¹ Gábor Döbrentei to József Dessewffy, Kolozsvár (now Cluj-Napoca, Romania), 29 November 1816, MNL OL [National Archives of Hungary, Budapest], P91 5. cs. 53.

² The critical edition takes more than ten variants of the text into account. Kazinczy, Ferenc, Erdélyi levelek, ed. Szabó, Ágnes (Debrecen, 2013), 521–47Google Scholar.

³ Viszota, Gyula, “Censurai különlegességek a XIX. század második negyedében” [Curiosities about censorship in the second quarter of the 19th century], in Adatok a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia és a XIX. század első felének történetéhez [Data on the history of the Hungarian Academy and the first half of the 19th century], vol. 1 (Budapest, 1926), 69–70 Google Scholar. For the important political treatises that had to be published abroad, see, for example, Wesselényi, Baron Miklós, Balitéletekről, irat 1831-ben [On prejudices, written in 1831] (Bucharest, 1833)Google Scholar; Count István Széchenyi, Stadium irta 1831-ben [Stadium, written in 1831], published by Z**** (Leipzig, 1833).

⁴ Wolf, Norbert Christian, “Von ‘eingeschränkt und erzbigott’ bis ‘ziemlich inquisitionsmäßig’: Die Rolle der Zensur im Wiener literarischen Feld des 18. Jahrhunderts,” in Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung: Geschichte—Theorie—Praxis, ed. Haefs, Wilhelm and Mix, York-Gothart (Göttingen, 2007), 320–30Google Scholar.

⁵ On Hungarian censorship, see Sashegyi, Oskar, Zensur und Geistesfreiheit unter Joseph II. Beitrag zur Kulturgeschichte der Habsburgischen Länder (Budapest, 1958)Google Scholar; Kecskeméti, Károly, La Hongrie et le reformisme liberal: Problèmes politiques et sociaux (1790–1848) (Rome, 1989), 45–51 Google Scholar. On press laws in Hungary, see Tarnai, János, “A censura Magyarországon” [Censorship in Hungary], in Sajtójogi dolgozatok [Essays on press laws] (Budapest, 1913), 86–117 Google Scholar. On the methodology of research, see Breuer, Dieter, “Stand und Augaben der Zensurforschung,” in “Unmoralisch an sich…”: Zensur im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Göpfert, Herbert G. and Weyrauch, Erdmann (Wiesbaden, 1988), 37–60 Google Scholar.; York-Gothart Mix, “Zensur im 18. Jahrhundert. Prämissen und Probleme der Forschung,” in Zensur im Jahrhundert der Aufklärung, 11–23.

⁶ For his career, see Vaderna, Gábor, Élet és irodalom: Az irodalom társadalmi használata gróf Dessewffy József életművében [Life and literature: The social use of literature in the oeuvre of Count József Dessewffy] (Budapest, 2013)Google Scholar.

⁷ In Hungarian politics, the House of Commons first debated what were called gravamen (i.e., grievances), and then the House of Lords discussed the proposals to decide whether they were appropriate to be sent to the king. When the two houses arrived at an agreement, they sent a humillime repraesentatio to the ruler, who answered in a benigna resolutio. In this process of negotiation, the lower house had become the more important scene of politics by the turn of the nineteenth century because grievances could only be articulated there. Being a member of this house implied more power and some influence on current policy. For the history of the Hungarian Diet, see Bérenger, Jean and Kecskeméti, Károly, Parlement et vie parlementaire en Hongrie, 1608–1918 (Paris, 2005), 181–284 Google Scholar; Szijártó, István, “The Diet: The Estates and the Parliament of Hungary, 1708–1792,” in Bündnispartner und Konkurrenten des Landesfürsten? Die Stände in der Habsburgermonarchie, ed. Ammerer, Gerhard, Godsey, William D. Jr., Scheutz, Martin, Urbanitsch, Peter, and Weiss, Alfred Stefan (Vienna and Munich, 2007), 151–71Google Scholar.

⁸ For the work of deputations, see Magyar törvénytár: 1740–1835. évi törvényczikkek [Corpus Juris Hungarici: Articlae Dietales 1740–1835], trans. Kálmán Csiky, ed. Dezső Márkus (Budapest, 1901), 438–43. The appreciation of the deputations’ work is not unequivocal in history. On the one hand, it could be the first step to the Age of Reforms begun in 1825, on the other, a great failure as none of the bills came to fruition. For the first standpoint, see Horváth, Mihály, Huszonöt év Magyarország történelméből: 1823–1848 [Twenty-five years of the history of Hungary], vol. 1 (Budapest, 1886), 270–71Google Scholar; for the second, see Kecskeméti, La Hongrie et le reformisme liberal, 199–203.

⁹ Lajos Kossuth cited the reaction of Trencsén County years later. See Kossuth, Lajos, “Felelet gróf Széchenyi Istvánnak Kossuth Lajostól [1841]” [An answer to István Széchenyi], in Count István Széchenyi, A kelet népe [The commonwealth of the east], ed. Ferenczi, Zoltán (Budapest, 1925), 516Google Scholar.

¹⁰

¹¹ József Dessewffy to Ferenc Kazinczy, Alsó-Olysó [now Oľšov, Slovakia], 1 December 1810, in Kazinczy Ferencz levelezése [Correspondence of Ferenc Kazinczy], vol. 8, ed. János Váczy (Budapest, 1898), 181–82.

¹² In Munkács there was a prison to which arrested political prisoners were transported. Ferenc Kazinczy was confined here after the Hungarian Jacobian conspiracy. For more on the conspiracy, see Benda, Kálmán, “Problème des Josephinismus und des Jakobinertums in der Habsburgischen Monarchie,” Südost-Forschungen 25 (1966): 38–71 Google Scholar. For the role of Kazinczy, see his diary and the notes of the critical edition Kazinczy, Ferenc, Fogságom naplója [The diary of my confinement], ed. Szilágyi, Márton (Debrecen, 2011)Google Scholar.

¹³ József Dessewffy to Gábor Döbrentei, 6 December 1815, in Gróf Dessewffy József levelei: 1812–1843 [Letters by Count József Dessewffy: 1812–1843], ed. József Ferenczy (Budapest, 1888), 13.

¹⁴ József Dessewffy to Ferenc Kazinczy, S. M. [?], 11 March 1814, in Kazinczy Ferencz levelezése, vol. 11, ed. János Váczy (Budapest, 1901), 275.

¹⁵ József Dessewffy to András Thaisz, 16 January 1822, in Gróf Dessewffy József levelei, 123. Here, Dessewffy strictly divides the mental and physical parts of human condition. It is striking to me that a few years later Dessewffy will suspect count István Széchenyi of being a rigid Cartesian in his Világ (1832). For the debate between Széchenyi and Dessewffy Vaderna, Élet és irodalom, 253–94.

¹⁶ Gróf Dessewffy József levelei, 122.

¹⁷ Ibid., 123.

¹⁸ Ibid., 122.

¹⁹ Ibid., 125.

²⁰ For the Repraesentatio Horváth, Huszonöt év Magyarország történelméből, vol. 1, 80–85.

²¹ József Dessewffy to András Thaisz, 16 January 1822, 124.

²² The Latin original: Comes Josephus Desewffy, “Votum separatum: Circa propositum Articulum de Censura Librorum praeventiva,” in Opinio Excelsae Regnicolaris-Deputationis motivis suffulta, pro pertractandis in consequentiam Articuli 67: 1790/91 elaboratis Systematicis Operatis Articulo 8. 1825/7 exmissae, circa Objecta ad Deputationem Publico-Politicam relata vol. 8, De Censura Librorum cum Projecto Articuli (Bratislava, 1830), 7–29. It can be found at National Széchényi Library in Budapest under 503.279. The German translation: Graf Joseph von Deßewffy, Über Preßfreiheit und Bücherzensur im allgemeinen und mit besonderer Beziehung auf Ungarn, trans. from Latin manuscript C. F. (Leipzig, 1831). A Hungarian translation in manuscript can be found at: Külön szavazat a’ megelőző censuráról az az: könyvvis'gálatrol javallott törvény czikre nézve, National Széchényi Library in Budapest, Manuscript Collection, Fol. Hung. 1822.

²³ Dessewffy, Votum separatum, 16–17.

²⁴ Kontler, László, “The Conservative Enlightenment and the Eighteenth-Century Recovery of European Self-Confidence,” CEU History Department Yearbook 1997–1998 (Budapest, 1999), 113–34Google Scholar. For Dessewffy's knowledge of British texts, see Attila Makay, Gróf Dessewffy József angol irodalmi műveltsége [Count József Dessewffy's English literary education] (Debrecen, 1941).

²⁵ Dessewffy, Votum separatum, 9.

²⁶ Ibid., 11.

²⁷ Ibid., 21.

²⁸ Montesquieu, Esprit des loix, ou du Rapport que les Loix doivent avoir avec la Constitution de chaque Gouvernement, les Mœrs, le Climat, la Religion, le Commerce, &c. Tome Premier (Geneva, [1748]), 1. On the ancient constitution at Burke, see Pocock, J. G. A., “Burke and the Ancient Constitution: A Problem in the History of Ideas,” The Historical Journal 3, no. 2 (1960): 138–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁹ Sajtószabadság [Liberty of the press] (Rožňava, 1831), 26.

³⁰ Ibid., 40.

³¹ Ibid.

³² Ibid., 41.

³³ Ibid., 112. A famous work by Gentz was cited in Gentz, Friedrich von, “Über den Ursprung und Charakter des Krieges gegen die französische Revolution,” in Politische Abhandlungen, vol. 2 of Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Weick, Wilderich (Stuttgart, 1837), 189–389 Google Scholar.

³⁴ “Politische Freyheit ist also natürliche Freyheit, nach Abzug des jenigen Theils derselben, ohne dessen Hingebung ein Staat nicht besteht.” [Friedrich von Gentz,] “Über politische Freyheit und das Verhältniß derselben zur Regierung,” in [Edmund] Burke, Betrachtungen über die französische Revolution, vol. 2, trans. Friedrich Gentz (Berlin, 1793), 113. For self-regulation of conservative Enlightenment, see Pocock, J. G. A., “Conservative Enlightenment and Democratic Revolutions: The American and French Cases in British Perspective,” Government and Opposition 24, no. 1 (1989): 81–105 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁵ Sajtószabadság, 71–72.

³⁶ F Gentz, riedrich von, “Presßfreiheit in England,” in Politische Aufsätze, vol. 5 of Ausgewählte Schriften, ed. Weick, Wilderich (Stuttgart, 1838), 59–118 Google Scholar. The next essay followed a similar train of thought: Friedrich von Gentz, “Über die Briefe von Junius,” in Politische Aufsätze, 119–71.

³⁷ It is the opposite of Voltaire's argumentation: “In general, we have a natural right to use both our pen and our tongue at our own risk. I know many tedious books, but I do not know a single one that has done any real harm.” Ernst Cassirer, who cited these sentences, assumed that Voltaire was the origin of this opinion. Although it is an overstatement that the French philosopher “released that current of thought,” we can venture a guess that Voltaire's name and this thesis intertwined for his contemporaries. Cassirer, Ernst, The Philosophy of the Enlightenment, trans. Koelln, Fritz C. A. and Pettegrove, James P. (Princeton, 1951), 251–52Google Scholar.

³⁸ Pál, Kis, A “Sajtó” Szabadsága [The liberty of the press] (Vienna, 1832), 71Google Scholar.

³⁹ Ibid., 73.

⁴⁰ József, Ponori Thewrewk, Hazafiúi elmélkedések [Patriotic meditations] (Bratislava, 1833), 9Google Scholar.

⁴¹ Ibid., 52–53.

⁴² This type of critique of the Enlightenment can be considered as much Burke's legacy as that of the figures previously mentioned. The German reception of Burke in the early nineteenth century, which was the basis of the Hungarian, had two trends: One focused on the critique of the swiftly changing world (August Rehberg and Ernst Brandes), and the other applied Burke's use of stadial history (Gentz and his followers). In this sense, Ponori Thewrewk's ideas had more in common with Brandes and Rehberg than Gentz, although he quoted Gentz himself. For the German reception of Burke, see Kontler, László, “The ancien régime in memory and theory. Edmund Burke and his German followers,” European Review of History 4, no. 1 (1997): 31–43 CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴³ f. and L. R., “Rövid értekezés a’ sajtószabadságról” [Short treatise on the Liberty of the Press], in Cum Ephemeridibus Posoninsibus, vol. 3 of Alveare: Méhkas [Hive], ed. Paulus Kováts (Bratislava, 1837), 34.

⁴⁴ Dessewffy, Votum separatum, 17.

⁴⁵ Ibid., 8.

⁴⁶ Ibid.

⁴⁷ Speeches of the Late Right Honourable Richard Brinsley Sheridan. Several Corrected by Himself, edited by “A Constitutional Friend,” vol. 4 (London, 1816), 462.

⁴⁸ Zala vármegyének az Országos Kiküldöttségnek rendszeres munkáira tett észrevételei [Remarks of Zala County on the works of Regnicolaris Deputationis] (n.p., 1832), 130. It can be found at National Széchényi Library in Budapest under 502.930.

⁴⁹ Tekintetes Nemes Nyitra Vármegye határozása a “megyebéli küldöttség által a” Publico-Politicumok tárgyában bé-adott vélemény iránt [The resolution of the noble Nyitra County on the opinion for the public law matters by the Deputatio Regnicolaris] (Trnava, 1832), 6. It can be found at National Széchényi Library in Budapest under 503.623.

⁵⁰ The record on the 26 October 1832 meeting is cited by Csapó, Mária, Tolna megye a reformkori politikai küzdelmekben [County Tolna in the political struggles in the Age of Reforms] (Budapest, 1989), 47Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Az 1827. esztendei 8-dik Törvény-Czikkely következésében készült Országos Rendszeres Munkák megvisgálására Tekintetes Nemes Nógrád Vármegye által a” Politico Publicumot tárgyazó szakaszban rendelt bizottságnak észrevételei ‘s ezek folytában költt végzések [The opinions on public law and the resolutions made accordingly after the work of a committee sent by noble Nógrád County in order to analyse the work of Deputatio Regnicolaris congregated on account of 1827:8 article] (Budapest, 1832), 16–17. It can be found at National Széchényi Library in Budapest under OSZK 400.013.

⁵² In the 1810s some German pamphlets were published in which the Hungarian administrations and the noble estates were heavily criticized. It was the grievance due to which the Hungarian estates demanded liberty of the press: they wanted to answer it without censorship. The pamphlets: Piringer, Michael von, Ungarns Banderien, und desselben gesetzmäßige Kriegsverfassung überhaupt, 2 vols. (Vienna, 1810–16)Google Scholar; Gustermann, Anton Wilhelm, Die Ausbildung des Königreiches Ungern; Aus der Geschichte, und den Gesetzen dieses Reiches (Vienna, 1811)Google Scholar.

⁵³ Lajos Kossuth, Országgyűlési Tudósítások [Reports from the diet], vol. 4: 1 December 1834 – 26 August 1835, ed. István Barta (Budapest, 1959), 347–50.

⁵⁴ József Dessewffy to Aurél Dessewffy, 15 January 1838, in Gróf Dessewffy József levelei, 222.

⁵⁵ József Dessewffy to Aurél Dessewffy, 26 January 1839, in Gróf Dessewffy József levelei, 234.

⁵⁶ Dénes, Iván Zoltán, Conservative Ideology in the Making (Budapest, 2009), 33Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ The text was published in the French original and in a German translation after Aurél Dessewffy's death: Graf Aurel Dessewffy, “La liberté de la presse—Freiheit der Presse,” in Vermischte Aufsätze und Bruchstücke aus Briefen 1835–1842, vol. 1 of Aus den Papieren des Grafen Aurel Dessewffy, gesammelt und herausgegeben durch einige seiner Freunde und Gleichgesinnte (Budapest, 1843), 36.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 40–41.

⁵⁹ Ibid., 45.

⁶⁰ Ibid., 46.

⁶¹ Ibid., 43 and 49, respectively.

⁶² Cf. Plachta, Bodo, “Zensur: Eine Institution der Aufklärung?” in Strukturwandel kultureller Praxis: Beiträge zu einer kulturwissenschaftlicher Sicht des theresianischen Zeitalters, ed. Eybl, Franz M. (Vienna, 2002), 153–66Google Scholar.

⁶³ Dessewffy, “La liberté de la presse,” 36.

⁶⁴ József Dessewffy to Aurél Dessewffy, 26 January 1839, 234.

⁶⁵ Ibid., 242.

⁶⁶ Ibid.

⁶⁷ Ibid., 237.

⁶⁸ Ibid., 244.

⁶⁹ For the difference between the conservatism of father and son, see Dénes, Conservative Ideology in the Making, 32–35.

⁷⁰ Naturally, Dessewffy was not alone in that. Many contemporary examples could have been cited. Recently, a couple of case studies have been published on the question. Cf. Szűcs, Zoltán Gábor, “Természet, jog, teológia: Egy fejezet a 18. századi politikai diskurzus történetéből Magyarországon” [Nature, law, theology: A chapter from the political discourse in 18th-century Hungary], Aetas 26 (2011): 99–115 Google Scholar; Szűcs, Zoltán Gábor, “Burke és a magyar ‘protokonzervatívok’: Politikai diskurzustörtneti esettanulmány” [Burke and the Hungarian “proto-conservatives”: Case study on the history of political discourse], in Edmund Burke esztétikája és az európai felvilágosodás [Edmund Burke's Aaesthetics and the European Enlightenment], ed. Horkay, Ferenc Hörcher and Márton Szilágyi (Budapest, 2011), 248–70Google Scholar; Kovács, Ákos András, “Konzervatív felvilágosodás és közösségfogalom Magyarországon az 1790-es években” [Conservative Enlightenment and the conservative notion of polity in Hungary in the 1790s], in Nemzeti látószögek a 19. századi Magyarországon: 19. századi magyar nemzetépítő diskurzusok [National perspectives in 19th-century Hungary: Hungarian nation-building discourses in the 19th century], ed. Albert, Réka, Gábor Czoch, and Péter Erdősi (Budapest, 2010), 11–43 Google Scholar; Kovács, Ákos András, “Egy 18. század végi életút eszmetörténeti értelmezésének lehetőségei: Debreczeni Bárány Péter” [Intellectual historical interpretation of a career in the late 18th century: Péter Debreczeni Bárány], Korall 44 (2011): 81–101 Google Scholar.