Awakening the American intellectual world to the need for reassessing its concept of Eastern Europe is, of course, an essential problem for Slavic students, but it can be fully accomplished only in cooperation with those individuals and institutions concerned with the general outline of human history. Far more than a mere multiplication of courses, of lectures and of journals is needed. Yet if we assume that steps are being taken toward this end, there still remains the very pertinent question of what divisions and subdivisions of the area are to be used in any detailed study. It is at this moment that we come face to face with the tremendous historical and linguistic complications. First considering linguistics, Slavic easily can be placed at the center, for the greater number of the inhabitants of Eastern Europe speak one of the Slavic tongues. The traditional point of view, which is now being challenged by linguists, is to divide the Slavs into Western (Czech, Slovak, Polish and Lusatian), Southern (Serb, Croatian, Slovene and Bulgarian) and Eastern (Great Russian, Ukrainian and Byelorussian), and to emphasize common linguistic aspects. This is of advantage from the strictly philological point of view; it is less valid when considering culture and history and the influence exerted throughout the last millenium by the neighboring states and cultures. As has been noted already, the constantly shifting line between Eastern and Western churches cuts directly across the Slavic world. On one side are the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles and Croatians, all of whom have been primarily under Western influence. On the other are the rest of the southern and eastern Slavs who have drawn their original inspiration from Byzantium and have then undergone, in varying degrees, cultural influence from the Latin and Germanic west, the Scandinavian north, the Mongol and Tatar east and the Turkish south. Ukraine, and to a lesser degree Byelorussia (Whiteruthenia), have felt a consistently strong Western influence throughout their history. Western influence among the Serbs has been more spasmodic, while Russia (Moscow) remained relatively free from such influences almost until the time of Peter I.