Last updated 09/07/24: Online ordering is currently unavailable due to technical issues. We apologise for any delays responding to customers while we resolve this. For further updates please visit our website: https://www.cambridge.org/news-and-insights/technical-incident
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
On April 11, 1848, František Palacký—the “Bohemian of Slavic stock,” as he described himself—wrote his famous reply to the Committee of Fifty at the Frankfurt National Assembly. In explaining why an Austrian Slav could not participate in a German parliament, he stressed the need for Austria's separate existence and also warned that the splitting up of the Austrian empire into a group of small republics would result in the establishment of a universal Russian monarchy. “Truly,” he exclaimed, “if the Austrian empire had not already been long in existence, we would have to hurry and create it in the interest of Europe and in the interest of humanity itself.” Yet, he went on to ask, why did this state, which nature and history had given the task of shielding Europe, appear so helpless in the face of storm and crisis? Why? Because for all too long Austria, in her disastrous blindness, had failed to admit the very legal and moral grounds for its existence: the fundamental principle of complete equality of rights and consideration for its nationalities. Palacky singled out the person he held responsible for this failure: Metternich! “Metternich,” he wrote, “did not fall just because he was the worst foe of freedom but also because he was the most irreconcilable enemy of all Slavic nationalities in Austria.”2
2 Franz, Palacký, Gedenkblätter. Auswahl von Denkschriften, Aufsätzen und Briefen aus den letzten fünfzig Jahren. Ah Beitrag zur Zeitgeschichte (Prague: Tempsky Verlag, 1874), p. 152Google Scholar. In the available English translations in some of Hans Kohn's works the sentence pertaining to Metternich is omitted.
3 For examples, note Oscar, Halecki's statement, “Galicia had to suffer under the strict centralization of the Metternichian system,” as published in Hans, Kohn (ed.), Die Welt der Slawen, Vol. I: Die Westund Südslawen (Frankfurt a. M.: Fischer Bücherei, 1960), Vol. I, p. 88Google Scholar; Johannes Urzidil's complaint that “during the Metternich police state the Czech language was suppressed,” in ibid., p. 183; or Josef, Feldmann's assertion that no regime was so hard on the Poles as the Austrian, in The Cambridge History of Poland (Cambridge, England: University Press, 1951), p. 338Google Scholar. This view has been partly refuted by Robert A. Kann. See his Das Nationalitdtenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie. Geschichte und Ideengehalt der nationalen Bestrebungen vom Vormärz bis zur Auflösung des Reiches im Jahre 1918 (2 vols., Graz: Hermann Böhlaus Nachf., 1964), Vol. I, pp. 218–219Google Scholar.
4 For instance, at the Bloomington, Indiana, Conference in April, 1966, on “The Nationality Problem in the Habsburg Monarchy in the Nineteenth Century” there were a dozen or so papers on the Slavic nationalities alone but none at all explaining the government's position.
5 Metternich to Hudelist, March 25, 1814, Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv [Vienna]”), Interiora: Korrespondenzen. Just how accurately Metternich recognized this “spirit” is another question. Hugo, Hantsch, with some justice, blames Metternich for underestimating the power of human emotion. See his “Metternich und das Nationalitätenproblem,” Der Donauraum, Vol. XI (1966), pp. 51–63Google Scholar.
6 At this time Bohemia was not considered a problem and was beyond Metternich's competence.
7 Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, published under the Auspices of the Son of the State Chancellor, Prince Richard, Metternich, edited by von Klinkowström, Alfons (8 vols., Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1881–1984), Vol. II, p. 91Google Scholar. See also Kraehe, Enno E., Metternich's German Policy, Vol. I: The Contest with Napoleon, 1799–1814 (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1963), Vol. I, p. 29Google Scholar.
8 Metternich to Merveldt, July 6,1814, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatenabteilungen, England. See also Alfred, Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg. Ein geschichtlicher Überblick (Stuttgart: Cotta, 1919), p. 196Google Scholar.
9 Anton, Springer, Geschichto Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (2 vols., Leipzig: Hirzel, 1863), Vol. I. p. 413Google Scholar; von Srbik, Heinrich Ritter, Metternich, der Staatsmann und der Mensch (3 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1925, 1954), Vol. I, p. 653Google Scholar.
10 With the exception of the Tarnopol Circle, which had gone to Russia but was returned to Austria in 1815. For the provisions of the Treaty of Vienna, see Klüber, Johann Ludwig, Schlussacte dee Wiener Congresses vom 9. Juni 1815 (8 vols., Erlangen: J. J. Palm, 1815–1919), p. 27Google Scholar.
11 Metternich, to Emperor, Francis, April 18, 1815, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Vorträge. The full text of the Vortrag is published in my Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1818–1818. A Story of Foresight and Frustration in the Rebuilding of the Austrian Empire (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963), pp. 167–168Google Scholar.
12 Haas, Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1818–1818, pp. 77, 105, and 155. Whereas Alexander spoke to the Poles about their nation as he opened the Polish diet in 1818, Emperor Francis had complained, shortly before the opening of the meeting of the Galician estates, that no German text had accompanied the Polish text of the agenda.
13 Metternich memorandum, February 1, 1816, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Vorträge; protocol of the organization commission session of February 17, 1816, and Lazanky report, February 28, 1816, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Kaiser Franz Akten, Fasz. XXX. The preceding documents are published in part in my Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818, pp. 97–99; and in an article of mine entitled “Kaiser Franz, Metternich und die Stellung Illyriens,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, Vol. XI (1958), p. 390Google Scholar.
14 Metternich to Emperor Francis, May 24, 1816, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Vorträge. A copy of the full text is in my Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818, p. 175. See also ibid., pp. 100–101; and my “Kaiser Franz, Metternich und die Stellung Illyriens,” p. 394. In his “Metternich und das Nationalitätenproblem,” p. 58, Hantsch conjectures that one reason for detaching Dalmatia from Illyria might have been consideration for the Italians who lived there. I find little evidence to support such a hypothesis. Perhaps Emperor Francis was simply interested in preserving his ancient title of “king of Dalmatia.”
15 Metternich, to Emperor, Francis, October 27, 1817, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Vorträge; Kaiser Franz Akten, Fasz. XCI; Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. III, pp. 62–75Google Scholar; Haas, Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818, pp. 120–132 and 176–179. When one compares Metternich's 1817 project with those of Palacký in 1848–1849 one is surprised by the similarities between them. See also Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg, p. 300.
16 Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818, pp. 132, 162, and 180; Haas, “Kaiser Franz, Metternich und die Stellung Illyriens,” p. 396.
17 Hans, Kohn, Pan-Slavism. Its History and Ideology (New York: Vintage Books, 1960), p. 13Google Scholar.
18 Springer, , Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809, Vol. I, pp. 398–400Google Scholar. For a discussion of the rivalry between Metternich and Kolowrat, see Seton-Watson, R. W., “Metternich and Internal Austrian Policy,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XVII (1938), pp. 539–555; and XVIII (1939), pp. 124–141Google Scholar; and August, Founder'sHistorische Studien und Skizzen (Munich: Freytag, 1912), pp. 263–286Google Scholar, whose study on the creation of the Staatskonferenz is brought up to date by Friedrich, Walter in his Die osterreichische Zentralverwaltung, 1792–18U8 (Vienna: Adolf Holzhausen's Nachfolger, 1956), pp. 145–202Google Scholar.
19 Springer, , Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809, Vol. I, pp. 413–417Google Scholar.
20 Squire, P. S., “Metternich and Benckendorff, 1807–1834,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XLV (1967), pp. 159–161Google Scholar; P. S. Squire, “The Metternich-Benckendorff Letters, 1835–1842,” ibid., pp. 370 and 385. In 1841 a high point was reached in Austro-Russian cooperation with the discovery of an alleged Pan-Slav plot in Galicia. An Austro-Polish officer who supposedly had connections with both Russian republicans and Polish exiles was court-martialed for propagandizing the creation of a large Slav republic. Although Metternich was not actually convinced that a conspiracy was afoot, he made full use of the plot to court favor with the Russians.
21 Metternich, to Trauttmansdorff, , December 25, 1830, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. V, p. 79Google Scholar; Metternich to Emperor Francis, December 18, 1830, ibid., p. 76.
22 Polish was not permitted as an official language in the higher courts, although there was a chair for Polish language and literature at the University of Lemberg. The difficulty in finding Polish-speaking civil servants was partly due to the peculiar Polish class structure.
23 Hans, Schlitter, Aus Österreichs Vormarz, Vol. I: Galizien und Krakau (Vienna: Amalthea Verlag, 1920), p. 10Google Scholar.
24 Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VII, pp. 146 and 310.
25 The letter bore the following title: “Lettre d'un gentilhomme polonais sur les massacres de Galicie adressée au Prince de Metternich.” See Kann, , Das Nationalitätenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie, Vol. I, p. 224Google Scholar; Kohn, Pan-Slavism, p. 347; and Springer, , Geschichte Oesterreichs sett dem Wiener Frieden 1809, Vol. II, p. 34Google Scholar.
26 See Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VII, p. 204. Gentz once called this conviction of Metternich his “Urlüge.” See Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, p. 654Google Scholar.
27 The original phrase is “Bauernschinder.” See Metternich, to the Prussian minister Canitz, March 2, 1846, in Schlitter, Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. I, p. 79Google Scholar. Metternich was convinced that the Polish nobles had brought the peasant uprising upon themselves. In objecting to the acceptance of this view by modern Austrian historians, Piotr S. Wandycz raises the question of Vienna's ultimate responsibility for the peasant revolt. See his “The Poles in the Habsburg Monarchy,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III (1967), Pt. 2, p. 269Google Scholar. Of course, the peasants did not revolt against Vienna but only against their landlords, who, because their Polish patriotism was based largely on tradition, were for the most part traditionalist and, therefore, feudal in outlook. Metternich might have conceded that the Austrian administration in Galicia left much to be desired, but he must also have wondered whether there were any reforms which could really have pleased both the Polish nobles and the peasants without inciting one against the other.
28 Metternich, to Count, Apponyi, March 7 and 18, 1846, in Aus Met-ternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VII, pp. 165–170Google Scholar. See also Metternich's “Aphoristische Betrachtungen über die damaligen Zustände Galiziens,” in ibid., pp. 204–210.
29 Ibid., p. 208. See also imperial resolution of February 27, 1847, based on Metternich's draft of the same, as cited in Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. I, pp. 62 and 123Google Scholar.
30 Metternich to Baron Sebastian Josef von Gervay, July 18 and 19, 1843, in Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. II: Böhmen (Vienna: Amalthea Verlag, 1920), pp. 7, 11, and 85Google Scholar; Friedrich, Walter, “Metternich und Gervay. Ein Briefwechsel,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs, Vol. IX (1956), pp. 223–225Google Scholar.
31 Metternich conference Vortrag, April 7, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. II, p. 72Google Scholar.
32 Kann, , Das Nationalitätenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie, Vol. I, p. 156Google Scholar; Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg, p. 75.
33 Melanie, Metternich's journal, April 24, 1845, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VII, p. 66Google Scholar.
34 Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. II, p. 116Google Scholar. As A. J. P. Taylor has pointed out, it is doubtful whether Thun's colleagues in the Bohemian estates really understood what Czech nationalism was. See his The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918 (London: Macmillan, 1941), p. 50Google Scholar. Of course, the real leaders of the Czech revival came from the middle class and were free from excessive traditionalism. See also Sugar, Peter F., “The Nature of Non-Germanic Societies under Habsburg Rule,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1 (March, 1963), p. 12Google Scholar. František Palacký must certainly merit credit for “galvanizing into action a group of somnolent nobles along with the more articulate members of the upper classes.” See Thomson, S. Harrison, “The Czechs as Integrating and Disintegrating Factors in the Habsburg Empire,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III (1967), Pt. 2, p. 218Google Scholar.
35 “Notizen und Betrachtungen über den Gang des ungarischen Land-tags” Lin May, 1843?], Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Staatskanzlei, Provinzen: Ungarn, Fasz. I, Fos. 114–116; Gustav, Roloff, “Fürst Metternich über die slawische und magyarische Gefahr im Jahre 1839,” Mitteilungen des Instituts für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Vol. LII (1938), p. 69Google Scholar; Metternich to Gervay, August 24, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. III: Ungarn (Vienna: Amalthea Verlag, 1920), p. 85Google Scholar. As Metternich wrote, “Hierbey spreche ich jedoch den Satz aus, dass, was für den Magyarismus gilt, ebenfalls auf den Slavismus anwendbar ist.” Walter, “Metternich und Gervay,” p. 256.
36 Metternich Vortrag, March 8, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. II, pp. 74 and 115Google Scholar; Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. II, p. 188Google Scholar. Metternich especially expressed his displeasure over the third volume of Palacký's History of Bohemia, particularly on account of the anti-German feelings voiced in it. Such views were considered a potential threat to the Bohemian Germans. Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg, p. 64.
37 Metternich to Gervay, July 31 and August 20, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreicha Vormärz, Vol. II, pp. 76, 79, and 116Google Scholar. See also Walter, “Metternich und Gervay,” pp. 240 and 253.
38 Metternich, to Hartig, , January 29, 1850, Metternich-Hartig. Ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exil 1847–1851, edited by Franz, Hartig (Vienna: Wiener Literarische Anstalt, 1923), p. 45Google Scholar.
39 Report of the Prussian envoy Von Sydow about his conversations with Prince Metternich in Frankfurt on October 22–23, 1839, Roloff, Fürst Metternich fiber die slawische und magyarische Gefahr im Jahre 1839,” p. 69. Metternich's apprehension about Russia on this occasion is corroborated by diary entries of his wife on the same date. See Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VI, pp. 310 and 322.
40 An interesting tract on Magyar attitudes towards the Slavs is Baron Miklós Wesselényi's Admonition concerning the Question of Magyar and Slav Nationality. See George, Barany, “The Awakening of Magyar Nationalism before 1848,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. II (1966), p. 43Google Scholar.
41 Metternich Vortrag, March 8, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormarz, Vol. II, pp. 74 and 115Google Scholar.
42 Beneš, Vàclav L., “The Slovaks in the Habsburg Empire: a Struggle for Existence,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III (1967), Pt. 2, pp. 344–346Google Scholar. Apparently the Slovak pleas resulted in some official encouragement. Slovenskje naroňnje novini was founded in 1845 partly as a vehicle to fight Magyarism. See also Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zurn Weltkrieg, pp. 122–124. Certainly Metternich had a hand in this.
43 Roloff, “Fürst Metternich über die slawische und magyarische Gefahr im Jahre 1839,” p. 69.
44 Eothenberg, Gunther E., The Military Border in Croatia, 1740–1881 (Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1966), p. 139Google Scholar.
45 Kann, , Das Nationalitätenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie, Vol. I, p. 251Google Scholar.
46 For Metternich's opinion in this regard, see Archduke Palatine Joseph's Vortrag of November 30, 1842, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. III, p. 148Google Scholar.
47 Ibid.
48 Metternich to Gervay, August 6, 1843, ibid., p. 86. See also Walter, “Metternich und Gervay,” p. 245. This opinion is supported by a very similar charge made by none other than Jernej Kopitar concerning “die Misgriffe der Regierung wonach Palacký von den böhmischen Ständen, Šafařik von der Staatsverwaltung selbst besoldet wurde, um gegen die Deutschen zu wirken.” From a ministry of interior report on Pavel Josef Šafařik's Slawische Ethnographie, as cited in Fischel, Der Panslawistnus bis zum Weltkrieg, p. 62.
49 Imperial resolution of January 11, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. III, p. 76Google Scholar. Gaj had actually requested permission to found a Croatian national paper a decade earlier, and the response was not unfavorable. See, for example, a Vortrag of Count Sedlnitzky, dated June 15, 1834, in Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Konferenz Akten, Ser. a, No. 888.
50 Charles, Jelavich, “The Croatian Problem in the Habsburg Empire in the Nineteenth Century,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III (1967), Pt. 2, p. 90Google Scholar. See also Bogdan Krizman, “The Croatians in the Habsburg Monarchy in the Nineteenth Century,” ibid., p. 121. Apparently the Slovene newspaper Novice (News) underwent similar trials. After some hesitation, however, it was allowed to begin publication in 1843. Fran Zwitter, “The Slovenes in the Habsburg Monarchy,” ibid., p. 162.
51 Metternich memorandum, November, 1843, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. III, p. 155Google Scholar. Soon thereafter the chancellor once again insisted on protecting the rights of the nationalities and accused the Magyar ultras of trying “to repress the Slavic nationality.” Memorandum of January, 1844, ibid., pp. 87–89.
52 When it was finally decided to appoint a censor, Metternich wrote the imperial resolution establishing the office which appeared on January 3, 1845. See ibid., p. 157.
53 In this instance Kolowrat possibly once again outdid Metternich in showing concern for Slavic patriots. Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. II, p. 194Google Scholar.
54 Kübeck Vortrag, October 13, 1847, Schlitter, , Aus Österreichs Vormärz, Vol. III, p. 75Google Scholar; imperial resolution, October 31, 1847, ibid., p. 157; Fischel, Der Panslawismus bis zum Weltkrieg, p. 146.
55 Kann calls the charge absurd and indicates appropriate places in Kossuth's works which demonstrate their falsity. See his Das Nationalitatenproblem der Habsburgermonarchie, Vol. I, p. 441.
56 Examples of Metternich's early efforts to effectuate reforms in the structure of the monarchy can be found in the autobiographical fragment which Metternich wrote in his later life (see Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. III, pp. 74–75); Metternich to Schwarzenberg, June 26, 1849, ibid., Vol. VIII, p. 479; Metternich to Hartig, January 29, 1850, Metternich-Hartig. Ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exil, pp. 41–43; Metternich, to Kübeck, , January 10, 1851, Metternich und Kübeck. Ein Briefwechsel, published and edited by von Kübeck, Baron Max (Vienna: Carl Gerold Verlag, 1910), p. 148Google Scholar; Metternich to Kübeck, February 14, 1851, ibid., pp. 149–152 (also in Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, pp. 510–512); Hübner, to Richard, Metternich, May 26, 1883, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, p. 624Google Scholar; Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, pp. 446–455Google Scholar; and Haas, Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818, pp. 118–132.
57 Metternich, to his daughter Leontine, Sandor, November 22, 1849, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, p. 225Google Scholar.
58 Metternich to Schwarzenberg, June 26, 1849, ibid., p. 481.
59 References made by Metternich to the idea of nationality after 1848 can be found, among other places, in Metternich, to Schwarzenberg, , January 17, 1849, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, p. 466Google Scholar; Metternich to Schwarzenberg, 1849, ibid., pp. 467–470; Metternich to Schwarzenberg, June 26, 1849, ibid., pp. 478–482; Metternich to Kübeck, December 31, 1849, ibid., pp. 288–289; Metternich und Kübeck. Ein Briefwechsel, pp. 49–50; Metternich to Kübeck, July 3, 1851, ibid., p. 158; Metternich to Hartig, January 29, 1850, Metternich-Hartig. Ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exil, p. 45; Metternich memorandum, January 2, 1852, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, pp. 520–526; and Metternich to Hübner, June 23, 1852, in the Arthur Breycha-Vauthier collection of unpublished correspondence that will be published under the auspices of the Kommission für Neuere Geschichte Österreichs. See also a letter by Hubner echoing Metternich's sentiments, dated June 8, 1848, in von Hübner, Alexander, Ein Jahr meines Lebens. 18i8–1849 (Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1891), p. 40Google Scholar.
60 For Metternich's comments on Palacký's tract entitled “Programm und Grundzüge einer Verfassung für den Föderativstaat Österreich,” see Hartig to Metternich, December 27, 1849, and January 29, 1850, Metternich-Hartig. Ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exil, pp. 36–37 and 44–46. In his tract, which had been published in Prague in the fall of 1849, Palacký had proposed changes in the constitution promulgated by Schwarzenberg in March, 1849, which would give more rights to the non-German nationalities of the empire.
61 The phrase “zwar zu Trinkgeldern bereit” has been borrowed from Walter, Markov's article “Bemerkungen zur südslawischen Aufklärung,” in Deutsch-Slawische Wechselseitigkeit in sieben Jahrhunderten. Festschrift für Eduard Winter (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1956), p. 354Google Scholar.
62 Zwitter, “The Slovenes in the Habsburg Monarchy,” p. 166.
63 Kohn, Pan-Slavism. Its History and Ideology, pp. 25–26. Fischel considered Gaj and Havlíček true Austro-Slavs. See his Der Pan-slawismus bis zum Weltkrieg, pp. 237 and 240. Srbik's contention that Havlíček and Palacký were striving to turn the monarchy from a German-orientated into a Slav-orientated state typifies the German fears of the Slavs. See Srbik, , Metternich, Vol. I, p. 188Google Scholar.
64 A. J. P. Taylor quite correctly points out that such a driving force would have driven Metternich right out of office. See his The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918, pp. 39–40.
65 Metternich, to Kübeck, , December 31, 1849, Aus Metternichs nachgelassenen Papieren, Vol. VIII, p. 288Google Scholar; Metternich und Kübeck. Ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exil, pp. 49–50.
66 Vortrag of the Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Kanzler, entitled “Den Stand des Slawismus und dessen Einwirkungen auf die Monarchie betr[effend],” and dated Vienna, March 8, 1843, in Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Vorträge. Several additional paragraphs, meant to be included in the final form of the Vortrag, were attached as notes to the draft. These were in the handwriting of Baron Joseph von Werner, one of Metternich's assistants. Since they did not seem to add anything essential, they were omitted here.
