There are, however, certain limitations which the student will encounter, due largely at the present time to the rule in the free world which prohibits a free exchange of students between countries. A student desiring to work in English, French and German history can go freely to the appropriate intellectual center to consult sources; a relatively large number of students in these fields have studied at the universities and archives of the country in which they were interested. This was also true to a certain degree, between the wars, in the so-called succession states when every year students went to the universities of Poland, Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia and Bulgaria, the Baltic and Greece. Today this is impossible and the administration of students’ programs must take this fact into account. The limitation severely restricts research in certain slightly explored areas such as the remains of Slavic literature from the Middle Ages, the unpublished memoirs and manuscripts of many modern writers, and memorabilia from many periods of historical and economic importance. These limitations can be partly overcome by increased research in the archives of many of the countries still free. There is doubtless much material in the libraries of Western Europe, the Scandinavian countries, Greece and Turkey which has never been adequately studied by a Slavic expert. Limitations exist to an even greater degree in archaeology and ethnology, since research before World War I was still in its infancy and subsequent discoveries have been filtered through the exigencies of Russian Communist propaganda. This imposes upon the student the necessity for a most thorough and careful analysis of all Soviet references and newly published material, often edited to suit the policy of the moment, for it often involves a direct contradiction to what the Soviets declared to be true in the period between the two World Wars. This is the situation not only in history, but also in the literature of the past and present. The theses issued by the Communist Party for the three hundredth anniversary of the Treaty of Pereyaslav (1654–1954), after the death of Stalin and under the “new” Soviet policy, stand in sharp contrast to the published statements of Soviet scholarship during the 1920’s and 1930’s. Similarly, the rewriting of the biographies, during the relatively unhampered conditions of the early 1920’s, of such authors as Dostoyevsky, Shevchenko, Franko, Mickiewicz and many others, makes it impossible to accept uncritically either the older Soviet accounts or even much of the material published under the Tsarist regime.