Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

MÓNIKA BAÁRbehaviour in 938, when Prince Zoltán and his troops, after an unsuccessfuladventure, angrily wreaked havoc in Saxony. Among other things, theyalso destroyed a nunnery, and true, all of the nuns were butchered, buttheir virtue did not suffer damage. 5 In another place, Horváth also quotedLudwig T. Spittler’s Geschichte Europas, which claimed that the historyof humanity showed few precedents for such a “gradual refinement” as ithappened in the case of the Hungarians.In later parts of his presentation, Horváth argued that in WesternEurope feudalism killed freedom, since its organizing principle was serfdom.The limits of power were not defined by laws derived from the socialcontract, but were dependent on the authoritative will of the ruler or theruling class. Whereas in feudal Europe serfdom was the fundamental obstacle,in the case of the Hungarians unrestricted freedom was the main problemof society. Hungarians obeyed their prince without degrading into servility.The leaders (chieftains) of the nation invested the prince withauthority and the limits of his power derived from rightful contracts. Thelegendary tradition of the blood contract of seven chieftains is interpretedas a primitive constitution and, in a similar manner, the legendary meetingof Pusztaszer as a primitive form of parliament. Whereas in feudal societythe interests of a tiny ruling class contrasted with those of the vast mass ofserfs, among the Hungarians everyone was a member of the nation.In feudal Europe the juridical system was based on established laws,which were, however, formed arbitrarily. Among the Hungarians, legalinstitutions were not yet established, but customs and, to some extent,arbitrary (though patriarchal) laws organized the life of society. Therefore,concluded Horváth, jurisdiction was less rightful in the Westernprovinces than among the Hungarians, because in their case it was thepeople who elected the judges and they could also be deprived of theirposition. On the whole, the mere fact that the feudal system was morerefined does not guarantee its superiority:Because civilization (regarding the constitution) is not to be found whereit is organized and established, but where the constitution fits its purpose,where social conditions are defined by rightful laws and where the princehas enough power to urge the fulfilment of these laws, where the contributionto public goods is proportional to the advantages drawn fromthem, and where the constitution serves not just a few privileged individuals,but the entire nation. 6Yet again, this statement sounded more like a political manifesto, thana historical account. According to his interpretation, in feudal Europe theabove-mentioned conditions were not fulfilled, since all burdens had to be24