Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T04:12:39.718Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Austro-Hungarian Compromise, 1867–1918: A Half Century of Diagnosis; Fifty Years of Post-Mortem

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2008

Leslie C. Tihany
Leslie C. Tihany
Affiliation:
Department of State
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The fall of the Dual Monarchy in October 1918, after a half-century existence, gave rise to a Schuldfrage which prolonged by another fifty years the polemics begun in 1867 about the constitutional foundations of the reformed Habsburg state. Both before and after 1918 the pivotal problem of the controversy had to do with the political wisdom and implementation of the Ausgleich or Compromise of 1867. The purpose of this article is to reconstruct the dispute over the Compromise in its successive historical settings through four generations of critics and, with benefit of their insight, to attempt a reassessment of the 1867–1918 edifice from a centennial vantage point.

Type
Articles
Information
Central European History , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , June 1969 , pp. 114 - 138
Copyright
Copyright © Conference Group for Central European History of the American Historical Association 1969

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. The negotiators of 1867 used the German word Ausgleich, which the Hungarians subsequently translated for their home use as kiegyezés. Both the German and Hungarian words carry the general meaning of a reciprocally accommodating agreement. The word Compromise, which entered Western historical writing at the turn of the century as a synonym of Ausgleich, sharpened the general denotation of the latter by adding the nuance that the reciprocally accommodating agreement involved significant concessions by both sides.

2. Count Julius Andrássy (1823–90), Hungarian statesman and diplomat. Participant in the 1848–1849 revolution; Minister of the revolutionary government to Turkey, 1849. Sentenced to death by an Austrian court and hanged in effigy in 1851. Hungarian Prime Minister, 1867–1871. Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, 1871–1879.

3. Hungarian text in Országgyűlési Törvénycikkek 1865–1867 [Articles of Law Enacted by Parliament] (Budapest, 1893), pp. 12–30.Google Scholar German text in Bernatzik, E., Die österreichischen Verfassungsgesetze (Leipzig, 1906), pp. 289–306.Google Scholar For the most recent treatment of Law 1867:XII see Radvánszky, A., “Das ungarische Ausgleichgesetz vom Jahre 1867,” in Berger, P., ed., Der Österreichisch—Ungarische Ausgleich von 1867 (Vienna, 1967), pp. 90–112.Google Scholar

4. German text in Bernatzik, , op. cit., pp. 379–89Google Scholar. For other acts of the Austrian Reichsrat pertinent to the Ausgleich, see Bernatzik, , op. cit., pp. 447–571Google Scholar. For the most recent treatment of R. G. B. 146 of 12/21/1867 see Hellbling, E. C., “Das österreichische Gesetz vom Jahre 1867 über die gemeinsamen Angelegenheiten der Monarchie,” in Berger, op. cit., pp. 64–89.Google Scholar

5. Lajos Kossuth (1802–1894), Hungarian statesman and revolutionary leader. Minister of Finance, 1848. Governor-President, 1849. Recognized leader of the Hungarian independence movement during nearly half a century of exile.

6. Ferenc Deák (1803–1876), Hungarian statesman. Minister of Justice, 1848. Member of Parliament, 1860–1876.

7. Kossuth, L., Iratai [Writings], VIII (Budapest, 1900), 3–17,Google Scholar and Kónyi, M., ed., Deák Ferenc beszédei [Speeches of Ferenc Deák], v (Budapest, 1898), 1–8.Google Scholar

8. Kossuth, VIII, 16.

9. Kossuth, VIII, 10, 11.

10. Kónyi, v, 9.

11. Ibid.

12. Kossuth, VIII, 107, 215, 246, 265, 498, 531; IX, 252; x, 68, 118, 151.

13. Kónyi, V, 321.

14. Kónyi, V, 322.

15. Kónyi, VI, 153.

16. Andrássy, J., Az 1867–iki kiegyezésről [Concerning the Compromise of 1876] (Budapest, 1896), p. 31.Google Scholar

17. Andrássy, p. 241.

18. Count Friedrich Ferdinand Beust (1809–86), German–Austrian statesman and diplomat. Minister–President of Saxony, 1849–66; Austrian Foreign Minister, 1866–1867; Chancellor, 1867; Austro-Hungarian Foreign Minister, 1867–1871.

19. Beust, F. F., Aus Drei Viertel-Jahrhunderten, II (Stuttgart, 1887), 68.Google Scholar

20. Beust, II, 142.

21. Beust, II, 142–43.

22. Beust, II, 157–59.

23. Palacký, Frantisek (1798–1867), leading Czech historian of the romantic school.Google Scholar

24. Palacký, F., Österreichische Staatsidee (Prague, 1866), p. 77.Google Scholar

25. Quoted by Szekfű, G., Három nemzedék [Three Generations] (Budapest, 1935), pp. 200–201.Google Scholar

26. Léger, L., Histoire de l'Autriche-Hongrie (Paris, 1879), pp. 557–58.Google Scholar

27. Ibid.

28. For a critical biography see A. J. P. Taylor's introduction to the 1966 English-language; edition of Friedjung's The Struggle for Supremacy in Germany.

29. Friedjung, H., Der Ausgleich mit Ungarn (Leipzig, 1877), pp. 88–89.Google Scholar

30. Lowell, A. L., Governments and Parties of Continental Europe, II (Boston and New York, 1896), 122–23, 177.Google Scholar

31. Wilson, W., The State (New York, 1898), p. 336.Google Scholar

32. Auerbach, B., Les races et les nationalités en Autriche-Hongrie (Paris, 1898), pp. 331–33.Google Scholar

33. Larson, H., Björnsterne Björnson (New York, 1944), pp. 127–28, 154.Google Scholar

34. Eisenmann, L., Le compromis austro-hongrois (Paris, 1904), p. 659.Google Scholar

35. Ibid.

36. Ibid., p. 639.

37. Seton-Watson, R. W., The Future of Austria-Hungary (London, 1907);Google ScholarRacial Problems in Hungary (London, 1908);Google Scholar and Corruption and Reform in Hungary (London, 1911).Google Scholar

38. Wickham, H. Steed, The Hapsburg Monarchy (London, 1913), pp. 29, 206.Google Scholar

39. Denis, E., La question d'Autriche: les Slovaques (Paris, 1917), p. 281.Google Scholar

40. Count Karl Siegmund Hohenwart (1824–99), Austrian statesman. Prime Minister and Minister of Interior, 1871. Leader of the right center in the Austrian Reichsrat after 1873.

41. Hóman, B. and Szekfű, G., Magyar történet [Hungarian History], VII (Budapest, 1933), p. 343.Google Scholar

42. Hóman-Szekfű, VII, 334–414; and Molnár, E. et al. , eds., Magyarország története [History of Hungary], II (Budapest, 1964), 93–97, 131–61.Google Scholar

43. Hóman-Szekfű, VII, 395.

44. Jászi, O., A nemzeti államok kialakulása és a nemzetiségi kérdés [Formation of the Nation States and the Nationality Question] (Budapest, 1912), p. 347.Google Scholar

45. Kemény, G. G., ed., Mocsáry Lajos válogatott irásai [Selected Writings of Lajos Mocsáry] (Budapest, 1958), p. 55.Google Scholar

46. Kemény, p. 217.

47. Kemény, pp. 103, 243–44.

48. Kemény, pp. 214–16.

49. Kemény, p. 102.

50. Charmatz, R., Österreichs Innere Geschichte (Leipzig, 1912), II, 81.Google Scholar

51. Renner, Karl (1871–1950), Austrian Social Democratic leader; first Chancellor of the Austrian Republic 1918–20; President of the Austrian Republic, 1945–1950.Google Scholar

52. Renner, K., Der Kampf der österreischen Nationen um den Staat (Leipzig and Vienna, 1902), pp. 7–8.Google Scholar

53. Renner, K., Grundlagen und Entwicklungsziele der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie (Vienna and Leipzig, 1906), p. 165.Google Scholar

54. Renner, K., Grundlagen, p. 208.Google Scholar

55. Jászi, Nemzeti államok, p. 496.

56. Bauer, Otto (1882–1938), Austrian Social Democrat leader, State Secretary for Foreign Affairs, 1918.Google Scholar

57. Adler, M. and Hilferding, R., eds., Marx-Studien (Vienna, 1924), II, 427.Google Scholar

58. Marx Studien, II, 405–39.Google Scholar

59. von Chlumecky, L., Erzherzog Franz Ferdinands Wirken und Wollen (Berlin, 1929), pp. 207ff.;Google ScholarKann, R. A., The Multinational Empire (New York, 1964), II, 189–93Google Scholar; and Dedijer, V., The Road to Sarajevo (New York, 1966), pp. 471–72.Google Scholar

60. Kann, II, 197–207.

61. Jászi, Oscar (1875–1957), sociologist, Minister without Portfolio in the Károlyi Government, 1918–19. Professor of Government at Oberlin College, 1925–1956.Google Scholar For a critical biography see Der Donauraum, XII, No. 4 (1967), 223–29.Google Scholar

62. Jászi, Nemzeti államok, p. 350.

63. Ibid., p. 531.

64. Ibid., p. 347, and Hóman-Szekfű, VII, 346.

65. Beksics, G., A dualizmus története [History of Dualism] (Budapest, 1892), 324.Google Scholar

66. Ferenczi, Z., Deák élete [Life of Deák] (Budapest, 1904), III, 307.Google Scholar

67. Wertheimer, E., Gróf Andrássy Gyula élete és kora [Life and Times of Count Julius Andrássy] (Budapest, 1910), I, 387–88.Google Scholar

68. Wertheimer, I. 350.

69. Kossuth, F., A kiegyezésrol [Concerning the Compromise] (Budapest, 1907), p. 3.Google Scholar

70. Above, n. 57 and 58.

71. A son of Edmond Steinacker. See above, p. 128.

72. Steinacker, H., “Österreich-Ungarn and Osteuropa,” Historische Zeitschrift, CXXVIII (1923), 411.Google Scholar

73. Lowell, II, 166.

74. Redlich, J., Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem (Leipzig, 1926), II, 675–76.Google Scholar

75. Redlich, II, 676. See also Steed, H. W., The Hapsburg Monarchy (London, 1919), p. 16.Google Scholar

76. Hóman-Szekfű, VII, 293.

77. Szekfű, G., Három nemzedék [Three Generations] (Budapest, 1935), pp. 194–97.Google Scholar

78. Gratz, G., A dualizmus kora [The Age of Dualism] (Budapest, 1934), pp. 1, 18.Google Scholar

79. Gratz, I, 10.

80. Jászi, O., The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1929), p. 108.Google Scholar

81. Jászi, Dissolution, p. 105.

82. Echoes of the Hungarian conservative school, freed of its conformist compulsions, are still heard in the present Hungarian emigration—the third in the history of the Ausgleich controversy. Miskolczy, Julius, Ungarn in der Habsburger Monarchie (Vienna and Munich, 1959), exonerates Hungary from the charge of having caused the collapse of the Monarchy, in which, he writes, Austria and Hungary “fell together, victims of their own mistakes and of an uncomprehending world” (p. 195). Miskolczy is critical of these mistakes and weaknesses, among which he gives priority to the short-term, decennially renewable span of the Austro–Hungarian commercial–customs agreements, which restricted and frustrated long-range economic planning and sound commercial policy (p. 138). His post-mortem of the Compromise is that it brought into existence a powerful state favorable to the high cultural development and material welfare of the Danubian peoples (p. 199).Google ScholarSólyom-Fekete, William, “The Hungarian Constitutional Compact of 1867,” The Quarterly Journal of The Library of Congress, XXIV, No. 4 (10. 1967), 287–308, provides an excellent juridical prehistory of the Compromise, which, he states, “was only possible because the Hungarian nation and its leaders took a firm stand on the continuity of law and remained persistent on this principle, as they had done for over nine centuries” (p. 307).Google ScholarBarany, George, “Hungary: The Uncompromising Compromise,” Austrian History Yearbook, III, Pt. I (1967), 234–59, comes to the conclusion that “the Compromise offered real advantages to both Austria and Hungary” and that it “permitted the Poles to have home rule in Galicia” (p. 252).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

83. Steinacker, H., “Das Wesen der Madjarischen Nationalismus,” in Walter, F. and Steinacker, H., Die Nationalitätenfrage im alten Ungarn (Munich, 1959), pp. 64–65. See also Steinacker's related 1923 article in the Historische Zeitschrift (above, n. 72).Google Scholar

84. Benedikt, H., Monarchie der Gegensätze (Vienna, 1948), p. 201.Google Scholar

85. Hantsch, H., Die Geschichte Österreichs (Graz, Vienna and Cologne, 1962), II, 485.Google Scholar

86. May, A. J., The Hapsburg Monarchy (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 41, 358.Google Scholar

87. Taylor (1941 ed.), pp. 278, 281; (1964 ed.), p. 153.

88. Droz, J., L'Europe centrale (Paris, 1960), pp. 161–65.Google Scholar

89. Kann, R. A., The Multinational Empire (New York, 1964), II, 128–29, 273.Google Scholar

90. Hanák, P., “Hundred Years of Ausgleich,” The New Hungarian Quarterly, VIII, No. 27 (Autumn 1697), 17–31, 19.Google Scholar

91. Galántai, J., Az 1867-es kiegyezés [The Compromise of 1867] (Budapest, 1967), p. 156.Google Scholar

92. Of interest to Western scholars among the publications of this school are: Pach, Z. P., A dualizmus rendszerének első évei Magyarországon [First Years of the Dualistic System in Hungary] (Budapest, 1955);Google ScholarHanák, P., A dualizmus válságának elmélyülése a XX. század első éveiben [Aggravation of the Crisis of the Dualistic System during the First Years of the Twentieth Century] (Budapest, 1955);Google ScholarSándor, V., Magyarország függőségének jellege a dualizmus korában [Character of Hungary's Dependent Status during the Age of Dualism] (Budapest, 1958);Google ScholarZsigmond, L., Die Zerlagung der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie und die internationalen Kräfteverhältnisse, in Etudes Historiques (Académie hongroise, 1960), II, 307–53, 310;Google Scholar and Gonda, I., Bismarck és az 1867-es osztrák-magyar kiegyezés [Bismarck and the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867] (Budapest, 1960).Google Scholar

93. Molnár, E. et al. , eds., Magyarország története [History of Hungary], II (Budapest, 1964), 72.Google Scholar

94. The author's efforts to be permitted access, for the purposes of this article, to the yet unpublished reports of the Bratislava congress, have proved of no avail. The forthcoming publication of these reports will throw additional light on the most recent phase in the historiography of the Ausgleich.

95. Diószegi, I., “A kiegyezés magyar szemszögből” [“The Compromise from a Hungarian Point of View”], Valóság (Budapest, 01 1968), pp. 17–26.Google Scholar