Nation-Building and Contested Identities - MEK

MÓNIKA BAÁRevaluation of Christianity (which actually brought about feudalism),remained unanswered. In his second work, Horváth tackled this problemas well. In Horváth’s view, Christianity opened the way for the Hungariansto adopt “Western” European civilization. It injected a more soberknowledge and gentler morals into this unlearned, simple people.It helped them to develop friendly relations with the Western powers, bywhom they had been hated on account of their paganism.Voicing an opinion shared by many of his contemporaries in Centraland Eastern Europe, Horváth did not hold the adoption of Christianity (andthus feudalism) directly responsible for the deterioration of the people’ssocial status. He supposed that such a deterioration was a subsequent andgradual process which, indeed, was one of the main obstacles in the wayof further development. Interestingly, while other historians, regardless oftheir nationality, often blamed foreign invaders (such as the German colonizinginfluence) for the loss of freedom, Horváth was not prone to thisxenophobic attitude and, generally speaking, did not seek to find a negativecounter-image of the Hungarians in other nations. Nevertheless, he assertedthat the heterogeneity of peoples, representing different stages of moraland social development, was a fundamental hindrance in the way of development– a statement which seems to project Hungary’s ethnic heterogeneity,and the conflicts arising from it, into the Middle Ages.In defining the phenomena that substantially contributed to the developmentof civilization, Horváth attributed the main role to Christianity,while the second place was given to industry and commerce. Horváthclaimed that the sobering influence of industry and commerce initiateda longing for civil freedom, which was most apparent in Hungarian townsfrom the beginning of the 13 th century. This happened because materialwell-being, a result of prospering industry and commerce, gradually awokea demand for liberty and thereby morals came to be more polished.A general objection to Horváth’s evaluation of commerce and industryis that he grossly overestimates their role in the development of thecountry. As in the Reform Era historians were expected to offer a pragmaticprogram for the future, one might suggest that Horváth did notwant to show how influential commerce and industry in the Middle Agesactually were. Rather, he indicated how influential he wanted them to bein his own time. Also, when claiming that towns had been the hotbeds offreedom and the main weapon against feudalism in Hungary, he did notseem to reflect upon the fact that the majority of towns were inhabited byforeign (mostly German) dwellers.The difficulty in the correct estimation of the historical influence oftowns also shows that it was not always easy to apply conclusions drawn byforeign historians to the Hungarian circumstances. Furthermore, in the26