Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T08:48:35.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Society for Equality in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Laszlo Deme
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Hungary was a feudal monarchy at the beginning of 1848 and was part of the multinational Habsburg Empire. Although Hungarian publicists continually emphasized that the country could look back to nearly a thousand years of statehood and national existence, the foreign relations and the fiscal and military affairs of Hungary were directed almost exclusively from Vienna. Internally the country was governed by the native nobility, which constituted about 5 percent of a population of approximately fifteen million. The nobility exercised its power through the Diet and elective county assemblies. Nobles alone had the right to vote. Until 1844 they alone held public office, and most of them paid no taxes. The immense majority—the peasantry—lived in feudal bondage. The taxes of the serfs maintained the state, and their dues and labor services supported the nobility.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 31 , Issue 1 , March 1972 , pp. 71 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972

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. Pándi, Pál, ed., A magyar irodalom története 1772-től 1849-ig [History of Hungarian Literature from 1772 to 1849] (Budapest, 1965), p. 766 Google Scholar.

2. For the role of the Committee of Public Safety see the March and April issues of the newspaper of the radicals, Marczius Tizenötödike [March Fifteenth], and two important contemporary pamphlets: Ákos Birányi, Pesti forradalom (Martins 15-19) [Revolution in Pest (March 15-19)] (Pest, 1848), and Kléh, István, A pesti forradalom története 1848-ban [History of the Revolution in Pest in 1848] (Pest, 1848).Google Scholar

3. It is characteristic that even Petőfi, who was a nationally known poet and the chief organizer of the March 15 demonstration, failed at the elections. Petőfi, Sándor, Összes prózai művei és levelezése [Complete Prose and Correspondence] (Budapest, 1960), pp. 429–43.Google Scholar

4. Horváth, Mihály, Huszonöt év Magyarország történelméből 1823-tól 1848-ig [Twenty-five Years of Hungary’s History from 1823 to 1848], 3 vols. (Pest, 1868-86), 3: 399.Google Scholar

5. D Márkus, ezső, ed., 1836-1868 évi törvénycsikkek [Law Articles of 1836-1868] (Budapest, 1896), pp. 238–44.Google Scholar

6. This number was given by one of the radical deputies, Mihály Táncsics, in a contemporary newspaper article (Munkások Ujsága, July 16, 1848, p. 244). The parliamentary diaries show thirty-six opposition votes to the government initially.

7. Táncsics, Mihály, Életpályám [The Course of My Life] (Budapest, 1949), p. 253.Google Scholar

8. Madarász, József, Emlékirataim [My Memoirs] (Budapest, 1883), pp. 122–24.Google Scholar

9. Quoted by Fekete, Sándor, A márciusi fiatalok [The Youth of March] (Budapest, 1950), pp. 114–15.Google Scholar

10. The name “Society for Equality” reminds one of Babeuf’s organization in France in the 1790s. It is almost certain that the name of the Hungarian radical club was borrowed from the “Society of Equals.” However, to the Hungarian radicals equality meant only equality of rights. They did not even lean toward equality of means, which was the most important feature of Babeuf’s program.

11. Népelem Radical Lap [Radical Democrat] (hereafter cited as NRL), the official organ of the Society, gave detailed accounts of each meeting and printed the texts of all resolutions. It is the main source of information on the Society’s activities, which, so far as is known, have not been examined by any historian or commented upon, apart from passing remarks.

12. NRL, Aug. 2, 1848, pp. 111-12.

13. NRL, Aug. 8, 1848, p. 130 (text of the resolution). For a further description of the discussion on Jewish emancipation see NRL, Aug. 10, 1848, p. 139.

14. Kállay was not formally a member of the Society, but he cooperated with them on many issues. Once the question of Jewish emancipation was raised and was given emphatic support by the Society, the deputies in the Assembly agreed that it was desirable, because it was the logical consequence of the principle of equality. However, they wanted to discuss Jewish emancipation together with a bill defining Hungarian nationality and establishing immigration and naturalization procedures. See Beér, János, ed., Az 1848/49 évi népképviseleti országgyűlés [The 1848/49 Popular Representative Assembly] (Budapest, 1954), pp. 869-70Google Scholar, This work includes the text of the minutes of every parliamentary session and the rules, proposed bills, laws, and resolutions passed by the Assembly in 1848-49. Together with the parliamentary diaries edited by Pap (see note 17) it provides a complete account of all parliamentary activities.

15. Ibid., p. 873. The law eventually passed by the Assembly was submitted by the minister of the interior. The text followed closely Kállay’s original proposal.

16. Ibid., pp. 636-40.

17. Ibid., p. 685. See also Pap, Dénes, ed., A magyar nemzetgyűlés Pesten 1848-ban [The Hungarian National Assembly in Pest in 1848], 2 vols. (Budapest, 1881), 2: 222 Google Scholar. This work contains all the speeches and proceedings but not the resolutions or minutes.

18. Beér, As 1848/49 évi népképviseleti országgyűles, pp. 561-62 (text of proposed army bill).

19. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyűlés Pesten, 1: 387-439, 2: 1-40.

20. NRL, Aug. 18, 1848, p. 162.

21. NRL, Aug. 21, 1848, pp. 174-75.

22. NRL, Aug. 29, 1848, p. 199.

23. NRL, Aug. 24, 1848, p. 183.

24. Petőfi, Sándor, Összes költeményei [Complete Poetry], 2 vols. (Budapest, 1954), 2: 448–50.Google Scholar

25. Petőfi, Összes prózai művei, pp. 463-64 (letter dated Aug. 16, 1848).

26. Lajos Kovács, “A szeptemberi napok 1848-ban” [The September Days of 1848], Budapest* Ssemle, 35 (1883): 264. The palatine mentioned by Kovács was Archduke Stephen, royal plenipotentiary in Hungary.

27. Marczius Tizenötödike, Sept. 1, 1848, p. S8S.

28. Waldapfel, Eszter V., ed., A forradalom is szabadságharc levelestára [Collection of Letters Concerning the Revolution and War of Independence], 4 vols. (Budapest, 1950-65), 1: 399 Google Scholar.

29. Ibid., 1: 407.

30. Deák, Imre, ed., 1848: A szabadságharc története levelekben, ahogyan a kortársak látták [1848: The History of the War of Independence in Letters, as Seen by the Contemporaries] (Budapest, 1942), pp. 211–13 Google Scholar (collection of private letters and official correspondence of King Ferdinand, the palatine, and other important political figures).

31. An account of the meeting described by Topler also appeared in NRL, Sept. 6, 1848, pp. 227-28. In substance it confirms Topler’s report.

32. The question of the possibility of a second revolution in September 1848 is one of the least-examined aspects of the 1848 revolution in Hungary. Most Hungarian historians pass over the possibility with a few noncommittal sentences. An important reason may be insufficient knowledge of the newspaper of the Society for Equality. Perhaps those leaders of the Society who survived the revolution purposely did not deal with its activities in their memoirs to any great extent because of a feeling of patriotic piety. Since even the moderate Batthyány was executed by the Austrians after the revolution and became a martyr for freedom, no one may have wished to talk about revolutionary plots against his government after his death.

33. Quoted by Fekete, A márciusi fiatalok, p. 176. Kossuth’s estimate is supported by the fact that later the Society wanted to set up a private army of one thousand men.

34. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyűlés Pesten, 2: 148-49.

35. NRL, Sept. 6, 1848, p. 228.

36. The very moderate Deák described the futility of the mission in an embittered letter dated September 5. Károlyi, Árpád, Németújvári gróf Batthyány Lajos első magyar minissterelnök főbenjáró pöre [High Treason Trial of Count Lajos Batthyóny of Németújvár, the First Hungarian Prime Minister], 2 vols. (Budapest, 1932), 2: 9-11Google Scholar.

37. Pap, Dénes, ed., Okmánytár Magyarország fűggetlenségi harczának történetéhez, 1848-1849 [Collection of Documents on the War of Independence in Hungary, 1848- 1849], 2 vols. (Pest, 1868-69), 1: 403-18.Google Scholar

38. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyülés Pesten, 2: 157.

39. Viscount Ponsonby to Viscount Palmerston, in Correspondence Relative to the Affairs in Hungary, 1847-9 (London, 1850), p. 82.Google Scholar

40. NRL, Sept. 7, 1848, p. 229.

41. NRL, Sept. 10, 1848, pp. 241-42.

42. József Madarász, for instance, wrote in depth about the revolution in his memoirs but did not even mention the formation of the vigilante committee or the planned private army. Rather than giving any information about the Society, he chose to write only about generally known developments that took place in the Assembly during the September days.

43. Kovács, “A szeptemberi napok 1848-ban,” p. 263.

44. Károlyi, Németújvári gróf Batthyány, 1: 116-17. Kossuth and the radical Irányi protested in the Assembly on September 13 against the presence of these troops in Budapest.

45. Horváth, Mihály, Magyarorsság fűggetlenségi harczának története 1848 és 1849-ben [History of Hungary’s War of Independence in 1848 and 1849], 3 vols. (Pest, 1871-72), 1: 355.Google Scholar

46. NRL, Sept. 10, 1848, p. 244.

47. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyűlés Pesten, 2: 180-82, 195-97.

48. Hartley, M., The Man Who Saved Austria: The Life and Times of Baron Jellačić (London, 1912), pp. 214–15.Google Scholar

49. Károlyi, Németújvári gróf Batthyány, 2: 628-29 (minutes of the cabinet meeting).

50. Horvath, , Magyarorság fűggetlenségi harczának története, 1: 382.Google Scholar

51. Petőfi’s proclamation appeared in NRL, Sept. 20, 1848, pp. 273-74.

52. NRL, Sept. 15, 1848, p. 258.

53. Marczius Tizenötödike, Sept. 13, 1848, p. 627.

54. NRL, Sept. 13, 1848, p. 257.

55. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyülés Pesten, 2: 195.

56. Kovács, “A szeptemberi napok 1848-ban,” p. 263.

57. Kossuth’s suggestions and Batthyány’s response are in Pap, A magyar nemzetgyülés Pesten, 2: 242-44. See also the minutes of the Assembly in Beér, As 1848/49 évi népképviseleti országgyülés, pp. 234, 246.

58. Madarász, Emlékirataim, pp. 169-70.

59. Pap, Okmánytár, 2: 78-79.

60. Pap, A magyar nemsetgyülés Pesten, 2: 303-10.

61. Marczius Tizenötödike, Sept. 29, 1848, p. 689.

62. Beér, As 1848/49 évi népképviseleti országgyülés, p. 255.

63. Ibid., p. 273.

64. Pap, A magyar nemzetgyülés Pesten, 2: 344.

65. Táncsics, Életpályám, p. 265.