![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
Controversial religious or quasi-religious issues were responsible for the split within Hungarian Jewry. At the Congress, dividing lines over non-religious, ‘political’ controversies correlated only loosely with those over religious issues, as a rule. In this paper we limit ourselves to corroborating this thesis by taking a closer look at three items on the Congress’s political agenda: (1) electoral issues, (2) centralization, and (3) ecclesiastical analogies. The paper demonstrates the profound impact that Hungarian contemporary political discourse exerted on Congress delegates in both camps.
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank Zsolt Szilágyi for editing the Figure.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors
Notes
1. In subsequent decades a third group of Jewish congregations, called ‘Status Quo Ante,’ emerged which refused to join either the Orthodox or the Neolog federation of congregations. Organized into a nationwide federation only in the 1920s, this ‘movement’ was much smaller than the two major ones and is irrelevant for the present discussion.
2. See e.g. Lajos Venetianer, A magyar zsidóság szervezetéről [On the Organization of Hungarian Jewry], (Budapest, 1903) (offprint of a series of articles originally published in Egyenlőség); Nathaniel Katzburg, Fejezetek az újkori zsidó történelemből Magyarországon [Chapters from Modern Jewish History in Hungary] (Budapest: MTA Judaisztikai Kutatócsoport – Osiris, 1999), 95.
3. Adam S. Ferziger, “Jewish Congress,” in YIVO Encyclopedia of Jews in Eastern Europe, ed. Gershon David Hundert (2 vols.; New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008) vol. 1, 826–8. Among the more detailed accounts of the history of the Congress, the most balanced assessment is Katzburg, Fejezetek az újkori zsidó történelemből Magyarországon, 81–102. For the wider historical context, see Jacob Katz, A House Divided. Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry, trans. by Ziporah Brody (Hanover, N. H. and London: University Press of New England, 1998). The most detailed survey of the Congress deliberations is still Zsigmond Groszmann, A magyar zsidók a XIX. század közepén (1849–1870) [Hungarian Jewry in mid-nineteenth century [1849–1870]) (Budapest: Egyenlőség, 1917), 100–28; and Katz, ibid., 137–65, who focuses on developments and processes behind the scenes.
4. Tamás Turán, ““As the Christians Go, so Go the Jews” – Hungarian Judaism in Its Denominational Matrix in the Mid-Nineteenth Century,” Dubnow Institute Yearbook 16 (2017): 75–7. Terminology is a good place to start understanding the political behavior of the two camps; see idem, ‘Ortodox, neológ. A magyar zsidó valláspártok elnevezéseinek történetéről’. [Orthodox, Neolog. On the history of the nomenclature of the Hungarian Jewish religious parties], in: Regio 24, no. 3 (2016), http://dx.doi.org/10.17355/rkkpt.v24i3.128, esp. 9–13, 25. ‘Progressives’ (haladók), ‘liberals’ (szabadelvűek), and similar political terms were the preferred endonyms of the Neologs in the 1860s. ‘Secessionists’ and ‘unionists’ were terms suggested by Mór Mezei to denote the two camps: “Az értekezleti többség álláspontja,” Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 14 (1868): 106.
5. Sigmund Krauss, Wissen und Glauben, oder: Der Mensch und der Israelit. Zwei Betrachtungen nebst einer Einleitung als Schlusswort nach beendigtem Kongresskampfe zwischen den Juden orthodoxer und neologer Richtung (Pest: Brüder Bendiner und A. Grünwald, 1871), 14. For the standing orders of the Congress, see the Protocols (next note), Appendix, 3–14 (in Hungarian and German).
6. Ungarisch israelitischer Congress, Az izraelita egyetemes gyűlés I–XXXIII. ülése: 1868 Deczember 14–1869 Február 23 [Sessions I–XXXIII of the Hungarian Israelite General Assembly: 14 December 1868–23 February 1869] (alternative title: Az 1868. deczember 10-dikére összehívott Izraelita Egyetemes Gyűlés naplója. Gyorsírói feljegyzések szerint) (Pest: Pesti Könyvnyomda-részvény-társulat, 1869). Below I will refer to this book as Protocols. Page numbering in this volume starts anew with each and every session (after a session ended, its protocols were printed in a separate fascicle), filling 703 folio pages. In what follows, ‘18:15,’ for instance, will refer to page 15 of session no. 18.
7. These slogans were often heard at the Congress; the long exposé of Mór Mezei (16:9–12) provides a glimpse into the major contexts in which they were used at the Congress.
8. See e.g. 15:3 (Zs. Krausz), 17:19 (M. Zipser), 18:9 (J. Weisse).
9. ‘Right’ and ‘left’ referred to the seating topography of the two main camps at the venue of the Jewish Congress. See in the Introduction of the present issue.
10. András Gerő, Az elsöprő kisebbség [The overwhelming minority: Political representation of the people in Habsburg Hungary] 2nd ed. (Budapest: Habsburg Történeti Intézet, 2017), 121–208; and András Cieger, Politikai korrupció a Monarchia Magyarországán, 1867–1918 [Political corruption in Hungary of the Monarchy, 1867–1918] (Budapest: Napvilág Kiadó, 2011), 19–23, 35–6.
11. A magyar országgyűlés mélyen tisztelt képviselőházához intézett emlékirata az izraelita egyetemes gyűlés bizottságának […] [Memorandum of the committee of the Israelite Congress to the deeply honored House of Representatives of the Hungarian National Assembly] (Pest, 1870) (in what follows: Emlékirat), Appendix, no. 67; ‘Az izr. congressus Hagyományhű pártjának óvása,’ Magyar Zsidó 2, no. 9 (28 February 1869): 94–5=‘Proteste gegen die Congressbeschlüsse,’ Magyar Zsidó 2, no. 11 (14 March 1869): 113–4; with 56 delegates of the Congress as signatories; Hildesheimer, Zum Congresse: Beurtheilung der drei von der Majorität der in Pest versammelten Conferenz dem Kultus-Minister unterbreiteten Statute (Wahl-, Gemeinde- und Schul-Statut) (Prag: Senders und Brandeis, 1868), 7–17. Hildesheimer’s Preface is dated Sivan 15 (June 5).
12. The latter problem was raised in the Orthodox press well before the elections: [Albert Farkas?], ‘Értekezlet után, III,’ Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 17 (1868): 131. See also the paper of M. Huszár in the present issue on similar issues.
13. ‘Proteste gegen die Congressbeschlüsse,’ 113–4; Hildesheimer, Zum Congresse, 7–16; see also below, n. 25. As for the central electoral committees, see also the editorial in Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 39 (1868): 319, and Emlékirat, 16.
14. Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 35 (1868): 319–20; Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 39 (1868): 321–22. (There was an official, separate publication of this ministerial order; I was able to consult only a copy without title page and the last page, in the holdings of the Hungarian Jewish Museum and Archives, 70.25.)
15. The problem of the connection between taxation and voting eligibility was also raised in the Orthodox press: Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 40 (1868): 337.
16. Albert Farkas to Ignác Hirschler, 24 September 1868, Central Archives of the History of the Jewish People (CAHJP), P331/4-88. From the 20 elected members, 13 were ‘progressives,’ 2 belonged to the radical Orthodox faction (‘Shomrei ha-dat/Hitőr Egylet/Guardians of the Faith’), and 5 belonged to the moderate Orthodox. The author of the letters cited here and below is not identical with the important Orthodox activist with the same name (mentioned in n. 12 above).
17. Albert Farkas to Ignác Hirschler, 29 September 1868, CAHJP, P331/4-90.
18. In the end both elected delegates of Nagyvárad belonged to the orthodox platform. For a brief account on the Nagyvárad elections, see Dezső Schön et al., eds., A Tegnap városa: A nagyváradi zsidóság emlékkönyve [The city from yesterday. The commemorative volume of the Jewry of Nagyvárad] (Tel Aviv, 1981), 52–3.
19. Soma Schönberger to Ignác Hirschler, 24 September 1868, CAHJP, P331/3-61.
20. Fülöp Reiser to Ignác Hirschler, 20 September 1868, CAHJP, P331/1-81. The same activist offered to spy on a meeting of orthodox rabbis to be held in his city: 5 September 1868, CAHJP, P331/1-80.
21. For the proposal of the ten-member committee working on the geographic division of the twenty six ‘community districts’ (including the quotas for the number of delegates for every district in future elections) see Protocols, 29:6–7; 30:1–2. The division was slightly modified in the plenary discussion, see below; for the final demarcation of the community districts, see A magyar és erdélyi izraeliták 1868. deczember 10-ki Egyetemes Gyűlése által hozott szentesített szabályzatok és határozatok. Hivatalos kiadás./Die sanktionirten Statuten und Beschlüsse des am 10. Dez. 1868 eröffneten Landes-Kongresses der Israeliten in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen. Amtliche Ausgabe. (bilingual edition; Pest: Ráth Mór, 1869), community statutes, § 55, pp. 32–37; electoral statutes, § 3, pp. 50–3.
22. The map reflects the committee proposal as published in the Protocols, 29:6–7 – which contradicts other information in the Protocols in the case of Pozsony, Mosony, Sopron, and Vas counties; see below, n. 25.
23. In the elections for the Congress, each and every county (in addition to some bigger towns) constituted an electoral region of its own. The number of delegates allotted for the counties which are relevant in the present context were: Moson 1, Sopron 4. Vas 4, Zala 4. See Javaslat az izraelita congressus választási szabályzata tárgyában [Proposal concerning the election statutes for the Israelite congress] (Pest: Herz János, 1868), 10–1.
24. 29:7 (Zipser); 29:8 (Ullmann); 29:10 (Zipser, Fischer, Lerchenfeld); 29:11 (Mezei). According to Ullmann and Zipser-Fischer-Lerchenfeld, Sopron was joined with Vas and Zala; according to Mezei, Tolna was joined with Vas and Zala. Mezei himself mentions another earlier version (29:11). The possibility that there are some errors or inaccuracies in the Protocols in these reports cannot be ruled out.
25. According to the final draft published in the Protocols, Pozsony and Sopron formed the 1st ‘community district,’ while Vas and Moson formed the 8th (29:6); see the Figure. According to Mezei (the presenter of the committee draft), however (29:11), in the final draft Vas, Sopron, and Moson together formed one community district. His statement is corroborated by several facts: (1) the words of Schweiger (29:7) and Land[e]sberg (29:8) imply that Pozsony formed a community district of its own; (2) Pozsony and Sopron counties, respectively Vas and Moson counties, are not contagious; (3) while according to the final setting of the community districts Sopron was coupled with Vas, no proposal to this effect (breaking up the connection between Sopron and Pozsony) was voted on in the plenum. For all these reasons it seems that the committee draft as published in the Protocols is erroneous in placing Sopron in the 1st community district (instead of the 8th) – or some draft circulating in the committee but different from the final one was published there.
26. Ezriel Hildesheimer, Abraham Zwebner, David Ullmann.
27. László Sebők (ed.), Az 1869. népszámlálás vallási adatai [Data concerning religion in the census of 1869] (Budapest: Teleki László Intézet and Központi Statisztikai Hivatal, 2005) http://mek.oszk.hu/05900/05936/05936.pdf, 246, 262, 169, 122. It should be noted that the census in fact was carried out in 1870.
28. Mezei characterizes Moson as a county ‘which does not belong to the Congress minority,’ i.e. to the Orthodox camp (30:2). This remarkable negative characterization may have been based on his perception of the performance of M. Abeles at the Congress – who, on the other hand, was seated in the ‘left,’ among the Orthodox. Mezei tried to dispel Zipser’s concerns about Moson only from a socio-economic and logistic perspective (29:11).
29. Here I assume that in the final draft Vas, Sopron, and Moson formed one community district (as per Mezei, 29:11); see above, n. 25. Even if Vas was coupled only with Moson as per the final draft (29:6), Zipser had reason to be worried that due to some proposal (such as that of Kauders [also from Vas], 29:7, reviving earlier proposals, see also 29:11 [Mezei] etc.), Sopron will be added to this district. Fenyvessy’s words (29:8) can be interpreted to fit both cases.
30. Zipser, together with two other progressive delegates, first proposed restoring an ‘earlier’ division: Vas with Zala and Sopron, and Pozsony with Moson (29:10). According to the Protocols, later he came up with another proposal: Vas with Zala, and Sopron with Moson (29:12). Ultimately he withdrew this proposal and backed Tenczer’s proposal (see below).
31. Apart from the mentioned side remark by Fenyvessy, the issue of the religious character or ‘affiliations’ of the Jewish population as a factor in defining the community districts (let alone electoral districts) was barely touched upon in the Congress discussions. Yet Mezei hinted at some unspecified criticism along these lines (30:2).
32. Mezei (27:11; 30:2) – contrary to §3 of the original draft of the Electoral Statutes (27:5) which announced that the districts (and other relevant electoral data) would be listed in an Appendix.
33. Javaslat az izraelita congressus választási szabályzata tárgyában, 5–6.
34. József Hajduska, ‘Magyarország zsidó lakossága’ [The Jewish population of Hungary], Magyar Izraelita 5, no. 10 (6 March 1868): 77. The sum total includes Transylvania, Vojvodina, and Banat, in addition to the five governmental districts at that time. For more detailed figures, see Bevölkerung und Viehstand von Ungarn (Sämmtliche fünf Verwaltungsgebiete nach der Zählung vom 31. October 1857) (Wien: K. K. Ministerium des Inneren, 1859). Figures from the same census for the five governmental districts (totalling 365,171) was presented already by J. J. Rosenmeyer, ‘Notizen über die Juden in Ungarn,’ Ben Chananja 3, no. 11 (1860): 561–8.
35. This quota was adopted from the majority (Neolog) proposal at the preparatory conference: Javaslat az izraelita congressus választási szabályzata tárgyában, 10. See also the publication of the same document in Magyar Izraelita 5, no. 9 (1868): 69, and the ministerial order about the elections (dated 15 July 1868): Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 35 (1868): 318; Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 39 (1868): 320.
36. Hajduska, “Magyarország zsidó lakossága,” 76.
37. Emlékirat, Appendix no. 67. Accordingly, the counter-proposal for the election statutes by the orthodox minority gave 14 mandates to Pest community: Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 13 (1967–68): 97–100, here 98. This counter-proposal was submitted together with the memorandum (Emlékirat, Appendix no. 67) which is a cover-letter for the former. In addition to Pest, the Orthodox memorandum mentions only Arad, and Bihar county, where their quota differs from the quota set in the Neolog proposal – yet the quotas for Bács and Zemplén counties also differ in the two proposals. The tendency behind the differences is clear; it is less clear if and how these quotas in the two proposals were based on demographic data.
38. See note 36 above.
39. In the 1869 census, Pest Jewry was 39,384 strong: Az 1869. népszámlálás vallási adatai, 145. The number of delegates allotted to Pest (20) actually implies for Pest Jewry a figure less than 45,000 and closer to the figure of the 1869 census – whether the Neolog planners worked with the 1857 total number of Hungarian Jewry (20x[407,166:220] = ca. 37,000) or with their own estimation (see below) (20x[477,500:220] = ca. 43,400).
40. Cf. the editorial note in Hajduska, ‘Magyarország zsidó lakossága’, 76. Hajduska (1844–1906), raised by his uncle Henrik Pollák, a leading figure in the Neolog movement and the Pest Neolog community (a delegate of Pest at the Congress), changed his name to Kőrösy in 1869. (I found no unequivocal evidence on whether he converted to Christianity.) He was member of the National Council of Statistics (Országos Statisztikai Tanács) from 1867. A statistician of international renown, he later became a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences.
41. In 1870 the Neolog leadership stated, retrospectively, that in planning the elections for the Congress they calculated with a ‘ca. 40,000ʹ-strong Pest Jewry: Emlékirat, 15.
42. At that time the Orthodox minority of the preparatory conference submitted a memorandum which criticized, among other things, the quota for the Pest community: Emlékirat, Appendix, no. 67. See also Hildesheimer, Zum Congresse, 9. Another criticism, along similar lines, referred to the examples of Pest and Máramaros county: ‘Proteste gegen die Congressbeschlüsse,’ 113.
43. Of the three major orthodox polemical documents mentioned above in the present section, only one (the first) received – after the Congress! – an ‘official’ Neolog response (Emlékirat). That document responds to most of the other Orthodox criticism.
44. Neologs point out, however, that in four large Orthodox urban communities, the quotas were in favour of the Orthodox: Emlékirat, 15–6.
45. This is one of the slightly varying figures; see Az 1869. népszámlálás vallási adatai, 277.
46. In Mezei’s opinion (30:2): 5000.
47. 29:6–7; 30:1; for the census-data, see the references above, n. 27 and Rosenmeyer in n. 34.
48. The Orthodox protested against this practice in general in relation to the election statutes for the Congress: Emlékirat, Appendix no. 67.
49. Ferziger, “Jewish Congress,” 827.
50. In presenting the Neolog modifications to the election statutes, Mezei mentions such criticism (30:2) – perhaps these were raised in the committee work. Mezei’s introductory remarks are illuminating about the modus operandi and would require separate discussion.
51. See, e.g., [n.a.], “Die Kommissionen,” Magyar Zsidó 2, no. 1 (1869): 4.
52. Ferenc Mezey, “Löw Lipót levelei dr. Hirschler Ignáchoz [II.],” Magyar Zsidó Szemle 8 (1891): 263.
53. On him Friedrich Liebig, Photographien aus dem ung. isr. Congresse (Wien: Herzfeld und Bauer, 1869), 50, remarks that one of his numerous proposals was accepted ‘unanimously’ since he was the only one to vote for it. (According to Katzburg, the author behind this pseudonym was Ignaz Friedlieber; in Katz’s view, this is unlikely: A House Divided, 306, n. 16.)
54. Hildesheimer elaborated on the problem of statistics in his pamphlet: Zum Congresse, 7–14.
55. I. Hirschler (8:3) the president of the Congress, and Fenyvessy (12:7) were of the latter opinion.
56. Hirschler, 13:5.
57. See, e.g., the Neolog Dávid Sugár (18:20), opposing centralization.
58. Cf. the general remarks of Nathaniel Katzburg, “Ha-hanhaga ha-merkazit shel ha-kehilot be-Hungaria, 1870–1939” [The Central leadership of the Jewish communities in Hungary, 1870–1939], Zion 50 (1985): 379–95, here 384.
59. Fischmann, 19:21; cf. Leopold Friedmann, 19:26; Emlékirat, 5. On the history of the School Fund, see: Kinga Frojimovics et al., Jewish Budapest; Monuments, Rites, History (ed. G. Komoróczy, tr. Vera Szabó) (Budapest: CEU Press, 1999), 202–3.
60. Mihály Morgenstern, 18:4; Josef Weisse, 18:9. On the Toleration Tax, see Géza Komoróczy, A zsidók története Magyarországon [History of the Jews in Hungary], (2 vols.; Pozsony: Kalligram, 2011) vol. 1, 773–82; Erzsébet Mislovics, A magyarországi zsidóság demográfia- és gazdaságtörténete, 1700–1830 [Demographic and Socio-Economic History of Hungarian Jews, 1700–1830] (Ph.D. dissertation; The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, 2008), 259–320. Nevertheless, occasionally ‘conferences’ were held on the nationwide level concerning this tax between ‘representatives’ of some or all counties and the Royal Lieutenancy (Helytartótanács) or the Diet. This was one type of (vague and sporadic) historical precedents for the Congress cited by Neologs: Emlékirat, 5, 9.
61. Neologs could not be sure that countrywide centralized leadership would not pass to the Orthodox in the future and would not harm their basic interests.
62. Krausz (15,3–4); Fischmann (26:19); Albert Weinberger (16:14) (the latter referring to the county-system). See also Katz, A House Divided, 159. The minority draft of the organizational statutes submitted by the Orthodox left the management of the School Fund to the Ministry of Religion and Education: Sigmund Krauss, ‘Entwurf zu einem Fundamental-Statut für die jüdischen Glaubensgenossen Ungarns und Siebenbürgens,’ Magyar Zsidó 2, no. 5 (1869): Deutsche Beilage, 54–5 (§§ 36, 41); the countrywide layer (the conference of the district-presidents) in the same draft was limited to the function of convening a new congress: ibid. (§ 40).
63. Emmanuel Eisler (16:5–6); Josef Weisse (18:9); Markus Hirsch and Ignác Deutsch (26:18); Markus Hirsch (26:23,25; 27:1–2).
64. The results of the vote were: 22 for and 75 against, with 10 abstaining (26:21).
65. Markus Hirsch and Ignác Deutsch, 26:18; cf. Mór Wahrmann, 26:20; Henrik Pollák, 26:23; Ignác Hirschler, 27:2. In his elaboration on the principles behind his draft of the organizational statutes (submitted to the Congress), Hirsch proposed the Congress as the only countrywide organ; furthermore, the only task of the forum of the district-presidents was to convene the Congress: Autonomie und Centralisation (dated 26 January 1869) (Pest: Deutsch’schen Buchdruckerei- u. Verlags-Actien-Gesellschaft 1869), 18–9. I was able to consult only a deficient copy of the draft itself, where the last pages are missing: Entwurf. Gemeinde-Organisationsstatut für die ungarischen-siebenbürgischen Israeliten. Separat-Votum (Pest: Pester Buchdruckerei-Actien-Gesellschaft, 1869) (https://archive.org/details/entwurfgemeindeo00hirs/mode/2up).
66. Adolf Fenyvessy and Jakab Steinhardt, 26:24–6. The results of the vote were: 48 for and 45 against (26:26). This arrangement was viewed and presented by the Neologs after the Congress as a concession to the Orthodox: Emlékirat, 22.
67. On both Bureaus, see Katzburg, “Ha-hanhaga ha-merkazit shel ha-kehilot be-Hungaria”. The power vacuum was created by the unfeasibility of convening further congresses and the lack of proper functioning of the district communities. On the activities of the Neolog Bureau in the latter context, see Márton Schweiger, “Községkerületek megalakulása” [The establishment of the district communities], Magyar-Zsidó Szemle 9 (1892): 73–91. In a parallel development, the Neolog Bureau competed with the Pest Jewish community leadership for nationwide political influence. As for Orthodoxy, there was much opposition to their de facto central (and highly centralized) organs (the Shomrei ha-dat and the Intermediary Committee) after the Congress. Turán, “‘As the Christians Go, so Go the Jews’,” 82, n. 86; and Ernst Roth, “Zum 100jährigen Bestehen der Landesrabbinerschule in Ungarn,” Udim 7–8 (1977/78): 130–1, 133–5.
68. This principle was inherently related to policies of the authorities in the Monarchy in dealing with local, intra-community tensions between progressives and conservatives since the 1840s at least: there should be only one Jewish community in a given locale, but it may have more than one organized prayer-groups, with a certain degree of autonomy.
69. On Orthodox and Neolog Jewish affinities and alignments with Catholic and Protestant groups respectively, in politics (and political rhetorics), and deviations from this pattern, see Turán, “‘As the Christians Go, so Go the Jews’,” esp. 73–76, 79–93. Here I complement the material presented there which focused largely on the decades prior to the Congress. See also C. Wilke’s paper in the present issue.
70. “Református egyházi egyetemes értekezlet” [General Ecclesiastical Conference of the Reformed Churches], Protestáns Egyházi és Iskolai Lap 10, no. 51 (1867): 1624–5.
71. The plan was supported particularly by liberal Calvinists of the Danubian Church District, and was opposed most vehemently by theologians (of what was called, a few years later, the Calvinist ‘New orthodoxy/Neo-orthodoxy’) from the Transtibiscan Church District (the largest district). The opposition to this plan even grew, until in 1877 a General Convent finally decided to start preparations for a countrywide synod to establish a countrywide organizational structure; that synod took place in Debrecen, in 1881. Lajos Warga, A keresztyén egyház történelme [History of the Christian Church], vol. 3 (2nd ed.; Sárospatak, 1908), 421–2; Mihály Bucsay, Der Protestantismus in Ungarn 1521–1978. Ungarns Reformationskirchen in Geschichte und Gegenwart (2 vols.; Wien/Köln/Graz: H. Böhlau, 1977–1979), vol. 2, 105–7.
72. “Tanulságok a protestáns értekezletből” [Lessons from the Protestant conference], Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 6 (1868): 23. It is possible that the article was written by Zsigmond Krausz (cf. below). The Neolog press reported only briefly on this event: Magyar Izraelita 4, no. 38 [recte 39] (Dec. 20 [recte 27], 1868): 312.
73. For the Neolog draft, see: Tervezete a szervezeti szabályzatnak a magyarországi és erdélyi izr. hitfelekezet részére [Draft of the organizational statutes for the Hungarian and Transylvanian Israelite denomination] (Pest: Herz János, 1868), 5 (‘megyei hitközség’); 11–3 (§§ 19–28) (‘megyei község,’ ‘izr. megyei község’); in German: Entwurf: Organisches Statut für die israelitische Glaubensgenossenschaft in Ungarn und Siebenbürgen (published, e.g., by Hildesheimer, Zum Kongresse, 86–7) (‘Komitatsgemeinde,’ ‘israelitische Komitatsgemeinde’). For the Orthodox draft, see: Krauss, “Entwurf zu einem Fundamental-Statut,“ 53–4 (§§ 27–40) (‘Komitatsgemeinde,’ ‘Komitats-organ’) (= Magyar Zsidó Szemle 14 [1897]: 187–90); see also in the Protocols, 15:3–4 (Krauss).
74. [N.a.], “Zum bevorstehenden isr. Congress in Pest. II.,” Die Neuzeit 8, no. 9 (1868): 98. Groszmann, A magyar zsidók a XIX. század közepén, 91–2, citing archival material now lost.
75. See his speech at the preparatory conference (titled “Vorschlag zur Ausgleichung der sich gegenüberstehenden isr. Partheien im ung. Vaterlande. Gesprochen in der Konferenz der Notablenversammlung am 17. Februar 1868 von Sigmund Krauss aus Körös Ladány”), published as Appendix I in his book: Krauss, Wissen und Glauben, 57. The earlier publication of this speech as a separate booklet (apparently in April 1868), with a slightly different title, is unavailable to me. Its republication in Krauss’ book escaped the attention of Katz, A House Divided, 298, n. 24. Nathaniel Katzburg in his bibliography attributes the booklet, erroneously, to Ignaz Reich: “Ha-Kongress ha-yehudi be-Ungarya bi-shnat Tav-Resh-Khaf-Ṭet. Reshimah shel meqorot,” Areshet 4 (1966): 322–67, here 335, no. 58. Katzburg apparently also has not seen any of these two publications, referring to Groszmann (A magyar zsidók a XIX. század közepén, 91), who may have copied the slightly different title (Transaction zur […] gegenüberstehenden Partheien […]) from [Anon.] “Beleuchtung der Transaction,” Izraelita Közlöny 5, no. 17 (1868): 142. Krauss’ response to this article (in German; Magyar Zsidó 1. No. 22 [1867–68], Beilage) is reprinted in his book as Appendix II, anonymizing Henrik Deutsch, who was named by him in his earlier journal-article as the author of the article with which he is polemicizing.
76. Krauss, Wissen und Glauben, 55, 57, 65–6. In an apologetic footnote (on p. 57) the author says that his suggestions (resembling Calvinist models) were made only in the hope of making peace between the two camps.
77. Mezei (16:11), Eisler (16:5–6), Markus Hirsch (26:23,25). The typical terms they used were ‘Distrikte’, ‘Distriktspräsidenten,’ ‘Distriktsgemeinde,’ etc. Hirsch sometimes (19:16) used the term Gemeindedistrikt, which was preferred by Josef Popper (18:26, see his remark there), and adopted in the draft and the final version of the community statutes.
78. This proposal is ignored by Katzburg, “Ha-Kongress ha-yehudi,”. The Hungarian part of the text (19:2–9) is reproduced by Árpád Zeller, A magyar egyházpolitika 1847–1894 [Hungarian Church Policy 1847–1894], (2 vols.), vol. 1: 1847–1872 (Budapest: Boruth E., 1894), 949–63, which is listed erroneously in Katzburg’s cited bibliography (no. 285. ‘alef’).
79. 29:11; A magyar és erdélyi izraeliták 1868. deczember 10-ki Egyetemes Gyűlése által hozott szentesített szabályzatok és határozatok, community statutes, § 55, pp. 32–37; electoral statutes, § 3, pp. 50–3.
80. See 31:2, where the terminological change from ‘ecclesiastical community’ (egyházközség) to ‘religious community’ (hitközség) is announced. But the terms hitközség/Religionsgemeinde are used throughout already in the committee proposal of the community statutes, and the term egyházközség appears nowhere there. On the other hand, the term egyházkerület (Gemeinde-distrikt/Distrikt) is used throughout in that document (9 times), and in the final communal statutes (§§ 55–68, pp. 32–45) it was substituted with községkerület (Gemeindedistrikt). Thus there may have been an error here in the protocols.
81. Schönberg objected to a proposal by Samuel Horovitz (an Orthodox delegate, also supported, among others, by Mór Ludassy, a Neolog) which aimed at asking the government to issue an order prohibiting the formation of splinter groups within local communities until the completion of the work of the Congress (15:7–12).
82. The Serbian Greek Orthodox statutes on the local congregations, the schools and other matters were issued as a royal order on 10 August 1868: Magyarországi Törvények és Rendeletek Tára 2 (1868): 340–94.
83. Compare §§ 1–9 of the Congress draft with §§ 1–7 of the Serbian Greek Orthodox statutes, and their first paragraph in particular, which defines the local community as a society of coreligionists to satisfy their religious needs. This definition (and the paragraph itself) generated much controversy at the Congress (19:17–37). In this part of the draft, §§ 2 and 4 have no parallels in the Serbian statutes. Already the draft of the community statutes prepared by the Neolog majority of the preparatory conference (in February 1868) had a similar, ‘subjective,’ formulation (even without the list of mandatory community institutions in § 2 of the Congress draft): Tervezete a szervezeti szabályzatnak, 7 (§ 4). We find a more ‘objective’ definition in the community statutes prepared by Löbl Aronsohn (a progressive) in 1866 for the Jewish communities of Transylvania: “Entwurf zu einem Statute für die isr. Kultusgemeinden in Siebenbürgen,” Ben Chananja 10, no. 2 (1867): 49; cf. ‘Protokoll de Conferenz israel. Vertrauensmänner in Siebenbürgen,’ ibid., no. 1 (1867): 20. – Also the part on ‘community management’ (§§ 17–38, esp. §§ 22–29) has much in common with the chapter on ‘local ecclesiastical convent’ in the Serbian statutes.
84. The revised statutes of the Serbian Greek Orthodox ‘national ecclesiastical Congress’ were approved (and published as a royal order) only in 1875: Magyarországi Törvények és Rendeletek Tára 9 (1875): 105–16.
85. He echoed Leopold Löw, Die jüdische Wirren in Ungarn (Leipzig and Pest: Köhler - Aigner & Rautmann, 1868), 93. Neologs voiced this criticism not infrequently in the 1860s.
86. Gábor Adriányi, “Az 1855-ös osztrák konkordátum magyar vonatkozásai” [Hungarian aspects of the Austrian Concordate of 1855], Világtörténet 1993: 45–51, esp. 49–51.
87. Turán, “‘As the Christians Go, so Go the Jews’,” 90–1 (on 91, n. 126, p. 667 should be read instead of 664); see also Mór Mezei, “Visszaemlékezés az emancipáció idejére” [Recollections on Emancipation times], Évkönyv, kiadja az Izraelita Magyar Irodalmi Társulat (Budapest, 1918), 29–30.
88. Zeller, A magyar egyházpolitika, vol. 1, 987–8. The first – preparatory – Catholic Congress was opened on 24 June 1869, and the second – ‘fully legitimate’ – Congress on 26 October 1870. A committee was tasked with preparing proposals. Until receiving them, the Congress suspended its deliberations – and was never reconvened.
89. Csaba Máté Sarnyai, “Deák Ferenc és a katolikus önkormányzat megvalósításának nehézségei” [Ferenc Deák and the difficulties of establishing Catholic autonomy] Egyháztörténeti Szemle 9, no. 3 (2008): 31–2.
90. “Briefe aus dem Nord-Osten. III.,” Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 43 (1868): 370–1. Deák’s opinion (expressed in the same speech) that the education of clergy is not the business of laymen is also cited there – in tacit support of the Orthodox rejection of the establishment of a Rabbinical Seminary.
91. “A helyzet” [The situation], Magyar Zsidó 1, no. 52 (1868): 447. In the article neither Grün nor Deák is mentioned, but the next article in the same issue reports about Grün’s proposal: ‘Kongressusi napló’ [Congress diary], ibid., 449.
92. See G. Gángó’s paper in the present issue.
93. Cf. the analysis of Simon Szántó in his journal: [S. Szántó], ‘In der Osthälfte,’ Die Neuzeit 7, no. 20 (1867): 225–6, in which he briefly characterized 5–6 Jewish groups in Hungary within the conservative-orthodox camp, and 6–7 groups within the progressive-Neolog camp. See also Die Neuzeit 8, no. 9 (1868): 99–100.
94. Babylonian Talmud, Sanhedrin 6b.
95. See M. Wahrmann (9:19), M. A. Weisz (16:6–8), J. Weisse (18:6), M. Hirsch (20:15). On the main divide within the Orthodox camp (Hildesheimer’s faction), see Katz, A House Divided, passim, esp. 117–21, 124–30, 162.
96. Cf. Zech. 8:16,19; Jes. 39:8; Est. 9:30. Zech. 8:19 was alluded to already by the Ktav Sofer in his prayer composed for the Congress: Iggerot Sofrim, ed. Shlomo Sofer (Wien – Budapest: J. Schlesinger, 1929), Kitvei […] Ktav Sofer, p. 25, no.20.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Tamás Turán
Tamás Turán teaches Rabbinic literature at Eötvös Loránd University, Budapest, and is a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute for Minority Studies, Centre for Social Sciences, Budapest. His research fields include rabbinic literature, history of the Hebrew book, and modern Jewish intellectual history in Hungary.