Századok – 1991

Tanulmányok - Kalmár János: A Bánság berendezése az Einrichtungswerk alapján V–VI/489

498 KALMÁR JÁNO: 38

U.o., 75. 39

EW, 192. 40

Jordan: i.m., 60. 41

U.o., 61. 42

EW, 74. 43

U.o., 193. 44

U.o., 79. 45

Jordan: i.m. 63. 46

EW, 84. 47

Szentkláray: i.m, 154-155. és Kallbninner: i.m., 58, 48

EW, 75. 49

Jordan: i.m., 47. 50

Kallbrunner: i.m., 65. 51

EW, 88. 52

Kallrbrunner: i.m., 58., 72. és 74. 53

U.o., 19. 54

EW, 70. 55

Ld. a 7. sz. jegyzetet. 56 Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen. Hrsg. von der Kriegsgeschicbtlichen Abteilung des k.u.k. Kriegsarchivs, Bd. XVI (Bd. VII. der II. Reihe): Der Türkenkrieg 1716-1718, Feldzug 1716. Bearb. von Ludwig Matuschka (Wien, 1891), Supplement (Nr. 158), 162. 57 U.o., (Nr.), 174-175. 58

U.o. (Nr. 166), 175. 59 Feldzüge: i.m., Supplement (Nr.158), 162. (Nr. 166), 175. és (Nr. 167), 176. «U.o., Supplement (Nr. 158), 161-162. 61

U.o., 96. 62

Kallbrunner: i.m., 20. és Szentkláray: i.m., 19. 63

Amint ezt a Verwaltungsreform c. munka állítja: 72. 64 Wellmann Imre: „Merkantilistische Vorstellungen im 17. Jahrhundert und Ungarn" = Novelles Études Historiques Hongroises (Budapest, 1965), 354. 65

Benczédi: i.m., 155. 66

Ez esetben ti. Ausztriában és Csehországban. EW, 71. 67

Kónyi Mária: „Az 1715-22. évi rendszeres bizottság javaslatai" = A bécsi Magyar Történeti Intézet évkönyve II. (1932), 18. és 23. THE „EINRICHTUNGSWERK OF BISHOP KOLLONICH AND THE ADMINISTRATION OF THE BANAT IN THE 18TH CENTURY by Kalmár János Summary With a view to the settlement of Hungary reconquered after 150 years of Ottoman rule under the Habsburg scepter in the late 17th century, the Vienna court commissioned Kollonich Lipót, bishop of Győr and later cardinal archbishop of Kalocsa to prepare a project for the reorganization of the country, but it was never realized completely. Certain German and Austria historians have, however, suggested that the settlement of at least the Banat of Temes was finally realized accordingly between 1716 and 1718. When recovered from the Türks, the territory became controlled directly by the Court Council of War and the Chamber and not by the Hungarian authorities. The article compares the most important points of the „Einrichtungswerk" and the settlement of the Banat and finds that in spite of several coincidences the ideas therein were principles so commonly accepted in the court that there was no need to reach back after a thirty-year-old concept The more so, since by that time the Vienna court got into a far more advantageous position as regards foreign policy than what it enjoyed in the late 17th century, consequently it was far less obliged to take the interests of the Hungarian Estates into account The „Einrichtungswerk" however, did so, while the very fact that Banat was controlled by the court authorities was an indication of the opposite intentions of the court. To say nothing of the views of Eugene de Savoy, president of the Court Council of War and General