Hungarian Heritage Review, 1989 (18. évfolyam, 1-9. szám)
1989-01-01 / 1. szám
Special l3[eature-®f-®|e--(íHcmtl] postwar Hungary where the science of bibliography has advanced enormously. Historical periodicals, almost without exception, carry well-edited book review sections and current bibliographies. The Budapest-based Magyar Nemzeti Bibliográfia (Hungarian National Bibliography) is an excellent tool for keeping the relatively huge book production under firm bibliographical control. There have been several bibliographical undertakings geared to the needs of historians. For example, the four-volume Hungarian historical bibliography, Magyar történeti bibliográfia 1825-1867 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1950-1959) issued by the Institute of Historical Research of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences is a useful aid to scholars specializing in the whole Middle Danube Valley and even the Balkan Peninsula. Its contents: Volume 1, General Part, 5,654 entries; Volume 2, Economy, 15,855 entries; Volume 3, Politics, Law, Education, Science and Humanities, Press, Religion, 24,698 entries; and Volume 4, Non-Hungarian Peoples — Nationalities contains 26,682 entries, the largest bibliography ever compiled on the topic of ethnic minorities. References are made to monographs and periodical articles in Hungarian, Slavic, and West European languages. Up to now this is the largest collective undertaking in historical bibliography in Hungary. Among individual efforts two bibliographical undertakings should be mentioned. First off, there is the two-volume set compiled by Janos Banner and Imre Jakabffy entitled A Kozep- Dunamedence régészeti bibliografiaja 1960-1966. Secondly, Domokos G. Kosary’s bibliographical enterprise is to be the most comprehensive work in historical bibliography under the title Bevezetes Magyarorszag tortenetenek forrásaiba es irodalmába (Introduction to the sources and literature of Hungary’s history, vol. 1. Budapest: Tankonyvkiado, 1970. 900 p.). Four additional volumes are planned. The encouraging first volume gives a critical evaluation of Hungarian bibliographies pertinent to history and related sciences and discusses all important bibliographies published abroad. Among auxiliary sciences diplomatics has always ranked high. But auxiliary sciences in general could not reach that level which characterized them during the interwar period under the leadership of Imre Szentpetery. Like diplomatics, historical statistics has also been an outstanding domain of research. Already in the sixteenth century a useful Hungarian statistics was prepared by Miklós Oláh. Thanks to the pioneer works of Elek Fenyes, Karoly Keleti and some others in the nineteenth century, historical statistics has advanced greatly in the post-1945 period. First and foremost among its numerous postwar representatives the works of József Kovacsics should be mentioned. The majority of postwar works in this field have been compiled on the grounds of archival sources and with the close cooperation of the National Archives staff. Similarly, owing to the scholarly collaboration of the National Archives researchers, great progress has also been made in historical geography. The most eminent contributor to historical geography has been György Gyorffy, member of the Institute of Historical Research, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, whose multivolume set, Az Arpadkori Magyarorszag történeti földrajza (Historical geography of Hungary during the Age of the Arpads. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963- ), is the result of painstaking archival research. Regarded as an exemplary accomplishment in the methodology of historical geography in and outside of Hungary, Gyorffy’s monumental undertaking indeed embodies the continuation and improvement of the best traditions since Dezső Csanki’s epochal work (Magyarorszag történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1890-1913. 7 vols.). Historical geography and local history research developed interdependently in Hungary where scholars were simultaneously engaged in both of these fields. Local history specialists specifically emphasized the necessity of the concentration of knowledge including such disciplines as economics, sociology, demography, archaeology, art, history, etc. This principle of concentration was advocated in a report prepared by Elemer Malyusz, Lajos Ruzsas and Jeno Szucs for the January 10, 1966 session of the Committee of Historical Sciences, Hungarian Academy of Sciences. This report also stressed that a synthetic work on Hungary’s city history can be prepared only as a result of decades-long teamwork. Published in 1971, Kalman Eperjessy’s just quoted synthesis of the country’s city history is all the more worth mentioning because it was done as a one-man project. Its singularly important feature is that it is absolutely free from nationalistic prejudice. Up to now very few authors in Central and Eastern Europe have been able to purge themselves of this traditional bias. Eperjessy and a few others, basing their stand on archival materials, have refuted the old school’s dogmatic views and have proven that not only Germans and Hungarians but Slavs and several other ethnic elements had a hand in the establishment of cities in the Middle Danube Valley. Professor Eperjessy has also convincingly proven in the light of primary sources that no German or any other nation’s exclusive priority in land settlement can be accepted concerning the area as a whole. This problem, in Dr. Eperjessy’s judgment should be treated individually to highlight significant regional differences. Local archives have done much to discover important regional features in the nation’s history. More recently, the Hajdu-Bihar County Archives excelled in issuing two huge volumes of heretofore unpublished documents, published with interpretive studies to illuminate the county’s role in the national developments. Interestingly, only very few professional historians have left the country since the conclusion of the Second World War, the world-renowned Karoly Kerenyi (1897-1973) and András Alföldi (1895-) being among them. Kerenyi distinguished himself as an expert on antique civilization, mythology, humanism and the history of Europe’s intellectual life, while Alföldi who was for years a member of the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, New Jersey, earned an international reputation in Roman history and archaeology and the culture of Eurasian nomads. József Deer (1905-1972), for years the Director of the Medieval Institute at the State University of Switzerland, Bern, broadened his previously Hungary-oriented research to include some medieval topics of the Holy Roman Empire. Alexander Gallus (Australia) switched at least one and a half decades ago from archaeology to anthropology. Ludwig von Gogolak (Vienna, Austria) has been lecturer at several historical meetings in Austria and published several items on Hungarian- Slovak relationships. Astrik Ladislas Gabriel (1907-) achieved international fame through his numerous articles and papers on medieval subjects, primarily on medieval universities. István Deák, Director of the Institute of East Central Europe, Columbia University, New York, N.Y., specializes in the Habsburg, German, and Hungarian history; George Barany, University of Denver, Colorado, in the political biography of Stephen Széchényi. Stephen Foltiny (Princeton, New Jersey) has been active in the archaeological research of the Carpathian Basin, while Tibor Barath (Montreal, Canada) has centered his activities on the origins of the Magyars. Francis S. Wagner’s (Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.) scholarly interests focus on the nationality — continued next page JANUARY 1989 HUNGARIAN HERITAGE REVIEW 21
