1. Loewenson, Lee in the Slavonic and East European Review, 25, no. 65 (April 1947): 597–98 Google Scholar; Vernadsky, George in the American Historical Review, 52, no. 2 (January 1947)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Tikhomirov, M. N. in Voprosy istorii, 1948, no. 4, pp. 112–15Google Scholar. All three were quite critical, although Vernadsky ends with a polite“certainly a welcome contribution… .“

2. For the Normanist and anti-Normanist views respectively, see, for example, Stender-Petersen, A., Varangica (Aarhus, 1953)Google Scholar and Łowmiański, Henryk, Zagadnienie roli normannow w genesie państw slowiańskich (Warsaw, 1957 Google Scholar). A thorough, militantly anti-Normanist review of the literature has been provided by Shaskolsky, Igor, Normanskaia teoriia v sovremennoi burshuasnoi nauke (Moscow and Leningrad, 1965)Google Scholar. As a corrective to the philological hocus-pocus in chapter 5, one might consult the germinal Slaznanskie iaykovye modeliruiushchie semioticheskie sistetny by V. V. Ivanov and V. N. Toporov (Moscow, 1965).