Nation-Building and Contested Identities: Romanian & Hungarian ...

The Intellectual Horizons of Liberal Nationalism in Hungaryicant issues under discussion (the Norman Conquest, Charlemagne’s empire,the rise of communes, feudalism, etc.) were the developments in earlymedievalhistory, and not in pre-history, as it was the case in the lifework ofmany of his colleagues, such as Joachim Lelewel.Horváth’s interest in the study of feudalism, which he saw as anopposite to freedom, was manifested in his essay submitted for the aforementionedcompetition. In his understanding, it was feudalism that determinedthe social and moral conditions in the successor-states of Charlemagne’sempire. The two components of feudal society were the nobilityand the servants. Those who at a later stage became servants had originallyenjoyed civil liberties. However, the unrestrained haughtiness of thenobility deprived them not only of their civil, but also of their naturalrights: they were often treated not as human beings, but as property.As the feudal remnants had survived in Hungary until Horváth’s time,his historical discussion had a strong contemporary resonance. He reflectedupon one of the most salient problems of his age, when declaringthat the feudal system was lacking a powerful middle-class (since townsdid not really fit in the feudal order). Where “a diligent middle-class isnon-existent, where the overwhelming majority of the people belongs toa servant class, how can bourgeois civilization develop, how can the flowersof a nobler humanity blossom?” 3According to Horváth, the Hungarians originally led a peaceful life ofequality, simplicity and independence. In fact, there were few historians inthis period who envisioned their nation’s beginnings in a different way.However, Horváth’s task was more difficult as the sources referring to theHungarians in this period – mostly German chronicles – characterized themin a way which was far from flattering: “wild,” “bloodthirsty” and “abominable”were among the common adjectives. Horváth solved this problem byarguing that it was only in the period of “adventures” (tours of robberyaround the neighboring territories, utilizing a military tactic unknown toother peoples) that selfishness and greed appeared. As an inevitable resultof enrichment, the truth-loving and peaceful shepherds became wild, cruelrobbers. War became the organizing principle of life. Domestic work waslooked upon by the Hungarians as something servile, as they spent most oftheir day with dolce far niente. Thus, they recalled Caesar’s Gauls and Tacitus’sGermans: “They were disgusted by acquiring things by the sweat oftheir brow if it could be obtained by violence and blood.” 4Somewhat surprising for a just-settled nomadic tribe, a positive featureof the Hungarians is found in their respect for women andmonogamy. The example supporting this argument illustrates the charmingnessof Horváth’s effort to present a critical, yet, on the whole, positiveview of the Hungarians. Respect for women can be observed in their23