Page:East European Quarterly, vol15, no1.pdf/29

 in a letter to Palacký to be considered for the presidency. May 26, 1848, in Záček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 86–87.

Palacký’s opening address in Národní Nowiny, June 4. 1848, No. 51, p. 201; and Zpráwa o sjezdu slowanském, pp. 32–34.

See my “Did the Slavs Speak German at Their First Congress?” Slavic Review, XXXIII (1974), p. 518.

Protocol in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 284–289.

See Václav Žáček, Čechové a Poláci roku 1848 (Prague, 1947-48), II, pp. 148–151.

Jordan, Aktenmässiger Bericht, p. 34; and Libelt to Palacký, June 8, 1848, in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, p. 361n.

Citations from English text, trans. William Beardmore, “Manifesto of the First Slavonic Congress to the Nations of Europe,” Slavonic and East European Review, XXVI (April, 1848), pp. 309–313. The manifesto was published as a broadsheet in both Czech and German following the June uprising, and appeared contemporaneously in Polish, Slovene, Serb, as well as in German and Czech newspapers.

The manifesto also cited British refusal “to recognise the Irishman as an equal,” though no reference was made to Russia’s treatment of its neighbors.

Author’s translation.

Of the three partitioning powers, only Prussia was singled out by name.

“The Achievements of the Slavonic Congress,” Slavonic and East European Review, XXVI (April, 1948), pp. 330–334.

Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (Leipzig, 1863–65), II, pp. 336–339.

Czech Revolution of 1848, pp. 133–134.

Revoluce 1848 v českých zemích (Prague, 1974), p. 49.

The German nationalist newspaper, Wiener Schnellpost, June 17, 1848 (No. 47, pp. 189–191), charged that “Russian gold” and “Russian enticers” (Lockpfeifen) were covering Bohemia and the South Slav lands. Similarly, Kossuth’s newspaper, Kossuth Hirlapja (July 14, 1848, No. 12, p. 51), in commenting on the manifesto, asked if the Slavs would ever cease their “incessant flirtation with Muscovite might.” On the Russophobia of the Viennese liberals, see R. John Rath, The Viennese Revolution of 1848 (Austin, 1957), pp. 253–255.

See Otakar Odložilík, “The Slavic Congress of 1848,” Polish Review, IV, No. 4 (1959), p. 11.

“Prag und der neue Panslavismus II,” 1848, Sem. 1, pt. 2, pp. 438–439.

Libelt’s draft in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 361–365.

Pech, Czech Revolution of 1848, p. 135.

Zach’s draft in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 365–368.

On Bakunin’s proposals, see my “Bakunin’s Plan for Slav Federation, 1848,” Canadian-American Slavic Studies, VIII (1974), pp. 107–115. It is commonly believed that Bakunin put two separate proposals before the congress: a plan for Slav federation and his recommendations for the European manifesto. Most scholars have assumed that the latter have been lost, a view most recently reiterated by Josef Polišenský, “Bakuninův návrh se dodnes nenašel” (Revoluce a Kontrarevoluce v Rakousku 1848 [Prague, 1975], p. 168). The only recorded mention of Bakunin’s recommendations for the manifesto is found in a letter of June 9, 1848, from Libelt to Palacký that accompanied the former’s own suggestions: “I enclose a similar