There were no guarantees in the Russian absolute monarchy against arbitrary arrest, arbitrary search, or violation of the secrecy of mail (three main aspects of personal inviolability) before the reform of the judiciary in 1864. As there was no separation between the administrative and the judicial powers, no difference existed between an arrest or search decided upon as a judicial measure and an arrest or search ordered by the police, whether to prosecute an already committed offense or to prevent a violation of law and order. The statutes of 1864 organized justice as an independent power, and to assure this independence they established guarantees of due process of law.

There is no better introduction to the tale of agony which is the subject of this essay than the story of the interview of Bernard Pares and Samuel Harper with Count Witte, which took place sometime during the sitting of the Third Duma. All through the interview the Count treated his questioners rather curtly, but when they asked him for his views of the October Manifesto, he replied: "I have a constitution in my head, but as to my heart……" And he spat on the ground in front of the two astounded gentlemen.

One of the characteristics of Soviet industry is perpetual reorganization of its management. Reorganization has become unusually frequent since the war, for nearly every year some industrial ministries have been abolished, while others have been created. Still others have been split apart or merged. The same processes have occurred at the intermediate and local levels, that is, with the bureaus of ministries, the trusts, and the factory administrations.

Planning and centralized direction have led inevitably to great dependence on accounting in the Soviet economy. The Soviet leaders have found that detailed accounting is an indispensable instrument of control in directing the activities of their extended hierarchy of manager-bureaucrats. The effectiveness of accounting as an instrument of control in the Soviet economy has been greatly hampered, however, by its primitive technological level. Throughout the Soviet economy, with only rare exceptions, the bookkeeper has traditionally done his work with pen and ink, with no mechanical aids other than the schëty or an occasional arithmometer.

The history of the Jewish socialist movement in Russia and Eastern Europe, as well as its relationship to the general revolutionary movement in the Russian Empire are, for the most part, little known to the American student of Russia and Eastern Europe. This deficiency is due, in some measure, to the fact that until a comparatively recent time, source materials have been available in this country to a limited degree. As a result of World War II, the large East European concentration of Jews was broken up, the great majority of the members of that community having been killed, and the remaining few scattered to all corners of the globe.

The leading german social democrats of the nineteenth century expressed opinions at various times concerning the perennial Eastern Question. These opinions are not without interest, revealing sharply conflicting viewpoints among the socialists, as well as perceptive interpretations concerning the origins and nature of the Eastern Question.

Marx and Engels have been accused of racism and anti-Slavism because they frequently attacked the revolts of the Balkan peoples for independence. This hypothesis will be tested by ascertaining precisely what positions the two socialist pioneers took on the Near Eastern Question between the 1848 Revolutions and the Balkan Crisis of 1875-78.

"Everybody knows," Pushkin wrote in 1832, "that the French are the most anti-poetic nation. Their best writers, the most glorious representatives of this keen-witted and positive people, Montagne [sic], Voltaire, Montesquieu, La Harpe, and Rousseau himself have shown how the feeling of the beautiful has been foreign and incomprehensible to them." This is an indirection of poetic proportion: Pushkin was less interested in the prose which he considered the strength of the French than in the poetry which he considered their weakness. But the picture is more complex than that; it must be built up from an essentially incidental literary criticism, much of which is fragmented throughout the poet's letters, sketches, and jottings.

In the stacks of the Slavonic Department of the New York Public Library, a small, leather-bound volume may be found which carries the interesting legend: Boris Godunov, tragedija v trëkh dejstviakh. The author of this obscure play is one Mikhail Evstafievich Lobanov (1787-1848), a man of letters, translator of Racine, and official of the Imperial Library. The date of publication of the little volume is 1835, although the author states in the brief introduction to his play that he wrote it in 1825, and an earlier edition of the play is said to exist.