Search

This splendid study effectively rewrites the history of Habsburg-Ottoman, Habsburg-Hungarian, and Ottoman-Hungarian relations at a crucial time. It was this uprising, characterized by mass mutinies and the dissolution of the Habsburg military in Upper Hungary, that "ushered in more than four decades of active resistance and revolt in the Hungarian lands of the Habsburg monarchy" (102). Most of Ahmed Köprülü's grand vizierate fell between the Ottoman-Habsburg war of 1663/4 and the Ottoman siege of Vienna in 1683, events that historians have usually seen as evidence of progressive Turkish decline. [Extracted from the article]

Until not so very long ago, the national conflicts in the last decades of the Habsburg monarchy prompted historians to focus on nationality as the crucial marker of self-understanding among its populations. The high tide of modern nation-states after 1918 made national borders, national mindsets, and national power structures the framework for ever-greater historical interest in the lineages of national genealogy. In recent decades, scholars have questioned the assumption that modern nations were primordial or natural, even as such entities remain a prime object of attention in a world where nation-states and identity politics help define research agendas and nationalism continues to be a potent force. The lines of inquiry have taken a number of directions. First, historians have linked the pervasiveness of nation and national identity to specific historical circumstances. Perhaps most famously, the political scientist Benedict Anderson's insight regarding “imagined communities” pointed up the contingency of modern nations. It was increasingly accepted that they are artificial constructs of relatively recent date and firmly rooted in time and place. The neat boundaries that seemed to define them, as on old ethnographic maps, faded as their elusive, conditional, and shifting contours were recognized. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

On October 18, 1783, a cortege of gala carriages escorted by liveried attendants, lackeys, and trumpeters drew up in the main courtyard of the Hofburg, the Imperial palace in Vienna. Received with military honors, it bore a deputation of the Lower Austrian Estates led by Landmarschall Count Johann Anton Pergen and that included a dozen representatives of the four orders (prelates, lords, knights, and townsmen) that composed the diet. The group ascended into the ceremonial apartments to be welcomed by the Imperial grand chamberlain, who announced its arrival. The emperor's appearance in the audience chamber prompted a short address by Pergen, to whom Joseph II then personally handed his government's annual tax demand. As his mother the Empress Maria Theresa had sometimes done on these occasions, he took advantage of Estates' attendance to raise a matter of special concern. He exhorted them “avec beaucoup de noblesse” to consider ways of revising the provincial cadastre that underlay the system of direct taxation. This prefigured one of the reign's celebrated initiatives that culminated in the great tax and peasant labor reform of 1789. Joseph's participation in a court function that dated back to the middle years of the previous reign and that was rooted in a much older ritual in which the Lower Austrian Estates had in corpore received the tax request out of the monarch's own hands largely conformed to later Theresan practice. But this would be the last time that he observed the rite. In the following year, his absence from Vienna prevented its occurrence, and in 1785 he did away with it altogether. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

In 1808, an Estate of the lesser nobility of the Lower Austrian diet approved a statute barring from membership persons of Jewish descent in the `third degree' regardless of confession. It is the only documented instance in Europe for the revolutionary era of such a paragraph that, in its rejection of Jewish ancestry in both the paternal and maternal lines, resembled the early modern Spanish statutes of `blood purity' and the twentieth-century Nuremberg laws. The Josephian patent of toleration of 1782 had not allowed Jews to become members of the corporate nobility (the first Jew was only ennobled in 1789), but had relieved some of the worst aspects of discrimination. By the early nineteenth century, the archduchy of Lower Austria (including the imperial capital at Vienna) contained the largest, wealthiest, and most self-confident Jewish community in the Hapsburg Monarchy. The statute of 1808 was a reaction to Jewish acculturation to the upper class (including conversion, intermarriage, concessions of property-rights, the existence of salons in which Jews and new Christians mired with the nobility) that presented a perceived threat to the status of its marginal members (lesser landed nobles, ennobled officialdom, and ennobled professionals). The statute was also a product of the politically and nationally charged atmosphere in Vienna between the Austrian defeat by Napoleon at Austerlitz (1805) and the renewed war against France (1809). No simple ideological continuum connects the Lower Austrian paragraph to either the early modern Spanish or the late modern Nazi ordinances. But it was the first such statute to take shape in a political context fraught with recognizably late modern concepts of' nation'. The statute of 1808 furthermore evidences the continuing fractured nature of public authority and lack of thorough-going state-formation in Austria. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]