actually, the latter was primarily a geobotanist who brought his specific methods and interests to bear in the field of soil science. The Gedroiz school developed in another direction. Some inaccuracy creeps into Joffe’s statements con­ cerning matters others than soil science. For example, he describes “Zem­ SYMPOSIUM OF SOVIET SCIENCE 463 stvo” as a “kind of government agency.” Actually it was a kind of public institution. His characterization of the October Revolution is on the ques­ tionable side, as well as his further description of the Soviet regime. He states that in his talks with Soviet scientists he was impressed “with the fact that the majority had something good to say about the advances made under the Soviet regime.” Any person who is acquainted with the condi­ tions of life under the Soviets understands this phenomenon, knowing that very few Soviet citizens would dare to express their real feelings to a foreigner. The article by John Turkevich, “Soviet Physics and Chemistry,” strikes me as providing a good comprehensive picture of these fields in the USSR. There is no doubt that Soviet mathematics has obtained fundamental re­ sults. The state of this science is discussed by }. R. Kline in “Soviet Mathe­ matics.” Lazar Volin’s article, “Science and Intellectual Freedom in Russia,” is a splendid evaluation of Russian science. Volin first gives a short characteri­ zation of the leading men in Russian science from Lomonosov’s time till today. In an able manner he stresses the difference in position of science in old Russia as compared to that in the USSR, and shows the connection be­ tween scientific development and the stages of political development in the USSR, although this connection could be probed even deeper. From this point of view an accurate and interesting analysis is given of the activities of Lysenko, Williams, Pavlov, Marr and Pokrovsky. However, in my opin­ ion, the differences in standing of these scientists should have been demon­ strated since each differed from the other in scholarship, ability, political position, etc. This article clearly demonstrates the influence of the Com­ munist Party and Stalin on certain fields of science, as well as on science in general. Conway Zirkle’s “An Appraisal of Science in the USSR” is fairly accurate. Zirkle gives a detailed analysis of certain fields of science. He writes ably on genetics, showing the stand of Michurin, Lysenko and Greben and cites typical statements from them. The work of Williams is also well evaluated. The complex of research associated with Pavlov’s school is appraised. The characterization of Lepeshinskaya is very interesting. Some other fields of science are also touched — those which are of specific interest in the USSR. Finally Zirkle comes to the conclusion that “We are all poorer because Rus­ sian science has been injured by communism, but we can hope that some day, perhaps in the distant future, Russian science will again be free.” This Symposium is a valuable contribution to knowledge of the status of science behind the Iron Curtain, knowledge difficult to obtain, since the Soviet rulers make a special effort to close the Iron Curtain completely in the realm of human thought. No summaries in foreign languages are printed now in publications of the Academy of Sciences of the USSR; no translations of the names of articles are given. 464 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

I think, however, that certain important matters determining the status of Soviet (not Russian) science are not stressed clearly enough in this Sym­ posium: 1. Soviet science develops under conditions of absolute dictatorship. 2. Soviet science is fully subordinated to the policy of the Communist Party and to the current practical tasks of the Soviet state. Because of these reasons there is no freedom of science. 3. Soviet science is fully separated from Western science due to a ram­ pant Soviet nationalism. These facts account for the status of science in its various fields. It ex­ plains why the development of mathematics and genetics have gone such different ways. This Symposium, however, makes a good introduction to further research in the field. It is to be hoped that new publications will appear in the future which will show the development of Soviet science more deeply and fully, which will be the product of mutual efforts of both American scientists and former Soviet scholars who have first-hand information. Such publications will play an important role in understanding Soviet thought and science and will contribute to the development of Western science. BOOK REVIEWS

[An Etymological Dictionary of the Czech Language. Josef Holub and František Kopečný. Prague, 1952. 576 pp.]

The recently published third edition of the Czech etymological dictionary, first issued under the authorship of Dr. Josef Holub, is at first glance a commendable undertaking, especially in comparison with the first two edi­ tions. The large number of etymologists, whose names are listed in the Introduction, adds considerably to the volume’s authoritativeness. One of these, Dr. František Kopečný, is now co-editor. But even with this the dic­ tionary unfortunately does not achieve a status whereby it can be recom­ mended, as the authors intend, as a textbook for the use of colleges and universities. The book’s main deficiency lies in the absence of bibliographical refer­ ences in connection with the etymologies listed. There is no mention of sources, let alone of exact data on literature, either books or articles. This makes the dictionary of little use to the specialist. He cannot acquaint him­ self with the arguments for or against propounded etymologies. As far as the college student is concerned, this kind of presentation, lacking explana­ tions for or against specific findings, leaves an impression that the science of etymology is a free-for-all word “game,” in which explanation and documenta­ tion are of litde significance. The authors themselves seem reluctant to ex­ press their own viewpoints, and the reader is left to make his own choice. For those whose interests are primarily in the Czech language, the dic­ tionary is worth more than cursory perusal. It is the largest volume of its kind so far published. But for other Slav scholars, Ukrainian in particular, it is a disillusioning volume. The carelessness with which the authors deal with the collection of lexical parallels and etymological annotations concern­ ing Slav languages other than Czech is not easily understood. Only Polish material has been adequately and carefully noted. In the case of the Russian, even the Preobražensky etymological dictionary has not been used. That the authors did not avail themselves of the Vasmer dictionary is understand­ able, for it was published while their work was in progress. While the dictionary offers parallels from the Polish and Serbo-Croatian in almost all instances, parallels from the East Slav languages are very fre­ quently either omitted or inaccurate. The Ukrainian language fares worst of all. The entire volume lists 33 examples, according to the figures in the Index. Byelorussian is entirely omitted. Only 26 parallels are given from Bulgarian. The absence of adequate material from the Lusatian-Sorbs lan­ guages, near kin to the Czech, is almost inexcusable (only 17 examples are listed), since the authors could have made use of the dictionaries of Krai and Muka.

465 466 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

The absence of parallels leads the authors quite often to erroneous conclu­ sions, as when they state that a given word occurs only in the Czech lan­ guage, or is found only in Czech and Polish. How different is the Vasmer dictionary, in which the parallels cited are organized with unusual care and thoroughness ! I shall cite a few Ukrainian words left out of the dictionary: \opyst\a, \rejda, \utja (a Christmas dish), \ucerja, \ucerjavyj, lan, loboda (only the Russian variant lebeda is mentioned), lys (the Russian lisa), mary, misto (the Russian mestecXp ignored; it is really borrowed from the Polish or Ukrainian), mlyn, harazd, nuza, nudyty (no Russian equivalents), plachta, pust\a, povyty, pracja, pidsvyno\ , strava, uro\ (bewitchment), bdiola (in­ teresting for the study of the comparative grammar of Slavic languages), vely\deh, veza, vov\ula\a, onu\, vyvolan\y (the word volaty cited as Czech only), zamanuty, (Russian zamaniť omitted also), hyrja (from Kotliarev- śkyj ’s Aeneid), zrada, dzerelo, pecerycja, ze braty, zart, zozulja, zovna, etc. Even if the authors considered some of these words as borrowed from Polish, their omission is still inexcusable. Among the few Ukrainian words listed are some of a dialectical character with a narrowly provincial signifi­ cance. Thus we find: \avran (instead of hajvoron), s\avorono\ (zajvoro* noĄ); even some sort of strange zautri (p. 430), etc. In some instances a Ukrainian word is quoted as Russian. Thus the Czech \alamaj\a is given as derived from the Russian \olom yj\a. Interesting. It would be interesting to know where this word is used in Russian territory! There are errors in the spelling of Ukrainian word, e.g. cybulja (p. 85), while the general comments on the Ukrainian language given in the Intro­ duction are sometimes without meaning and, one might say, in bad scholarly taste. For example, the abbreviated “ukr.” is followed by the comment: “ V softens the preceding consonant/ This is erroneous, because “i” from “o” does not soften consonants. No more scholarly are the comments on the Russian language. Thus one comes across imaginary \iť , nyl (for \it, nol); the North Russian lani equivalent to the Czech loni is omitted (p. 210); so is mjazdra, but the Russian obrin, used probably only in historical novels, is quoted; the sup­ posedly Russian рЩ о is given (p. 259), but pota\ať is omitted; there is no Russian word špic (p. 374); the rare, if at all existent, voja\ appears, but voin is omitted. The Old Russian prjaslica is omitted (p. 300); the word tazať, Russian dialect form, found in 18th century literature (Deržavin and others), was evidently unknown to the authors. The dictionary fails to mention the Russian voevoda; the word vina is noted by the authors only in the meaning of ‘guilt.’ No mention is made of the Russian and Church Slavonic meaning of ‘cause,’ etc. Church Slavonic borrowings in Russian are often quoted as Russian, while no mention is made of the parallel Russian word, possibly because often they occur only in dialects. Many words bear an incorrect stress: tenetó, the genetivc zajcâ, etc. BOOK REVIEWS 467

The Ukrainian \avran is mentioned (p. 121) while the usual hajvoron is left out though it is much nearer to the Czech word; the old Czech \ac\a is associated with the Czech name Каса (Catherine). How then do the authors explain the Ukrainian \ac\a? The name Каса is unknown in the Ukraine (p. 159). The word \liste is given as supposedly “only” Czech and Polish (p. 171); the same with the Czech word \olac (p. 176), which leads one to suppose that the authors failed to find the Russian \alac because it is written somewhat differently. The Czech \oles\a is separated from the Russian \oljas\a (p. 176, cf. Vasmer, REW I, 606); the authors failed to consider the existence of Russian dialects. One might go on enumerating similar errors of commission and omission. Among other factors diminishing the importance of the volume is the type, which is not as clear as it should be. In many instances “I” and "i" are omitted. The dictionary is not without interest to the specialist, although its use­ fulness is impaired because of the lack of a critical approach, insufficiency of parallels and the absence of bibliographical indications. A beginner, as we have said before, might be led to erroneous conclusions concerning the ety­ mology of particular words. He might even conceive some doubts as to the validity of the science of etymology in general. Dmitry Čiževsky

£Max Vasmer, Russisches Etymologisches Wörterbuch. Heidelberg: Carl Winter, Universitätsverlag, 1952, pp. 465-544; words ZYK to k a š u by :]

This new issue of Vasmer’s etymological dictionary is of great importance in the study of Ukrainian, for the author gives the etymology of many words which occur in Ukrainian as well as in Russian. I should like, however, to point out a few more lacunae in Vasmer’s treat­ ment of the history of Russian and Ukrainian vocabulary.* They may be important for a proper understanding of the etymology of these words. I wish to note in passing the author's occasional use of the initial “y” in­ stead of “i” which is generally accepted in Ukrainian orthography today. He writes “yskra,v “yva,” and even “ykly” instead of “iskra,” “iva,” “ikly, ’ The Ukrainian parallel with some words is missing; the usage of some other words in Russian is not completely covered. page Russian word Note 465 zyčiť used also in Ukrainian. I have often heard zyłyty and zycyty.

*See my review of the earlier issues of this work in The Annals, Summer 1952 (No. 2 (4), Vol. II). THE ANNALS OF THE" UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

zjuzjuka zjuzja in the sense of drunkard occurs in Denis Davidov’s poems and in Eugeni j Onegin by Pushkin, chapter V, 6, whence it entered the Russian literary language. izgoj The first example, given by Vasmer, is \niaz* izgoj. This word, however, as used in " Ustav Vsevolada? concerning the princes* izgojstvo, is probably only a humorous gloss; Se četvertoe izgojstvo \e sebe prilozim, asče \niaz* osiroteet. It is possible that the term izgoj was previous­ ly used only when referring to the three lower classes of society. (See B. Romanov —Ljudi i nravy drevnej Rusi, 1947, p. 3M·) izradca in Ukrainian literature zradca, zradeć can be found in the 17th century, perhaps even in the 16th. Hence we may infer that the Russian word is borrowed from the Ukrainian and not from the Polish, as is generally supposed. izmaragd in old Russian language this word not only became the title of a famous book (a collection of sermons), it was also used as a name: the daughter of Prince Rostislav Rjurikovič, who bore the Christian name Evfrosinia, as princess was also given the name, Izmorogd (Hypatiän Chronicle, 1198). ikra Vasmer connects this word with the Rus­ sian “\ r y g a the word “\ryha” is very common in Ukrainian, meaning not only “floating ice” but “ice” in general. Ingul the river Inguleć which is here mentioned is not merely a “branch of the lower Dnepr” ; it is a river 490 kilometers long which empties into the estuary of the Dnepr. inogda meaning “once” occurs as early as the 11th century in the old Paten\ons, for instance Mihanovics manuscript, Vienna. BOOK REVIEWS 469 ironija· doubtful if borrowed from Polish or from any other Western language, for it was used in lectures on poetics at the Kiev Academy in the 17th century and thence brought to Moscow by Ukrainian profes­ sors. The word also occurs in the Retorica by Kos’ma the Greek (written at the be­ ginning of the 18th century, in Moscow); in this case it came directly from the Greek. kavyka there is a well-known joke in the Ukraine to the effect that Kuliš or StarycTcyj in their translations of Shakespeare’s Hamlet used ( za )\o vy\a to translate the word “ques­ tion” in the monologue “to be or not to be.” This word, however, is not found in any Ukrainian translation of Shakespeare nor can it be found in HrinčenkoV dic­ tionary. kagánec in Ukrainian the accent is on the last syl­ lable: \ahanèc\ This also accords with Hrinčenko’s dictionary. Besides, there is the form Xahán. kaj mak Vasmer, referring to Shólochov, states that this word comes from the Don region. But note that it occurs in Deržavin’s Invitation to Dinner, 1795; in Žukovsky*s poems, (the Archangelsky’s edition, 1811, vol. II, 1, p. 95); and in a verse by Puškin, 1821, beginning with the words "Nedávno bednyj muzuVmanin.” Hence \a jm a \ is a word widely used in Russian literary language. kalámar* in Ukrainian the accent is on the last syl­ lable: kalamář; it probably comes directly from the Latin calamarium, rather than from the Polish, \alâmarz. kandër frequently used in Ukrainian as \andjor; it is a thin millet soup; cited by Hrinčen- ko, vol. 1, p. 751, as having been used in the past by the workers in their com­ plaints: zamisć kuliïa, \andjor. 470 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

524 kapčuk in the Ukraine, ^аріи^; means a wallet not only for tobacco but also for money (Hrinčenko, vol. 1, p. 755).

529 karbač this word exists not only in Russian and Polish, but also in Czech as \arabac (In baroque folk plays. See: Selské čili soused­ ské hry českého baroka. Praha, 1942, p. 161); see also Vaša-Trávniček*s dictionary.

535 karp in the Ukraine this word is rarely used. Hrinčenko gives only \orop.

536 kartofel* in the Ukraine \artofVa is seldom used; commonly used is \artopYa. (Hrinčenko, vol. 1, p. 759; \artofVa is not even given.)

543 kacap the author is not familiar with Liewehr*s article which gives a different etymology of this word (Slavia, 1944); unfortunately I have not had an opportunity to become familiar with it either.

It is superfluous to repeat here that this Dictionary is of inestimable im­ portance to anyone working in the Slavic field, and especially to those special­ izing in Ukrainian. In addition, Vasmer’s work is invaluable for its wealth of literary sources. Dmitry Čiževsky

The following additions should be made to my comments on the etymolo­ gical dictionary of Vasmer (see Volume II, No. 2, Summer 1952 of the Annals). Vasmer REW

185 verv* II “Old Russian verv’ only’",—the word occurs also in Croatian (V. Mažuranic: Prinosi za H rvats\i pravnopovjestni rječ- n i\, p. 1613 f., 1451; also V. Jagic: Monu­ mentu historico-juridica slavorum meridi- onalium. I, IV, Zagreb. 1890, Statut of Polica, 15-17 century; cf. F. Leontovyč in ŽMNP, 1867, IV). BOOK REVIEWS 471

437 zavojek to be compared with Old Czech *'zavoj” ( “Dalimil” chapter XXVI, Mourek Kron­ ika Dalimilova podle rukopisu cambridge­ ského. Prague. 1910, p. 49)— lat. “pep- lum ” (Cosmos of Prague, III, 11, 1100). Also Old Polish"**«/«*;." My comments 323 line 6: I-VI instead of I-V. 464 instead of 384. 325 In connection with the word *asfalt/ one sentence omitted. Read: “The word ist found several times in the 11th century (made probably in Kiev) translation of Josephus Flavius (Istrin’ edition II, pp. 44, 222, 255).” 327 In connection with the word " buteteniť add before the word “Nekrasov” : “in Gogol's Dead Souls and in N. Polevoj (1842)” 327 In connection with the word ‘val’kirija’ add: “also Batjuškov, Mecta (1804).”

D. Č.

Qan Kucharzcwski, The Origins of Modern Russia, The Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, New York, 1948. 503 pp.]

The present English edition: The Origins of Modern Russia is based on the Polish original in seven volumes (From White to Red Tsarism), which appeared in Warsaw from 1923-1935. The published volumes cover Russian history from Nicholas I to the 1890’s. The manuscript of the three conclud­ ing volumes, on the reign of Nicholas II, was destroyed in Poland during the last war. Although this loss is indeed regrettable, the lifework of Jan Kucharzewski is still ą noteworthy monument to scholarship and historical insight. It is unfortunate that it was not possible to publish the entire work in English. The publishers of the English edition were faced with the task of com­ pressing seven volumes into one. It is our opinion that this was not done satisfactorily. The Editors of The Origins of Modern Russia selected and strung together single chapters out of the seven-volume whole. It is little 472 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

wonder that the English version gives the impression of being badly organ­ ized, full of gaps, on the one hand, and overloaded on the other. Extremely important events in the history of the Russian revolutionary movement and in the history of Russian social thought are simply omitted. The terroristic struggle of Ňarodnaya Volya, for instance, which culminated in the assassi­ nation of Alexander II—certainly the most dramatic single episode in Rus­ sian revolutionary history of the 19th century—is not treated at all in the English edition. In the Polish original most of the fifth volume is devoted to this. Within the enormous scope of the original work, each event receives pro­ portionate treatment. From White to Red Tsarism has an epic breadth com­ parable to the roman fleuve of Proust, with an alternation of descriptive and analytic chapters. The English version, Origins of Modern Russia, suffers from the lack of a clear integral plan and of balanced treatment of the parts. The book still makes extremely provocative and informative reading, but the above-mentioned faults, plus the lack of an appropriate bibliography, make it difficult to use the volume as a text or reference book. This will in­ evitably limit its circulation among American readers—a regrettable fact, since Kucharzewski’s understanding of the Russian problem is so much more profound than that of many authors on Russia in Western Europe and America. The editors did the book a disservice in devoting an important part, about two-fifths, of the English edition to chapters on Russian-Polish relations and in particular to the Russian reaction to the Polish uprising of 1863. Apart from the fact that this contributes to the disproportionate character of the book, we must say also that in exactly this part the author does not judge the problem objectively. Kucharzewski is, of course, completely true to the facts in his description of the horrors which accompanied the suppression of the uprising of 1863. But it does not follow that in Russian-Polish relations guilt was always en­ tirely on the Russian side, as he suggests. Although, in general, tsarist policy toward the non-Russian nationalities was one of pitiless leveling and Russi­ fication, in the course of tht 19th century Russia twice made generous efforts at reconciliation with Poland· We refer to the constitutional regime of the so-called Congress Kingdom in 1814-1830 and to the “Wielopolski Era” under Alexander II. One may argue, perhaps cor reedy, that in the long run the co-existence of an autonomous and constitutional Poland with an autocratic Russia would have been an unnatural relationship . . . The sec­ tions in which Kucharzewski describes the methods of social subversion and demagoguery with which the tsarist regime combated the Polish uprising of 1863 are particularly instructive. Kucharzewski accepts Drahomanov’s judgment of the centralis tic and imperialistic tendencies of the Russian revolutionaries as fair and objective, but Drahomanov*s criticism of the ‘‘historical patriotism” of the Polish in* BOOK REVIEWS 473

surgents of 1863 seems to have made no impression on him. Drahomanov tried to show that in 1863 the Poles, although themselves deprived of inde­ pendence, felt justified in claiming historical dominion over the Lithuanians, Byelorussians, and Ukrainians. The Poles revolted in both 1830 and 1863 in the name of the “Boundaries of 1772.” In the eyes of the Poles, Lithu­ ania, Byelorussia, and the “Right Bank” Ukraine (that lying west of the Dnieper) were “lost provinces” ; and the Poles were not content with the autonomy of the Congress Kingdom, if that implied a renunciation of these lost provinces. They gave little thought as to whether the peoples of those regions wished to exchange the domination of Russian bureaucracy for that of Polish feudalism. The most important original contribution made by Kucharzewski lies in his discussion of the continuity of Russian tradition from tsarism to Bol­ shevism. From the first moment, the Communist-run Soviet Government put itself into complete opposition to the old regime and systematically purged every remnant of it. The break in the Russian tradition brought about by the Bolshevik Revolution, therefore, must not be minimized. The real problem is to demonstrate how continuity was reestablished and main­ tained in spite of this break. Kucharzewski brings the proper methodologi­ cal approach to bear on the solution of this delicate problem, and that is, in this reviewer’s opinion, the greatest scholarly value of his work. Kuchar­ zewski sees the fathers of modern Russia in the Russian revolutionary under­ ground of the 19th century. His efforts are directed toward showing that although the Russian revolutionary underground was filled with a burning hatred for tsarism, it had little understanding of civil rights in the Western meaning of the term. Kucharzewski succeeds in supporting this thesis with an overwhelming wealth of detail. There are few writers on the history of political trends in Russia who can be measured by the same standards of erudition and insight as Kucharzewski. I v a n L. R u d n y t s k y

Qury Šerech, Narys Suchasnoyi Ukrayinshpyi Literaturnoyi Movy (An Outline of Modern Ukrainian Language). Shevchenko Scien­ tific Society, Inc., Ukrainian Studies, Vol. 3: “Molode Zhyttia” Pub­ lishing Co., Munich, 1951. 402 pp.]

During the last twenty years, in an environment of enforced Russification and war against the Ukrainian language and culture, not a single important work in the Ukrainian language field has been published in Soviet Ukraine. The Institute of Philology of the Academy of Science of the UkrSSR in 1940- 41 prepared a two-volume study on the subject, but, as Academician L. Bula- khovsky has pointed out, this was patterned after, and similar to his own A 474 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

Study of the Russian Language. Even so, the Ukrainian work was never pub­ lished. The current Soviet school grammars of the Ukrainian language are pat­ terned after the school grammars of the Russian language. The indigenous characteristics of the Ukrainian are ignored. The phonetics, lexicography, syn­ tax and orthography of the Ukrainian language are Russified, while linguistic peculiarities, lexicographic and syntax phraseology, as well as orthographic regulations, indigenous to the Russian language, are imposed on the Ukrain­ ian. An objective, scientific study of the Ukrainian language under present conditions in Soviet Ukraine is impossible. Therefore the new work by Jury Šerech is of particular significance and value. Written under conditions of free scholarly research, Professor Serech’s work is distinguished for its scientific objectivity and accuracy. In his introduction to the volume he states that the science of language today is characterized by methods quite different and much more profound—treating the language as a system—than 20 or 30 years ago when traditional methods were in vogue. These rested not so much on philological criteria as on logical and psycho­ logical. Ukrainian scholars in the Soviet Ukraine cannot make use of these scientific advances of European philology under current conditions of war on the “bourgeois” science of Western Europe and on “cosmopolitanism” in general. In making use of them Professor Šerech has laid new foundations under the study of modern Ukrainian literary language. The author’s plan is two-fold: first, “to offer a complete study of the Ukrainian language without leaving out topics that will be elementary to the scholar” ; second, “to plan the study scientifically, with a fresh outlook from the methodological point of view.” Professor Šerech has therefore combined the scholarly with a popular approach. His clear analysis of linguistic peculiari­ ties, the wealth of examples he cites, the thoroughness with which he pre­ sents his facts, the new methodological principles he employs, as well as his concise manner of presentation make a lucid and interesting volume. Free of the dry style usually associated with scientific writing concerning language, Professor Serech’s work is not only scholarly and documented but interesting reading and should have popular appeal. Serech’s idea is not to impose, but to formulate, the norms of current literary language as they have evolved in the course of the last century and a half and, more particularly, during the last fifty years. “Hence,” writes Pro­ fessor Šerech, “exact documentation of all the examples cited, always chosen from literary sources, and not invented.” This inductive approach to the lin­ guistic characteristics of the Ukrainian language and to the formulation of the norms of the literary language are among the most important features of the work. The author has made use of the literary works of 165 Ukrainian writers, as well as of Ukrainian proverbs, folksongs, dumas and the Ukrainian press. BOOK REVIEWS 475

Planned on such a broad scale the work offers a great deal of new and original material, shedding light on language phenomena in general. In contrast to the traditional division of material into three sections—pho­ netics, morphology and syntax—Professor Šerech begins his study with a sec­ tion on “The Word,” discussing the basic principles of Ukrainian lexicology and semantics. Further on we have sections on syntax, elements of stylistical syntax, the word as part of a sentence, and the fundamentals of phonetics and phonology. The book ends with a chapter on “Principles of Ukrainian Writ­ ing and Orthography.” Special attention is given to literary style. The author underscores the current Ukrainian literary language as a medium for richness of style variations. In this the work differs from all other studies of a similar nature. In the chapter on morphology, new light is shed on the role of the present participle in the Ukrainian literary language. One of the indigenous charac­ teristics of that language is its avoidance of the present participle. The Bol­ sheviks are now trying to do away with this, imposing on the Ukrainian language strange and foreign Russian forms as, for example, " vidpovidajucyj učen' (the answering student,) etc. \Hramaty\a U\rayins\oyi Movy (Ukrai­ nian Grammar), A. O. Zahrodsky, Part I, Kiev, 1949, p; 183]. In his scientific and objective study Professor Šerech discards the Bolshevik tendency to submit the language to Russification processes. As highest au­ thority on the subject, the author considers the works of two outstanding Ukrainian scholars, now forbidden and censored in Soviet Ukraine. The norms of the Ukrainian literary language have been established in their works which, in the words of Professor Šerech, are authoritative even today: in phonetics and grammar, the volume by Oleksa Synjavskyj, Normy U^rayin- s\oyi Literaturnoyi Movy (Norms of Ukrainian Literary Language), pub­ lished in Kharkiv in 1931; in lexicology, the six volumes of Rosiys\o~U\ra- yins\yj Slovny\ U\rayins\oyi A\ademiyi Nau\ (The Russian-Ukrainian Dic­ tionary of the Ukrainian Academy of Science) published in 1924-1932. These works are now forbidden in Soviet Ukraine because, writes Professor Šerech, “they do not meet with the demands of the government’s Russification pro­ gram.” For the free Ukrainian they will continue to be, along with Professor Serech’s new work, the highest authority on the subject of norms of the Ukrainian literary language. An Outline of Modern Ukrainian Literary Language offers an accurate picture of this language with all its indigenous characteristics and native features. Petro Odarchenko 476 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

[ Ukrainian Arts, compiled by Olya Dmytriw, edited by Anne Mitz. New York, Ukrainian Youth’s League of North America, Inc., 1952, 212 pp., illustrated.^

The purpose of this book is to give the reader basic information about the Ukrainian arts. There are ten articles in the space of only 212 pages, each of which is devoted to a particular segment of Ukrainian art; obviously the material is concise rather than full in coverage. However, numerous illustra- tions (of which there are over 100, 18 colored) augment and enrich the volume. The book will give general introductory information to anyone not acquainted with the Ukrainian arts. Each article gives a short historical resume of each particular branch of artistic creativeness. In his introduction to this volume, Ukrainian Arts, Clarence A. Manning (Columbia University)* author of a number of works on Ukraine, presents a picture of Ukrainian culture. Despite the unfavorable circumstances, the Ukrainian creative spirit has produced, and is continuing to produce, con­ stantly new vital forces. Lydia Burachynska writes on national costumes, their historical develop­ ment, individual types and regional peculiarities. Lydia Nenadkevych con­ tributes an article on the art of embroidery. Rare among other peoples, this art has been preserved and widely cultivated in homes of various social classes in the Ukraine up to the present time. Damian Horniatkevych is represented by three articles, the first on wood carving and ornamentation. The second is on ceramics, an art in Ukraine which goes back to the so-called Trypillyan Culture, 2500-2000 B.C. Here the author portrays the growth of ceramic factories in the 18th and 19th centuries and at the present time. The third article by the same author is de­ voted to the art of making kilyms, from the inception of the art to recent times in the 19th and 20th centuries, when new attempts were made to revive and popularize this facet of folk-art manufacture. Gloria Surmach contributes an article on a branch of folk art very popular in Ukraine—Easter eggs (pysan\y), the making of which has not only been vitally preserved until the present, but (as embroidery) is practiced by all Ukrainian emigres the world over. This article is lavishly illustrated. These six articles concern Ukrainian folk art; then follow four pertaining to the fine arts, architecture, music and literature. It seems to this reviewer that a balance has not been kept between the various branches of the arts. The preponderance of material on the folk arts makes the book one-sided. This characteristic is emphasized also by the selection of illustrative material which cannot be considered as the most appropriate. Some of the landscape photographs which have been included testify to art in nature rather than to art in general. In only 14 pages Sviatoslav Hordynsky must describe all the BOOR REVIEWS 477 phases of Ukrainian fine arts: painting, sculpture and the graphic arts. Of necessity he has had to employ a “telegraphic” style, often limiting himself to the mere enumeration of names. The least space is devoted to the article by Volodymyr Sichynsky on architecture. As a result, the names of the Ukrainian architects of the 20th century, such as Krychevsky, Levynsky and others, are only enumerated without any reference to their styles or examples of their architecture. More space is devoted to music. The author, Wasyl Wytvycky, was able to present a more comprehensive picture of the historical development and contemporary tendencies of Ukrainian music. The conclud­ ing article is by Luke Luciv on Ukrainian literature. Some of the articles have shortcomings here and there. In the main, they are the result of the very condensed format. One could have reservations about the general viewpoints of some of the articles. For instance, the constant stressing of the national momentum, which is especially noticeable in the article on literature, could create in the reader a simplified picture of the Ukrainian arts. Still a reader who is not acquainted with Ukrainian art will find this book valuable in its general information and its profuse illustrative material. The book is well edited. The cover and the careful typography were done by Gloria Surmach. Yakiv Hnizdovsky OBITUARIES

VASYL KRYCHEVSRY

A prominent specialist in the field of Ukrainian arts, an architect and painter, member— honoris causa— of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts, mem­ ber of many scholarly institutions and member of our Academy, Professor Dr. Vasyl Krychevsky died in Venezuela, on November 15, 1952. Vasyl Krychevsky was born on February 12, 1873, in the village of Vorozh- ba, in the province of Kharkiv, Ukraine. He was educated at the Uni­ versity of Kharkiv, and was the architect of many well-known buildings in the Ukraine. In 1902 he designed a model in the Ukrainian style for the building of the Zemstvo in Poltava, which made him famous as an architect and for which he was honored with the First Premium. Besides his work in the field of architecture, V. Krychevsky was always active in the development of other branches of Ukrainian arts. As a painter he won distinction as one of the best Ukrainian impressionists. Vasyl Kry­ chevsky is also known as one of the leading figures in the reformation of Ukrainian theatrical, decorative painting, in which he was active since 1909. In the history of Ukrainian culture Vasyl Krychevsky played an important role as architect, artist, painter and scholar. The death of Professor Krychevsky means for the Academy the loss of one of its ablest members.

GREGORY MAKHIV

Gregory Makhiv, full member of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U.S., died in Birmingham, Mich., on August 22, 1952. He was a distinguished soil specialist, an ardent promoter of the development of agricultural sciences in the Ukraine, a professor of soil science at the in­ stitutions of higher education of Kiev and Kharkiv. Gregory Makhiv was born on August 23, 1887 in Kiev. He was educated at Kiev Gymnasium and the University of Kiev. He completed his studies in 1913 and immediately started to work as a researcher in soil science for the Kiev Zemstvo. In 1915 he published papers on his research. In 1919 he started to work as chief of the department of soil science with the Kiev Agricultural Experiment Station and lectured on soil science and geography at the institutions of higher education of Kiev. In 1922 he led expeditions to explore the “white spots” on the soil map of the Ukraine. In 1924 he became a professor of soil science at the Kharkiv Agricultural Institute. At the same time he was very active as a researcher, becoming one

478 OBITUARIES 479 of the leading Ukrainian specialists in soil science and experimental agricul­ ture. From 1924 to 1928 he was in charge of soil research in the Ukraine, the aim of which was to find new methods of improving agriculture, as well as to explore the possibility of afforestation. In 1928-29 he worked as chief of the research branch of the Meliorative Institute (Kharkiv and Odessa); in 1929-30 he was substitute for the director of the Central Laboratory of Agrichemistry in Kiev. Since 1931 Professor Makhiv headed the department of field investigations of soils at the Institute of Soil Science in Kiev and conducted investigations of soils over all the territory of the Ukraine. Professor Makhiv was the author of the first detailed soil map of the Ukraine, as well as the author of the first agricultural classification of soils of the Ukraine. His last map, covering all the Ukrainian territory, was pub­ lished in the Annals Vol. I, No. 1. After World War II, Professor Makhiv took an active part in the work of Ukrainian scientific institutions in exile. In 1949 Professor Makhiv came to this country and gradually found it possible to continue his work on the material gathered during his expeditions in the Ukraine. He was one of the founders and most active members of our Academy. His sudden death interrupted Professor Makhiv s intensive work. He was the author of many studies in soil science (more than 80 publications). His textbook on the soils of Ukraine was very popular in Ukrainian universities and among agriculturists. His scholarly works presented a brilliant synthesis of his studies of the geography and agriculture of the Ukraine.

VASYL LORCHENKO

Professor Vasyl Lorchenko died on November 21, 1952, in New York City. He was born on March 3, 1877, in the Ukrainian village of Shandra, in the district of Kiev. For many years he was Professor in the Universities of Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk. A tireless worker in the field of physics, he did much to raise the standard of education in the Ukraine and won the admiration and respect of Ukrain­ ian students. CHRONICLE

The activities of the Academy in the last months of 1952 was marked by increased intensity in the work of Sections. From Sept. 15 up to Dec. 31 there were 20 scholarly conferences held by Sections of the Academy. In the second half of 1952 the following members of the Academy arrived in this country: Professor Andri) Yakovliv (from Belgium), Prof. Yurij Šerech-Shevelov (from Sweden), Professor Olexander Arkhimovich (from Spain), Prof. Valerian Harbachevskyj (from Germany), Dr. Ivan Volynetz (from Germany). During the second half of 1952 the following lectures were delivered be­ fore the plenary sessions of the Academy:

17 October 1952 Conference in Memory of the Late Professor Gregory Makhiv. Speakers: Professor Michael Vetukhiv: Professor Gregory M a\hiv, as a Scholar and Personality. —Professor V. Horodecky: Importance of Professor M a\- hivs Research in Agriculture. —Dr. P. Birko: Professor G. Ma\hiv as a Leading Soil Scientist.

22 November 1952 Lecture by guest-speaker, Dr. Arnold Margolin: Peoples and Government.

21 December 1952 The Conference in Honor of Professor Andrij Yakovliv, Marking His 80th Birthday. —Professor M. Vetukhiv: Andrij Ya\ovliv s Life and Scientific Activities. —Professor L. Okinshevich: Professor Yakovliv s Research in the Field of History of the Ukrainian Law. The following lectures and seminars were held under the auspices of Sec­ tions of the Academy:

L it e r a r y a n d P hilological S e c t io n 13 September 1952 —Professor D. Čiževsky: Some Relics of the Pre-Ukrain­ ian Antique in Old Ukrainian Language and Litera­ ture. —Professor V. Chaplenko: Development of Ukrainian Newspapers’ Language in the Period 1905-17. 29 November 1952 —Professor P. Odarchenko: New Studies Concerning Shevchenko.

480 CHRONICLE 481

B ibliographical S e c t io n 7 June 1952 —Professor J. B. Rudnyckyj: Ukrainien in the USA and Canada. —L. Bykovsky: U\rarnica in Russian Geneology. 27 September 1952 —V. Prykhodko: Publishing Activities of Kamianez- Podils\ Zemstvo. —Yu. Tyshchenko: Ukrainian Booths in the Carpathian Ukraine. 15 November 1952 —Professor V. Sichinskyj: The Beginnings of Ukrai­ nian Printing and Engraving. —I. Korovitzkyj: Bibliography of Contents of Periodi­ cals.

E thnographic S e c t io n 26 June 1952 —Professor J. B. Rudnyćkyj: Onomastics and Folklore. —Professor P. Odarchenko: The Wor\ of Lesya Ù\ray- in\a in the Field of Ukrainian Folklore. 17 July 1952 —Professor D. Horniatkevych: Ukrainian Fol\-Arts in the W or\s of Polish Artists.

H is t o r ic a l S e c t io n 19 October 1952 —Professor O. Ohloblyn: Ukrainian Historiography in 1920-1940. 30 November 1952 —Professor A. Yakovliv: Reminiscences of My Service in the Foreign Office Under the Hetman Regime. —L. Bykovsky: Publicistics of Yurij Lypa. 27 December 1952 —Dr. O. Dombrovskyj: Genesis of the Geographical Conception “Scythians” in the Ancient World.

The Commission for the Study of Ukrainian History in the Inter-War Period (1918-39) under the chairmanship of Dr. John S. Reshetar (Princeton University) continued its work under the auspices of the Historical Section of the Academy. The following meetings of its Seminar were held:

20 September 1952 —Dr. E. Pyziur: Ukrainian Problem in World War 1 and Soyuz Vyzvolennya U\rayiny (Union for the Lib­ eration of the Ukraine). 25 October 1952 —Dr. I. Lysiak-Rudnytsky: Carpatho-Ugraine as an In­ ternational Problem. 482 THE ANNALS OF THE UKRAINIAN ACADEMY

15 November 1952 —M. Luther: The Problem of the Crimea-Tdrtars dur­ ing World War II. 29 November 1952 —Professor O. Ohloblyn: Ukrainian Historical Science in the Soviet U\raine in the 1920’s.

L a w S e c t io n 25 October 1952 —Professor V. Hryshko: The Moscow Legend About Byzantine Inheritance.

E c o n o m ic s S e c t io n 14 November 1952 —Dr. V. Stec: The Functions of the Local Budget in the National Economy of the USSR.

B io log y S e c t io n 28 June 1952 —in Detroit, Michigan. —Professor V. Petrovsky: Reservation Stations of the Meadow Butterfly in the Ukraine in the Periods of Biological Depression. —Dr. V. Lyzohub: German Travelers of the First Half of the \9th Century on the Geography of the Ukraine. 27 September 1952 —in Detroit, Michigan. —Conference in memory of the late Professor Gregory Makhiv. —Dr. P. Birko: The Life and Scientific Work of Pro­ fessor Makhiv. 3 December 1952 —in New York. —Professor O. Arkhimovich: The Role of Insects in Pollination of Flowers of the Sugar Beet. 28 December 1952 —in New York. —Professor N. Efremov: At the Boundaries of Chemis­ try, Geochemistry, and Biology. The following lectures were delivered before the Fine Arts Group under the chairmanship of Professor D. Horniatkevych at the conference commem­ orating the Ukrainian writer Bohdan Lepkyj: 6 December 1952 —Dr. Sophie Rabij-Karpinska: Bohdan Lepkyfs Works. —Rostislav Lepkyj: Reminiscences of My Brothers Life. The Museum and Library of the Academy has continued its work under the management of Professor V. Porskyj. Many new acquisitions of photo­ graphs and materials were reported. A NOTE ON TRANSLITERATION

The following simplified system is used in the transliteration of Ukrainian:

8 — ft H — n 6 — b 0 — o В — V П — P P — h P — r Ґ — g c — s Д — d T — t e — e y — u fc — ye Ф — f ж — zh X — kh a ---- 2 Ц — ts M — У 4 — ch і — « І Ш — ah Ї — yi m — shch H — У Ю — yu K — k я — ya Λ — 1 b — f H — m

The spelling of proper names, place names, and special terms generally accepted in English usage will retain that accepted form (e.g. Kiev, Kharkiv, Dnieper, chernozem). Russian and Polish proper names will retain their respective forms (e.g. Trubeckoj, Zaleski), but Ukrainian proper names and place names will keep their Ukrainian form even if occurring in Russian or Polish sources (e.g. Bila Cerkva, not Biała Cerkiew). In articles on comparative philology the “international” trans­ literation (see Annals, Vol. I, No. 2, 1951, p. 188) will continue to be used.

483 CONTRIBUTORS

Mychaylo Hrushevsky, famous Ukrainian historian; author of ten- volumc History of Ukraine and many other scholarly publica­ tions; distinguished scholar and statesman; died in 1934. Andrij Yakovliv, formerly rector of the Ukrainian Free University in Prague; one of the leading historians of Ukrainian law; now in this country. Olexander Ohloblyn, historian, formerly professor at Kiev Uni­ versity and the Ukrainian Free University in Munich; now in this country. Nicholas Efremov, engineer-geologist; doctor of geology and min­ eralogy; author of many scholarly works in geology, mineralogy and geochemistry; now in U.S. Yury Šerech, philologist, literary historian and critic; at present on the Staff of the Slavic Department, Harvard University, Cam­ bridge, Mass. Michael Vetukhiv, biologist; formerly professor at Kharkiv Uni­ versity; at present living in New York City. Dmitry Čiževsky, Lecturer in Slavic at Harvard University; author of many books on Ukrainian literature and philosophy. Petro Odarchenko, formerly reader and lecturer at the Institute of Nizhyn and Kursk; at present on the Staff of the Slavic Depart­ ment of the Library of Congress, Washington, D.C. Ihor Sevčenko, specialist in Byzantine history; now in. Cambridge, Mass. Ivan L. Rudnytsky, graduate of the Institute of International Affairs in Geneva; now in this country. Yakiv Hnizdovsky, painter and artist; an authority on Ukrainian art Michael Luther, at present a student in the Russian Institute, Columbia University, New York City.

484 T able II

THE IONS ARE ARRANGED ACCORDING TO THE INCREASING “PORTION NUMBERS OF THE IONIC RADII” (THE LOWER ROW OF NUMBERS) AND THUS ACCORDING TO THE INCREASING IONIC RADII (THE UPPER ROW OF NUMBERS). THE PORTION NUMBERS INCREASE FROM THE LEFT TO THE RIGHT HAND EXCEPT THE IONS OF THE RARE EARTHS AND ACTINIDES WHICH DECREASE REGULARLY (BY ONE PORTION) UPWARDS. THE PORTION NUMBERS ARE SIMPLE TOTAL NUMBERS WHICH CAN BE OBTAINED FROM OUR MATRIX (SEE APPENDIX).

Printed by ific Printing C o ., Inc. East 18th St., N. Y. C.