No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 18 January 2010
Historians interested in Habsburg policy in Hungary at the end of the seventeenth century have long focused their attention on the Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Ungarn, a reform program drawn up under the direction of Cardinal Leopold Kollonich in 1688–89. Like a small number of similar “essential” documents—here the 1627 Verneuerte Landesordnung for Bohemia and the Pragmatic Sanction of 1723 spring to mind—the oft-asserted signifi cance of the Einrichtungswerk has long overshadowed the document itself: although most historians studying the Habsburg Empire know of Kollonich's plan, few actually know very much about it. Instead of a realistic appraisal of its actual provenance and place in the historical development of Habsburg policy, the document—or rather its impression—has been applied as an open-ended description of the ambitions of the imperial court. In the words of Austrian historian Oswald Redlich, Kollonich's plan for Hungary was fully “characteristic of the outlook and spirit of the Vienna ruling circles” at the end of the seventeenth century, and as such provides a reliable guide to imperial policy. Hungarian historians have turned to the Einrichtungswerk as a source from which to divine the Habsburgs' intentions toward Hungary—debating whether its proposed measures refl ect a genuine “anti-Magyar” spirit or only an antipathy toward the Hungarian nobles. It is carefully regarded as reflecting a genuine and largely missed opportunity for change, full of meaning for the future development of the kingdom.
1 Though the original clean copy has been destroyed, there remain approximately a dozen surviving copies of the Einrichtungswerk in libraries and archives in Austria and Hungary. For this article, I have used the contemporary example in Kart. 382, Handschrift en, Hofkammer Archiv (hereaft er cited as HKA), Vienna, Austria, with marginal notes in an unknown hand, and the later manuscript copy in Fol. Germ. 201, Országos Széchényi Könvytár Kézirattár (hereaft er cited as OSzKK), Budapest, Hungary.
2 Redlich, Oswald, Weltmacht des Barock: Österreich in der Zeit Kaiser Leopolds I., 4th ed. (Vienna, 1961), 427Google Scholar. According to Winter, Eduard, “Um die politische und soziale Entwicklung in den ungarischen Ländern in der ersten Hälfte des 18. Jahrhunderts zu verstehen, muß man auf das ‘Einrichtungswerk’ Kollonitschs von Jahre 1691 [sic] zurückgehen,” in Winter, Barock, Absolutismus und Aufklärung in der Donaumonarchie (Vienna, 1971), 133.Google Scholar
3 Benczédi, Lászlo, “Kollonich Lipót és az ‘Einrichtungswerk’” [Leopold Kollonich and the ‘Einrichtungswerk’], in Gazdaság és mentalitás Magyarországon a Török kiűzetésének idején [Economy and ideology in Hungary after the expulsion of the Turks], ed. Praznovszky, Mihály and Bagyinszky, Istvánné (Salgótarján, 1987), 153–58Google Scholar; János Varga, “A nemzet elnyomója vagy a nép felemelője? Kollonich Lipót” [The enemy of the nation, or the champion of the people? Leopold Kollonich], Historia (1989), 20–22; Várkonyi, Ágnes R., Magyarország keresztútjain: tanulmányok a XVII. századról [Hungary's crossroads: Studies of the seventeenth century], (Budapest, 1978), 240–42.Google Scholar
4 Bidermann, Hermann, Geschichte der österreichischen Gesammt-Staats-Idee, 1526–1804, part 1 (Innsbruck, 1867), 43–44, 120–22Google Scholar. Bidermann did, however, appreciate that the Einrichtungswerk document itself represented only a part of the activity of the commission directed by Kollonich.
5 Maurer, Josef, Cardinal Leopold Graf Kollonitsch, Primas von Ungarn (Innsbruck, 1887), 258–324.Google Scholar
6 Szalay, Lázsló, Magyarország története [History of Hungary], vol. 6 (Pest, 1859), 3–5Google Scholar. See Iványi, István, Kollonics Lipót Bibornok országszervező munkája [Cardinal Leopold Kollonich's political project] (Szabadka, 1888)Google Scholar.
7 Verwaltungsreform in Ungarn nach der Türkenzeit (Vienna, 1911); the revised edition, edited by Josef Fleckenstein, Heinz Stoob, and Adalbert Toth (Sigmaringen, 1980), includes an updated bibliography and additional source material. Mayer's work has served as the primary narrative basis for nearly all subsequent descriptions of Kollonich's committee and its work. For standard summaries, based on Mayer, see Redlich, Weltmacht des Barock, 426–34; and a briefer description by Bérenger, Jean, “Le Cardinal Kollonich et la Contre-Réforme en Hongrie” [Cardinal Kollonich and the Counter Reformation in Hungary], XVIIe Siècle [Seventeenth century] 50, no. 2 (1998): 307–11.Google Scholar
8 Baranyai's notes, including galley proofs and fragments of the Einrichtungskommission protocol book, are deposited in cs. 7, P1568 Baranyai Béla Hagyeték, Magyar Országos Levéltár (hereafter cited as MOL), Budapest, Hungary. A source edition of the Einrichtungswerk, edited by János Kalmár and János Varga and making use of Baranyai's notes, is to be published in the near future.
9 Iványi, Emma, “Esterházy Pál Nádor és a magyar rendek tervezete az ország új berendezésével kapcsolatban” [Project of Palatine Pál Esterházy and the Hungarian estates for administrative reform of the country], Levéltári Közlemények [Archival proceedings] 62 (1971): 137–61Google Scholar; Iványi, , “A ‘Magyar Einrichtungswerk’” [The ‘Hungarian Einrichtungswerk’], in Economy and Ideology, ed. Praznovszky, and Bagyinszky, , 159–80.Google Scholar
10 Kalmár, János, “A Kollonich-féle Einrichtungswerk és a 18. századi Bánsági berendezés” [Kollonich's ‘Einrichtungswerk’ and the administration of the Banat in the 18th century], Századok [Centuries] 125 (1991): 489–99Google Scholar; Kalmár, , “Az Einrichtungswerk fogadtatása a Bécsi udvari főbizottságnál” [The reception of the Einrichtungswerk in the Vienna court high council], in Tanulmányok a Török hódoltság és a felszabadító háborúk történetéből [Essays on the history of the Turkish occupation and war of liberation], ed. Szita, László (Pécs, 1993), 105–16Google Scholar. Varga, J. János, “Berendezési tervezetek Magyarországon a Török kiűzésének időszakában. Az ‘Einrichtungswerk’” [Proposals for a new administration of Hungary in the period around the end of Turkish rule], Századok 125 (1991): 449–88Google Scholar; Varga, , “Kísérletaz ‘Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Hungarn’ című reformtervezet megvalósítására 1689–1723” [The attempted implementation of the ‘Einrichtungswerk des Königreichs Hungarn,’ 1689–1723], Levéltári Szemle [Archival notes] 42, no. 2 (1992): 3–15Google Scholar; Varga, , “Habsburg berendezkedési tervek Magyarországon 1688–1689 (Az “Einrichtungswerk”)” [Habsburg plans for the reorganization of Hungary, 1688–1689 (The “Einrichtungswerk”)], in Essays on the History of the Turkish Occupation, ed. Szita, , 95–103.Google Scholar
11 Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 30; 22 July 1688, Bd. 323, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
12 12 September; 11 October 1687, Karton 7, Konferenzprotokolle und Relationen, Staatskanzlei, Haus-, Hof- und Staats-Archiv (hereaft er cited as HHStA), Vienna, Austria.
13 Baranyai, Béla, “Hogyan történt az 1687/88. évi 1–4 törvénycikk szerinti törvényszöveg becikkelyezése” [The enactment of articles 1–4 of the 1687/88 diet], in A Gróf Klebelsberg Kuno Magyar Történetkutató Intézet évkönyve [The Count Klebelsberg Kuno Historical Research Institute Yearbook], ed. Angyal, Dávid (Budapest, 1933), 3:65–104.Google Scholar
14 Informatio ratione commissionis quo ad politica, iuridica, militaria, cameralia et spiritualia, Bd. 178, Ungarische Akten, HHStA; Iványi, “Esterházy Pál Nádor,” 138–39; the text is reproduced on pages 140–47; in Hungarian translation, Iványi, “A ‘Magyar Einrichtungswerk’,” 160–64. Esterházy's proposal is also attached as appendix F to the Einrichtungswerk.
15 10 June 1688, Bd. 322, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
16 This specific language appears here for the first time and is carried over with minor modification to the orders of 22 July and the Intimations Decree of 29 July, reproduced in appendix A of the Einrichtungswerk. See 483, fol. 1 Nr. 382, Handschriften, HKA.
17 22 July 1688, Conferenz Referat, Bd. 323, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
18 Ibid.
19 Instructions for Széchényi, 22 July 1688, fol. 355, Bd. 323, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
20 Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 31.
21 22 July, 18, Bd. 323, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA; August 1688 Bd. 324, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
22 Krapf completed the draft of the Einrichtungswerk in the autumn of 1689 while Kollonich was in Rome for the papal election. Varga, “Berendezési tervezetek Magyarországon,” 451. See also Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 32.
23 He was born in Komarno, where his father, Ernest Kollonich, was commander of the imperial garrison. For the details of Kollonich's life, Maurer's biography, Cardinal Leopold Graf Kollonitsch, though uneven, remains the most complete study. On his role in Habsburg religious affairs, see Bérenger, “Kollonich et Hongrie.”
24 Kollonich's father obtained a Hungarian patent of nobility in 1604. In spite of this detail (and the Kolloniches were not the only Croatian family to enter the Hungarian nobility during the Ottoman occupation—pace the Zrinyis, Frangepans, etc.), Hungarian historians have always treated Kollonich as a foreigner. See Varga, “A Nemzet Elnyomója Vagy a Nép Felemeloje?”
25 Vetus 260, Esztergomi Primasi Levéltár (hereaft er cited as EPL), Esztergom, Hungary.
26 Bucsay, Mihály, “Das Drama der Trauerdekade und die Auslandsbeziehungen der Antagonisten,” in Rebellion oder Religion? ed. Barton, Peter and Makkai, László (Budapest, 1977), 47–59Google Scholar; Bérenger, Jean, “The Austrian Lands: Habsburg Absolutism Under Leopold I,” in Absolutism in Seventeenth-Century Europe, ed. Miller, John (London, 1990), 168.Google Scholar
27 Maurer, Cardinal Leopold Graf Kollonitsch.
28 Fol. 39–44, 6 August 1688, Bd. 324, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
29 Iványi, “A ‘Magyar Einrichtungswerk’,” 164; Iványi, “Esterházy Pál Nádor,” 154–55. Iványi and other Hungarian historians have overlooked the common origin of both Kollonich's committee and the Pressburg committee in the 15 July conference.
30 Iványi, “A ‘Magyar Einrichtungswerk’,” 165.
31 Ibid.
32 The oft-cited figure of “eighty sessions in fifteen months” is not perhaps as diligent as it appears at first glance, as Kollonich's original instructions called for regular meetings of the Subdelegation two to three times per week. Relatio, fol. 362, 15 July 1688, Bd. 323, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
33 Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 14–19; Wellmann, Ivan, “Merkantilistische Vorstellungen im 17. Jahrhundert und Ungarn,” in Nouvelles Études Historiques [New historical studies], vol. 1 (Budapest, 1965), 315–54.Google Scholar
34 Tafferner, Anton, ed., Quellenbuch zur donauschwäbischen Geschichte, 5 vols. (Munich, 1974–95), 1:5–7.Google Scholar
35 Barker, Thomas M., Double Eagle and Crescent: Vienna's Second Turkish Siege and Its Historical Setting (Albany, 1967), 136–40, 360–63.Google Scholar
36 Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:5–7.
37 2/1684, cs. 2, Magyar Vonatkozású iratok (I45), Böhmisch-Österreichische Hofkanzlei, MOL; Várkonyi, Ágnes R., ed., Magyarország története, 1526–1686 [History of Hungary, 1526–1686] (Budapest, 1985), 1585–86.Google Scholar
38 J. János Varga, “Inszurrekció, kvártély, és porció (megyei teherviselés a felszabadító háború időszakában)” [Insurrectio, quarter, and porcio (the burden on the counties during the war of liberation)], in Economy and Ideology, ed. Praznovszky and Bagyinszky, 126–27.
39 Bérenger, “Habsburg Absolutism,” 167–68.
40 Bucsay, “Trauerdekade.”
41 Bruckner, Győző, A Reformácio és ellenreformáció története a szepességen, [The history of the Reformation and Counter Reformation in Szepes] (Budapest, 1922), 390–91.Google Scholar
42 Sugár, István, Az Egri püspökök története [The history of the bishops of Eger] (Budapest, 1984), 364.Google Scholar
43 Bucsay, Mihály, Der Protestantismus in Ungarn 1521–1978: Ungarns Reformationskirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart (Vienna, 1977), 197.Google Scholar
44 Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:43 and 4:13–14; Vetus 1813, EPL.
45 Vetus 292, EPL; Vetus 292, EPL.
46 Hodinka, Antál, A Munkácsi görög-katholikus püspökség története [The history of the Munkács Greek-Catholic bishopric] (Budapest, 1910), 390–95.Google Scholar
47 Fol. 5, Vetus 274, EPL.
48 Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:17–18.
49 9–51, cs. 1, Acta Comissionum Psoniensum et Budensis, A91, MOL.
50 Hofkriegscommissariat memorandum to the Hofkammer, 16 April 1684, in Quellenbuch, ed. Tafferner, 2:6–8.
51 Though it was not mentioned in the proposal, the treasury also had another model closer to hand in the Csakathurn Cameral Administration, established in 1673 to supervise the management of the Zrinyi and Frangepan estates confiscated aft er the suppression of the Magnates’ Conspiracy. Kiss, Erzsébet Fabiánné, “A Csáktornyai (Kanizsai) és a Szlavón kamarai adminisztrácio vázlatos története 1673–1773” [Schematic history of Csáktornya (Kanizsa) and the Slavonian treasury administration], Levéltári Közlemények 59 (1988): 291–306.Google Scholar
52 Hofkammerrefferat, 26 June 1684, in Quellenbuch, ed. Tafferner, 2:14–16.
53 The identification of the French as the model was modified as “France and other powers.”
54 “Damit auch der intriga von denn Hungar. Ständen oder Particularn, so Geist, als Weldlichen, die Sich der Gütter, als Ihnen ab antiquo zueständig, wider anmassen möchten, zeitlich vorgebaudt werde, wehren alle nur gleich simpliciter dahin zu weisen, dass derzeith das Totum pero Bellico gewidmet seye und Euer Kay. May. Facta Pace, nach dero Clemenz und Gütte, Sich schon weitters allergnädigst zu resolwieren wissen werde.” Hofkammerreferrat, 24 July 1684, in Quellenbuch, ed. Tafferner, 2:18–23. See Mezősi, Károly, “A fegyverjog (Jus Armorum) megváltása a töröktől visszafoglalt területeken” [The application of right of conquest (jus armorum) in the territories recovered from the Turks], Századok 76 (1942): 180.Google Scholar
55 “[E]t Hungaro Nativo, ne penitus hoc in negotio praeteriri videantur.” Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 2:29.
56 Hofkammerreferrat, 29 August 1684, in Quellenbuch, ed. Tafferner, 2:24–31. Notification of Belchamp's assignment was given to the Hungarian Treasury on 12 September. See Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 3:16–17.
57 Varga, “Inszurrekció, kvártély, és porció,” 127–29.
58 “Deswegen in bedenkhen Khommen, daß das absehen haubtsächlich dahin gerichtet, wie die Armeé den Wintter hindurch außer der Erblanden zu verpflegen und die Tributa diser Länder zu dem Übrigen Apparatu Belli zu erhaltten wehren.” Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:32–38.
59 Ibid., 3:37–39.
60 Belchamps to the Hofkammer, 8 September 1685, in ibid., 3:43–44.
61 Hofkammerrelation, 3 October 1685, in ibid., 2:43–50.
62 “[A]lle thueliche und genoßbahre Würtschaft s-Einkhunft en zur Bestreüttung der underschwinglichen schweren Kriegs- und Fortifications-Ausgaaben bis auf/: was Gott gebe:/ bessere Zeithen Uns allein gebühren und zuestehen.”
63 Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 3:57–61; see Mezősi, “Fegyverjog megváltása,” 181, citing 3 November 1685, Bd. 374, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
64 Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:46–50; see Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 93–97, who apparently overlooked the existence of the earlier orders.
65 22–73, Einrichtungswerk, Fol. Ger. 201, OSzKK.
66 Ibid., 80–101.
67 Contrary to earlier Hungarian historians, the differential treatment proposed for Hungarian and German settlers was not a “national” or anti-Magyar policy; it was an effort to offset the greater cost incurred by foreign settlers and encourage immigration, in keeping with mercantilist theory. The simple transfer of peasants from northern and western Hungary would have no effect on the aggregate population of the country. This is made explicit in the original Impopulations Patens of 11 August 1689, in Quellenbuch, ed. Tafferner, 1:53–54.
68 73–76, Einrichtungswerk, Fol. Ger. 201, OSzKK.
69 Ibid., 105–18.
70 The original Impopulations Patens and regulations for its implementation, signed by Kollonich and Péter Korompay, Bishop of Nitra, are reproduced in Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 1:53–57.
71 Kollonich's work as head of the Commisio Neo Acquistica had the emperor's personal blessing. Leopold I to Kollonich, 22 October 1689, Vetus 302, EPL; Maurer, Cardinal Leopold Graf Kollonitsch, 232.
72 Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 63.
73 Fol. 1, Nr. 382, Handschriften, HKA.
74 Fol. 14, Bd. 330, Hoffinanz Ungarn, HKA.
75 Höbelt, Lothar, “Die Sackgasse aus dem Zweifrontenkrieg: Die Friedensverhandlungen mit den Osmanen 1689,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung 97 (1989): 329–80Google Scholar.
76 25 January 1689, no. 1, pars 2, fasz.17, Kart. 20, Österreichische Geheime Staatsregistratur, HHStA.
77 Ibid., nos. 3, 4, 5 March 1689.
78 Ibid., no. 16, 26 May 1689.
79 4 June 1689, Karton 7, Konferenzprotocolle und Relationen, Vorträge and den Kaiser, Staatskanzlei, HHStA.
80 23 July, 568, Instructionen, HKA.
81 1 June 1689, Ungarische Reihe, Gedenkbücher, HKA.
82 Ibid., 23 July 1689.
83 The emperor was with his court in Augsburg to arrange the election of Joseph as king of the Germans.
84 Emma Iványi, Esterházy Pál Nádor közigazgatási tevékenysége (1681–1713) [The administrative functions of Palatine Pál Esterházy (1681–1713)] (Budapest, 1991), 144–45; Tafferner, Quellenbuch, 4:33–34.
85 Mayer, Verwaltungsreform, 65.
86 Varga, “Késérlet az ‘Einrichtungswerk’ megvalósítására.” Indeed, so little was changed that more than thirty years later, when preparing reform plans in advance of the 1723 diet, the president of the Systematia Commissio, Cardinal Imre Csáky, Archbishop of Kalocsa, requested to review a copy of the Einrichtungswerk for relevant ideas.