Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

MÓNIKA BAÁR[That period] became, by the nation’s efforts and struggles, … the mostglorious period, a progress following the principles of liberalism. Suchprogress was even more admirable if we consider that the developmentwas achieved entirely by the nation’s own initiative, unsupported fromabove, despite many constraints. 1Similar to the efforts of foreign scholarly societies, the newly-foundedHungarian learned societies regularly announced competitions whichallowed for talented but hitherto unknown historians to make their namesfamiliar to the public. Horváth, a historian writing for his own pleasure,entered the academia through this channel and it is likely that, withoutthese competitions, his chances to become a respected historian wouldhave been much slighter.The following question was posed in the competition, announced bythe Marczibányi Institute, in 1835: “What was the difference between thesocial and moral development of the conquering Hungarians and the peoplesof Europe?” This theme addressed developments of the 9-10 th century,a turning point in Hungarian history: the foundation of the state andthe adoption of Christianity. Nevertheless, its implications were not purelypolitical, but also reflected the ongoing debate in contemporary politicsregarding the nature of feudal society and the Hungarians’ place in Europeancivilization. While Horváth considered this epoch at a later stage ofhis career as well, he remained uninterested in the study of the periodprior to the adoption of Christianity. Unlike many of his Central and EastEuropean colleagues, who often devoted most of their attention to earlyhistory and expressed a special interest in the origins of their respectivenation, Horváth did not attribute too much importance to that theme.Moreover, he asserted his abstinence from competing for “whose historyis older,” stating that “culpable is the nation which is so much in need oflaudation and glory that it considers the predecessors’ antiquity and fameits most significant merit.” 2This lack of interest is especially surprising if we take into account thetopic’s popularity in contemporary debates. It was indeed a hotly disputedissue whether the Hungarians were related to the Finno-Ugrian tribes astheir language proved, or they had a Turkic background as their physical lookand customs suggested. Horváth expressed serious doubts about the reliabilityof sources related to this issue. It is also true, however, that the promisingdevelopments in the Reform Era, which opened a chance to participate inactual political debates, offered a pursuit which seemed more attractive tothis generation than the involvement in nebulous academic debates. Thus, inhis attitude to earlier history, Horváth’s position was similar to contemporaryFrench, English or German themes in historiography, where the most signif-22