Minister Eötvös’s alliance with Neolog Jewry in Hungary and his defeat at 1868–69 Jewish Congress

ABSTRACT

Considering the importance of Minister Baron József Eötvös (1813–1871) in the study of Jewish history and tradition in Hungary, this article undertakes a thorough revision of his life and activities. It focuses on a critical point in his Jewish policies: the 1868–69 Jewish Congress. The first part of the article analyzes Eötvös’s pre-1848 thinking and activities in the context of the social and political pressure on Jews in the interest of integration. In the second section, the article teases out various dimensions of his pro-Jewish reputation through a historical reconstruction of the myth-making. In light of this re-evaluation of Eötvös’s reputation, I attempted to reconstruct the path of the 1868–69 Jewish Congress until the collapse of the minister’s project. In an approach to contextually analyze the minister’s conflict with the Orthodox and his alliance with Neolog Jewry, this article examines one of the reasons for the defeat of Minister Eötvös and the Neolog Congress faction by traditionalists, which involved the destruction of the myth surrounding the minister.

KEYWORDS:

• Hungarian Jewry
• reformism
• traditionalism
• religious schism
• 1868–69 Jewish Congress
• József Eötvös

Acknowledgments

I used manuscript letters collected by Péter Balázs, András Cieger, and Gábor Mórocz for the project purposes. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to Dr. Tamás Turán for his help and comments during the earlier phases of my research. I thank him, as well as Dr. András Cieger, for generously providing me with the copies of items in primary and secondary literature.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Meyer, Response, chapters 1 to 5; Liberles, Religious Conflict. See also Kecskeméti, “Homályzónák,” 120–1.

2 Katz, House Divided, 89–203; Katzburg, “Jewish Congress”; Löw, Der jüdische Kongress, 281–322; Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 82–136; Katzburg, Fejezetek, 96–8; Konrád, “Eötvös,” 504–7.

3 Bíró, “Befejezetlen beszélgetés,” esp. 136; Turán, “Ortodox, neológ.”

4 Katz, House Divided, 183.

5 For Eötvös’s life and works, see Bödy, “Joseph Eötvös”; Vardy, “Baron Joseph Eötvös.”

6 Büchler, “Eötvös József”; Bánóczi, “Eötvös és az emancipáció”; Venetianer, “Emancipáció története”; Bródy, “Magyar szabadelvűek”; Bernstein, “Zsidókérdés”; Ballagi, “Magyarországi zsidóemancipáció.”

7 Cf. Miron, “Center or Frontier,” 79.

8 Scheiber, Magyar zsidó, 36–7.

9 Ibid., 35, 38; Gonda, Zsidóság, 124.

10 For this distinction, cf. Meyer, Response, 13 and passim.

11 Katz, House Divided, 35; Katzburg, “Hungarian Jewry,” 140–1; Konrád, “Hungarian Expectations,” 332; Deák, Lawful Revolution, 114; Katz, From Prejudice, 232–7.

12 Eötvös, Napló, 301.

13 Eötvös, Karthauzi, 79, 133, 224, 248.

14 Eötvös, “Egy tót leány,” 533; Eötvös, “Téli vásár,” 580.

15 Eötvös to Mór Ballagi, after May 1843. Eötvös, Levelek I., 213.

16 Act 1840: 15, §§ 54–6, in Magyar törvénytár, 113. See also Komoróczy: “Nekem itt zsidónak kell lenni,” 540–1.

17 Ibid., 549–51.

18 Cf. Häusler, “Assimilation,” 45.

19 Einhorn, Revolution, 59.

20 Eötvös, “Zsidók polgárosításáról,” esp. 352–4. Cf. Rürup, Emanzipation, 15. For Eötvös as the “Hungarian Dohm,” see Bernstein, Negyvennyolcas, 16. For Dohm, see Meyer, Response, 16–17.

21 Csetényi, Adalékok, 13–18.

22 Eötvös, “Zsidók emancipációja.”

23 Cf. Grass, and Koselleck, “Emanzipation,” 182.

24 Breuer, “Oesterreich”; “Literarische Nachrichten.” Cf. Gyarmati, “Eötvös,” 131.

25 Komoróczy, “Nekem itt zsidónak kell lenni,” 586.

26 Kovács, Az 1843/44. évi, II 552.

27 Ibid., II 549.

28 Ibid., IV 189.

29 Felséges Első Ferdinánd, 368. Cf. Häusler, “Assimilation,” 54.

30 Felséges Első Ferdinánd, 368.

31 Kovács, Az 1843/44. évi, IV 123–6.

32 Ibid., VI 330.

33 János, Politics of Backwardness, 73.

34 Eötvös, Village Notary, I 138.

35 Ibid., I 145.

36 Ibid., II 147ff. Cf. Häusler, “Assimilation,” 53–4.

37 Blum, “Ungarisch-jüdische Notablenversammlung. III.,” 204.

38 Büchler, Zsidók története, 490 and 498. Cf. Várdy, “Origins,” 154. For Hirschler and his contacts with Eötvös, see Groszmann, “Hirschler Ignác”; Jánosi Engel, “Báró Eötvös József,” 23; Katzburg, “Jewish Congress,” 25; Komoróczy, Zsidók története, II 49–50; Turán, “150th anniversary”; Turán, “Truth and/or peace.”

39 Groszmann, “Hirschler Ignác,” 154–5.

40 “Dr. Hirschler Ignácz,” 773–4. György Festetics to Eötvös, 19 and 20 December 1668, The Central Archives for the History of the Jewish People Jerusalem (CAHJP), P331/11-66 and 67 (Private Collection Ignac Hirschler). I thank Tamás Turán for the information.

41 Venetianer, Zsidóság, 503.

42 “Inland,” 438. Cf. Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 286.

43 Circular of the Israelite community in Sátoraljaújhely to seventeen fellow communities in Zemplén County, 30 March 1868. Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 15 (10 April 1868), 115.

44 R. M., “Eperjes, márczius 22-én.”

45 The Israelite community in Liptovský Mikuláš to Eötvös, 8 March 1868. Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 14 (3 April 1868), 110.

46 Israelites from Zemplén County to Eötvös, March 1868. Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 18 (1 May 1868), 149.

47 “Neolog szárnypróbálgatások vidéken.”

48 See Gángó, “Towards the 1868/69 Jewish Congress,” 234–6.

49 Eötvös to Loránd Eötvös, 23 October 1868. Eötvös, Levelek, 570.

50 Löw, Die jüdischen Wirren, 37–8; Hirsch, Vallási szempontból, Annex, unnumbered pages [66–9].

51 Cf. for example Eötvös to Izidor [recte: Israel] Grün, 22 January 1868, Magyar Polgár. 2, no. 18. (1868), 71. The list of the invited persons: Venetianer, Zsidóság, 503–4.

52 Blum, “Ungarisch-jüdische Notablenversammlung V.,” 228. This speech was published as Krausz, Transaction. Cf. Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 90.

53 Löw, Die jüdischen Wirren, 15.

54 Cf. Komoróczy, Zsidók története, II 113. For Samuel Kohn, cf. also Ibid., II 52; Katz, House Divided, 129.

55 Kohn, Országos, 7.

56 Only in the German version. Kohn, Mahnruf, 9–10. For Eötvös’s position, see Gángó, “Towards the 1868/69 Jewish Congress,” 238n16.

57 Kohn, Országos, 11; Kohn, Mahnruf, 14. Quoted by Turán, “Ortodox, neológ,” 11. Turán identified the author of the anonymous brochure. For the rejection of the worldly education (“Bildung”) by the Orthodox, see Silber, “Emergence,” 44.

58 Kohn, Országos, 14–5; Kohn, Mahnruf, 18.

59 Veritas (pseud.), “Entgegnung.”

60 Krausz, “A haladás és következményei,” 392–3.

61 “Inland,” 438. Cf. Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 286.

62 “Rede Sr. Excellenz,” 436–7; “Zsidó Congressus megnyitása,” 439. The speech in Hungarian: Az 1868. deczember 10-dikére, Session I, 1–3; Venetianer, Zsidóság, 509–13. Cf. Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 100. For the contextualization of the the Congress issues in contemporary political life, see Turán, “Truth and/or peace.”

63 Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 104–5.

64 “A helyzet,” 448.

65 Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 108.

66 See a letter dated from Földeák: Eötvös to Pál Oltványi, 4 January 1869. Archives of the Saint Stephen King Parish, Makó, Návay-Archives, no. 25. In the possession of János Gilicze.

67 See Eötvös to János Arany, 25 January 1869. Eötvös, Levelek, 578; and Eötvös to Lajos Haynald, 4 February 1869. Archives of the Kalocsa Archidiocese, VII. 1. Collection Haynald. Letters of the members of the family Eötvös to Haynald.

68 “Der israel. Congreß zu Pesth. X.,” 137.

69 Verwahrung. Cf. Katz, House Divided, 160–1.

70 Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 126.

71 Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 289. Cf. Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 127–8.

72 See Eötvös’s letter to the Lutheran superintendent in Transdanubia: Eötvös to Sándor Karsay, 28 December 1868. National Archives of the Lutherans, Budapest, Transdanubian Diocese, VIII. 138.

73 Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 133. Katz, House Divided, 175–6.

74 Eötvös to the municipalities, November 1869. Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 292–3. Italics in the original. Cf. Groszmann, Magyar zsidók, 134; Venetianer, Zsidóság, 517; Katz, House Divided, 181–2.

75 Cieger, “Királyi demokrácia,” 61.

76 Zeller, Magyar egyházpolitika, 478–83. Cf. Katz, House Divided, 184.

77 “Von der Donau, 21. Jan.,” 172. Cf. Katz, House Divided, 312n62.

78 See, for example, Képviselőházi napló 1869–1872, vol. 9, 280, 364, 373.

79 Képviselőházi napló 1869–1872, vol. 5, 378.

80 Képviselőházi napló 1869–1872, vol. 7, 130.

81 József Eötvös’s circular, 2 April 1870. Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 295–6. Cf. Venetianer, Zsidóság, 518.

82 Löw, Zur neueren Geschichte, 295.

83 Ibid.

84 Képviselőházi napló 1869–1872, vol. 7, 388. Its text: Zeller, Magyar egyházpolitika, 545–53. The quote: 546.

85 Katz, House Divided, 191–2.

86 “Aus Ungarn,” 747–8. Quoted (and differently interpreted) by Katz, House Divided, 192.

87 Bíró, “Egy befejezetlen beszélgetés,” 147.

88 See also Ibid., 130.

Additional information

Funding

This study is part of the project “The edition of József Eötvös’s correspondence 2” (principal investigator: András Cieger) at the Research Centre for the Humanities, Budapest, Hungary. The project has received funding from the National Office of Research, Development and Innovation (NKFIH), Hungary, under the grant agreement No 131564. Proofreading for language was financed by the Max Weber Centre for Advanced Cultural and Social Studies of the University of Erfurt and by the programme “MTA200”, celebrating the 200th anniversary of the foundation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and its library. We thank Bob Dent for his remarks and suggestions, which went far beyond the proofreader’s tasks.

Notes on contributors

Gábor Gángó

Gábor Gángó obtained his Ph.D. (CSc) in literary studies from the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in 1997 and in philosophy from the ELTE Budapest University, Hungary, in 2004. His books include Marxismo, cultura, comunicación: De Kant y Fichte a Lukács y Benjamin, Buenos Aires, 2009; and Early Modern Natural Law in East-Central Europe (ed.), Leiden, 2023.