Abstract István Deák was an expert on the Habsburg officer corps and argued convincingly that the defense of honor was central to its self-understanding. Deák confronts contradictory evidence about the extent of antisemitism in the Austro-Hungarian officer corps as well as the question of whether or not Jewish officers were treated by their peers as men with honor. Because of his immense erudition, Deák was able to approach these questions with a sensitivity to interpretation that creates a model for future scholars.
In 2012 the historian Julia Adeney Thomas restrained her temper but unleashed a warning. The occasion was a forum in the American Historical Review on 'historiographic "turns" in critical perspective'. The perspectives offered were critical enough, Thomas wrote in praise of the other authors, but the forum had a blind spot: 'alongside the turns analyzed here, a world-altering force has been emerging, one larger, more devastating, and more definitive even than "contemporary flexible forms of capitalism": I speak of climate change – or climate collapse – and all of its related global transformations'. Since then, some intersectional scholars have gone beyond that to argue that climate collapse and racial capitalism are not separate topics at all, but are bound together by white supremacy and lingering forms of European imperialism. Over the past decade some environmental historians have grappled with these connections and deployed new frameworks for thinking about scale, the interdependence of the local and the global, the implications of a Euro-centric analytical framework for our understanding of the world and the relationship between economic systems and environmental change. Although they have developed separately, both environmental history and global history have called upon historians of Europe to rethink boundary making in their methodologies and in their categories of analysis. In an era of global climate catastrophe, global pandemic and global economic crisis, where does the 'European' environment end?
Abstract I use the personnel files of three consuls in the Austro-Hungarian foreign service to consider the ways Habsburg bureaucracy recorded the emotional lives of civil servants. Consuls were expected to interact with Habsburg subjects and other civilians dispassionately and objectively. But conflicts that occurred in their 'free time,' outside the consulates, spilled over into their professional time. The resolution of those conflicts involved their colleagues in the consulates and administrators in Vienna. While showing emotion in interactions inside the consulate was frowned upon, responding to attacks on personal honor with the strongest of emotions was expected of an Austro-Hungarian "gentleman." Consuls had to abide by both the standards of their profession and the standards for "men of honor" (Ehrenmänner) that had been codified with the officer corps in mind. The recognition that both roles were compatible shows the repackaging of certain kinds of "emotion" as professional requirements, rather than excesses.