¹ For this essay I have used and benefited from three such contributions in particular: Adams, Meredith Lentz, “The Habsburg Monarchy, Austria and Hungary as treated in the Journal of Central European Affairs,” Austrian History Neivs Letter, No. 3 (1962), pp. 32–54Google Scholar; Arlie Hoover, “The Habsburg Monarchy, Austria and Hungary as treated in other U. S. Journals than the Journal of Central European Affairs,” ibid., No. 4 (1963), pp. 51–72; and the lists in “United States Publications on Austrian History” and “Doctoral Dissertations in the United States,” in the Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. I (1965), pp. 179–225.

² I have discussed some of these in a review article on “American Books on Austria-Hungary,” which was published in the Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. II (1966), pp. 172–197. Inevitably there is considerable overlap between that study and the present essay. This essay, however, has a different scope in time (going only up to the fall of the monarchy), different criteria for inclusion and exclusion; and a different purpose. I have not attempted to revise it to include works which have appeared since it was originally presented to the Indiana University Conference in April, 1966.

³ Kaplan's, Herbert H.The First Partition of Poland (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962)Google Scholar, a competent study based on extensive archival research, contains surprisingly little on Austrian policy. Several unpublished dissertations on pre-nineteenth-century Habsburg diplomacy demonstrate that the trend in American studies may be changing. They are Toews, John B., Emperor Frederick III and his Relations with the Papacy from 1440 to 1493 (University of Colorado, 1962)Google Scholar; Rifa'at, Ali Abou-el-Haj, The Reisülkuttab and Ottoman Diplomacy at Karlowitz (Princeton University, 1963)Google Scholar; and Slottman, William B., Austro-Turk Relations: the Peace of Carlowitz and the Rákóizi Rebellion (Harvard University, 1958)Google Scholar.

⁴ “Stadion Adversaire de Napoléon (1806–1809),” Annales Historiques de la Revolution Françcaise, Vol. XXXIV, No. 169 (July-September, 1962), pp. 288–305Google Scholar.

⁵ The Attitude of the Congress of Vienna toward Nationalism in Germany, Italy, and Poland (New York: Columbia University Press, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁶ Europe's Classical Balance of Power (Ithaca, N. Y.: Cornell University Press, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁷ A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh, and the Problems of Peace, 1812–1822 (Boston: Houghton-Mifflin, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁸ Sweet's, Paul R. “Erich Bollman at Vienna in 1815,” The American Historical Review, Vol. XLVI, No. 3 (April, 1941), pp. 580–588CrossRefGoogle Scholar, on the origins of Austro-American trade relations; Kann, Robert A., “Metternich: a Reappraisal of his Impact on International Relations,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXXII, No. 4 (December, 1960), pp. 333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar, a thoughtful interpretation; and my own “Austria as an Obstacle to Italian Unification and Freedom, 1814–1861,” Austrian History News Letter, No. 3 (1962), pp. 1–32, based on wide reading but arguing a thesis rendered largely untenable by more recent research.

⁹ “Austria and the Beginnings of the Kingdom of Greece,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. I, No. 1 (April, 1941), pp. 28–44, and No. 2 (July, 1941), pp. 208–223Google Scholar. I recognize the absurdity of claiming Professor Engel-Janosi as an American scholar. Since the above and other studies were written during a twenty-year stay in the United States, were based partly on American materials, and were initially published in American journals, however, it does not seem out of the way to regard these articles as part of the American literature.

¹⁰ “The Armistice of Novara: A Legend of a Liberal King,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. VII, No. 2 (June, 1935), pp. 141–182Google Scholar.

¹¹ “Austria at the Crossroads: the Italian Crisis of June, 1848,” Essays in the History of Modern Europe, edited by McKay, Donald C. (New York: Harper, 1936), pp. 63–78Google Scholar.

¹² Austria and the United States, 1848–1852 (Northampton, Mass.: Department of History, Smith College, 1926)Google Scholar.

¹³ Contemporary American Opinion of the Mid-Century Revolutions in Central Europe (Philadelphia, Pa.: Westbrook, 1927)Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Franz Joseph and Napoleon III, 1852–1864 (New York: Bookman Associates, 1955)Google Scholar. Adding useful details on Austro-French negotiations over the critical Venetian problem is Barker's, Nancy Nichols careful study, “Austria, France and the Venetian Question, 1861–66,” in The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXXVI, No. 2 (June, 1964), pp. 145–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar. I cannot agree, however, with her yiew that Austria lost several chances for a useful deal or alliance with Napoleon III. Quite apart from the worthlessness of any offer or promise Napoleon made to Austria at any time, any such transaction depended on Austria's abandoning her conservative policy and adopting one of aggrandizement by Machtpolitik, which is the last thing she could afford to do.

¹⁵ “A Struggle for Austria in Berlin and Frankfort, 1849–1855,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. II, No. 1 (April, 1942), pp. 34–48Google Scholar; and “Three Years of the Oriental Question, 1856–1859,” ibid., Vol. VII, No. 1 (April, 1947), pp. 29–57.

¹⁶ “Austria and the Problem of Reform in the German Confederation, 1851–63,” The American Historical Review, Vol. LVI, No. 2 (January, 1951), pp. 276–294Google Scholar.

¹⁷ In The Journal of Modern History, Vol. VIII, No. 1 (March, 1936), pp. 27–39Google Scholar.

¹⁸ Frankfurt im Brennpunkt der preussisch-österreichischen Auseinandersetzung 1865–1866 (Frankfurt: Waldemar Kramer, 1955)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ The Russian Policy of Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust (University of Rochester, 1964)Google Scholar.

²⁰ The Negotiations for a Triple Alliance between France, Austria and Italy, 1869–1870 (University of Pennsylvania, 1959)Google Scholar.

²¹ In the Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. V, No. 4 (January, 1946), pp. 335–354Google Scholar.

²² A Diplomatic History of the Balkan Crisis of 1876–1878: the First Year (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1936)Google Scholar.

²³ A Wavering Friendship: Russia and Austria, 1876–1878 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1941)Google Scholar.

²⁴ “The Revolt in Bosnia-Hercegovina, 1881–1882,” Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XXXI, No. 2 (June, 1953), pp. 420–436Google Scholar. Jelavich's, excellent study of Tsarist Russia and Balkan Nationalism (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1958)Google Scholar, though mainly on Russian policy, is also helpful on Austria's attitude in the Bulgarian crisis. Austria, he demonstrates, was willing to be tertius gaudens but was not responsible for inciting Bulgarian nationalism against Russia.

²⁵ It does not seem to me, for example, that Thaden's, Edward C.Russia and the Balkan Alliance of 1912 (University Park, Pa.: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1965)Google Scholar adds very much to Helmreich's account, despite Thaden's wide research. Helmreich has also written several articles on prewar Austrian policy, the best of which seems to me to be “The Conflict between Germany and Austria over Balkan Policy, 1913- 1914,” in McKay (ed.). Essays in the History of Modern Europe, pp. 130–148.

²⁶ “Italy within the Triple Alliance (1882–1915),” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. I, No. 2 (July, 1941), pp. 166–189Google Scholar.

²⁷ “The Austro-Italian Antagonism, 1896–1914,” in Power, Public Opinion and Diplomacy, edited by Wallace, Lillian Parker and Askew, William C. (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1959), pp. 172–221Google Scholar. Also of value on Austro-Italian relations is Reuning's, Wilhelm unpublished dissertation, The History of Article VII of the Triple Alliance, 1875–1915 (University of Pennsylvania, 1956)Google Scholar.

²⁸ “The Novibazar Railway Project,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. X, No. 4 (December, 1938), pp. 496–527Google Scholar; and “Trans-Balkan Railway Schemes,” ibid., Vol. XXIV, No. 4 (December, 1952), pp. 352–367.

²⁹ Aehrenthal and the Policy of Action (Columbia University, 1961)Google Scholar; “Aehrenthal's Programme for the Constitutional Transformation of the Habsburg Monarchy: Three Secret Memoirs,” Slavonic and East European Revietv, Vol. XLI, No. 97 (June, 1963), pp. 513–536; “Aehrenthal and the Sanjak of Novibazar Railway Project: a Reappraisal,” ibid., Vol. XLII, No. 99 (June, 1964), pp. 353–369. Wank's, “Some Reflections on Conrad von Hötzendorf and His Memoirs based on Old and New Sources” (Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. I [1965], pp. 74–88)Google Scholar is a caustic critique of Conrad's baleful influence on Austrian policy before the war.

³⁰ Three directly concerned with Austrian foreign policy are Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, “The Resignation of Count Kálnoky as Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary in May 1895,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XI, No. 3 (October, 1951), pp. 259–278Google Scholar; Irwin Abrams, “The Austrian Question at the Turn of the Twentieth Century,” ibid., Vol. IV, No. 2 (July, 1944), pp. 186–201; and Redlich, Joseph, “Habsburg Policy in the Balkans before the War: Selections from the Diaries of the late Dr. Joseph M. Baernreither,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. VI, No. 4 (July, 1928), pp. 645–657Google Scholar.

³¹ See also the articles by Mamatey, , “The United States and the Dissolution of Austria-Hungary,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. X, No. 3 (October, 1950), pp. 256–270Google Scholar; and May, Arthur J., “Woodrow Wilson and Austria-Hungai-y to the End of 1917,” in Festschrift für Heinrich Benedikt, edited by Hantsch, Hugo and Novotny, Alexander (Vienna: Notring der wissenschaftliche Verbande Österreichs, 1957), pp. 213–242Google Scholar, both of which describe the evolution of Wilson's policy toward the monarchy.

³² “The Development of German-Austrian War Aims in the Spring of 1917,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XVII, No. 1 (April, 1957), pp. 24–47Google Scholar.

³³ Freiwirth, Paul K., Germany and Austria-Hungary as Allies (University of Maryland, 1961)Google Scholar; and Davis, Gerald H., The Diplomatic Relations between the United States and Austria-Hungary, 1918–1917 (Vanderbilt University, 1958)Google Scholar.

³⁴ The Treaty of St. Germain (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, 1935)Google Scholar. A useful supplement is Roberts', J. Claude unpublished dissertation, Austria at the Peace Conference: a Diplomatic History of the Treaty of St. Germain (University of Texas, 1955)Google Scholar.

³⁵ Hungary at the Paris Peace Conference (New York: Columbia University Press, 1942)Google Scholar.

³⁶ A good account of the unsuccessful attempts by Kun's, Béla government to recruit support from Socialist Austria and to initiate a Communist revolution in Austria is given by Low in his “The First Austrian Republic and Soviet Hungary,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 2 (July, 1960), pp. 174–203Google Scholar.

³⁷ Seymour's, Charles “Woodrow Wilson and Self-Determination in the Tyrol,” Virginia Quarterly Review, Vol. XXXVIII, No.4 (Autumn, 1962), pp. 567–587Google Scholar, provides a thorough explanation of Wilson's principles, or jack of them, in dealing with this question, but the author gives no new information. On later developments in the South Tyrol there are American writings of some value, including in particular studies by George W. Hoffman and Conrad Latour-; they, however, fall outside the scope of this essay.

³⁸ Helpful here are Kogan's, Arthur G. “Genesis of the Anschluss Program: Germany and the Germans of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Autumn of 1918,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 1 (April, 1960), pp. 24–50Google Scholar; and Dumin, Frederick, The Background of the Austro-Gennan Anschluss Movement, 1918–1919 (unpublished dissertation, University of Wisconsin, 1963)Google Scholar. Both are to a considerable extent based on captured German documents.

³⁹ Roberts, J. Claude, “The Austrian Reaction to the Treaty of St. Germain,” Southwestern Social Science Quarterly, Vol. XL, Supplement (1959), pp. 85–94Google Scholar; Jászi, Oscar, “Kossuth and the Treaty of Trianon,” Foreign Affairs, Vol. XII, No. 1 (October, 1933), pp. 86–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁰ Fichtner, Paula Sutter, Dynast and Defender: Ferdinand I of Austria, 1522–1582 (University of Pennsylvania, 1964)Google Scholar; and Strauss, Felix F., Duke Ernst of Bavaria and the Territory of Salzburg, 1540–1554 (Columbia University, 1957)Google Scholar.

⁴¹ McGill, William J., The Political Education of Wenzel Anton von Kaunitz-Rittberg (Harvard University, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁴² Francis the Good: the Education of an Emperor, 1768–1792 (New York: Mactnillan, 1949)Google Scholar.

⁴³ Metternich (New York: Century, 1932)Google Scholar.

⁴⁴ Metternich (New Haven, Conn.: Yale University Press, 1936)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ The Emergence of Széchenyi and Hungarian Reform until 1841 (University of Colorado, 1960)Google Scholar; “The Széchenyi Problem,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 3 (October, 1960), pp. 251–269Google Scholar, an excellent historiographical review and appraisal of Széchenyi's character, ideas, and impact on Hungarian and European history; and “The Hungarian Diet of 1839–1840 and the Fate of Széchenyi's Middle Course,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXII, No. 2 (June, 1963), pp. 285–303Google Scholar, in which the author argues that at this juncture Széchenyi lost the one faint chance he had for rallying the Hungarian opposition behind him.

⁴⁶ Baron Joseph Eötvös and the Reconstruction of the Habsburg Monarchy, 18A0–1867 (University of Notre Dame, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Prince Felix zu Schwarzenberg, Prime Minister of Austria, 1848–1852 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946)Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Worth mentioning here are Otakar Odložilík's articles on Masaryk: “Enter Masaryk: a Prelude to his Political Career,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. X, No. 1 (April, 1950), pp. 21–36Google Scholar, and “Masaryk's Idea of Diplomacy,” University of Toronto Quarterly, Vol. XXI (1951), pp. 1–13; Kann's, Robert A. two articles based on Francis Ferdinand's Nachlass: “Emperor William II and Archduke Francis Ferdinand in their Correspondence,” The American Historical Review, Vol. LVII, No. 2 (January, 1952), pp. 323–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar (more revealing for William than for Francis Ferdinand), and “Count Ottokar Czernin and Archduke Francis Ferdinand,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XVI, No. 2 (July, 1956), pp. 117–145 (devastatingly critical of Czernin, whom Kann characterizes as an aristocratic desperado); and Irwin Abrams, “Bertha von Suttner and the Nobel Peace Prize,” ibid., Vol. XXII, No. 3 (October, 1962), pp. 286–307 (an able account of relations between the Austrian apostle of peace and Alfred Nobel).

⁴⁹ Bucher, Magnus E., Sigismund and the German Electors, 1410–1431 (University of Colorado, 1960)Google Scholar; and Toews, John B., Emperor Frederick III and His Relations with the Papacy from 1440–1493 (University of Colorado, 1962)Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ Two articles by Rothenberg, on the later history of the Border (presaging a second volume) are “The Struggle over the Dissolution of the Croatian Military Border, 1850–1871,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXIII, No. 1 (March, 1964), pp. 63–78CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and “Jelačić, the Croatian Military Border, and the Intervention against Hungary in 1848,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. I (1965), pp. 45–67. In both studies Rothenberg warns that the Kaisertreue frequently ascribed to the Grenzer needs careful reevaluation. Also of interest for Habsburg policy in the southeast in the sixteenth century is his “Christian Insurrections in Turkish Dalmatia, 1580–96,” Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XL, No. 94 (December, 1961), pp. 136–147.

⁵¹ Dignity and Obedience: Social Prestige in the History of the Austrian Hofkriegsrat. In Kansas University Studies, No. 61 (Wichita, Kan.: University of Kansas Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁵² “The Principles of Government of Emperor Francis II,” Centenary Charter Lectures in Modern Political History, 1945–1946. In Fordham University Studies, Burke Society ser., No. II (New York: Fordham University Press, 1946)Google Scholar; and “Emperor Francis II and the Austrian ‘Jacobins’, 1792–1796,” The American Historical Review, Vol. L, No. 3 (April, 1945), pp. 471–490. Bödy's, Paul article, “The Hungarian Jacobin Conspiracy of 1794–1795,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 1 (April, 1962), pp. 3–26Google Scholar, is useful chiefly for making available the results of Hungarian research in English.

⁵³ The most recent articles are his “L'amministrazione austriaca nel Lombardo-Veneto (1814–1821),” Archivio Economico dell'Unificazione Italiana, Vol. IX (1959), Fasc. IGoogle Scholar; and “Economic Conditions in Lombardy and Venetia, 1813–1815, and their Effects on Public Opinion,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 3 (October, 1963), pp. 267–281.

⁵⁴ Alexander Bach and the Vienna Revolutions of 1848 (New York University, 1934)Google Scholar. See also her article, “Alexander Bach and the Leseverein in the Viennese Revolution of 1848,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. VIII, No. 2 (July, 1948), pp. 135–159.

⁵⁵ See his The Aula and the Vienna Radical Movement of 1848 (unpublished dissertation, Cornell University, 1956)Google Scholar. Lutz's, article, “Fathers and Sons in the Vienna Revolution of 1848,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 2 (July, 1962), pp. 161–173Google Scholar, attempts to apply the concept of generations to the revolution, without, it seems to me, reaching any very convincing or enlightening results.

⁵⁶ In his The Role of František Rieger in Nineteenth Century Czech Political Development (unpublished dissertation, University of Colorado, 1955)Google Scholar; “František Ladislav Rieger: Some Critical Observations,” Canadian Slavonic Papers, Vol. II (1957), pp. 57–69Google Scholar; and “Passive Resistance of the Czechs, 1863–79,” Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XXXVI (June, 1958), pp. 434–452Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ In his “New Light on German-Czech Relations in 1871,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (June, 1942), pp. 177–194Google Scholar; “The Negotiations for a National Ausgleich in Austria in 1871,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. II, No. 2 (July, 1942), pp. 134–145Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See his “Russia and Czech National Aspirations,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 4 (January, 1963), pp. 407–439Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ See also his “Industrial Transformation, Population Movement, and German Nationalism in Bohemia,” Zeitschrift für Ostforschung, Vol. X, No. 2 (October, 1961), pp. 261–271Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Konirsh, Suzanne G., The Struggle for Power between Germans and Czechs, 1907–1911 (Stanford University, 1953)Google Scholar; Knapp, Vincent J., The Arbeiter-Zeitung: the Mirror of Austrian Social Democracy (University of Rochester, 1964)Google Scholar; Dunbaugh, Edwin L., The Christian Socialists of Austria as a Parliamentary Party (University of Pennsylvania, 1960)Google Scholar; and Follis, Clifton G., The Austrian Social Democratic Party, June 1914- November 1915 (Stanford University, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Barker has also written a good solid study of Austria's Croats in his “The Croatian Minority of Burgenland,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XIX, No. 1 (April, 1959), pp. 32–56Google Scholar.

⁶² See his Metternich, Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–1818 (Wiesbaden: Franz Steiner Verlag, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁶³ See ante, n. 45.

⁶⁴ In his “Széchenyi and the Nationality Problem in the Habsburg Empire,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 3 (October, 1960), pp. 289–311Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ See his “A Czech Plan for a Danubian Federation—1848,” ibid., Vol. I, No. 3 (October, 1941), pp. 253–274.

⁶⁶ See his “The Viennese Liberals of 1848 and the Nationality Problem,” ibid., Vol. XV, No. 3 (October, 1955), pp. 227–239.

⁶⁷ See his “The Transylvanian Question in 1849,” ibid., Vol. II, No. 1 (April, 1942), pp. 20–34.

⁶⁸ S. Harrison Thomson, “Czech and German: Action, Reaction, and Interaction,” ibid., Vol. I, No. 3 (October, 1941), pp. 306–324; S. Harrison Thomson, “The Germans in Bohemia from Maria Theresa to 1918,” ibid., Vol. II, No. 2 (July, 1942), pp. 161–179; Odložilfk, Otakar, “The Czechs on the Eve of the 1848 Revolution,” Harvard Slavic Studies, Vol. I (1953), pp. 179–217Google Scholar; and Kohn, Hans, “The Historical Roots of Czech Democracy,” in Czechoslovakia, Twenty Years of Independence, edited by Kerner, Robert J. (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1940), pp. 91–105Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ See her “Constitutional Aspects of the Struggle for Power between Germans and Czechs in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXVII, No. 3 (September, 1955), pp. 231–261Google Scholar.

⁷⁰ See his “A Century of a Phantom Pan-Slavism and the Western Slavs,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XI, No. 1 (January, 1951), pp. 57–77Google Scholar.

⁷¹ See his “The Southern Slav Image of Russia in the Nineteenth Century,” ibid., Vol. XXI, No. 1 (April, 1961), pp. 45–52.

⁷² See his Socialism in the Multi-National State (Harvard University, 1946)Google Scholar. See also his “The Social Democrats and the Conflict of Nationalities in the Habsburg Monarchy,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXI, No. 3 (September, 1949), pp. 204–217Google Scholar.

⁷³ Kann, Robert A., “Hungarian Jewry during Austria-Hungary's Constitutional Period (1867–1918),” Jewish Social Studies, Vol. VII, No. 4 (October, 1945), pp. 357–386Google Scholar; “German-Speaking Jewry during Austria- Hungary's Constitutional Era (1867–1918),” ibid., Vol. X, No. 3 (July, 1948), pp. 239–256; Oscar Karbach, “The Founder of Modern Political Anti-Semitism: Georg von Schoenerer,” ibid., Vol. VII, No. 1 (January, 1945), pp. 3–30.

⁷⁴ “National Autonomy in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. I, No. 4 (January, 1942), pp. 417–428Google Scholar.

⁷⁵ The Agrarian Reforms of Joseph II in Bohemia, 1780–1790 (University of Colorado, 1957)Google Scholar. See also Wright's, “The Initiation of Robota Abolition in Bohemia,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XVIII, No. 3 (October, 1958), pp. 239–253Google Scholar; and his Serf, Seigneur, and Sovereign: Agrarian Reform in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia (Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota Press, 1966)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ Wilhelm Freiherr von Schröder: Economic Thought and Projects for Fiscal Reform in the Reign of Leopold I (University of California at Los Angeles, 1960)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ On the question of serfdom and land tenure, an interesting article by Dosdolsky, Roman, “On the Nature of Peasant Serfdom in Central and Eastern Europe,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XII, No. 2 (July, 1952), pp. 128–139Google Scholar, argues convincingly that Leibeigenschaft in Bohemia was genuine serfdom, not merely hereditary subjection, and that the decisive criteria in this question are always economic, not juristic.

⁷⁸ The Waldstein Woolen Mill: Noble Entrepreneurship in Eighteenth-Century Bohemia (Boston: Harvard School of Business Administration, 1963)Google Scholar; “Industrialization in Bohemia and Moravia in the Eighteenth Century,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XIX, No. 4 (January, 1960), pp. 347–356Google Scholar; and “The Woolen-Goods Industry of the Habsburg Monarchy in the Eighteenth Century,” The Journal of Economic History, Vol. XX, No. 3 (September, 1960), pp. 383–406Google Scholar.

⁷⁹ “Transportation and Industry in Austria, 1815–1848,” The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XV, No. 1 (March, 1943), pp. 24–38Google Scholar.

⁸⁰ See his “The Austro-French Commercial Treaty of 1866,” The American Historical Review, Vol. XLI, No. 3 (April, 1936), pp. 474–491Google Scholar; and “Efforts to secure an Austro-German Customs Union in the Nineteenth Century,” University of Michigan Historical Essays, edited by Boak, A. E. R. (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1937), pp. 45–74Google Scholar.

⁸¹ “Some Economic Aspects of the Nationality Conflict in the Habsburg Empire,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XIII, No. 2 (July, 1953), pp. 123–135Google Scholar.

⁸² Hungary, , 1867–1939: a Study of Social Change and the Political Process (Princeton University, 1961)Google Scholar.

⁸³ Polach, Jaroslav G., “The Beginnings of Trade Unionism among the Slavs of the Austrian Empire,” The American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. XIV, No. 2 (April, 1955), pp. 239–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar; John Kosa, “A Century of Hungarian Emigration, 1850–1950,” ibid., Vol. XVI, No. 4 (December, 1957), pp. 501–514; Murdzek, Benjamin P., Population Movements of the Polish Provinces of Prussia, Russia and Austria, 1870–1914 (unpublished dissertation, American University, 1960)Google Scholar; and Koenig, Samuel, “Geographic and Ethnic Characteristics of Galicia,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. I, No. 1 (April, 1941), pp. 55–65Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ Thomson, S. Harrison, “Pre-Hussite Heresy in Bohemia,” English Historical Review, Vol. XLVIII, No. 1 (January, 1933), pp. 23–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Bernard, Paul P., “Heresy in Fourteenth Century Austria,” Medievalia et Humanistica, Vol. X (1956), pp. 50–63Google Scholar; Bernard, Paul P., “Jerome of Prague, Austria, and the Hussites,” Church History, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (March, 1958), pp. 3–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Foster, Claude R. Jr., Johannes Buenderlin: Radical Reformer of the Sixteenth Century (unpublished dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1963)Google Scholar.

⁸⁵ The Origins of Josephinism: Two Studies (Colorado Springs, Colo.: Colorado College Press, 1964)Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ “Pietro Verri: a Lombard Reformer under Enlightened Absolutism and the French Revolution,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XVIII, No. 3 (October, 1958), pp. 254–280Google Scholar.

⁸⁷ “The Early Period of Anglo-Hungarian Contact,” The American Slavic and East European Review, Vol. XIII, No. 3 (October, 1954), pp. 414–431Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ In his “Ost-Mitteleuropa als Spannungsfeld zwischen Ost und West urn die Jahrhundertwende bis zum Ende des ersten Weltkriegs,” Die Welt als Gesckichte, Vol. XVI (1956), pp. 64–75Google Scholar. A very interesting and significant complement to Meyer's study is Paul R. Sweet's article on “Germany, Austria-Hungary and Mitteleuropa: August 1915-April 1916,” in Festschrift für Heinrich Benedikt, pp. 180–212. Although Sweet concentrates mainly on the development of German policy, his account of the Austrian government's resistance to German proposals for a Zollyerein and for concrete new guarantees of German supremacy in Austria is highly interesting.

⁸⁹ In Studies in Arthur Schnitzler: Centennial Commemorative Volume, edited by Salinger, Herman and Reichert, Herbert W. (Chapel Hill, N. C: University of North Carolina Press, 1963), pp. 45–70Google Scholar.

⁹⁰ “The Rise of Modern Slovenian Historiography,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XXII, No. 4 (January, 1963), pp. 440–467Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Two other studies dealing with Austrian political geography, both unpublished dissertations, are Hoffman's, George W.The Growth and Decline of Austria: A Political and Historical Geography (University of Michigan, 1950)Google Scholar; and Randall's, Richard R.The Political Geography of the Klagenfurt Basin (Clark University, 1955)Google Scholar.

⁹² Some of the American historians and political scientists active in this kind of enterprise are Alfred Diamant, Paul R. Zinner, Walter B. Simon, Herbert P. Secher, and Crane Wilder.

⁹³ In the Slavic Review, Vol. XXII, No. 1 (March, 1963), pp. 1–30Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ Stephen Fischer-Galati, “Nationalism and Kaisertreue,” ibid., pp. 31– 36; and Hans Kohn, “The Viability of the Habsburg Monarchy,” ibid., pp. 37–42.

⁹⁵ Nowell, Charles E. makes this charge concerning American historians in an interesting essay, “Has the Past a Place in History?”, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXIV, No. 4 (December, 1952), pp. 331–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar.