1 This terminology was first used by Oscar, Jászi in The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1929).
2 George, Bárány, “Political Culture in the Lands of the Former Habsburg Empire: Authoritarian and Parliamentary Traditions,” Austrian History Yearbook 24, part 1 (1998): 195–248.
3 Karol B., Janowski, “Kultura politiczna” [Political culture], in Wprowadzeniedo nauki o państwie i polityce [Introduction to the state and political science], ed. Bogumil, Szmulik and Marek, Zmigrodzki (Lublin, 2002); cited in Janusz, Zarnowsaki, “Considerations on the Political Culture of Central Europe in the Nineteenth and Twentieth Centuries: Specific Features of Epochs and Regions,” in Political Culture in Central Europe, ed. Magdalena, Hulas and Jaroslaw, Pánek, vol. 2 (Warsaw, 2005), 12.
4 Waltraud, Heindl, Gehorsame Rebellen. Bürokratie und Beamte in Österreich 1780–1848 (Vienna, 1991).
5 Waltraud, Heindl, “Bureaucracy, Officials and the State in the Austrian Monarchy: Stages of Change since the Eighteenth Century,” Austrian History Yearbook 37 (2006): 39.
6 See, for example, the works of László, Péter, especially his book-like chapter in Die Habsburgemonarchie 1848–1918, vol. 7, Verfassung und Parlamentarismus, part 1, ed. Helmut, Rumpler and Peter, Urbanitsch (Vienna, 2000), 239–540.
7 See, for example, the most original work by Béla, Sarlós, Közigazgatds és hatalompolitika a dualizmus rendszerében [Public administration and power politics in the system of dualism] (Budapest, 1976).
8 Bárány gives a clear definition of the group of centralists of the 1840s: ‘This small but important group, which included Baron Joseph Eötvös, his brother-in-law August Trefort, the legal scholar Ladislas Szalay, and others[,] was to challenge more consistently than Szechenyi the political monopoly of the nobility in the counties and in the Diet with the purpose of setting up a government responsible to a truly representative parliament.’ George, Bárány, Stephen Széchenyi and the Awakening of Hungarian Nationalism, 1791–1841 (Princeton, 1968), 267–68. See also László, Deme, ‘Pre-1848 Hungarian Nationalism Revisited: Ethnic and Authoritarian or Political and Progressive?’ East European Quarterly 27, no. 2 (1992): 141–69; and Iván Zoltán, Dénes, ‘The Value Systems of Liberals and Conservatives in Hungary, 1830–1848,’ Historical Journal 36, no. 4 (1993): 825–50.
9 Gábor, Gyáni, György, KövéV, AND Tibor, Valuch, Social History of Hungary from the Reform Age until the End of the Twentieth Century (New York, 2003), 267.
10 Istvdn, Bibó, ‘A magyar közigazgatásról’ [On Hungarian public administration] (written in 1947), in Bibó, Válogatott tanuládnyok. Második kötet, 1945–1949. Magvetö [Selected studies. Second volume] (Budapest, 1986), 477–78.
11 See, for example, the works by Éva, Somogyi, especially Kormányzati rendszer a dualista Habsburg Monarchiában [Governmental system in the dual Habsburg monarchy] (Budapest, 1996). Her succinct summary of these problems can be found in Somogyi, , ‘Az Osztrák-Magyar Monarchia közös kormánya’ [The joint government of the Austro-Hungarian monarchy], Histéria 5–6 (1994): 26–28; and Somogyi, , ‘A Habsburg Birodalom és a magyar kiegyezés’ [The Habsburg Empire and the Hungarian compromise], Histéria 4 (2003): 14–19.
12 The complexity of post-1867 Hungarian nationalism is well explained by Andrés, Gerö in his book Képzelt történelem [Imagined history] (Budapest, 2004). He argues that ‘during the Reform Age (1825–1848) national and liberal values could be well combined, but after 1867 a redefinition of Hungarian nationalism did not come about. The opposition articulated the national interest, the governmental side represented liberalism in a conservative context. Nationalism was built on fiction and lacked political support but successfully imposed its issues on politics. It was, however, not in a position to implement its most important aspiration, i.e. complete Hungarian sovereignty.’ Ibid., 141.
