¹ Niederösterreichisches Landesarchiv (hereafter NÖLA), k.k. nö. Statthalterei-Präsidium, Zl.1559/1915.

² August Urbanski von, Ostrymiecz, Conrad von Hötzendorf. Soldat und Mensch (Graz, 1938), 322.Google Scholar Between 1909 and 1914 Urbanski was head of the Records Office. He sees himself called upon, he writes, because of the “malevolent and frivolous” comments on Conrad's second marriage, to force his way “even into this innermost recess of Conrad's private life” in order to remove the justification for “ill-willed judgments.” Urbanski's biography, published in 1938, is, as Graydon A. Tunstall writes, of the idealizing type and “lavished embarrassing and undue praise on the former Habsburg general.” See Tunstall, Graydon A. Jr, “The Habsburg Command Conspiracy: The Austrian Falsification of Historiography on the Outbreak of World War I,” Austrian History Yearbook(hereafter AHY) 27 (1996): 181–98, at 185: “According to Urbanski, Conrad lacked only one thing—luck. It is important to note that Urbanski had been a close confidant of the general during the war and had in fact become related to Conrad through marriage in 1915. Steadfast in his loyalty to the old Imperial and Royal Army and all that it represented, Urbanski's writings idolized Conrad. This fitted the efforts of the time to protect against Groβdeutsche and Nazi influences and to present the most untarnished image of the Imperial and Royal Army.”CrossRefGoogle Scholar

³ Julius, Ofner, “Der soziale Charakter des allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches (ABGB),” in Festschrift zur Jahrhundertfeier des Allgemeinen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches—1. Juni 1911 (Vienna, 1911), 1:466.Google Scholar

⁴ These included the marriage obstacle “because of ordination or vows” (section 63 ABGB), the marriage obstacle of “religious differences” (section 64 ABGB), and finally the marriage obstacle “because of the marriage bond” (section 62 ABGB), which confronted every marriage entered into by a person whose previous marriage had not been declared invalid or dissolved. See Robert, Neumann-Ettenreich, Das österreichische Eherecht (Vienna, 1913), 4.Google Scholar

⁵ A mixed marriage was indissoluble with the exception of the case where one of two originally non-Catholic spouses converted to Catholicism. And while the marriage of two non-Catholic Christians was made indissoluble by their conversion to Catholicism, the conversion of two Catholic spouses or, in the case of a mixed marriage, the conversion of the Catholic spouse to a non-Catholic denomination, had no influence on the indissolubility of the marriage. See Friedrich, Maassen, Unser Eherecht und das Staatsgrundgesetz. Ein am 14. Januar 1878 in der Wiener Juristischen Gesellschafi gehaltener Vortrag (Graz, 1878), 22ff.Google Scholar

⁶ Section 118 ABGB.

⁷ The exact wording of section 111 ABGB was: “The bond of a valid marriage between Catholics can only be broken by the death of one of the spouses. The marriage bond is equally indissoluble where at the time of the marriage only one spouse was a Catholic.”

⁸ For the process by which this obstacle came about, see the account of Thomas, Dolliner, Das österreichische Eherecht (Vienna, 1848), 1:279ff.Google Scholar, and Eduard, Rittner, Österreichisches Eherecht (Leipzig, 1876), 78ff.Google Scholar; also Bruno, Primetshofer, Ehe und Konkordat. Die Grundlinien des österreichischen Konkordats-Eherechtes 1934 und das geltende österreichische Eherecht (Vienna, 1960), 6ff., and Neumann-Ettenreich, Das österreichische Eherecht, 40f.Google Scholar

⁹ Primetshofer, , Ehe und Konkordat, 7.Google Scholar No such prescription was found in the ABGB. Only the court decrees (of August 26, 1814, JGS 1099, and July 17, 1835, JGS 62) expressed the civil code in this manner. The content was as follows: (1) If the separated spouse is a Catholic (a case that can only arise if they have converted to Catholicism during the marriage), he or she may not enter into a new marriage during the lifetime of the first spouse. (2) Even the separated spouse who is not a Catholic (for example, in a divorced Protestant marriage) may not marry a Catholic during the lifetime of the first spouse and may only marry a non-Catholic. See Neumann-Ettenreich, Das österreichische Eherecht, 40.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Maassen, , Unser Eherecht und das Staatsgrundgesetz, 25.Google Scholar

¹¹ On the basis of the 1855 concordat (Patent of 5.11.1855, RGB1.195) the Patent of October 8, 1856 (RGB1.185), decreed a “law on the marriages of Catholics in the Austrian Empire” whereby Catholics were not allowed to marry in the Austrian Empire other “than in observance with all the provisions set out by the church law on the validity of marriage.” On the 1855 concordat, see Max, Hussarek, Die Verhandlung des Konkordats votn 18. August 1855. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des österreichischen Staatskirchenrechts (Vienna, 1922),Google Scholar and Erika, Weinzierl-Fischer, Die österreichischen Konkordate von 1855 und 1933 (Vienna, 1960);Google Scholar see also Gottfried, Meyer, Österreich als katholische Croβmacht. Ein Trautn zwischen Revolution und liberaler Ära, Studien zur Geschichte der österreichisch-ungarischen Monarchie 24 (Vienna, 1989).Google Scholar

¹² Zenker, Ernst Viktor, Kirche und Stoat unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Verhältnisse in Österreich (Vienna, 1909), 70f. Between 1906 and 1919, Zenker was president of the Austrian Society for Matrimonial Law Reform.Google Scholar

¹³ Karl, Vocelka, Verfassung oder Konkordat? Der publizistische und politische Kampf der österreichischen Liberalen um die Religionsgesetze des Jahres 1868 (Vienna, 1978), 28.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Werner, Ogris, “Die Rechtsentwicklung in Cisleithanien 1848–1918,” in Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, ed. Adam, Wandruszka and Peter, Urbanitsch, vol. 2: Verwaltung und Rechtswesen (Vienna, 1975), 538–662, 592ff.,Google Scholar and Vocelka, , Verfassung oder Konkordat? 46ff.Google Scholar

¹⁵ Staatsgrundgesetz über die allgemeinen Rechte der Staatsbürger vom 21. Dezember 1867 (RGB1.142).

¹⁶ Law of May 25, 1868 (RGBI.47); article 1 repealed the concordat.

¹⁷ Ibid., article 2. With the Law of April 9, 1870 (RGBI.51), “On the marriages of persons not belonging to any established church or religious group,” Notzivilehe was declared the normal marriage form for those of no denomination. The ABGB had not even mentioned this group of people.Google Scholar

¹⁸ Law of May 25, 1868 (RGBI.49, section 2, article 5), “whereby the citizenš interdenominational relations in the relationships specified therein are regulated.”

¹⁹ Max von, Hussarek, “Zum Ehetrennungsrecht des ABGB,” in Festschrift zur Jahrhundertfeier des Allgemeinen Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuches.—l. Juni 1911 (Vienna, 1911), 2:308ff.Google Scholar

²⁰ With regard to the marriage obstacle of Catholicism, Friedrich Maassen declared in a lecture to the Wiener Juristische Gesellschaft that the state was leading itself “ad absurdum” by it: “The church declares marriage between Christians as indissoluble. But under certain conditions the state comes out in favor of divorce. Yet the state is not content thus to free the church to bring to bear its own law in the church sphere but also, that in the civil sphere, it prevents the divorce of a marriage effected by a legally binding judgment of its own court authority from having validity for Catholics”; this despite the fact that, according to article 14 of the Constitutional Law of 1867 (RGBI.142), the enjoyment of civil and political rights was independent of religious denomination. See Maassen, , Unser Eherecht und das Staatsgrundgesetz, 25.Google Scholar Of the same opinion is Rittner, who explains that the court decree of August 26, 1814, was not valid from a legal viewpoint and that consequently the separation from the bond would have to be discarded for non-Catholics as well. Rittner, , Österreichisches Eherecht, 85.Google Scholar

²¹ Fritz, Fellner, “Kaiser Franz Joseph und das Parlament,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 9 (1956): 312.Google Scholar

²² Ibid., 314.

²³ Typical of the protests, mention can be made here of the bishop of Linz, Rudigier, who was sentenced to imprisonment and pardoned the next day by the emperor. Thereupon the Liberal minister Ignaz Freiherr von Plener wrote to his son that the “case of the bishop of Linz” showed how little the emperor agreed in his heart with the laws and how little sympathy he now had for his government. Quoted from Harry, Slapnicka, Christlichsoziale in Oberosterreich. Vom Katholikenverein 1848 bis zum Ende der Christlichsozialen 1934, Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte Oberösterreichs 10 (Linz, 1984), 71.Google Scholar

²⁴ Archiv der österreichischen Bischofskonferenz (Ktn. 1920–1930/Mappe 1927), Adresse der zw Wien versammelten Erzbischöfe und Bischöfe an Seine k.k. apostolische Majestät (September 28, 1867). Francis Joseph's reply to the bishop' address (in which he reminded them of his duties as a constitutional monarch) was published in the Wiener Zeitung on October 16, 1867. See also Vocelka, , Verfassung oder Kondordat? 118.Google Scholar

²⁵ These were the Katholikengesetz (RGBI.50), the Religionsfondsgesetz (RGBI.51), and the Anerkennungsgesetz (RGBI.68). See Peter, Leisching, “Die römisch-katholische Kirche in Cisleithanien,” in Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848–1918, ed. Adam, Wandruszka and Peter, Urbanitsch, vol. 4: Die Konfessionen (Vienna, 1985), 57ff.Google Scholar

²⁶ Georg, Franz, Kulturkampf. Staat und katholische Kirche in Mitteleuropa von der Säkularisation bis zum Abschluss des preussischen Kulturkampfes (Munich 1954), 152.Google Scholar

²⁷ Leisching, “Die romisch-katholische Kirche,” 63.

²⁸ Lothar, Höbelt, “Die Konservativen Alt-Österreichs 1848 bis 1918: Parteien and Politik,” in Konservativismus in Österreich. Strömungen, Ideen, Personen und Vereinigungen von den Anfängen bis heute, ed. Robert, Rill and Zellenberg, Ulrich E. (Graz, 1999), 116: “The pattern of ‘challenge’ and ‘response’ worked. The sudden polarization between 1868 and 1870 galvanized the Catholics to unexpected political activity and ensured for the Conservatives a series of impressive political successes in the coming elections.”Google Scholar

²⁹ Boyer, lohn W., “Religion and Political Development in Central Europe around 1900: A View from Vienna”, AHY 25 (1994): 14.Google Scholar

³⁰ Formally the motion was rejected by the Upper House not because it offered too much but because it appeared to offer too little. Apparently much more far-reaching provisions were desired, and the House proceeded with the day's agenda “in the confident expectation that the government would in the near future introduce a comprehensive civil marriage law.” See Ludwig, Wahrmund, Dokumente zur Geschichte der Eherechtsreform in Österreich (Innsbruck, 1908), 1161.Google Scholar The comments leave no doubt about the “uprightness of this remarkable action”: the Upper House “accepted Liechtenstein's motion in the ‘confident expectation’ that the government would not comply with the ‘confident expectation’ expressed in this motion… and it was not disappointed. Thereafter the matrimonial law issue was never discussed again.” Wilhelm, Fuchs, Das Ehehindernis des bestehenden Ehebandes nach österreichischem Rechte und seine Umgehung (Vienna, 1879), 18f.;Google Scholar see also Ludwig, Wahrmund, Ehe und Eherecht (Leipzig, 1906), 85.Google Scholar

³¹ These attempts also characterized the way the First Republic later dealt with matrimonial law. Last but not least, it was the implementability of the reform of matrimonial law that made a legislative problem into one of administration and legal terminology—a problem caused by the legally controversial practice of granting exemptions. See Ulrike, Harmat, Ehe auf Widerruf? Der Konflikt um das Eherecht in Österreich 1918–1938, Sonderhefte Ius Commune 121 (Frankfurt am Main, 1999).Google Scholar

³² Österreichisches Staatsarchiv (hereafter ÖStA), Allgemeines Verwaltungsarchiv (AVA), k.k. Ministerium des Innern/Praes. 13. Mai 1904, no. 21920/1904: Statuten des Vereines und Antrag auf Genehmigung, published by Obmann Fritz Riederer.

³³ Protokolle der Enquete betreffend die Reform des österreichischen Eherechts (from January 27 to February 24, 1905, under the chairmanship of Hofrat Dr. Karl von Pelser-Fürnberg), Mitteilungen der Kulturpolitischen Gesellschaft 4 (Vienna, 1905).Google Scholar See also Boyer, John W., “Freud, Marriage, and Late Viennese Liberalism: A Commentary from 1905,” Journal of Modern History 50 (1987): 82ff.Google Scholar

³⁴ Wahrmund, , Dokumente, 1297.Google Scholar

³⁵ ÖStA, Archiv der Republik, Vereinsakten: “Eherechtsreformverein” Betreff XVIII-8048. In 1907 the Hilfsverein für katholisch Geschiedene (Society for the Help of Catholic Divorcees) joined forces with the Society for the Reform of Matrimonial Law.

³⁶ Die Fessel. Zentmlorgan für Eherechtsreform 9 (1907): 3.Google Scholar Also Heinrich, Reif, who described the omission of matrimonial law from the planned revision of the ABGB as “a sin of omission,” declared in the Juristischen Blätter that one ought not to refrain from a reform simply out of fear of a new version of the “Kulturkampf.” Like Maassen, Reif also took the view that the existing matrimonial law contradicted the Constitutional Law (Staatsgrundgesetz) of December 21, 1867 (RGB1.142).Google Scholar See Heinrich, Reif, “Besteht unsere Ehegesetzgebung zu Recht? Eine staatsrechtliche Untersuchung,” Juristische Blätter 34, no. 32 (1905): 373ff., and 34, no. 33 (1905): 385ff.Google Scholar

³⁷ Joseph, Unger, Zur Revision des Allgemeinen bürgerlichen Gesetzbuchs. Eine legislatiupolitische Studie (Vienna, 1904), 16.Google Scholar

³⁸ “Whatever one might think of a revision of matrimonial law, there can be no doubt that on the point that the Society for the Divorced is contesting [section 111 ABGB], changes can certainly not be undertaken.” See ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Justiz-Ministerium, no. 24360/354/1904 (Post 1/12). In a petition the General Austrian Women's Association had demanded the introduction of obligatory civil marriage together with “legal recognition of concubinage,” which the reporting official countered with the remark that to sanction an “illegitimate relationship” would shake the basis of society, state, and family. See ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Justiz-Ministerium, no. 28503/422/1904.

³⁹ Section 84 ABGB did mention “soluble obstacles” but refrained from listing those obstacles which would qualify for dispensations. One of the supporters of dispensations was the social reforming politician Julius Ofner, a leading early proponent of reform of matrimonial law from 1906 to 1917. In 1920 Ofner argued that it was not against moral views if Catholics who had been separated from bed and board sought their happiness in a second marriage after the breakdown of the first. Those who criticized the dispensations as immoral were also criticizing the German Empire and Hungary—where Catholics also could have a civil marriage and remarry—for supporting a morally reprehensible state of affairs with a law. See Julius, Ofner, “Die Gültigkeit der Dispensehe,” Juristische Blätter 49, no. 27/28 (1920): 209ff.;Google Scholarsee also juristische Blätter 41, no. 11 (1912): 121ff.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ Franz Edler von, Zeiller, Commentar über das allgemeine bürgerliche Gesetzbuch für diegesammten Deutschen Erbländer der Österreichischen Monarchie, vol. 1 (Vienna, 1811), 236ff.Google Scholar

⁴¹ Ibid., 237. This passage also offered a basis for argument to the supporters of the dispensation because they viewed it as a possible argument for a changed procedure in changed circumstances. See Ofner, , “Die Gültigkeit der Dispensehe,” 209ff.Google Scholar

⁴² Leo, Geller, “Über die Natur des Hindernisses der Weiterverheiratung körperlich geschiedener Ehegatten and die Frage seiner Nachsichtlichkeit. Eine erkenntniskritische Untersuchung,” Österreichisches Zentralbhtt für die juristische Praxis 1920 (1921): 485.Google Scholar For the juristic debate on the admissibility of the dispensation of section 62 ABGB, see Harmat, , Ehe auf Widerruf? 194ff.Google Scholar

⁴³ ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Ministerium des Innern, Zl. 25204/1908: In this case the bridegroom could not change his citizenship, which—as will be shown later—was a precondition for a “Hungarian marriage” because he was a state civil servant. In the application he argued that it would be unfair if he were treated worse by the state because he served it.

⁴⁴ Ibid. The arguments used against the dispensation included the view that it did not dissolve the first marriage, with the result that two marriages would exist side by side, thus creating a state of bigamy; because, as a result of the provisions on the separation of a marriage from bed and board, the two parties were still at liberty even after marrying for a second time to restore their first marriage, insoluble complications were to be feared. Thus the dispensation ran counter to the principle of monogamy.

⁴⁵ ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Ministerium des Innern, Zl. 44879/1915.

⁴⁶ Already at the beginning of the war there was concern about the consequences of war marriages, the majority of which were entered into to secure maintenance contributions and pensions, sometimes without all the formal provisions being followed. As the governor's office in Trieste proposed in 1915, an imperial decree was to counter any postwar attempts to dissolve such marriages on the grounds of irregularities of form. ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Justiz-Ministerium, Zl. 3542/775/1915: written statement of the governor's office in Trieste of November 16, 1915, Z.X-347/7–1915. A submission on victims of the war (Kriegsbeschädigte) in July 1916 called for the possibility of remarriage for divorced Catholics. See ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Justiz-Ministerium, Zl. 39357/806/1916. A petitioner who was also living in a war marriage stated in his application for dispensation in May 1921: “I very soon came to realize that my wife only married me to have her future taken care of and, after I had returned home, to be able to continue indulging her passions.” Wiener Stadt- und Landesarchiv, Magisrratsabteilung 50, Zl. 3810/1/1921.

⁴⁷ Ibid.

⁴⁸ Stenographische Protokolle der 150. Sitzung des Abgeordnetenhauses vom 26. November 1875, 5217.

⁴⁹ See Wilhelm, Fuchs, Die sogenannten Siebenbürgischen Ehen und andere Arten der Wiederverehelichung geschiedener österreichischer Katholiken (Vienna, 1889), 27.Google Scholar

⁵⁰ Ibid., 29f. Article 3 of the Patent of May 29, 1853 (RGBI. 99) and article 3 of the Patent of November 29, 1852 (RGBI. 246).Google Scholar

⁵¹ Ibid.,.31f.: section 14, Law XVIII/1868 and section 36, Law LIV/1868.

⁵² Section 8 Law LIII/1868 ran: “After changing denominations, all the actions of persons changing are to be judged by the dogma of the church they have joined, and the principles of the church they have left are no longer binding on them.” This section 8 was in line with article 5 (paragraph 2) of the Austrian law of May 25,1868 (RGB1.49), “whereby the citizen's interdenominational relations” were regulated and which laid down that “through the change of religion all the rights of association of the church or religious fellowship that the person changing denominations has left are forfeited, together with any claims to the former.” Section 8 of the Hungarian law, however, was more clearly formulated and left no doubt that when a person left one denomination to join another, all the rules of the former denomination that applied to that person were irrelevant after conversion.

⁵³ The last action was not absolutely necessary. In its place the marriage could be carried out in a Transleithanian parish office. If it was usual to get married at a Viennese parish office, this was on grounds of convenience, because it saved the journey to Hungary, but it was also because those involved thought that it was a way of circumventing section 507 of the criminal code. This held punishable “anyone who went to a foreign country for the purpose of contracting a marriage that was against the law of the land.” However, a decision of the Appeal Senate of the Court for the Province of Vienna held that a marriage ceremony conducted by delegation in Vienna counted as a marriage conducted abroad. See Fuchs, , “Siebenbürgische Ehen,” Juristische Blätter 8, no. 48 (1879): 589ffGoogle Scholar, and von Roszner, Erwin Freiherr, “Die Klausenburger Ehen,” Juristische Bliitter 8, no. 51 (1879): 631ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ Fuchs, , Die sogenannten Siebenbürgischen Ehen, 135.Google Scholar

⁵⁵ For a married woman, who usually took her husband's citizenship, the separation “from bed and board” was a necessary precondition for the application for Hungarian citizenship.This was not the case for the husband. See Eugen, Sebestyén, Internationale Beziehungen des ungarischen Eherechtes. Mit besonderer Rücksicht auf Österreich (Budapest, 1913), 11Google Scholar; also Emanuel, Milner, Die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft und der Gesetzartikel 1:1879 über den Erwerb und Verlust der ungarischen Staatsbürgerschaft (Tubingen, 1880), 8ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁶ For the facts and the judgments reached in this case, see Beilage, no. 8 (Rechtssprüche) of the Juristische Blätter 8, no. 8 (1879): 99ffGoogle Scholar. Already in 1877, a note had been sent from the Justice Ministry to the High Court of Justice requesting a plenary judgment. For the statement of the High Court of Justice, see Christa, Pelikan, “Aspekte der Geschichte des Eherechts in Österreich” (Ph.D. diss., University of Vienna, 1981), 210ff.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ Fuchs, , Die sogenannten Siebenb7uuml;rgischen Ehen, 137f. The High Court of Justice revised this view in 1907.Google Scholar

⁵⁸ Ibid., 54: text of the decree.

⁵⁹ See Fuchs, , “Siebenbürgische Ehen,” Juristische Blätter 8, no. 48 (1879): 590Google Scholar; see also Eduard, Rittner, “Auch einiges über die Siebenbürger Ehen,” Allgemeine Österreichische Gerichts-Zeitung 31, n.s., 17, no. 10 (1880): 37ff.Google Scholar

⁶⁰ Such a case also was decided in the aforementioned judgment of the High Court of Justice in January 1879. In this case only the wife had applied for Hungarian citizenship. Further support was found in the introductory words of the decree of October 22, 1879, which addressed “the marriage of Austrian citizens and those of other states.” Moreover, only in such cases was the participation of the clergy expressly forbidden.

⁶¹ Law L/1879, sanctioned on December 20, 1879, and published on December 24, 1879; see Dezső, Márkus, Magyar Közjog (Budapest, 1905), 176ff.Google Scholar; see also Milner, , Die österreichische Staatsbürgerschaft und der Gesetzartikel L;1879.Google Scholar

⁶² Roszner, , “Die Klausenburger Ehen,” 632.Google Scholar

⁶³ Márkus, , Magyar Közjog, 177f.Google Scholar

⁶⁴ That is, before the denominational matrimonial court in Transylvania could sanction the full divorce of the marriage, besides the separation from bed and board by the Austrian matrimonial court and the transfer to the Protestant or Unitarian denomination, there was now the third step of the application for Hungarian citizenship through adoption. See Fuchs, , “Siebenbürgische Ehen,” Juristische Blätter 12, no. 13 (1883): 145f.Google Scholar

⁶⁵ Fuchs, , “Siebenbürgische Ehen,” Juristische Blätter 8, no. 48 (1879): 592. In a petition demanding a change in Austrian matrimonial law, the Lower Austrian Chamber of Lawyers pilloried the state of affairs as unacceptable and pointed out that the other half of the empire had become a refuge for all unhappy marriages. They criticized the ensuing situation on the grounds that it led to “inequality between those who had the necessary means and those who did not,” because contracting these marriages was above all else a matter of time and money. See ÖStA AVA, k.k.Jusriz-Ministerium Zl.1994/1905 (to Zl.16651/1907): petition of the Committee of the Lower Austrian Chamber of Lawyers to the Lower House.Google Scholar

⁶⁶ Ibid.. See Fuchs, , “Siebenbürgische Ehen,” juristische Blätter 12, no. 13 (1883): 145f. The popularity of these marriages is shown by Valery Grey's “Original-Volksstück in drei Akten,” published in 1911, which had the title §111 (Section 111) and which was performed in the Workers' Home in the Viennese district of Favoriten. The play is about a married couple accused of bigamy.Google Scholar

⁶⁷ The marriage patent from the time of Joseph II had transferred jurisdiction in matrimonial matters to the state's courts. After Joseph II's death, the unified state matrimonial law (based on Laws XXVI and XXVII/1790/91) once again had to give way to a number of denominational laws. The jurisdiction of the Catholic and Greek Orthodox Churches was restored, while for both Protestant denominations the civil courts remained responsible. See Isidor, Schwartz, “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung des ungarischen Eherechtes,” Ungarische Revue 1894, vol. 14 (Budapest, 1894): 185f.Google Scholar

⁶⁸ See Moritz, Csáky, Der Kulturkampf in Ungarn. Die kirchenpolitische Gesetzgebung der jahre 1894/95 (Vienna,1967), 29.Google Scholar

⁶⁹ Section 2, Law XLVIII/1868; see Schwartz, , “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung,” 196f.Google Scholar

⁷⁰ Section 1, Law LIII/1868; Isidor, Schwartz, “Die Notwendigkeit des einheitlichen staatlichen Eherechtes in Ungarn,” Ungarische Revue 1895, vol. 15 (Budapest, 1895): 55.Google Scholar

⁷¹ Schwartz, , “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung,” 198. In making the accusation, Bishop Schlauch also referred to the opposite judicature in Austria, where, despite the interdenominational law of May 1868, the change of religion from the Catholic to another faith was ignored.Google Scholar

⁷² See Csáky, , Der Kulturkampf in Ungarn, 36ff.Google Scholar; also Friedrich, Gottas, Ungarn im Zeitalter des Hochliberalismus. Studien zur Tisza-Ära (1875–1890), Studien zur Geschichte der österreichischungarischen Monarchie 16. (Vienna, 1976), 61ff.Google Scholar

⁷³ Géza, Andreas von Geyr, Sándor Wekerle 1848–1921. Die politische Biographie ernes ungarischen Staatsmannes der Donaumonarchie, Südosteuropaische Arbeiten 91 (Munich, 1993),Google Scholar

⁷⁴ In the Hungarian Upper House the draft bill of May 10, 1894, was rejected, but two days later it was passed by the Lower House by an overwhelming majority. To avoid another defeat in the Upper House, during an audience with Francis Joseph, Wekerle insisted on the king's issuing a declaration to make clear his wish that the laws should be passed if at all possible. Since the monarch continued to refuse a positive statement, Wekerle resigned on May 31,1894. See Geyr, , Sándor Wekerle, 147f.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Csáky, Der Kulturkampf in Ungarn, 101.

⁷⁶ See Fritz, Back, Das ungarische Ehegesetz nebst der Rechtsprechung des ungarischen Obersten Gerichtshofes und ausfuhrliche Erläuterungen (Vienna, 1906)Google Scholar, and Desider, Markus, “Die ungarischen kirchenpolitischen Gesetze übersetzt and mit einer Einleitung versehen. Gesetzartikel XXXI. vom Jahre 1894 über das Eherecht,” Zeitschrift für ungarisches öffentliches- und Privatrecht 2 (1896): 24–59.Google Scholar

⁷⁷ Moritz, Csáky, Die katholische Kirche und der liberate Staat in Ungarn im 19. Jahrhundert,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch. Zeitschrift für die Kunde Ungarns und verwandte Gebiete 5 (Mainz, 1973): 129.Google Scholar

⁷⁸ Markus, , “Die ungarischen kirchenpolitischen Gesetze” 25ff.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ Schwartz, , “Die geschichtliche Entwicklung,” 198, 207.Google Scholar

⁸⁰ Cornel, Sztehlo, “Das Ungarische Ehegesetz und seine Beziehungen zum Auslande,” Zeitschrift für ungarisches öffentliches- und Privatrecht 2 (Budapest, 1896): 132Google Scholar

⁸¹ Legal Article XXXI/1894, title 3, section 29, and title 5, section 73.

⁸² For the proceedings, see Ernst, Gerö, Eheschliessungs- und Trennungsfreiheit, in Ungarn. Praktischer Wegweiser für Advokaten, Justiz- and Administrationsbehorden, Heiratslustige, insbesondere für geschiedene, oder beabsichtigende Ausländer katholischer Ehe (Budapest, 1910). The brochure ran to many editions.Google Scholar

⁸³ See also the already mentioned brochure of Sebestyén, , Internationale Beziehungen des Ungarischen Eherechtes.Google Scholar

⁸⁴ ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Justiz-Ministerium, Zl. 1994/05 (to Zl. 16651/1907).

⁸⁵ Ibid. Wilhelm Fuchs claims that the decisive fact that led to the authorities taking action in such a case was the existence of a submission statement with some official body or other—in the language of civil servants, “a little piece”(“Stuckel”). Fuchs reports that in the Ministry of Religion and Education, which was also involved in preparing the above-mentioned 1879 decree, there was a higher-level official who had himself been one of the first to have a Transylvanian marriage, which was certainly invalid because the official concerned could not have given up his Austrian citizenship. And “although the whole ministry knew about this marriage from the minister himself down to the youngest apprentice, and thus definitely also the civil servant who had drawn up the decree that called upon the authorities to check up on the validity of such marriages, this particular marriage went unchallenged. What was lacking was the ‘little piece’ that was needed to bring the whole bureaucratic apparatus into motion.” Fuchs, , Die sogenannten Siebenbtirgischen Ehen, 63.Google Scholar

⁸⁶ Gesetz vom 27. Mai 1896, “über das Exekutions- und Sicherungsverfahren” (Exekutionsordnung), RGBI. 79.Google Scholar

⁸⁷ Robert Neumann-Ettenreich and Karl Satter are of the view that the legislator was evidently influenced “by the idea of preventing what was by far the most common type of Catholic marriage in Austria from being dissolved abroad and then the dissolution being valid in Austria.” See Neumann-Ettenreich, and Satter, , “Das Eherecht Österreichs,” in Das Eherecht der europäischen Staoten und ihrer Kolonien, Rechtsverfolgung im intemationalen Verkehr 4, ed. Franz, Leske and William, Loewenfeld (Berlin, 1937), 216.Google Scholar

⁸⁸ Judgment of the High Court of Justice of June 18,1907, no. 3811, in Sammlungen von zivilrechtlichen Entscheidungen des k.k. Obersten Gerichtshofes 44, n.s. 10, ed. Leopold, Pfaff, Josef, Schey, and Vinzenz, Krupsky (Vienna, 1909), 385ff.Google Scholar; see also Friedrich, Woeß, Der Dispens vom Hindernisse der bestehenden Ehe (Innsbruck, 1920), 17f.Google Scholar, and Die Fessel 6, no. 10 (1911): 2f.: “Die Gültigkeit ungarischer Ehen in Österreich.”Google Scholar

⁸⁹ Judgment of the High Court of Justice of December 17,1907, no. 15469, in Sammlungen von zivilrechtlichen Entscheidungen 44, ed. Pfaff, , Schey, , and Krupsky, , 822.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ ÖStA, AVA, k.k. Ministerium des Innern, Zl. 21648/14 Dep. 13, Zl. 59461/15 Dep. 13, and Zl. 35412/15 Dep. 13: written complaint of Felix Kraus to the administrative court.

⁹¹ For the marriage case of Josef Sedl, see ibid., Zl. 45008/1913 Dep. 17, Zl. 5842/1914, Zl. 4896/1915, and Zl. 7157/1915 Dep. 13. The first marriage, in 1907, had been a Catholic one, and it was separated from bed and board in 1912. The divorced woman had herself adopted by an Hungarian citizen, applied for Hungarian citizenship, and had her first marriage dissolved by a Hungarian court. Thereupon she wanted to marry the Austrian citizen Josef S., who had also converted to the Protestant faith. After the district authorities had refused to grant a certificate of eligibility for marriage, the next higher authority, the governor's office in Prague, reversed this judgment on the grounds that, as far as the Hungarian party was concerned (the bride in this case), the Hungarian legal judgment had to be seen as valid. The Hungarian Justice Ministry, to which the case was presented, granted the certificate of eligibility for marriage but referred the case to the Ministry of the Interior, asking whether this judgment was in line with Austrian law. The latter then referred the case to the Justice Ministry, which decided that the Hungarian judgment was irrelevant for Austrian citizens.

⁹² Seeibid., Zl. 5842/1914: statement of the Justice Ministry of February 10, 1914.

⁹³ Ibid., Zl. 4896/1915: “An analogous case would be where the marriage of two persons, one of whom was an Austrian and the other a Hungarian (foreign) citizen, was dissolved by a Hungarian court for the non-Austrian spouse or, for example, for both spouses, and then an Austrian citizen wanted to marry one of the two spouses, irrespective of whether this was in Austria or in Hungary (abroad).”

⁹⁴ In his recollections, Johann Mailáth-Pokorny shows little sympathy with Conrad's timing: “When our fine infantrymen, inadequately clothed and poorly fed, were without respite risking their lives and health in the snow and ice and filth, he had no higher thoughts than to get married. … In the midst of the mobilization and the start of the war he, the chief of staff, had the nerve to leave his post as he wished. According to reports, he even could not be found in the first days of the war until August 6. During this time he is said to have visited the children of his later wife.” Kriegsarchiv, Nachlaß Mailáth- Pokorny, B/700, no. 12: “Der k.u.k. Generalstab. Erinnerungen und Betrachtungen.”

⁹⁵ von Hötzendorf, Gina Conrad, Mein Leben mit Conrad von Hötzendorf. Sein geistiges Vermächtnis (Leipzig, 1935), 30: Conrad's letter of December 1908. The letters printed there had, according to Gina, not been sent but had been written as a kind of diary, which she only found out about after his death. Conrad described the collected letters as a “diary of my suffering.”Google Scholar

⁹⁶ NÖLA, k.k. nö. Statthalterei-Präsidium, Stammzahl 1559/1915.

⁹⁷ ÖStA, Kriegsarchiv, Nachlaß Mailáth-Pokorny, B/700, no. 12.

⁹⁸ von Hötzendorf, Gina Conrad, Mein Leben mit Conrad von Hötzendorf,30fGoogle Scholar

⁹⁹ ibid., letter of May 24, 1907.

¹⁰⁰ Ibid., letter of May 25, 1907. See also Schicksalsjahre Österreichs 1908–1919. Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs, revised by Fritz, Fellner, 2 vols. (Graz, 1954), 2:62, where Redlich notes a message from the wife of the general consul, Poldine Passavant. According to this Conrad “had always hoped that a war would complete his destiny and bring him her heart.”Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Ludwig, Pastor, Conrad von Hötzendorf. Ein Lebensbild nach originalen Quellen und persönlichen Erinnerungen entworfen (Vienna, 1916), 16.Google Scholar Pastor does not say a single word about Conrad, 's second marriage.Google Scholar

¹⁰² “There now developed a hearty friendship with which Reininghaus also agreed. Naturally there were often scenes of jealousy. But Conrad, 's noblesse prevented any serious breach.” See Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs, 2:62f. This is according to the account of Poldine Passavant, which is probably based on that of Gina.Google Scholar

¹⁰³ Urbanski, , Conrad von Hotzendorf, 324Google Scholar

¹⁰⁴ Das politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs, 1:259: entry of August 28,19.

¹⁰⁵ Ibid., 271: entry of September 9, 1914. Conrad (born in 1852) was Gina, 's (born in 1879) senior by twenty-seven years.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁶ Ibid. Deep down he does not believe in his historic role as Austria's leading general against Russia. … His soul has long been preoccupied with another ideal than that of the worldfamous victor, namely, that of sitting in his loden jacket in some quiet valley with his beloved wife ever close to him. … If earlier his military career completely fulfilled him, that is now past history. I think Conrad has no trace of ambition left, certainly no craving for fame. He would nowjust like to live as a private citizen and enjoy a few years' happiness.”

¹⁰⁷ Rudolf, Jeřábek, Potiorek. General im Schatten von Sarajevo (Graz, 1991), 33;Google Scholar See also Urbanski, , Conrad von Hötzendorf, 99ff.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁸ Because of the initial refusal of Montenegro and Serbia to recognize the annexation, in March 1909 there developed a diplomatic conflict between the monarchy and Russia, which almost led to war. Helmut, Graf Moltke had assured Conrad on March 19 of German military help if it came to a Russian mobilization following an attack on Serbia.Google Scholar See Steven, Beller, Franz Joseph. Erne Biographie (Vienna, 1997), 171.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ Helmut, Rumpler, Erne Chance fur Mitteleuropa. Biirgerliche Emanzipation und Staatsverfall in der Habsburgermonarchie, Österreichische Geschichte 1804–1914, ed. Herwig, Wolfram (Vienna, 1997), 549.Google Scholar

¹¹⁰ Bled, Jean Paul, Franz, Joseph. “Der letzte Monarch der alten Schule” (Vienna, 1988), 496.Google Scholar

¹¹¹ Ibid.

¹¹² See Kurt, Peball, “Briefe an eine Freundin. Zu den Briefen des Feldmarschalls Conrad von Hotzendorf an Frau Walburga von Sonnleithner wahrend der Jahre 1905 bis 1918,” Mitteilungen des Österreichischen Staatsarchivs 25 (1972): 499f.: letter of April 5,19Google Scholar

¹¹³ Ibid., 500: letter to Walburga von, Sonnleithner of July 6,1910.Google Scholar

¹¹⁴ ÖStA, Kriegsarchiv, , Putz, Nachlaß Franz, B.u.C/35, no. 20: Korrespondenz Feldmarschall Conrad mit Putz (Conrad, 's letter to Putz on September 17, 1910). From March 9, 1910, Franz, Putz had been “Fliigeladjutant” to the chief of staff. An edition of the journals (1906–9) and other papers by Putz, which are expected to shed new light on the relationship between Conrad and Gina, will soon be completed by Rudolf Jeřábek. This edition will be published as part of a series by the Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ Ibid.: letter to Putz, on September 20,1910.Google Scholar

¹¹⁶ Ibid.: letter to Putz, on November 16,1910.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ Ibid.: letter to Putz, on December 28,1910. In 1906 Potiorek had been Conrad, 's rival in the struggle to fill the post of chief of staff. Conrad, “who had always described his own appointment to the post as the worst possible one, wanted to get the now redundant Potiorek a post of corps commander,” and he was successful in this. See Jerábek, , Potiorek, 33f.Google Scholar

¹¹⁸ Putz, Nachlaß Franz: letter to Putz of February 26,1911.Google Scholar

¹¹⁹ Jerábek, , Potiorek, 51f. In what was to become a famous audience with Francis, Joseph on November 15,1911, the emperor forbade Conrad to make any more criticisms of Italy and the Balkans and declared, “My policy is a policy of peace.” See Beller, , Franz, Joseph, 173Google Scholar

¹²⁰ One day later he wrote to Walburga von, Sonnleithner: “What on earth is going to happen to me? Doesn't it make one into a fatalist?” See Peball, , “Briefe an eine Freundin,” 501 (letter of December 13, 1912).Google Scholar The swing of the pendulum between the conspiracy of the “injustice of fate” and the tendency to give himself over to fate or stoicism (Ibid., 497) runs like a thread through Conrad, 's letters.Google Scholar

¹²¹ von Hötzendorf, Gina Conrad, Mein Leben mit Conrad von Hötzendorf, 31f.Google Scholar

¹²² On this point, too, there are various conflicting versions. In her recollections Gina, writes that denying that she was at home to an acquaintance from Graz who wanted to visit her in Vienna made that person believe the rumor that she was with Conrad, in the army headquarters as “adequate proof of the truth.” The visitor from Graz told her husband, who then sued for divorce. See Gina, Conrad von Hotzendorf, Mein Leben mit Conrad von Hötzendorf, 32. On the other hand, Gina is supposed to have told Passavant that in the autumn of 1914, when Conrad “led his army in Teschen as a totally broken man” after the death of his son Herbert, Emperor Wilhelm II had expressed the wish that she should be taken to him. The later war minister, Krobatin, duly allowed this, and she stayed for a week in the headquarters with her youngest son: “Conrad was immediately changed. As a result of nasty gossip this trip was presented to Reininghaus in a very bad light. He wrote her a letter full of complaints that a separation had now become necessary.” See Das, politische Tagebuch Josef Redlichs, 2:62.Google Scholar

¹²³ Putz, Nachlaß Franz: Conrad, 's letter of April 11,1915.Google Scholar

¹²⁴ ÖstA, Kriegsarchiv, , Majestät, Militärkanzlei Seiner, Zl. 53–1/249/1915: letter from Conrad von Hötzendorf to Baron Bolfras (June 27,1915).Google Scholar

¹²⁵ Peball, “Briefe an eine Freundin,” 493: letter to Walburga von Sonnleithner of April 29,1906.

¹²⁶ ÖstA, Kriegsarchiv, , Majestät, Militärkanzlei Seiner, Zl. 53–1/249/1915: letter from Baron Bolfras to Conrad von Hotzendorf (June 30,1915). This comment is incorrect insofar as, according to the previous view of both the Ministry of the Interior and the Justice Ministry, a mere change of religion would not have sufficed. The provisions of section 81 Z.3 Exekutionsordnung could only be avoided either by Conrad, himself changing his citizenship or by his bride's husband doing the same.Google Scholar

¹²⁷ See Neues, Wiener Journal, February 27,1927, no. 11949,4: “Conrads Muse,” by Major General a.D.Michael, von Vorner, former chief of staff of the Vienna Military Command, from unpublished papers.Google Scholar Paul Schulz (1860–1919) was considered “one of the best-known civil servant personalities of the monarchy and enjoyed excellent relations with the leading figures of Viennese society, for example, with Katharina, Schratt and Conrad von, Hotzendorf.” See Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon 1815–1950 (Vienna, 1999), 11:351;Google Scholar see also Heinrich, Benedikt Damals im alten Österreich. Erinnerungen, 90ff., who also points out the close friendship between Conrad and Schulz.Google Scholar

¹²⁸ See NÖLA, k.k. no. Stätthalterei-Präsidium, Zl. 1559/1915; despite comprehensive research I was unfortunately unable to find the corresponding Hungarian files on this case.

¹²⁹ Ibid.; my emphasis.

¹³⁰ Kriegsarchiv, , Militärkanzlei Seiner Majestät, Zl. 53–1/249/1915.Google Scholar

¹³¹ AVA, Justiz-Ministerium Pras., Zl. 769/1915.

¹³² One day before (October 14), Hochenburger had spoken to the emperor on the subject and thereafter had written the report setting out the legal situation. See AVA, Justiz-Ministerium, Zl. 769-Pres./1915.

¹³³ Kriegsarchiv, , Militärkanzlei Seiner Majestät, Zl. 53–1/249/1915: Hochenburger to Baron Bolfras (October 16,1915).Google Scholar

¹³⁴ See NÖLA, k.k. no. Statthalterei, Zl. 1559–1/1915.

¹³⁵ Kriegsarchiv, , Militarkanzlei Seiner Majestät, Zl. 53–1/249/1915.Google Scholar

¹³⁶ von Hotzendorf, Gina Conrad, Mein Leben mil Conrad von Hötzendorf, 38. In April 1900 Archduchess Maria Theresa had already managed to overcome Francis, Joseph's opposition to the marriage of Francis Ferdinand to Countess Sophie Chotek. See Bled, , Franz, Joseph, 470.Google Scholar

¹³⁷ Putz, Nachlaß Franz: letter of October 17,1915.Google Scholar

¹³⁸ Peball, , “Briefe an eine Freundin,” 497.Google Scholar

¹³⁹ Kriegsarchiv, , Militarkanzlei Seiner Majestät, Zl. 53–1/249/1915. According to Bjelik, he had drawn Conrad's attention to the consequences of his action and most urgently begged him to give up his intended marriage and “to give the Catholic circles no reason for disquiet.” See also von Hotzendorf, Gina Conrad, Mein Leben mit Conrad von Hötzendorf, 38f., where she states that the suggestion to change citizenship came from Bjelik. “But Conrad impressed upon me never to mention Bjelik's name in this connection … and never to divulge that Bjelik was the decisive adviser, who had described exactly how to go about things. It was all the more strange to me, therefore, when I found out years later that in 1917, on the emperor's orders, Bjelik had drawn up a memorandum on our marriage in which he described it as a concubinage.”Google Scholar

¹⁴⁰ Helmut, Hoyer, Kaiser Karl 1. und Feldmarschall Conrad von Hbtzendorf. Ein Beitrag zur Militarpolitik Kaiser Karls (Vienna, 1972), 129.Google Scholar

¹⁴¹ According to Redlich, , Gina von, Reininghaus explained to Poldine Passavant that it had been Paul, Schulz who had negotiated with all the church and lay authorities to make the marriage possible. A discussion with Cardinal, piffl had been decisive. See Das politische Tagebuch Josef, Redlichs, 2:63. Poldine Passavant's version, which is claimed to be based on a message from Gina, , diverges at several points from Gina, 's recollections.Google Scholar

¹⁴² Ibid.

¹⁴³ Erich, Feigl, ed., Kaiser Karl. Persönliche Aufzeichnungen, Zeugnisse und Dokumente (Vienna, 1984), 202.Google ScholarKarl, 's wife, Empress Zita, also appears to have had little sympathy for this marriage. She was of the opinion that the “Marshal” had suffered the same fate as Ludendorff had with his second wife; Conrad, was in a state of “total subjection” to her.”Google ScholarIbid., 188.

¹⁴⁴ NÖLA k.k. nö. Statthalterei, Stammzahl 626 V-48b/1916: exemption application of Chief-Lieutenant Auditor Wilhelm Schreiter. The bride's first marriage had been in line with Catholic rites; later she converted to the Protestant church, became a Hungarian citizen, and had her marriage dissolved in Hungary. The divorced husband remained an Austrian citizen.

¹⁴⁵ AVA, k.k. Ministerium des Innern, Zl. 61768/1917: exemption application of Adolf Merz.

¹⁴⁶ What is referred to here is the Sedl case discussed above, on the occasion of which the Prague Ministry of Governors' Offices had forbidden the granting of exemptions “in all analogous cases.”

¹⁴⁷ See Harmat, , Ehe aufWiderruf?Google Scholar

¹⁴⁸ Stenographische Protokolle der 13. Sitzung der Provisorischen Nationalversammlung vom 23. Jänner1919, 499.