Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:50:34.929Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Habsburgs and the Hungarian Problem, 1790–1848

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 February 2009

R.J.W. Evans
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

ON 4 MARCH 1848 Hungarians were excitedly debating the devastating criticisms of their country's rulers pronounced before assembled members of the diet the previous day by the popular tribune, Lajos Kossuth, the culmination of a campaign of agitation which stretched back a decade and more. Kossuth called for a constitutional transformation, with a responsible ministry, full legal equality, and the abolition of all privilege. The following month his programme was conceded wholesale by the authorities, under pressure from the sans-culottes of Budapest, and prostrate before their own Viennese revolution—for Kossuth's speech had played a major part in unseating Metternich there. Six months later power passed to a fully secessionist Hungarian regime, in which Kossuth enjoyed near-dictatorial sway. The ensuing civil war, during which the dynasty was declared deposed, took a further year to contain; its outcome appeared to be a complete breakdown of mutual confidence between king and country.

Type
Research Article
Information
Transactions of the Royal Historical Society , Volume 39 , December 1989 , pp. 41 - 62
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Historical Society 1989

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 whole speech in Kossuth, L., Irások és beszédek 1848–1849–bōl, ed. Katona, T. (Budapest, 1987), 12–26, quoted at p. 19Google Scholar. Convenient summaries of succeeding events in Magyarország története. Vol. VI: 1848–go, ed. Kovács, E. (2 vols., Budapest, 1979), ii. 61Google Scholar ff. (by Gy. Spira); and, in English, in Deák, I., The Lawful Revolution: Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848–9 (New York, 1979)Google Scholar.

2 Marczali, H., Az 1790/1 diki országgyūlés(2 vols., Budapest, 1907)Google Scholar, passim; Gragger, R., PreuBen, Weimar und die ungarische Königskrone (Berlin/Leipzig, 1923)Google Scholar.

3 Convenient summaries in Magyarország története. Vol. V: 1790–1848, ed. Merei, Gy. (2 vols., Budapest, 1980), i. 159–212 (by K.Benda); and, in English, inGoogle ScholarWangermann, E., From Joseph II to the Jacobin Trials (2nd edn., Oxford, 1968), esp. 10ffGoogle Scholar.

4 There is no adequate study of the army for the period in question, but much may be derived from recent studies of the subsequent period: Schmidt-Brentano, A., Die Armee in Österreich. Militär, Staat und Geseltschaft, 1848–67(Boppard a.R., 1975)Google Scholar; Rothenberg, G. E., The Army of Francis Joseph (W. Lafayette, Ind., 1976)Google Scholar; Die Habsburgermonarchie, 1848–1918, ed. Wandruszka, A. and Urbanitsch, P.. Vol. V: Die bewaffnete Macht (Vienna, 1987)Google Scholar.

5 Major reappraisal of the eighteenth-century evidence in Kosary, D., Mūvelōdis a XVIII. századi Magyarországon (Budapest, 1980)Google Scholar, and Bálazs, E. H., Bálezs Bécs és Pest-Buda a régi századvégeken (Budapest, 1988)Google Scholar. Cf. Evans, R.J. W., ‘Maria Theresa and Hungary’, in ‘Enlightened Absolutism’: Reform and Reformers in Later Eighteenth-Century Europe, ed. Scott, H. M. (1989), 189–207Google Scholar.

6 In general Narczali, 1790/1-diki országgyūlis; Horvath, M., Magyarország történelme, vol. viii (Budapest, 1873), 129ffGoogle Scholar., 199ff. Cf. the argument of Mályusz, E. in the introduction to his edn. of Sándor Lipót fōherceg nádor iratai, 1790–5 (Budapest, 1926), esp. pp. 137–41Google Scholar. Graphic description of the renewed pledge in Országos Levéltár (National Archives, Budapest, hereafter ‘OL’), P 1765, csomó 86, nos. 9850 seqq.

7 Mályusz, , Sándor Lipót, esp. 1 72ff., for 1794–5Google Scholar. Domanovszky, S., József nádor élete (2 vols., Budapest, 1944)Google Scholar, for the next period, complementing Wertheimer, E., Ausztria és Magyarország a tizenkilencedik század elsō tizedében (2 vols., Budapest, 1890–1822)Google Scholar, and Horváth, Magyarország történelme. Still fundamental for the early 1820s: Horváth, M., Huszonöl év Magyarország történelmébōl 1823–tól 1848-ig (2 vols., Geneva, 1864), i. 3–134Google Scholar.

8 For 1848 in its historical context see, besides the works cited above, n.i, the classic account by Horvath, in Huszondt ev, ii. 567ffGoogle Scholar., and in Magyarország függetlenségi harcának története 1848 és 1849–ben (3 vols., Pest, 1871–1872); and the important new treatment byGoogle ScholarUrbán, A., Batthyány Lajos miniszterelnöksege (Budapest, 1986)Google Scholar.

9 Rapant, D., K. počiatkom mad'arizdcie(2 vols., Bratislava, 1927–1931)Google Scholar, i (for background) and ii (for 1790–2); cf. Evans, R.J.W., ‘Joseph II and Nationality in the Habsburg Lands’ in \‘Enlightened Absolutism’, ed. Scott, , 209–19Google Scholar.

10 Full discussion and documentation in Szekfu, Gy. (ed.), Iratok a magyar államnyeh kérdésének történetéhez, 1790–1848 (Budapest, 1926)Google Scholar.

11 I have found no evidence in Szekfu's collection, or elsewhere, of any governmental policy to favour the language laws in the hope of profiting from their divisive effects; rather there are dire predictions of their likely result. But more work would be necessary to confirm the negative hypothesis.

12 Kossuth's comments, in his speech of 3 March 1848 (above, n. 1) are typical in identifying bureaucrats as an emanation from Vienna: ‘a bécsi bürokratikus kormányrendszer… a bécsi rendszer csontkamarájából egy sorvasztó szél fúj reánk… a bürokratikus mozdulatlanság ama politikája, mely a bécsi statustánacsban megcsontosodott… büro és bajonett nyomorú kapocs…’.

13 Fenyes, E., Magyarország statistikája (3 vols., Pest, 1842–1843), i. 113Google Scholarc Cf. Schematismus inclyti regni Hungariae partiumque eidem annexarum pro anno 1839 (Buda, 1839), 97ffGoogle Scholar.

14 There is no history of the Chancellery; but cf. Fenyes, , Magyarország statistikája, ii. 119–24Google Scholar, and earlier Horváth, M. [also Mihály, but not the historian], Slalistica regni Hungariae et partium eidem adnexarum (Pozsony, 1802), pt. 3Google Scholar. Brief accounts of the administrative background in Barany, G., ‘Ungarns Verwaltung, 1848–1918’ in Die Habsburgermonarchie, ed. Wandruszka, and Urbanitsch, . Vol. II: Verwaltung und Rechtswesen (Vienna, 1975), 306ffGoogle Scholar.; and in Csizmadia, A., A magyar közigazgatás fejlōdése a XVIII. századtól a tanácsrendszer létrejö'ttéig (Budapest, 1976), 65ffGoogle Scholar.; cf. Evans, ‘Maria Theresa and Hungary’, in some ways a companion article to this one.

15 On the council, faute de mieux: Fényes, , Magyarország statistikája, ii. 124–8Google Scholar; Felhὄ, I. and Vörös, A. (comp.), A helytartótanácsi levéllár (Budapest, 1961)Google Scholar. On the Chamber: Nagy, I., A magyar kamara, 1686–1848 (Budapest, 1971), 288Google Scholarff.; cf. Fényes, , Magyarország statistikája, iii. 33ftGoogle Scholar.

16 For which see, most recently, Megner, K., Beamte. Wirtschafis- und sozialgeschichlhche Aspekte des k.k. Beamtentums (Vienna, 1985)Google Scholar; Heindl, W., ‘Beamte, Staatsdienst und Universitatsreform… 1780–1848’, Das achtzehnte Jahrhundert und Österreich, iv (1987), 35–53Google Scholar.

17 General characterization in Domanovszky, József nádor élete. Contemporary tributes by Kazinczy, F., Mūvei, ed. Szauder, M. (2 vols., Budapest, 1979), ii. no. 215Google Scholar; Horváth, , Huszonöt év, ii. 419–23Google Scholar.

18 Examples in Horváth, , Magyarország történelme, 248Google Scholarf; id., Huszonöt év, i. 130, 228, 285f.; cf. Takáts, S., Kémvilág Magyarországon (2nd edn.Budapest, 1980)Google Scholar. Defence by Wirkner, L., Meine Erlebnisse. Blätter aus dem Tagebuche meines öffenllichen Wirkens vom Jahre 1825 bis 1852 (Pressburg, 1879), 69ff., 129ffGoogle Scholar.

19 Much of the personal information in these paragraphs rests on general compendia, especially Nagy, I., Magyarország családai (8 vols., Pest, 1857–1868)Google Scholar; Wurzbach, C., Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Oesterreich (60 vols., Vienna, 1856–1891)Google Scholar; and Szinnyei, J., Magyar Írók élete és munkái (14 vols., Budapest, 1891–1913)Google Scholar. Sometimes the information is discrepant. More recent sources add little. On Pálffy see also Marczali, , 1790/1–diki országgyūlés, 59gfGoogle Scholar.

20 Ibid. 60f.; Wertheimer, , Ausztria is Magyarorszdg, ii. I7Google Scholarf. and passim (a negative view); Malyusz, , Sándor Lipót, 26Google Scholarf. and passim; Bakacs, I. (comp.), A Zichy család levéltára (Budapest, 1963)Google Scholar.

21 Debts: OL P 708, kütfo 21, folder 3, fols. 21f.; cf. Felloni, G., Gli investimentifinanziari genovesi in Europa Ira it Seicenlo e la Restaurazione (Milan, 1971)Google Scholar, app. 3. Sinecures: Mályusz, , Sándor Lipót, p. 508nGoogle Scholar.

22 Mailáth, J., Geschichte des östreichischen Kaiserstaaies (5 vols., Hamburg, 1834–1850)Google Scholar; Várady, Z., Gróf Mailáth János szerepe a magyar irodalomban (Maramarossziget, 1911)Google Scholar; Kazinczy, Müvei, ii, nos. 161, 229. There is much passim on György and Antal Mailáth in the literature on the 1840s cited below.

23 Kosáry, , Mὕvelὕdes, 388f., 410ff.passim;Google ScholarMályusz, , Sándor Lipót, passim, for his earlier career. Domanovszky, S., József nádor iratai, vol. i (Budapest, 1925)Google Scholar, covers the 1795 episode.

24 This account of Pászthory rests on his papers in OL P 643, csomó 30; on Kosáry, , Mὄvelὕdis, 327, 390, 444–5, 465, 473; and on the scattered references inGoogle ScholarMarczali, , 1700–1-diki országgyὄlés, and in Hajdu, L., II József igazgalási reformjai Magyarországon (Budapest, 1982), esp. 103ffGoogle Scholar.

25 For Pászthory's English: OL P 643, csomó 30, fols. 3i2f.; Hajdu, L., A közjószolgálátdban (Budapest, 1983), 96, 109Google Scholar. For the language decree: Szekfὄ, , Iratok, pp. 34ffGoogle Scholar. Freemasonry: OL, loc. cit. fols. 3156ff. See also the verdict of Kazinczy, Muvei, i.

26 Szὕgyeny's papers are in OL P 643, csomo 29, including (tétel 8) the anonymous Szὕgyény Zsigmond… élet-rajza (Pest, 1828)Google Scholar; details about his family ibid., tétel 1, fol. 35; letters from his father ibid., tétel 10, fols. 3, 5, 12, 14, 21, 23.

27 OL loc. cit. tétel 4, fols. 47, 16–15; tetel 6 (salary). Kazinczy, , Mὄvei, ii, no. 179 (patriotism). Correspondence with Metternich and Stadion, OL loc. cit. tetel 9, esp. fols. 93ff., 151ff.; tétel 10, fols. 35–61.Google ScholarSzὕgyény-Marich, L., Emlékiratai (3 vols., Budapest, 1903–1918), iGoogle Scholar.

28 Hock, C. von and Bidermann, H.I., Der österreichische Staatsrat. Eine geschichtliche Studie (Vienna, 1879), 651Google Scholar; Kazinczy, , Mὄvei, i. 427Google Scholarff, esp. 438, 450; Wertheimer, , Auszlria és Magyarország, ii. 34Google Scholar (a negative view).

29 The dossiers are in OL P 971; cf. Kazinczy, , Mὄvei, i. 580Google Scholar.

30 These papers are in OL P 1975. They have an intrinsic interest which I hope to be able to exploit more fully elsewhere.

31 Mentions of music in Kászonyi's accounts, OL loc. cit. fols. 275—86. Vörös, K., ‘Zmeskáll Miklós udvari titkár élete és pályafutása’, Levéltári Közkmények, xliv–xlv (1974), 615–31Google Scholar. The quartet in question is that in F minor, opus 95.

32 Horváth, , Huszonot ev, i. 307–11Google Scholar, ii. 492f.; Révész, L., Die Anfänge des ungarischen Parlamentarismus (Munich, 1968), 148ffGoogle Scholar.

33 Fényes, , Magyarország statistikája, i. 113FGoogle Scholar., ii. I28ff. (numbers and tasks). The buildings are described in Gy Antalffy, , Reformkori magyar vdrosrajzok (Budapest, 1982)Google Scholar, passim. Much evidence of Magyarizing intent in Rapant, D., Ilegálna mad'arizácia, 1790–1840 (Turĉiansky Sväty Martin, 1947) though the results were not always commensurate: cf.Google ScholarSzekfὄ, , Iratok, I33ffGoogle Scholar., iyoff.; Zs. Kemény, , Vóltozatok a történelemre, ed. Gy. Toth, (Budapest, 1982), 504Google Scholar.

34 In general, and on mandates: Révész, Anfänge. On instructions: Degre, A., ‘Zala megye reformkori követutasitásai’, Levéltári Közlemények, xliv–xlv (1974), 143–60Google Scholar. On the unofficial meetings (kerületi ülesek): Takács, , Kémvilág, 150ffGoogle Scholar.; Kecskemeti, K., ‘La séance circulaire de la diéte hongroise á la fin de l'ancien régime’, Parliaments, Estates and Representation, vi (1986), 135–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

35 1780s: Hajdu, II József, 103ff. Early 1790s: OL P 643, csomó 30, fols. 310f., 413f., 451–3. 1800s: Wertheimer, , Ausztria és Magyarorszdg, ii. 75Google Scholarff. 1820s: Szὕgyény papers as above, n. 27; Horváth, , Huszonöt ev, i. 24Google Scholarff.; Haselsteiner, H., ‘Herrscherrecht und Konstitutionalismus in Ungarn: der Widerstand des Komitates Abaúj gegen das Rekrutierungsdekret von König Franz vom 4.4.1821’, Öslerreichische Osthefte, xvii 1975). 233–40Google Scholar.

36 For the violence: Horváth, , Huszonöt ev, ii. 3ff., 178ff.;., etc.Google Scholar;Révész, , Anfänge, 120ff. For the modus operandi (though they leave crucial questions unanswered):Google ScholarVarga, J., ‘A kormányszervek elὕkeszületei az 1843. évi diétára’, Századok, cxiv (1980), 727–48Google Scholar; Molnar, A., ‘Deák Ferenc és a zalai liberalis ellenzék megbuktatasa az 1843-as követválasztáson’, Levéltári Szemle, xxxvii (1987), 2, 47–59Google Scholar. Most historians from Horváth on have given these endeavours a bad press; contrast the vindications by Wirkner, Erlebnisse, and by Szὕgyény-Marich, Emlékiratai.

37 Much evidence in Horvath, M., Az ipar és kereskedés története Magyarországon (Buda, 1840), 321Google Scholarff. The two 1840 laws, which must be far the longest in the annals of the Hungarian diet, are printed in Magyar törvénytár: 1836–68 évi Törvénycikkek, ed. Markus, D. et al. . (Budapest, 1896), 109–45, 160–74Google Scholar; Wirkner, , Erlebnisse, 113ffGoogle Scholar.

38 On all this see Horváth, , Huszonöt év, ii. 140Google Scholarff. and passim; Gy. Miskolczy, , A kamarilla a reformkorszakban (Budapest, 1938), 107Google Scholarff. For legal reform: Sarlós, B., Deák és Vukovics, két igazságügy-miniszter (Budapest, 1970)Google Scholar; for the existing legal structure: Fényes, , Magyarország slatistikája, iii. 104–28Google Scholar.

39 Szekfὄ, , Iratok, doct. 19 (Pászthory). By the 1840s the last generation of Hungarian, as opposed to Magyar, patriots was rapidly dying out: prominent ones are discussed inGoogle ScholarJankoviĉ, V., Ján Caploviĉ, Zivot, osobnost', dielo (Turciansky Svaty Martin, 1945)Google Scholar; in Tibenský's, J. introduction to Mednyanský, A., Malebná cesta dolu Váhom (Bratislava, 1981)Google Scholar; in Fried, I., ‘Rumy Károly György a kultúrközvetito, 1828–47’, Filologiai Közlöny, ix (1963), 204–18Google Scholar; and in the autobiography of Pyrker, j. L., Mein Leben, 1772–1847, ed. Czigler, A. P. (Vienna, 1966)Google Scholar.

40 Horváth, , Huszönbt év, i. 541ffGoogle Scholar., ii. 67ff.; Varga, J., Kereszttὄzben a Pesti Hirlap: az ellenzéki és a középutas liberalizmus elválása 1841–42–ben (Budapest, 1983), 101ffGoogle Scholar.; Denes, I.Z., ‘The Political Role of Hungary's Nineteenth-Century Conservatives and How They Saw Themselves’, Historical Journal, xxvi (1983), 845–65Google Scholar, at 849ff.

41 Classic texts are Eotvos, J., Reform (Leipzig, 1846)Google Scholar, and Zs. Kemény, , ‘Korteskedes es ellenszerei’ (1843)Google Scholar reprinted in Változatok, 7–180. On the vulnerability of the diet opposition, Kecskemeti, ‘Séance circulaire’, I46f, conveniently brings together some statistics. Horváth, no friend of the government, nevertheless saw 1844–5 as a real missed opportunity for it: Huszonöt év, ii. 283–7, 304ff.

42 The bibliography on Szechenyi is enormous, and I cannot begin to do justice to it here. A very helpful introduction in English to his earlier career is Barany, G., Stephen Szechenyi and the Awakening of Hungarian Nationalism, 1791–1841 (Princeton, 1968)Google Scholar. The classic account of Szechenyi as reform conservative is Gy. Szekfὄ, , Három nemzedék. Egy hanyallo kor története (2nd edn., Budapest, 1922), 59Google Scholarff. Perceptive contemporary observers are Horváth, , Huszonöt év, i. 194Google Scholarff.; Zs. Kemény, , ‘Gróf Széchenyi István’, in Összes muvei, vol. ix, ed. Gyulai, P. (Budapest, 1907), 143–303Google Scholar; and, in English, Paget, J., Hungary and Transylvania (2 vols., London, 1839), i. 204–28Google Scholar.

43 On the querelle: Varga, Kereszttuzben; id., Helyét keresõ Magyarország (Budapest, 1982)Google Scholar, retailing much of the same information. Széchenyi, I., A Magyar Akadémia körül, ed. Szigethy, G. (Budapest, 1981)Google Scholar.

44 Examples of Széchenyi's national ardour in his Világ, vagy is felvilágosító töredékek (Pest, 1831), 63ffGoogle Scholar., 80ff; A kelet ne'pe (Pozsony, 1841), 42Google Scholarflf.; Magyar Akadémia, 41ff.

45 The diaries are published as Gróf Széchenyi István összes munkai, vols. x-xv = Naplói, ed. Gy. Viszota, (6 vols., Budapest, 1925–1939)Google Scholar. Cf. the argument of Evans, R.J.W., ‘Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy, 1840–67: A Study in Perceptions’, Etudes Danubiennes, ii (1986), 18–30Google Scholar, at p. 30.

46 Here again, as so often, Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon, forms the prime source, for all its vagaries. Cf. Evans, , ‘Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy’, 21ffGoogle Scholar.

47 Hock, and Bidermann, , Staatsrat, 143Google Scholarf. (quoted) and passim; Evans, ‘Maria Theresa and Hungary’ (Kaunitz); F. Strada, Izdenczy József, az Államtandcs elsὕ magyar tagja (Budapest, 1943, reprinted from A Bécsi Magyar Történeti Intézet Évkönyve, x).

48 Baldacci etc.: Szekfũ, Iratok, nos. 44–5,49; Hóman, B. and Gy. Szekfũ, , Magyar tortenet (3rd edn. 5 vols., Budapest, 1935–1936), v. 177f. A good example of 1780s propaganda isGoogle ScholarGrossing, F. R., Ius publicum Hungariae (Halle, 1786)Google Scholar; for the 181 os see Springer, A., Geschichte Oesterreichs seit dem Wiener Fneden (2 vols., Leipzig, 1863–1865), i. 178ffGoogle Scholar.

49 Takáts, Kémvilág. For the overall workings of the police: Beidtel, I., Geschichte der öslerreichischen Staatsverwaltung, 1740–1848, ed. Huber, A. (2 vols., Innsbruck, 1896–1898), ii. 77ffGoogle Scholar.; Emerson, D. E., Metternich and the Political Police: Security and Subversion in the Hapsburg Monarchy, 1815–30 (The Hague, 1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

50 OL P 708, kútfὕ 21, folder 3, fols. 90–100; Srbik, H. von, Metternich, der Staatsmann und der Mensch (3 vols., Munich, 1925–1954), i. 238Google Scholarf, 244ff.

51 For Metternich's ‘constitutionalism’: Haas, A. G., Metternich: Reorganization and Nationality, 1813–18 (Wiesbaden, 1963)Google Scholar; Radvany, E., Metternich's Projects for Reform in Austria (The Hague, 1971)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Apposite criticisms in Szekfὄ, , Iralok, 105ff.Google Scholar; Andics, E., Metternich unddie Frage Ungarns (Budapest, 1973), chs. 1 and 2Google Scholar.

52 Horváth, , Huszonöt év, i. 38–41Google Scholar; Andics, Metternich, ch. 3 (quoted).

53 Quoted from Srbik, Metternich, i. 436f.; cf. ibid. 465–71; Horváth, , Huszonöt év, ii. 274–83Google Scholar; Wirkner, , Erlebnisse, 146ffGoogle Scholar.; Szekfὄ, , Iratok, 109ffGoogle Scholar., and docts. nos. 144 seqq.; Andics, , Metternich, 219gf. and chs. 8–10Google Scholar.

54 Schlitter, H., ‘Die Wiener Regierung und die ungarische Opposition im Jahre 1845’, Beiträge zur neueren Geschichle Oslerreichs, iv (Vienna, 1908), 241–95Google Scholar; id., Aus Österreichs Vormärz (4 vols., Zurich etc., 1920), iiiGoogle Scholar; Szekfὄ, , Iratok, 65Google Scholarff., 106ff.; Miskolczy, Kamarilla. Metternich encouraged this view himself: ‘Der Tschechismus wie der Magyarismus hatten sich bereits verkorpert; der erstere auf dem Wege landjahriger Caressen von oben, der andere durch ein Erheben von unten’, Metternich — Hartig: ein Briefwechsel des Staatskanzlers aus dem Exit, 1848–51, ed. Hartig, F. (Vienna/Leipzig, 1923), 45Google Scholar.

55 Mályusz, , Sándor Lipót, 52 n., 387Google Scholar n. (Kaunitz). I cannot enter here into this subject, where traditional Magyar (and some foreign) suspicion has been much exaggerated; but see, briefly and accessibly on the most pressing and stormiest issue, Despalatovic, E. M., Ljudevit Gaj and the Illyrian Movement (Boulder, Colo., 1975)Google Scholar; and, for the fullest case-study, Rapant, D., Slovensky prestolny prosbopis z roku 1842 (2 vols. Liptovsky Sväty Mikulas, 1943)Google Scholar.

56 Horváth, , Huszonöt év, ii. 503Google Scholarf, 512, and passim; Kemény, , Váliozatok, esp. 264, 27if, 277ff., 402ff.Google Scholar;Schlitter, , Vormärz, 55Google Scholarff.; Szabó, I., Jobbágyok–parasztok: értekezések a magyar parasztság törléneteboὕl, ed. Fur, L. (Budapest, 1976), 2 72Google Scholarff.

57 Urbán, , Batthyány Lajos, 248. A prosopography of the 1848 administration is still lackingGoogle Scholar.

58 Marczali, , 1790/I-diki országgyὄlés, ii. 75–132Google Scholar; Horváth, , Magyarország történelme, 231ff., 30gff.; id., Huszonöt ev, i. 468–70 and passim;Google ScholarFényes, , Magyarország stalislikája, ii. 145ff., iii. 53–5Google Scholar.

59 The massive contemporary self-congratulation by Czoernig, C. von, Oesterreichs JVeugestaltung, 1848–58 (Stuttgart/Augsburg, 1858)Google Scholar, needs to be balanced by the yet more massive modern evaluation by Brandt, H.-H., Der österreichische Neoabsolulismus: Staatsfinanzen und Politik, 1848–60 (2 vols., Göttingen, 1978)Google Scholar.

60 See particularly [Eötvös, J.], Die Garantien der Macht und Einheit Oesterreichs (Leipzig, 1859), esp. 43Google Scholarff, 138ff; and Kemény's ‘Forradalom után’ and ‘Még egy szó a forradalom után’, in Valtozalok, 181–559.

61 Kászonyi, D. [junior], Magyarhon négy korszakai, ed. Kosáry, D. (Budapest, 1977)Google Scholar.

62 Latest on Eotvos's background is Schlett, I., Eötvös István (Budapest, 1987), 10ffGoogle Scholar. There appears to be nothing of substance on Lajos Tisza; but Horváth, , Huszonöt év, ii. 327ffGoogle Scholar., outlines his machinations, if such they were. For a shrewd interpretation of the 1867 Compromise as a product of traditional ‘transaction’, see Peter, L., ‘The Dualist Character of the 1867 Hungarian Settlement’, in Hungarian History— World History, ed. Gy. Ránki, (Budapest, 1984), 85–164Google Scholar.

63 Barany, , ‘Ungarns Verwaltung’, 311Google Scholar(quoting the president of the Administrative Court) and passim.