Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

26 results

Page 1 of 2

  • Stanisław Kot, 1885–1975

  • Wiktor Weintraub
  • Journal:
    Slavic Review / Volume 35 / Issue 2 / June 1976
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 January 2017, p. 396
    Print publication:
    June 1976
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • [no title]

  • Wiktor Weintraub
  • Journal:
    Slavic Review / Volume 31 / Issue 1 / March 1972
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 January 2017, p. 242
    Print publication:
    March 1972
    • Article
      • You have access
    • PDF
    • Export citation

  • In Lieu of a Discussion

  • Wiktor Weintraub
  • Journal:
    Slavic Review / Volume 26 / Issue 4 / December 1967
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    27 January 2017, pp. 663-664
    Print publication:
    December 1967

  • In his article “Between Author and Reviewer,” published in the June 1967 issue of Slavic Review, Mr. Konstanty Zantuan takes me to task for my review of Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s book on Slavic Renaissance literatures. A discussion of the wider issues raised by Golenishchev-Kutuzov’s book could be interesting. Unfortunately, it is not possible to conduct such a discussion on the basis of Mr. Zantuan’s article. Despite a self-assured tone and quite copious references to Polish scholarly literature, the article reveals poor orientation in die subject, and its author occasionally deals with the evidence in an inadmissible, cavalier way. An examination of a few instances taken at random should suffice to prove this.

Page 1 of 2