Századok – 2012
MŰHELY - Miskolczy Ambrus: A józsefi népszámlálás, a nemesi ellenállás és a Horea-felkelés VI/1421
1450 MISKOLCZY AMBRUS ki akarták bővíteni. Ezért, amikor a Horea-féle felkelés okait kivizsgáló Jankovich Antal, királyi biztos a nagyszebeni Főhadiparancsnoksághoz fordult, hogy Őfelsége szándékának megfelelően a népszámlálás folyamán katonai részről oktassák ki a népet arról, hogy militarizálásról, határőrségbe kerülésről szó sem lehet, a főhadiparancsnok a bécsi Haditanácshoz fordult, mert szerinte a királyi biztos átirata ellentmond a legmagasabb szándéknak, akkor Hadik március 18-án parancsba foglalta, úgy járjanak el, hogy az erdélyi határőrvidék bővítését ne keresztezzék, és ne adjanak alkalmat a polgári hatóságoknak sérelmekre.12 7 THE JOSPHINE POPULATION CENSUS, NOBLE RESISTANCE AND THE HOREA UPRISING by Ambrus Miskolczy (Summary) The significance of the history of Transylvania in the research of Josephinism is that it was in that province that the emperor was most radical. The greatest, and most durable, achievement of his reforms was the census, and the single most important event launched at least partly by the reforms the Horea Uprising in 1784. The census expressed the omnipotence of the state, as well as the aim of securing the equality of all subjects before the law. Parallel to the census, the emperor ordered the conscription of those settlements which he intended to attach to the military border region. The uprising was began by the peasants under seigneurial dependence trying to have themselves conscripted as border guardians, and, when they were prevented from doing it by the authorities, passions broke free. The ruler blamed the nobility for the revolt, maintaining that it was caused by seigneurial oppression. The nobility, on the other hand, argued that it was the ruler himself who, by direct contact with the subjects, and by the censuses, had undermined trust in the traditional public order. The commander of the military force directly subordinated to the emperor, unaware of the ruler's intention, and bearing grudges against the nobility himself, did not immediately take action against the rebels. The high officials of the emperor acknowledged themselves that the censuses had not been carried out properly, yet on the origins of the revolt opinions diverged, since exact information about the peasants' general discontent was at hand. It is highly characteristic of the situation that in 1782 the brother of governor György Bánffy feared lest the Hungarians living in the territory neighbouring Hungary would rise, whereas eventually it was the Romanian peasants of the fisc, settled in the Érchegység, who started the revolt. These were quickly joined by the peasantry of the neighbouring county of Hunyad, where drunken persons, having lost their self control and with their tongues unbound, began to speak ugly words about the emperor himself. Joseph II quickly recognised the piquancy of the situation, and learned from the accusation according to which he may have aroused himself by the census the ideas which had prompted the peasant to revolt. He also seems to have realised that references to taxation in his rescripts were not really practical, for these led to fear that taxation would be increased and tax evasions might be revealed. Consequently, he had it publicly proclaimed that the census would cause „not even the slightest of changes" in taxation and seigneurial dues. Nobility, soldiery and peasantry were those three socio-political forces which were set in motion by the policy of reforms, and the balance of which had to be secured by the ruler. The Horea uprising was a symptom of the troubled working of this policy, and thus the traditional views according to which it would have been launched by Josephinist free masons or caused by seigneurial oppression are definitively false. Contrary to these models, one agitational, the other volcanic, the present study tries to examine how the various groups and forces of society wanted to make their own interests prevail. 127 MOL B 2 1875: 3517
