Németh Györgyi szerk.: Manufaktúrák Magyarországon 1. Manufaktúratörténeti Konferencia Miskolc, 1989. október 16-17. (Kiegészítő kötet. Miskolc, 1991)

Heckenast Gusztáv: FINAL SPEECH OF THE PRESIDENT

respect these industrial units just like a number of other forms not being in connection with manufactures had the same function as manufactures. In division of labour, production and trade ironworks are not very different from textile manufactures. In spite of it I would not label them as manufactures. I would not call home-working done for merchants a manufacture either. It is a primitive form of labour organizing as it is clearly stated in Klára Dóka's lecture. It is very important to research it and in irry opinion it belongs to the question of manufacture but we must not intermix the notions. Getting down to facts it is raised how we shall call ourselves. Manufactures in Hungary volume 1 and hopefully other volumes is a very good, striking title for a book. It is clear for everybody at first sight what it is about. But we ought to extend the notion somehow. At this point I should like to refer to the history of the Working Ccmmittes for Handicraft History of the Veszprém Academy Commission. The original researches concerning the history of guilds in the natural course of research were formed into researches concerning the history of handicrafts in their broader sense after a while. Here in Miskolc manufacture researches started and I think we ought to set as a target that they should transform into the totality of broader researches. So manufacture research is good as a label, as the title of a volume but we need it in a broader sense and therefore a new name is needed. The problem we have just come up against is not our problem alone but also the problem of the world history of ecmomics. I should like to rernind you of the eccnomic history congress in 1982 and of the international symposium for handicraft history following it, mainly of the lecture of Franklin Mendels and of the round-table talk we had with him in the matter of protioindustrialization. However, protoindustrialization is an awful expression. Walfang Stromer lodged a private protest against it on the economic history congress saying that the industrial activity of the period preceding industrialization cannot be called first industrialization. He was perfectly right. I was told that in concrete researches the activity of Mendels stirred a lot of scholars and incited them to work mainly in the western countries.' In eastern countries he encountered conservative opposition not like Stromer's but I cannot say otherwise it was conservative opposition. First I think of professor Gustav Otruba in Linz who considers the industrial development before capitalism manufacture and nothing else so he is at that point