Printer Friendly

The Encyclopedia of Ukraine project: a personal memoir (1976-1986) *.

ABSTRACT/RESUME

This paper summarizes the author's involvement, as director of the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS) at the University of Alberta, in the preparation of the first two volumes of the five-volume Encyclopedia of Ukraine, published between 1984 and 1993 by the University of Toronto Press on behalf of the institute, the Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, and the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh), based in Sarcelles, France. The account describes the motivation behind the project, its main personnel, financial cost, and the numerous difficulties in working with scholars on two continents (North America and Europe) with differing conceptions of the project's nature and editorial control, rooted partly in differences of age but mainly in differing conceptions of new-world and old-world competencies. The resulting power struggle is a central feature of the paper.

L'auteur de cet article donne un compte rendu de son engagement comme directeur du "Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies" a l'Universite de l'Alberta dans la preparation des deux premiers volumes d'une serie de cinq volumes Encyclopedia of Ukraine, publiee entre les annees 1984 et 1993 par l' "University of Toronto Press" pour l'institut, le "Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies," et le "Shevchenko Scientific Society," base a Sarcelles en France. Cet article racontent l'engouement cree par le sujet, le caractere de la recherche, le cout financier, et les nombreuses difficultes survenues en travaillant avec des ecoliers sur deux continents (Amerique du Nord et l'Europe). Les partis avaient une vue differente de la nature du projet et son edition. La difference d'age des ecoliers et aussi la differente conception du nouveau-monde versus la competence de l'ancien monde. La lutte pour le pouvoir entre ces deux competences est l'attrait principal de cet article.

1. THE PROJECT UNDER GEORGE LUCKYJ'S SUPERVISION

The five-volume Encyclopedia of Ukraine, a project I directed from 1976 to 1986 that was published by the University of Toronto Press between 1984 and 1993, was the most important project undertaken by the University of Alberta's Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies (CIUS). The goal was an academic work by a team of international scholars coordinated by George Luckyj, a professor of Slavic languages and literatures at the University of Toronto (also the institute's associate director in charge of its "Toronto office"), and Volodymyr Kubijovyc, the president of the Shevchenko Scientific Society (NTSh) in Sarcelles, France, some twenty kilometres north of Paris. Publication costs were to be borne by the Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies, founded, like the institute, by the Ukrainian Canadian Professional and Business Federation when I was its president (1973-75). The encyclopedia was thus a joint project of Canadians of Ukrainian background and a European-based, emigre-led NTSh. Without the institutional means of an independent nation-state (Ukraine), the project was a very ambitious undertaking for an ethnic group that relied primarily on Canadian financial resources.

It is not easy to arrive at the true cost of producing the encyclopedia. In a table in the spring of 1983, I indicated that the sums between 1978 and 1983 were approximately $450,000 (an annual average of $75,000). That average subsequently doubled in the rush to bring out the first and second volumes. The amounts did not include the $105,400 contributed by the foundation by the spring of 1983 or the almost $300,000 it paid to publish the first volume. A reasonable estimate of the cost of publishing the first volume in October of 1984 would be around one million dollars.

I first met Volodymyr Mikhailovych Kubijovyc (and Athanas Figol, his business manager from Munich) on 25 March 1974 at a luncheon arranged by longtime Ukrainian-Canadian community activist Peter Savaryn, an emigre close to the work at Sarcelles. In the fall of 1975, on the Sarcelles duo's next Edmonton visit, the future institute received the first seven volumes of their Ukrainian-language, alphabetical encyclopedia of Ukraine, part of a work projected to reach ten volumes. I did not know what to make of the pair. At seventy-five, Kubijovyc was still amazingly spry and vigorous for his age. Figol, younger and more practical, had studied economics in Polish-occupied Lviv (in Galicia) before the Second World War and was more westernized than Kubijovyc.

On 4 December 1976, when the contract with the NTSh was signed, the institute came in on the tail end of a scholarly endeavour begun in 1948, a year after NTSh's establishment in Munich. At war's end numerous scholars from Soviet Ukraine fled to the West, bringing both their talent and their enthusiasm for serious academic work. The result was the Entsyklopedia ukrainoznavstva (Encyclopedia of Ukraine)--a three-volume topical source on Ukraine edited by Kubijovyc and Zenon Kuzelia (a philologist and ethnographer) and published in Munich in 1952, a year after NTSh's editorial centre was moved to Sarcelles. Its location further west was considered prudent in case of Soviet invasion. A four-volume, alphabetical encyclopedia of Ukraine (begun in 1952) was subsequently expanded to ten volumes, with three still unfinished. The Ukrainian National Association, based in New Jersey, had meanwhile financed the publication by the University of Toronto Press of the two-volume Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia (1963; 1971), an English-language version of the topical Entsyklopedia in whose development Luckyj had been prominent as one of Kubijovyc's four editorial assistants. The new goal was to produce an English-language, alphabetical equivalent in four volumes of the still-unfinished, Ukrainian, ten-volume work.

In retrospect, all began with false expectations and all eventually were disappointed. I understood, for example, that Sarcelles would continue to finance the three remaining Ukrainian-language volumes, with the institute being responsible only for the new or updated entries in English. Luckyj, too, believed that he had full responsibility for the English-language entries, with Sarcelles to be consulted only as needed. Unfortunately, Luckyj did not really understand Kubijovyc's operation (he saw no need to visit Sarcelles, a fact Kubijovyc occasionally resented), and neither he nor I had counted on paying monthly salaries (however modest they might be, at 300 US dollars) to some section editors in Kubijovyc's "editorial stable." Owing to Kubijovyc's age, the English encyclopedia had to be undertaken before the Ukrainian text was finished, which greatly complicated the process--especially the payment of honoraria to section editors and authors known only to Sarcelles. To make matters worse, Luckyj was initially overwhelmed by his own very important literary and linguistic publication project for the institute, undertaken in the fall of 1976 with a grant from Ontario's lottery fund, Wintario. Kubijovyc was thus seldom questioned before April 1979 (when Luckyj's project ended) as he commissioned entries and gradually assumed control of even the English ones. Because there were no clear operational guidelines between Sarcelles and Toronto, there was considerable ill feeling by 1980, not to mention the cost of unproductive meetings, duplicated efforts, and numerous phone calls across the Atlantic.

In addition to the agreement's limitations, Kubijovyc's own plan, presented in a long memorandum during his visit in November 1975, was far from realistic. It proposed to prepare the "full basic text" in Ukrainian "within five or six years" for the EUE-2 (English Ukrainian Encyclopedia-2)--the latter to consist of four volumes of 800 pages each, with some 350 black-and-white maps, nine colour maps (including a large one of Ukraine), and 2,500 illustrations.
 Each volume should be prepared within a year and a half, with
 one-third of a volume submitted every six months for editing and
 translation. It is understood that some of the submitted text may
 be in English ... If feasible, the completion of each translation
 should take place no later than half a year after the receipt of
 each full Ukrainian text.


The aim was an "objective reference" that would "answer" the political bias in Soviet works and include additional material on "Ukrainian Canada" in "great detail." As much of the Ukrainian text required upgrading, the English version was to be a "complete revision," rather than "a simple translation"--all by specialists, among them "known non-Ukrainian scholars." Kubijovyc's memo also promised "a detailed plan for the EUE-2 (a list of all entries that will be part of the EUE-2 and their length)," as well as "a list of authors and [section] editors" (emphasis mine).

To appreciate the project's difficulties, Sarcelles never did provide a list or catalogue of entries for the first volume, and not until the summer of 1983 was a catalogue available for the rest. Yet an article in Toronto's Globe and Mail in the summer of 1983 on the Canadian Encyclopedia, then also in preparation, indicated that "the first job of the editors was to decide which subjects would be covered, at what length, and who would write the contributions." Kubijovyc was certainly aware of such basic needs. The problem lay in the inadequate means at his disposal, partly attributable to the nature of Sarcelles and partly to Kubijovyc himself. The project in Europe was housed in an old, two-storey building, sparsely furnished and badly run down, the interior in need of paint and the wooden floors in need of wax and carpeting. The plumbing, heating, and lighting were just as dated. In the upstairs rooms where young scholars once lived, several frugal scholar-pensioners now survived on funds donated to Kubijovyc and Figol in Western Europe and on their periodic forays into the United States, Canada, and Australia. In addition to Kubijovyc, the only active scholar at Sarcelles was Arkadii Zhukovsky, a Ukrainian emigre born in Romanian-occupied Bukovyna who lived in Paris and taught history at the Institut National des Langues et Civilisations Orientales. When I first met the fifty-five-year-old Zhukovsky in June 1977, he impressed me as a very modest, practical, and sensible man. Though he was Greek Orthodox, his regular visits to Sarcelles helped to maintain a religious balance in its strongly Greek Catholic environment. He worked well with Kubijovyc, but the two were practically the entire Sarcelles "team," a fact that I did not discover until much later.

By the mid-1970s, Kubijovyc was practically a legend among emigre Ukrainians, his encyclopedia scholarship symbolizing "the eternal truth" of the Ukrainian people's struggle for an independent Ukrainian nation and freedom. Before becoming an encyclopedist, he had been a professor in Poland, with a doctorate in geography from the Jagiellonian University in Cracow, where he had taught from 1928 to 1939, followed by stints at the Ukrainian Free University in Prague and Munich. In 1948 when he entered upon encyclopedia work, the latter ranked among the highest forms of emigre scholarship. By 1977, however, some of his earlier collaborators had died, others were old or held university positions in North America (or elsewhere), and many were now fairly reluctant to meet deadlines imposed by an old man outside the academy. The loss of self esteem (and perhaps even a sense of inferiority) contributed to Kubijovyc's crankiness. A fine geographer and demographer, he clearly belonged in the academy, but having failed to capitalize on his excellent German to secure a university position there, placement elsewhere without French or English was out of the question.

Sarcelles, termed by Kubijovyc his "naukova kuznia" (scholarly smithy), was poorly equipped to attract and retain scholarly personnel. Vasyl Markus, a political scientist at Loyola University in Chicago who often assisted (but did not live) in Sarcelles, described it thus in November 1981:
 Working conditions here are not exceptional. I am especially
 concerned about the condition of the library and the rather
 disorganized files. One often searches for items that were surely
 finished or might even have been sent to Toronto, but they are not
 available. Many things are scattered at V. Mykhailovych's.


With the institute's help, a new copier was acquired in 1980 and, under more pressure, a librarian was finally hired in 1983. Although several individuals had tried to serve as Kubijovyc's secretary, most left prematurely, and technical help was always in short supply. Low salaries (about one-third of the average Canadian salary) were partly to blame, but so were Kubijovyc's own foibles. Accustomed to having things his own way, he could be quite tactless, delegating responsibility poorly: "scolding people and criticizing them," Markus indicated, "stimulates him to work; it is some sort of 'elixir.'"
 His "ego" as the editor-in-chief must be placated by something. He
 likes to approve (and reject), to review, amend, and emend. He gets
 nervous when such things happen by themselves, without his
 participation (a human weakness, but we must live with it).


Little of the above was, of course, evident in 1976, nor did it immediately become apparent. To elicit scholarly assistance, Kubijovyc quickly circulated a long account of Sarcelles' needs (and difficulties) that had little effect. By October 1977, when Luckyj and I met him in Toronto after the institute's Polish-Ukrainian conference at McMaster University (which, despite the scholarly contacts it afforded, Kubijovyc had passed up because he had not been specially invited), little had changed. There was no clearer division of responsibilities between Toronto and Sarcelles, and there was still no catalogue of entries. To avoid difficulties, Luckyj gradually yielded the commissioning of most entries to Sarcelles, and by the fall of 1978, payment was also almost entirely in Kubijovyc's hands. Before long an overwhelmed editor-in-chief was urging Luckyj to take on more editorial responsibility. Unfamiliar with scholars in scientific areas (medicine, cybernetics, etc.), Luckyj proposed to concentrate the encyclopedia on history, politics, and the humanities. Kubijovyc would have none of that, and Luckyj finally did agree to solicit entries for the "cultural" areas: scholarship, education, schools, libraries, museums, theatre, etc.--provided Sarcelles sent Toronto "full or less than full materials" on the entries in each.

Kubijovyc, however, flatly refused to send Sarcelles' entry files (the kartoteka) to Toronto, because, he said, there was no one in Sarcelles to xerox the materials. Actually, such sharing would have loosened Sarcelles's hold on the encyclopedia's contents and weakened Kubijovyc's role as the editor-in-chief, a position which he jealously guarded, even while urging Luckyj to take a larger role as his eventual successor. Besides the kartoteka, the Ukrainian entries, too, remained at Sarcelles, for Kubijovyc was unimpressed by Luckyj's translation bureau. Only when Luckyj threatened to resign did the first entries finally begin to arrive on 10 December 1978. To Kubijovyc, a proper bureau, according to Yury Boshyk (a scholar in Luckyj's Toronto office who visited Sarcelles in February 1979), required the following:
 a "factory-like" set-up of professionals capable of translating
 specialized words and terms of the various entries. He does not
 believe that one full-time person is enough, arguing that it is
 impossible for one person to master the enormously complex
 lexicography. He strongly recommends an expansion of staff and
 technical facilities.


Kubijovyc kept harping on the point until Luckyj finally cut him off in mid-July 1979: "If you cease to advise me and I do not mix into your editorial work--the cause of the AEU-2 [Alphabetical Encyclopedia of Ukraine-2] will prosper." Even so, the sparring merely moderated, with Sarcelles always unhappy with Toronto's translations.

Once translation work began in earnest, Kubijovyc, who could not read English, insisted that the translated entries be submitted to Sarcelles. As a result, bundles of entries regularly piled up, waiting for others to examine them. Few drew much comment, but the added step took time and work was delayed. Nor would a related issue, the language in which Toronto could commission entries, disappear.

Most North American contributors wrote acceptable English and some, like the economics section editor, Bohdan Wynar (a publisher in Colorado who edited English-language manuscripts for his own Ukrainian Academic Press), was understandably peeved that his entries had to be written in Ukrainian prior to translation. The issue reached impossible heights when Kubijovyc, in January 1982, actually asked Luckyj to send him his own literary entries in Ukrainian!

In 1981, to speed up the transmission of entries, the increasingly impatient Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies contracted Vasyl Markus to work in Sarcelles for a two-year period, from July to December 1981 and from July 1982 to December 1983. In the same year, Kubijovyc dispatched three long, almost identical memos on the project's "real problems" (aktualni problemy). His discussion on l0 February of the entry on "Church" illustrates well the editorial difficulties at his end:
 As one small example of the amount of work there is with a single
 entry ... take Church ... I requested [former] writers of articles
 to do this [shorten and update it] for the "AEY 2," but they
 declined (they are now old and weak). And so I turned to a German
 historian of the Eastern Church, who produced an entry. When I sent
 it to Ukrainian scholars for review, it was deemed inaccurate; some
 Orthodox scholars found it too "Catholic." The entry was then sent
 to Prof. [Alexander] Ohloblyn [the seventy-nine-year-old historian
 responsible for the history entries in Sarcelles's earlier
 volumes] ... and he submitted his review (after two months!) with a
 few additions (after checking the facts). In Sarcelles, Prof.
 Zhukovsky then sat with the entry for a whole month and any day
 now it will go to translation. How much trouble, and what a waste of
 time and money! Perhaps no other entry is as complex ... but, in any
 case, it is a small sample of our difficulties.


In mid-November of 1981, a thick package of Ukrainian entries on North America arrived from Kubijovyc and "diaspora editor" Markus, with those on "Canada" (i.e., Ukrainians in Canada) the most numerous because of the project's Canadian base. In taking on the Canadian entries in the fall of 1977, I had assumed that, as the section editor, I would decide its contents, and the English-language entries would be sent directly to Toronto. Although I had Ukrainian-Canadian historian Frances Swyripa, a research associate at the institute, in mind for the main entry on Canada, I had given little thought to the others. Earlier, in September 1980, the institute's Ukrainian Canadian Studies Committee had questioned the appropriateness of numerous Canadian entries in an encyclopedia on Ukraine, especially as many Ukrainian-Canadian community organizations and programs existed only on paper, and it was not always easy to determine who among the living merited a biographical entry. The institute circulated 170 names (A to Z) early in November among several Canadian scholars, but the move settled little. Apart from sports figures and individuals of Ukrainian background in Canada's Who's Who (who, most surprisingly, fared the worst), opinion on the rest was much divided.

Because some of Sarcelles' entries really surprised me, I raised the matter with Luckyj early in December:
 An encyclopedia of Ukraine in English should be an encyclopedia of
 Ukraine. I appreciate that the encyclopedia of Ukraine in Ukrainian
 is much larger in scope, but I did think that you, as the
 English-language editor, would have more control over its
 transformation into an English edition ... An encyclopedia of
 Ukraine in Ukrainian intended primarily for the emigre community is
 one thing, but I always thought we were doing something else, and
 that in matters of approach and style, we in North America who do
 know the anglophone world better would have the last word. Now,
 however, I find myself having to do battle ... about excluding the
 temperature, industry, and flora and fauna of Alberta
 (even Edmonton) from an encyclopedia of Ukraine!

 I can accept the need for a generous, carefully prepared entry on
 Canada. I can even grant the importance for p.r. purposes of a
 select list of biographies, though the task is an unpleasant one
 and in the end the ill feelings created will cancel out any good
 will that may be generated. Ten lines on Canadian Ukrainian
 newspapers and as many or more lines on major organizations in
 Canada wholly concerned with Ukrainian affairs are not too difficult
 to live with, but I will oppose as totally ridiculous such entries
 as the following: Alberta, Andrew, Brandon, British Columbia,
 Calgary, Canora, Cooks Creek, Dauphin, Ethelbert, Edmonton, Beaver
 Creek, Fort William, Brantford, Fort Francis (all included just
 because each contains varying amounts of Ukrainians!); Canadian
 Slavonic Papers (because some Ukrainian(!) may write an article); or
 Canadian Broadcast [sic] Corporation (because it may carry one
 Ukrainian programme a year!) or Canadian Ethnic Press Club (?)
 (because of possible Ukrainian participation). I make so much of
 this point because of the implications for U.S. entries: Baltimore,
 Boston (my God!), Buffalo, California, Carteret ("velyka Ukr.
 Hromada"/ large Ukrainian community!), etc., etc., etc. Prof K.
 has to be told that in these things we draw the line--and I want
 your support when I draw up the letter in a few days.


The letter that duly followed (27 January 1982) impressed neither Kubijovyc nor Markus:
 It is impossible and inadmissable to use one set of criteria for one
 country and to process entries in a different manner for another
 country where Ukrainians have settled. Such an approach would
 destroy the work's integrity and subject it to just criticism.


That was certainly true, but the point was not to change the approach only for Canada, but for all countries in the "diaspora" section. I had, they said, simply to accept their "great experience in selecting and editing diaspora entries," especially as Kubijovyc had "no intention" of discussing a matter that "should have been clarified at the beginning of our work or even before we signed our contract." That was also true, but who knew what questions to ask in December 1976? In the end, I simply ignored their long list and included only "Alberta," "British Columbia," "Dauphin" and "Edmonton"--and Markus even dropped "Carteret"! By now the first volume was too large by half, and reducing the number and length of Canadian entries helped to reduce its size. This was particularly important, for Luckyj and I had failed to persuade Sarcelles to decrease the geographic entries outside Ukraine and to limit the number of illustrations, particularly of obscure Ukrainian community leaders and of faded and nondescript landscape scenes.

Because of such differences, relations between Sarcelles and Toronto/Edmonton were fairly strained by mid-July 1982, when the first full-scale project review took place in Toronto. One stark, indisputable fact faced everyone: a volume projected for 1978 had still to appear. Not only were some entries still missing, but about 10 to 15 percent required more work because of length, interpretation, or incomplete data. Nor had Sarcelles supplied the promised catalogue, now absolutely essential for cross-referencing entries. As chair, I was disturbed that neither Sarcelles nor Toronto had prepared a list of the most pressing problems. To Sarcelles, that was Toronto's responsibility; to Toronto, it was Sarcelles's. As a result, the sessions frequently degenerated into aimless discussion, with the usual platitudes, good intentions, and little attention to how specific problems might be resolved. Every day, Kubijovyc and Figol (Zhukovsky and Markus were also present) privately pressed Sarcelles' budget, whose discussion I kept putting off until the meeting's outcome was clearer. On the third day, just before lunch, Kubijovyc complained openly, repeating arguments familiar from his letters. Interrupting, I pounded the table and angrily observed that he might do better to direct his attention to the poor progress on the first volume. Sarcelles, of course, was mortified, and lunch that day at the Park Plaza Hotel coffee shop was at separate tables! When the meeting resumed, I apologized, acknowledging that just as Kubijovyc had earlier admitted to being a "difficult man" (prykryi cholovik), I could occasionally lose my temper.

In the end, Sarcelles agreed to provide a complete catalogue with cross-references for the next meeting in Toronto in October 1983, and Edmonton agreed to furnish Sarcelles with a complete list of Ukrainian-Canadian entries. It was also agreed that the first volume would appear in 1984, with stipulated deadlines for all submissions. Toronto was free to shorten entries, apart from those written by Kubijovyc, Markus, or Zhukovsky. Luckyj having earlier declined the post of associate editor, Markus would be the sole associate. Because Hugh Seton-Watson of the University of London had also declined Luckyj's invitation to write an introduction, Kubijovyc agreed to do so.

On the last day, Luckyj surprised Sarcelles by announcing his intention to resign as English-language editor after the first volume was finished. He planned to retire in 1984 and wished only a consultative role. Sarcelles, he added, should make the two remaining Ukrainian-language volumes its first priority; meanwhile he himself was considering a computer in Toronto for future volumes. Because Toronto was clearly much more than a translation bureau, he also thought that the English-language editor should commission entries in English as well as edit those from Sarcelles. The latter appeared to agree, but as Luckyj threw down no gauntlet, no immediate changes were promised. I was aware that Luckyj's retirement was imminent and that withdrawal was possible, but as publication of the first volume was still months away (and further delays were certain), the withdrawal seemed remote.

It was soon clear, however, that the encyclopedia's future concerned Luckyj much more than he had let on. When we discussed the matter by phone late in September, Luckyj wrongly concluded that I wished to replace him completely. Accordingly, in his follow up letter, he indicated his desire to remain the institute's associate director upon retirement. Moreover, Danylo Stunk, Luckyj's departmental colleague (for whose sabbatical at Sarcelles in 1980-81 the institute had subsidized accommodation in Paris, and whom I had suggested as Luckyj's possible encyclopedia replacement), was "not the best person for the job (his knowledge of the Ukrainian field is sketchy, his hold on English style and grammar shaky, and his judgment is often guided by impulse)." Instead, he proposed Roman Senkus (his former graduate student, now his assistant)--"a good person, despite his low academic status"--and added that historian John-Paul Himka (another research associate at the institute, whom I had also mentioned) was "a definite possibility. You may decide to send him to Toronto to take charge of my team." As before, he wished only to remain "on the fringe of this complex operation." Surprised by Luckyj's letter, I assured him on 6 October that his "departure at this time would be disastrous," and that a replacement was not contemplated: "as long as you are in control in Toronto, all will be well." I had mentioned Struk only because of his earlier sabbatical at Sarcelles and his return in May 1982 (at institute expense) to collect and sort illustrations. As for the associate director, I preferred to apply "the same care to that subject that you counsel for the English-language editor."

Before long I also heard from Struk. Kubijovyc, impressed by Struk, had earlier pressed Luckyj to invite him to the recent meeting in Toronto. When, in the wake of Luckyj's announcement, I later discussed the future with Luckyj and Struk informally, Luckyj volunteered that Struk was primarily interested in becoming the next departmental chairman. Struk's letter now denied that; he wished, he said, to succeed Luckyj by working with him on the completion of volume one "so that the transition would be smoother."
 I did not speak to George about this for he seems, as you have seen
 with his attitude to my participation in the last conference, to be
 dead against me [sic] being involved in the encyclopedia, not to
 mention being his successor.


Having also written to Kubijovyc, he thought he could count upon Sarcelles's "cooperation."

Such was the situation when I came to Toronto on 15 November to discuss the project and to present a paper at the university on "Multiculturalism and Canada's White Ethnics." Much earlier (October 1979), I had spent an afternoon with the Toronto staff. Luckyj thought that visit had generated a positive effect, and I now wished to repeat it. Over dinner on the fifteenth, Luckyj again proposed Senkus as the encyclopedia's future managing editor, now under a committee chaired by Struk on which Luckyj and I would be members. Struk meanwhile could be a "troubleshooter" in charge of "the day-to-day operations" of the office--a kind of intermediary between Luckyj and his staff to facilitate the "technologizing" of the first volume on the computer that the Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies had just purchased. I knew of Struk's strong interest in technology and agreed to everything.

The next day I discussed the editorial process with both Luckyj and his staff and had lunch on the seventeenth with Struk, who accepted Luckyj's plans. However, to my surprise, Luckyj's staff had occasionally complained about his apparent indifference when either errors or inaccuracies in the entries were pointed out. He was also reluctant, they said, to use the newly purchased computer to control the flow of entries. "Why bother? The work is Sarcelles's, not Toronto's" was the paraphrased message. The staff reports were disturbing, for though I shared Luckyj's disinterest in technology, computer control was absolutely essential--and was precisely the reason I had earlier persuaded the foundation to purchase the large, expensive machine. At a meeting with Luckyj, his staff, and Struk on the afternoon of the seventeenth, it was agreed that Stink, as Luckyj's new intermediary, would hold another meeting next day to begin managing the project. However, on the morning of the eighteenth, Yury Boshyk phoned and indicated that my expressed satisfaction with the previous day's arrangements was misplaced, for Luckyj had just called off Stink's scheduled meeting. When Struk confirmed the move, I told him to hold the meeting. I had had enough of promises, missed deadlines, delays, and excuses. I needed to feel comfortable with the project's management, and despite recent assurances, I had gradually begun to lose confidence in Luckyj's supervision.

I left Toronto that afternoon. Luckyj phoned that night, and when my explanations did not please him, he hung up. The next day he resigned as both project manager and the institute's associate director. He had called off Struk's meeting, he wrote, "for very good practical reasons (one being that I expected a clarification from you of what has actually been decided)"--a clarification he had not requested after the meeting and which was not pending. In Edmonton, an anxious Peter Savaryn, the foundation's president, was full of questions and very skeptical about my assurances that the project would still be in very good hands under Struk's management. Sarcelles was also fraught with cautious regrets, with Kubijovyc being particularly concerned that, as the editor-in-chief, he alone had the right to change the editorial staff. When I indicated that Luckyj had resigned, the objections quickly subsided. Although Luckyj accused me of a premeditated intention to replace him, I can only say that that was the farthest thing from my mind when I first landed in Toronto. I did not call him before leaving because I knew what he thought of his staff--they were not working hard enough, they were not meeting set quotas, and introducing the computer would not speed up publication. I also knew what his staff thought of him--he had unrealistic expectations because numerous errors were being ignored and overall control was absent. I had no desire to destabilize the Toronto office further by placing Luckyj's integrity up against the loyalty of his staff.

Luckyj's resignation was as unexpected as it was unnecessary. Struk's function as a "hands-on" intermediary was a role, not a position. Nonetheless, once Luckyj did resign, his failure to strongly challenge Kubijovyc's impossible division of labour between Sarcelles and Toronto (the former responsible for content and the latter only for translation) did become material. Luckyj's view that the project was primarily Kubijovyc's, not the institute's, was untenable. "Whether the ultimate result be good or bad," I wrote him on 24 November, "it will be the institute that will be judged because of your involvement and the involvement of your staff in Toronto, the involvement of the institute and of the University of Toronto Press--in other words, the involvement of those in North America. The English-speaking world does not know of Sarcelles." To me, it was inconceivable that the encyclopedia should not receive the same editorial attention that Luckyj himself had earlier bestowed upon his own publishing projects.

2. THE PROJECT UNDER DANYLO STRUK'S SUPERVISION

Luckyj's sudden departure left a very large vacuum that Struk and I now had somehow to fill. Because Luckyj had been in charge of the project, I was not familiar with the precise working relationship between Toronto and Sarcelles. Fortunately, Struk knew it well. He was the only one among the younger academics (in 1982, he was forty-two years of age) who had shown much interest in Sarcelles, no doubt partly because of his deep attachment to Paris and French culture. Having immigrated as a child to the United States with his emigre mother (the Soviets had murdered his father in 1941), he graduated from Harvard College with an A.B. cure laude in 1963, completed a master's degree in Ukrainian literature at the University of Alberta, and then studied under Luckyj for his Ph.D. For reasons unknown to me, relations between the two were strained, though neither Luckyj nor I had ever discussed the matter. By 1982 Struk was a full professor at the University of Toronto on very good terms with Luckyj's encyclopedia staff. The institute was now, of course, very much at Struk's mercy, for apart from the even younger Boshyk, I knew of no one in Toronto who could handle the project, and the prospect of advertising or providing someone from Edmonton's staff held little appeal. Fortunately, Struk was an excellent manager; he confided in his staff, inspired them, and was scrupulously fair in rewarding their efforts. He was, moreover, greatly concerned to speed up the editorial process and to achieve greater quality and cost control through technology.

The first of Struk's changes was to hold weekly staff meetings and send the minutes to Sarcelles, the institute, and the foundation. Among other changes implemented, he:

--established a clear division of editorial labour (translation, research, editing);

--instituted weekly self-designated staff work quotas to meet self-imposed manuscript deadlines (e.g., 1 July 1983 for publication by 1 September 1984);

--edited all translations for content before returning them to Sarcelles (with questions and/or observations) or submitting them directly to the UTP for copyediting; and

--harnessed the computer's capabilities to monitor the status of all entries.

Struk was given Luckyj's signing authority and (at his request) empowered to hire an additional researcher. The goal, I informed him on 24 November, was not an "outstanding" or even "excellent" first volume, but one that was "very good" (time did not permit anything else).

On 16 December, Struk came to Edmonton and presented his overall plan to meet the above deadlines. Translated entries would be sent to Sarcelles alphabetically at the end of each month for final approval--"A" in January, "B" in March, "D," "E," and "F" in April, and "C" in May. In May the illustrations and maps would also be identified, and final checking would begin in June once Sarcelles and the UTP had returned all entries alphabetically ("A" first, etc.). On 21 December, Struk's letter to Kubijovyc outlined his plan and stressed the urgency, with pleas for understanding. He also requested that no additional entries be sent to Toronto after December and, owing to time constraints, that galley proofs not be sent to the authors. If possible, Sarcelles should provide a complete catalogue by the end of January to facilitate cross-referencing, and the highest priority should be given to the entries they would soon be receiving.
 As you can see, my plan requires maximum effort from me (and I am
 also carrying a full course load) and from my "team." But with
 goodwill and your co-operation and Edmonton's (with which we
 will soon be connected by computer) and by taking advantage of
 computer technology, I am sure that we will meet the deadlines.


He termed the next six months "the hot season"--the UTP was growing impatient and the foundation was nervous because, without the first volume, fundraising had dried up. "There is only one way out: to finish on time. And, as I see it, to do that the plan must be strictly observed, otherwise it will not be done."

At Struk's request, I also wrote Sarcelles to ward off quibbling about matters that Struk felt had to be quickly resolved. I was also concerned to blunt the impact of passages like that below in Struk's December letter, which reflected as badly on Sarcelles as it did on Toronto:
 This matter [administration and control] was so neglected when I
 took over as to defy description. No one knew what to do; some
 entries went to the press in duplicate, some "got lost," etc.
 Neither an editorial nor translation handbook existed, nor was there
 a list for cross-referencing ... translations lack uniformity, some
 cross-referenced entries do not exist in EY [the Ukrainian version],
 cross-references are examined as to need, terms for translations
 are established, an editorial handbook needs to be prepared (which
 the press also wants).


To my surprise, Vasyl Markus (now full-time at Sarcelles) took Struk's coming as a threat to his own ambitions as Kubijovyc's successor, and the resulting rivalry did much to colour subsequent reactions at both ends. Sarcelles's immediate response, both cautious and defensive, commended the changes, expressed concern about deadlines and hasty actions, offered numerous suggestions, and requested further discussion and consultation. Struk, anxious about deadlines, disputed the need for more consultation and insisted upon his plan. Sarcelles, in a long letter dated 11 January 1983, got to the heart of the matter: "What, besides the translation, is there for you to edit?" And what, moreover, did Struk have in mind when he referred to an "editorial collective" that would decide matters in dispute? Was there to be some "super-arbitrator" between Toronto and Sarcelles?
 The editor's office of AEY2 [Sarcelles declared] is in Sarcelles;
 there is also a wider editorial collective of section editors who
 have served for many years and have the main deciding voice in their
 areas. Professor Luckyj was a member of the latter, which you,
 colleague Danylo, may yet join, but you cannot regard the workers
 of your editorial/translation bureau as an "editorial collective,"
 who whether coming or going, still have little experience and
 especially lack responsibility ... The signed contract stipulated
 that Sarcelles was responsible for the AEY2 and Toronto for its
 English-language pages (translation, terminology, format, etc.).
 But there are not two editorial offices with the same prerogatives
 that require a super-arbitrator ... We regret that, at the very
 beginning of our working relationship, the problems of "competency"
 have emerged, but it is not we who have raised them.


The overbearing letter, which Struk attributed to Markus ("I know his style"), caused Struk to bristle. In a strong rejoinder, he challenged Sarcelles's right to run his office by questioning Toronto's editorial decisions on content. To illustrate the work still needed, Struk enclosed two entries, including one on 1950s and '60s movie star Nick Adams (Nicholas Adamschuck), "not a big entry but very representative." When researched, the staff found that Adams had three surnames, two dates of birth, two death dates, and two places of death--all of which had to be checked. In Sarcelles's entry, Adams was awarded an Oscar when he had actually only been nominated. Sarcelles's attitude, Struk declared, boiled down to a lack of trust, even though Kubijovyc had seen Stink's "serious and responsible" work on the encyclopedia for an entire year. "To my mind, if you do not regard me as competent in such matters, you should demand my resignation." The editorial collective he had in mind was a group similar to that at the meeting in Toronto in July.
 As soon as possible, we have to decide whether we are to work here
 as Professor Luckyj had indicated (we are only responsible for the
 translation, the terminology, and the format), or as I myself
 envision it (we are part of an editorial process and our obligation
 is to do everything to publish the best work, even if it means that
 it will be necessary to correct the mistakes of some responsible
 editors or someone from Sarcelles). I see us all only as people and
 as such all can make mistakes, and so the more checking and the more
 individuals doing the checking, the better our chances to produce
 the best possible work. But for that I have to have your trust.
 It's up to you.


Moved by Struk's letter, Kubijovyc phoned on 3 February, and according to Toronto's minutes, "expressed full confidence in DS and staff, and apologized for misunderstandings arising from V. Markus's letter." Pleased, I immediately reinforced Struk's concern that Sarcelles provide a catalogue of entries for the remaining volumes by April-especially as the Toronto meeting had established it as Sarcelles's first priority, and in September the institute had hired Markus's wife to help prepare it.

Markus, riled that Toronto's minutes had attributed Sarcelles's last letter to him and concerned that my own letter had only praised Struk, now sought to have his position as Kubijovyc's deputy clarified. After all, Luckyj had just been replaced, Kubijovyc appeared to be cooling toward him (according to Markus's own recent letters), and I "appeared to be taking Dr. Stink's side." Suspicious of intrigue, he wanted to know whether Struk was about to replace him as Kubijovyc's associate editor. I did not know Markus well and had not anticipated the Markus/Struk rivalry. What was crystal clear, however, was that, despite Struk's assurances, volume one had still to appear, and I also had both an aging editor-in-chief and a very uneasy foundation on my hands. Under these circumstances, the last thing the institute needed was an unhappy associate editor at Sarcelles. Accordingly, I assured Markus (28 March) that "it would go against the previous understandings of all of us to think of more than one associate editor. The latter, for all kinds of reasons (which are all too obvious), can only be you." Markus was grateful for the reassurance, but his subsequent letters and demeanour indicated that his concerns both continued and intensified, especially as Kubijovyc did nothing to clarify the issue of succession.

Having weathered the immediate storm, Struk and I now turned to establishing the "editorial collective." In July 1983 the institute held its first meeting on the encyclopedia at Sarcelles (deemed less costly than bringing Sarcelles to Toronto), and the tug-of-war between Canada and Europe began immediately. Kubijovyc, determined to co-chair the meeting, presented an agenda that, except for a report on "Toronto's centre" during the first morning of the five-day meeting, largely excluded Stink. Accordingly, after Kubijovyc opened, I declared that there was no "essential" difference between the two agendas and used the one that Struk and I had prepared. I then touched on Luckyj (he would be missed more by the institute than by the encyclopedia project), on Struk (without him the project would be "dead"), on Markus (no one was interested in changing his status), and on Kubijovyc (his reputation as editor-in-chief was unassailable). Referring to Toronto and Sarcelles as "one editorial group in two editorial centres," I underlined the importance of trust on both sides, which if not forthcoming, would oblige the institute to temporarily discontinue the project after the first volume. Brief reports by Kubijovyc, Markus, and Struk were to precede consideration of a host of specific problems, but Kubijovyc, having again tabled his "Aktualni problemy AEY2," took off on a page-by-page discussion of its mostly well-known contents. I interrupted after some fifteen minutes, indicating that meetings in the new era had to be conducted with greater dispatch. Offended, Kubijovyc walked out just as Markus began his report. Over lunch, Figol and Zhukovsky wheedled an apology out of me, but Kubijovyc's participation was subsequently much more disciplined.

The meeting's most important decision was to adopt Struk's suggestion that Kubijovyc, Markus, Zhukovsky, Struk (as "managing editor" of the Toronto office), and I (as "project coordinator") should constitute an editorial board to resolve all contentious editorial matters. Sarcelles would continue to commission entries, but Toronto could also commission those in English and prepare those that were either brief or minor. Reviewed at great length was Daria Markus's very comprehensive catalogue of entries, still unfortunately incomplete even for volume two. With Struk adamant that Toronto would accept no entries for the second volume without a final catalogue, Sarcelles promised to furnish one by February 1984. All concurred that Luckyj should appear on the title page of the first volume as the "English Language Editor 1977-1982."

To speed up the transmission of entries, Sarcelles agreed to a computer and someone to operate it-both funded by the foundation. The institute, in turn, agreed to subsidize the rent in Paris for two Canadian university scholars at Sarcelles, one on sabbatical leave from Struk's department and the other available for two days each week. As a quid pro quo, a librarian was pressed upon Sarcelles--hopefully the first step toward its revitalization as a centre for Ukrainian studies in Europe.

The year that followed was full of tensions. To technologize Sarcelles, space had to be found in a fairly crowded, poorly wired building inhabited by individuals who did not wish to be disturbed. The result was delay after delay--even after Struk had hired a computer operator (a young Jaroslav Koshiw from London, England) in August--and not until mid-February 1984 was a computer finally in place. In November Sarcelles hired a female librarian--but being young (in her early twenties), inexperienced, and only paid $385 per month, no one took her seriously. Koshiw's annual salary ($19,000) was positively magnificent by comparison and drew the envy of all. Instead of writing entries, the two new scholars (and even Koshiw, who had an M.A. in European studies) were put to reading the English-language galleys that had piled up. To cut down on the growing cost of American currency, I had asked Kubijovyc to pay his scholarly "retainers" in French francs or Canadian dollars wherever possible. He continued, however, to send monthly American cheques even to individuals like Zhukovsky and Hryhorii Kolodii (his emigre cartographer in New York)--both so dedicated they would have worked for pesos!

Still, it was Markus's failure to complete the catalogue for volume two by the agreed-upon deadline that was the most contentious issue. Not only was the catalogue which he brought to Toronto late in February 1984 (with the galleys for volume one) still unfinished, but the time of completion was also unclear-by the editorial board's next meeting, "maybe earlier," read his memo on the visit. As a result, Struk absolutely refused to accept any of Sarcelles's entries for volume two. "The first job of the editors was to decide what subjects would be covered ..." had read the earlier Globe and Mail article, yet here was Sarcelles still struggling with the "subjects" for volume two! In fact, as the new head of the literature section, Struk was soon chastised for literary entries 55-60 percent shorter than those envisaged by Sarcelles for the volume.

Under these circumstances, it was perhaps inevitable that the Markus/Struk rivalry should come to a head. Even before Markus's two-year stint at Sarcelles ended in December 1983, the worried foundation, very anxious to retain him, had offered to purchase a third of his university contract. Markus countered with a request for $500 US per month for ten months plus his usual summer school stipend while he remained on full contract to the university. I knew that a full-time academic position allowed little "free time" for research and advised the foundation against the arrangement. Early in January 1984 Loyola University offered early retirement at age sixty-two. Markus, who had just turned sixty-two, was definitely interested, as was the foundation in acquiring his services. Struk, who had not objected earlier to the monthly supplement (he only expected "the equivalent" from the institute!), now strongly opposed Markus's retirement to work on the encyclopedia. He believed (and I agreed) that part of the project's prestige depended upon increasing, not reducing, its full-time academic personnel.

The foundation now faced a real dilemma--Struk's efforts were much appreciated, but the first volume was only the first of several (and even it had still to appear); Markus, on the other hand, had been close to Kubijovyc for years and had more experience in encyclopedia work. He was also Kubijovyc's heir apparent, and the foundation wished to finalize the transition as soon as possible. Under the circumstances Struk (at a crossroads of his own) proposed that the recently formed editorial board, not Markus, become the "viable alternative to Kubijovyc" (emphasis in original):
 It keeps Sarcelles in the picture, provides continuity between the
 old and the new by virtue of Zhukovsky and Markus on the EB, yet
 does not allow either of them to run the show. The essential control
 of the project rests in the hands of the board, the daily running of
 the project rests in my hands (the managing director) [emphasis in
 original]. By avoiding a one-man replacement to Kubijovyc, we
 ensure a smoother and more controllable operation ... In no case can
 Markus be more than a member of the EB, whether he is called
 Associate Editor, or Assistant Editor, or whatever. That pretty much
 settled the matter, though the foundation had still to be convinced.


What changed its mind were Markus's own eventual retirement terms. On 6 March 1984 he requested that his monthly salary "be the equivalent of my [i.e., his] university annual salary regardless of my pension." I took this to mean that his pension should be topped up to his former salary; Struk thought it meant "full pay in addition to his partial pension," which, if true, would make the cost prohibitive. More importantly, Struk was not only "dead against" the full-time employment of Markus, but "should the Foundation have the money to waste on Markus, I see it as only fair that I be paid exactly the same sum as he" (emphasis in original). Struk had often referred to "the principle of equivalence" in France and his invoking it now did not surprise me. Accordingly, I advised the foundation to return to its original one-third released-time proposal, which quickly ended its drawn-out courting of Markus.

Having settled upon the editorial board as Kubijovyc's eventual replacement, it was now important to enhance its profile at every turn. Accordingly, as "project coordinator" I circularized "the editorial board" in March with a tentative agenda for the next meeting at Sarcelles, strongly emphasizing the board's importance:
 We must try to establish now the most effective means to assist each
 other to continue the work in the future ... the two main mistakes
 of the past cannot be repeated: 1) there must be better
 communication between those who bear the main responsibilities for
 the encyclopedia's development; 2) there must be a clear division of
 labour among all of the above. The editorial board is the mechanism
 to ensure both.


Kubijovyc's response was not encouraging. In submitting his own agenda, he thought my letter contained "certain interpretations" that might be "discussed at length." However, he had no time for that now, being engaged, as he put it, in the more important "manufacture" of entries. All he knew was that he was still the editor-in-chief "and as yet we have no such position as project coordinator." Because his agenda differed substantially from Struk's and mine, I ignored it while pointing out that the board's last minutes showed a project coordinator. Struk was more blunt. Irritated by Kubijovyc's continuous reminders that the board in Sarcelles had certain expectations, he finally declared, "I do not know which editorial board you are referring to. At our meetings last summer, we decided that the editorial board would consist of five individuals: you, Professors Zukovsky, Markus, Lupul, and I. So, what editorial board do you have in mind?" Perhaps not surprisingly, there was no reply.

At the editorial board's second meeting at Sarcelles in June 1984, Struk and I were determined to further the gradual transfer of project control from Europe to Canada. Even though Kubijovyc's agenda had structured the meeting as if Sarcelles was still the sole editorial centre, no one objected when I followed only the Edmonton-Toronto agenda, based on a single editorial board for both centres. On the second day, when Kubijovyc again began to take up his long piece on Aktualni problemy section by section, I declared (after a decent interval) that "Enough is enough!" and left the room. Pursued by Figol and Zhukovsky, I was persuaded (after another decent interval) to return, and repeating my earlier admonition against lengthy presentations, asked Kubijovyc to continue. He did so briefly and later lodged a short complaint in writing, which was received as information. After Struk outlined his work plan for volume two and reaffirmed the concept of a single editorial board for all disputed entries, his plans were adopted without dissent. However, when I proposed to enlarge the board by adding political scientist Bohdan Krawchenko (my assistant at the institute, then on study leave in England and present at several of our earlier sessions), Sarcelles was caught off guard. Even though I explained that Krawchenko (with a D.Phil. from Oxford) would likely succeed me as director, his addition was postponed on a 3/2 vote to the next meeting in Toronto. In passing, it was truly ironic that Kubijovyc, who had earlier raised the strongest objections to the computer, should now praise it at every turn!

In subsequent months the most difficult issue remained Markus's incomplete catalogue for volume two-already consisting of some 5,600 entries, twice the number in volume one. Kubijovyc thought he could whittle it down to 3,840 entries (increasing volume two by only one hundred pages), even though it meant that Toronto would have to manage without a definitive catalogue in the interim. In mid-September, with the number of entries still over 4,600, Struk proposed that the "M" entries be moved to the third volume. Kubijovyc demurred, believing he could still eliminate some and shorten others. A frustrated Struk had to remind him that that was a prerogative of the editorial board. To Markus, "Changes could be made in the last phase of our work, even after the translation," precisely the kind of ad-hoc decision making that Struk wished to avoid. With nothing resolved, Kubijovyc simply declared the catalogue finished on 10 October. Tired and exasperated, Struk, losing all patience, angrily replied that the catalogue was "1) INADEQUATE, 2) FULL OF INACCURACIES AND ERRORS, AND 3) TOO LONG."
 All summer and even today (Sunday), I sit here trying somehow to
 bring order to the unfortunate catalogue. Two of my workers have
 already worked on this for over three months. And you write about a
 finished catalogue? You have thrown out entries that were promised
 in the first volume; you have cross-referenced entries for the first
 volume that are not there and others that are themselves
 cross-referenced in the first volume--resulting in a fascinating
 circle that leads nowhere. And you write me that your catalogue is
 finished?


As was increasingly the case, Kubijovyc said nothing. However, in advance of the next meeting in Toronto, he distributed still another edition of his Aktualni problemy--to eight individuals, not four, as if the editorial board did not exist.

On 26 October 1984 the first volume of the Encyclopedia of Ukraine (A-F) was finally launched in Toronto at an afternoon press conference arranged by the University of Toronto Press, followed by a well-attended banquet in historic Hart House on the university campus. At a special meeting of the editors that morning, Bohdan Wynar, to Struk's great delight, strongly advised postponing further work until a complete catalogue was available. "Who is responsible for this?" he asked. "Who has the last word? Sarcelles? Toronto? Individual editors?"

After the banquet, Kubijovyc (and others) mingled with the public and signed copies. The 968 page volume made a fine impression, with its 450 black-and-white illustrations (Sarcelles had lobbied for twice that number), five colour plates, and eighty-three maps (six in colour, with the one on "Agriculture: Specialization" appearing water-coloured because of Struk's difficulties with Kolodii's original). A thirty-two-page gazetteer with a large, attractive fold-out map of Ukraine by Kubijovyc and Zhukovsky was bound separately in the same cloth as the first volume. The whole sold for $90 until January 1985 and $115 thereafter, while the leather-bound, gold-foil-trimmed collectors' edition was priced at $500.

Once the volume was out, the usual reviews followed. Struk and I recognized that the imperfect work was vulnerable, but the earliest criticism in mid-June 1984 (before the volume even appeared) surprised us. On his way to an academic conference in Illinois, Roman Serbyn, a political scientist at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal, dropped in on the Toronto office and read the galley on the "Famine," which gave the number of victims in 1932-33 as between two (or three) and six million. Serbyn, who placed the number at ten million, subsequently complained to Wsevolod Isajiw, a sociologist at the conference from the University of Toronto, who contacted Struk. The latter, like Markus (who wrote the entry), defended the lower number, believing that the encyclopedia "should be conservative and not promote emotional outbursts." However, to head off future controversy, the institute (on Struk's advice) issued an "open letter" on 31 July to all scholars in Ukrainian studies, counselling against excessive praise or blame: "In moments of the most vital indignation, please bear in mind the means available to achieve the ends put forth late in 1976." Enclosed with the letter was a promotional brochure on the first volume, prepared by the University of Toronto Press for the foundation, which (as luck would have it) badly erred in identifying the eleventh-century mosaic in St. Michael's Church in Kyiv. George Luckyj, having received both the letter and the brochure, returned the latter in mid-August with its mistakes boldly underlined as "All lies!"

Contacts with Luckyj had been few and minor before the first volume appeared. On 24 November, however, he issued a judicious two-and-a-half-page critique, which he distributed among his friends. In it he listed the important entries that did not appear: "ACADEMIC FREEDOM, ACCULTURATION, ADULT EDUCATION, ANTHROPOLOGY, AVIATION, BIOGRAPHY, CIVIL SERVICE, CONSUMERS, DEFECTORS, DE-STALINIZATION, EMANCIPATION OF SERFS, ENLIGHTENMENT, FASCISM"--entries the editorial board had occasionally discussed but were then unable to find anyone to write about them. He also thought that the team of contributors needed expansion--another perennial concern at both Sarcelles and Toronto. As for the rest, others may weigh the merit of such general criticisms as the following:

Many Soviet entries have not been properly updated;

Some entries do not contain any American sources in their bibliographies;

Some entries are excessively long and others are too short;

There are some errors and omissions in dates and facts;

There are occasional errors in translation;

Sports entries are lamentable. If Valerii Borzov is included, why not Mike Bossy?;

Illustrations on the whole are no match to the illustrations in Ukraine: A Concise Encyclopedia; and

Cross-references are most erratic (examples are too numerous to list). A master list of entries in all volumes must be prepared.

The request for "scholarly temperance and balance" in the earlier open letter (which Luckyj noted) may have had its effect, as may my still earlier (26 July 1984) letter to Luckyj himself (in another context), which largely exculpated him and placed most of the blame for his earlier difficulties on Kubijovyc:
 For the project in question, he has kept everything pretty much in
 his head, from which everyone responsible for the project has failed
 to extract criteria for the inclusion of entries, not to mention a
 complete list of entries (with appropriate cross-references), a list
 of maps and a definitive style manual. Even at our last [board]
 meeting the first three had still to emerge, though they are said to
 exist and to have governed work on the encyclopedia during the last
 thirty years.


Sarcelles's perverse resistance to most of Struk's changes had greatly soured my view of Kubijovyc. Although I had introduced him at the banquet in Toronto, it was a political act performed with little enthusiasm. Even Markus, Zhukovsky, and Figol now often admitted in casual conversation that Kubijovyc was more a liability than an asset. No one wished to see him leave, for he could still contribute. But he obstinately refused to embrace the new collegial approach, even insisting on co-chairing the editorial board's third meeting (in Toronto) on 28 October. When he moved that both Sophia Yaniw (a Sarcelles pensioner who headed the encyclopedia's arts section) and Figol accompany Krawchenko onto the editorial board, I found the 5/3 imbalance in Sarcelles's favour not in the project's best interests and refused to entertain the motion. After Struk, his angry voice rising, criticized Sarcelles's move, Kubijovyc took the remarks personally and left the room.

Peter Savaryn, in Toronto for the launch, managed to persuade Kubijovyc to attend a scheduled meeting with John Stashuk, the foundation's president after 1982 (also in Toronto for the launch). After more mediation by Savaryn, I accepted Janiw's board membership on condition that, to correct the continuing imbalance (4/3), the institute would propose a fourth member at the next board meeting. But Savaryn's entreaties notwithstanding, I saw no reason to apologize to Kubijovyc, who then boycotted the remaining sessions. Before adjourning, the board approved the catalogue for volume two, believing that its size (4,500 entries) required that the letter "M" be moved to the next volume ("L" was also later moved).

In the immediate aftermath of that very difficult meeting, Yaroslav Koshiw (the computer operator at Sarcelles) had to endure a continuous "squabble" over space before returning to England in December to be with his pregnant wife. Meanwhile, after George Shevelov (the language section editor) sent his supplementary list of entries to Toronto in mid-November (as requested by Struk at the meeting of the section editors in October), Struk informed Sarcelles that the list would be on the agenda of the board's next meeting. Ten days later, when Struk sent the section editors absent from the October meeting their lists of entries for the second volume, he requested that the entries be written in English wherever possible and forwarded to Toronto, with only those in Ukrainian to be sent to Sarcelles.

On 22 December, in a long, carefully worded letter, Kubijovyc objected to both moves. They were part of "the tendency to move the editorial centre for the AEY2 to Toronto even in matters that are within the competency of the editor-in-chief." Two days later Kubijovyc, Zhukovsky, and Markus circularized the same editors, requesting that they send their changes and entries to Sarcelles. Despite the resulting confusion, the institute was helpless. In mid-February, in submitting a tentative agenda for the board's next meeting, I informed Kubijovyc that Markus (who had incurred costs during a three-week visit in December) was now Sarcelles's financial responsibility. I denied that the institute's open letter in July (which had troubled Kubijovyc) invited criticism of the first volume. And I simply ignored Sarcelles's complaint that Struk (in Sarcelles to train Koshiw's replacement in December) had failed to remain for what Kubijovyc termed a meeting of the editorial board (Kubijovyc, Markus, Zhukovsky, and Yaniw). I did note, however, that Olexa Bilaniuk (a physicist well known to Struk at Swarthmore College in Pennsylvania) had agreed to serve on the board.

The editorial board's fourth meeting (at Sarcelles) in April 1985 was, all things considered, a relatively tame affair. Bilaniuk was voted in without difficulty, Kubijovyc had his half-hour on "Zahalni problemy" (general problems), and despite a threatened explosion over volume one's inadequacies, none materialized once Struk showed that the work's 115 errors were mostly minor. Although Sarcelles was miffed that some section editors had not responded, the complaint was largely ignored. The main concern was the second volume's appearance. With the foundation pressing for publication by the end of 1986, Sarcelles--upset by the increased concentration of financial resources in Toronto (out of a total budget of $180,000, Sarcelles's share was now only $48,000, including Kubijovyc's $15,000 honorarium)--strongly objected, correctly noting that according to the last meeting in Toronto, only the contents had to be ready by the end of 1986. While the foundation's expectations were certainly unrealistic, it was also true that only 6 percent of the second volume's entries were in Toronto, and the additional pressure was important to speed up delivery. Because of their number (4,637), it was decided to recommend five volumes to the foundation. When Markus strongly objected to sending the English entries only to Toronto, both centres continued to receive entries regardless of language, with no decision as to whether Sarcelles had to see those sent to Toronto.

Kubijovyc, hospitalized in mid-September, was too ill to attend the next editorial board meeting in Toronto. Still determined, however, to assert Sarcelles's authority, Zhukovsky read a letter, ostensibly from Kubijovyc, which denied that the presence of part of Struk's team in Sarcelles in June and July (funded by the foundation) had speeded up work, and insisted that, with Sarcelles still "the seat" of the editorial board, everything had to go through its hands. Sarcelles, Markus added, had also to be the first recipient of all new entries. As before, the point was largely ignored, and both Toronto and Sarcelles continued to receive entries, with Sarcelles required to send its entries to Toronto within a month.

Volodymyr Kubijovyc died on 2 November 1985, and both the institute and the foundation shared the costs of Struk's trip to Paris for the funeral. Although I personally recognized the loss, I was by then much too upset by Sarcelles's ways to grieve, especially as Kubijovyc's death changed little. The NTSh in Europe, led by Markus, was now determined to make one last effort to retain control of all encyclopedia work in Sarcelles. On 7 November, when Struk learned that the NTSh planned a press release to name Markus the new editor-in-chief, his e-mail asked the institute to confine the position to the still unfinished Ukrainian text. Because I was in Yorkton assisting the foundation, Krawchenko conveyed the institute's position: "Under no circumstances can anyone be appointed editor-in-chief of the English-language encyclopedia without a meeting of the editorial board."

On the ninth, the day after the funeral, Struk, Markus, and Zhukovsky attended the NTSh meeting at Sarcelles. Also present (among others) was the head of the encyclopedia Patronat (patronage) group in Toronto, Evhen Borys. As executor of Kubijovyc's estate, Borys read the will, which left the Patronat to dispose of Kubijovyc's library and archive and the sum of $140,000--Kubijovyc's honorarium from the institute since 1977. Although Struk was unable to persuade the NTSh to transfer Kubijovyc's archive to the Public Archives of Canada and his library to the institute, he did manage to prevent the group from voting Markus in as Kubijovyc's successor, maintaining that such a decision was now within the jurisdiction of the NTSh and the institute. The administration of Sarcelles was left to Zhukovsky, who (with Sophia Yaniw) became the editorial team responsible for completing the Ukrainian text (Markus was added later).

I was very surprised to learn of the large sum willed to Toronto's Patronat. At the launching of volume one in 1984, Borys had indicated that his organization had been receiving Kubijovyc's cheques, but nothing was said about their eventual disposal. When I first met Kubijovyc, I was much touched by the reports of Sarcelles's poverty and vowed that, should the institute materialize, Kubijovyc personally would want for little. His donation was thus an exceedingly generous gift, much enhanced in the fall of 1987 when Borys (assisted by Savaryn) had the Patronat donate it to the institute. Matched two for one by the provincial government's Advanced Education Endowment and Incentive Plan, the result was a $420,000 Volodymyr and Daria Kubijovyc Endowment Fund to assist with the completion of the English-language encyclopedia and to support Ukrainian scholarship in geography, demography, economics, and sociology.

Back from Sarcelles, Struk reported the outcome of the NTSh meeting to his staff, and the minutes were sent to all members of the editorial board. On 18 December Zhukovsky, Markus, and Yaniw (as usual) took great exception to the meeting being described as "'stacked' (6/1) ... with no attempt to include those with dissenting opinions who might have provided a more balanced discussion." They also strongly protested any suggestion that Markus had been "rejected" as Kubijovyc's English-language successor. He was proposed, they said, "according to the late Prof. Kubijovyc's wishes," a statement that Struk strongly denied on 8 January. I quickly reminded the editorial board that it had been "decided a long time ago" that "the editor-in-chief of AEY2 was, is, and always will be the late Professor Kubijovyc." Those who had proposed the recent "strange" motion for a new editor-in-chief "have no voice in anything that involves the editorial aspects of AEY2."

On 3 December George Luckyj, having read Sarcelles's erroneous press release of an upcoming meeting between the NTSh and the institute to discuss the encyclopedia's future, indicated that he had "a right to be heard at that meeting." He maintained that the encyclopedia's "quality control" was not in capable hands, and that either Markus or Bohdan Budorowyz (a University of Toronto librarian with a doctorate in Slavic studies) would be "best" for the job. Surprised, I now simply termed Luckyj "far too out of touch" to be offering advice.

Determined to use my last (the sixth) editorial board meeting to leave a clean encyclopedia slate for Bohdan Krawchenko, I drew up a two-page document on future "Structure and Competencies" for the board's meeting in Toronto early in February 1986. At a special evening session, I declared that all board members had to possess a doctoral degree and hold an academic position, which effectively excluded Yaniw, who had not been invited. I then read the original 1976 agreement to demonstrate its irrelevancy; even then, less than 60 percent of the second volume was in Toronto. After praising the system instituted by Struk, I indicated through the document that, as important as were both Toronto and Sarcelles, without the institute there would be no English-language project; that the institute had earlier delegated its editorial management to the editorial board; that with the institute and the foundation proposing to publish the last three volumes according to a five-year plan which Struk was then preparing (discussed below), the project had entered a new era; that while Kubijovyc would "always" be the editor-in-chief, all other editorial positions were redundant as the editorial board was now performing their functions; that the project's entire administration had hereafter to be in Canada to ensure development according to North American professional standards; that there would be "no compromise" on having the project finished by 1993 according to the system developed in Toronto; and that anyone unable to accept the above conditions could leave: "The project is now on a solid foundation and it will not fall or fail."

Such plain speaking shocked Sarcelles, but after three years of tug-of-war between a spent power without system and a proven system hobbled by Sarcelles's vagaries, I thought it best not to mince words. Zhukovsky disliked the document's tone, terming its terms dictatorial, an ultimatum, and a breach of contract that destroyed the earlier partnership between the institute and the NTSh. That was true, of course; the document was not a product of collegial consensus, something which had disappeared with Sarcelles's refusal to embrace Struk's editorial-board concept. Figol thought that the document pre-empted any further discussion. Bilaniuk and Krawchenko countered that, apart from the 1993 deadline and the acceptance of the Toronto system, there was considerable room for discussion. Markus found the document "laden with politics," concerned to dictate to the NTSh and to others. He defended Yaniw's membership on the board, though Krawchenko thought that, without English, her usefulness was limited. Markus disliked the elimination of the old positions, and Figol, in support, proposed that the "editorial conditions" in the second volume be the same as the first. As others found that reasonable, I met the Sarcelles trio next morning, and the former positions were reinstated and later confirmed by the board.

The last act was left to Markus. In a letter (10 April 1986) to Luckyj, Savaryn, Figol, and me, he reviewed events since 1980 and blamed all but Luckyj and himself for his recent failure to succeed Kubijovyc. I was deemed principally responsible for Struk's position, but Savaryn was also at fault, as was Figol, who "did not have the courage" to protest my "machinations." Although the public did not yet see the three of us as "compromisers," someone "sooner or later" would appropriately evaluate our conduct in the whole affair. I did not think the observations warranted a reply.

To leave the encyclopedia project on the best possible footing, I strongly endorsed Struk's five-year plan to complete the project by 1993. The reasons for collapsing the time frame were many. At about $200,000 per year (including travel), the project was overburdening the institute's budget. Struk, too, did not wish to devote the rest of his academic career to it, and the foundation's directors and their donor clientele were growing tired of it. Public interest and book sales were also much affected by the long intervals between publications. Struk's package was placed before his dean on 31 January 1986, and the University of Toronto accepted it in mid-April. According to its terms, the institute and the foundation purchased two-thirds of Stink's contract from 1 July 1986 to 30 June 1993. Struk's two sabbaticals (the one due in 1987-88 and another six years hence) were rolled into one two-year study leave effective 1 July 1993, with the institute meeting two-thirds of the first year's costs. Meanwhile, out of Struk's two-thirds salary residue, the University of Toronto agreed to create "a tenure-stream bridging appointment in Ukrainian language and literature" on 1 July 1987, for which the Faculty of Arts would accept full responsibility on 1 July 1993. With Luckyj's former position phased out and a colleague of Struk's slated to retire in 1993, it was essential to ensure that Struk did not become the sole scholar in Ukrainian studies in such an important department as Toronto's. The Canadian Foundation for Ukrainian Studies accepted the "Incentive Plan" in May 1986, volume two appeared in 1988, and the last three volumes in 1993, as scheduled.

As difficult, time-consuming, and costly as the encyclopedia project eventually became, perseverance was absolutely essential during the cold war to confirm the social and historical reality of a people--the Ukrainians--whose identity the Moscow-dominated, culturally homogenizing Soviet Union barely tolerated. To the encyclopedia's promoters, an authoritative reference work in English, with its widespread influence, was thus a sine qua non. Notwithstanding the drawn-out publication process, the appearance of the first volume was a major academic and cultural event, attested to by the disposal of 5,100 copies within three months, followed by a second printing of 5,000. According to the amazed University of Toronto Press, it had never before disposed so quickly of an expensive scholarly edition. Today 1,300 of the encyclopedia's 20,000 entries are on the Internet [www. encyclopediaofukraine.com], and more are being added each year.

* This memoir is based on the author's private papers and documents stored at his residence.

Manoly R. Lupul obtained his B.A. (honours history) and B.Ed. at the University of Alberta, his M.A. at the University of Manitoba (history and philosophy of education/political science), and his Ph.D. from Harvard University. Professor Emeritus at the University of Alberta (1958-1990), his main research interests include the education of minorities in western Canada (past and present), the relationship between multiculturalism and education in Canada, and the history of Ukrainians in Canada. His most recent publication is The Politics of Multiculturalism: A Ukrainian-Canadian Memoir (2005), available from the Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies Press. cius@ualberta.ca
COPYRIGHT 2006 Canadian Ethnic Studies Association
No portion of this article can be reproduced without the express written permission from the copyright holder.
Copyright 2006 Gale, Cengage Learning. All rights reserved.

Article Details
Printer friendly Cite/link Email Feedback
Author:Lupul, Manoly R.
Publication:Canadian Ethnic Studies Journal
Date:Jun 22, 2006
Words:12648
Previous Article:Associations de groupes ethniques minoritaires et consultations publiques au Quebec, 1974-2000: la difficile construction d'une 'parole...
Next Article:Let my picture wander with your hat: a bitter tale of settlement.


Related Articles
CIUS: Canadian Institute of Ukrainian Studies: 25 Years, Bi-lingual English and Ukrainian Edition.
A BRIGHT AND WITTY WRITER.
No Saints, No Saviors.
IRAN - Proposed Iran Gas P/L Project On Track, Says Indian Official.
Gullah Branches West African Roots.
Frame of Reference.
Manoly R. Lupul. The Politics of Multiculturalism: A Ukrainian-Canadian Memoir.
Once Upon a Time: My Life with Children's Books.

Terms of use | Privacy policy | Copyright © 2021 Farlex, Inc. | Feedback | For webmasters |