¹ Officially there was no “Budapest” before 1872/73, when the towns of Buda, Pest, and Óbuda united to form Budapest. The term “Budapest” had a widespread, though not universal, currency by the 1840s. With few exceptions, the associations described in this article were located in Pest.

² Magyar Országos Levéitar (Hungarian National Archives, hereafter MOL) P 1073 1. k., minutes of Jan. 13,1843, meeting.

³ This was Az Izraeliták Között Mesterségeket és Földmivelést Terjesztő Egylet (Society for the Dissemination of Crafts and Agriculture among the Israelites). For its bylaws and their approval, see MOL N 22 Misc. off. 1842/68 and Haus–, Hof– und Staatsarchiv (hereafter HHStA) Konf. Akten A 1846/597.

⁴ The Industrial Association's minutes for the 1840s are located in MOL P 1073 1.–4. k. and Orsz´gos Széchenyi Könyvt´r (Széchenyi National Library) (hereafter OSzK) Fol. Hung. 2182.

⁵ Judson, Pieter M., Exclusive Revolutionaries: Liberal Politics, Social Experience, and National Identity in the Austrian Empire, 1848–1914 (Ann Arbor, Mich., 1996), 20.Google Scholar

⁶ On the Hungarian associational movement more generally, see Gábor, Pajkossy, Polgári átalakulás és nyilvánosság a magyar reformkorban (Bourgeois transformation and the public sphere in the Hungarian reform era) (Budapest, 1991),Google Scholar and Pajkossy, , “Egyesületek Magyarországon és Erdélyben 1848 előtt” (Associations in Hungary and Transylvania before 1848), Korunk (Our era) 4 (1993): 103–9.Google Scholar

⁷ Tom, Nairn, Faces of Nationalism: Janus Revisited (London, 1997), 86;Google ScholarAdam, Seligman, The Idea of Civil Society (Princeton, N.J., 1992).Google Scholar

⁸ As John, Hall has written, “Civil society is complicated, most notably in being at one and the same time a social value and a set of social institutions.”Google Scholar See “In Search of Civil Society,” in Civil Society: Theory, History, Comparison, ed. Hall, (Cambridge, 1995), 2.Google Scholar My discussion here draws upon Isabel, Hull's analysis of Enlightened civil society in Germany. See her Sexuality, State, and Civil Society in Germany, 1700–1815 (Ithaca, N.Y., 1996), esp. chap. 5.Google Scholar For a more skeptical reading of the emergence of civil society in Hungary, see László, Péter, “Montesquieu's Paradox on Freedom and Hungary's Constitution, 1790–1990,” History of Political Thought 16 (1995): 77–104.Google Scholar

⁹ On eighteenth–century societies, see Domokos, Kosáry, Művelődes a XVIII. századi Magyarországon (Culture in eighteenth–century Hungary) (Budapest, 1980), 323–29;Google ScholarBalázs, Éva H., Berzeviczy Gergely, a reformpolitikus 1765–1795 (Gergely Berzeviczy, reform politician) (Budapest,1967), 181–216;Google Scholar and, more broadly, Otto, Dann, Lesegesellschaften und bürgerliche Emanzipation. Ein europä;ischer Vergleich (Munich, 1981),Google Scholar and Thomas, Nipperdey, “Verein als soziale Struktur in Deutschland im spä;ten 18. und frühen 19. Jahrhundert,” in Geschichtswissenschaft und Vereinswesen im 19. Jahrhundert, ed. Hartmut, Boockmann et al. (Göttingen, 1972), 1–44.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Agnes, Sagvari, ed., Források Budapest múltjából (Sources from Budapest's past), 5 vols. (Budapest, 1971-1988), 1:117.Google Scholar

¹¹ On Martinovics, see George, Barany, “Age of Royal Absolutism,” in A History of Hungary, ed. Peter, Sugar (Bloomington, Ind., 1990), 178–79.Google Scholar

¹² Ibid., 179.

¹³ Széchenyi deliberately chose the Italian “casino” over “club,” fearing that the latter might recall the political clubs of the French Revolution. On the Casino, see Bettina, Gneifie, IstvánSzéchenyis Kasinobeivegung im ungarischen Refortnzeitalter (1825–1848) (Frankfurt am Main, 1990).Google ScholarThe Hungarian egyesület (or egylet), like the German Verein, can be translated as “club,” “association,” and “society.” I have used all three terms here.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Domokos, Kosáry, “Kossuth és a Védegylet” (Kossuth and the Protection Association), Magyar Történettudományi Intézet Évkönyve 1942 (Yearbook of the Hungarian Institute of Historical Studies), 464.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Der Spiegel, May 18, 1844.Google Scholar

¹⁶ I have been able to identify 74 associations that were active in Pest and Buda in the 1840s: 21 self–help and burial societies, 16 scholarly and cultural associations, 12 charitable and education societies, 8 economic associations, 8 casinos and reading clubs, 6 pension institutes and savings banks, and 3 sharpshooting and gymnastic organizations. Of these societies, 28 percent dated from the 1830s and fully 46 percent from the 1840s.

¹⁷ Keith, Hitchins, “Hilfsvereine auf Gegenseitigkeit in Ungarn, 1830–1941,” Internationale Revue für Soziale Sicherheit 46, no. 3 (1993): 93–116.Google Scholar

¹⁸ David, Blackbourn and Geoff, Eley, The Peculiarities of German History: Bourgeois Society and Politics in Nineteenth–Century Germany (Oxford, 1984), 196.Google Scholar

¹⁹ Count Sedlnitzky reported in 1845 that there were 158 associations in Vienna, but conceded that many associations “have not been authorized by the authorities” and had escaped the notice of the police. Gäbor Pajkossy has thus estimated that there were more than 200 associations in Vienna in 1848. See HHStA MK4 1847/62 and Pajkossy, “Egyesületek,” 107. On associational life in Vienna, see Judson, , Exclusive Revolutionaries, chap. 1,CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Herta, Obrovski, “Das Wiener Vereinswesen im Vormärz” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1970); on Prague and Bohemia,Google Scholar see Ferdinand, Seibt, ed., Vereinswesen und Geschichtspflege in den böhmischen Ländern (Munich, 1986).Google Scholar

²⁰ A general regulation for associations in the Austrian half of the monarchy was issued in 1843; Hungary would not receive a similar law until 1873. On the regulation of associations, see Judson, , Exclusive Revolutionaries, 18–20,Google Scholar and Hans-Peter, Hye, “Vereinswesen und bürgerliche Gesellschaft in österreich,” Beitrüge zur historischen Sozialkunde 18(1988): 86–96.Google Scholar

²¹ Alan Sked has suggested that the reputation of the secret police was much worse than the reality, and notes that most of the censors were “men of learning and integrity.” Sked, , The Decline and Fall of the Habsburg Empire, 1815–1918 (London, 1989), 44–52.Google Scholar Also see Norbert, Bachleitner, “The Politics of the Book Trade in Nineteenth–Century Austria,” Austrian History Yearbook 28 (1997): 102.Google Scholar

²² Typically, a society would first submit its bylaws to the local county assembly, which would then forward them to the Vice–Regal Council in Buda. After a round of deliberations, this collegial body would send the bylaws, along with recommended changes, to the Hungarian Chancellery in Vienna. Upon receiving the statutes, the Chancellery would examine them, recommend alterations, and then forward the bylaws to one of the two high imperial councils, the Staatsrat or the Staatskonferenz. The council would review the bylaws and amassed opinions and perhaps ask the police for a report on the association in question. It would then decide whether to sanction the bylaws, often requiring that specific changes be made to the rules. Finally, the council would submit its decision to the king for his approval and signature. Only then would an association be “sanctioned” in the eyes of the government.

²³ This was the case with the National Circle (Nemzeti Kör), which was officially formed in 1841 but did not submit its laws to Pest County until 1844 and then again in 1845, when the county promulgated a royal decree ordering all associations to submit their programs and rules.

²⁴ OSzK Fol. Hung, 2182, minutes of Feb. 16,1844, meeting. It would ultimately take the authorities more than three years to approve the statutes of the Industrial Association.

²⁵ For the Industrial Association's petitions to Palatine Joseph and the letter to Batthyány, see MOL P1073 9. cs. ll.t.; for the petition to Ferdinand 5, see MOL P1073 5. cs. 3.t., Sept. 27,1844.

²⁶ OSzK Fol. Hung. 2182, minutes of Sept. 27,1844, meeting.

²⁷ MOL A 39 Acta Generalia, 1845/12202 and 1845/16487; Pesti Divatlap, Sept. 11, 1845; and Hetilap, January 22,1847.

²⁸ Pajkossy, , “Egyesiiletek,” 104.Google Scholar

²⁹ Hetilap, Apr. 1,1845.

³⁰ Hall, , “In Search of Civil Society,” 17–18.Google Scholar

³¹ Many nineteenth–century associations drew their membership primarily from the ranks of traditional elites (landowners, officials, and nobles). Scholars have nevertheless characterized such societies as “bourgeois,” reasoning that these associations established formal equality among their members and recognized wealth, education, and talent alongside birth and rank. For this line of argument, see Christiane, Eisenberg, “Working–Class and Middle–Class Associations: An Anglo–German Comparison, 1820–1870,” in Bourgeois Society in Nineteenth–Century Europe, ed. Jürgen, Kocka and Allen, Mitchell (Oxford, 1993), 151–78.Google Scholar

³² See, for example, Geoff, Eley and Grigor, Suny, “Introduction: From the Moment of Social History to the Work of Cultural Representation,” in Becoming National: A Reader, ed. Eley, and Suny, (New York, 1996), 15.Google Scholar

³³ John, Paget, Hungary and Transylvania, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, Pa., 1850), 1:134–35.Google Scholar On the National Casino, see George, Barany, Stephen Széchenyi and the Awakening of Hungarian Nationalism, 1791–1841 (Princeton, N.J., 1968), 168.Google Scholar

³⁴ András, Gerő, Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience (Budapest,1995), 21.Google Scholar

³⁵ For a list of the association's executive committee, see Az Országos Védegylet alapszabályai (Statutes of the National Protection Association) (n.p., n.d.) for the wider membership, see MOL A 105 Informations–Protokolle, Jan. 16 and Mar. 12,1845, as well as András, Poros, “A pesti iparos–és kiskeredőpolgárság részvétele az ellenzéki irányitásu szervezetekben az 1840–es években” (The participation of Pest's artisan and merchant burghers in opposition organizations during the 1840s), in Nyolc tanulmany a 19. századi magyar történet köréből (Eight studies from the realm of nineteenth–century Hungarian history), ed. Csilla, Csorba and András, Gerő (Budapest, 1978), 89–111.Google Scholar

³⁶ In January 1844, the National Circle's membership included 25 landowners (including 5 magnates), 16 royal officials, 5 county officials, 8 town officials, 8 associational officers, 3 military officers, 9 clergy (7 Catholic and 2 Calvinist), 81 lawyers, 5 engineers, 6 notaries of the royal courts, 20 doctors, 4 medical students, 12 professors and tutors, 18 writers, 19 artists, 8 merchants, and 7 burghers. Der Ungar, Jan. 10, 1844, and Pesti Divatlap, Jan. 14, 1844.

³⁷ Members of the Buda Casino, for example, could lose their membership as a result of “moral death,” meaning that they had failed to pay their debts or had not accepted an invitation to a duel. OSzK Fol. Hung. 1053, “A budai Casino Egyesület alapszabályai” (Bylaws of the Buda Casino Society), 14. §.

³⁸ Péter, Hanák, “Polgárosodás és urbanizació (Polgári lakáskultúra Budapesten a 19. században)” (Embourgeoisement and urbanization [Bourgeois housing culture in Budapest in the nineteenth century]), Történelmi Szemle (Historical review) 27 (1984): 124–27.Google Scholar

³⁹ Pesti Divatlap, Jan. 14, 1844. There were Catholic associations before 1848, but most were selfhelp and burial societies organized around a parish or trade. A new direction would not emerge until 1848, with the founding of the Society for the Dissemination of Good and Cheap Books (Jóes olcsó könyveket terjesztő tarsulat), which later became the Society of Saint Stephen (Szent István Társulat), one of the most influential popular education associations of the late nineteenth century.

⁴⁰ Silber, Michael K., “The Entrance of Jews into Hungarian Society in Vormarz: The Case of ‘Casinos’,” in Assimilation and Community: The Jews in Nineteenth–Century Europe, ed. Jonathan, Frankel and Steven, Zipperstein (Cambridge, 1992), 291–93, 303;Google ScholarBarany, Stephen Széchenyi, 171. There were a number of Jewish associations during this period, including burial societies, women's associations, and societies dedicated to the spread of the Hungarian language.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Individual associations had varying admission procedures, and as a rule there was a significant difference between joining social or reading clubs and subscribing to economic or cultural societies. The former not only had higher annual dues but were also harder to join. Prospective members needed a sponsor within the club and the approval of the executive committee. In contrast, most economic and charitable associations attempted to attract as many members (“subscribers”), including women, as possible.

⁴² Carola, Lipp, “Frauen und öffentlichkeit. Möglichkeiten und Grenzen politischer Partizipation im Vormärz und in der Revolution 1848/1849,” in Schimpfende Weiber und Patriotische Jungfrauen, ed. Lipp, (Moos, 1986), 294.Google Scholar

⁴³ Pajkossy, “Egyesuletek,” 107.

⁴⁴ Mihály, Ilk, A Nemzeti Casino százéves története 1827–1926 (The centennial history of the National Casino, 1827–1926) (Budapest, 1927), 13.Google Scholar

⁴⁵ For Ludwig Forster's letters to the Industrial Association, see MOL P 1073 9. cs. 10. t., June 21, 1844, and MOL P 1073 10. cs. 15. t., Apr. 30, 1845.

⁴⁶ A Budavári Casino–Egylet félszázados története 1841–1891 (The fifty–year history of the Buda Castle Casino–Society, 1841–1891) (Budapest, 1891), 8–12.

⁴⁷ The dynamic between Germans and Hungarians in Pest has many similarities to the situation in Prague. In Hungary, however, German–speaking elites were among the first to adopt the Hungarian language, while the opposite was the case in Prague. See Gary, Cohen, The Politics of Ethnic Survival: Germans in Prague, 1861–1914 (Princeton, N.J., 1981).Google Scholar

⁴⁸ Eley, and Blackbourn, , Peculiarities of German History, 195; James, Sheehan, “The German States and the European Revolution, in Revolutions and the Meaning of Freedom in the Nineteenth Century, ed. Isser, Woloch (Stanford, Calif., 1996), 252.Google Scholar

⁴⁹ Jürgen, Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere: An Inquiry into a Category of Bourgeois Identity (Cambridge, Mass., 1989).Google Scholar For a good discussion of this work, see Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Craig, Calhoun (Cambridge, Mass., 1992).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Habermas, Structural Transformation, 73.

⁵¹ For “schools of public life,” see Pajkossy, , Polgári, átahkulás, and James, Sheehan, German liberalism in the Nineteenth Century (Chicago, III., 1978), 13–17;Google Scholar for “enlightened sociability,” see Margaret, Jacob, Living the Enlightenment: Freemasonry and Politics in Eighteenth–Century Europe (New York, 1991), 1–21.Google Scholar

⁵² Gneifie, Kasinobewegung, 125.

⁵³ Horváth cited in GneiGe, Kasinobewegung, 125.

⁵⁴ MOL P1073 10. cs. 15. 5., Dr. Gall to Ferenc Csanády, Jan. 30, 1845, and CsanSdy's return letter in the same folder.

⁵⁵ On the Buda Casino, see Silber, “The Entrance of Jews into Hungarian Society,” 293; on the National Circle: Pesti Hirlap, Jan. 26, 1843.

⁵⁶ Ilk, A Nemzeti Casino, 34.

⁵⁷ Two conservative papers, the Jelenkor and Nemzeti Ujság, accused the Industrial Association of not reelecting two prominent conservative members of its executive committee for political reasons. The Industrial Association simply replied that neither had attended any meetings in several years and that it needed more active members.

⁵⁸ On the National Circle and its successors, see Béla, Dezsényi, “A Nemzeti Kör a negyvenes évek irodalmi és hírlapi mozgalmaiban” (The National Circle in the literary and journalistic movements of the forties), Irodalomtörténeti közlemények (Communications in literary history) 57 (1953): 163–204.Google Scholar

⁵⁹ The Gyűlde listed 403 members for 1846 and 613 for 1847. See A Közhasznú Gyűlde tiszteleti helybeli és vidéki rendes tagjainak névsora betűrenddel, s alapszabályai (The list of the Assembly for Common Good's official local and provincial regular members in alphabetical order, and its bylaws) (Pest, 1846–47). On the priests, see MOL A 105 Informations–Protokolle, Feb. 13, 1847.

⁶⁰ Judson, Exclusive Revolutionaries, 22–23.

⁶¹ In 1843, Pál Hajnik, a director of the National Casino, fought a duel with Count Miklós Zichy on account of the latter's unchecked “rudeness” in the Casino. Another Zichy was involved in a duel in late 1844: after declaring that support for the newly formed Protection Association was tantamount to “high treason” (felség árulás), Ferenc Zichy was challenged to a duel by Count Kázmér Batthyány, the association's president–elect.

⁶² Pesti Divatlap, Apr. 28,1846; Hasznos Mulatságok, Aug. 15, 1840.

⁶³ Pesti Hirlap, Apr. 17, 1845.

⁶⁴ For further discussion of this issue, see Keith, Baker, “Defining the Public Sphere in Eighteenth–Century France: Variations on a Theme by Habermas,” in Habermas and the Public Sphere, ed. Calhoun, , 185.Google Scholar