² “Er hat kritische sowie schriftstellerische Begabung und verfügt über eine ausgebreitete allgemeine Bildung. Er ist ein überaus verläBlicher, aufrechter Charakter und verdient jede Unterstiitzung.” Letter of Alfred Francis Přibram, Vienna, October 15, 1938.

³ Letter of Routh, D. A., Lecturer in International Politics, University College of Wales, Aberyswyth, 10 27, 1938. Routh wrote: “I am clear that his unusually wide grasp of the historical, sociological and philosophical aspects of law, as well as his exceptional familiarity with the new legal systems of Europe and with the comparative method of approach, qualify him to make new and important contributions to the major problems of legal science.”Google Scholar

⁴ Robert A. Kann, “Curriculum Vitae (Lebenslauf),” a sufnmary written on the occasion of his election in 1968 as a corresponding member of the Austrian Academy of Sciences. On Kann's coolness toward his career in the law, see also his article, “Österreichische Gelehrte im Ausland,” Österreichische Hochschulzeitung, December 15. 1963.

⁵ Interview with MrsKann, on December 30, 1981.Google Scholar For Kann's impressions of the atmosphere at the University of Vienna between the wars, see “Tabula gratulatoria zum 600. Geburtstag:” Kann, Robert A., “Das persönliche Beispiel,” Die Presse, 05 8–-9, 1965.Google Scholar

⁶ Kann. “Curriculum Vitae;” Kann, “Österreichische Gelehrte im Ausland.” Many years later Kann gave the keynote address at the twenty-fifth annual meeting of the New York Slate Association of European Historians on October 17, 1975, a gathering dedicated to the memory of C. J. H. Hayes, who was founder of the association. In his talk he asked his audience to “look at the amazing foresight in Hayes's writings on nationalism between 1926 and 1930 … to realize that many of the points he made were by no means obvious then. To make some of them required indeed a great deal of understanding and courage from a man of Hayes's political and religious persuasion.” “Forty-four Years after The Historical Evolution of Modern Nationalism: From Disillusionment to New Illusions.” Manuscript in Professor Kann's files, p. 8.

⁷ Earle acknowledged the assistance of Kann, “who read, or participated in the research for, several chapters and prepared the index” of Edward Mead Earle (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy. Military Thought from Machiavelli to Hitler (Princeton, N. J.: Princeton University Press, 1941; reprinted in New York by Atheneum in 1966). See ibid., p. 519.

⁸ “Grundsätze der deutschen Strafrechtsreform,” Österreichische Anwaltszeitung, Vol. XII (1935), pp. 184–188; “Das Ordnungsschutzgesetz,” ibid. Vol. XIV (1937), pp. 367–376.

⁹ “Criminal Law and Aggression,” Psychoanalytic Review, Vol. XXVIII, No. 3 (1941), pp. 384–408Google Scholar; “Modern War, Its Economic and Social Aspects” (a bibliography), with Lauterbach, A. T. and Hubbard, D. A. (Princeton, N. J.: Institute for Advanced Study, 1941)Google Scholar“The Law of Nations and the Conduct of War in the Early Times of the Standing Army,“ Journal of Politics, Vol. VI, No. I (02, 1944), pp. 77–105.Google Scholar In November, 1941, Kann also completed a twenty-nine-page bio-bibliographical essay titled “Wolfgang Menzel,” which became the basis for his article, “Wolfgang Menzel: Pioneer of Integral Nationalism,” Journal of the History of Ideas, Vol. VI, No. 2 (04, 1945), pp. 213–230.Google Scholar

¹⁰ “Curriculum Vitae.” See also Kann's typed drafts entitled “Federalization Projects in the Danube Basin from 1848–1938. A Guide to Post War Federalization Plans.” 6 pp. plus addendum; and “A History of the Organization Schemes of the Danube Territories.” 2 pp. Both were produced under the auspices of the Institute for Advanced Study. In them, he wrote that the usual approaches to the many schemes for federalization, based on various political and legal principles, had been to compile (1) a history of Austria-Hungary based on the history of Danubian national and constitutional problems, or (2) a study of minorityand nationality-rights largely based on specific conditions of the Danubian area. He proposed instead a third approach: “to study the nationality problems of the Danube area not for their own sake but in view of their possible usefulness for the application of the idea of federalization in regions of mixed nationality in general,” and “to present a documentary source book of federal issues based on practical experience, to be made instrumental to reconstruction work.”

¹¹ Regarding the sources for his study, Kann had noted in his draft on “Federalization Projects in the Danube Basin” that his “preliminary survey of the sources available in this country shows that the material needed is almost completely available.”

¹² “Curriculum Vitae.” The dissertation, entitled “Empire Reform in Austria-Hungary, 1848–1918,” was deposited in Columbia University in June, 1946.

¹³ “Diese Plane werden aber nicht so sehr wegen ihrer doch einigermaßen problematischen praktischen Bedeutung angeführt, sondern vielmehr im ideengeschichtlichen Zusammenhang bearbeitet.” See Kann, , “Österreichische Gelehrte im Ausland.” In The Multinational Empire (2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), Vol. I, pp. xx–xxi, Kann disclaimed the practical applications of his study to East-Central Europe under existing conditions in the region, but he held that the lessons of Austria's experience might have value in “territories where this experience is not charged with the bitterly contested memories of a relatively recent past.”Google Scholar

¹⁴ See the undated letter of Hans Kohn (Smith College) to Macmillan Company recommending Kann's manuscript, “A History of the National Problem in the Danube Area” (the original title of the proposed book) in which Kohn wrote: It “will easily become the standard work” and will enhance “the reputation of Macmillan as a publisher of substantial books even if it should not be a financial success.” In an undated note, Walter Consuelo Langsam maintained: “It is the most thorough and objective study of its kind known to me.” He added that it probably would not sell well but would be “a prestige item” for any publisher. Langsam, who was born in Vienna one month before Kann and had come to the United States many years earlier, was then president of Wagner College. He strongly supported Kann's career.

¹⁵ Publication of Kann's book was recommended to the Press by Hayes and by Professor John Wuorinen, among others. The agreement provided that 1,000 copies of Vol. I were to be printed and 1,075 copies of Vol. II. Seventy-five copies of the latter were to be turned over to the University in fulfillment of Kann's commitment to have the dissertation printed.

¹⁶ Interview with MrsKann, on December 30, 1981.Google Scholar

¹⁷ The Princeton address was sometimes confusing to European colleagues, who assumed that Kann was on the faculty of Princeton University. He served as visiting professor there in 1966 and was visiting professor at Columbia University in 1957, 1962–1964, and 1966- 1967.

¹⁸ Kann was promoted to assistant professor in 1948, to associate professor in 1952, and to professor in 1956.

¹⁹ For this and other recollections, the author is grateful to Professor Sydney H. Zebel and Professor Emeritus Israel Stamm.

²⁰ This writer first encountered Kann's handwriting in 1958 on seminar papers. Even assuming that his handwriting was improving with time (difficult to prove), one cannot imagine that undergraduates could have deciphered it. Mrs. Kann, who could read it fluently, typed his manuscripts and much correspondence. When she once chided him with, ”When will you begin to do your own typing?” he replied, ”As long as you can read my writing, why should I?” Nevertheless, Kann soon relinquished his illegible handwriting for typing. He typed the original drafts of his manuscripts himself. That Kann was amused by the reaction to his handwriting was evident from a comment he made on returning a manuscript to a doctoral student: ”You are, of course, free to accept or reject my suggestions. 1 hope, however, sincerely that you can read them!” Letter to Stanley B. Winters on August 20, 1962.

²¹ See Henry R. Winkler's letter to Mrs. Kann on September 2,1981. Winkler, now president of the University of Cincinnati, was for many years Kann's colleague and later vice-president at Rutgers. See also the letter of Gerald N. Grab, the chairman of the New Brunswick history department, to Mrs. Kann on September 22, 1981: Professor Kann ”was our most distinguished faculty member for many years.”

²² The nine with their dissertation-titles are: (1) Nikolaus John Kozauer, ”The Carpatho-Ukraine between the Two World Wars—with Special Emphasis on the German Population” (1962); (2) Louis A. Gebhard, ”The Austrian Naval Reforms between 1898 and 1914” (1965); (3) Stanley B. Winters, ”Karel Kramaf's Early Political Career” (1965); (4) Joseph Held, ”Embattled Youth: The Independent German Youth Movement in the Twentieth Century” (1968); (5) Bertram Martin Gordon, ”Catholic Social Thought in Austria, 1815–1848” (1969); (6) Edward H. Glas, ”The Struggle for the Reform of the Court-Martial Procedure under Chancellor Hohenlohe, 1894–1898” (1970); (7) John George Niesz, ”Early Industrialization and the Workers of Lower Austria, 1848–1873” (1976); (8) Ralph Smiley, ”The Lausanne Conference 1932: The Diplomacy of the End of Reparations” (1971); and (9) Charles Herod, ”A Discussion of the Concept of Nations with History and Nations without History” (1973).

²³ Letter to Winters, Stanley B. on July 10, 1965.Google Scholar

²⁴ Letter to Smiley, Ralph on June 8. 1969.Google Scholar

²⁵ Ibid.

²⁶ To cite two of many testimonials: ”Kann was always willing to read my manuscripts and respond with thorough and friendly criticism. He was like a rock; one could always count on him. His humanity and readiness to help were extraordinary.” Letter of Gabor Venues to Stanley B. Winters on December 8, 1981. He ”was an extremely kind and generous man. How we admired him; how many people he helped!” Letter of Louis A. Gebhard to Mrs. Kann, n. d.

²⁷ Jaszi, Oscar, The Journal of Modem History, Vol. XXIII. No. 3 (09, 1951), pp. 283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kraehe, Enno E.. The Journal of Politics, Vol. XIII (08, 1951), p. 486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

²⁸ Kerner, Robert J., Saturday Review ofLiterature. Vol. XXXIV, No. 11 (03 17, 1951), p. 13Google Scholar; Droz, Jacques, Revue historique, Vol. LXXVI, No. 2 (04–06, 1952), pp. 321–323.Google Scholar In Československý časopis historický'. Vol. XII, No. 5 (1964), p. 776Google Scholar, Josef Polišenský made a passing reference to Kann's neglect of the Slavic languages. Reviewing Kann's revised German-language edition of the work. Jiří Koŕalka urged that a third revised edition should take into account the latest research of historians writing in the Slavic languages. See Československý časopis historický. Vol. XVI, No. 2 (1968). p. 234.Google Scholar

²⁹ Engel-Janosi, Friedrich, The American Historical Review, Vol. LVI, No. 3 (04, 1951), pp. 568–570.CrossRefGoogle ScholarEngel-Janosi, repeated these criticisms in a second review in Wort und Wahrheit, Vol. II (09, 1951).Google Scholar

³⁰ Reviewers who pointed out Kann's impartiality include the following: Herzfeld, Hans, Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. CLXXV, No. 2 (1953). pp. 348–352Google Scholar; Hannak, Jacques, Die Zukunft, No. 6–7 (06–07, 1954)Google Scholar; Shanahan, William O.. The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3 (10, 1951), pp. 332–333Google Scholar; Kohn, Hans, The New Leader, Vol. XXXIII (11 13, 1950)Google Scholar; and Benedikt, Heinrich, Wiener Zeitung, No. 261 (11 11, 1954).Google Scholar

³¹ Jászi, , The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XXIII, No. 3 (09, 1951), pp. 283–285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarHalecki, Oscar thought that Kann displayed ”the usual prejudice against the 'notorious' Szlachta.” Thought, Vol. XXVII, No. 107 (1952–1953), pp. 612–615.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³² Jászi, , The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XX11I, No. 3 (09, 1951), pp. 283–285CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kertesz, Stephen, Review of Politics, Vol. XIII, No., 2 (04, 1951), pp. 254–258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³³ Taylor, A. J. P., History Today, Vol. I (05, 1951), pp. 72–73.Google Scholar See also Shanahan, , The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3 (10, 1951), pp. 332–333.Google Scholar

³⁴ On connaÎitra, aprés avoir lu M. Kann, les théories du 'réalisme' masarykien, mais quin'eut jusqu'à la guerre aucune faible influence.” Droz, , Revue historique, Vol. LXXVI, No. 2 (04–06, 1952), pp. 321–323.Google Scholar On the page Droz cited in criticism (The Multinational Empire, Vol. I, p. 210)Google Scholar, Kann had written that until 1914 Masaryk exercised ”ever-increasing spiritual leadership” owing to his ”tremendous impact” as a scholar, philosopher, and teacher in the spirit of critical realism. Kann's unchanged estimate of Masaryk's prewar leadership is visible in his A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526–1916 (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1974), pp. 443–444.Google Scholar

³⁵ Shanahan, , The Catholic Historical Review, Vol. XXXVII, No. 3 (10, 1951), pp. 332–333.Google Scholar

³⁶ Engel-Janosi, , The American Historical Review, Vol. LVI, No. 3 (04, 1951), pp. 568–570.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³⁷ Taylor, , History Today, Vol. I (05, 1951), pp. 72–73.Google Scholar Taylor had hit upon a valid aspect of Kann's own consciousness of his mission as a historian of ideas, but Kann did not conceive it in the disembodied form which Taylor attributed to him. In theory, Kann believed that intellectual history had two main aspects: ”the analysis of great ideas in their historical setting and the major impact of ideas on contemporaries regardless of their major intellectual significance in abstracto.” Letter of Kann to William M Johnston, October 27, 1969. Professor Johnston later criticized Kann's handling of Austrian cultural achievements on virtually the same grounds as Taylor: that they were treated independently of any milieu. See his comments in Modem Austrian Literature, Vol. IX, No. 4 (1976), pp. 110–112.Google Scholar

³⁸ The Times Literary Supplement, April 27, 1951. The reviewer was again Taylor, A. J. P..Google Scholar The review is reprinted in his Europe: Grandeur and Decline (Harmondsworth: Penguin Books, 1967), pp. 127–132.Google Scholar Taylor's assault seems to have set the tone for much criticism of Kann's works in England. For example, in an article on ”Austria-Hungary at the Last,” The Times Literary Supplement, December 16, 1977, Sked, AlanGoogle Scholar, in reviewing the work on The Habsburg Empire in World War I, coedited by Kann, Király, Béla K., and Fichtner, Paula S. (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly, 1977)Google Scholar, wrote in criticism of Kann's essay on the response of Austrian intellectuals to the war: ”But then his brand of intellectual history has never been easy going-although this piece is at least comprehensible.”

³⁹ For one of Kann's last rebuttals in this vein, see his letter in the Slavic Review, Vol. XXXVI, No. 1 (03, 1977), pp. 169–170Google Scholar, in regard to a review of his A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526–1918, by Hitehins, Keith.Google Scholar Hitchins had raised essentially the same criticism made by the reviewer in The Times Literary Supplement (Taylor, A. J. P.) twenty years earlier about The Multinational Empire: viz., ”In those sections dealing with the cultural achievements of the non-Germans, we discern the main weakness of Kann's treatment of the nationalities: he does not penetrate to the inner source of their nationhood and individuality and is, therefore, unable to give a connected history of their development.”Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Kann, , The American Historical Review, Vol. LVII, No. 2 (01, 1952), pp. 588–591. In his response, Kann's profound insight was to see the events of 1848, 1866, 1867, 1878, and 1908 as part of ”a gradual shifting of the empire's center of gravity from the West to the East.”Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid. Kann's assertion is finding its culmination in his and David's, Zdefňěk forthcoming The Peoples of the Eastern Habsburg Lands, 1526–1918 (Seattle, Wash.: University of Washington Press).Google Scholar

⁴² The Columbia University Press decided not to reprint The Multinational Empire when its stocks became depleted; instead, it gave reprint rights to Octagon Books, which reissued the two volumes in 1964, 1970, and 1977 in editions that totaled about 1,000 copies altogether. Kann was able to make minor corrections (diacritic marks, for example) in the texts, but his major opportunity for revision and updating came when the work was published in a German edition under the title Das Nationalita'tenproblem in der Habsburgermonarchie (2 vols., Graz: Böhlaus Nachf., 1964). The German edition brought a new wave of reviews, mainly in Europe, and firmly established Kann's preeminent reputation in the Austro-German (and East European) ”cultural orbit.” Signs of his growing recognition in Eastern Europe, despite Kann's reference to the ”Iron Curtain” in his introduction to Vol. I, were publication of a substantial excerpt from Chapter XI of Vol. I under the title of ”Robert Kann: Slovenci,” in Naši razgledi (Ljubljana), May 27, 1967; and cordial references to Kann in a review of the proceedings of the 1967 Bratislava Conference on the Centennial of the Austro-Hungarian Ausgleich in Historicitý časopis. Vol. XX, No. 1 (1972), pp. 109–110Google Scholar, including mention of the ”very balanced and well-informed report of Prof. R. A. Kann, who ranks among the most knowledgeable experts on modern Austrian history and especially the national question.” Contrast this, however, with the review of Das Nationalitätenproblem by Bohm, Joachim in the Zeitschrift für Geschichtswissenschaft DDR, Vol. XV, No. 3 (1967), pp. 513–515, which called Kann's analysis of Austria-Hungary typical of the striving of American imperialism since World War II for the reestablishment of a new ”supranational entity” in the former Habsburg regions.Google Scholar

⁴³ The American Historical Review, Vol. LVII, No. 2 (January, 1952), pp. 591–592.Google Scholar

⁴⁴ Kann's consciousness of the demand he made on himself is expressed in his comment on a collaborative work he was editing: ”Inasmuch as only the dumb authors like myself keep deadlines, this is a nerve-racking job.” Letter to Stanley B. Winters. February 12. 1980.

⁴⁵ For a bibliography of Kann's publications through 1974 see Intellectual wul Social Developments in the Habsburg Empire from Maria Theresa to World War I: Essays Dedicated to Robert A. Kann, edited by Winters, Stanley B. and Held, Joseph (Boulder, Colo.: East European Quarterly, 1975), pp. 291–296Google Scholar. For his work in the years 1975–1980, see ”Economic Growth and the Impact of the Dual Alliance in the Habsburg Monarchy: Essays Honoring Kann, Robert A. on His Seventy-Fifth Birthday.” East Central Europe, Vol. VII, Pt. 2 (1980), pp. 195–197.Google Scholar

⁴⁶ “Guggenheim Proposal–A Cultural History of the German Austrians in Modern Times.” 8 pp. (typescript); ”Report on Progress as of January 15, 1950, to the Guggenheim Foundation.” 7 pp. (typescript).

⁴⁷ This study, and the later work on restoration, brought Kann as close as he ever was to get to voicing a philosophy of history. See A Study in Austrian Intellectual History: From Late Baroque to Romanticism (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1960), especially the introduction and pp. 294–302.Google Scholar For positive evaluations of the book, see May, A. J., The American Historical Review, Vol. LXVI, No. 1 (October, 1960), pp. 159–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Krieger, Leonard, Political Science Quarterly, Vol. LXXVI. No. 1 (March. 1961). pp. 136–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For negative reviews, see Wangermann, Ernst, Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XL, No. 2 (1961), pp. 260–262Google Scholar; and Valentini, Bernhard, Monatshefle, Vol. LIV. No. 2 (February, 1962), pp. 91–93.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Interview with Mrs. Kann on December 30, 1981.

⁴⁹ “Österreichische Gelehrte im Ausland.”

⁵⁰ Die Sixtusaffäre und die geheimen Friedensverhandlungen Öslerreich-Ungarns im Ersten Weltkrieg (Vienna: Verlag für Geschichte und Politik. 1966)Google Scholar. See reviews by Wank, Solomon, The American Historical Review, Vol. LXX11, No. 3 (April, 1967), pp. 1,019–1.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Epstein, Klaus, Slavic Review, Vol. XXVII, No. 1 (March. 1968), p. 146CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Klemperer, Klemens von, The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XL1, No. 3 (September, 1969). pp. 401–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Hillgruber, Andreas, Hiswrische Zeitschrift, Vol. CCV1. No. 1 (1968). pp. 243–244. Upon receiving a copy of the monograph from Kann, Victor-L. Tapié wrote: ”Petit livre à grand sujet! Vous avez magistralement éclairé l'affaire.” Letter to Kann of October 16, 1966.Google Scholar

⁵¹ His earliest essay on this theme was ”Emperor William II and Archduke Francis Ferdinand in their Correspondence.” The American Historical Review, Vol. LV11. No. 2 (January, 1952), pp. 325–351Google Scholar. These essays were collected by Austrian colleagues and issued in tribute to Kann's seventieth birthday under the title of Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand Studien (Vienna: Verlag fur Geschichte und Politik, 1976).Google Scholar

⁵² The Problem of Restoration: A Study in Comparative Political History (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1968). One byproduct of the restoration study was that Kann finally found an American publisher who would consent to placing footnotes at the bottom of the page.Google Scholar

⁵³ “Was heiβt Restauration? Begriff und Wirklichkeit eines geschichtlichen Vorganges,” Wort und Wahrheit, Vol. XVIII (May, 1961), pp. 356–360.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Barraclough, , Political Science Quarterly, Vol. LXXXVI, No. 1 (March, 1971), pp. 154–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Brinton, , The Journal of Modern History, Vol. XLII, No. 1 (March, 1970), pp. 94–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁵⁵ Die Restauration als Phänomen in der Geschichte (Graz: Styria Verlag, 1974).Google Scholar

⁵⁶ In the English-speaking world this output has been faithfully and systematically chronicled in the Austrian History Newsletter, No. 1–4 (1960–63), and its successor, the Austrian History Yearbook, edited by Rath, R. John, Vol. I-XIV (Houston, Texas: Rice University, 1965-1978), Vol. XV-XVI- (Minneapolis, Minn.: Center for Austrian Studies, 1980- ).Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Zöllner, Erich, Geschichte Österreich. Von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart (1st ed., 1960, 6th rev'd. ed., Munich: Oldenbourg, R., 1979)Google Scholar; Macartney, C. A., The Habsburg Empire, 1790–1918 (London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson, 1969)Google Scholar; Tapié, Victor-L., Monarchic et peuples du Danube (Paris: Libraire Arthème Fayard, 1969).Google Scholar Translated as The Rise and Fall of the Habsburg Monarchy (New York: Praeger, 1971).Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Letter to Stanley B. Winters, February 14, 1974.

⁵⁹ See reviews by Schroeder, Paul W., Canadian Historical Review, Vol. LVI1, No. 3 (September, 1976), pp. 350–353Google Scholar; Sugar, Peter F., The American Historical Review, Vol. LXXXI, No. 4 (October, 1976), pp. 888–889CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Carsten, F. L., Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. LV, No. 1 (January, 1977), pp. 115–116Google Scholar; and Wandruszka, Adam, Mitteilimgen des Österreichischen Staatsarchiv, Vol. XXIX (1976), pp. 530–532. For copies of these and other reviews, I am indebted to Ms. Barbara Zimmerman of the University of California Press.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Most pungently noted by Evans, R. J., who wrote: The book “is emphatically not a pleasure to peruse.” The writing seems to anticipate translation into German, which “may be confidently predicted. For the present, the volume loses something in the original.” English Historical Review, Vol. XCI, No. 359 (April, 1976), pp. 383–386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁶¹ His correspondence contains many such letters. Among these groups, but by no means all of them, were the American Political Science Association, the Committee on European Studies of the Graduate Center, CUNY, the Center for Slavic and East European Studies at the University of Colorado, Phi Alpha Theta. and the Program on Society in Change of the Brooklyn College, CUNY.

⁶² In Rapports du Xll^c Congrès Internationaldes Sciences Historiques 1965 (4 vols., Vienna: Berger Horn. 1965). Vol. IV, pp. p.Google Scholar

⁶³ See Austrian History Yearbook. Vol. III, Pt. 1 (1967). pp. 11–31.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ In Der österreichisch-ungarische Ausgleich 1867. edited by Vantuch, Anton and Holotik, L'udovft (Bratislava: Slovenskej Akademie Vied, 1971), pp. 24–44.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ In Richard Georg Plaschka and Karlhcinz Mack (eds). Die Aufldsung des Habsburgerreiches. Zusammenbruch und Neuorientierung im Donauraum (Munich: R. Oldenbourg, 1970), pp. 318–337.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Letter of Rath, R. John to Winters, Stanley B.. February 3. 1981; letter of R. John Rath to Peter Paret, December 11, 1981.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ Letter to Kraehe, Enno B., January 12, 1963; also letter of Kann to Wilhelm Schlag, August 15, 1962.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ In Kann's letter informing the editor of the Austrian History Yearbook of the results of the competition he wrote: '”1 think it would be essential to note in your report that manuscripts selected for honorable mention are listed in alphabetical order.” Kann to Rath, R. John, November 20. 1969.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Letter to Rath, R. John, August 17, 1969.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Letter to University of California Press, December 21, 1970.

⁷¹ Letter and report to the American Philosophical Society, August 8. 1970.

⁷² Report to Rutgers University Press, October 22, 1970.

⁷³ Letter to University of California Press, October 25, 1969.

⁷⁴ Letter of Hugh Seton-Watson to Mrs. Robert A. Kann, September 22, 1981.