Hungarian Heritage Review, 1989 (18. évfolyam, 1-9. szám)
1989-01-01 / 1. szám
Special ,3íeaturr-©f-®l|e-iHontl] problem, and diplomatic history of World War II, and the theory of historical knowledge, subjects on which he publishes and lectures extensively. Stefan Lorant (b. 1901, Budapest) achieved fame in America as an author popularizing U.S. history. His major publications include Lincoln, His Life in Photographs (1941); F.D.R., a pictorial biography (1950); The Life of Abraham Lincoln (1954); The Life and Times of Theodore Roosevelt (1959); The Glorious Burden: The American Presidency (1968). Stephen Borsody (b. 1911), Bela K. Király (b. 1912), and especially John A. Lukacs (b. 1923) are quite well-known among American college teachers dealing with modern — primarily twentieth-century Central European — topics; and, in December 1976, John Lukas was elected president of the American Catholic Historical Association. The British Carlile Aylmer Macartney (1895- ), the Czech Josef Macurek (1901- ), and the Slovak Daniel Rapant, occupy unique places among the foreign historiographers of Hungary. All three have devoted a lifetime to study this country’s past. Macartney embraced several topics ranging from medieval historiography and social history to the nationality question. He also authored a historical synthesis (Hungary: a shory history. Edinburgh: University Press, 1962. 262 p.) Josef Macurek’s main work Dejiny Madaru a uherskeho statu (Prague: Melantrich, 1934. 344 p.) immediately aroused the interests of his Hungarian colleagues, chiefly for the reason that he tried to prove that Hungarian statehood was not solely the achievement of the Magyars. Macurek as the head of the Committee on Hungarian Studies of the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, has been very active and a prolific author since the war. Both Macartney and Macurek have successfully demonstrated objectivity. The scholarly well-trained Daniel Rapant has not been able to reach the same level of objectivity due partly to his sensitive subject matters, the history of Magyarization, the Revolution of 1848-1849, and the Slovak- Hungarian historical relations. There is only one high-level professional organization functioning abroad: the Hungarian Institute in Munich, Germany, under the directorship of Tamas Bogyay, himself a distinguished specialist on the Middle Ages. The Institute has been responsible for systematic research and publishing in the field of Hungarian studies. Taking a bird’s eye view of the centuries-long development of historical thought in Hungary, one should logically conclude that from the times of the chronicle and gesta literature, politics has been the salient feature in historical writing. One of the main reasons for this is the simple fact that the country lies in East Central Europe, at the crossroads of historic East-West conflicts. Historians could not insulate themselves and their science from the frequently experienced events of oppressive power politics. Under such circumstances the nation and its historians automatically resorted to nationalism as a quite natural means of resistance and self-preservation. Needless to say the rising waves of nationalism helped distort the picture of the past. Historians affected by it were more or less inclined to reconstruct the past in an anachronistic way — that is to say, in the image and likeness of their own age. This has been to some degree a recurrent defect in Hungary and until the end of the last world war led to a Hungarocentric presentation of events. The situation has since improved and Hungary’s history has more or less been presented within the context of Central and Eastern Europe and even world history. This is indisputably a significant accomplishment. But current historiography has not been able to solve the problems stemming from nationalism either. In order to free themselves from nationalistic bias historians overrate the roles of class warfare and radical revolutionary movements in the history of a rather conservative nation. They ignore the once significant roles of the nobility and the middle classes in order to demonstrate a relationship between the progressive traditions of the past and the present system. Marxist-Leninist scholars, overly captivated by the dogmas of dialectical materialism, do not view this problem historically — on the basis of source materials. They are, therefore, unable to perceive the nation as a historical product of many centuries. Nor can they see that the genesis and further evolution of nationalism paved the way to self-fulfillment of the nation, including its ethnic minorities, a nation whose evolutionary processes could not run parallel with the interests of German or Russian or any other national developments. A large group of historians judged correctly the state of affairs in the field of their science when they had a free — the first and last such occasion since 1945 — discussion on May 30, and June 1, 1956, in Budapest, arranged by the revolutionary Petofi- Circle in the wake of the 20th Congress of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. The nearly one thousand participants almost unanimously agreed that the common source of their mistakes and falsifications was the subjective, sectarian and forced application of Party directives,, directives adhering to the changing requirements of the personality cult of Stalin and Rákosi. Undoubtedly since then the situation has been bettered to the extent that now not Stalin but the relatively moderate Lenin is quoted in history books and papers as the highest authority. This practice has produced again the counterselection of sources and Party-minded, though somewhat modified, views. In contrast, those fields which are not directly affiliated with political history have demonstrated significant progress in the last two decades or so. Among them archaeology, art (Dezső Dercsenyi) and local history, ancient history (Janos Harmatta), Byzantine studies (Gyula Moravcsik, 1892- ), historical bibliography (Domokos Kosary), archivistship (Gyozo Ember), etc., have been rapidly developing fields of historical scholarship. One of the main factors contributing to progress since 1953 has been the exchange of scholars between Hungary and the socialist countries, later also with the West. 1953 was the year of the first postwar Congress of Hungarian Historians, held in Budapest, which was attended by many delegates from European socialist countries as well as China. Since then Hungarians have participated in over one hundred international conferences in the socialist countries and some in the West. Obviously, these international meetings have made possible the exchange of experiences and raised their professional level, particularly in methodology, helping also to uncover new, unpublished sources. Noteworthy is the fact that since the beginnings of scientific historiography in about the eighteenth century, the dominant characteristic of Hungarian historians has been their frequent use of unpublished (archival) materials to substantiate their theses. This source-oriented tradition since then has saved them from professing any monistic philosophy of history because in the light of documentary evidence they have seen then complex historymaking factors which form the prism of reality. 22 HUNGARIAN HERITAGE REVIEW JANUARY 1989
