for the congress are discussed in Václav Čejchan, “Ke vznifu myšlenky slovanského sjezdu roku 1848,” Slovanský přehled, XX (1928), pp. 401–408; Richard G. Plaschka, “Zur Einberufung des Slawenkongresses 1848,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, CXXV (1966), pp. 196–207; and John Erickson, “The Preparatory Commitee of the Slav Congress, April–May 1848,” in Peter Brock and H. Gordon Skilling, eds., The Czech Renascence of the Nineteenth Century (Toronto, 1970), pp. 176.–201.
3. The official, amended version of Štúr’s announcement was dated May 1, 1848. and published in Národní Nowiny, May 5, 1848, No. 26, p. 103. It was translated into several Slav languages as well as German, and was widely disseminated in the press and as a broadsheet.
4. Minutes in H. Traub, “O přípravách k Slovanskému sjezdu v Praze r. 1848,” Časopis Musea království českého, XCII (1918), p. 249.
5. Palacký’s letter of April 11 was widely publicized in the Czech and German press. It is reprinted in the Czech (Radhost [Prague, 1871–73], III, pp. 10–17) and German (Gedenkblätter [Prague, 1874), pp. 149–155) editions of Palacký’s writings. An English translation is in Slavonic and East European Review, XXVI (April, 1948), pp. 303–308. For a recent assessment of the letter’s importance, see Stanley Z. Pech, The Czech Revolution of 1848 (Chapel Hill, 1969), pp. 80–85. On the evolution of Austro-Slavism, see esp. Václav Žáček, “K dějinám austro-slavismu rakouských Slovanů,” Slovanské historické studie, VII (1968), pp. 129–179.
6. Šafařík’s suggestions were contained in a letter of May 3, 1848, to the Preparatory Committee, in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 65–66. Palacký’s draft in German and the final copy are in the Archív Národního musea (Prague), fond: Materiály Slovanského sjezdu v Praze 1848.
7. The Erklärung was dated May 5, 1848, and first appeared in Constitutionelles Blatt aus Böhmen (Prague), May 6, 1848, No. 31, and thereafter in the Wiener Zeitung, May 9, 1848, No. 129, p. 620, and also in the Czech press.
8. May 6, 1848, in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 70–71. Palacký also wrote to the anxious Šafařík on May 8, reassuring him that his suggestions were receiving careful attention. Ibid., pp. 74–75.
9. See esp. “Panslavismus vor der Thür,” Die Constitution, May 9, 1848, No. 41, pp. 616–617; Wiener Schnellpost, May 13/14 and 20/21, 1848, Nos. 12/13 and 19/20, pp. 45–46, 78–79; and Der Freimüthige, Nos. 35–37, pp. 142–143, 152. See also R. John Rath, “The Viennese Liberals of 1848 and the Nationality Problem,” Journal of Central European Affairs, XV (October, 1955), pp. 227–239.
10. See Antoni Helcel to Palacky, May 13, 1848, in Žáček, Slovanský sjezd, pp. 114–115; and Leon Sapieha, Wspomnienia z lat od 1803 do 1863 r., ed. B. Pawlowski (Lvov & Warsaw, [1914]), pp. 225–226.
11. The congress rules were drafted by the Lusatian Sorb Jan Petr Jordan, who drew on suggestions by Šafařík. They were published in Národní Nowiny, May 30, 1848, No. 46, pp. 182–183; and as a broad sheet in several languages. They are reprinted in Czech in Zpráwa o sjezdu slowanskem (Prague, 1848), pp. 20–24; and in Polish in Žáček, Slovansky sjezd, pp. 218–220.
12. See Palacký, Politisches Vermächtniss (Prague, 1872), p. 9; and “Paul Joseph Šafařík: Ein biographisches Denkmal,” Österreichische Revue, VIII (1865), p. 45. Allegedly the presidency was also offered, pro forma, to Count J.M. Thun, who had chaired the Preparatory Committee. Thun, purportedly suffering from gout, declined