American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

From Confession to Constitution. The Hungarian MPs’ Motivation in the mid-18th Century*1

István M. Szijártó Eötvös University, Hungary

The Norwegian anthropologist, Fredrik Barth insists that we build ‟generative models‟ that do not describe forms but identify processes. „They are designed so that they, by specified operations can generate such regularities and forms.‟ It is to be discovered, which „particular constellation of the variables in the model‟ generates the forms corresponding to the „empirical forms of social systems.‟1 That is, the generative model is built well if we switch it on and, then, it produces exactly those phenomena that we can actually observe in reality. The Italian microhistorian Maurizio Gribaudi has given an example how to build a „generative model‟ in social history. Writing about a workers‟ quarter in Turin between the two world wars, he has found that identical socio-economic backgrounds may result in different mobilities – that is, usual macro-explanations do not work, they should be replaced by stressing individual agency.2 In what follows, I try to build a generative model for mid-18th century Hungarian parliamentary politics by identifying the set of factors which, when combined, produce the MPs‟ actual political acts that we can observe in our parliamentary sources. We build our generative model for the explanation of political positions taken because politics is an aggregative sphere of human social and cultural existence, summing up various motives, different endeavours. As the Italian Renaissance historian and political thinker, Francesco Guicciardini put it: “politics is life itself.”3 When Fernand Braudel tried to write the total history of France at the end of his life, his The identity of France was comprised of geographical, demographic and economic analyses,4 but not much later, the big collective venture coordinated by Pierre Nora, Realms of memory found that French identity is linked first of all to politics.5 The period between 1728 and 1765 is selected, since earlier work on the institutional history of the Hungarian diet suggested that it was in the mid-18th century that parliamentary politics underwent a major transformation: the political power of the lower house, and especially that of the county deputies, increased at the expense of that of the upper house, and particularly at that of the aristocracy.6 In this period four diets were held (1728-9, 1741, 1751, and 1764-5) as well as four little diets, called concursus in the late 1730s that had the voting for an extra war tax (contribution) as their single task.7 Of these, the one held in 1736 is included into this investigation. Of all 18th-century diets, it is the one held in 1728-9 that had the most occasions of personal voting. This is due to a growing insecurity as for which part of the MPs represented that pars sanior et potior, more eminent and wiser part, the opinion of which settled the

* The article is written with financial support of the joint project of the Russian Foundation for Basic Research and the Foundation for Support of the Russian Language and Culture (Hungary) "The Habsburg Monarchy: new trends in research of economic, sociopolitical and national development of the Central-European composite state", No 19-59-23005. I would like to thank Wim Blockmans and László Kontler for their comments on an earlier version of this text.

1

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 matter: it was not any longer evident that the lords represented these, and it was not yet an established fact that county deputies did so. Among these circumstances, the personalis, speaker of the lower house, not rarely called on the members to give their personal votes – something that was more or less exceptional in the 18th-century history of Hungarian parliamentarism.8 At the end of this selected period, in 1764-5, pamphlets appeared in a large number due to the heated political debates. These are our two main sources when trying to reconstruct a certain MP‟s political stance taken at the diet: voting and pasquils. Following into Barth‟s footsteps, I shall try to find explanatory factors for the motivation behind political positions taken at the diet9– mostly based on sources that simplify these to a binary antithesis between opposition and pro-government views. Votes and pasquils allow us to identify 411 political positions from the period 1728 to 1765, and there were 60 MPs whose political positions can be identified in at least two instances.10 We shall concentrate our investigation to these. Looking at their careers we try to uncover combinations of background factors that explain their political attitudes: geographical origin11, denomination, previous royal favour and office-holding. It can soon be found out that holding of royal office was a cross-section of all kinds of royal favour12 in the mid-18th century, just as everyone given land or a baronial or comital title by the rulers, or made a valiant knight with golden spurs at their coronation, also filled a post at some central administrative body (Hungarian Chamber, Council of Lieutenancy, Chancellery) or court (a district court, the Royal Court of Justice, or the court of appeals). It is, therefore, enough for us to focus on royal appointments.13 Alongside power (which goes with high office-holding), payment was a highly important source of motivation. In Hungary, the paid royal offices those were few in number and operated purely as a central body, except for those within the apparatus of the Hungarian Chamber. They may have had even more appeal for Hungarians in the 18th century than for the nobility in Western Europe or in Prussia.14 So here, in this investigation, motivation does not signify intention or purpose as in an interpretative approach, rather those identifiable factors are understood by it which inspired our politicians in the form of reasons fuelling them and goals that they intended to achieve. Writing of mid-18th century England, Lewis Namier outlined a political system driven by individual interests and based on personal connections, a world of patronage and corruption.15 Jeremy Black claims that Namier was, actually, examining an exceptional period in English history, one that followed the stormy beginning and preceded a similarly tense end of the 18th century, periods of sharp conflict, when questions of principle took over and politicians were not motivated by self-interest.16 The era under scrutiny here, 1728-65, was, however, similarly a political lull in the history of Hungary compared not just to the period 1703-11, but even to the 1790s, and so Namier‟s attitude towards politics might be adequate here, too. We shall, therefore, measure how many MPs were appointed to royal office after a diet.

Motivation Of the 60 politicians active at the diet in the mid-18th century and under investigation here, 12 were appointed to office, and 39 were not; while 9 MPs already were office-holders at the beginning of the diet. These aside, the success rate is close to one fourth. If we do not consider individual MPs, but think of the fact that they could take part in more than one diet, and regard these political appearances at individual diets or concursus separately, and also consider the promotions of several of those who arrived at the diet as existing bearers of office, we can say that out of the 76 cases 20 appearances at the diet can be seen to be

2

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 successful, that is, the rate of success was even higher than 25%. Understanding success in an even broader sense and considering the appointments of our MPs‟ sons, as in their promotion their fathers‟ political services were often of determining importance, the „rate of success‟ is rising to well above one third. The great majority, 36 out of 53 „unsuccessful‟ appearances at the diet, ones that did not bring appointment, are associated with county deputies (half of them) and the deputies of nine absentees.17 Of the 53 „unsuccessful‟ diet appearances, 29 are from the Cisdanubian district, 13 from the Transdanubian one, and only 10 from the two Tibiscan districts.18 26 are associated with Protestants and only 24 with Catholics.19 The 76 political profiles of the 60 participants at the diet (separately for the period of each diet) produce a total of 126 political positions taken at the diet, considering taxation and other issues separately. With respect to positions taken on taxation, the Protestants supported and opposed the government in roughly equal numbers (13:11), while the Catholics were rather more oppositional (18:22). On other subjects, the Protestants seem clearly pro- government (13:6), something that is, importantly, not only the consequence of the confessional debate of 1729, mentioned above, but rather a much more general tendency. Meanwhile, the oppositionality of the Catholics (10:17) is even more striking in this mixed field of political issues. Regarding all the issues together, we see the Protestants as mostly pro-government (26:17), and the Catholics as distinctly oppositional (28:39).20 It was among the Protestants coming from the Cisdanubian district that support for the ruler was the strongest, while positions pro and contra the government were about equal among Transdanubian Catholics; in the Tibiscan districts, meanwhile, members of both confessions were outdone in oppositionality only by the Catholics from Cisdanubia, among whom we see that more than two-thirds of political positions were taken against the régime. This examination into the confessional affiliation and geographical origins of politicians from the lesser nobility at the mid-century diets produces results that rewrite the image suggested by other sources, and the conclusions drawn elsewhere in the specialist literature. To take an example of the general view, in May 1712 the lords voted for a coronation gift worth 67,500 forints for Charles VI. The county deputies for the Cisdanubian district recommended a gift of 200,000 forints, while the proposal of the (largely Protestant) deputies for the Tibiscan counties was a mere 45,000 forints.21 On the occasion of a vote on 24 July 1728, the overwhelmingly Protestant Tibiscan counties unanimously (21:0) refused support for the ruler‟s proposal.22 Henrik Marczali characterized the position of the county deputies on the diploma inaugurale in 1790 as follows: “Transtibiscans are radical, Cisdanubians are reformist, Transdanubians are conservative, indeed reactionary, as we would say today.”23 But our investigation, instead of finding the Protestant-led „Tibiscan‟ counties of north-east and east Hungary as the „hard core‟ of the opposition, established that Cisdanubian Catholics were the strongest in oppositionality in the mid-18th century. This is confirmed by an analysis of the oppositional leaders of the lower house of the diets in the second half of the century. The centre of gravity appears in the north part of the central areas of the country, and two counties stand out: Nógrád and Borsod. In confessional terms, on the other hand, in 1751 four of the leading opposition figures were Protestant (two Lutheran, two Calvinist) and three were Catholic. We have 14 names from the diet of 1764-5, and we know the confession of 11 of these: eight deputies were Catholic and three were Lutheran. In 1790 there were four Catholics, two Calvinists and one Lutheran among the leaders of the opposition. A total of 25 politicians formed the élite of the opposition in these

3

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 four decades. Overall, the Calvinists were in the minority, and the Catholics were in the majority (10:15).24 That is, after confessional differences were taken off the agenda of the diet in 1729, and during the growing conflicts on the issues of tax increases and the protection of noble privileges, the mostly Catholic county deputies were the strongest force within the opposition. This foreshadowed the „united front of the estates‟ against the ruler, which came into being from the mid-18th century onwards, traversing confessional differences, and introducing to Hungarian politics the period of dualism of king and estates dominated by constitutional questions. While in the 17th century the Catholic estates often took the ruler‟s side for confessional reasons, in the first third of the 18th century a government that made a break with confessionalism would often take the side of the by now minority Protestant estates. From the middle of the century, however, confrontation between the estates as a whole and the government would be the standard state of play – a confrontation that would increasingly be one of principle.25 Let us now investigate what political positions we can identify with the careers of those participants at the diet whom we have thus far labelled „successful‟ on account of the offices they attained. Looking at these politicians as a group, it is striking that the majority of the 12 individuals‟ 13 political positions taken on taxation, the majority were oppositional (6:7), while on other questions the dominance of opposition positions was even more marked (3:6). It is worth looking at these surprising proportions not just in and of themselves, but also comparing them to the other groups formerly considered. The „unsuccessful‟ group, or those politicians not being given an office in the period after their participation at the diet, was also oppositional on taxation (26:30) and indeed on other matters (14:16) – but only to a similar degree (taxation) or even lesser degree (other issues) as the „successful‟ group. Unsurprisingly, we encounter pro-government majorities in the small group of those who held office from the outset and would not rise higher (2:1, 2:1), just as we do in the case of officials who would later be promoted (3:2, 5:2). Looking at opinions expressed on taxation and on other issues together, pro- government positions are twice as likely for those already in office, whether they would be promoted later or not (4:2, 8:4), while we see a certain oppositional advantage for the „unsuccessful‟ ones (40:46). The surprising conclusion is that the ones most likely to be oppositional (9:13) are precisely those the diet brought success to: those who previously were not well-paid holders of office in the royal administration and central courts of justice, but who would afterwards be given such roles. In short, it was not usually the most loyal MPs to whom the ruler would give such office, but rather precisely the combative opposition figures. On the basis of political positions taken, the first sub-group of the „successful‟ includes János Csiba, István Beniczky and Sámuel Blaskovich, all of whose every pronouncement was pro-government; the picture is a mixed one in the case of Ádám Niczky, Antal Adelffy, Ádám Vay and Sándor Czompó; those who were consistently oppositional (the largest sub-group) were Ignác Edelspacher, László Schlossberg, József Török, László Kvassay and Pál Tiszta. We see no similar traits for those whose support for the government brought success; Blaskovich was given only land, not any office. One of them, Csiba, was a county deputy with county office. The second sub-group, displaying mixed political positions, can more easily be characterized: here we mostly find county deputies who also held county office, predominantly Catholics and ones from Transdanubia. After a long political career at the diet, one characterized both by loud oppositional opinions and by flexibility towards the

4

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 government on a few key issues, Czompó was made chairman of the Transdanubian district court after the diet of 1741. Adelffy and Vay were initially up in arms against an increase in tax, then moved over to the camp of its supporters. It is not clear what position Ádám Niczky took on the issue of tax. The pasquils considered him loyal to the government. (With the example of Czompó‟s case in mind, it is tempting to assume that had he been in opposition, he might not have had to wait for a decade after the end of the diet to be given the chairmanship of the Transdanubian district court.) The members of the last sub-group, who were consistently in a position of opposition at the diet, and were nevertheless elevated to office afterwards, were, in addition to being Catholic, from the counties of the Tibiscan or Cisdanubian districts, and not from the Transdanubian one. Here, the cases of Török and Schlossberg are clear-cut: their opposition activity at the diet was followed right away by royal appointment. That is, although we might say that the broadest path to a royal office was nothing other than a consistently oppositional position, we can clearly see that there were ultimately a great many ways to achieve success.

Career paths We can combine our quantitative data on the MPs‟ background, their political behaviour displayed at the diets and their success in a generative model: we shall draw up several career paths using as few explanatory factors as possible still covering the complete field of political behaviour. This way, we can hope to identify the motivation behind the political decisions taken at the diet. Each career path links a hypothetical motivation with an observed behaviour (meaning political positions taken at the diet) and with a result, namely the attainment of a paid state office, or the lack of this. Three main groups appear: those who were entirely on the government side, those were entirely with the opposition, and a third group that displayed a mixed political behaviour. Let us begin with those members of the diets from 1728 to 1765 who were incontrovertibly pro-government. 1. Our first sub-group is that of the Protestants. Of course, in this period, because of the obligation to take an oath to the Virgin Mary and the saints on entering office, they could not yet hope to attain the administrative offices that this present analysis takes as the benchmark of success, and neither were they given aristocratic title at this time; even gifts of land would normally be substituted at best by financial rewards – as many would receive after the Pragmatica Sanctio was accepted. So, neither can it be assumed that the Protestants‟ political positions at the diet could directly have been motivated by hopes of an official post. Yet the first career path within this sub-group is that of those for whom pro-government politics at the diet was an investment, and who were satisfied with gaining only a few steps of advancement (from a rather low starting-point in social terms) – with the next generation achieving the main objectives. The career of Pál Prileszky serves as an example. (See Annex.) 2. Within the group of fully pro-government Protestants, the second career path is closely connected to the religious debate at the diet of 1728-9. András Szentpétery, György Eördögh and István Kenessey did not back the king out of self-interest, but rather the other way around: Charles VI took their side and protected them against the Catholic majority in the diet. That is, these landowning nobles were motivated as county deputies by the defence of their confession and the various interests of their confessional community, rather than any Namierian considerations. The career of István Kenessey gives us an example. (See Annex.) These two clearly distinguishable motivations and the two types of career path they imply, we have essentially covered all the Protestants in this group, the pro-government MPs.

5

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

3. Among Catholics pursuing completely loyal politics at the diet, the proportion of holders of office or those being granted it is very high: two-thirds. We have grounds to think that the „unsuccessful‟ third of cases concern those who followed the same strategy as the others: striving to attain social advancement by loyally serving the ruler at the diet (and elsewhere) – just not with success. They follow our 3rd career path. For an example see the career of József Petrovszky in the Annex. 4. Compared to those who would be awarded high office there were many more of those who arrived at the diet already in such a post, of whom complete loyalty was expected. With one exception, however, they would all be granted some kind of reward or promotion: their unwavering loyalty to the government brought results. The 4th career path is the successful twin of career path number three with the same motivational background. Antal Brunszvik gives us an example. (See Annex.) 5. A mixed political profile characterizes the second main group of politicians at the mid-18th century diets under investigation: on certain questions or at certain times they were pro-government, and at other times or on other issues they were oppositional. In the Protestant sub-group we again see two distinct career paths emerging. First of all, there were those who gave in to the government at the crucial moment of parliamentary debate, e. g. backing the ruler on matters of particular concern to him (like István Gyürky on taxation reform), thereby doing a great service to the king. This 5th career path is thus founded on the motivation of self-interest, and it applies to such Protestant deputies who might deliberately have flaunted their decisions, but who would end up supporting royal initiatives. Alongside Gyürky, Gábor Prónay also belongs here. The 5th career path is successful despite being associated with the political strategy of the Protestants: Gyürky was also given a gift of land before the diet, then his grandson became councillor at the chancellery, judge of the court of appeals, and supremus comes, while for Prónay it was his sons who would build great careers, to the point of one of them being a candidate to the office of palatine, the number one high dignitary of Hungary. (As an example, see the career of the latter in the Annex.) 6. The 6th career path will again return us to the debate of 1729: Pál Katona, János Radvánszky, Sámuel Bohus (and most probably Gábor Máriássy) were Protestant county deputies who during the confessional disputes of 1729 found themselves drifting to the king‟s side (thereby contradicting their original, oppositional standpoints, for example on the issue of tax). It is clear that this group is very similar to that described with the second career path, where religious conviction as a fundamental motivation presents itself in the background. This not only induced fully pro-government activity at the diet but was also consistent with a mixed political profile that was similarly unsuccessful in terms of social advancement. (In the Annex, Sámuel Bohus‟ career serves as an example.) 7. In the case of the Catholic deputies furthering partly pro-government and partly oppositional positions, we should presume a third kind of motivation beyond self-interest in social elevation and confessional considerations: that of representing the interests of the „country‟, of the public good or national interests.26 These considerations of principle appear in the case of the fresh baron Márton Szeleczky turning against the government on the taxation question. He embodies the following career path, the seventh. We see that, in certain cases, in the defence of noble privileges and the country‟s institutions (its „rights and freedoms‟, or, in later parlance, its constitution), even otherwise loyal Catholics could turn against the régime– and not for confessional reasons. The same can be said of Ádám Horváth of Muranicz, who was a county deputy as a baron, and although he appeared oppositional on the issue of the tax increase, he supported the government on the reform of the tax base. His

6

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 son was appointed to a district court. Evidently, the notion of the public good, or the „national interest‟, could be understood in various different ways: as a defence of the poor masses, the so called misera plebs contribuens, opposing tax increases (in the case of Horváth), and as an espousal of noble privileges, taking a stand against the reform of the tax base (in the case of Szeleczky). Later it was clearly the latter that amounted to a defence of the constitution. The 7th career path is, therefore of those politicians who displayed a mixed political profile (political positions that were partly pro-government and partly oppositional), behind which we must assume there were considerations of principle. For an example, see the career of Márton Szeleczky in the Annex. 8. If some MPs initially rejected the taxation proposals, then gave in and became supporters of a tax increase, they were acting as did those Protestants we devoted the 5th career path to: those who would ultimately adjust their political positions to serve their own personal progress. Of those Catholics who flaunted their political positions, some shared the short-term lack of success of the Protestants (8th career path), while for others this behaviour could even lead to success. (9th career path) The life of János Okolicsányi is typical of the former. (See Annex.) 9. For those who flaunted their political positions, there was opportunity for direct success if they were Catholics. In contrast to the previous group, the following would achieve success as defined by attaining high office: Antal Adelffy, Ádám Vay, Ádám Niczky (9th career path). For example, the opposition politics of Sándor Czompó lasted a diet and a half, but did come to end, and his volte-face did indeed bring him an official appointment. (See Annex.) 10. The last main group in our survey of 18th-century political careers is that of members of the diet who consistently expressed opposition positions. Let us again begin with the Protestants, who at this time could not hope to attain royal administrative office in their persons. In the confessional conflict of 1729 they drifted to the king‟s side, i.e. to the government position, but at the later diets under investigation here they had no reason to do so, as the confessional question would not again be on the diet‟s agenda until 1790. The opposition politics of members of the Protestant landowning lesser nobility with a strong county background was an old-new Protestant opposition politics, one that, repeating the circumstances of the 17th century, was again at odds with the government. The confessional question was not the only factor, however; it was mixed with the motivation first noticed concerning the 7th career path and hypothetically referred to as the tendency to see constitutional questions at the core of the dualism of king and estates (10th career path). We do not find a Protestant politician within the group of consistently oppositional politicians who followed any other career path. This makes it clear that at the beginning of the period in question, previous to 1729, Protestant politicians were not in a position to hold a consistently oppositional stance; this would only become a possibility when the confessional issue no longer appeared at the diet. And in this era, when explaining their behaviour, we have good reason to assume other motivating factors alongside the confessional one – as the Catholic parallel will confirm. (György Szathmáry-Király serves as an example of the 10th career path, see Annex.) 11. As far as the Catholic opposition is concerned, it is striking that not one of the Catholic members of the opposition was put in confrontation with the ruler purely and exclusively by the confessional conflict of 1729. It is clear from this that not even among Catholics was the old form of purely confessional oppositionality still visible, it existed only in combination with a general resistance to government actions (which we can regard as a

7

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 early manifestation of the tendency to see constitutional questions at the core of the dualism of king and estates). Within this sub-group, nine „unsuccessful‟ politicians are contrasted with the successful careers of seven MPs: József Török, Pál Tiszta, Ignác Edelspacher, László Kvassay and László Schlossberg (for all of whom it was out rightly oppositional political activity that resulted in administrative appointments), as well as Ádám Zichy and András Pongrácz, two of those 18th-century politicians to arrive at diet as royal office-holders and then be promoted despite their participation being oppositional in flavour. It is also significant that these appearances are all associated with the first two diets of the period under discussion: 1728-9 and 1741. It seems that circumstances changed in the second half of this century, when it was no longer customary to recruit the royal administration from the ranks of the political opposition, or to tolerate that the bearers of posts paid for by the king might politically act against him at the diet. We can interpret this phenomenon as a consolidation of the front lines between government and opposition. Overall, therefore, in the mid-18th century a consistent oppositionality at the diet would for just over half of Catholic politicians bring appointment to a royal office or a high court. Can we think this simply a coincidence? Can we suppose that such an appointment might come as a surprise to politicians who had fought throughout the diet as part of the opposition? It would be strange if a single one of them had been surprised. Although, for lack of sources, we are hardly able to make statements on the private convictions of individual MPs, looking at the group as a whole it is nevertheless clear (and this would be the benefit of a prosopographical approach): there was a good chance an ambitious Catholic politician could achieve administrative office by emphasizing an opposition opinion at the diet – and here we can again assume self-interest as a basic motivation (11th career path). Neither can it be a coincidence that, of the five examples just given, three are associated with the first diet (1728- 9) of the period in question, as is true for the politicians already with public posts but later to be promoted. This path to advancement was still available in the first half of the examined period, only slowly to become obstructed. (See a rarer, later example, József Török‟s career in the Annex.) 12. Just as we were unable to say anything about the convictions of „successful‟ members of the opposition who achieved high office, so neither can we know for sure whether the „unsuccessful‟ majority of the consistently oppositional Catholic politicians of this period followed this strategy of self-interest, just not with the intended results. It is worth comparing their success with the proportions observed for the 3rd and 4th career paths of outright pro-government political activity. It could be assumed that a smaller proportion of that consistently undertaking opposition activity at the diet might be rewarded with high office than those with a reliably pro-government stance; what is surprising is how small the difference between the two is. The „unsuccessful‟ larger half of the Catholic opposition probably included two groups: those who were visibly oppositional in order to stand out and thus achieve royal office, but who failed in this enterprise (12th career path, which has parallels to the 3rd and the 8th), and those who took up an opposition stance out of principle (13th and final career path). As we have just discovered that there was a Protestant opposition not based on confessional issues, so, too, there must have been a Catholic opposition, based on issues of principle, they sought to represent the interest of the country, the common good, or the nation. We can assume this must have been easier for a Protestant, to whom, in this period, the door to royal office was closed, anyway.

8

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

We can attempt to come closer to distinguishing the 12th and 13th career path by looking at the chronology: the majority of Catholics using oppositionality to achieve public office (11th career path), did so following the diet of 1728-9; only a minority acquired office or official promotion after the later three diets put together. The same is true of those with a mixed political profile (9th career path). By contrast, it was primarily at the later diets that successful career-building Catholics followed the path of complete loyalty. The lion‟s share of those in this group (4th career path) came into office or was promoted to a higher post after the diet of 1751. A single member did so at the diet of 1728-9; the same was true of the diet of 1764-5. For the „unsuccessful‟ third of the Catholic politicians whose politics were loyal to the government, we can assume that they wanted public office in the same way as the other two- thirds; i.e. we can associate them with the same motivation. We cannot think the same of the Catholics in opposition but not appointed to royal office: while in 1728-9 there was a real chance someone could be elevated to such office after being known for their opposition stance, in the second half of our period the government would almost exclusively reward loyalty. By this time, anyone who was in the opposition almost certainly did not do so out of self-interest. The 12th and 13th career paths – so far considered together – were more likely to include those of the genuinely „unsuccessful careerist‟ Catholic politicians who held an opposition stance at the diet of 1728-9. This is reinforced by the fact that for no less than a third of them social elevation would take place in the next generation, and so in the long run they can be finally considered to have been successful. (In the same way that we did this for the Protestants in the 5th career path.) For this reason, I list these MPs under the 12th career path, as unsuccessful careerist Catholics who at this point had not managed to break through. With a rough and ready but not unfounded approach, we might add to them those present at this diet, and suppose that the rest were principled opposition members (13th career path). The life and career of Ferenc Szentiványi will be the archetype of the Catholic opposition regarded as unsuccessful in the short term. (See Annex.) 13. Among the unsuccessful Catholic members of the opposition were Gáspár Csuzy, Ferenc Bacskády and Zsigmond Szüllő, who probably all opposed the government on grounds of principle. They all maintained a consistently oppositional stance at two diets each: one of them at the diets of 1741 and 1751, and the other two at the diets of 1751 and 1764-5 – not, that is, in the 1720s. (For an example see the political career of Gáspár Csuzy in the Annex.) If it has perhaps proved possible to distinguish the opposition based on principle within the general opposition displayed at the diet, then we may also be able to make a distinction in the case of the 8th career path, the Catholics with mixed political stance, instead of merely seeing all its members as failed careerists. First of all, we can separate the case of József Demkovics, who was visibly ready to compromise (on the question of tax), only then to confront Charles VI on the confessional issue. It is as if he had tried to set out on the 4th career path, only to be driven off it by a question of principle. (I call his path the career path 8b.) Of the cases of two further representatives of career path 8, János Okolicsányi is a particularly special one: it seems that it was only at the very last minute that he turned his back on principled opposition, a position his personal destiny remained closest to. Similar to this is the career of Ferenc Rosty, whom we do not include among the principled opposition on account of a single pro-government statement he made, that he would later retract. All the other figures belonging to the 8th career path were active at the diet of 1728-9. They were making partly oppositional and partly pro-government pronouncements during the days when

9

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 oppositionality was far from an obstacle to achieving high office. That is, perhaps we should only consider the latter group as being properly “unsuccessful careerists” (career path 8a).

A chronology In Table 1, all the career paths can be seen, qualified as successful or unsuccessful, as well as being found in the complete period of 1728-65 or its first or latter phase, and according to the political positions displayed at the diet: pro-government, mixed, oppositional. Furthermore, confession (Catholics, Protestants) and the presumed motivational background is indicated (self-interest, confessional and national considerations, that is, the representation of the interests of the country – and their combinations). Some career paths are typical for the complete period under investigation (1, 3, 4, 5 and 9).The 1st career path is that of the Protestant intelligentsia serving the ambitions of the government: they stood fully behind the policy of the ruler, and their pronouncements at the diet unquestionably served their personal advance and that of their families. This political behaviour can be found throughout the almost four decades under investigation here, and in the long run appears evidently to bring success. Catholic politicians also opted for loyal positions (presumably for similar reasons of self-interest)and were either successful (4th career path) or not (3rd career path). None of this is surprising, of course, and it is typical of the whole of the period studied here. Likewise, the 5th career path, that of the careerist Protestants achieving success in the long run (i.e. over many generations), who, unlike the previous groups, were not fully pro-government at the diet, but held different political positions. Finally, it appears that the 9th career path, of the Catholics achieving success by mixing opposition and loyal positions at the diet, presumably motivated by self-interest, is also true of the entire length of our period. The second group of the career paths is typical of the first phase of our period. There were also those Protestants who largely embodied the old-school, confession-based politics: they were primarily driven to the same side as Charles VI by attacks from the Catholic estates, and as a result they were entirely loyal to the government in their political activities (2nd career path), or their political decisions could also be mixed – in the latter case, it would be even more obvious that all-important confessional considerations would drive them from an opposition standpoint to a loyal one (6th career path). The 7th career path is also associated with the first diet of the mid-18th century: this is the profile of those Catholic politicians who were already successful and who achieved promotion. They were not entirely pro- government, but with a tint of oppositionality. The latter is not any more confession-related: we must assume that there is a third motivation at work here, different from confessional considerations and from self-interest aimed at social elevation. The 11th career path, that of the Catholics who went from opposition politics to achieve public office, is largely if not entirely associated with 1728–9, and is a good example of how, initially, oppositionality and pro-government activity at the diets of the 18th century had not yet established a bipolar political space. In these times, it was still possible for someone to show talents as an opposition leader and then sell himself to the government for a lucrative office. In later years it would still be possible for some to excel and achieve high office through opposition politics, but the chances of this were much lower. For this reason, the 12th career path, that of the unsuccessful careerist Catholics – also assumed to be guided by self- interest, as with the 8a career path – is also associated with the start of our period. In the second part of our period, and in contrast to all this, appears the expressly not merely confessional Protestant opposition movement (10th career path)and, as its counterpart,

10

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 the Catholic opposition based on principle (13th career path); finally, the 8th career path (from which we have separated 8a and 8b) also belongs to this latter half of the era under investigation: the careers of those politicians who peppered essentially oppositional behaviour with the occasional pro-government pronouncement, but who would not be rewarded with administrative posts.)Thus, the latter, larger half of the mid-18th century cannot be understood without considering a third factor in addition to the old confessional one and that of Namierian self-interest. We can conclude that not only Catholics could succeed, but in the long run Protestants could, too: career paths 1. 4. 5. 7. 9. and 11 are all successful – at least in the long run. Also, in the case of Catholics, sometimes outright oppositional political behaviour could lead later to the appointment of the former MPs to an administrative or judicial position, so for those motivated purely by personal and family advancement, all roads in parliamentary politics remained open. And finally, even the representation of national interests (that is, public good, or the interests of the country)could bring success – but, and this is a key point, exclusively in the first phase of our period under consideration, and in the case of certain Catholic MPs. Later, the parties of king and country were formed, and they clashed in battles above principles in the arena of the diet. While the notion of self-interest based on objectives of social elevation applies to Hungarian politics throughout the period under investigation, political motivation cannot simply be reduced to this: the mid-18th century was not a fully Namierian period of Hungarian political history. At the time of the diet of 1728-9 confessionalism was still a decisive force in Hungary‟s politics, only later for something else to step into its place, something we have referred to as the tendency to identify constitutional questions at the core of the dualism of king and estates, that is, the representation of a unique concept of constitution that was typical of the estates.27 Thus the political arena of the middle of the century was ultimately determined by three forces: attempts at personal (or family) social elevation, by dwindling confessionalism and by the dualism of king and estates dominated by constitutional questions that would take its place.

11

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Table 1: Career paths

Success Political positions Typical of the Typical of the complete Typical of the at the diet first phase period (1728–65) latter phase Successful Pro-government 1, 4 positions Mixed 7 5, 9 positions Oppositional 11 positions Unsuccessful Pro-government 2 3 positions Mixed 6, 8a,8b 8 positions Oppositional 12 10, 13 positions

Black: Protestants, Red: Catholics Bold: motivated by personal and family advancement, italics: motivated by confessional considerations, underlined: motivated by the representation of the interests of the country

12

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Annex: Examples for the career paths

1st career path, pro-government Protestant MPs, 1 (self-interest, long-term success): Pál Prileszky The father and grandfather of Pál Prileszky (1656–1743)28 were no more than county officials. His elder brother, Miklós Prileszky, was prebendary of Nyitra, but Pál himself remained a devout Protestant, representing his confession with Pál Jeszenák and István Gyürky before Charles VI in Laxenburg on 19 May 1721.29 Earlier, during the Rákóczi war of independence he was a member of the prince‟s court council, then, in 1706, he was appointed economic counsellor and entrusted with overseeing foreign trade and encouraging commerce.30 He was a member of the committee sent by the national assembly of Ónod to survey the national tax base.31 He left Rákóczi‟s camp and swore loyalty to the Habsburg king in 1710,32 and became director of legal affairs at the Esterházy estate in Kismárton.33 Prileszky was present at the diet in 1714 as deputy for absentee Count Farkas Serényi.34After the diet, he served in the national committee of 1717, then in the so-called Vienna commission, in the concursus meeting in October 1719, representing the Cisdanubian district,35 just as in the concursus convened in 1720 and that of 1721.36He was also delegated by Charles VI to the Systematica Commissio, the great reform committee working in 1722,37 elaborating proposals for political, military and economic reform, in which the key work was done by himself and Count Sándor Károlyi.38 Prileszky was given a financial reward of 6000 forints for this work and for the acceptance of the Pragmatica Sanctio.39 He was paid one and a half times as much as the much-respected Pál Jeszenák.40 At the diet in 1722–3, he represented the widow of Prince József Esterházy and also Count Thomas Gundaker Starhemberg.41 He was a member of the deputation sent to Vienna in late June,42 and on 11 July he was delegated to the committee for the collection of grievances. He was then one of the two members of the Systematica Commissio who were added to the group of members of the lower house sent to discuss the plans for political reform. Two weeks later, on 27 July, he was also included among the members from the lower house of the mixed committee sent for the revision of legal reform, and on 8 August he was delegated to formulate the final version of the juridica. At the end of the month, he was included in the mixed committee formed to compile a list of grievances, and in early September he became a member of the committee sent to extend this same list.43 It is evident that although only a deputy for absent magnates, Pál Prileszky played an eminent role at the diet.44 In the words of a contemporary, three Protestants –Pál Ráday, Pál Jeszenák and Pál Prileszky– convinced the diet of the need to establish the council of lieutenancy, that was to be the most important government organ in Hungary, and yet in the end not a single Protestant was given a place on it.45 When it was put on the agenda, the lower house of the diet still refused to hear of the Novum Tripartitum that Prileszky formulated. The proposal remained on the agenda, however: the newly-established council of lieutenancy submitted its text to the counties for debate, but it would then be thrown out by the next diet.46 Then, Prileszky would also participate as the deputy of an absentee. In early June 1728 the lower house appointed him to the committee commissioned to compile the grievances and subsequently the petition containing the list of grievances, then, as sole representative of the absentium ablegati, at the end of September he was also mandated to the committee on the proportionate distribution of taxation.47 As regards the level of tax, at the vote on 24 July, Pál Prileszky sided with the government: relative to the tax level voted on by the previous diet, he recommended a higher annual tax, with certain conditions.48 He was also loyal on the

13

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 question of tax reform, and so pasquilists attacked him, as well as others, on the issue of tying tax to land. He is probably the character portrayed by the satirical work Passio dolorosa as „bloodthirsty Cain.‟49 The pasquil Descriptio statuum claims that Pál Prileszky was one of those who “hissed” at the opposition.50

2nd career path, pro-government Protestant MPs, 2 (religious conviction, unsuccessful): István Kenessey He was born around 1677–8,51and he participated in the Rákóczi war of independence as a familiáris to Antal Esterházy.52 He represented Veszprém county at three diets and one concursus (that of 1735), and he held county offices there: he was ordinaries judex nobilium, preceptor and also deputy vicecomes. In 1744, he was appointed royal councillor. He accumulated a significant estate, and his allocated capital, as we know from the will of his widow, Zsuzsánna Szondy (1752), totalled 85,000 forints. Most of this very considerable amount went to the Calvinist Church. He lived in a town house in Pápa, where he was leader of the Calvinist landowning lesser nobility in the first half of the 18th century. From 1734, he held the position of chief warden of the Calvinist diocese of Transdanubia.53 Article 30 of 1715 appointed him a member of the Pest committee, discussing the questions of religion.54 At the following diet he was present as deputy for Veszprém County.55 He was made a member of the deputation sent to Vienna at the end of June 1722,56 of the committee dealing with the level of war tax and the price of salt, and of the committee sent to discuss the economic and military proposals submitted by the reform committees.57 In 1728–9 Kenessey found himself under attack from all sides as, at the vote on 24 July 1728, he took the government‟s side, claiming that an effective tax increase was, indeed, possible – in opposition to the vast majority of the counties.58 Two months later, he also became a member for the Transdanubian district at the committee for the proportionate distribution of tax.59 He supported tying tax to land, which, as we have seen, was generally seen as a threat to noble privileges. Together with personalis Száraz, Pál Prileszky and István Gyürky, Kenessey was one of four people personally attacked for their pro-government stance by pasquils discussing the debate.60 Another pasquil, on the other hand, says of him that he dances this way and that, forever altering his political viewpoint. We can hardly be surprised that in the pasquil Passio dolorosa he is one of the two false witnesses against Hungary.61 Kenessey would end up as one of the deputies to refuse the decretalis oath, one who travelled to Vienna in the company of Sámuel Bohus, to ask the ruler for his protection. As Charles VI instructed the diet to return him his mandate, on 4 September 1729 Kenessey would again be the brunt of attacks at the diet: in his speech, the bishop of Eger claimed that Kenessey and Bohus had levelled false charges against the country before the king by claiming that Szentpétery and other deputies had been removed from the session by force. There was universal agreement with his opinion.62 Kenessey saw events as having taken place in quite the opposite fashion: the estates had sent a petition to the king asking for punishment “for us, despite our innocence”.63

3rd career path, pro-government Catholic MPs, 1 (self-interest, unsuccessful): József Petrovszky József Petrovszky, deputy for Baranya county at the diet of 1728–9, 64 took an essentially pro-government stance at the votes both on 24 July and on 6 September. Initially, and at odds with the majority, he would not rule out voting for a higher level of tax than that set by the diet of 1722–3, but when the diet‟s delegation returned from Vienna, and again a

14

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 vote was taken on the tax increase, one by one, Petrovszky voted for the diet to reconsider its earlier position of rejecting it. (This was still at odds with the majority opinion of the counties, and was not therefore regarded as the overall position of the diet, even though the majority of the other elements of the diet were in support of it.) On 23 September 1728 he would represent the Transdanubian district as a member of the committee on the proportionate distribution of tax.65 The Petrovszky family from Baranya county was one of the well-known members of the local lesser noble élite. József Petrovszky had already appeared at the diet of 1722–3 as deputy for neighbouring Tolna county.66 He took Teréz Brodarich, the daughter of the vicecomes of Tolna, as his wife. As the trusted confidant of Nesselrode, bishop of Pécs and supremus comes, he was vicecomes of Baranya county from 1723 to 1736, when – following his loss to Dániel Horváth at the re-election for the post – he was made an assessor.67 As he held offices in a Transdanubian county, we can assume he was Catholic. At the time of urbarial regulation in 1767, the family had 15 domains, mostly in Baranya county, but also in Tolna, making them collectively one of the country‟s hundred largest landowners.68

4th career path, pro-government Catholics, 2 (self-interest, successful): Antal Brunszvik Antal Brunszvik (1709–80)69 lifted his family – of German heritage, that had moved to Hungary many years before and that in the 17th century was still Protestant, but would convert to Catholicism – into the élite.70 At the time of urbarial regulation, Antal Brunszvik was one of the 400 largest landowners in Hungary.71 After his posts in Pozsony county,72 he was secretary of the council of lieutenancy from 1738 to 1745.73 He did not, however, go on from this key post towards that of councillor, instead continued his career at the royal court of justice: he was protonotarius first to the personalis (1747–8), then to the lord chief justice (1749–55), and finally to the palatine (1756–62).74 (We can assume that his appointment to the curia came as soon as he ended his tenure at the council of lieutenancy, and that the annual directories merely registered his new role a little late, rather than there being a hiatus in his career.) From 1762 to 1775 he was councillor at the chancellery, from where he left with the title of count.75 In the same year he became president of the court of justice of Galicia, which had been annexed by the Habsburg Monarchy.76 Antal Brunszvik was a confidant of the ruler:77 on 16 January 1766 he was sent by Maria Theresa as a royal commissioner to defuse the peasant disturbances in Vas and Zala counties, a commission that in the summer would be extended to include Sopron county.78 Afterwards he would participate in the preparation and implementation of the urbarial patent, regulating the serfs‟ duties,79 and in the preparation of the Ratio Educationis, the educational reform.80 From 1769 to 1776 he was the royal commissioner substituting for the supremus comes of Esztergom county, and from 1779 to his death he was supremus comes of Bihar.81 From the beginning of his career, the royal favour he enjoyed was obvious: on 25 June 1741 Antal Brunszvik was a member of the coronation guard of honour sent to the Franciscan church,82 leading to his being made a knight with golden spurs by Maria Theresa, at the palatine‟s suggestion, as part of the same ceremony.83 At the next diet he would serve the queen at the royal court of justice, and not just as a member of several committees,84 but with such vehemence that, according to the opposition pasquil In Personalem, it was he, in the company of the personalis and another protonotarius, who put the homeland‟s rights up for sale.85 At the time of the diet of 1764–5 he was working in Vienna, and yet he nevertheless earned himself a role in the opposition pasquil depicting the Passio of Hungarian liberty, and quite a role, at that – he was portrayed as Judas.86

15

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

A considerable factor in Brunszvik‟s rise was his marriage to the daughter of János Adelffy, secretary (1723–30) then councillor (1730–3) at the council of lieutenancy, and finally councillor at the chancellery (1733–50).87Brunszvik‟s sons would also be loyal servants of the ruler: once grown up, the younger Count Antal Brunszvik became a member of the council of lieutenancy (1785–8),88 then Joseph II‟s royal commissioner for the Nyitra district, thereby governing Bars, Nyitra, Pozsony and Trencsén counties (1788–90). Of these counties, he retained the post of supremus comes of Bars until his death (1788–95).89 His brother, József Brunszvik, would rise to the position of lord chief justice.90 As Antal Brunszvik only received his title as count through primogeniture, his younger son applied for this rank in 1790, and was given it – this time without this being limited to the first born in the same way.91 For the elder Antal Brunszvik, that is, his political position taken at the diet is in harmony with the entirety of his personal career, and with the loyalty and thereby the successful progress of the following generation.

5th career path, Protestants partly loyal, partly in opposition, 1 (self-interest, long-term success): Gábor Prónay Prónay (1695–1758) was from a Lutheran family.92 He was a student of the great scholar Mátyás Bél at the grammar school in Pozsony, and would later retain contact with his famous teacher and support his work. He worked as a lawyer, was the fully-empowered legal representative of Count István Koháry, and was provisor of the Bosnyák domains in Pest county. In this county, he held offices: from 1730 he was assessor, and he represented the county at the concursus of 1736.93 Lord chief justice István Koháry played a key role in starting Prónay‟s public career. In 1750, Gábor Prónay was one of the Protestants who, as members of a delegation, would object in Vienna against the steps towards re-Catholicization taken by the Hungarian lords.94 In 1752, he had a Lutheran church erected in Acsa in Pest County.95 Not only was he a pillar of the Lutheran community, but he also became a man of considerable wealth. In the second half of the 1730s he had a splendid Baroque palace built in Acsa.96 His widow possessed one of the country‟s largest hundred domains in 1767.97 At the concursus of 1736, Charles VI asked in his proposition read out on 14 June that the estates add a further 100,000 forints to the subsidium of 200,000 forints they had already offered, and also asked for grain and for tax arrears to be settled. In the debate on the following day, Gábor Prónay was one of three county deputies who used their speeches to show support for János Balogh, deputy for Pozsony County, in his outrage. Balogh had said that they had described the impoverishment of the poor taxpaying public in enough depth, and that the arrears in his county alone amounted to 100,040 forints; the king should make do with the subsidium of 200,000 forints. The other county deputies would all then come over to their view.98 In 1741 Gábor Prónay was present at the diet as deputy for the absent Baron Pál Révay Sr.99 He became part of a committee on the elaboration of the summary of the country‟s grievances and compiling the points of the diploma inaugurale.100 In 1751, already as assessor, Prónay became deputy for Pest County at the diet.101 At the start of the diet, when a resolution had to be passed on issues of procedure, Prónay‟s speeches on 11 June show political ambivalence: first, he proposed that before they debate the king‟s propositions and decide on them, they ask the ruler in a petition to redress the grievances – and then the estates could (if they really applied themselves) be able to come up with the tax Maria Theresa had requested. But in his next contribution he quickly corrected this oppositional tone. He

16

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 repeated his proposal, but added that the diet had to find a supplementary tax base, a function that could not be fulfilled by the only recently reincorporated territories, as the integration of these would mean Hungary would automatically have to shoulder the burdens that had previously been placed on them. It would be more expedient to retain his majesty‟s favour – Gábor Prónay argued – and first to offer something voluntarily than to have to agree to a tax increase later, once the queen was already dissatisfied with the estates.102 It appears that this latter loyalty was what fundamentally characterized Prónay‟s political positions, for the political commentary In diversos tells us he would be one of the supporters of the tax increase.103 At this diet he was one of the two most loyal politicians (and most under attack from the pasquils) battling to see the tax increase take place. One pasquilist called him „pessimuscivis‟, whom the devil had sent to destroy the homeland. The pasquil called De Csuzy et Okolicsány referred to Prónay as one of the government party‟s four leaders in the lower house. Elsewhere he was accused of putting the interests of this confession and of himself above those of his country.104 One pasquilist called him a „traitor to the country‟ who was selling Hungary.105 It seems that the loyalty Gábor Prónay displayed to Maria Theresa would bring its just reward from the hand of Joseph II in terms of his sons‟ careers. Gábor and László Prónay would together be awarded the title of baron on 8 March 1782.106 Both would rise as high as the rank of supremus comes and László was also royal commissioner of the district of Besztercebánya (1785–90), while Gábor was appointed by Joseph II to be director of Pozsony educational district.107 When Archduke Alexander Leopold was elected palatine in 1790, one of the names in the unopened envelope with two Protestant palatinal nominations was that of supremus comes Baron Prónay. The mere fact of the candidacy was a sign of great prestige, though Prónay would not have had any chance of being elected palatine by the diet even if the envelope had been opened; only the two Catholic candidates had real chance.108

6th career path, Protestants partly loyal, partly in opposition, 2 (religious conviction, unsuccessful): Sámuel Bohus Sámuel Bohus was born in Besztercebánya in a Lutheran family, and studied at the University of Wittenberg. He was the fully-empowered delegate of Imre Csáky, archbishop of Kalocsa on legal affairs (1723), and agent in Vienna for the Csáky family (1736). In 1717 he became assessor for Pest County. He was a landowner in this county.109 As a lawyer, he was also procurator for Count Sándor Károlyi, and dealt with the administration of his legal affairs.110 When he joined the diet in 1728, it was not for the first time: he had been deputy of an absentee in 1708 (having just returned from Wittenberg),111 he was deputy of Breznóbánya in 1714 (as the notary of the city),112 and while in 1722–3 he was deputy to the absent Count István Esterházy.113 But it was in the greatest scandal of the diet of 1728–9 that he would play a key role. When the Protestant members of the committee on the proportional distribution of the contribution (first Sámuel Sembery and Pál Katona, then András Szentpétery and György Eördögh) refused to swear the decretalis oath, confessional disputes reached boiling point, and the diet was on the point of employing physical violence. Charges were first brought against Szentpétery and Eördögh, then against three other deputies. At the request of one of the three, István Kenessey, Charles VI ordered the case to be dropped.114 (The other two charged in the case, alongside Kenessey, were György Gencsy, deputy of Kraszna county and Péter Dobay, deputy for Közép-Szolnok county.) A royal decree stated that Kenessey and Bohus should be returned their mandates, which had been withdrawn by the diet. (It was

17

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 together with Bohus that Kenessey turned to the king for assistance.) This decree was read out at a mixed session of the diet on 9 September 1729.115“At which the whole country showed consternation and sadness,” wrote Sándor Károlyi in his diary.116 The primate was hardly able to persuade the estates to implement rather than resist the ruler‟s order: every Protestant who would have had to swear the decretalis oath turned to the king. If the diet did not accept the formulation of the oath as stipulated for it by the king, then the estates would give up the right, through a committee of the diet, to distribute war tax between counties and cities, thereby leaving this to the whim of the ruler. The palatine and the personalis gave their full backing to this view – as Charles VI clearly expected them to. (Apart from them, there were few who spoke out at this session in favour of the motion. One was Bohus‟s fellow deputy, deputy lord chief justice Szeleczky.) The return of the mandates of Bohus and Kenessey evoked the most fervent reactions from many Catholic deputies. According to the report of the royal commissioner, when the bishop of Eger accused them of having falsely accused the country (i.e. the diet) in front of the king by having Szentpétery and Eördögh removed from the session by force, “the estates all exclaimed in agreement”.117 In the religious conflict of 1729, the Catholic majority of the estates were in opposition on this point, and the Protestant deputies were those turning to the royal court for protection, which they would be granted. It is in effect a paradox that on 24 July 1728, on the occasion of the earlier taxation vote, an issue of great importance to the government, Bohus would also occupy an oppositional position: along with the minority of the deputies of absentees, he categorically rejected any kind of tax increase.118 The reason for this was not that the instructions of Bohus‟s county might have forced him to stand up against the tax increase: at this point he was still the deputy of an absentee, and it is more than likely that he could make independent decisions based on his personal convictions. (As it happens, it was not just deputies of absentees who were given essentially carte blanche in this period; it was only later that the counties attempted substantially to define the political position of their deputies in advance.)119

7th career path, Catholics partly loyal, partly in opposition, 1 (national interests, successful): Márton Szeleczky In 1715 Márton Szeleczky received Kisalberti, in Pest county, as a gift of land. Prior to this, in 1697, he was still deputy notary for Heves county, then in 1698 its deputy at the concursus, in 1699–1700 its chief prosecutor, and from 1717 to 1725 the first vicecomes of Pest county, and from 1722 also deputy lord chief justice.120 (His appointment to the royal court of justice can have taken place sometime before, as it was as deputy lord chief justice that he had been included on the list of invitees to the concursus in 1721.)121 Szeleczky was also deputy at the diet for Pest county on more than one occasion, whether as a still active or an erstwhile office-bearer of the county, or as a member of the royal court of justice: both in 1722–3 (still as a vicecomes)122 and in 1728–9.123 As the third-ranking official at the royal court of justice, Szeleczky had an ocean of tasks to fulfil at the diet, for example as a member of important committees: in 1722 he was part of the deputations sent to negotiate proposals for political reform, the level of war tax, the price of salt, the final elaboration of legal reform, and the compilation of grievances, and of the committee ordered to complement these.124 In summer 1728 he joined the committee on compiling grievances,125 and during the debate on taxation he was part of the mixed deputation established at the request of the lords.126 Charles VI made Szeleczky a baron on 22 October 1727.127 He remained at the royal court of justice even after this. To begin with – unusually, as this post was usually filled by a

18

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 lesser noble – he was still deputy lord chief justice (a fact borne out by plenty of records from the diet) and only later was he the royal court of justice‟s lord assessor. His name is given in this capacity by the annual directories of officers from 1730 to 1747 (which were known to provide data only with a year‟s delay).128 In 1733 he is mentioned among the great landowners of Pest County.129 In 1736 he and Gábor Fáy divided Ónod (Borsod County) among themselves: both the castle and the town.130 It is from the period of the diet of 1728–9 that we have fuller information on how Márton Szeleczky expressed his opinion on particular issues. In the debates on the war tax in the summer of 1728 he remained consistently loyal – as would be expected of a deputy lord chief justice. At the vote on 24 July 1728, not only did he not reject the tax increase, as the majority did, he went beyond accepting the 62,000 forints previously added by the council of lieutenancy to the tax levied by the diet and recommended an increase of 120,000 forints. It is interesting to note that his county, Pest, stayed part of the opposition majority – evidently represented in this regard by the other deputy, Sámuel Bohus, on his own. But by 6 September it was as if Szeleczky were the stronger of the two: after the delegation from the estates returned from its visit to Eugene of Savoy, where it had been negotiating the level of the war tax, and it again conducted a vote by name, at which the majority of the lower house now stood for a change to the previous position, to the petition of 25 August – with the exception of the majority of the counties (whose viewpoint was still referred to in the lower house as the „majority‟ one). By this time Pest County was no longer part of the opposition, but rather one of the minority pro-government counties.131 On 5 March 1729, on the matter of the tax base, when a small majority in the lower house gave a positive response to the question of the personalis (“Should noble land be included in the planned survey of the tax base?”), three on the royal court of justice voted against, and deputy lord chief justice Márton Szeleczky was one of them.132 Even a recently- granted baronial title was no guarantee that an office-holder otherwise loyal to the king would support the government on all key political questions. The confessional conflicts towards the end of the diet would again show Szeleczky‟s diet appearance in loyal colours, however. Together with the personalis, he attempted to soothe the feathers of the angry Catholics and replied to prebendary Kellió as follows: “if the feast comes, then pray, rather than scheme under the guise of Mary the Virgin”.133 We do not know what effect Márton Szeleczky‟s oppositional behaviour on the question of the tax base had on the later development of his career. But two years later, when he applied for the vacated office of personalis, this was given not to him but to the crown prosecutor Antal Grassalkovich.134

8th career path: Catholics with a mixed political position 2 (unsuccessful), János Okolicsányi His family played a significant role in the 18th-century history of Hungary.135 János Okolicsányi‟s father, László, and his two uncles, Pál and József, all reached the office of vicecomes during their careers, while his third uncle, also János, who had been present at the first three diets of the 18th century as elected bishop of Novi,136 was then diocesan bishop of Nagyvárad (1734); his younger brother, Antal, because vicecomes of Liptó in 1733.137 János Okolicsányi‟s father was councillor of the Hungarian chamber for two decades, while János‟s cousin served as councillor to the chamber administration of Szepes.138 As János Okolicsányi was deputy vicecomes of Zemplén from 1730 to 1741, then its first vicecomes between 1741 and 1757. 139 In 1767 with his 17 domains in Liptó, Szepes and most of all Zemplén counties he could consider himself as one of the country‟s biggest 400

19

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 landowners.)140 He appeared twice at the diet as deputy for Zemplén County, in 1741 and 1751.141 His combative speeches made him one of the leaders of the opposition at his very first diet. On 31 July he recommended that the diet submit a new petition to the queen with the requests Maria Theresa had rejected left unchanged. When, on 24 September, after the famous Vitam et sanguinem! scene and the offer of 30,000 soldiers to the queen by the diet, the negative response to the postulata of the estates arrived in the form of the queen‟s second royal rescript, it was at the suggestion of János Okolicsányi that the diet accepted the proposal to send Maria Theresa a third petition: they would not even continue to discuss the noble levy until their demands were met. On 29 September he was again one of the voices at the lower house who supported the opinion of Count Imre Eszterházy Jr., bishop of Nyitra, that some kind of deceit had taken place during the editing of the second royal rescript rejecting the nation‟s requests (probably on the part of the „German ministers‟), because Maria Theresa wanted to satisfy all of them. (The combative activity of the opposition did indeed bring partial results.)142 In 1751 Okolicsányi again appeared as the member of important committees;143 indeed, one pasquilist named him, alongside Gáspár Csuzy, as leader of the opposition at the diet.144 In the debates in June, which are better known than most, he was one of the most outspoken: on the basis of his speeches, Okolicsányi stood out from the average at the lower house, alongside Csuzy and the pro-government personalis. On 11 June, for example, he argued that Maria Theresa, according to her rescript, wished to protect the privileges, freedoms and exemptions of the estates; one of these, indeed, their „chief prerogative‟, was that the country‟s grievances be attended to, from which it followed that the estates required this to take place before king and country might agree on taxation. Despite the insistence of personalis Antal Grassalkovich, Okolicsányi stuck to his position, adding that it was not possible to deviate from old laws just because they didn‟t happen to please the queen. He also supported Csuzy‟s opinion against those speaking on the government side. They would also enjoy the backing of the Cistibiscan and Transtibiscan districts, and even the majority of the deputies from the Danubian counties. In contrast to the government position, he insisted that no promises could be made on the war tax until they had examined the tax base and satisfied themselves that Hungary was able to withstand the burden. This should all be interpreted, Okolicsányi said, not as a battle fought against the ruler, but purely that they were clarifying the impossibility of taxation and asking for the burden to be lessened. The solution he saw to an increase to the tax base was for grievances to be dealt with and for the long-desired reattachment of certain territories to the country to take place.145 When he was greeted on his name day in verse, the pasquilist demanded he be given the kind of triumphal march enjoyed by the heroes of Ancient Rome.146 It was true for all diets that hostile oppositional attitudes weakened with time, that the opposition was gradually eroded, and this was true of 1751. Yet it was as if this had not touched Okolicsányi: according to the opposition pasquil Responsio Hungariae there came a point at which János Okolicsányi alone fought for the country‟s interests.147 This makes it all the more surprising that he was nevertheless willing to back the government on a question of lesser significance: on 26 August he expressed his agreement with the proposal of János Jeszenák that, as the emperor had offered, the special registration tax be waived for barons Koch and Toussain when granting them Hungarian naturalization.148 He also warned against the ratification of the royal free city privileges of Győr, as urged by Maria Theresa, being delayed by the demands of the cathedral chapter of the city. This speech of Okolicsányi can also be seen as pro-government in attitude. 149 Finally, despite what was written in the

20

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Responsio Hungariae, even Okolicsányi would support the proposal of personalis Fekete for annual taxes to be increased by 700,000 forints – with the slight adjustment that the part of this amount over half a million forints be given as a gift to Maria Theresa as from her loyal subjects. 150 Perhaps these facts, which received little attention at the time or later, explain why Okolicsányi, for all his fervent opposition views, would be awarded the title of royal councillor.151

9th career path, Catholics with a mixed political position, 3 (self-interest, successful): SándorCzompó As deputy of Sopron County, he took part in the diet of 1728–9,152 and was elected to a number of committees.153 In the aforementioned confessional debate of September 1729 he was one of the assertive opposition speakers who represented both the rights of the estates and Catholic intransigence in the face of Charles VI and the confessional tolerance he espoused. They fought stubborn rearguard actions, clutching at procedural issues or citing trumped-up reasons even when only few would dare to make vocal objections to the king‟s orders. (They enjoyed the tacit support of the majority that was forced into silence, or at least into grumbling.)154 The pasquils describe Czompó as a loose-lipped opposition deputy. One pasquil threatens him with Jupiter‟s lightning, symbolizing the anger of Charles VI; another warns him that the strike of lightning will rob him even of his stentorian voice – a voice he uses merely for spout foolishness. The pasquil written in response to this claims that Czompó was merely defending the privileges of his homeland. In the debate on taxation, however, he supported the government position.155 Czompó then appeared at the concursus convened to levy the supplementary tax in 1736 and 1737. On the latter occasion, when he represented Sopron county as notary, he was a member of the deputation of the concursus that was sent to the royal commissioner.156 In 1736, when in a decree read out on 14 June Charles VI submitted his request for a further 100,000 forints in addition to the subsidium of 200,000 forints already offered, and also asked for grain, and the payment of tax arrears, Czompó joined those deputies giving voice to their dissatisfaction, behind whom the other county deputies would then also stand.157 Czompó‟s speeches at the diet of 1741 (by now as vicecomes of Sopron County) were also characterized by a new-found oppositional tone compared to his earlier one: alongside László Schlossberg, he was considered one of the leading speakers at the diet.158 His opposition status was not so clear, however. In a letter dated 30 July 1741, Márton Szuhányi, deputy for Szatmár county, wrote that amidst the moaning following the unfavourable royal proposition, Sándor Czompó was one of those attempting to motivate the lower house to work (as he was being enticed by the post of chairman of the Transdanubian district court in Kőszeg),159 and yet it was Czompó who urged a tough stance on naturalized aristocrats, saying that they had never taken the oath, did not pay the fee required of them, and so they had to be taken off the lists of Hungary‟s estates. The diet sent out a committee on this subject, despite personalis Antal Grassalkovich‟s attempts to prevent this, citing the efforts of an earlier deputation.160 According to the pasquil Arcana Regni Hungariae, Czompó was only attempting to make himself look oppositional, but did not in fact want to be disloyal, so János Nagy considers him one of those with loyalties to both sides.161 In any case, according to the annual directory of 1742, he was already chairman of the district court of Kőszeg. 162 He achieved this coveted office not by supporting the government on the tax issue in 1728, 163 but rather by his later visible oppositionality that would on certain issues nevertheless be paired with compliance.

21

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

10th career path, Protestants in opposition (confessional and national considerations, unsuccessful): György Szathmáry-Király Born into the Borsod county branch of one of the most eminent families in Gömör county. His father had been vicecomes of the former.164 György Szathmáry-Király went on a study trip to Britain, and then he translated an English book on bee-keeping and the Austrian regulations to protect against cattle plague.165 As chief warden of Tiszamellék diocese, he was also an important figure for the Calvinists in the mid-18th century. During the urbarial regulation he was one of the country‟s 400 largest noble landowners.166 György Szathmáry-Király had already represented Borsod County at the diet as its assessor in 1741,167 and then at the next diet he would again be the county‟s deputy, as assessor.168In the June debates at the diet he expressed a moderate opposition stance: on the procedural question on the table, he recommended that the submission of grievances could begin while the royal propositions were being discussed at the diet. (i.e. they should not wait for discussion of the propositions to be complete.) His opinion was that, while his majesty clearly needed the funds, the estates had already reported on the “weakened state” of the country‟s taxpayers. The king had first to assist with this, and then, if there were grounds for taxes to be increased, the diet would allow this. Later, he would maintain that no new tax base was established from the more proportional distribution of the war tax, as whatever basis was found in one county for a tax increase would have to be used to ease matters in another, heavily-burdened county.169 It can be no surprise that, in the eyes of the pasquil De Csuzy et Okolicsányi, György Szathmáry-Király was one of the „sparkling pearls‟ or „gleaming hearts of gold‟, the seven leading lights of the opposition in the lower house of the diet.170 At the diet of 1764–5, as deputy for Borsod County171 he immediately joined the deputation sent to Vienna to invite Maria Theresa to the diet, and then the committee sent, under the leadership of the viceroy of Croatia, to develop legal reform.172 He would again be included in a pasquil that listed eminent personalities. (Nine of the county deputies are mentioned here.)173 Another commentary called him a bad patriot,174 while a pro-government pasquil bluntly cursed him as a chief pillar of the opposition.175 An opposition pasquil meanwhile praised him as a true defender of the homeland;176 the pamphlet Speculum non falax lauded him in particular.177 It seems that the inheritance of opposition politics was the rule in this family: in one generation, we find a loyal devotee of Rákóczi (György‟s brother Ádám178) and a foremost member of the opposition at the diet (György himself); a member of the following generation (József, son of Ádám) would attract attention in the context of the conspiracy of Hungarian Jacobins. When in 1791 Leopold II gave his opinion of the most important figures in Hungarian politics for the benefit of his son, Archduke Alexander Leopold, the young palatine, he ranked József Szathmáry-Király as in the “second-class” tier of the “dangerous” opposition figures.179 Three years later, after the capture of the Hungarian Jacobins‟ leaders, Laczkovics, Szentmarjay and Hajnóczy, without any court sentence, the general assembly of the Szabolcs county sent a petition to Francis I, criticizing the arrests as illegal, requesting the defendants be tried in a Hungarian court, as well as punishment for those responsible for the illegal arrests. The vicecomes who specifically requested the intervention of Palatine Alexander Leopold on this issue was József Szathmáry-Király.180 Such an interpretation, stressing the oppositional inclination of the whole family, would simplify the situation, however. Pál Szathmáry-Király was in 1760 a member of Maria Theresa‟s Hungarian noble guard,181 i.e. one of the first echelons of the 120 Hungarian noble

22

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 guards in Vienna. Three decades later, Miklós Szathmáry-Király, brother of József and vicecomes of Gömör, also appears on the list of Leopold II. True, in 1790 Miklós was commander of the noble troops sent by Gömör County to guard the crown brought to Hungary from Vienna,182 so he was still judged by the king to be trustworthy. As early as the start of September 1790 he had recommended at the Gömör county assembly that Archduke Alexander Leopold be elected as palatine, hoping to be made protonotarius to the palatine for his services.183 Our main protagonist György Szathmáry-Király, meanwhile, would for all his opposition leanings be given the title of royal councillor.184 There was still no insuperable chasm between government and opposition; opposition politics could in some cases be consistent with royal favour. But this was perhaps one of the last few examples of this.

11th career path: Catholics in opposition, 1 (self-interest, successful): József Török József Török of Szendrő was born in 1714 as the son of Ferenc Török, vicecomes of Torna, and Baroness Zsuzsa Vécsey. After nine years as vicecomes of Borsod County, he was given a post in the central royal administration:185 from 1754 to 1758 he was a lesser noble councillor of the council of lieutenancy.186 He then became a councillor at the chancellery in Vienna, from which he would retire with a pension of 1500 forints. He was reappointed to lead the chamber administration of Szepes in 1779.187 He was elevated to the rank of count on 28 December 1774.188 He acquired half of the Ónod estate in 1746, when still a deputy vicecomes.189 During the urbarial regulation of Maria Theresa, József Török featured among the top hundred noble landowners.190 Török was first present at the diet in 1741, at the age of 27, when he was deputy for absentee Baron Ghillányi.191 In 1751 he was already at the diet as first vicecomes and deputy of Borsod County.192 On 1 May he was chosen to be a member of the committee sent to greet Maria Theresa.193 At the debate at the lower house on 11 June 1751, Gábor Prónay, deputy for Pest County, made a speech that was loyal in character. He recommended the diet find a supplementary tax base – i.e. that it allow a tax increase. In response, József Török took up a highly oppositional stance, stating that “the country is not able to give more”, while at the same time demanding the submission of the remaining grievances. When prebendary Huber, representing the chapter of Eger, insisted that more tax had to be collected from the current tax base, in order for the estates to retain the queen‟s favour and for long-lasting peace to return, to which the estates were bound by conscience, Török‟s reply was that all county deputies had been instructed to lessen the burden on their taxpayers. The deputies therefore had to act in accordance with their oath, their instructions, and their consciences. This meant the task of the diet was for grievances to be resolved – only after this would it transpire whether it could raise taxes and to what extent. He also argued that the king‟s letter of invitation stated that one of the objectives in convening the diet was for them to discuss the matter of „safeguarding‟ the country, and that they should discuss this first, not look for a tax base in order to raise the annual tax amount.194 Three years after proclaiming these vigorous opposition calls to arms, Török would already be the leading administrator at the council of lieutenancy, then at the chancellery; his comital title is proof he performed his duties with loyalty and expertise. His son, Lajos Török, was a student at the Theresianum, a freemason, the founder of the lodge „to the virtuous cosmopolitan‟ in Miskolc. He remained in the service of Joseph II even after 1785, but his works published in 1790, like that analyzing the parallels between the Hungarian and the British constitutions, would show him as already belonging to the enlightened wing of the Hungarian noble opposition. Of the reform committees, in 1791 he

23

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 became a member for that on educational affairs. In 1795, following the Hungarian Jacobin conspiracy, however, he was given his pension.195 It is as if his career were the mirror image of his father‟s (just in the ranks of the aristocracy): first he was a loyal servant of the ruler, then he would go on to represent the opposition of the estates. He represented the same political position from which his father had begun 40 years previously, just at a higher intellectual level and in a much more modern fashion – and in the meantime their family had risen in social (and wealth) terms. Seen from a different angle, we can interpret this process as the „investment‟ represented by royal favour only being able to buy the support and services of this family for four decades.

12th career path, Catholics in opposition, 2 (self-interest, unsuccessful): Ferenc Szentiványi The son of Farkas Szentiványi, vicecomes of Liptó county, Ferenc was would also become vicecomes of Liptó (1740–60), and its deputy at the diet. His wife was Róza Okolicsányi. His nephew Ferenc (1731–1823), rose to the position of lord chief justice, and other members of the family rose to aristocracy.196 Ferenc Szentiványi was already at the diet of 1722–3 as assessor and deputy of Liptó County, then again in 1728–9.197 Some of his political pronouncements from the second occasion are known. During the vote on 24 July 1728 he joined the majority of the county deputies in recommending that the amount of tax levied at the previous diet be renewed: this effectively rejected any tax increase, as well as refusing to accept the sum previously added to the annual tax amount by the council of lieutenancy.198 At the diets of 1741 and 1751 it would again be Ferenc Szentiványi who appeared as vicecomes and deputy of Liptó County;199 His oppositional views were no obstacle to the advancement of his loyal nephew.

13th career path, Catholics in opposition, 3 (national interests, unsuccessful): Gáspár Csuzy Gáspár Csuzy was assessor and deputy of Veszprém county at the diet of 1741, who was not just selected to join important committees,200 but was, alongside János Okolicsányi, one of the leaders of the opposition in the diet.201When Maria Theresa‟s second rescript arrived, rejecting the requests of the estates, he claimed that most probably the German ministers had done something fraudulent, as the queen had wanted to satisfy all the Hungarian wishes.202 Neither did he support the noble levy intended to protect Maria Theresa: “they wish to take the nobility to the slaughterhouse”.203 Ten years later he would again represent his county at the diet as an assessor;204 again, together with Okolicsányi, he would count as one of the leaders of the opposition at the diet.205 When the young Pál Festetich, deputy for Sopron county, argued in favour of the tax increase, it was Csuzy who, as opposition leader, silenced him. Csuzy‟s lack of trust in the government was unchanged: “the court promised many things at the diet, [but] nothing became of it”, he said.206 Csuzy made the most speeches in the period from 11 June to 5 July 1751, followed by personalis György Fekete.207 In this debate between opposition and government it was particularly ironic that György Fekete‟s father, János Fekete Sr., had married Anna Érsek, the widowed mother of Gáspár Csuzy: the leading spokesmen for opposition and government were step-brothers. On his death, Count György Fekete left Rendek in Zala County to his “brother”, Imre, brother of Gáspár Csuzy.208 But he left none of his estate to Gáspár or to his descendants. In his biographical outline, János Nagy stresses that the step-father of the Csuzy orphans, the elder János Fekete, then their step-brother, György Fekete, were granted a „new royal donation‟ of a whole series of formerly Csuzy properties (thus squeezing the orphans

24

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020 and the whole male line out of their inheritance). These personal conflicts would then also make themselves present in the politics of the diet.209 In addition to the Csuzy estate in Veszprém County, Maria Theresa‟s urbarial regulation found the family‟s (larger) domains in Pest County. Together they amounted to no negligible property, even without the land handed to the Fekete family; Gáspár Csuzy remained one of the country‟s largest 750 landowners.210 As lawyer to the Calvinist lesser nobility of Pápa, he also found himself in conflict with tavernicum regalium magister Count Ferenc Esterházy. He also had strong differences with the bishops of Veszprém as supremi comites; in 1764 Ignác Koller prevented him being chosen as county deputy to the diet.211

Manuscript sources A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [The National Archives of Hungary, Budapest] A57 [Magyar kancelláriai levéltár, Libri regii] Ibid., A79 [Magyar kancelláriai levéltár, a Magyar Királyi Kancellária regisztratúrája. Index individuorum Cancellariae, 1690–1821] Ibid., N52 [Regnicolaris levéltár,Archivum Regni, Diaeta anni 1728–1729] Ibid., N120 [Regnicolaris levéltár, Archivum Regni, Acta diaetalia]. Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [Vienna], Ungarische Akten, Comitialia. OrszággyűlésiKönyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény [Library of the Hungarian Parliament, Gyurikovits Collection, Budapest], 700.455: Acta comitiorum… Ibid., 700.466: Acta diaetae anni MDCCLI Ibid., 700.467:Acta seu diarium… Ibid., 700.470: Diarium diaetae regni Hungariae 1751. Ibid., 700.475: Acta diaetalia anni 1741… Ibid., 700.478: Diarium diaetae anni 1741… Ibid., 700.479: Acta concursus anni 1736… Ibid., 700.480: Acta concursus anni 1737… Ibid., 700.482: Acta diaetae 1728/9 anni, Ibid., 700.484: Diarium occasione generalis regni Hungariae diaetae… Ibid., 700.486/1: Acta diaetalia… Ibid., 700.488: Az 1722–23. evi pozsonyi országgyűlés… Ibid., 700.489: Acta publica diaetae Posoniensis… Ibid., 700.500: Diarium diaetae… Ibid., 700.504: Acta publica comitiorum… Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Kézirattár [National Széchényi Library, Manuscript Archive, Budapest], Fol. Lat. 575: Diarium et acta… Ibid., Fol. Lat. 3542: Acta diaetae annorum 1764/5 Ibid., Fol. Lat. 4073: Országgyűlési versek, 1765–1823

Published works Áldásy, A. „Az ónodi országgyűlés története‟, Századok 29, 1895. Bán, P. (ed.), Heves megye történeti archontológiája (1681–)1687–2000, Eger: Heves Megyei Levéltár, 2011. Barth, F., Models of social organization, London: Royal Anthropological Institute, 1966. Benda, K. (ed.), A magyar jakobinusok iratai, 3 vols, Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1952–7.

25

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Black, J., The Politics of Britain, 1688–1800, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993. Braudel, F., The Identity of France. I. History and Environment, II. People and Production, New York: Harper & Row, 1986–8. (Originally: L’identité de la France. I. Espace et histoire, II–III. Les hommes et les choses, Paris: Arthaud–Flammarion, 1986–7.) Csekey, I., A magyar trónöröklési jog: Jogtörténelmi és közjogi tanulmány oklevélmellékletekkel, Budapest:: Athenaeum, 1917. Cserpes, T. and I.M. Szijártó, „An open elite in Hungary? High office holders in the 18th century‟, Journal of Social History 48, 2014. Dedek-Crescens, L. „Pest–Pilis–Solt–Kiskun vármegye története (a honfoglalástól a legújabb időkig)‟, in S. Borovszky (ed.), Pest–Pilis–Solt–Kiskun vármegye, 2 vols, Budapest: Országos Monografia Társaság, s.a. [1910–1], DVD-ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003. Dewald, J., The European Nobility, 1400–1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996. Éble, G. (ed.), „Gróf Károlyi Sándor naplójegyzetei 1725-ből‟, Történelmi Tár, new series 3, 1902. --, Károlyi Ferencz grófés kora, 1705–1758: A grófi nemzetség levéltárának adatai alapján, Budapest: Hornyánszky, 1893. Eckhart, F., „A bécsi udvar jobbágypolitikája 1761–1790-ig‟, Századok 90, 1956. Ember, Gy., A m. kir. Helytartótanács ügyintézésének története 1724–1848, Budapest: M. Kir. Országos Levéltár, 1940. --, „Az országgyűlések‟, in Gy. Ember and G. Heckenast (eds), Magyarország története 1686– 1790, Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989. Evans, R.J.W.,Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs. Central Europe c.1683–1867, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006. Fallenbüchl, Z., Grassalkovich Antal. Hivatalnok és főnemes a XVIII. században, Gödöllő: GödöllőiVárosiMúzeum, 1997. --, Magyarország főispánjai, 1526–1848, Budapest: Argumentum, 1994. --, Magyarország főméltóságai, 1526–1848, Budapest: Maecenas, 1988. Fazekas, I., „A Magyar Udvari Kancellária és hivatalnokai a 16–18. században‟, Századok 148, 2014. Fényes, E., Magyarország geographiai szótára, 4 vols, Pest: Kozma Vazul, 1851, DVD-ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003. Fónagy, Z., Nemesi birtokviszonyok az úbérrendezés korában. Adattár, 2 vols, Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2013. Gribaudi, M., Itinéraires ouvriers. Espaces et groupes sociaux à Turin au début du XXe siècle, Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1987. Gyapay, M., „A 18. századi politikai elit társadalomtörténete‟, M.A. thesis, Eötvös University, Faculty of Humanities, Institute of History, Budapest, 2006. Gyulai, É., „Család – vármegye – egyház. Aszalay Ferenc karrierje és életstratégiája a Rákóczi-szabadságharc után', Századok 146, 2012. H.Balázs, É., „A nyolcvanas esztendők drámája‟, in Gy. Ember and G. Heckenast (eds), Magyarország története 1686–1790, Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989.

26

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Heckenast, G., Ki kicsoda a Rákóczi-szabadságharcban? Életrajzi adattár. Prepared for publication by K. Mészáros, Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 2005. Horváth, M., Magyarország történelme, 2nd ed., 8 vols, Pest–Budapest, Heckenast Gusztáv – Franklin Társulat, 1871–3. Jánossy, D., „Reformtörekvések a polgári peres eljárás terén a XVIII. században‟, Századok 77, 1943. Kandra, K., „Borsod-vármegye alispánjai a XIII-ik századtól napjainkig‟, Történelmi Tár [years are not marked], 1894. Kiss, A.(ed.), Pest–Pilis–Solt vármegye országgyűlési követutasításai a 18. században, Budapest: A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Pest Megyei Levéltára, 2015. Kolinovics, G., Nova Ungariae periodus… Edited by M.G. Kovachich, Buda: Universitas Regia, 1790. Lehoczky, T. (ed.), „Gúnyirat az 1764-ki országgyűlés idejéből‟, Történelmi Tár, [years are not marked], 1898. Kosáry, D., Művelődés a XVIII. századi Magyarországon, 2dn ed., Budapest: Akadémiai, 1983, 3rd, extended ed., Budapest: Akadémiai, 1996. Málnási, Ö., Gróf Csáky Imre bíbornok élete és kora (1672–1732), Kalocsa: Gróf Csáky család, 1933. Mályusz, E., „Bevezetés‟, in E. Mályusz (ed.), Sándor Lipót főherceg nádor iratai, Budapest: Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926, -- (ed.), Sándor Lipót főherceg nádor iratai, Budapest: Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926. Marczali, H., Az 1790/1-diki országgyűlés, 2 vols, Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1907. --, Magyarország története, Magyarország története III.Károlytól a bécsi congressusig (1711–1815), Budapest: Atheneum, 1898. Márki, S., „A koronaőrző nemesek naplója 1790-ből‟, Századok 15, 1881. Márkus, D., Magyar Törvénytár 21 vols, Budapest: Franklin, 1896–1901. Martines, L., April Blood. Florence and the Plot against the Medici, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2003. Nagy, Á., „Társadalmi mobilitás a kapcsolatok hálózatában– visszatérés a társadalom konfigurációs szemléletéhez‟, in G. Papp and I.M. Szijártó (eds), Mikrotörténelem másodfokon, Budapest: Harmattan, 2010. Nagy, I., Magyarország családai czímerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal, 12 vols and an additional volume, Pest: Friebeisz István – Ráth Mór, 1857–68; CD-ROM ed.: Budapest: Arcanum, 1999; DVD-ed.: Budapest, Arcanum, 2003. --, „Magyarországi képzőművészek a legrégibbi dőktől‟ 1850-ig‟, Századok 8, 1874. Nagy, J., Rendi ellenzék és kormánypárt az 1751. Évi országgyűlésen, Budapest: Budapest Főváros Levéltára – Mika Sándor Egyesület, 2020. --, „Rendi politikai kultúra a 18. századi országgyűlési pasquillusok tükrében', MA thesis, Eötvös University, Faculty of Humanities, Institute of History, Budapest, 2012. Namier, L., The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1957. Nora, P. (ed.), Rethinking France: Les Lieux de mémoire. 4 vols, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999–2010. (Originally Les lieux de mémoire, 3 vols, Paris: Gallimard, 1984– 92.)

27

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Ódor, I., „Hierarchia és presztízs. A köznemesi elit a 18. századi Baranyában‟, in J. Bana and Cs. Katona (eds.), Családok, családfák, generációk, Budapest–Győr: Győr Megyei Jogú Város Levéltára – Magyar Országos Levéltár – Mediawave Alapítvány, 2007. Papp, B., „Az ellenzék hangadói az 1751. évi országgyűlésen‟, paper presented at the conference of the working group Diaeta on 12 April 2006 in Collegium Budapest, szijarto.web.elte.hu/PB.html, retrieved 18 May 2020. Reiszig, E., „Zemplén vármegye története a mohácsi vésztől a kiegyezésig, 1523–1867‟, in S. Borovszky (ed.), Zemplén vármegye, Budapest: Országos Monografia Társaság, s.a., DVD- ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003. R.Várkonyi, Á. „Szabadságharc az állami önállóságért‟, in Gy. Ember and G. Heckenast (eds), Magyarország története 1686–1790, Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989. Sebők, R. „Hivatali pályafutások a 18. századi Királyi Kúrián', in I.M. Szijártó and Z.G. Szűcs (eds), Politikai elit és politikai kultúra a 18. század végi Magyarországon, Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2012. --, „A professzionalizáció jeleinek vizsgálata a Királyi Tábla ülnökeinek és ítélőmestereinek körében 1724–1785 között‟, Századok 150, 2016. Szalay, L. (ed.), Károlyi Sándor gróf önéletírása és naplójegyzetei, Pest: Heckenast, 1865. Szántay, A., „II. József kerületi biztosai‟, Századok 148, 2014. Szemethy, T., ‟Rangemelésben részesült új főrendek a 18. században‟, in. T. Dobszay et al (eds), Rendiség és parlamentarizmus Magyarországon: A kezdetektől 1918-ig, Budapest: Az Országgyűlés Hivatala, 2014. Szijártó, I.M., A 18. századi Magyarország rendi országgyűlése, Budapest: Országház Kiadó, 2016. --, A diéta. A magyar rendek és az országgyűlés, 1708–1792, Budapest: Osiris, 2005. --, Estates and Constitution. The Parliament in Eighteenth-Century Hungary, New York: Berghahn, 2020. --, „Hivatali karrierek a 18. századi vármegyékben‟, Századok 148, 2014. --, Nemesi társadalom és politika, Tanulmányok a 18. századi magyar rendiségről, Budapest: Universitas, 2006. --, „A “professzionális” hivatalnokok tereziánus nemzedéke és a bürokraták hatalomátvétele‟, Századok 153, 2019. Téglás, J. B., A történeti pasquillus a magyar irodalomban, Szeged: Magyar Irodalomtörténeti Intézet, 1928. Thaly, K., „Dunántúli hadjárat 1707-ben. Hadtörténelmi tanúlmány‟, Századok 13, 1879. Trócsányi, Zs., „A szatmári békétől a számkivetésig (1711–1752)‟, in L. Rúzsás et al., A pápai kollégium története, Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1981. Tuza, Cs., „Egy elfeledett 18. századi karrier: Galánthai Fekete György életútja. Vázlat egy készülő életrajzhoz‟, Századok 140, 2006. Upton, A., „Charles XI and the Swedish Estates, 1680–1693‟, Parliaments, Estates and Representation 22, 2002. Vámos, A., „A távollévők követei a 18. századi országgyűléseken‟, in I.M. Szijártó and Z.G. Szűcs (eds), Politikai elit és politikai kultúra a 18. század végi Magyarországon, Budapest: ELTE Eötvös, 2012.

28

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

Wellmann, I., „A Rákóczi birtokok sorsa‟, in I. Lukinich (ed.), Rákóczi emlékkönyv halálának kétszáz éves fordulójára, 2 vols, Budapest: Franklin, 1935.

1 F. Barth, Models of social organization, London: Royal Anthropological Institute, 1966, p. v. 2 Á. Nagy, „Társadalmi mobilitás a kapcsolatok hálózatában – visszatérés a társadalom konfigurációs szemléletéhez, in G. Papp and I.M. Szijártó (eds), Mikrotörténelem másodfokon, Budapest: Harmattan, 2010, pp. 250–1. Cf. M. Gribaudi, Itinéraires ouvriers. Espaces et groupes sociaux à Turin au début du XXe siècle, Paris: Ecole des Hautes Etudes en Sciences Sociales, 1987. 3F. Guicciardini, Opere (Dialogo del reggimento di Firenze), 275, quoted by L. Martines, April Blood. Florence and the Plot against the Medici, Oxford – New York: Oxford University Press, 2003, endnote 54. 4 F. Braudel, The Identity of France. I. History and Environment, II. People and Production. New York: Harper & Row, 1986–8. (Originally: L’identité de la France. I. Espace et histoire, II–III. Les hommes et les choses, Paris: Arthaud–Flammarion, 1986–7.) Politics, culture, society and international relations would have filled the volumes unwritten because of his death. 5 P. Nora (ed.), Rethinking France: Les Lieux de mémoire, 4 vols, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1999–2010. (Originally Les lieux de mémoire, 3 vols, Paris: Gallimard, 1984– 92.) 6I.M. Szijártó, Estates and Constitution. The Parliament in Eighteenth-Century Hungary, New York: Berghahn, 2020, pp. 177–206. County deputies were elected in general assemblies. In this period, they might still regard their mission more a burden then a distinction, and they were hardly effectively bound by their mandates, although changes were perceptible in both fields in the second half of the 18th century. (Ibid., 275–99.) 7These conferences of the estates partially substituted the diets with limited representation, authority, and jurisdiction from the late 17th century on, especially in the question of levying taxes. After 1708, the concursus did not only distribute the taxes but levy them on its own right. By the 1730s, when a concursus was held in four successive years, it had become a diet in miniature, with representatives from each county and royal free city, several bishops and magnates attending. 8A wide variety of voting procedures were applied in the Hungarian diet of the 18th century. Here, I have used the rare occasions when voting was personal (and it was also open). Cf. Szijártó, Estates and Constitution op. cit., 178–91. 9 I have excluded from the examination three groups that I had already been investigated elsewhere: (1) the high dignitaries of Hungary as well as (2) those high office holders of the central royal administration that occupied positions for at least a quarter of a century (i.e. more than twice the average) and also (3) certain county officials. (Cf. T. Cserpes and I.M. Szijártó, „An open elite in Hungary? High office holders in the 18th century‟, Journal of Social History 48, 2014; I.M. Szijártó, „Hivatali karrierek a 18. századi vármegyékben‟, Századok 148, 2014; I.M. Szijártó, „A “professzionális” hivatalnokok tereziánus nemzedéke és a bürokraták hatalomátvétele‟, Századok 153, 2019.) For homogenity, I have also excluded from the group to be examined those who were not county deputies or deputies of absentees, that is, more or less, those who did not belong to the Hungarian gentry. Urban representation at the Hungarian diet was without political weight. (Szijártó, Estates and Constitution op. cit., 171, 190.) 29

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

10 A constantly updated database, presently (22 May 2020) containing 22797 pieces of data, served as the basis for the quantitative examination: http://szijarto.web.elte.hu/ogy.xls. The key to this Diaeta database is found here: http://szijarto.web.elte.hu/segitseg.htm. The 60 MPs under investigation here may have represented 15% of all the county deputies of the period 1728–65. 11 The traditional four districts of the country were those on this side of the Danube (Cisdanubian, i.e. approximately Northwest and Central Hungary), beyond the Danube (Transdanubian, i.e. Southwest Hungary), on this side of the Tisza river (i.e. Cistibiscan, Northeast Hungary) and beyond the Tisza river (Transtibiscan, i.e. East Hungary). The latter two, however, were usually treated as one unit in this period of parliamentary practice, also referred to as ‟the 13 counties‟ or Tibiscan counties. 12 For royal favour, ten years before the diet were considered. 13Sámuel Blaskovich represented the single exception. 14 Cf. J. Dewald, The European Nobility, 1400–1800, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996, pp. 140–8; A. Upton, „Charles XI and the Swedish Estates, 1680–1693‟, Parliaments, Estates and Representation 22, 2002, pp. 86–7. 15 L. Namier, The Structure of Politics at the Accession of George III, 2nd ed., London: Macmillan, 1957. 16 J. Black, The Politics of Britain, 1688–1800, Manchester and New York: Manchester University Press, 1993, pp. 92–3. 17Here, the first of the three possible approaches is applied, that is, success in the second generation is not considered, and the group of office-holders is not further analysed, either. 18 The 53rd instance is the activity of Pál Prileszky, deputy for an absentee, at the diet of 1728–9. 19In this period, confession was not a private affair but an important and therefore public characteristic of the families in the political elite. Still, I was not able with certainly to identify the confession of nine lesser-known politicians. This relates to a total of ten participations at the diet, three of them „unsuccessful‟. 20 Nine politicians whose religion I could not identify are responsible for 16 more political positions. 21Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény [Library of the Hungarian Parliament, Gyurikovits Collection], 700.500: Diarium diaetae…, p. 153. 22Ibid., 700.484: Diarium occasione generalis regni Hungariae diaetae… pp. 81–4. (Two counties were divided, while two stayed away from the vote.) 23 H. Marczali, Az 1790/1-dikiországgyűlés, 2 vols, Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1907, vol. 2, p. 40. 24 I.M. Szijártó, A 18. századi Magyarország rendi országgyűlése, Budapest: Országház Kiadó, 2016, pp. 163–7. 25 Ibid., pp. 303–4. 26Just as in England the knights of the shire were expected to represent local interests in Westminster, county deputies tried to do the same at the diet. When regarding taxation, this concern either pitched them against each other (when the tax amount was distributed among the counties and cities of the kingdom) or united them against the king (when this amount was set in negotiation with the ruler). We shall focus here on the latter case. 27See Szijártó, Estates and Constitution op. cit.

30

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

28 G. Heckenast, Ki kicsoda a Rákóczi-szabadságharcban? Életrajzi adattár, Prepared for publication by K. Mészáros, Budapest: História – MTA Történettudományi Intézet, 2005, p. 347. 29 A. Vámos, „A távollévők követei a 18. századi országgyűléseken‟, in I.M. Szijártó and Z.G. Szűcs (eds), Politikai elit és politikai kultúra a 18. század végi Magyarországon, Budapest: ELTE Eötvös, 2012, p. 70. 30 Á. R.Várkonyi, „Szabadságharc az állami önállóságért‟, in Gy. Ember and G. Heckenast (eds), Magyarország története 1686–1790, Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989, pp. 191, 216. 31 A. Áldásy, „Az ónodi országgyűlés története', Századok 29, 1895, p. 732. 32Heckenast, op. cit., p. 347. 33Vámos, op. cit., p. 70. 34 Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény, 700.504: Acta publica comitiorum…, p. 8. 35 A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára [The National Archives of Hungary, Budapest] N120 [Regnicolaris levéltár, Archivum Regni, Acta diaetalia], bundle 2, numbers 52, 1, 34, 75. (I would like to thank Kinga Tóth for this data.) Made up of the aulic members of the judicial reform committee officially established in 1715, this commission drew up the guidelines for implementing legal reform. (D. Jánossy, „Reformtörekvések a polgári peres eljárás terén a XVIII. században‟, Századok 77, 1943, pp. 44–5.) 36 I.M. Szijártó, Nemesi társadalom és politika, Tanulmányok a 18. századi magyar rendiségről, Budapest: Universitas, 2006, p. 227. 37Gy. Ember, „Az országgyűlések‟, in Ember and Heckenast (eds), op. cit., pp. 391–435. 402. 38G. Éble, Károlyi Ferencz gróf és kora, 1705–1758: A grófi nemzetség levéltárának adatai alapján, Budapest: Hornyánszky, 1893, p. 135. 39 I. Csekey, A magyar trónöröklési jog: Jogtörténelmi és közjogi tanulmány oklevélmellékletekkel, Budapest: Athenaeum, 1917, p. 253. 40 Ö. Málnási, Gróf Csáky Imre bíbornok élete és kora (1672–1732), Kalocsa: Gróf Csáky család, 1933, p. 270. 41Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény, 700.486/1: Acta diaetalia…, p. 38. 42Ibid., 700.488: Az 1722–23. evi pozsonyi országgyűlés…, pp. 45–56. 43700.486/1 op. cit., pp. 96 and 102, 138, 162, 181, 188. 44Vámos, op. cit., p. 55. 45Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény, 700.489: Acta publica diaetae Posoniensis…, p. 146. 46Jánossy, op. cit., pp. 46–7. The text, a summary of Hungary‟s common law and manorial law as Quadripartitum juris consuetudinarii, was published in 1743. (D. Kosáry, Művelődés a XVIII. századi Magyarországon, 3rd, extended ed., Budapest: Akadémiai, 1996, p. 158.) 47700.484 op. cit., p. 12. 48Ibid., pp. 81–4. 49J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai kultúra a 18. századi országgyűlési pasquillusok tükrében‟, MA thesis, Eötvös University, Faculty of Humanities, Institute of History, Budapest, 2012, p. 18. 50Ibid., p. 26. 51I. Nagy, Magyarország családai czímerekkel és nemzékrendi táblákkal, 12 vols and an additional volume, Pest: Friebeisz István – Ráth Mór, 1857–68, vol. 6, p. 203. 31

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

52K. Thaly, „Dunántúli hadjárat 1707-ben. Hadtörténelmi tanúlmány‟, Századok 13, 1879, p. 386. 53Zs. Trócsányi, „A szatmári békétől a számkivetésig (1711–1752)‟, in L. Rúzsás et al., A pápai kollégium története, Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1981, pp. 47, 49–50, 59–60. 54 É. Gyulai, „Család – vármegye – egyház. Aszalay Ferenc karrierje és életstratégiája a Rákóczi-szabadságharc után‟, Századok 146, 2012, p. 956; Trócsányi, op., cit., p. 45; articles of a law are quoted from D. Márkus, Magyar Törvénytár 21 vols, Budapest: Franklin, 1896– 1901. 55700.486/1 op. cit., p. 35. 56700.488 op. cit., pp. 45–56. 57700.486/1 op. cit., pp. 113, 136. 58700.484 op. cit., pp. 81–4. Cf. I.M. Szijártó, A diéta. A magyar rendek és az országgyűlés, 1708–1792, Budapest: Osiris, 2005, pp. 289–91. 59 700.484 op. cit., pp. 151–2. 60 J. B. Téglás, A történeti pasquillus a magyar irodalomban, Szeged: Magyar Irodalomtörténeti Intézet, 1928, pp. 84–5. 61 J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., pp. 17, 26. 62 The appendix of the royal commissioner‟s report of 10 September 1729: Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv [Vienna], Ungarische Akten, Comitialia 406B. 63 His letter to Pál Ráday dated 9 October 1729 is cited in J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., p. 28. 64Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Kézirattár [National Széchényi Library, Manuscript Archive, Budapest], Fol. Lat. 575: Diarium et acta…, p. 19. 65700.484 op. cit., pp. 81–4, 133–4, 151–2. 66700.486/1 op. cit., p. 35. 67I. Ódor, „Hierarchia és presztízs. A köznemesi elit a 18. századi Baranyában‟, in J. Bana and Cs. Katona (eds.), Családok, családfák, generációk, Budapest–Győr: Győr Megyei Jogú Város Levéltára – Magyar Országos Levéltár – Mediawave Alapítvány, 2007, pp. 213., 222. 68Z. Fónagy, Nemesi birtokviszonyok az úbérrendezés korában. Adattár, 2 vols, Budapest: MTA BTK Történettudományi Intézet, 2013, vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, p. 1263. This source does not give the complete size of the landholding, only that of the lands possessed by the serfs. This is the so-called „urbarial land.‟ 69J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék és kormánypárt az 1751. evi országgyűlésen, Budapest: Budapest Főváros Levéltára – Mika Sándor Egyesület, 2020, p. 427. 70 I.Nagy, Magyarország családai op.cit.CD-ROM ed., records 4727–9, 4741. 71Fónagy, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, p. 834. 72J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., 427. 73Gy. Ember, A m. kir. Helytartótanács ügyintézésének története 1724–1848, Budapest: M. Kir. Országos Levéltár, 1940, p. 204. 74R. Sebők, „Hivatali pályafutások a 18. századi Királyi Kúrián‟, in I.M. Szijártó and Z.G. Szűcs (eds), Politikai elit és politikai kultúra a 18. századi végi Magyarországon, Budapest: ELTE Eötvös Kiadó, 2012, pp. 41–2.

32

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

75 A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, A79 [Magyar kancelláriai levéltár, a Magyar Királyi Kancellária regisztratúrája. Index individuorum Cancellariae, 1690–1821], vol. 1: Index individuorumCancellariae, p. 5. I am grateful to András Vámos for this data. 76 I. Fazekas, „A Magyar Udvari Kancellária és hivatalnokai a 16–18. században‟, Századok 148, 2014, p. 1147. 77R.J.W. Evans, Austria, Hungary, and the Habsburgs. Central Europe c.1683–1867, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 2006, p. 182. 78F. Eckhart, „A bécsi udvar jobbágypolitikája 1761–1790-ig‟, Századok 90, 1956, pp. 78, 86. 79R. Sebők, „A professzionalizáció jeleinek vizsgálata a Királyi Tábla ülnökeinek és ítélőmestereinek körében 1724–1785 között‟, Századok 150, 2016, pp. 945–65. 80 Evans, op. cit., p. 25. 81 Z. Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főispánjai, 1526–1848, Budapest: Argumentum, 1994, p. 76. 82Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény 700.478: Diarium diaetae anni 1741, p. 175. 83Ibid.,700.475: Acta diaetalia anni 1741…, p. 182–83. 84Ibid., 700.466: Acta diaetae anni MDCCLI, 28–30, pp. 315–316; ibid., 700.467 op. cit., pp. 126 and 362, 450; article 26 of 1751. 85 J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai„ op. cit., p. 65. 86Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Kézirattár, Fol. Lat. 4073, p. 32. 87 Fazekas, op. cit., p. 1153. 88 Ember, A m. kir. Helytartótanács op. cit., p. 200. 89Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főispánjai op. cit., pp. 66, 103; A. Szántay „II. József kerületi biztosai‟, Századok, 148, 2014, p. 1171. 90Z. Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főméltóságai, 1526–1848, Budapest: Maecenas, 1988, p. 73. 91 A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, A57 [Magyar kancelláriai levéltár, Libri regii], vol. 50, pp. 178–180; vol. 55, pp. 22–9. I am grateful to Tamás Szemethy for this data. 92 I. Nagy, Magyarország családai op. cit., CD-ROM ed., records 34923, 34940. 93J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit. pp. 332–3. 94A. Kiss (ed.), Pest–Pilis–Solt vármegye országgyűlési követutasításai a 18. században, Budapest: A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Pest Megyei Levéltára, 2015, p. 175. 95Kosáry, op. cit. 2nd ed., p. 227. 96 Kiss (ed.), op. cit.,pp. 174–5. 97Fónagy, op. cit, vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, p. 1294. 98Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény 700.479: Acta concursus anni 1736…, pp. 32–3. 99G. Kolinovics, Nova Ungariae periodus… Edited by M.G.Kovachich, Buda: Universitas Regia, 1790, p. 667. 100700.478 op. cit., pp. 51–52; 700.475 op. cit., p. 44. 101700.467 op. cit., p. 5. 102Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény, 700.470: Diarium diaetae regni Hungariae 1751, pp. 27–8, 31. 103 J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., p. 169. 104Téglás, op. cit., pp. 89–90. 33

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

105 J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit.,p.377. 106T. Szemethy, „Rangemelésben részesült új főrendek a 18. században‟, in T. Dobszay et al (eds), Rendiség és parlamentarizmus Magyarországon: A kezdetektől 1918-ig, Budapest: Az Országgyűlés Hivatala, 2014, p. 315. 107É. H.Balázs, „A nyolcvanas esztendők drámája‟, in Gy. Ember and G. Heckenast (eds), Magyarország története 1686–1790, Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989,p. 1086; Fallenbüchl, Magyarország főispánjai op. cit., pp. 73, 77; Szántay, op. cit., pp. 1171, 1175. 108 E. Mályusz, „Bevezetés‟, in E. Mályusz (ed.), Sándor Lipót főherceg nádor iratai, Budapest: Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926, p. 42. Of the brothers, it was probably, but not certainly, Gábor who was made a candidate. 109Kiss (ed.), op. cit., p. 216. 110G. Éble (ed.), „Gróf Károlyi Sándor naplójegyzetei 1725-ből‟, Történelmi Tár, newseries 3, 1902, pp. 89, 90, 93, 103, 271. 111700.500 op. cit., p. 30. 112700.504 op. cit., p. 10. 113700.486/1 op. cit., p. 42. 114Szijártó, A diéta op. cit., pp. 275–6. 115H. Marczali, Magyarország története, Magyarország története III. Károlytól a bécsi congressusig (1711–1815), Budapest: Atheneum, 1898, pp. 127–8. 116L. Szalay (ed.), Károlyi Sándor gróf önéletírása és naplójegyzetei, Pest: Heckenast, 1865, p. 339. 117 The appendix to the royal councillor‟s report of 10 September 1729: Comitialia 406B op. cit. 118 700.484 op. cit., pp. 81–84. 119 See Szijártó, A diéta op. cit., pp. 380–91. 120 Kiss (ed.) op. cit., p. 176; P. Bán (ed.), Heves megye történeti archontológiája (1681– )1687–2000, Eger: Heves Megyei Levéltár, 2011, p. 89. 121 Szijártó, Nemesi társadalom op. cit., pp. 227–8. 122700.486/1 op. cit., pp. 31, 36. 123Fol. Lat. 575 op. cit., p. 20. 124700.486/1 op. cit., pp. 95, 102, 136, 161, 180, 188. 125700.484 op. cit., pp. 10, 12. 126Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény, 700.482: Acta diaetae 1728/9 anni, p. 90. 127Szemethy, „Rangemelésben részesült‟ op. cit., p. 313. 128Sebők, „Hivatali pályafutások‟ op. cit., p. 40. 129L. Dedek–Crescens, „Pest–Pilis–Solt-Kiskun vármegye története (a honfoglalástól a legújabb időkig)‟, in S. Borovszky (ed.), Pest–Pilis–Solt–Kiskun vármegye, 2 vols Budapest: Országos Monografia Társaság, s.a. [1910–1], DVD-ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003, record 430439. 130E. Fényes, Magyarország geographiai szótára, 4 vols, Pest: Kozma Vazul, 1851, DVD- ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003, record 552057. 131700.484 op. cit., pp. 81–4, 133–4. 132Ibid., p. 283.

34

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

133 The appendix to the royal commissioner‟s report of 10 September 1729: Comitialia 406B op. cit. 134 Z. Fallenbüchl, Grassalkovich Antal. Hivatalnok és főnemes a XVIII. században, Gödöllő: Gödöllői Városi Múzeum, 1997, p. 18. 135See Szijártó, A diéta op. cit., pp. 175–6. 136See 700.504 op. cit.; 700.486/1 op. cit., pp. 22, 139, 163; A Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár Országos Levéltára, N52 [Regnicolaris levéltár, Archivum Regni, Diaetaanni 1728–9], Lad. S, Fasc. AAA, Nr. 82. (I have András Forgó to thank for this last piece of data.) 137 I.Nagy, Magyarország családai op. cit., DVD-ROM ed., records 30029, 56149. 138J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., p. 266. 139E. Reiszig, „Zemplén vármegye története a mohácsi vésztől a kiegyezésig, 1523–1867‟, in S. Borovszky (ed.), Zemplén vármegye, Budapest: Országos Monografia Társaság, s.a.), DVD-ROM ed.: Arcanum DVD-könyvtár IV.: családtörténet, heraldika, honismeret, Budapest: Arcanum, 2003, record 396917. 140Fónagy, op. cit., vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, p. 1221. 141Kolinovics,op. cit., p. 663; 700.467, p. 6. 142M. Horváth, Magyarország történelme, 2nd ed., 8 vols, Pest–Budapest, Heckenast– Franklin, 1871–3, vol. 7, 233, 247–50. 143700.466 op. cit., 315–16; 700.467 op. cit., 372, 450. 144J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., 41. 145700.470 op. cit, 25–96. 146J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., p. 91. 147Ibid., p. 42. 148 700.467 op. cit., p. 451. 149 Szijártó, A diéta op. cit., p. 169–70. 150 J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai„ op. cit., p. 43. 151J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., 272. 152Fol. Lat. 575 op. cit., p. 20. 153 700.484 op. cit., pp. 151–2, 463. 154 The appendix to the report of 10 September 1729 by the royal commissioner: Comitialia 406B op. cit. 155 J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., pp. 26, 69. 156Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits-gyűjtemény700.480: Acta concursus anni 1737…, p. 7. 157700.479 op. cit., p. 32–3. 158Horváth, op. cit., vol. 7, p. 233. 159Éble, Károlyi Ferencz op. cit., p. 540. 160700.478 op. cit., p. 48. 161J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., pp. 32, 70. 162 As kindly stated by Richárd Sebők. 163 J. Nagy, „Rendipolitikai‟ op. cit., pp. 26. 164M. Gyapay, „A 18. századi politikai elit társadalomtörténete‟, M.A. thesis, Eötvös University, Faculty of Humanities, Institute of History, Budapest, 2006,pp. 29–32; K. Kandra,

35

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

„Borsod-vármegye alispánjai a XIII-ik századtól napjainkig‟, Történelmi Tár [years are not marked], 1894,p. 182. 165Kosáry, op. cit. 2nd ed., p. 639. 166Fónagy, op. cit, vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, p. 1379. 167Kolinovics, op. cit., p. 663. 168700.467 op. cit., p. 5. 169700.470 op. cit., pp. 28, 33–34. 170J. Nagy, „Rendi politikai‟ op. cit., p. 41. 171Országos Széchényi Könyvtár, Kézirattár, Fol. Lat. 3542 op. cit. 172 Országgyűlési Könyvtár, Gyurikovits gyűjtemény, 700.455: Acta comitiorum…, pp. 8, 374–5. 173Fol. Lat. 4073 op. cit., pp. 8–10. 174Ibid., p. 5. 175Téglás, op. cit., p. 107. 176Fol. Lat. 4073 op. cit., p. 28. 177T. Lehoczky (ed.), „Gúnyirat az 1764-ki országgyűlés idejéből‟, Történelmi Tár [years are not marked], 1898, p. 565. 178 Heckenast, op. cit., p. 401. 179 E. Mályusz (ed.), Sándor Lipót főherceg nádor iratai, Budapest: Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1926, pp. 434, 440, 445, 447. 180K. Benda (ed.), A magyar jakobinusok iratai, 3 vols, Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1952–7, vol. 2, pp. 76–80. 181 I. Nagy, „Magyarországi képzőművészek a legrégibb időktől 1850-ig‟, Századok 8, 1874, p. 198. 182 S. Márki, „A koronaőrző nemesek naplója 1790-ből‟, Századok 15, 1881, p. 336. 183Mályusz (ed.), op. cit., pp. 40–1, 426. 184 B. Papp, „Az ellenzék hangadói az 1751. évi országgyűlésen‟, paper presented at the conference of the working group Diaeta on 12 April 2006 in Collegium Budapest, szijarto.web.elte.hu/PB.html, retrieved 18 May 2020. 185 I. Nagy, Magyarország családai op. cit., CD-ROM ed., records 48416, 48431. 186 Ember, A m. kir. Helytartótanács op. cit., p. 202. 187A79 op. cit., vol. 1, p. 58. (I am grateful to András Vámos for this piece of data.) 188Szemethy, „Rangemelésben részesült‟ op. cit., p. 316. 189I. Wellmann, „A Rákóczi birtokok sorsa‟, in I. Lukinich (ed.), Rákóczi emlékkönyv halálának kétszázéves fordulójára, 2 vols, Budapest: Franklin, 1935, vol. 2, p. 117. 190Fónagy, op. cit, vol. 2, pp. 1462–63. 191Kolinovics, op. cit., p. 666. 192700.467 op. cit., p. 5. 193700.466 op. cit., pp. 28–30. 194700.470 op. cit., pp. 27–8, 30, 33. 195Kosáry, op. cit. 2nd ed., pp. 324, 327, 446. 449, 597, 642, article 67 of 1791. 196 I. Nagy, Magyarország családai op. cit., DVD-ROM ed., records 43559, 43595, 43604, 42609; Heckenast, op. cit., p. 408. 197700.486/1 op. cit., p. 36.

36

American Journal of Humanities and Social Science (AJHSS) Volume 6, 2020

198700.484 op. cit., pp. 81–4, 151–2. 199Kolinovics, op. cit., p. 662; 700.467 op. cit., p. 5. 200E. g. Kolinovics, op. cit., pp. 195, 662. 201Marczali, Magyarország története op. cit., p. 280. 202Horváth, op. cit., vol. 7, p. 248. 203J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., p. 278. 204700.467 op. cit., p. 6. 205Marczali, Magyarország története op. cit., p. 280. 206J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., pp. 125, 169. 207Szijártó, A diéta op. cit., p. 156. 208Cs. Tuza, „Egy elfeledett 18. századi karrier: Galánthai Fekete György életútja. Vázlat egy készülő életrajzhoz‟, Századok 140, 2006, p. 1528; I. Nagy, Magyarország családai op. cit., vol. 3, p. 188. 209J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., pp. 275–7. 210Fónagy, op. cit, vol. 1, p. 28; vol. 2, pp. 860. 211J. Nagy, Rendi ellenzék op. cit., 280.

37