Chronicle: Russia (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

Chronicle: Russia (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)Source: The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 9, No. 26 (Dec., 1930), pp. 462-471Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4202538 .

Accessed: 23/06/2014 14:25

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 195.34.78.191 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 14:25:40 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=mhra

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucl

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4202538?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


462 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW.

SIR ISRAEL GOLLANCZ

THE School of Slavonic and East European Studies greatly regrets to have to record the death of the distinguished scholar in English literature, Sir Israel Gollancz, Secretary of the British Academy, who was a member of the Slavonic Advisory Committee and always a firm friend of the School. Sir Israel was a man of the widest sympathies and interests, among which the Slavonic field had always a warm corner. As one of the active builders of a great University in London, his advice and help were always at the disposal of his colleagues, and in the work of its organisation the School owes him a very real debt.

CHRONICLE RUSSIA (UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS).

The Resumption of Anglo-Russian Relations. SINCE the publication of our last Chronicle important developments

have taken place in the Soviet Union. In the domain of foreign affairs, the negotiations which had been proceeding between the British Foreign Office and the Soviet Ambassador in London resulted in the conclusion of a temporary Commercial Agreement signed in London by Mr. Henderson and M. Sokolnikov on i6 April, pending the conclusion of a full commercial Treaty. The Agreement is based, with certain exceptions, on the principle of " the most-favoured-nation " treatment accorded to the citizens, juridical persons, national produce and manufactures of either of the contracting parties. By Article II of the Agreement the British Govern- ment agrees, in view of the Soviet State monopoly of foreign trade, to accord to the Soviet Government the right to establish in Great Britain a Trade Delegation consisting of the Trade Representative and his two deputies, forming part of the Soviet Embassy and enjoying diplomatic immunity. Diplomatic immunity and extra territoriality are also ex- tended to the premises occupied by the Trade Delegation and used exclusively for commercial functions. A Protocol and an additional Protocol are attached to the Agreement. In the former it is stated that, whereas both contracting parties are animated by the desire to eliminate all obstacles and all forms of discrimination and be guided solely by financial and commercial considerations, trade between the two countries shall be eligible for consideration on the same basis as trade between the United Kingdom and any other foreign country with regard to credits and other facilities. The signing of the Agreement was received with keen satisfaction in Moscow and was hailed both in public speeches and in the Press as a signal victory of Soviet diplomacy, particularly in relation



CHRONICLE. 463

to the recognition of the State monopoly of foreign trade and the granting of diplomatic immunity to the members of the Trade Delegation. Follow- ing the successful completion of the above negotiations, the British section of the All-Union Western Chamber of Commerce was opened in Moscow in the presence of the British Ambassador and M. Litvinov, Acting Commissary for Foreign Affairs. A Fisheries Agreement settling the question of British fishing rights on the Murmansk coast and in the White Sea was signed in London by the British Foreign Secretary and the Soviet Ambassador on 22 May, ending the long-drawn-out dispute concerning the right of British trawlers to fish up to the three-mile territorial limit. A joint committee of ten members, five on each side, was appointed to sit in London to negotiate on the claims and counterclaims arising out of the Bolshevist revolution. Four sub-committees, to deal with the various categories of claims, debts, and so forth were set up, composed of experts; and at a later stage of the proceedings it was suggested that a fifth sub-committee should be appointed to deal with the Soviet claims for compensation for losses incurred by the U.S.S.R. through British intervention during the civil war. According to the latest official com- muniques issued by the British Foreign Office, the Joint Committee was still occupied with the distribution of the various categories of claims among the respective sub-committees.

Relations of the U.S.S.R. with other Countries. Nothing of particular importance marked the Soviet Union's relations

with other countries during the period under review. After a spell of some coolness in the relations between the U.S.S.R. and Germany, during which diplomatic conversations were carried on simultaneously in Moscow and Berlin, the purely economic questions at issue were referred to the Commission of Conciliation provided for by the Soviet-German Trade Protocol of January, I929, and a joint statement was published by its members declaring the unanimous desire of both governments to over- come " existing difficulties in the spirit of the Rapallo Treaty ' and continue the policy pursued for the past years.

MI. Litvinov, Soviet Commissary for Foreign Affairs, paid a visit recently to Italy, where he exchanged views with his Italian colleague " on matters of interest to both countries." So far, official circles have been reticent on the subject of these conversations.

The Turkish Minister for Foreign Affairs, Tewfik-Rushdi-Bey, paid a visit to Moscow " to renew old ties of friendships" and consolidate co- operation for " the cause of world peace."

Dr. Mo Teh-hui, the head of the Chinese delegation to the conference for the settlement of the dispute on the Chinese Eastern Railway, arrived in Moscow in May; but after two meetings the conference was adjourned on account of apparently divergent views concerning the liabilities incurred by the Chinese Government under the various former treaties with the U.S.S.R. The conference appears to have been resumed only




in November, the Soviet Government in a sharply worded letter signed by M. Karakhan, Deputy Commissary for Foreign Affairs, insisting on the Chinese Government's recognition of its obligations under the Khaba- rovsk protocol of December last to suppress the activities of " WVhite Russian organisations along the Manchurian border.

Ml. Litvinov, who succeeded M. Chicherin as Commissary for Foreign Affairs, together with M. Lunacharsky, formerly Commissary for Educa- tion, represented the Soviet Government at the session of the League of Nations Preparatory Disarmament Commission in Geneva. His speeches contained the customary criticisms of every proposal made by delegates of the " capitalist governments," and emphasised the fact that the Soviet Union, by its proposals of introducing disarmament, was, in practice, the only government actually working for peace. Though the task of the Soviet delegation in advocating practical steps towards disarmament was well nigh hopeless in view of the general opposition, the toiling masses, said M. Litvinov, would at least know who was the real champion of peace.

The Collcctivisation oJ Agriculture. The drive towards complete socialisation is being pursued with relent-

lessness and thoroughness. By i March, according to the returns of the Commissariat for Agriculture, over I4,200,000 individual peasant house- holds, i.e. 55 per cent. of the total in the U.S.S.R. and 75 per cent. of the livestock, had become collectivised by methods very much the reverse of the alleged principle of voluntariness. The collectivisation was accom panied and often preceded by " the pulling down of church bells and the closing of churches," which in many instances roused the antagonism of the peasants and created considerable unrest in the countryside. M. Stalin, Secretary-General of the Communist Party and virtual dictator of the U.S.S.R., then issued a circular to all Communists entitled " Dizzi- ness from Success," in which he warned "over-zealous comrades " against the excesses of " driving unwilling peasants into the collective farms " and indulging in " left-wing deviations " distorting the " general line " of the party. This letter was followed by a decree of the Central Committee of the Communist Party reaffirming that henceforth collectivisation should proceed upon an entirely voluntary basis and that the compulsory organisation of " communes " should be replaced by the more familiar term of " artel." A revision of the lists and the restitution of civic rights to certain categories of peasants, the re-opening of markets for the private sale of country produce, and the cessation of the compulsory closing of churches were also ordained. The throwing of this sop to the discontented peasant masses was a master-stroke of astuteness. Its immediate effect was a big exodus of peasants from the collective farms and their reclaiming the " re-individualisation " of their collectivised livestock and implements. It also acted as an incentive to stimu- late the spring sowing, the success of which was of paramount importance.



CHRONICLE. 465

Although greatly protracted, the spring sowing campaign was said to have been carried out according to plan. There was a big increase in the acreage under technical plants, especially sugar beet and cotton. Mean- while, to stem the outgoing tide of kolkhozniki (members of collective farms), the Central Committee of the Communist Party issued another decree re-affirming the advance of the 500,000,000 rouble credit (f?o,ooo,ooo) for collective farms provided by the Budget, granting a further credit of 6o,ooo,ooo roubles (f6,ooo,ooo) to encourage the sowing of technical plants, and according fresh privileges and exemptions from taxation to members of these organisations, with liberty to qui t the farms for outside work. Corresponding amendments were introduced in the Agricultural Tax. On the other hand, pressure was being tightened on the individual householders, and after a short respite the " war to a finish" was once more launched against the so-called kulaks with all its accompanying confiscations, ruination, deportation, and even physical extermination. The dispossessed peasants retaliated by incendiarism, slaughter of their livestock, murder of Soviet and party officials, and all the usual means of retaliation at the disposal of the RZussian peasant. Thousands of peasants were rounded up and deported to the camps in the far north of Russia to fell and load timber for export under conditions of what is virtually convict labour. The organisation of the administra- tion and work within the kolkhozy (collective farms) themselves was also being evolved, assuming more and more the character of compulsory labour, the workers, male and female, being enrolled in " brigades " under the command of " brigadiers " and working by schedule on the basis of " group man-day unit " according to a special scale fixing the various categories of labour. Regulations were also issued concerning the rights of ownership and the delivery of grain and other produce to the State. According to these, from one-quarter to one-third of the grossgrain crop was to be delivered at fixed prices to the State, except in the case of the yield being above the average, when the local government bodies had the right to raise the amount. The rest of the crop was to be divided between the nembers on the principle of the work carried out by each, with a certain

addition in proportion to the personal property invested in the collective farm and after compulsory deductions for taxation and contributions to various communal funds. This system appears to have been more or less universally adopted. The harvest, according to the latest official statement made by M. Sokolnikov, Soviet Ambassador in London, was estimated at " a minimum of 88,ooo,ooo tons, an increase of I5,000,000

tons over that of last year." The gathering in of the crops proceeded very slowly, and there is strong ground for suspecting deliberate sabotage on the part of the peasants, who preferred to let the corn rot in the fields to surrendering it to the government. Almost before the crops were gathered in, the grain-collecting campaign was started with ruthless energy and with the aid of Komsomols and workers' " shock brigades," which scoured the country and extracted the grain. It is estimated that




this year the State and collective farms would yield 34 per cent. of the gross yield and about 6o per cent. of the market grain, thus providing the government with a " manoeuvre " fund for export and other purposes. Either from pressure or from other causes, the process of collectivisation has been resumed with redoubled energy, and according to official statements the percentage of collectivised homesteads, which had fallen considerably since the spring, has now risen to about 25 per cent. of the total number throughout the U.S.S.R., and amounts to between 40-50 per cent. in the agricultural provinces.

The food situation, in spite of the government's announcement that "the grain problem had been solved," is becoming steadily worse. The ration system has again been revised, the population entitled to receive foodstuffs from the co-operatives being divided into five categories on the basis of a sliding scale of consumption. As before, there exists the category of lishentsy (the " deprived "), including the clergy and their families, former Tsarist officials, bourgeois, and other "non-toiling elements," who are obliged to depend on the private market at great risk for themselves and the sellers, and at prices surpassing the most lively imagination. The co-operatives are also unable to provide many foodstuffs, such as meat, of which there is an acute shortage, and butter and milk, which are given only to children; at one time potato, vegetable, mushroom, and such like " fronts " were absorbing the energies of the government and party organisations. Bread, however, appears to be more plentiful for holders of ration cards, and the government announced its intention of improving the standard of flour and removing restrictions on the purchase of white bread for certain categories of consumers. Foot- wear and clothing of all descriptions are scarce and are only distributed by special order cards, obtainable through trade union and party organisations.

Industrialisation under the Five Year Plan. The entire interests of the population, the whole life of the country

are sacrificed to the Five Year Plan of socialisation and industrialisation, which it is now proposed to carry out in four years. The building of the so-called " giants " of industry is continuing at a feverish pace and utterly regardless of cost. Two of these, the " Tractorostroy" (tractor works) at Stalingrad on the Volga, with a projected annual output of 50,000 tractors, and the " Selmashstroy," reputed to be the largest agricultural machinery factory in the world, at Rostov-on-Don, the annual production of which is estimated at II5,000,000 roubles, were opened in June.

Serious breaches in the plan, however, were signalled during the summer, and the " war alarm " was sounded on the coal, metallurgic, and other " fronts," with the mobilisation of " shock and tow brigades," or " enthusiasts of the Five Year Plan," and the recruiting of man-power from the villages by methods practically amounting to labour conscrip- tion. During the summer months the fluctuation of labour in the different



CHRONICLE. 467

industries became widespread, the workers, particularly miners, fleeing from the often intolerable conditions of life and food shortage and moving from place to place in search of better conditions. To combat this " deser- tion" and the flux of labour, drastic measures were introduced by the government and the Central Committee of the Communist Party, such as the special registration of workers leaving their employment, violating labour discipline or systematically changing their places. Such persons were deprived of the dole, struck off the registers, and finally expelled from their trade unions, which meant the loss of ration cards and a bar to future employment. A system of " attaching oneself " to a given job till the end of the Five Year Plan was put in vogue and received wide application. By a decree of the government all unemployment payment was suspended since October and all workers registered at the labour exchanges struck off the dole. This was explained by the practical cessation of unemployment, as in view of the big demand for labour in all industries the government had no intention of supporting " armies of loafers." Stern rules for " the immediate sending of the unemployed to work " in " tight places," irrespective of their trade or qualifications, were issued by the Commissariat for Labour and reaffirmed by a second decree dated 5 November. No worker was permitted to refuse any work allotted him except in case of illness, absence of housing accommodation, or, in the case of married women, proposed removal from their husbands and children. Persons refusing the work offered them were to be treated as " deserters " and used for unskilled manual labour. Not only workers, but members of their families and all the available man-power in the collective farms are to be registered and drafted to work if necessary. An agreement is already announced to have been concluded between the Kolkhoztsentr (central collective farms department) and various industrial trusts for the mobilisation of 2,000,000 men from the Kolkhozy for industrial work during the coming year, the Kolkhozisentr receiving financial and material compensation in exchange for the man-power provided.

Ostensibly for financial convenience, the beginning of the economic year has been transferred from i October, 1930, to i January, I93I. The intervening three months between the end of one year and the beginning of the next are set apart as a " special shock quarter " for making good the serious breaches in the execution of the Five Year Plan. In spite of these grave setbacks, the official returns of the industrial output for the economic year ending on i October show an increase of 38 per cent. in the output of heavy industries as against 40 7 per cent. indicated by the Plan, and I2-13 per cent. in the light industries as against 22 3 per cent. indicated by the Plan. This latter discrepancy is explained by the lack of raw materials, especially in the textile industry; but the increase in the production of cotton and sugar beet is expected to ensure a more rapid development of the light industries in the coming year.

The financial position of the country appears to become more and more involved, and the issue of new paper currency is increasing in volume.




M1. Bryukhanov, Commissary of Finance, and M. Pyatakov, chairman of the Directorate of the State Bank, have been relieved of their posts, and M1. Grinko and M. Kalmanovich, both of whom held posts in the Com- missariat of Agriculture and are known as staunch supporters of M. Stalin's collectivisation policy, have been appointed in their stead. These dismissals are also connected with the unsatisfactory state of finance and the " mobilisation " of the national resources during the past economic year, particularly as regards subscriptions to the co-operative shares and the " Third Industrialisation Loan."

Soviet Export and Foreign Markets. The growth of Soviet export, especially since the renewal of the

export of grain, is becoming a serious factor on the world market, in view of the exceptionally low prices quoted for all Soviet products. Cheap timber and wood-pulp has already flooded the markets of the Baltic and Scandinavian States, and is alleged to have dislocated them. When large consignments of timber and pulp were sent to the United States at prices far below those obtaining on the market, the question was raised by the American Customs as to whether these goods could not be classified as produced by convict labour and as such prohibited from entering the country. Contrary interests, however, were brought into play, and the question was quashed. Somewhat similar conditions arose when the first cargoes of Russian grain began to arrive in British ports as well as to other countries, at prices well below the level at which home or Dominion growers could sell theirs. The same in a lesser degree obtains for all Soviet produce which is being dumped into foreign countries at low prices, regardless of the acute need for these very goods at home. A widespread campaign against " Soviet dumping has been started, and measures for protecting home growers are being considered in many countries and have already been introduced in France and Belgium. An official statement on the question was published in the Soviet Press, refuting the alleged intention of underselling for the purpose of dislocating foreign markets. The actual amount of Soviet exports, the statement said, was less than one-half of pre-war Russia's export and was too insignificant in volume to upset world prices. To accelerate the execution of the Five Year Plan by importing machinery and plant, the Soviet Government needed cash and was obliged to export not only the surplus produce of the country, but also goods which could have found a ready market at home.

Dissensions in the Communist Party. The XVI Communist Party Congress was held in Moscow in the

summer and met amid a revival of both the " right " and " left " opposition to the policy of the Central Committee and Stalin himself, especially in the domain of collectivisation. At the local and regional conferences which preceded the Congress severe criticisms were levelled against the



CHRONICLE. 469

Dictator, who was accused of being the chief perpetrator of the mistakes and hardships of " enforced collectivisation " and too rapid industrialisa- tioin. Voroshilov, Commissary for War, Rykov, President of the Council of Peoples Commissaries, and Kalinin, President of the All-Union Central Executive Committee, were mentioned as the leaders of the " right opposition within the Political Bureau, while Bukharin, " by his silence" was rallying the malcontents from outside. The opposition, it appeared, had kept in touch with Trotsky in his exile and circulated a programme which, among other things, recommended assuming the leadership in the guerilla movement among the peasants opposed to collectivisation, enrolling ex-service men, expelling members of the Communist Party and former " Red " partisans, but to avoid recruiting industrial workers, in order " the better to pit one force against the other." Nevertheless, at the Congress everything went smoothly. Stalin's six hours' speech was received with tumultuous applause, and all the resolutions were carried unanimously. The three " opposition " leaders made public, if somewhat lukewarm statements, affirming their complete solidarity with the " general line " of the Central Committee as represented by Stalin, and peace and unity were outwardly restored. However, in the Soviet Press the hue and cry against " right and left opportunists " continued unabated, together with the " weeding out " of rank and file members. This process soon reached the higher ranks, several minor leaders were arrested, and in November M. Syrtsov, President of the Council of Peoples Commissaries of the Russian Republic proper, was dismissed from his post and, according to unverified rumour, placed under arrest. The charge against him is that of forming a " bloc of the right-left opposition groups " and agitating against the Five Year Plan and the policy of the Central Committee.

The exact extent of the split within the upper circles of the Communist Party it is impossible to verify; it can only be gauged by the vehemence of the invectives hurled against the " dissenters " by the official Press. Rumours are current of a heated meeting of the Politbureau, in the course of which Rykov bade Stalin " first feed our own people, and then think of export." Officially, Rykov has since gone south for his health, but views are held in some quarters that he, too, has been placed under domiciliary arrest. As usual, conjecture is rife, and recently wild rumours were circulated of an alleged military plot and even of a coup d'etat in the Kremlin and Stalin's overthrow. How far there is ground for supposing such a crisis to be approaching, it is impossible to say. One thing is certain: that Stalin has now rid himself of all Lenin's " old Bolshevik guard" with the exception of Kalinin; perhaps the latter's popularity among the peasants may account for his immunity so far.

Terrorism Re-emphasised. Another salient feature of the period under review is the sharp revival

of terrorism on a scale reminiscent of the early days of Bolshevist rule.




Beside the current executions, if they may be so called, of solitary individuals or batches, which have long since become the order of the day in the U.S.S.R., there is now a ruthless and consecutive campaign for the extermination or, to use the current slogan, " the liquidation " of the remnants of the Russian intelligentsia. Arrests, deportations, executions follow one another in rapid succession. A new category of criminals, the so-called " wreckers," has appeared on the scene. Every hitch in the carrying out of the Five Year Plan, food shortage, defects in the collectivisation, etc., is invariably attributed to the subversive activities of " wreckers," and scapegoats are immediately seized from among the technical experts concerned. Thus, in the summer a number of prominent agricultural experts and professors of European renown were arrested on a purely fictitious charge of attempting to " wreck the collectivisation." Their fate is unknown. In August forty-eight specialists in the food supply depaTtments were shot without trial by the Ogpu (political police) for " organising a break-through on the meat, fish, and vegetable 'fronts.' " Finally, at the time ot this chronicle going to press, there was being conducted in Moscow the trial of eight professors, charged with organising a conspiracy for foreign intervention in the U.S.S.R. for the overthrow of the existing regime. The indictment drawn up by the notorious Procurator-General Krylenko spoke of widespread ramifica- tions in which about 2,000 persons were involved. The accused professors, all of whom had " confessed " to their " crime " (even to having had an interview with persons dead long before the date of the supposed interview) were charged with conspiring with the French Government, the French General Staff, and British Government circles to pave the way for an intervention by " wrecking " the execution of the Five Year Plan and disorganising the key industries, food supply, and transport. The alleged go-betweens were the Russian emigryes in Paris and London, who were said to have transferred to them from the aforesaid governments sums running into many hundreds of thousands of pounds for " wrecking work." The absurdity of the accusations is patent to all sane persons, but the question remains, what object the Soviet Government could have had in flaunting them in the faces of the governments of ostensibly " friendly Powers " and openly implicating M. Poincare and M. Briand in " plots" against the Soviets. The discovery of the " conspiracy " and the actual course of the trial gave rise to a frenzied outburst of organised demon- strations of indignation. If one is to judge by the Soviet Press, the whole country was lashed into a fury against the alleged " foreign invaders." Resolutions from all public bodies, professors, school children, students, peasants, workers, and even solitary individuals in every walk in life were pouring in, demanding the death sentence on the traitors and extolling the " valiant champion " of the proletariat-the Ogpu. A huge demon- stration, in which it is said nearly a million participated, took place in Moscow on the day of the opening of the trial, and during the sitting of the court it was surrounded by a crowd listening to the self-accusations of



CHRONICLE. 47I

the prisoners, which were transmitted by a loud-speaker, and shouting for their death. To treat all these phenomena as being entirely " staged " would be a mistake. It should be remembered that a whole generation has grown up nurtured on class hatred, with no knowledge whatsoever of conditions of life outside the U.S.S.R., without access to foreign news- papers or news from the outside world otherwise than as travestied in the Communist Press. Many of these youths are genuine enthusiasts of the coming Communist millennium, are full of confidence in the Five Year Plan, and readily believe that all the failures are due to the intrigues and subversive activities of the " capitalists and Imperialists " at home and abroad. It is this mentality which, if brought to its natural and logical conclusion, may portend the gravest menace to international relations or even to the peace of the world. Ultimately five of the accused were condemned to death and the three others to imprisonment for ten years; but almost immediately it was announced that all the death sentences had been commuted to ten years' imprisonment and the other sentences slightly reduced. This announcement, unexpected by many, served to simplify the whole question of the Government tactics in the matter. The accused were treated as merely secondary agents, and the object was to throw all the main blame on to the foreign Governments.

REVIEWS THE FIRST RUSSIAN GRAMMAR IN ENGLAND.

AMONG the great historical distinctions of which Oxford University is justly proud, not the least is the fact that it was the first to print a grammar of the Russian language. It was the first Russian grammar that was ever printed not only in England or generally abroad, but even in Russia itself. The grammars which were known in Russia up to the year 1755, when Lomonosov's Rossyiskaya Grammatika first appeared, were not grammars of the spoken Russian language but of that language in which during the I5th to 17th centuries prayer-books, the Psalms and sermons of the Holy Fathers were printed. A grammar was then only intended as a help to understand the Scriptures, and the writing of one was therefore held to be a sacred and devotional work: their titles were always as grammars of Slavonic, not of Russian. Thus the first grammar printed in Vilno in I586, had for its heading: Kgramatuika Slaven'ska yazykc z gazofilakii Slavnavo grada Ostroga (Grammar of the Slavonic language from the treasury of the glorious city of Ostrog). The grammar published bv the brotherhood of Lvov (Lvov, I59I) and known as the Adelfotis had for its title: Grammatika dobroglagolivavo Ellinoslovenskavo yazyka (The Grammar of the pleasantly- spoken Hellenic-Slavonic language). In I596 there was published in Vilno the Grammatika Slaveitska of Lavrenty Zizenyi. In I6I9 in Evyu



Date post:	19-Jan-2017
Category:	Documents
Upload:	ngokiet
View:	222 times
Download:	5 times

Chronicle: Russia (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics)

Documents