Tibor Frank. Picturing Austria-Hungary: The British Perception of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1865-1870. New York: Columbia University Press, 2005. xvi + 444 pp. $50.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-88033-458-7; $50.00 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-88033-560-7.

Reviewed by Janet Kerekes (Independent Scholar, Toronto)
Published on H-Albion (July, 2006)

Those Elusive Monarchians

While 1865-70 was a crucial five-year period for the Habsburg Empire, it was also significant for all of Europe--at least it is reasonable to assert this, and reasonable to think that Britain, like other European countries, was quite preoccupied with the chain of events occurring in central Europe at the time. Based on this presumption, Tibor Frank has written Picturing Austria-Hungary only to conclude that the British did not formulate a homogeneous image of Austria-Hungary at either the individual or national level. Frank also had a second reason for writing this book. Of the many trials and tribulations Austria underwent during this time, the structural transformation of the empire into the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy in 1867 stands out and has current value according to Frank, for it "may well provide parallels, comparisons, and contrasts to what has been going on in the same area of the world today," i.e., the enlargement of the European Union (p. xv). This is a tempting carrot for the modern historian.

Arguing that a lack of information accounted for the dearth of public opinion on Austrian-Hungarian matters, Frank notes that those acting on behalf of the Habsburg Empire had an uphill battle when it came to "marketing." The book is full of arcane details of a personal and social nature about the Habsburg diplomats in London, but the reconstruction of Ambassador Count Rudolf Apponyi's attempts to influence what Frank calls the "protagonists of the action," those "behind the scenes," and "everybody of potential or real importance," is disappointing, to say the least (pp. 28-29). Frank's overall assessment of the embassy's efforts is conflicting: social venues created opportune moments to exert influence on the British, but it was ephemeral and circumstantial; the Habsburgs targeted only the political elite, but a diplomat's report states that they had been, for years, unsuccessful in influencing the press (clearly the primary conduit for public opinion). These contradictions are not resolved, but in fact further muddied by the addition of more information: the British were not interested in continental affairs, nor, it turns out, was the British press responsive to Austrian overtures.

Still, it is in the matter of the press that Frank finally gets down to business and presents the reader with some details concerning the Austrians' specific efforts to influence British public opinion and in what direction. One particularly remarkable effort was to make use of the Englishman Henry de Worms. (About this gentleman, we are only informed that he married the daughter of the Viennese financier Baron Eduard von Todesco; we are not told who he was--an English-born Jew whose father was an Austrian baron.) Pages are devoted to de Worms's extracurricular activities (he was a barrister at the time): writing newspaper articles; thwarting the publication of anti-Austrian articles by British writers and even paying them not to publish; and anonymously publishing a book extolling the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy and the Austrian chancellor's policies. Yet, Frank fails to assess their effect on the British public. Summing up the Austrians' efforts to have an impact on British journalism as largely unsuccessful, he simultaneously maintains that "Austrian manipulation went a long way towards ensuring a favorable reception in Britain" (p. 53).

In Frank's estimation, it is Lajos Kossuth who was the marketer extraordinaire of Hungary. But was it the medium or the message that gripped his English-speaking audience? Judging by the choice of excerpts, it was Kossuth's use of language, not the message. It was perhaps in Vienna itself where the most reliable impressions of the Habsburg Empire could be obtained. Information transmitted by British diplomats to the Foreign Office in London "could leak, through a series of channels, towards the lower levels of British society" (p. 70). The memoranda of Sir Robert Morier are a case in point; he wrote copiously to the Foreign Office from Pest and Vienna.

It is in chapter 3, "Images of Austria-Hungary," where the most fulsome impressions of how the British perceived these two countries are presented. Frank's acute observation of two dichotomies existing in the British mind--praising the spirit of 1848, while condemning the revolution itself; and approving the subservient position of Hungary following the revolution, while supporting the dualistic system which would allow the Hungarians to keep their ancient constitution--is to be commended. Still, there are some issues. Those with a working knowledge of Hungary and Britain during the period in question are an arcane bunch, and the problem inherent in Frank's statement that Britons adhered to the viewpoint of historian Gyula Szekfu and not that of statesman Jozsef Eotvos, will likely escape the reader. Szekfu (1883-1955) was not a contemporary; so, whose viewpoint did Britons adhere to? In his lengthy treatment of the potential for the Austro-Hungarian Compromise to serve as a model for Anglo-Irish relations, only two, of the many writers cited, were contemporaries. Since so little seems to have been actually written on this subject between 1865 and 1870, what exactly was Frank's purpose in including this discussion? Another problem apparent by the third chapter is Frank's over-reliance on a few sources to illustrate how the British perceived Austria-Hungary. For example, upwards of thirty pages of the text rely on Arthur J. Patterson's The Magyars (1869) alone. Finally, a re-reading of chapter 3 highlights a structural problem. The distinction between "marketing" and "images" is a clear one, and so the fact that the same theme may be presented from different perspectives need not pose a problem. However, Frank is not always diligent in maintaining the distinction between the two. For example, there is no appreciable difference in Frank's handling of the two chapters on the Austro-Prussian War or the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, respectively. Since these topics did not lend themselves to a thematic approach, might they not have been amalgamated and presented as coherent units?

What stands out in the book's conclusion is the summary of the Compromise; and it stands out because, instead of summarizing British writers' views on this crucial event, which were amply documented in his book, Frank substituted his own assessment of the Compromise through the fifty years it was in effect. The appendix forms a significant part of this book. It consists of a selection of diplomatic dispatches and memoranda from Robert Morier to British ambassador Lord Bloomfield in Vienna, published for the first time. Given that more than one-third of the work is devoted to these missives, Frank is powerfully underscoring a statement he wrote earlier in the book, that all such dispatches were circulated among government officials who proceeded to filter them downward to the public level. I am not in a position to debate this; however, the statement is unsubstantiated, and there seems to be no reflection in either British foreign policy or public opinion that Morier's astute observations found a receptive ear.

Of several observations about the book, one concerns the matter of balance. In a monograph such as Picturing Austria-Hungary, the information presented can only be sparingly enhanced with details. Too often, Frank has employed the reverse strategy. At the same time, many of Frank's assessments of British journalism read like an annotated bibliography: Edward Dicey, "the author of numerous intriguing pieces of journalism," wrote a "noteworthy" article in Macmillan's Magazine (pp. 97-98). Finally, advising the reader to be wary of two articles by Grant Duff because he had pronounced panslavic leanings on the one hand, while being decidedly anti-Hungarian on the other, is unprofessional. There is no reason to think that Duff's opinions were ill-considered.

Frank's approach to his subject has been similar to the service rendered by a tourist guidebook: it tells you the sites worth seeing. Whether this approach will satisfy the reader or not depends on the reader's personal agenda. Those intrigued by Frank's proposition in the introduction will find that, although the book does not conclusively prove there are grounds for forging a comparison, it is a worthy subject for research. What I do think is of genuine interest and makes a significant contribution is the "behind-the-scenes" look at the instruments of image-making (naïve travelogues by compatriots and cloak-and-dagger manipulations by those countries seeking to influence public opinion abroad) and the serendipitous nature of the process of producing the end product, of one nation's perception of another.

If there is additional discussion of this review, you may access it through the network, at: https://networks.h-net.org/h-albion.

Citation: Janet Kerekes. Review of Frank, Tibor, Picturing Austria-Hungary: The British Perception of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1865-1870. H-Albion, H-Net Reviews. July, 2006.
URL: http://www.h-net.org/reviews/showrev.php?id=11977

Copyright © 2006 by H-Net, all rights reserved. H-Net permits the redistribution and reprinting of this work for nonprofit, educational purposes, with full and accurate attribution to the author, web location, date of publication, originating list, and H-Net: Humanities & Social Sciences Online. For any other proposed use, contact the Reviews editorial staff at hbooks@mail.h-net.org.