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

The Intellectual Horizons of Liberal Nationalism in Hungarycarried by the unprivileged classes. Among the Hungarians, the constitutionwas much simpler and less developed, but better suited to its purpose.Horváth’s argument is in line with the representatives of several other“marginal” nations: where it was impossible to assert the advanced natureof their people’s early civilization on the basis of written legal norms orother “concrete” documents, usually the importance and, in some cases,the superiority of the “natural” and “spontaneous” elements was stressedand opposed to established norms which were deemed “unnatural.”Evidently, though discussing a topic that dates back to the 9 th century,Horváth reflected on the pressing issues of contemporary Hungary. He criticizedfeudal Europe – which he depicted in view of early 19 th century Hungary– on liberal grounds. His guiding principles were the ideas of theEnlightenment, such as the social contract and the limited power of theruler. In Horváth’s model, primitive Hungarian society embodied theseideas. Nevertheless, Hungarian society at this stage did not appear toHorváth as a “paradise lost,” nor did he suggest that the return to that levelof civilization would be desirable. He also stressed that unlimited freedomwas as disadvantageous as serfdom; the ideal thus should be a limited freedom– limited, that is guaranteed, but not misused.Horváth’s prize-winning work was followed by another, in 1836, whenhe was a runner-up in the competition announced by the Hungarian Academyof Sciences. This time the topic was “The history of Hungarian industryand commerce in the Middle Ages.” This theme, alongside with theinfluence of towns in Hungarian civilization, was frequently debated in themid-1830s and also reflected a general European interest. A similar work onthe role of trade and commerce, albeit in antique societies, entitled “Reflectionsconcerning the politics, intercourse and commerce of the leadingnations of antiquity” was likewise written for a competition, by the Göttingenscholar, Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren (1760-1842), about whomH. E. Barnes, in his A History of Historical Writing, stated that “if Montesquieuhad few disciples among professional historians, he had at leastone of the highest order in Arnold Hermann Ludwig Heeren, one of thatbrilliant group of Göttingen professors of his period.” 7 Author of the successfulcomparative work, Handbook of the History of the European State Systemsand their Colonies, Heeren possibly exercised the greatest influence onHorváth’s historical thinking, and his works were generally popular among19 th century historians in Central and Eastern Europe.Although, in his previous work, he opposed the circumstances offeudal Europe and those of the Hungarians, Horváth did not discuss theissue of religion from a comparative perspective. He claimed that theopposition of Paganism to Christianity made no sense. Therefore, an evidentquestion that follows from the harsh criticism of feudalism, i.e., the25