Pieces of a fragmented picture: Contemporary representations of the duality of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
The paper investigates the various ways in which the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy was represented, both officially and unofficially. It examines the creation of the official state symbols (the very name of the dual state, its flag, coat of arms, anthem, commemorative practices) and their dissemination. The representations of the dual state will be compared to other political representations within Austria-Hungary, mostly in the academic and artistic circles. The paper argues for the fragmented nature of the representations of the dual state and its limited resonance among citizens. The only major exception to this pattern was during the early years of World War I, when the duality of the state became more tangible for all citizens.
Himnusz, Szózat versus Gotterhalte. Imperial and national symbols in the Hungary of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy
Gotterhalte, the Austrian imperial anthem, was composed by Haydn in 1797, and its lyrics were finalized in 1854. Two poems were in competition to become the Hungarian national anthem: Mihály Vörösmarty’s Szózat (Summons or Appeal), set to music by Béni Egressy in 1843; and Ferenc Kölcsey’s Himnusz (Anthem), set to music by Ferenc Erkel in 1844. In the end, the latter became the unofficial national anthem, and after the fall of the Monarchy the official state anthem as well. After the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, the Hungarian lyrics of Gott erhalte were changed to reflect the independence of the Hungarian state. However, the Austrian imperial anthem remained highly unpopular among Hungarians, as it reminded them of the defeat in the war of self-defense of 1848–49, and the oppression and retaliation following it. As a non-opposition Hungarian author wrote, „an active or passive dislike for Gotterhalte is a matter of national tradition, upbringing, taste, and manners for us.” Its public performances were often sabotaged at the turn of the century. The Hungarian opposition at that time, the Independence Party, regularly used these scandals to attack the government, and in 1903 they managed to topple Kálmán Széll’s administration. The sources used for this study were releases of the contemporary press and the papers of the Hungarian Parliament. The study aims to 1) summarize the history of Gotterhalte’s, Himnusz’s and Szózat’s creation and public use, 2) discuss the failed attempts to create a Hungarian royal anthem, and finally 3) to examine the conflicts generated by the use of the imperial anthem in Hungary, and among Hungarians, with an emphasis on the period between 1896 and 1903, particularly on the first years of the 20th century.
”On horseback or on foot”. The creation and dismantlement of the Andrássy monument in the light of the sources
On 19 February 1890, the day after the death of Count Gyula Andrássy, Sr., former Prime Minister of Hungary and Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary, Prime Minister Kálmán Tisza proposed a bill to the House of Representatives about erecting a monument for Andrássy. Since the inception of the idea there had been serious debates about whether the diplomat Andrássy should receive an equestrian or a standing statue. Finally, taking the family’s wish into account, they decided on the former. The end of Andrássy Avenue, the current Heroes’ Square was chosen as the statue’s location. György Zala won the competition to build the monument in 1893. The originally planned architectural framework designed by Albert Schickedanz, a semicircular colonnade, was discarded. In 1894, a decision was made to build the Millennium Memorial at the planned location. The memorial also designed by Zala and Schickedanz can be considered a more developed version of the Andrássy monument’s original architectural plan. The square in front of the Parliament was assigned as the new location of the Andrássy statue. The sculptor wanted to place the statue in front of the main facade, but this was refused both by professionals and decision makers due to practical considerations. Since Zala regularly missed deadlines, the statue was inaugurated only in 1906 in front of the Parliament’s southern facade. The decision to dismantle the statue, which was damaged during World War II, was made in 1945 because of the construction of the temporary Kossuth Bridge. The fate of the bronze statue’s pieces can be tracked until 1950, after that the fragments were most likely melted. The reconstructed version of the monument was erected in 2015-2016.
Archduke/emperor/king Franz Joseph in Hungary, 1843–1867
Franz Joseph first visited Hungary as an archduke, later as emperor, and after the Austro- Hungarian Compromise as king. How did the young archduke; the stark, soldierly emperor; and the king ready to compromise appear before his Hungarian "subjects"? Who did he support or oppose? How did these visits change the image of the archduke/ruler? In this study we are examining Franz Joseph's changing image in Hungary between 1843 and 1867. Before December 1848, the Hungarian public got to know him as a healthy, young archduke and a promising young man. Starting from 1849, he came to the country as a military leader and a victorious conqueror, and a few years later as a Catholic ruler. In 1857, he introduced himself to his Hungarian "subjects" as a husband and father. Only in the 1860s did he visit Hungary as king, which happened even before the Compromise and his coronation. In general, Franz Joseph's travels in the 1850s were primarily characterized by an emphasis on representation as opposed to politics, however, this tendency turned around at the middle of the 1860s. The events of 1865-1866 were not only turning points in terms of politics, but in symbolic politics as well, since in these years the methods of symbolic politics were used to complement real political action, not to replace it.
How did Michael Manduka become Baron Mihály Horváth? An 18th century Greek trader among the new aristocrats of Hungary
In our study, we are attempting to place a lesser-known member of the 18th century Hungarian societal elite, Mihály Horváth, a trader from Gyöngyös, in the social, political, and economic environment in which he could become the first Orthodox trader to join the ranks of the Hungarian barons in 1794. Our study does not only aim to provide a biographical outline, but we also attempted to use the relevant material of the National Archives of Hungary, the Ráday Archives, the National Archives of Austria, and the Budapest City Archives to find out which factors made it possible for the subject of our study to have a career path atypical among the era's new aristocrats and Greek traders alike. During our research we partially discovered how the family originally known as Manduka, that most likely moved to the Habsburg Empire during the first half of the 18th century in order to leverage the benefits presented by the commercial treaties related to the Treaty of Passarowitz, accumulated its wealth and its relationships, as well as their movements within Hungary. We attempted to form questions about the strategy our subject had in his rise to prominence, and we also tried to answer these questions to the extent permitted by our incomplete source material. We could not form a full picture of Mihály Horváth's life due to our limited resources and the fragmental and unreliable nature of our sources. However, we could shed light on a prominent member of the late 18th century elite, whose career could have served as an example for the Greek traders who rose during the 19th century.
Stephen F. Austin and the birth of the Republic of Texas
2016 marked the 180th anniversary of the Texas Revolution, during which the territory formerly belonging to the Spanish colonial empire seceded from Mexico, and thus the Republic of Texas was established. Stephen F. Austin played an important role in this process as he founded the first American colony in the area with the permission of the Spanish, and then the Mexican government. Eugene C. Barker’s work of 1925, The Life of Stephen F. Austin, was the only monograph about the Austin-family and Stephen F. Austin for a long time, therefore it affected generations of historians. In 1999, Gregg Cantrell’s biography entitled Stephen F. Austin, Empresario of Texas was published, which, based on a wide range of sources, put Austin’s life and career in a new perspective. It took new aspects into consideration to make the highly idealized image more nuanced. While Barker’s biography depicted Austin as a humble, self-sacrificing statesman who worked tirelessly for his new homeland, Cantrell focused on his complex personality. He showed the reasons for his decisions; his dilemmas in his private life, as a businessman, politician, and diplomat; the challenges and opportunities he had; and most importantly, how all these influenced the history of Texas in the first decades of the 19th century. The aim of this study is to bring Stephen F. Austin into the limelight and examine his role in the Americanization of Texas from a new perspective, focusing on his relationship with the American settlers as well as the Mexican and American governments. The analysis is based on primary sources: Austin’s private and official correspondence, newspaper articles, travelers’ accounts, and other documents.
Elmélet és módszer