1 Many Polish scholars have looked beyond the liberum veto for a complex of internal factors, e.g., see the brilliant essay by Balzer, Oswald M., Konstytucya Trzeciego Maja: Reformy społeczne i polityczne ustawy rzqdowej z r. 1791 (3rd ed.; Krakow, 1922)Google Scholar, and Kutrzeba, Stanisław, Historia ustroju Polski w zarysie: Korona (8th ed., rev. by Vetulani, Adam; Warsaw, 1949), pp. 338–41Google Scholar. A typical view is expressed by Manteuffel-Szoege, Georg, Geschichte des polnischen Volkes während seiner Unfreiheit, 1772-1914 (Berlin, 1950), p. 5–6.Google Scholar

2 The outstanding protagonist of the Jagellonian federation is Oscar Halecki. See especially his Dzieje Unii Jagiellońskiej (2 vols.; Krakow, 1919-20).

3 Lewicki, Anatol, “über das staatsrechtliche Verhältnis Litauens zu Polen unter Jagiello und Witold,” Altpreussische Monatsschrift, XXXI (1894), No. 1-2 Google Scholar. Josef Pfitzner, Grossfürst Witold von Litauen als Staatsmann, “Schriften der Philosophischen Fakultät der Deutschen Universität in Prag,” No. 6 (Brno, 1930), pp. 105-13, stresses that Vitovt did not enjoy full autonomy in the years immediately following 1392. Balzer makes it quite clear that in the period 1386-1398/1401 the great prince exercised strong control in the patrimonium of the great prince, from which military and court services were extracted, but less control in the appanages of the princes—a situation that had existed in Poland prior to 1385. Balzer, Oswald M., “Istota prawna zależnoś;ci książąt litewsko-ruskich w dobie 1386-1398/1401,” Sprawozdania Towarzystwa Naukowego we Lwowie (Lwow, 1922), I, 196–204.Google Scholar

4 (Moscow, 1910), pp. 61 ff. Antoni Prochaska, Kròl Wladyslaw Jagiełło (Krakow, 1908), II, 254-86. Svidrigailo, in his policy of supporting the struggle for an Orthodox metropolitanate in Lithuania, was continuing the policy of Vitovt and thus was not merely pro-Orthodox in his own right. , V (Lvov, 1905), Part II, 398-404.

5 The desire of Polish nobles to dominate is a theme of (St. Petersburg, 1863), p. 20. He blames the Poles for starting serfdom in Volhynia and Podolia.

6 M. K. , CXCV (1900), 30, labels the Lithuanian seim of 1401 as the first. His view was challenged by both M. V. Dovnar-Zapolsky and N. A. Maksimeiko. For a brief statement of the dispute see , CCCXXXXV (1903), 137.

7 Vernadsky, George, Russia at the Dawn of the Modern Age (New Haven and London, 1959), pp. 247–48.Google Scholar

8 M. H. (Kiev, 1889), Part I, pp. 3, 73-74. At one point Fedor I. Leontovich went further than Iasinsky and stated that the first confirmation of privileges applying to the whole of Lithuania occurred in 1547. See his (new series), Part XX (1909), sec. 2, p. 81. It seems more likely that the Privilege of 1434 was the first to apply to all of Lithuania. Oscar Halecki, “Litwa, Ruś i Żmudź, jako części składowo Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego,” Rozprawy Akademii Umiejętnosci: Wydziat historyczno-filozoficzny, LIX, 232-34.

9 Fennell, J. L. I., ed. and trans., The Correspondence between Prince A. M. Kurbsky and Tsar Ivan IV of Russia, 1564-1579 (Cambridge, Eng” 1955), pp. 204–17Google Scholar.

10 Lithuanian and Russian cooperation in the Battle of Grunwald (Tannenberg) of 1410 is clearly delineated by Kuczyński, Stefan M., Wielka tvojna z zakonem kryzyżackim w latach, 1409-1411 (Warsaw, 1960), e.g., pp. 233–42Google Scholar, despite his underlying thesis that the Poles played the most significant role.

11 should stress the existence of scholarly literature which disputes the organic incorporation of Lithuania into Poland, particularly in respect to law and culture. See particu larly the outstanding essay, all too infrequently noted, Vedecke Prace Ruské Lidové University v Praze, II (Prague, 1929), 63-76.

12 See Halecki's careful formulation, A History of Poland (New York, 1943), pp. 131-33. Cf. Kutrzeba, Historia ustroju Polski…, pp. 261-70.

13 It is clear that the rada gained and that the nobles were the chief beneficiaries of that gain. Górski, Karol, “Rządy wewnętrzne Kazimierza Jagiellończyka w koronie,” Kwartalnik historyczny, LXVI (1959), 726–59Google Scholar. Górski, nonetheless, terms the reign of Casimir in Poland as absolutistic or proto-absolutist. See also op. cit., pp. 367-74, who saw the Lithuanian rada gaining in power. Papée, Fryderyk, Polska i Litwa na Przełomie Wieków średnich, I (Krakow, 1904), 29 Google Scholar, sees Casimir as a centralizer but concedes that “centralization was not allowed to be realized as absolutely as elsewhere.” There is evidence of tendencies developing in early sixteenth-century Lithuania which point in the direction of the dynastic state, i.e., centralization. See Backus, O. P., “The Problem of Feudalism in Lithuania, 1506-1548,” Slavic Review, XXI (1962), 657–58Google Scholar. Although the nobles followed their own interests, they did sometimes think in terms of strengthening the state. Dembińska, Anna, Zygmunt I zarys dziejów wewnętrzno-politycznych w latach, 1540- 1548 (Poznan, 1948)Google Scholar.

14 Backus, Oswald P., Motives of West Russian Nobles in Deserting Lithuania for Moscow, 1377-1514 (Lawrence, 1957), p. 98.Google Scholar

15 Jablonowski, Horst, Westrussland zwischen Wilna und Moskau: Die politische Stellung und die politischen Tendenxen der russischen Bevölkerung des Grossfürstentums Litauen im 15. Jh. (Leiden, 1955), p. 155.Google Scholar

16 Halecki, Oscar, The Limits and Divisions of European History (New York, 1950), p. 105–22.Google Scholar

17 Rhode, Gotthold, Die Ostgrenze Polens: Politische Entwicklung, kulturelle Bedeutung und geistige Auswirkung, Vol. I.: Im Mittelalter bis turn Jahre 1401 (Cologne and Graz, 1955), pp. 242–93, see especially pp. 246-53, 259.Google Scholar

18 See the article by Hilckman, Anton, “Feliks Koneczny und die Vergleichende Kulturwissenschaft,” Saeculum, III (1952), 571–602.Google Scholar

19 See Kutrzeba, Stanisław and Semkowicz, Władysław, eds., Akta unji Polski z Litwą (Krakow, 1932)Google Scholar. See also Rzyszczewski, Leon and Muczkowski, Antoni, eds., Codex diplomaticus Poloniae quo continentur Privilegia Regum Poloniae, Magnorum Ducum Lithaniae, Bullae Pontificium nee non jura a privatis data illustrandis domesticis rebus gestis inservitura (2 vols.; Warsaw, 1847-52)Google Scholar.

20 Religious difference is revealed in , IV, V, Part II. It is particularly stressed in (4th ed.; Kiev, 1903). Yet Ludwik Kolankowski, Dzieje Wielkiego Księstwa Litewskiego za Jagiellonów, Vol. I: 1377- 1499 (Warsaw, 1930), 401-2, even fails to consider the position of the Orthodox Church when discussing the Lithuanian Privilege of 1492. That religious difference remained a problem in the eighteenth century is evident from such sources as Władysław Konopczyński, ed., Dyaryusz Sejmu z r. 1746, Vol. II of Dyaryusze Sejmowe z Wieku XVIII (Warsaw, 1912), p. 299.

21 The high degree of religious tolerance in sixteenth-century Poland-Lithuania has been stressed by Halecki, Oscar, From Florence to Brest (Rome and New York, 1958), pp. 142–44Google Scholar. For an emphasis on religious intolerance see , pp. 115-16. Anti-Orthodox activity in the Ukraine and the flowering of the Orthodox Church there are both mentioned by Vernadsky, George, Bohdan: Hetman of Ukraine (New Haven, 1941), p. 1941 Google Scholar. Anti-Protestant polemics are discussed by Müller, Ludolf, “Die Kritik des Protestantismus in der russischen Theologie vom 16. biz zum 18. Jahrhundert,” in Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur Abhandlungen der Geistes- und Sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse, No. 1, 1951, pp. 34–35, 46-51Google Scholar. That Orthodoxy did flourish in the late sixteenth century and early seventeenth century is evident from K. B. (Kazan, 1898).

22 Halecki, From Florence to Brest, p. 419, asserts that a majority of the inhabitants of eastern Lithuania and eastern Poland joined the Uniat Church, thereby making possible “a common way of life under the same federal constitution and in friendly contact with Western culture.“

23 Rutkowski, Jan, Historia gospodarcza Polski (3rd expanded ed.; Poznan, 1947), pp. 83–88.Google Scholar

24 Wycański, Andrzej, “W sprawie kryzysu XVII stulecia,” Kwartalnik historyczny, LXIX (1962), 657–59.Google Scholar

25 The need for more detailed local studies as a basis for more nearly accurate broad appraisals of economic developments was a motive for the recent study by Mitkowski, Józef, “Uście Zielone: Miasteczko prywatne ze szczególnym uwzględnieniem stanu w XVIII wieku,” Zeszyty Naukowe Uniwersytetu Jagiellońskiego (Krakow, 1956), p. 113–63.Google Scholar

26 Without minimizing the importance of popular disturbances in causing the Ukraine to revolt against Poland-Lithuania in the seventeenth century, even a recent Soviet historian has made it clear t h a t Bohdan Khmelnytsky, the main leader of that revolt, believed that despite the desirability of the support of the common people, their views counted little in the eventual outcome. 1654-1954: (Moscow, 1954), p. 201.

27 For a discussion of the eastern Ukraine's incorporation into Muscovy see Hrushevsky, Mikhail S., A History of the Ukraine, ed. Fredriksen, O. J. (New Haven, 1941), pp. 319–46, Google Scholar

28 Vernadsky, Bohdan: Hetman of Ukraine, while recognizing the importance of other issues, lays greatest stress on the activities of Bohdan in bringing about the loss of the Ukraine. , emphasizes anti-Orthodox activities of the Poles.

29 See W. F. Reddaway et al., eds., The Cambridge History of Poland (2 vols.; Cambridge, 1950-51), Chapters 1-4. Fabre, Jean, Stanislas-Auguste Poniatowski et ńEurope des lumiéres (Paris, 1952), pp. 21–43 Google Scholar. A clear statement of French interference is Rostworowski, Emanuel, O Polska Korone Polityka Francji w latach, 1725-1733 (Wroclaw and Krakow, 1958)Google Scholar. The theme of foreign interference and the intrigues of nobles is stressed in Otto Forst-Battaglia, , Eine unbekannte Kandidatur auf dem polnischen Thron: Landgraf Friedrich von Hessen-Kassel und die Konfoderation von Bar (Bonn and Leipzig, 1922)Google Scholar. On the second partition see Soplica, Tadeusz (Wolaiiski, Adam), Wojna Polsko-Rosyjska 1792 r. (2 vols.; Poznan, 1922-24)Google Scholar. Related to the issue of the selfishness of the nobility is the question of the moral state of Poland. N. I. Kostomarov has treated, among others, gluttony and drunkenness, (3rd ed.; St. Petersburg, 1886), I, 29-89. Although it is currently unfashionable to consider such matters, they may help to explain the demise of Poland-Lithuania.