384 GRANICE
Tartars, the Principality was unable to withstand the oppression of neighbouring war-
lords.
In the mid-fourteenth century, the west Russian lands, together with L'viv, were seized
by Polish feudaries supported by the Roman Pope, as a base for spreading the Catholic
Faith to the east. Until 1772, noble Poland ruled over the Galich-Volhynian lands, until
'Galichinia' (Galicia) was taken by Austria. L'viv continued under Austrian rule until
- After the Great October Socialist Revolution the red banner of freedom was
unfurled; but as a result of prevailing historical circumstances, L'viv was cast into slav-
ery by the Polish Lords, who proceeded to suspend such laws as the working people of
Western Ukraine had founded under Austria. L'viv became the centre of the struggle for
the liberation of the workers of Western Ukraine and for their reunion with Soviet
Ukraine. The ideas of Great October, and the successes of Soviet rule, inspired the West
Ukrainian workers in their struggle for social and national liberation.
The unforgettable year of 1939 arrived. The Soviet peoples extended a helping hand to
the workers of West Ukraine, L'viv became a Soviet city.. ,^28
Such is the modern destiny of Lemberg-Lwow-L'viv. Nowhere is it made clear
that the one country to which the city never belonged prior to 1939 was Russia.
Nowhere is there any explanation for the city's more usual listing in official
Soviet literature in its Russian form of 'Lvov'. Nowhere is there any hint of the
city's former Polish or Jewish associations. Nowhere, even in jest, is there any
suggestion that the name ought really to be spelt as W-R-O-C-t-A-W. The vio-
lence to the historical record is hardly less evident than that of the 'unforgettable
year' when the city's most abrupt transmogrification was achieved.^29
Professional scholars may well believe that popular guidebooks lie beneath
their dignity. If so, they are mistaken. The work of Baedeker and his successors
of all ilks provides the basic information on which public knowledge of Eastern
Europe is based. The prejudices, the mistakes, the selectivity, and the downright
fantasies, may be more obvious, but are no less damaging than those which
abound in academic accounts.
Yet for the student and historian with no axe for grinding, and with no pref-
erence for one East European language over another, the practical problem
remains. With such a wealth of onomastic variations to choose from, people are
bound to ask what name should be used in which circumstances. There is no
simple answer, although a few simple guidelines can be suggested. Firstly, it is
essential to recognize that nothing in this subject is absolute or eternal. Place-
names should be reviewed constantly to take cognizance of changes which are
constantly occurring. Ideally, the 'name' should always reflect the dominant cul-
tural and political connections of the 'place' at the moment in question. If this
involves talking in Chapter Three of 'Vratislav', in Chapter Twenty of 'Breslau',
and in Chapter Twenty-three of 'Wroclaw', the searcher after precision should
not be deterred. Secondly, it is necessary to accept that linguistic conventions
change less easily than political ones. When speaking German, it is far simpler
to talk of 'Breslau' than of 'Wroclaw', if only because the established corpus of
literature on the subject in the German language has always used that particu-
lar form. When speaking Polish it is always simpler for purely linguistic reasons