1. Those trained in literature or linguistics had slightly better chances to secure academic employment, but they invariably were appointed to teach Russian language and literature.Google Scholar

2. As a rule, “sensitive areas” include politics, religion, and non-Russian history. To my knowledge, not a single application to research a purely Ukrainian historical problem has been accepted. Indeed, I was told recently by an IREX representative that the chances of a scholar of Ukrainian descent to receive permission to use the archives of Kiev or L'viv were “non-existent.”Google Scholar

3. Hrushevs'kyi's bibliography contains some 2,000 titles, including such major works as Istoriia Ukrainy-Rusy, 10 vols. (unfinished) and Istoriia ukrains'koi literatury, 5 vols.Google Scholar

4. Ukrainian historical “populism,” represented by such scholars as P. Kulish, M. Kostomarov, and Hrushevs'kyi was essentially ethnocentric, in that it laid emphasis on the masses as the main force in history. It idealized the nation and recognized the principle of social antagonism. In contrast, the derzhavnyky or “state-minded” historians, led by such individuals as V. Lypyns'kyi, S. Tomashivs'kyi, and D. Doroshenko stressed the state over the nation and emphasized the individual rather than the mass as the prime force in history. Recent scholarship tends to blend both strains.Google Scholar

5. Translated by 0. J. Fredriksen, Yale University Press, 1941; reprinted by Archon Books, 1970. The translation is based on Iliustrovana istoriia Ukrainy (1911), which in turn was an edited translation from a 1904 Russian version.Google Scholar

6. There are other general texts by different authors: W. E. D. Allen, The Ukraine: A History (Cambridge, 1963); D. Doroshenko, History of Ukraine, an edited translation by H. Keller (Edmonton, 1929); I. Nahayevsky, History of Ukraine, an edited translation by H. Keller (Edmonton, 1939); I. Nahayevsky, History of Ukraine (Philadelphia, 1961); N. L. Chirovsky, Old Ukraine. Its Socioeconomic History Prior to 1781 (Madison, N. J., 1963); and others.Google Scholar

7. See Leonid Sonevyts'kyi and Oleksander Dombrovs'kyi, Ukrains'ka Akademiia Nauk: Iuvileine vydannia (New York, 1967).Google Scholar

8. Also translated into English by M. Luchkovych, Ukrainian Research and Information Institute (Chicago, 1968). For a general survey of the Society, see V. Kubijovic, “Naukove Tovarystvo im. Shevchenka u 1939–1953 r.,” Ukrains'kyi istoryk, vol. 1–2 (37–38) (1973).Google Scholar

9. The uneven quality of Ukrains'kyi istorychnyi zhurnal may derive from the fact that it is published jointly by the Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences of the Ukrainian SSR, the Institute of Party History of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Ukraine and the Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Thus, it has the dual function of promoting serious scholarship and propaganda. With few exceptions, the essays published therein reflect ideological concerns and neglect those aspects of Ukrainian history deemed unworthy or “sensitive” by the Party. In contrast, these goals are pursued independently in such Russian publications as Voprosy istorii and Voprosy istorii KPSS. See the review article by Orest Subtelny, “Ukrains'kyj Istorynyj Zurnal,” Recenzija: A Review of Soviet Scholarly Publications (Harvard), vol. I, no. 1 (Fall, 1970).Google Scholar

10. See Lubomyr Wynar, Desiatelittia Ukrains'koho Istoryka, 1963–1973, with a cumulative index for the period compiled by Martha Wolanyk (New York and Munich, 1974).Google Scholar

11. Omeljan Pritsak, “Ukrainian Studies at Harvard University,” Ukrains'kyi Istoryk, vol. 4 (24) (1969).Google Scholar

12. Followed by two additional articles by Arthur E. Adams and Omeljan Pritsak with John S. Reshetar, Jr., and a rebuttal. Slavic Review, vol. XXII, no. 2 (June 1963).Google Scholar

13. The Ukrainian Quarterly, vol. I (September 1945); reprinted in Sidney Harcave, Readings in Russian History, vol. 1 (New York, 1962).Google Scholar

14. Arthur E. Adams, in his review of Harcave's Readings, in Russian History, stated: “I find the inclusion of Nicholas Chubaty's “The Meaning of ‘Russia and ‘Ukraine”’ somewhat mystifying since I cannot believe that Chubaty's nationalistic distortions of history deserve serious attention.” In the same instance, however, Adams found the included article on periodization from Voprosy istoril “of considerable interest to the professional historian.” See Slavic Review, vol. XXII, no. 2 (June 1963), pp. 329–30.Google Scholar

15. Mykhailo Zhdan, “Mykola Chubatyi,” Ukrains'kyi istoryk, vol. 4 (24) (1969). Also reprinted separately.Google Scholar

16. Rome and New York, 1965. 816 pp.Google Scholar

17. Oswald P. Backus III and Henrich A. Stammler, “Kievan Christianity and the ‘Church Universal”', Slavic Review, vol. 30, no. 2 (June 1971), pp. 363–64/361–65/.Google Scholar

18. “Kievan Christianity Misinterpreted,” Ukrains'kyi istoryk, vol. 1–2 (33–34); also reprinted separately. The essay was submitted to but not accepted by Slavic Review.Google Scholar

19. Peculiarly, Chubatyi excluded from his bibliography the study by Steven Runciman, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the XII and XIII Centuries (Oxford, 1953), which disputes the traditional Catholic views.Google Scholar

20. “The Status of the Russian Church in the First Half-Century Following Vladimir's Conversion,” The Slavonic and East European Review, vol. XX (1941).Google Scholar

21. In addition to “The Meaning of ‘Russia’ and ‘Ukraine,”’ see also “The Ukrainian and Russian Conception of the History of Eastern Europe,” Proceedings of the Philosophico-Historical Section of the Shevchenko Scientific Society, vol. 1 (New York and Paris, 1941), also reprinted separately; “Two Conceptions of Ukrainian Nationality in Their Historical Development,” ibid., vol. 2 (New York and Toronto, 1953).Google Scholar

22. The Origins of Russia (New York, 1954); The Making of the Russian Nation (London, 1963).Google Scholar

23. “Periodization and Terminology of the History of the Eastern Slavs: Observations and Analyses,” Slavic Review, vol. 31, no. 4 (December 1972); and, “Problems of Periodization and Terminology in Ukrainian Historiography,” Nationalities Papers, vol. III, no, 2 (Fall 1975), followed by pertinent comments by Herbert J. Elison and Lubomyr Wynar.Google Scholar

24. See Lubomyr Wynar, “Naukoya tyorchist’ Oleksandra Petrovycha Ohloblyna,” Ukrains'kyi istoryk, vol. 1–3 (25–27) (1970); Iurii Boyko, “Prof. d-r 0. P. Ohloblyn, iak istoryk dukhovo-politychnoho rostu Kozats'koi Ukrainy,” ibid., vol. 1–2 (45–46) (1975).Google Scholar

25. “Ethical and Political principles of Istoriya Rusov,” The Annals of the Ukrainian Academy of Arts and Sciences in the U. S. vol, 2, no. 4 (1952); “Istoriya Rusov and Its Author,” ibid., vol. 3, no. 2 (1953). See also his introduction to the Ukrainian translation, Istoriia Rusiv (New York, 1956).Google Scholar

26. In various studies, particularly in Khmel'nychchyna i Ukrains'ka derzhavnist’ (New York, 1954); Problema derzhavnoi vlady na Ukraini za Khmel'nychchynu i Pereiaslavs'ka uhoda 1654 r. (Munich and New York, 1966); Dumky pro Khmel'nychchynu (New York, 1957).Google Scholar

27. Also available in English translation, Treaty of Pereyaslav, 1654 (New York, 1654).Google Scholar

28. See his Andrii Voinarovs'kyi (Munich, 1962), and Kniaz’ Dmytro Vyshnevets'kyi (Munich, 1964).Google Scholar

29. George Gajecky and Alexander Baran, The Cossacks in the Thirty Years War (Rome, 1969), the first of a three-volume study.Google Scholar