Abstract
In the nineteenth century, Hungarian liberals’ orientations were mixed: some favored political and philosophical goals, while others were anchored to more practical matters. Although ideas of the Enlightenment and the French Revolution deeply penetrated the thinking of Hungarian intellectuals, societal progress was slow and long in the making. Concerned liberals agreed that modernization was the most important thing for Hungary; many, however, supported the status quo of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and saw the development of Hungarian society within its imperial realm. In one respect they all agreed: the importance of Hungarian national interests and superiority of the Magyar nation within the context of the Habsburg Empire, an aspect that sets Hungarian liberalism somewhat apart from other European liberal traditions. Therefore, two fundamental questions remain to be answered in this respect: what kind of liberalism were Hungarian elites considering, and how did it actually translate into practice?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Robert B. Talisse, “Two faces of liberalism: John Gray’s pluralist politics and the reinstatement of Enlightenment liberalism.” Critical Review, 14/4 (2000), 456.
John Gray, Two Faces of Liberalism (New York: New Press, 2000), 6.
Ivan T. Berend, Decades of Crises. Central and Eastern Europe before World War II (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1998), 4.
On Kazinczy’ cautious reform ideas in contrast to Berzeviczy’s radicalism see Ambrus Miskolczy, “Kazinczy Ferenc, a politikus.” Kommentár, 4 (2009), 32–44.
On the literary and artistic tropes concerning the rising Hungarian national consciousness from the late eighteenth century, see László Kürti, The remote borderland: Transylvania in the Hungarian imagination (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2001), especially Chapter 5.
László Katus, “Egy kisebbségi törvény születése,” Regio, Vol. 4 (1993), 1.
See for instance the discussion on Miklós Wesselényi’s Manifesto of 1843–1844 by Ágnes Deák, “Miklós Wesselényi on the future of the Habsburg Empire and Hungary,” in Ignác Romsics and Béla K. Király (eds.), Geopolitics in the Danube Region. Hungarian Reconciliation Efforts, 1848–1998 (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1999), 21–40.
John Paget, Hungary and Transylvania with Remarks on their Condition, Social, Political, Economical, Vol. 1 (London: John Murray, 1839), 14.
Thomas Capek, The Slovaks of Hungary. Slavs and Panslavism (New York: The Knickerbocker Press, 1906), 189.
Isrván Deák, “István Széchenyi, Miklós Wesselényi, Lajos Kossuth and the problem of Romanian nationalism.” Austrian History Yearbook, XII–XIII (1976–1977), 71.
Keith Hitchins, The Rumanian National Movement in Transylvania, 1780–1849 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1969).
See Stanislav J. Kirschbaum, A History of Slovakia: Struggle for Survival (New York: St. Marin’s Press, 1995), 108–112.
István Deák, “István Széchenyi, Miklós Wesselényi, Lajos Kossuth and the problem of Romanian nationalism.” Austrian History Yearbook, XII–XIII (1976–1977), 73.
On Széchenyi, see Johann Andritsch, “Graf Isrván Széchenyi. Ein lebensbild aus dem Vormärz.” Österreich in Geschichte und Literatur, XV (1971), 88–105.
Quoted in Francis S. Wagner, “Széchenyi and the nationality problem in the Habsburg Empire.” Journal of European Affairs, 20/3 (1960), 295.
Johann Georg Kohl, Austria. Vienna, Prague, Hungary, Bohemia, and the Danube; Galicia, Styria, Moravia, Bukovina and the Military Frontier (London: Chapman and Hall, 1848), 216.
Antal Zichy (ed.), Széchenyi beszédéből, jan. 22-i országgyűlés, Grof Széchenyi István beszédei, összegyűjtötte és jegyzetekkel ellátta Zichy Antal (Budapest: Atheneum, 1887), 98.
On Kolowrat see, Robert A. Kann, A History of the Habsburg Empire, 1526–1918 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980), 249.
C. A. Macartney, Hungary: A Short History (Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1962), 148.
Steven B. Vardy, Baron Joseph Eötvös, A Literary Biography (Boulder, CO/Highland Lakes, NJ/New York: Social Science Monographs; Distributed by Columbia University Press, 1987);
Béla Menczer, “Joseph Eötvös and Hungarian Liberalism.” The Slavonic and East European Review, 17/51 (April, 1939), 527–538; and
Johann Weber, Eötvös und die ungarische Nationalitätenfage (München: Oldenbourg, 1966).
On the notion of Anglomania, see Nicholas T. Parsons, “Custodians of the Future, Scottish and English Influences on Hungary in the Reform Age,” http://www.scribd.com/doc/17274664/Custodians-of-The-Future-Nicholas-TParsons, accessed January 3, 2011; and also B. G. Ivanyi, “From Feudalism to Capitalism: The Economic Background to Széchenyi’s Reform in Hungary.” Journal of Central European Affairs, 20 (1960), 282–284.
On the relationship between the church and state in the nineteenth century see the chapters in, Máté Csaba Sarnyai (ed.), Állam és egyház a polgári átalakulás korában Magyarországon, 1848–1918 (Budapest: Magyar Egyháztörténeti Enciklopediai Munkaközösség, 2001).
For interpretation of’ Eötvös’s works in Hungarian, see Miklós Bényei Miklós, Eötvös József olvasmányai (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972);
István Fenyő, A centralisták (Egy liberális csoport a reformkori Magyarországon (Budapest: Argumentum, 1997);
István Schlett, Eötvös József (Budapest: Gondolat, 1987);
István Sőtér, Eötvös József (Budappest: Akadémiai, 1967);
Ernő Taxner-Tóth, (Köz)véleményformálás Eötvös regényeiben (Debrecen: Kossuth Egyetemi Kiadó, 2005).
Johann Georg Kohl, Austria. Vienna, Prague, Hungary, Bohemia, and the Danube, 1848, 219.
On the 1848–1849 revolution and Kossuth’s role one of the best English language sources remains, István Deák, The Lawful Revolution: Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848–1849 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979).
For the Serbian oppostion see the excellent Hungarian treatment by See József, Thim, A magyarországi 1848–49-iki szerb fölkelés története, I–II (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1930).
Keely Stauter-Halsted, The Nation in the Village. The Genesis of Peasant National Identity in Austrian Poland, 1848–1914 (Ithaca-London: Cornell University Press, 2001), 60–65; and
István Deák, The Lawful Revolution. Louis Kossuth and the Hungarians, 1848–1849 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1979), especially 119–129.
Whether Széchenyi truly suffered from mental illness and how he lived his final years at the Döbling hospital, see Domokos Kosáry, Széchenyi Döblingben (Budapest: Magvető, 1981).
László Katus, “Egy kisebbségi törvény születése. Az 1868. évi nemzetiségi törvény évfordulójára.” Regio, 4/4 (1993), 1–21.
See the studies by Peter I. Hidas, The Metamorphosis of a Social Class in Hungary during the Rein of the Young Franz Joseph (Boulder, CO: East European Monographs 1977); this topic is also discussed by
György Szabad, Hungarian Political Trends between the Revolution and the Compromise (1848–1867) (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1977).
See József Eötvös, A XIX. század uralkodó eszméinek befolyása az álladalomra, 2 volumes (Vienna/Pest: Prochaska Károly könyvnyomdája, 1851–1854); and in the German edition, Der Einfluss der herrschenden Ideen des 19. Jahrhunderts auf den Staat, 2 volumes (Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1851–1854).
The British reponse to Kossuth’s attempt to gather money and to liberate Hungary was a flat rejection basically because British imperialism was attached to Ottoman as well as Habsburg hegemony in Europe in opposition to Russian imperialistic expansion, see Samuel J. Wilson, “Lost opportunities: Lajos Kossuth, the Balkan nationalities, and the Danubian Confederation.” Hungarian Studies, 8/2 (1993), 175.
Lukacs, Lajos, Magyar politikai emigráció 1849–1867 (Budapest: Magvető Könyvkiadó, 1984), and
Kovacs, Endre, A Kossuth-emigracio és az euroai szabadsagmozgalmak (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1967).
Szemere did publish his memories while in exile, Szemere, Bartholome, Graf Ludwig Batthyány, Arthur Görgey, Ludwig Kossuth. Politische Charakterskizzen aus dem ungarischen Freiheitskriege (Hamburg: Hoffman und Campe, 1853). On Szemere see,
Róbert Hermann, Magyar szabadelvűek—Szemere Bertalan (Budapest: Új Mandátum Kiadó, 1998).
On Kossuth and his fellow emigrés see, Dénes Jánossy, A Kossuth-emigráció Angliában és Amerikában 1851–52, I–II. köt (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1940–1948).
Péter Hanák, The First Attempt at the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, 1860 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1975), 30–38.
Alice Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd in Liberal Hungary, 1848–1914 (Washington, DC: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press, 2000), 2.
György Szabad, Forradalom és kiegyezés válaszútján (1860–61) (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1867), 77–83.
Paula Sutter Fichtner, The Habsburg Empire: From Dynasticism to Multinationalism (Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing, 1997), 53.
On Deák, see Béla Király, Ferenc Deák (Boston: Twayne, 1975).
For recent reappraisal of the Compromise in Hungarian, see Cieger András, “Magyarország politikai kultúrája a dualizmus időszakában.” Múltunk, 3 (2000), 3–51;
István Diószegi, A Ferenc József-i kor nagyhatalmi politikája (Budapest: Kossuth, 1987); and
Mónika Kozári, A dualista rendszer, 1867–1918 (Budapest: Pannonica Kiadó, 2005).
András Gerő, Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience (Budapest: Central European University Press, 1997), 6.
Kossuth’s embryonic attempts to reframe the nationalities question date to 1850– 1851, when he described this in a letter sent to various American newspapers. In that letter, he stated: “Citizens of America! To you I declare with honesty that my final aim is the idea of Federation which would weld Hungarians and the other smaller neighboring nations into a Union, to secure the nationality and independence of each and freedom for all; freedom, not power was their desire. The sentiments of sympathy for our sufferings will inspire among the smaller states and races the wish for a fraternal confederation for that which I always urged as the only safe policy and guarantee of freedom for them all.” See, Bela Talbot Kardos, “From Kossuth’s unkown federalist papers,” in Francis S. Wagner (ed.), Toward a New Central Europe (Astor Park, FL: Danubian Press, 1970), 115.
Andrássy’s career, and his loyalty to the Germans, was ably documented by Eduard von Wertheimer, Graf Julius Andrássy sein Leben und seine Zeit, nach ungedruckten Quellen, Vols. I–III (Stuttgart: Deutsche-Verlag-Anstalt, 1910–1913). For a more recent evaluation of the man and his time, see
Rainer F. Schmidt, Graf Julius Andrássy. Vom Revolutionar Zum Aussenminister (Göttingen: Muster-Schmidt Verlag, 1995).
On the successful maintenance of political and administrative positions by Transylvanian elites, see Judit Pál, “Erdélyi főispánok a kiegyezés után.” Aetas, 24/4 (2009), 80–99.
For more discussion on the confusing state of the union, see, William M. Johnston, The Austrian Mind. An Intellectual and Social History, 1848–1938 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 335–335.
On the nationality law see László Katus, “József Eötvös and Ferenc Deák: Laws on nationalities,” in Romsics and Király, Geopolitics, pp. 133–160; and Eva Boka, “From National Toleration to National Liberation (Three Initiators of Co-operation in Central Europe),” East European Politics and Societies, 13/3 (1999), 435–474.
On the list of tolerated and accepted religions within Transylvania, see Josepho Benkő, Transsilvania: sive, Magnus Transsilvaniae principatus, olim Dacia Mediterranea dictus. Tom I. Editio Secunda (Claudiopoli: Typis Lycei Regii, 1834), xii–xiii. On the nature of tolerated religions, see Stephan Buchholz, Recht, Religione, un Ehe: Orientierungswandel u. gelehrte Kontroversen im Übergang vom 17. zum 18. Jh (Frankfurt am Main: Klostermann, 1988), 349–352.
A critical look at the Compromise is Péter Hanák, “Hundred years of Ausgleich.” New Hungarian Quarterly, 8/27 (1967), 17–31.
On industrial developments see, Ivan T. Berend and György Ránki, Economic Development in East-Central Europe in the 19 th and 20 th Centuries (New York: Columbia University Press, 1974), 86–87.
Ildikó Stéfán, “Gróf Batthyány Lajos halála és temetései.” Sic itur ad astra, 2–4 (1993), 6–17; and Aladár Urbán, “Gróf Batthyány Lajos emlékezete.” Aetas, 1–2, 2000, http://www.aetas.hu/2000_1–2/2000–1-2–05.htm, accessed January 3, 2012.
See Zoltán Tóth, “A nemzetiségi kérdés a Dualizmus korában (1867–1900).” Századok, 3, 1956, 368–393. Madarász’s fiery speeches were published in József Madarász beszédei az 1857–67. országgyűlésen. Pest, 1868, and later in his memoirs, Emlékiratam, 1831–1881, Budapest, 1883.
A. C. Janos, The Politics of Backwardness 1825–1945 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982).
Dennis P. Hupchick, Conflict and Chaos in Eastern Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1995), 50.
Editor information
Copyright information
© 2012 Matthew P. Fitzpatrick
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Kürti, L. (2012). Liberty, Equality, and Nationality: National Liberalism, Modernization, and Empire in Hungary in the Nineteenth Century. In: Fitzpatrick, M.P. (eds) Liberal Imperialism in Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019974_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137019974_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-43739-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-137-01997-4
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)