1. They can draw on a series of detailed bibliographies and studies of individuals, topics, andinstitutions. Compare Materialen zur Geschichte der Slavistik in Deutschland 1 (Berlin, 1982); 2 wasannounced for 1986, but I have not seen it.

2. A single example: Harvard historian Edward L. Keenan appears only in the Danish article, where it is reported with satisfaction that two young Danes “have refuted” Keenan's arguments.Keenan's 1971 The Kurbskii-Groznyi Apocrypha, claiming that the major literary works of the 1500swere in fact compiled in the 1600s, led not only to a special session at the 1973 Banff meetings of theAAASS (with an audience of over a hundred), but to serious scholarly review of the manuscriptevidence and a flood of books and articles in the USSR and many other countries. Whether Keenan's 1971 views are upheld, somewhat revised, or completely rejected is still a matter of future scholarship (Keenan himself is satisfied that the new information has affirmed his original suggestions). What isimportant is that many cultural and literary details have been brought to light and our collectiveknowlege of the period (in Poland and the Lithuanian commonwealth as well as Muscovy) has gainedin breadth, depth, and precision.

3. Hence not only introductory surveys of Russian literature are traditionally given in English, but more specialized courses on minor authors or topics, such as the drama.

4. The basic requirement here, of course, is solid language training, a need alternately promotedand neglected by universities in the United States. Edgerton leaves out this vital component of ourprograms. Perhaps here is the spot to remark on the differing effects of the three waves of Russianimmigration.

5. Edgerton oddly links Rene Wellek (born 1903) and Jakobson as scholars from Prague withgreat influence on Slavistics in the United States. I believe that the difference in the kinds of influenceis worth emphasizing. Jakobson was a Slavist whose views on Slavic data shaped the course ofgeneral linguistic theory; Wellek is an Anglist who worked out his literary theory primarily on thebasis of English and German literature. Wellek's role in American Slavic studies is significant but isbased chiefly on his temporary position as organizer of the Yale Slavic Department, 1949–1954, andsecondarily as a critic of Czech and Russian literature; his theoretical ideas reached our studentsthrough courses in English and comparative literature.

6. Edgerton is mistaken in saying that Cross's Ph.D. was “in medieval Germanic studies” (p. 493); Cross's degree was in comparative literature and his dissertation dealt with Russian historiography.Harvard's Department of Comparative Literature has played a significant and continuingrole in United States Slavic studies; surely sister departments elsewhere should be given credit fortheir contributions to our field.

7. Even earlier, this same concern induced John Quincy Adams (1767–1848) to donate someFrench books about Russian history to Harvard. During his term as ambassador to Russia, 1809–1814, he sent a number of grammars and dictionaries of Russian. Hugh Olmsted is preparingan account of the early development of Harvard's Slavic collections that will appear in the Harvard Library Bulletin, with details of these donations and of Coolidge's contributions.

8. Cross's 1938–1939 course in Russian drama and the Russian theater, with lectures and readingin English, had eighteen students, including three graduates. Whitfield's Polish had four Polish-Americans, plus me. Lord's Serbo-Croatian apparently had only one registered student, a RadcliffeMA candidate, Mrs. Anna Evarts, who later was head of the Slavic section in Widener Library, withWhitfield (a graduate student) and me as auditors. Lord, holder of a prestigious Junior Fellowship, was not officially connected to any department and was not obligated to do any teaching. (Whitfieldbecame a Junior Fellow the next year.)

9. Harvard and Radcliffe were at the time completely separate institutions, and instructors wouldgive a class in Harvard Yard for the men and then walk the few blocks to repeat it for the women in aRadcliffe classroom. I believe that Lednicki's instruction for the two students in Slavic 12 in1940–1941 may have been the first—and surely unofficial—case of a coeducational class. The classmet at Radcliffe, to suit Lednicki's convenience, not Harvard-Radcliffe protocol. (Lord's “mixed” class in Serbo-Croatian, mentioned in the previous note, differed in that the woman was a graduatestudent, while the men were auditors.)

10. It turned out that Cross had neglected protocol and his “department” lacked faculty sanction, so that technically the several A.B. and M.A. degrees he had authorized, along with the two Ph.D.s (and a joint Ph.D. in Slavic and Sociology), were of dubious legality. This was all rectified by therequired committee approvals and faculty votes in 1948–1949.

11. Karpovich published relatively little, but he was a devoted and effective teacher whose influenceon generations of Harvard undergraduates and graduates shows up in many fields. His meticulousand time-consuming labors as editor of the Novyi zhurnal must also count as contribution to ourfield. Another remarkable teacher, noted by Edgerton only in a grab-bag list of books on Sovietliterature, was Rufus Mathewson (1918–1978), whose effervescent flow of new ideas about literaturein general and insights about individual works in particular inform the publications and teaching ofnumerous former Columbia students. Future historians must find ways to evaluate the contributionof teachers and administrators to the total scholarly enterprise.

12. In terms of Harvard at the time, the existence of the course was exceptional; products of thepast twenty years were not considered ready for analysis, except perhaps in an honors thesis. Forexamination purposes, German literature ended in 1914; I was supposed to know in great detailabout Thomas Mann's Buddenbrooks, 1900, and Death in Venice, 1912, but nothing about The Magic Mountain, 1924, let alone the Joseph novels. Harry Levin's course on Proust, Joyce, and Mann wasalmost scandalously innovative but found shelter in the English Department during a temporaryeclipse of the Department of Comparative Literature.

13. My remarks here have kept largely to matters of which I have personal knowledge; thisdoubtless has led to neglect of developments at Berkeley and Columbia. I hope that the gaps I haveleft will be filled by scholars who were on the scene, and I regret any factual errors that may haveresulted from my superficial research.

14. Harvard believed enough in Slavic studies to make provision for the 1949 renewal, but lackof “hard money” was the reason Dmitrij TschiZewskij (1894–1977), an outstandingly versatile andproductive scholar and teacher, returned to Germany in 1956 after seven years at Harvard. He israted as a major force in German Slavistik.

15. I should like to thank Norman Ingham of Chicago (Harvard Ph.D., 1963) and James Baileyof Wisconsin (Harvard Ph.D., 1965) for their instant responses to my vague inquiries. They both sentlocally published historical descriptions of their Slavic programs (see the next three notes), addinghelpful comments, thus enabling me to sketch the major points.

16. My information is derived from a 1977 booklet, Russian and Soviet Studies at the University of Chicago, published on the occasion of an exhibit at the Joseph Regenstein Library. Such outlinesare helpful, but let me express the hope that more detailed histories will be written while peopleremember the important details that are omitted in this sort of summary.

17. Apparently Russian and Old Church Slavonic were introduced by Alfred Senn (1899–1978), the specialist in Baltic languages and linguistics, but my queries produced no certain information.The question of Slavic subjects taught in the departments of linguistics, history, and comparativeliterature should be investigated for the full record.

18. I cite a brief history prepared in 1986 for the Golden Anniversary of the Wisconsin departmentby J. Thomas Shaw (Harvard Ph.D. in English, 1950).

19. Edgerton is imprecise in a number of details (e.g., he says Doroszewski remained for twoyears, p. 493), but, after a superficial look at some of the Harvard archives concerning Slavic studies, I must stress that it is hard to come by many of the facts one expects to find in a detailed history.Shaw's mildly inaccurate characterization of Zawacki as “the first person to be awarded the Ph.D. inSlavic Languages in the United States” (dating the degree 1941) might be saved by adding the epithet “American-born” but Columbia in 1921 awarded a Ph.D. in “Slavonics” to Avrahm Yarmolinsky, who was born in the Russian Empire but had some schooling in Geneva (cf. Edgerton, “History,” p.509). Yarmolinsky was for years in charge of the Slavic section of the New York Public Library, oneof the institutions that played a major role in Slavic studies. (My dissertation could not have beenwritten if I had had to depend on the Columbia Library in 1948–1949; the library at 42nd Street wasfull of Columbia students doing research on all sorts of Slavic topics.) The development of theexcellent Slavic libraries at various universities also should be included in our future histories.

20. No one should forget that our growth has been only a small portion of the overall expansionof higher education since 1960. Now that economic opportunities seem again to be shrinking, willSlavic studies maintain their proportion of funds as fields more “central” to general education andresearch more “vital to the national interest” find their budgets less and less generous?