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

MÓNIKA BAÁRresponsible for the tragedy which led to the country’s partition. He foundthe aristocracy responsible for the collapse, and declared that it was notthe power of the Turks but the cowardice of the Hungarians which broughtabout these tragic developments.Horváth’s other interest was not defined by a period but by anunprivileged class: the peasantry. In this pursuit, he again adhered toa pragmatic point of view and examined aspects of the history of peasantrywith an eye on contemporary problems and looking for their possible solutions.By 1841, the time of the completion of these articles, it was obviousfor the reformers that the miserable position of the peasantry was anobstacle in the way of the development of trade, agriculture and commerce.But how much liberty should be given to the peasantry without thedanger of challenging the existing order? In examining these matters,Horváth again turned to history as a casebook. He stated, “in the historyof mankind, there is hardly a more important issue than the relationshipbetween the different social strata,” presuming that a state, where thisrelationship is based on the principles of natural law, will be prosperous,strong and peaceful. On the other hand, where the legal conditions of thepeople are unlawful, society declines. Horváth identified America asa model, where the enjoyment of civic liberties resulted in progress.Apart from this practical concern, engaging in the history of the peasantrycould also support Horváth’s desire to go beyond the discussion ofdynastic history. Missing the documents which could have illustrated theeveryday life of the people in the manner of “microhistory,” he chose tofocus on one particular aspect, the legal situation of the peasantry throughoutthe centuries; as this had been documented in various state decrees readilyavailable for him. Horváth was especially keen on the examination of thecauses and consequences of the peasant uprising of 1514. The uprising brokeout among a circle of peasants who had originally been recruited to fightagainst the Turks. Horváth wanted to find out why the peasants turnedagainst their lords. After the suppression of the uprising, the Hungarianpeasantry was deprived even of its limited civil liberties, such as the freedomof migration, the only means of the peasantry to protect itself from the lords’abusive power. According to Horváth, this act was even more shameful thanslavery in the ancient world, because deprivation of liberties in Rome,regardless of the size of the slave community, referred to individuals only,and not to a complete social stratum. Due to the inhuman nature of Hungarianlegislation, an entire social layer was collectively deprived of its rights.According to Horváth, people deprived of their rights cannot form a realcommunity and cannot constitute a nation. Hungarian legislation excludedthe peasantry from enjoying any rights, but, in spite of such deprivation ofliberties, it did not cease to consider the peasantry as a constituent of the32