BOOKS.
FRANCIS RAKOCZI.*
IT is probably no libel on the historical knowledge possessed by most Englishmen to say that their acquaintance with past Hungarian history is at best very vague. They generally know that at one time Hungary constituted the bulwark of Europe against the advance of the Ottoman Turks; that Soliman IL inflicted a crushing defeat on the Hungarian Army at the battle of Mohacs in 1526; that eventually the hosts of Kara Mnstapha swept past the Hungarian rampart and encamped under the walls of Vienna, and that the timely. arrival of John Sobieski saved European civilization and- altered the course of history. They have heard the story, which, whether true or mythical, is certaiuly pathetic, of how, during her life-and-death struggle with Frederick the Great, Maria Theresa appeared before the Diet at Pressburg with her child in her arms, and how when she said: " Ab omnibus derelicti ad Hungarorum priscam virtutem confugimns," Hungarian chivalry was roused and answered with the shout that the Hungarians would be tree unto death. They know that Hungary was for long a constant thorn in the side of Austria ; that Marshal Haynan's drastic methods for main- taining order were resented by the draymen in a London brewery ; that the Russian General Paskevich was able to write to the Tsar Nicholas in 1849: "Hungary lies at the feet of your Imperial Majesty" ; that Kossuth received some encouragement from that staunch Conservative in domestic and revolutionist in foreign affairs, Lord Palmerston, and was entertained in London by the Lord Mayor; and that as a consequence of the war of 1866 it became incumbent on Austria to make terms with the Hungarians and to agree to the arrangement known as the Ausgleich or Compromise. Further, all lovers of music know that the Hungarian patriot, Rakoczi, gave his name to a stirring march which to this day charms the ear and quickens the pulse of his countrymen.
The publication of Baron Hengelmiiller's work on the Hungarian rising of 1703-1711, which is really a biography of Francis Rakoczi II., affords a good opportunity for adding to this somewhat slender stock of knowledge. Lord Bryce and Mr. Roosevelt are very fully justified in recommending this book to the special attention of English and American readers, for the atory is one of special interest to the English- speaking race. The Hungarians fought for constitutional liberty and freedom of religion. Rakoczi was a Hungarian Cromwell, Leopold H. an Austrian Stuart. Moreover, English and Dutch diplomacy took an active part in endeavouring to reconcile the Austrian Emperor with his rebellious subjects. The House of Commons addressed Queen Anne on the subject. The negotiations were mainly conducted by George Stepney, that very minor poet, who described James H. as a "stronger Hercules," and whose verses were not quite sufficiently bad to justify his exclusion either from a final reatiug-place in Westminster Abbey or from Dr. Johnson's roll of poetical fame.
The fundamental fact, which was the pivot on which Hungarian history turned towards the close of the seventeenth and the commencement of the eighteenth centuries, was that
• Hungary's Fight for National Eristenes. By DOW= Baron HengelmIller• I,ondon: Neomillan and Co. [We. Crl. net.] Hungary, front her geographical position, lay between the German hammer and the Turkish anvil. In Hungary so intense was the hatred of the Germans that a disposition was frequently manifested to look to the Turks for protection. In Austria so vivid an idea was entertained of the danger which would result from a free Hungary that it was at times even doubted whether, in Austrian interests, a Turkish con- quest of the country was not to be preferred to Hungarian independence. It would be unjust to pass a twentieth-century verdict on the seventeenth-century methods by which the Austrian Government sought to enforce Hungarian allegiance. They must be judged according to the standard of the times. The spectre of Irish misrule rises up to stay the hand of any Englishman who would cast a first stone at Austria. But even judged by that deplorably low standard, it must be admitted that Austrian methods were extremely bad. Historians have often remarked on the harm done, more especially in the latter partof the eighteenth century, by semi-lunatic Sovereigns. The Emperor Paul of Russia, King Christian of Denmark, Queen Marie of Portugal, Gustavus IV. of Sweden, Charles IV. of Spain and his brother, Ferdinand of Naples, are cases in point. Rudolf II. of Austria (1552-1612), though in some respects a man of culture and ability, was tainted with insanity. He did everything, Baron Hengelmiiller says, "to drive Hungary and Transylvania to despair." After his death somewhat wiser counsels prevailed. In 1647, religious liberty was accorded. Neverthelesa, the long reign of Leopold I. (1640-1705) is marked by a series of revolts, the result of unwise and oppressive government. Power fell into the hands of Prince Lobkowitz, who appears to have been an Austrian Richelien without the genius of the French states- man, and of Baron Hocher, a man of humble birth, and a typical representative of the class of which Continental bureaucracy has been so prolific. Baron Hengelm idler describes him as "a stupendous worker, incorruptible, inaccessible, faithful and discreet, but rough, Blow, and dull." Such a man was sure to be "the staunchest enemy of Hungary's constitution and historical rights." These were followed by Cardinal Kollonicz, a very remarkable man, who, more than any other contemporary statesman, left the stamp of his individuality on Austro-Hungarian history. He was a reforming Churchman. He abounded in "zeal, charity, courage, and self-sacrifice." He befriended the widow and the orphan. He saved witches from the stake. He wished to destroy privilege, and to make the landowning nobles pay their share of taxes hitherto paid only by the peasants. His ideal was "to make Hungary an orderly, docile, and well- governed province of an Austrian Empire, and to bring it back to the Catholic faith." All history is there to prove that the fine qualities and misplaced zeal of a man of this sort are quite as capable of creating a revolution as the deliberate oppression of tyrannical rulers. The rise of Francis Rakoczi II., Prince of Transylvania, wrecked Kollonicz's plan.
Rakoczi was horn in 1676. His mother was the heroic Helena Zrinyi, who on the death of her first husband, Francis Rakoczi I., married Prince Imre Vika, that illustrious rebel who carried hatred to the Germans so far as to afford material assistance to Kara Mustapha on his march to Vienna. In his childhood Rakoczi was separated from his mother and sent by Cardinal Kollonicz to a Jesuit College in Vienna, in the hope that the influences to which he would there be subject would eradicate all patriotic proclivities. The Romans tried the same process in the case of Demetrius the Saviour, and failed; neither have latter-day attempts made in a similar direction by the British Government been much more anocessfuL At sixteen years of age he was allowed by the Emperor to choose whether he would remain in Vienna or return to Hungary. Kollonicz, of course, wished him to remain "for the continuation of his studies." His sister, however, who, although educated in an Ursuline convent, had married against the Cardinal's will, and had thus put that eminent prelate "in a towering rage," pointed out to him that "metaphysics and Austrian law would be of small use to him in his future life." Convinced by these arguments, Rakoczi returned to Hungary. He at first showed little disposition to adopt an anti-German attitude, but after the lapse of a few years 113
• future career was determined by the friendship he contracted for Count Nicholas Beresenyi, a man of great power and ability who was the life and soul of the insurrection
which subsequently ensued. Bercsenyi convinced Rakoczi that the Hungarians were ripe" for rebellion, and only waited for a leader with an historic name, such as his, to place himself at their head. Accordingly Rakoczi wrote a letter to Louis XIV, divulging his plan. It was confided to a Belgian officer in the Imperial service named Longueval, who treacherously handed it over to the Austrian authorities. Rakoczi was arrested and imprisoned, but escaped to Poland. In the meanwhile the Hungarian peasants had risen. Rakoczi felt himself bound in honour to stand by them. He therefore crossed the border and placed himself at the bead of a few hundred half-naked marauders armed with sticke and scythes. Prompt action on the part of the Austrian authorities would probably have at once quelled the movement. But a century later Rivarol said that Austria had always been "en ari*re dune anode, d'ime armee et d'une idee." So it proved on the present occasion. Rakoczi was joined by the Hungarian magnates. His disorderly rabble soon grew into a formidable army. War was then carried on with very varying vicissi- tudes. At one time the Hungarian Count Karolyi alarmed the burghers of Vienna by bringing his raiders to within a few miles of their walls. At another time the Austrian Baron Heister carried fire and sword over the fair plains of Hungary. Attempts were from time to time made to come to terms, but from the fact that when representatives of either aide met exaggerated importance was attached to trumpery questions of etiquette and precedence, and that one of the Austrian Commissioners found time to complain of the bad Latin of his Hungarian associates, it may be conjectured that neither side was very earnestly desirous of peace. Eventually a con ference took place in the summer of 1706, which at one time looked as if it would be productive of good results. The negotiation, however, failed, ostensibly because the Emperor absolutely repudiated the claim of Rakoczi to be independent Prince of Transylvania. But the real reason most be sought elsewhere. Hungary had by this time become the battlefield of European diplomacy. It was manifestly in the interests of England and Holland that Austria should make peace with the Hungarians in order to be able to employ all her forces against Louis XIV. Moreover, the English envoy, Stepney, was a warm sympathiser with Hungary. He fully realized the necessity of peace both in English and Continental interests. Stepneyappears to have anticipated Carteret a little later in the eighteenth century and Morier in the nineteenth century, for it was said of him that" no Englishman ever understood the affairs of Germany so well, and few Germans better." It was equally in the interests of the French to keep the Hungarian sore open. Louis XIV.'s policy was, in fact, very crafty. He helped Rakoczi with money and encouraged him with fair words, but he was careful not to commit himself too far. He per- sistently refused to guarantee the independence of Transyl- vania. His political action is described as "blowing the horn in order to excite the pack," and nothing more. At one flip° Rakoczi appears to have wavered. The despatches of Des Alleurs, the French representative in Hungary, were "full of complaints and fears about the desire of Rukoczi's generals and troops to come to peace." The cause of peace was also favoured by Beresenyi. But eventually trust in French help prevailed. Finally Count WIntislaw, on taking leave of Rakoezi, said: "Well, my Prince, you are putting your faith in France, which is the hospital of Princes who have come to grief through her broken pledges and promises. You will increase their number and die there."
Baron Hengelmfiller's story breaks off with the failure of the 1706 negotiations. Subsequently (1708) Rukoczre force was routed at Trencsen. In 1711 he quitted Hungary, never to return. He died at Rodosto, in Turkey, in 1735. In 1907 the Emperor of Austria wisely and generously allowed his remains to be transferred, at the expense of the State, to his native country. It is greatly to be hoped that Baron Hengelruiiller will carry out his design of completing this interesting and little-known page of history up to the Pests
Previous page
