¹ Gamboni, Dario, The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution (New Haven and London, 1997), 10Google Scholar.

² Stites, Richard, “Iconoclastic Currents in the Russian Revolution: Destroying and Preserving the Past,” in Gleason, Abbot, Kenez, Peter, and Stites, Richard, eds., Bolshevik Culture (Bloomington, IN, 1985), 2Google Scholar.

³ See, for example, the wide range of articles in the following edited volumes: Gillis, John R., ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton, 1994)Google Scholar; Bucur, Maria and Wingfield, Nancy M., eds., Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, 1848 to the Present (West Lafayette, IN, 2001)Google Scholar; Jaworski, Rudolf and Stachel, Peter, eds., Die Besetzung des öffentlichen Raumes: Politische Plätze, Denkmäler und Strassennamen im europäischen Vergleich (Berlin, 2007)Google Scholar. For recent monographs on these topics, see Prokopovych, Markian, Habsburg Lemberg: Architecture, Public Space and Politics in the Galician Capital, 1772–1914 (West Lafayette, IN, 2008)Google Scholar; Wingfield, Nancy M., Flag Wars and Stone Saints: How the Bohemian Lands became Czech (Cambridge, MA, 2007)Google Scholar; Unowsky, Daniel, The Pomp and Politics of Patriotism: Imperial Celebrations in Habsburg Austria, 1848–1916 (West Lafayette, IN, 2005)Google Scholar; King, Jeremy, Budweisers into Czechs and Germans: A Local History of Bohemian Politics, 1848–1948 (Princeton, 2002)Google Scholar; Freifeld, Alice, Nationalism and the Crowd in Liberal Hungary, 1848–1914 (Baltimore, 2000)Google Scholar.

⁴ On 26 April 1849, Lieutenant Colonel Ferdinand Molnár wrote to Kossuth: “Tegnap seregeink Pestre bevonultak. Gentzi [sic] tábornok és a budai vár parancsnoka hirdetményben ígéri a pest-budaiaknak, hogy még Budán meg nem támadják, Pestet kímélni fogja. A Lánchídnak Buda felőli oszlopába azonban 4 hordó puskaport süllyesztett azon szándékkal, hogy a hídat, ha azon Budán átkelni megkísértetnék, légbe röpítse.” On 6 May 1849, Görgey wrote to Kossuth: “Eddigi eljárásom igazolására Hentzi tábornokhoz intézett felhívásomat s a reá kapott feleletet a mai napon kelt hivatalos jelentésemhez mellékeltem – most pedig melléklem Hentzi tábornok hitvány igazolását s Pest városa feleletét reá.” These letters are reproduced in Hermann, Róbert, ed., Kossuth Lajos és Görgei Arthúr Levelezése, 1848–1849 (Budapest, 2001), 324, 342–43Google Scholar.

⁵ Letter from Görgey to Kossuth, 13 May 1849. Ibid., 361–63.

⁶ See “A Lánchíd levele,” in Vezér, Erzsébet, ed., Ady Endre összes prózai művei, vol. 9 (Budapest, 1973): 132–33Google Scholar.

⁷ “Pest bombáztatója. Egy régi honvéd felszólása,” Fővárosi Lapok (25 May 1886), 1052.

⁸ “Pest Budavár ostroma alatt,” Vasárnapi Újság (30 May 1886), 348, refers to Hentzi's “embertelenség, elvadultság, féktelen düh és bosszuvágy.” See Görgei, Arthur, My Life and Acts in Hungary in the Years 1848 and 1849 (New York, 1852), 343Google Scholar.

⁹ Arthur Görgei, My Life and Acts, 344. Emphasis in original.

¹⁰ See Roberts, Ian W., Nicholas I and the Russian Intervention in Hungary (Houndmills, 1991), 128–29CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹¹ Errinerung an zwei Berner, die k.k. Generale Franz Wyss und Heinrich Hentzy (Fraunfeld, [1850]), 156.

¹² Prochazda, Ottakar, Revelations of Hungary. Or, Leaves from the Diary of an Austrian Officer Who Served during the Late Campaign in That Country (London, 1851), 174Google Scholar.

¹³ Kriegsarchiv (Vienna) MMTO F. IV. H 149. Viewed at Hadtörténelmi Levéltár, Anyakönyvi kivonat, Hentzi, 3260/1890. His son became a knight of the Order of the Iron Crown, 3rd Class on 11 July 1852, the day the Hentzi Monument was unveiled. See Wiener Zeitung (17 July 1852), 1971.

¹⁴ According to Bagger, Eugene, Francis Joseph: Emperor of Austria—King of Hungary (New York and London, 1927), 548Google Scholar, “In the Hofburg a large canvas representing Hentzi's death in the breach of the fortress of Buda faced Francis Joseph's bed. Every morning, as soon as he opened his eyes, he was reminded that the Magyars were rebels who habitually killed his devoted heroic generals.” This painting, which is currently in the Kunsthistorisches Museum in Vienna, was painted by Fritz L'Allemand in 1850. See Gerevich, László, ed., Budapest Története, vol. 4 (Budapest, 1978): 95Google Scholar. See also Hanák, Péter, “Ferenc József hálószobája,” Budapesti Negyed 22, no. 4 (1998): 177–83Google Scholar.

¹⁵ On the Hentzi paddle steamer (Rad-dampfer), see Gogg, Karl, Österreichs Kriegsmarine 1848–1918 (Salzbug/Stuttgart, 1967), 32, 56–57Google Scholar. It was built in Venice, 1849–1852. The Alnoch paddle steamer, also built in Venice (1849–1854), was launched on 13 April 1854.

¹⁶ On the design and execution of the monument, see Czaga, Viktória, “A Harcos Emlék – Szoborsors Magyarországon (A Hentzi-Emlékmű története),” A Hadtörténeti Múzeum Értesítője 6 (2006): 86–94Google Scholar.

¹⁷ Freifeld, Alice, Nationalism and the Crowd in Liberal Hungary, 1848–1914 (Washington, DC, 2000), 133Google Scholar. The following description of the Hentzi monument is taken from Die Rundreise Sr. k.k. apost. Majestät Franz Joseph des Ersten durch Ungarn und Siebenbürgen im Jahre 1852 (Vienna, 1852), 88–97.

¹⁸ (1) Treue zur Fahne – Hűség a zászlóhoz (2) Wahrheit – Igazság (3) Religion – Hit, (4) Grossmuth nach dem Siege - Lovagiasság, (5) Wachsamkeit – Éberség, (6) Aufopferung – Önfeláldozás.

¹⁹ Alice Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 133–34.

²⁰ Tissot, Victor, Voyage au Pas des Tziganes (La Hongrie Inconnue) (Paris, 1880), 486–87Google Scholar.

²¹ Neuer Prager Kalendar für Stadt und Land (Prague, 1853), 124. According to this source, Francis Joseph's visit “glich einem wahren Triumphzuge.” On Francis Joseph's visit to Buda, see Die Rundreise Sr. k.k. apost. Majestät, 88–97. Alice Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 133, describes the dedication of the Hentzi monument as “the symbolic centerpiece of the tour.”

²² On the Habsburg officer corps as one of the strongest pillars of the dynasty, see Deák, István, Beyond Nationalism: A Social and Political History of the Habsburg Officer Corps, 1848–1918 (New York and Oxford, 1990)Google Scholar.

²³ On the symbolic power of Francis Joseph's imperial tours, see Unowsky, Daniel, “Reasserting Empire: Habsburg Imperial Celebrations after the Revolutions of 1848–1849,” in Bucur, Maria and Wingfield, Nancy M., eds., Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, 1848 to the Present (West Lafayette, IN, 2001), 13–45Google Scholar.

²⁴ [Anton Joseph Kemminger], Worte der Weihung bei der Enthüllung des auf Befehl Sr. k.k. Apostolischen Majestät des Kaisers Franz Joseph den im Jahre 1849 während der Belagerung und Erstürmung gefallenen heldenmüthigen Vertheidigern der Festung Ofen errichteten Denkmahles auf dem Georgiplatze zu Ofen (Ofen, [1852]), 6. “Wo die Brüder ihre Brüder/Und der Mensch den Menschen fand/Und die Friedenpalme wieder/Pflanzte in das Vaterland!”

²⁵ Savage, Kirk, “The Politics of Memory: Black Emancipation and the Civil War Monument,” in Gillis, John R., ed., Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton, 1994), 131Google Scholar. (The comparison to the Habsburg Empire is not part of this article.)

²⁶ Ibid., 132.

²⁷ A comparison between the “Gessler hat” and the Hentzi Monument was made in “A Hencziszobor megsemmisitése,” Pesti Hírlap (3 November 1918), 7.

²⁸ For example, see Hummel, Pfarrer, Schretta auf der Reise nach Ungarn und Italien. Reisebilder ihren Tagebüchern zusammengestellt (Ravensburg, 1863), 191–92Google Scholar, where “the dying hero” is parenthetically identified as General Hentzi.

²⁹ On the occasion of the dedication, the Wiener Zeitung referred to the “monument to the fallen fighters of Buda” (Denkmals der gefallenen Krieger zu Ofen), whereas the Pesther Zeitung called it the “Hentzi monument” (Hentzidenkmal). See Wiener Zeitung (Abendblatt, 12 July 1852) for both citations.

³⁰ “Aus Ungarn,” Das Vaterland (Abendblatt, 2 April 1895), 1–2.

³¹ Budapest Főváros Levéltára (BFL), VI.1.a, Magyar Királyi Államrendőrség Budapest Főkapitányságának reservált iratai, 247/1895 (7 April 1895).

³² Somogyi, Éva, “The Age of Neo-Absolutism, 1849–1867,” in Sugar, Peter, ed., A History of Hungary (Bloomington and Indianapolis, IN, 1994), 250Google ScholarPubMed.

³³ Rothenberg, Gunther E., The Army of Francis Joseph (West Lafayette, IN, 1976), 77Google Scholar. See also Rotheberg, , “Toward a National Hungarian Army: The Military Compromise of 1868 and Its Consequences,” Slavic Review 31, no. 4 (December 1972): 805–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ István Deák, Beyond Nationalism, 57.

³⁵ On the problem of reconciling king and emperor or nation and dynasty, see Hanák, Péter, “Die Parallelaktion von 1898: Fünfzig Jahre ungarische Revolution und fünfzig Jahre Regierungsjubiläum Franz Josephs,” in Der Garten und die Werkstatt (Vienna, 1992), 101–15Google Scholar. In the epilogue (115), Hanák refers to this as the “Hentzi-Syndrom” or “Hentzi-Komplex.” (This essay does not appear in The Garden and the Workshop, the English translation of this book.)

³⁶ Hentzi, was called “der tapfere Vertheidiger von Ofen” in Errinerung an zwei Berner, die k.k. Generale Franz Wyss und Heinrich Hentzy (Fraunfeld, [1850]), 112Google Scholar.

³⁷ “A Hentzi-szobor megkoszorúzva,” Függetlenség (4 November 1881), [2].

³⁸ For the police investigation, see Magyar Országos Levéltár (MOL), K149 (Belügyminisztériumi Levéltár Elnöki Iratai), 1881-6-893, 1881-6-965, and 1882-6-38. I would like to thank Kati Vörös for drawing my attention to this source (as well as the source mentioned in the following footnote).

³⁹ The following was sent from the Hungarian Ministry of the Interior to the Budapest Police captain on 12 May 1884: “Tudomásra jutott, hogy ‘Antiszobrista’ aláirással ellátott beadványok intéztettek Budapest főváros valamint Temesvár szabad királyi város hatóságához, melyekben a fővárosi Szent-György téri Henczi szobor, valamint a temesvári Jenő téri szobrok eltávolítása követeltetik azon fenyegetés mellett, hogy ha e követelés nem teljesíttetik, egy titkos társulat a szobrokat dynamittal fogja felrobbantani s megsemmisíteni.” See BFL, VI.1.a, Magyar Királyi Államrendőrség Budapest Főkapitányságának reservált iratai, 481/1884.

⁴⁰ “Pest Budavár ostroma alatt,” Vasárnapi Ujság (30 May 1886), 348.

⁴¹ Ugron, Gábor, Beszédei az 1884–87-diki országgyűlésen (Budapest, 1887)Google Scholar. His speech to the Hungarian parliament (“Válasz a Hentzi-ügyben”) on 24 May 1886, appears on pp. 328–31.

⁴² Letter from Lajos Kossuth to Jenő Nyáry, 24 May 1886, in Kossuth, Ferencz, ed., Kossuth Lajos iratai, vol. 10 (Budapest, 1904): 197–99Google Scholar.

⁴³ Das Vaterland (25 May 1886), 1.

⁴⁴ Nemes, Robert, The Once and Future Budapest (DeKalb, IL, 2005), 123–24, 159Google Scholar. On student involvement in Hungarian nationalist demonstrations in the second half of the nineteenth century, see Alice Freifeld, “The Cult of March 15: Sustaining the Hungarian Myth of Revolution, 1849–1999,” in Maria Bucur and Nancy M. Wingfield, eds., Staging the Past, 261–67.

⁴⁵ “Fortgesetzte Strassendemonstrationen,” Das Vaterland (26 May 1886), 4; Rendőrségi Almanach (Budapest, 1923), 47; A Fővárosi Rendőrség Története (1914-ig) (Budpaest, 1995), 361–62.

⁴⁶ According to a police report from 15 June 1886, six drawings (rajz) had been found on the Hentzi Monument. The police suspected Károly Hermann, a 30-year-old typesetter, who sympathized with the perpetrators, yet affirmed his innocence. As a “man of Magyar sentiment” (magyar érzelmű ember), he considered the monument a blight on Hungary's capital city. See BFL, VI.1.a, Magyar Királyi Államrendőrség Budapest Főkapitányságának reservált iratai, 246/1886.

⁴⁷ Rothenberg, Gunther E., “Toward a National Hungarian Army: The Military Compromise of 1868 and Its Consequences,” Slavic Review 31, no. 4 (December 1972): 815CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁴⁸ Censorius, Cato, Hentzi Szobra. Pár szó a helyzethez (Budapest, 1886), 6Google Scholar. Gizella Szatmári identifies Cato Censorius as Ferenc Bartha, a teacher from Papa, Hungary. See “A Hentzi-emlékmű,” in Történelem – Kép (Budapest, 2000), 686.

⁴⁹ Ibid., 16.

⁵⁰ Gunther E. Rothenberg, The Army of Francis Joseph, 119.

⁵¹ Liber, Endre, Budapest Szobrai és Emléktáblái (Budapest, 1934), 215–18Google Scholar.

⁵² Mavius, Götz, “Ungarische Denkmalkunst zwischen Tafelrichterstil und Millenium,” Ungarn-Jahrbuch 11 (1980/1981): 153–85Google Scholar. On a similar “statue mania” in France, see Cohen, William, “Symbols of Power: Statues in Nineteenth-Century Provincial France,” Contemporary Studies in Social History 31, no. 9 (July 1989): 491–513CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

⁵³ On the Petőfi statue, see von Klimó, Árpád, Nation, Konfession, Geschichte. Zur nationalen Geschichtskultur Ungarns im europäischen Kontext (1860–1948) (Munich, 2003), 79–85Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Letter from Kossuth to the painter Etelka Kovács, who collected donations for a bronze wreath on the base of the Honvéd Monument. The letter was reproduced in a tourist guidebook to Budapest: Kahn, Joseph, Das Heutige Budapest (Budapest, 1895), 103Google Scholar. The original Hungarian was published in Kossuth, Ferencz, ed., Kossuth Lajos iratai, vol. 10 (Budapest, 1904): 417Google Scholar.

⁵⁵ Quoted in “Zwei Monumente,” Abendblatt des Pester Lloyd (17 October 1892), 1.

⁵⁶ Ibid.

⁵⁷ The meeting in the Abazzia-kávéház, where Eötvös was a regular, is described in Mór Szatmári, Húsz esztendő parlamenti viharai (Budapest, 1928), 140–46.

⁵⁸ Ibid., 142.

⁵⁹ Letter from Lajos Kossuth to Lajos Hentaller, 18 October 1892, in Ferencz Kossuth, ed., Kossuth Lajos iratai, vol. 10 (Budapest, 1904): 390–93.

⁶⁰ Gratz, Gusztáv, A Dualizmus Kora. Magyarország Története 1867–1918, vol. 1 (Budapest, 1934): 289Google Scholar.

⁶¹ “A helyzethez,” Népszava (21 October 1892), 1. “A Hentzi-szobor ügyéhez nekünk kevés szavunk van. Ez nem a mi dolgunk; ebbe nem avatkozunk bele.”

⁶² The Arbeiterpresse (Budapest) did not run any articles on the controversy in October/November 1892.

⁶³ Ibid.

⁶⁴ Balogh, Piroska, “The Kálman Tisza Epoch: Liberal Party – Conservative Politics, 1875–1895,” in Ormos, Mária and Király, Béla K., eds., Hungary: Governments and Politics 1848–2000 (Boulder, CO, 2001), 72Google Scholar. Balogh incorrectly attributes the planned unveiling ceremony to Szapáry, himself. On church-state relations in Hungary, see Csáky, Moritz, Der Kulturkampf in Ungarn: Die Kirchenpolitische Gesetzgebung der Jahre 1894/95 (Graz, 1967)Google Scholar.

⁶⁵ “Magyarország rabszolgáihoz,” Olvasd! (8 April 1894), 2.

⁶⁶ “Hentaller megy felrobbantani a Henczi-szobrot!” Nyílt Levél (July 1894). When banned by the censors, Olvasd! appeared under different names, such as Nyílt Levél (Open Letter) and Kossuth Zászlója (Kossuth's Flag). The rumor proved unwarranted.

⁶⁷ Ibid.

⁶⁸ Takács, Zoltán, “Pusztuljon el!,” Olvasd! (April 1895)Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ MOL, K149 (Belügyminisztériumi Levéltár Elnöki Iratai), 1895, 22. doboz, 14. tétel, ff. 17–22.

⁷⁰ The only noticeable damage was a small, brownish stain on one of the plaques, which the Budapest police subjected to chemical examination. See BFL, VI.1.a, Magyar Királyi Államrendőrség Budapest Főkapitányságának reservált iratai, 233/1895. A satirical poem, “Hentzi-bomba,” appeared in Borsszem Jankó (7 April 1895), 2, making light of the incident. The third verse reads as follows: “Nagyot szóló magyar bomba,/Ördögöt se dönt az romba:/Sok zaj – kevés dinamit!/Mikkel Hentzi Pestet lőtte:/Negyvenhat évnek előtte/Rontottak is valamit.” (The Hungarian bomb makes a loud noise/It can't even destroy the devil:/Lots of noise – little dynamite/That with which Hentzi bombarded Pest / Forty-six years ago/actually destroyed something.)

⁷¹ “Bécsben megharagudnának s még talán revolutió is keletkeznék belőle.” MOL, K149 (Belügyminisztériumi Levéltár Elnöki Iratai), 1895, 22. doboz, 14. tétel, ff. 17–22.

⁷² “Merénylet a Henzti-szobor ellen,” Bucsánszky Alajos Nagy Képes Naptára az 1896 évre (Budapest, 1896), 41–43. For biographies of Szeless, see A Pallas Nagy Lexikon, vol. 16:536, and József Szinnyei, ed., Magyar írók élete és munkái, vol. 14 (Budapest, 1909), 636.

⁷³ On 24 May 1895, many of Szeless's sympathizers, including Dr. Zoltán Takáts, demonstrated in front of the French consulate in Budapest, demanding his release from French custody. See BFL, VI.1.a, Magyar Királyi Államrendőrség Budapest Főkapitányságának reservált iratai, 404/1895.

⁷⁴ “Az olvasd üldözése,” Olvasd! (May 1895), 1, and “Dr. Takáts Zoltán,” Olvasd! (September 1895), 1–2. According to József Szinnyei, Takáts was arrested as an accomplice and released from jail in January 1907. See Szinnyei, Magyar írók, vol. 14:1251. Takáts published an autobiography in Magyar Hírlap (30 January 1907). See also Magyar Állam, 29 January 1907, and 28 January 1908.

⁷⁵ Szeless, Adorján, Fekete Könyv (Leleplezések), vol. 1 (Geneva, 1896)Google Scholar.

⁷⁶ “Szeless Adorján svajczi leveleiből,” Olvasd! (April 1895), 1–2. “Bujdosó,” literally “exiled one,” alludes to the Hungarian rebels who were forcibly exiled after participating in the anti-Habsburg revolts led by Ferenc Wesselényi and Imre Thököly. On “bujdosó,” see Bán, Péter, ed., Magyar Történelmi Fogalomtár (Budapest, 1989)Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ The following handwritten sign was found posted on Budapest's National Museum on April 8, 1895: “Tisztelt honfiak. Ezen feliratban kérdezem a magyar néptől, hogy hól [sic] van a magyar érzés! Nem tagadhatom van, de nem mindnyájunkba; csak egyes személyekben. Kértem ki az? Nemdoktor Takács [sic] Zoltán? Égen az! Büszkén s mondhatom, hogy az! Ki meg érdemli a méltó tiszteletét. Megérdemli az is, a ki az átkozott Henczi szobrát meg bombázta. Éljen doktor Takács [sic!] Zoltán. Éljen a merénylő. (Kérem a tisztelt olvasót ezen feliratott meg oldani, mert az időm szüke miatt ezen felirat hibásan van ki állitva meg nem elég meg magyarázá mint kellene lenie. Nevem N Z.” In English: Honorable patriots! In this proclamation, I ask the Hungarian people: where is the Hungarian sentiment! I cannot deny that it exists, but not in all of us; only in certain individuals. Did I ask who it is? Is it not Doctor Zoltán Takács. Yes, it is he. I can proudly say that! He deserves a proper honor. So does the person who blew up the cursed Hentzi Monument. Long live Doctor Zoltán Takács. Long live the assailant! (I kindly ask the respected reader of this proclamation to decipher it. My time was short, so this proclamation was posted with mistakes and not as Hungarian as it should be. My name is Z N). MOL, K149, 1895, 22. doboz, 14. tétel, f. 13.

⁷⁸ Sándor, Adorján, “Világ folyása,” Ország-Világ (31 March 1895), 221–22Google Scholar. In France, Szeless served five months in prison for embezzlement and was released to the Hungrian authorities on condition that charges would not be brought against him for the attack on the Hentzi Monument. Upon his return to Hungary, he found employment—rather surprisingly—as a clerk at the Hungarian ministry of finance. He died on 22 February 1919, at the age of 61, less than five months after the Hentzi Monument was finally dismantled.

⁷⁹ “Ein Attentat auf das Hentzi-Denkmal,” Pester Lloyd. Abendblatt (2 April 1892), 1; “Merénylet a Henzti-szobor ellen,” Bucsánszky Alajos Nagy Képes Naptára az 1896 évre (Budapest, 1896), 41–43.

⁸⁰ Palmer, Francis H. E., Austro-Hungarian Life in Town and Country (London, [1903]), 196Google Scholar. The adoration of Elizabeth (“Sissy”) among Hungarians was legion. This is reflected in a pamphlet (“What should the Elizabeth memorial be like?”), which refers to the recently assassinated Empress as “Magyar Elizabeth” (magyar Erzsébet), “Saint Elizabeth” (Szent Erzsébet), or simply “our Queen Elizabeth” (Erzsébet királynénk). See Thewrewk, István, Milyen legyen a királyné emlékszobra? (Besztrercebánya, 1898)Google Scholar, and Endre Liber, Budapest Szobrai, 408–15. On the Elizabeth cult in Hungary, see Gerő, András, “A Hungarian Cult: Queen Elizabeth of Bavaria,” in his Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience (Budapest, 1995), 223–37Google Scholar.

⁸¹ In March 1848, the fiftieth anniversary of the Revolution of 1848, the Hungarian government had already declared his intention to remove the Hentzi Monument from St. George Square. See Alice Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 285.

⁸² “A Hentzi-szobor Bécsben,” Országos Hírlap (9 November 1898), 7; “A Hentzi-szobor és a bécsiek,” Országos Hírlap (13 November 1898), 8. The campaign to move the Hentzi Monument to Vienna was spearheaded by J. Schlesinger, J. Veith, and A. Veszelsky. There was sharp opposition to this idea from Mayor Karl Lueger and other anti-Semitic Viennese politicians.

⁸³ “A Hentzi-szobor áthelyezése,” Pesti Hírlap (17 November 1898), 5; “Die Übertragung des Kriegerdenkmales,” Das Vaterland (17 November 1898), 4.

⁸⁴ “A Hentzi-kérdés,” Budapesti Hírlap (11 August 1899), 1.

⁸⁵ On the change of semiotic status effected by transferring monuments, see Levinson, Sanford, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Durham, NC and London, 1998), 68Google Scholar.

⁸⁶ Ibid., 69.

⁸⁷ Ibid., 197. In his biography of Francis Joseph, Anatol Murad wrote: “Fifty years after Hentzi's death, Franz Joseph, instead of sending flowers, gave in to Hungarian pressure and ordered the removal of the monument which had been erected on the spot of the hero's fall! Franz Joseph was indeed living up to the reputation for ingratitude enjoyed by the house of Habsburg ever since Wallenstein was murdered in 1634, and was thus rewarded for his services to the Emperor Ferdinand II!” Murad, Antol, Franz Joseph I of Austria and His Empire (New York, 1968), 177Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ “A Hentzi-ügy,” Országos Hírlap (12 November 1898), 4.

⁸⁹ “A Hentzi-hecz,” Népszava (12 August 1899), 3.

⁹⁰ József Matskássy, “Hentzi porai nincsenek sehol!” Pesti Hírlap (28 May 1920). According to Matskássy, when Hentzi's widow passed away in 1861, she was authorized to be buried together with her late husband. When the grave was opened, only an empty coffin was to be found.

⁹¹ “A Hentzi-ügy,” Egyetértés (11 August 1899), 220.

⁹² “The Hentzi Monument,” The Times of London (30 September 1899).

⁹³ “A Hentzi-ünnep,” Budapesti Hírlap (12 August 1899), 5; “Honvéd-szobor—Hentzi-emlék” (13 August 1899), 2–4.

⁹⁴ “Hentzi-Huszár,” in Vezér, Erzsébet, ed., Ady Endre összes prózai művei, vol. 1 (Budapest, 1973), 527–28Google Scholar. First published on 16 August 1899.

⁹⁵ Gamboni, Dario, The Destruction of Art: Iconoclasm and Vandalism since the French Revolution (New Haven & London, 1997), 51Google Scholar.

⁹⁶ Paces, Cynthia, “The Fall and Rise of Prague's Marian Column,” Radical History Review 79 (2001): 141–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wingfield, Nancy M., “Statues of Emperor Joseph II as Sites of German Identity,” in Bucur, Maria and Wingfield, Nancy M., eds., Staging the Past, 193Google Scholar; and Wingfield, Nancy M. and Paces, Cynthia J., “The Sacred and the Profane: Religion and Nationalism in the Bohemian Crownlands, 1880–1920,” in Judson, Pieter and Rozenblit, Marsha, ed., Constructing Nationalities in East Central Europe (New York, 2004), 107–25Google Scholar.

⁹⁷ “A Hencziszobor megsemmisitése,” Pesti Hírlap (3 November 1918), 7. Tolnay's authorization from the National Council is reproduced in this article. See also “Das Hentzi-Denkmal,” Pester Lloyd (1 December 1918), 12. The destruction of the monument is also described in J[enő] B[enda], “A Hentzi-szobor lerombolása,” in Oszkár Gellért, ed., A Diadalmas Forradalom Könyve (Budapest, [1918]), 185–86.

⁹⁸ Viktória Czaga, “A Harcos Emlék,” 101–03. For correspondence between the Budapest Historical Museum and the Budapest city council, see also Budapesti Történeti Múzeum, Régészeti adattár, Kiscelli Múzeum irátanyaga 156/119 (2 May 1919) and 235/1919 (22 August 1919).

⁹⁹ “Hentzi Emlékszobrai,” Az Ernst-Múzeum Aukciói X (Budapest, 1920), 44 (Lot 721); Reéz, Pál, “Dobra kerül a Hentzi-szobor,” Az Ujság (1 January 1920)Google Scholar; “Elárverezték a Hentzi-szobor mellékalakjait,” Magyarország (7 February 1920).

¹⁰⁰ Some contemporary reports referred to Truth (Igazság) as Justice (Igazságosság).

¹⁰¹ “Szobrokat loptak a kiscelli múzeumból,” Világ (20 January 1948), 3; “Rendőrségi hírek,” Magyar Nemzet (20 January 1948), 3.

¹⁰² Dezső Ringer (d. 1948), an art collector in Budapest, purchased Truth and Vigilance at the Ernst Museum auction; and both statues remained in his family until 2002, when they were sold to the Kiscelli Museum. I would like to thank Ringer's grandson, Miklós Réthelyi (and his wife, Klára Szentágothai) for sharing their memories of the statues, which had been located in the garden in Keszthely. Ironically, the Hentzi Monument (or at least part of it) ended up in a family with roots in the Honvéd army: Klára Szentágothai's great-great-great grandfather was Sándor Lumniczer (1821–1893), Arthur Görgey's military doctor during the Revolution of 1848–1849.

¹⁰³ “A Hentzi-szobrot,” Magyarország (21 May 1926).

¹⁰⁴ Tábori, Kornél, “Eltünt és eldugott szobrok Budapesten,” Lantos Magazin (15 May 1930), 821Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ “Orientace maďarského studentstva,” Národni archiv (Prague), Policjni ředitelstvi Praha II, prezidium, Sign. S 115/22/I, Karton 1401. This document, which I encountered during my research on Hungarian Jewish students in Czechoslovakia, first piqued my interest in the Hentzi Monument.

¹⁰⁶ Quoted from József Holló's speech (“Heinrich Hentzi tábornok síremlék avatása”), dated 21 May 1999, delivered 20 May 1999. I would like to thank József Holló for making his speech available to me and for sharing his thoughts about the occasion.

¹⁰⁷ During our discussions, Major-General Holló echoed the sentiments expressed in his speech, noting that the commemoration ceremony was necessitated by “military honor” (katonai becsület), because Hentzi had fought and died valorously. “A dead body is not our enemy” (egy holttest nem az ellenségünk), he declared. (Interview with József Holló, Budapest, 17 February 2007.)

¹⁰⁸ Katona, Csaba, “Hentzi emléke,” Népszabadság (31 May 1999), 35Google Scholar; Szatucsek, Zoltán, “A mindenhonnan kiutált Hentzi-szobor,” Népszabadság (11 December 1999), 40Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁹ Péter Hanák, “Die Parallelaktion von 1898,” 115. Hanák coined the term “Hentzi complex.”