ŽUPANIČ, Jan, Der jüdische Adel Preußens, in: Knoz, Tomáš (ed.), Fürstenhaus Liechtenstein – Böhmische Länder – Fürstentum Liechtenstein. Ad honorem Thomas Winkelbauer, Studia historica Brunensia, vol. 64, 1/2017, ISSN 1803-7429, s. 237-261., 2017
The Prussian Jewish Nobility
Different European states had different attitudes towards Jews and ... more The Prussian Jewish Nobility
Different European states had different attitudes towards Jews and their social standing. In the Habsburg monarchy, several hundred people of the Jewish faith were ennobled between 1789 and 1918 (both in Austria and later in Hungary), while Jews were granted equal social status in 1867. In Prussia the social status of Jews had improved since the rule of Frederick II and in 1812 they were able to become Prussian citizens. However, Jewish emancipation reached a high point in July 1869 when a law on equal religious rights was declared in Prussia as well as in all the states of the North German Confederation. However, in Prussia the issue of granting aristocratic titles to people of the Jewish faith or of Jewish origin was, of course, more vexed and the ennoblement of these people was very rare.
Uploads
Papers by Jan Županič
Die Studie hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, die Wandlung des osterreich-ungarischen Militaradels (noblesse d'epee) im Laufe der Zeit, mit besonderem Augenmerk auf den Ersten Weltkrieg und die Ursachen fur die Veranderungen der Nobilitierungsvorschriften in der Ara des Ersten Weltkriegs, festzuhalten. Die systematisierte Adelung von Offizieren war mehr als 160 Jahre lang eines der traditionellen Symbole der Adelspolitik der Habsburger Monarchie. Ihre Einfuhrung im Jahre 1757 war Bestandteil der aufklarerischen Reformpolitik von Maria Theresia, die die Starkung der Krone in der Armee und die Gewahrleistung einer ausreichenden
Anzahl an qualifizierten und fahigen Offizieren anstrebte. Diese Personen stammten nun nicht mehr nur aus dem Adel, sie waren zumeist burgerlicher oder sogar landlicher Herkunft, und deshalb erhohte dieser Schritt grundsatzlich deren Prestige in der standisch hierarchisierten Gesellschaft.
Nach 1848 und der Verkundung der Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz verwandelte sich die Nobilitierung in eine spezifische Form der staatlichen Auszeichnung, die durch ihre Erblichkeit ausergewohnlich und einzigartig war. Der Anspruch der Offiziere auf den Adelstitel blieb trotz aller gesellschaftlichen und politischen Umschwunge erhalten, und dies vor allem deshalb, weil ein groser Teil des Offizierskorps dieses Privilegium als eines der Symbole seines Standes betrachtete. Zu Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges zeigte sich jedoch, dass diese altehrwurdige Tradition einer grundsatzlichen Reform bedarf. Obwohl man ursprunglich an eine Restriktion der Privilegien gedacht hatte, trug die Entwicklung der militarischen Situation und der gesteigerte Bedarf an Personen mit Offiziersberuf dazu bei, dass die Plane zur Einschrankung der systematisierten Adelung von Offizieren einstweilen nur auf dem Papier existierten. Jedoch deutet eine ganze Reihe von Indizien daraufhin, dass zugleich ganz klar eine Richtung eingeschlagen wurde, die bei einer anderen historischen Fugung spater zu einer grundsatzlichen Einschrankung dieses Privilegs gefuhrt hatte. Anstatt dessen zerbrach 1918 die 100-jahrige Monarchie, und an ihrer Stelle entstanden Staaten und Regimes, die die Frage der Adelung radikal und ein fur alle Mal erledigten, und zwar durch Aufhebung.
Changes in the social status of the elites have been relatively well-apped in the case of the families of the higher nobility, more rarely also for some better-off knightly families. Nevertheless, research has ignored the fates of the noble families that did not settle in the country but were tied to (mainly royal) towns and that completely blended in the 18th and 19th centuries with the local dignitaries and ceased to use their aristocratic attributes, especially nobiliary particles.
The conferral of aristocratic titles was always the exclusive right of monarchs, though (especially during the Early Modern era) they would on rare occasions delegate this power to other persons (known as palatines). With this exception, nobilitation was always an act performed by the monarch, as it represented an important tool enabling monarchs to create loyal elites. The conferral of aristocratic titles by the Pope was a highly sensitive issue. It became particularly relevant after the Italian occupation of Rome and the liquidation of the Papal States in 1870, which undermined Papal sovereignty. Most European states were reluctant to acknowledge Papal nobilitations, and the two largest states in Central Europe – the Habsburg Monarchy and Prussia – were no exception. This study analyses the issue focusing on the Veith and Kubinzky families, tracing their attempts to have their Papal titles acknowledged as hereditary titles and describing the Habsburg’s state’s response to these attempts.
Different European states had different attitudes towards Jews and their social standing. In the Habsburg monarchy, several hundred people of the Jewish faith were ennobled between 1789 and 1918 (both in Austria and later in Hungary), while Jews were granted equal social status in 1867. In Prussia the social status of Jews had improved since the rule of Frederick II and in 1812 they were able to become Prussian citizens. However, Jewish emancipation reached a high point in July 1869 when a law on equal religious rights was declared in Prussia as well as in all the states of the North German Confederation. However, in Prussia the issue of granting aristocratic titles to people of the Jewish faith or of Jewish origin was, of course, more vexed and the ennoblement of these people was very rare.
The paper is concerned with the position of the Pálffy family, or of its line (Pálffy-Daun), in the nobility of the Habsburg Monarchy and its ranking among the counts or princes of the Empire. At the same time, it shortly depicts the development of the princely status in the Danube Monarchy and particularly in Hungary. It is stated that approx. 470 families belonged to a so-called first society (nobility) in the entire Empire, among them twenty former imperial ruling family lines and twenty-two princely families with an imperial title or titles from hereditary countries. The affiliation with this elite was not decided about by a title, rank or property but by precisely determined principles of the Habsburg court which remained practically unchanged till 1918. Within aristocracy, there was also a certain hierarchy unfolding from the fact if a family belonged to the ruling or formerly ruling dynasties or not, from the title held or the nobilitation date. A princely title was the supreme dignity to be attained in the Danube Monarchy, therefore it was very prestigious and no wonder that there was considerable interest in it. Despite that it was awarded rarely and, in Hungary, quite sporadically: only in three cases from which one (the nobilitation of Charles of Lichtenstein in 1608) is very specific. As for the Pálffy family, only one branch had the title. The younger, also very wealthy family line, having the title Pálffy-Daun since the middle of the 19th century, endeavoured to avail of the fact that the Dauns had acquired a Napoli (Spanish) princely title in the past, and endeavoured to attain its confirmation also in Austria-Hungary in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
The Grand Dukes of the House of Habsburg governed Tuscany between 1737 and 1859 except for the Napoleonic Wars period. Nevertheless, beginning in the first half of the 19th century their position was strongly jeopardised by the growing Italian nationalism, and after the defeat of Austria in 1859 the family went into exile. At the beginning, they contended with problems related to their legal and social status although information about their poor financial situation appears to be exaggerated. In 1866, the last Grand Duke Ferdinand IV (1835–1908) accommodated Franz Joseph to formally renounce the Tuscany throne. The reason behind it was to improve diplomatic relationships between the Danube Region monarchy and Italy. However, Ferdinand retained his Grand Duke title to his death along with many privileges such as the right to his own court in Salzburg. The Tuscany line, however, was included in the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty which on the one hand guaranteed (though theoretically) a claim to the throne, yet on the other was subordinated to the Habsburg family order and primarily to the ruling emperor as the head of the house. The study briefly summarises the development of this family line from the second half of the 18th century and attempts to analyse its specifics within the dynasty during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Based on the example of two well-known military officer
families, the Banfields and the Brumowskis, the present study
examines the possibilities and limitations of the social advancement
of Austro-Hungarian military officers. Both families
had foreign ancestors (the Bansfields hailed from Britain,
the Brumowskis from Poland). Nevertheless, their aristocratic
status was not recognised in the monarchy. The subsequent
ennoblement of both families was a recognition not of their
aristocratic extraction but of the military achievements – in
case of the Brumowskis of Major General Albin, in case of the
Banfields either of Gottfried Banfield, who had been awarded
the Order of Maria Theresa, or possibly by the transfer
of aristocratic status from the related family of Mumb von
Mühlheim.
During this period, wartime heroes were no longer rewarded
by aristocratic titles, which were given rather to colonels and
generals based on the length of their service, rather than extraordinary
heroism on the battlefields. There were only a few
exceptions to this rule, one of which was the famous “Eagle of
Triest” Gottfried Banfield.
Die Studie befasst sich mit der Geschichte der Herrschaft Kost im Nordböhmen (Bezirk Jičín) in der Nähe von der Stadt Sobotka. Diese Herrschaft hat im Jahr 1739 Wenzel Kasimir Netolitzky von Eisenberg, Staatsbeamte und Vertraute der Kaiserin Maria Theresia, die im Jahre 1741 in der Freiherrn- und im Jahre 1759 in den Grafenstand erhoben wurde. Schon im Jahr 1757 wurde sein Herrschaft Kost im sog. Fideikomiss umgewandelt, die nach absterben seiner männlichen Nachkommen die Familien nach weiblichen Deszendenz (Wratislaw von Mitrowitz, Dal Borgo und Kinský) geerbt haben.
Colloredo-Mannsfelds are one of the oldest European noble families. Their family dominions are situated mainly in Bohemia and at the beginning of the 20th century covered an area of more than 58,000 hectares. The ruling Prince thus belonged to the most affluent aristocrats of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy and it may not come as a surprise that he was also considered a good match. It is no surprise that the marriage of Prince Joseph to a naturalized Englishwoman Lucy Sophia Graham, born de Jonquet, whose origin was rather mysterious, caused quite a stir that shattered the prestige of the entire family. Their marriage was without a child and finally divorced in 1925.
Full citation: ŽUPANIČ, Jan. Habsburkové ve 20. století. Historický obzor, 2006, vol. 17, no. 1-2. p. 2-9, ISSN 1210-6097.
The bestowal of noble titles represented a significant instrument of power for the Habsburg monarchy, particularly after the Battle of White Mountain. From that time ennoblement represented an important and also frequent method of rewarding service and a significant expression of royal favour. But the ennoblement of the defenders of Brno and Prague in 1645–1648 was on a scale without parallel in the history of the empire. That said, just a small section of those ennobled families continued to move up the estates of the realm. Such advancement was not barred to urban elites. However, it was linked to a loosening of urban ties and buying in the countryside, or to entering the royal service. The majority of such families had no interest in either of those steps.
In the course of the past several decades, research on the nobility has undergone a noticeable transformation. Older, mostly genealogy-based studies have been replaced by scholarship that examines the way of life of the nobility, the transformation of their social status in the modern era, marriage alliances, and social and family policies, among other topics. At the same time, new studies have appeared that examine the establishment and nature of new elites, the nobility policies of individual European states, as well as the nobility of Jewish faith. Archival research has revealed that during the period of 1789–1918 the Habsburg Hereditary Lands and later Austria as well undertook a total of 260 ennoblements of 233 people of Jewish faith, of which 24 were ennobled repeatedly (three people were ennobled as many as three times).Twelve people out of this total were foreigners, of whom five were ennobled before 1848 and seven after that date. Notwithstanding the fact that noble titles had lost some of their glamour by the second half of the 19th century due to the frequency of ennoblements, they continued to exist as a symbol of having successfully climbed the social ladder, as well as of identification with the monarchy, the Emperor, and the governing system. In view of rising ethnic tensions and sharpening conflicts among the various nationalities of the monarchy, accepting ennoblement for many people meant openly proclaiming their sympathy with the existing government. For these reasons, ennoblements were abolished shortly after the dissolution of the monarchy in successor states such as Czechoslovakia and Austria.
The loss of prestige experienced by the nobility as a hereditary privileged group, which was connected to the end of the era during which it was the intermediary between the monarch and his subjects, represented an important factor, also. During the upheaval years of 1848–1849, this group, which continued to enjoy considerable privileges at the administrative and political levels even after the Enlightenment reforms, became „ordinary citizens.“ They lost most of their privileges and thus the status, undisputed for generations, of the social and political elite. The project of the Kroměříž Constitution of 1849 even originally proposed the abolition of aristocratic titles. Although the Constitutional Committee then deleted this article from the definitive draft of the Constitution, the very parliamentary discussions speak out loudly about the prevalent atmosphere in contemporary society – and especially amongst the middle classes.
A significant role in the negative attitude of the majority population against the newly elevated nobility was also undoubtedly played by antisemitism as after 1848 the Jews came to appear amongst newly ennobled aristocrats on a large scale. Their social rise was not accepted without reservations by the majority of society, nor was the position of the Jewish ethnic group improved by their relatively frequent conversions to Christianity. In contrast, the significant disruption of the traditional balance between the economic and social capital, i.e. the aristocracy’s property and title, proved to be a more serious issue. Whereas society was able to tolerate relatively poor members of the lower nobility, to a certain degree, the increasing number of non-affluent barons was, indeed, a real problem. Prior to 1848 persons ennobled to the rank of the recognized nobility (Freiherr in German) usually had sizeable capital at their disposal, which allowed them to lead a life considered appropriate to their status.
The majority of society was willing to accept the bourgeois mentality and the style of life pertaining to it only in the case of the lower nobility, which was traditionally not too affluent in the hereditary Lands. Its members traditionally entered the civil service, the church or secured employment in rich aristocratic households. After 1848 the number of non-affluent barons rapidly increased. Within the framework of constant political struggle for the preservation of the Monarchy, nobilitations also became the way and means of power, providing the government with both direct supporters and essential finances. The selling of titles for cash did not represent a new approach. Merits, for which the ruler came to award aristocratic titles could be, in fact, of various kinds – and naturally, the provision of funding for public use, was one of them. However, the problem was that this policy continued even at a time when public opinion increasingly placed the actions of the rulers and governments under examination and critical scrutiny.
While the majority of society was still willing to tolerate nobilitations in recognition of service for the public good, i.e. giving money for humanitarian purposes, direct financial support for government interests did cross the limits of acceptability. However, as time went by, it became evident that the awarding of aristocratic titles would not lead to the desired aim, namely the creation of a broad pro-Austrian minded social majority whose elite would be rewarded for its loyalty through nobilitations. The failure of this effort, as well as the decline of the prestige and political respect for the hereditary aristocracy were the main reasons for the deep crisis of the institution of nobility, which utterly collapsed soon after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
Die Studie hat sich zum Ziel gesetzt, die Wandlung des osterreich-ungarischen Militaradels (noblesse d'epee) im Laufe der Zeit, mit besonderem Augenmerk auf den Ersten Weltkrieg und die Ursachen fur die Veranderungen der Nobilitierungsvorschriften in der Ara des Ersten Weltkriegs, festzuhalten. Die systematisierte Adelung von Offizieren war mehr als 160 Jahre lang eines der traditionellen Symbole der Adelspolitik der Habsburger Monarchie. Ihre Einfuhrung im Jahre 1757 war Bestandteil der aufklarerischen Reformpolitik von Maria Theresia, die die Starkung der Krone in der Armee und die Gewahrleistung einer ausreichenden
Anzahl an qualifizierten und fahigen Offizieren anstrebte. Diese Personen stammten nun nicht mehr nur aus dem Adel, sie waren zumeist burgerlicher oder sogar landlicher Herkunft, und deshalb erhohte dieser Schritt grundsatzlich deren Prestige in der standisch hierarchisierten Gesellschaft.
Nach 1848 und der Verkundung der Gleichheit vor dem Gesetz verwandelte sich die Nobilitierung in eine spezifische Form der staatlichen Auszeichnung, die durch ihre Erblichkeit ausergewohnlich und einzigartig war. Der Anspruch der Offiziere auf den Adelstitel blieb trotz aller gesellschaftlichen und politischen Umschwunge erhalten, und dies vor allem deshalb, weil ein groser Teil des Offizierskorps dieses Privilegium als eines der Symbole seines Standes betrachtete. Zu Beginn des Ersten Weltkrieges zeigte sich jedoch, dass diese altehrwurdige Tradition einer grundsatzlichen Reform bedarf. Obwohl man ursprunglich an eine Restriktion der Privilegien gedacht hatte, trug die Entwicklung der militarischen Situation und der gesteigerte Bedarf an Personen mit Offiziersberuf dazu bei, dass die Plane zur Einschrankung der systematisierten Adelung von Offizieren einstweilen nur auf dem Papier existierten. Jedoch deutet eine ganze Reihe von Indizien daraufhin, dass zugleich ganz klar eine Richtung eingeschlagen wurde, die bei einer anderen historischen Fugung spater zu einer grundsatzlichen Einschrankung dieses Privilegs gefuhrt hatte. Anstatt dessen zerbrach 1918 die 100-jahrige Monarchie, und an ihrer Stelle entstanden Staaten und Regimes, die die Frage der Adelung radikal und ein fur alle Mal erledigten, und zwar durch Aufhebung.
Changes in the social status of the elites have been relatively well-apped in the case of the families of the higher nobility, more rarely also for some better-off knightly families. Nevertheless, research has ignored the fates of the noble families that did not settle in the country but were tied to (mainly royal) towns and that completely blended in the 18th and 19th centuries with the local dignitaries and ceased to use their aristocratic attributes, especially nobiliary particles.
The conferral of aristocratic titles was always the exclusive right of monarchs, though (especially during the Early Modern era) they would on rare occasions delegate this power to other persons (known as palatines). With this exception, nobilitation was always an act performed by the monarch, as it represented an important tool enabling monarchs to create loyal elites. The conferral of aristocratic titles by the Pope was a highly sensitive issue. It became particularly relevant after the Italian occupation of Rome and the liquidation of the Papal States in 1870, which undermined Papal sovereignty. Most European states were reluctant to acknowledge Papal nobilitations, and the two largest states in Central Europe – the Habsburg Monarchy and Prussia – were no exception. This study analyses the issue focusing on the Veith and Kubinzky families, tracing their attempts to have their Papal titles acknowledged as hereditary titles and describing the Habsburg’s state’s response to these attempts.
Different European states had different attitudes towards Jews and their social standing. In the Habsburg monarchy, several hundred people of the Jewish faith were ennobled between 1789 and 1918 (both in Austria and later in Hungary), while Jews were granted equal social status in 1867. In Prussia the social status of Jews had improved since the rule of Frederick II and in 1812 they were able to become Prussian citizens. However, Jewish emancipation reached a high point in July 1869 when a law on equal religious rights was declared in Prussia as well as in all the states of the North German Confederation. However, in Prussia the issue of granting aristocratic titles to people of the Jewish faith or of Jewish origin was, of course, more vexed and the ennoblement of these people was very rare.
The paper is concerned with the position of the Pálffy family, or of its line (Pálffy-Daun), in the nobility of the Habsburg Monarchy and its ranking among the counts or princes of the Empire. At the same time, it shortly depicts the development of the princely status in the Danube Monarchy and particularly in Hungary. It is stated that approx. 470 families belonged to a so-called first society (nobility) in the entire Empire, among them twenty former imperial ruling family lines and twenty-two princely families with an imperial title or titles from hereditary countries. The affiliation with this elite was not decided about by a title, rank or property but by precisely determined principles of the Habsburg court which remained practically unchanged till 1918. Within aristocracy, there was also a certain hierarchy unfolding from the fact if a family belonged to the ruling or formerly ruling dynasties or not, from the title held or the nobilitation date. A princely title was the supreme dignity to be attained in the Danube Monarchy, therefore it was very prestigious and no wonder that there was considerable interest in it. Despite that it was awarded rarely and, in Hungary, quite sporadically: only in three cases from which one (the nobilitation of Charles of Lichtenstein in 1608) is very specific. As for the Pálffy family, only one branch had the title. The younger, also very wealthy family line, having the title Pálffy-Daun since the middle of the 19th century, endeavoured to avail of the fact that the Dauns had acquired a Napoli (Spanish) princely title in the past, and endeavoured to attain its confirmation also in Austria-Hungary in the 2nd half of the 19th century.
The Grand Dukes of the House of Habsburg governed Tuscany between 1737 and 1859 except for the Napoleonic Wars period. Nevertheless, beginning in the first half of the 19th century their position was strongly jeopardised by the growing Italian nationalism, and after the defeat of Austria in 1859 the family went into exile. At the beginning, they contended with problems related to their legal and social status although information about their poor financial situation appears to be exaggerated. In 1866, the last Grand Duke Ferdinand IV (1835–1908) accommodated Franz Joseph to formally renounce the Tuscany throne. The reason behind it was to improve diplomatic relationships between the Danube Region monarchy and Italy. However, Ferdinand retained his Grand Duke title to his death along with many privileges such as the right to his own court in Salzburg. The Tuscany line, however, was included in the Habsburg-Lorraine dynasty which on the one hand guaranteed (though theoretically) a claim to the throne, yet on the other was subordinated to the Habsburg family order and primarily to the ruling emperor as the head of the house. The study briefly summarises the development of this family line from the second half of the 18th century and attempts to analyse its specifics within the dynasty during the 19th and 20th centuries.
Based on the example of two well-known military officer
families, the Banfields and the Brumowskis, the present study
examines the possibilities and limitations of the social advancement
of Austro-Hungarian military officers. Both families
had foreign ancestors (the Bansfields hailed from Britain,
the Brumowskis from Poland). Nevertheless, their aristocratic
status was not recognised in the monarchy. The subsequent
ennoblement of both families was a recognition not of their
aristocratic extraction but of the military achievements – in
case of the Brumowskis of Major General Albin, in case of the
Banfields either of Gottfried Banfield, who had been awarded
the Order of Maria Theresa, or possibly by the transfer
of aristocratic status from the related family of Mumb von
Mühlheim.
During this period, wartime heroes were no longer rewarded
by aristocratic titles, which were given rather to colonels and
generals based on the length of their service, rather than extraordinary
heroism on the battlefields. There were only a few
exceptions to this rule, one of which was the famous “Eagle of
Triest” Gottfried Banfield.
Die Studie befasst sich mit der Geschichte der Herrschaft Kost im Nordböhmen (Bezirk Jičín) in der Nähe von der Stadt Sobotka. Diese Herrschaft hat im Jahr 1739 Wenzel Kasimir Netolitzky von Eisenberg, Staatsbeamte und Vertraute der Kaiserin Maria Theresia, die im Jahre 1741 in der Freiherrn- und im Jahre 1759 in den Grafenstand erhoben wurde. Schon im Jahr 1757 wurde sein Herrschaft Kost im sog. Fideikomiss umgewandelt, die nach absterben seiner männlichen Nachkommen die Familien nach weiblichen Deszendenz (Wratislaw von Mitrowitz, Dal Borgo und Kinský) geerbt haben.
Colloredo-Mannsfelds are one of the oldest European noble families. Their family dominions are situated mainly in Bohemia and at the beginning of the 20th century covered an area of more than 58,000 hectares. The ruling Prince thus belonged to the most affluent aristocrats of the Austrian-Hungarian Monarchy and it may not come as a surprise that he was also considered a good match. It is no surprise that the marriage of Prince Joseph to a naturalized Englishwoman Lucy Sophia Graham, born de Jonquet, whose origin was rather mysterious, caused quite a stir that shattered the prestige of the entire family. Their marriage was without a child and finally divorced in 1925.
Full citation: ŽUPANIČ, Jan. Habsburkové ve 20. století. Historický obzor, 2006, vol. 17, no. 1-2. p. 2-9, ISSN 1210-6097.
The bestowal of noble titles represented a significant instrument of power for the Habsburg monarchy, particularly after the Battle of White Mountain. From that time ennoblement represented an important and also frequent method of rewarding service and a significant expression of royal favour. But the ennoblement of the defenders of Brno and Prague in 1645–1648 was on a scale without parallel in the history of the empire. That said, just a small section of those ennobled families continued to move up the estates of the realm. Such advancement was not barred to urban elites. However, it was linked to a loosening of urban ties and buying in the countryside, or to entering the royal service. The majority of such families had no interest in either of those steps.
In the course of the past several decades, research on the nobility has undergone a noticeable transformation. Older, mostly genealogy-based studies have been replaced by scholarship that examines the way of life of the nobility, the transformation of their social status in the modern era, marriage alliances, and social and family policies, among other topics. At the same time, new studies have appeared that examine the establishment and nature of new elites, the nobility policies of individual European states, as well as the nobility of Jewish faith. Archival research has revealed that during the period of 1789–1918 the Habsburg Hereditary Lands and later Austria as well undertook a total of 260 ennoblements of 233 people of Jewish faith, of which 24 were ennobled repeatedly (three people were ennobled as many as three times).Twelve people out of this total were foreigners, of whom five were ennobled before 1848 and seven after that date. Notwithstanding the fact that noble titles had lost some of their glamour by the second half of the 19th century due to the frequency of ennoblements, they continued to exist as a symbol of having successfully climbed the social ladder, as well as of identification with the monarchy, the Emperor, and the governing system. In view of rising ethnic tensions and sharpening conflicts among the various nationalities of the monarchy, accepting ennoblement for many people meant openly proclaiming their sympathy with the existing government. For these reasons, ennoblements were abolished shortly after the dissolution of the monarchy in successor states such as Czechoslovakia and Austria.
The loss of prestige experienced by the nobility as a hereditary privileged group, which was connected to the end of the era during which it was the intermediary between the monarch and his subjects, represented an important factor, also. During the upheaval years of 1848–1849, this group, which continued to enjoy considerable privileges at the administrative and political levels even after the Enlightenment reforms, became „ordinary citizens.“ They lost most of their privileges and thus the status, undisputed for generations, of the social and political elite. The project of the Kroměříž Constitution of 1849 even originally proposed the abolition of aristocratic titles. Although the Constitutional Committee then deleted this article from the definitive draft of the Constitution, the very parliamentary discussions speak out loudly about the prevalent atmosphere in contemporary society – and especially amongst the middle classes.
A significant role in the negative attitude of the majority population against the newly elevated nobility was also undoubtedly played by antisemitism as after 1848 the Jews came to appear amongst newly ennobled aristocrats on a large scale. Their social rise was not accepted without reservations by the majority of society, nor was the position of the Jewish ethnic group improved by their relatively frequent conversions to Christianity. In contrast, the significant disruption of the traditional balance between the economic and social capital, i.e. the aristocracy’s property and title, proved to be a more serious issue. Whereas society was able to tolerate relatively poor members of the lower nobility, to a certain degree, the increasing number of non-affluent barons was, indeed, a real problem. Prior to 1848 persons ennobled to the rank of the recognized nobility (Freiherr in German) usually had sizeable capital at their disposal, which allowed them to lead a life considered appropriate to their status.
The majority of society was willing to accept the bourgeois mentality and the style of life pertaining to it only in the case of the lower nobility, which was traditionally not too affluent in the hereditary Lands. Its members traditionally entered the civil service, the church or secured employment in rich aristocratic households. After 1848 the number of non-affluent barons rapidly increased. Within the framework of constant political struggle for the preservation of the Monarchy, nobilitations also became the way and means of power, providing the government with both direct supporters and essential finances. The selling of titles for cash did not represent a new approach. Merits, for which the ruler came to award aristocratic titles could be, in fact, of various kinds – and naturally, the provision of funding for public use, was one of them. However, the problem was that this policy continued even at a time when public opinion increasingly placed the actions of the rulers and governments under examination and critical scrutiny.
While the majority of society was still willing to tolerate nobilitations in recognition of service for the public good, i.e. giving money for humanitarian purposes, direct financial support for government interests did cross the limits of acceptability. However, as time went by, it became evident that the awarding of aristocratic titles would not lead to the desired aim, namely the creation of a broad pro-Austrian minded social majority whose elite would be rewarded for its loyalty through nobilitations. The failure of this effort, as well as the decline of the prestige and political respect for the hereditary aristocracy were the main reasons for the deep crisis of the institution of nobility, which utterly collapsed soon after the fall of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy.
Es handelt sich um den Teil des Buches „Nobilitas Iudaeorum. Jüdischer Adel Mitteleuropas in der komparativen Perspektive“. Es handelt sich um den Inhalt der Arbeit sowie seine Ziele (einschließlich deutscher Resümee) und die Liste der Nobilitierten Juden in habsburgischen Erbländern und im Kaisertum Österreich in den Jahren 1622 – 1918