The following nine years mark the financial and commercial rehabilitation of Hungary, the establishment of a vast and original railway system which won the admiration of Europe, the liberation and expansion of her over-seaMaterial progress.trade, the conversion of her national debt under the most favourable conditions and the consequent equilibrium of her finances. These benefits the nation owed for the most part to Gábor Baross, Hungary’s greatest finance minister, who entered the cabinet in 1886 and greatly strengthened it. But the opposition, while unable to deny the recuperation of Hungary, shut their eyes to everything but Tisza’s “tyranny,” and their attacks were never so savage and unscrupulous as during the session of 1889, when threats of a revolution were uttered by the opposition leaders and the premier could only enter or leave the House under police protection. The tragic death of the crown prince Rudolph hushed for a time the strife of tongues, and in the meantime Tisza brought into the ministry Dezsö Szilágyi, the most powerful debater in the House, and Sándor Wekerle, whose solid talents had hitherto been hidden beneath the bushel of an under-secretaryship. But in 1890, during the debates on the Kossuth Repatriation Bill, the attacks on the premier were renewed, and on the 13th of March he placed his resignation in the king’s hands.
The withdrawal of Tisza scarcely changed the situation, but the period of brief ministries now began. Tisza’s successor,Count Gyula Szápáry, formerly minister of agriculture, held office for eighteen months, and was succeeded (Nov. 21, 1892) byFirst Wekerle Ministry, 1892. The religious question.Wekerle. Wekerle, essentially a business man, had taken office for the express purpose of equilibrating the finances, but the religious question aroused by the encroachments of the Catholic clergy, and notably their insistence on the baptism of the children of mixed marriages, had by this time (1893-1894) excluded all others, and the government were forced to postpone their financial programme to its consideration. The Obligatory Civil Marriage Bill, the State Registries Bill and the Religion of Children of Mixed Marriages Bill, were finally adopted on the 21st of June 1894, after fierce debates and a ministerial interregnum of ten days (June 10-20); but on the 25th of December, Wekerle, who no longer possessed the king’s confidence,47resigned a second time, and was succeeded by Baron Dezsö (Desiderius) Bánffy. The various parties meanwhile had split up into some half aBánffy Ministry, 1894.dozen sub-sections; but the expected fusion of the party of independence and the government fell through, and the barren struggle continued till the celebration of the millennium of the foundation of the monarchy produced for some months a lull in politics. Subsequently, Bánffy still further exasperated the opposition by exercising undue influence during the elections of 1896. The majority he obtained on this occasion enabled him, however, to carry through the Army Education Bill, which tended to magyarize the Hungarian portion of the joint army; and another period of comparative calm ensued, during which Bánffy attempted to adjust various outstanding financial and economical differences with Austria. But in November 1898, on the occasion of the renewal of the commercial convention with Austria, the attack on the ministry was renewed with unprecedented virulence, obstruction being systematically practised with the object of goading the government into committing illegalities, till Bánffy, finding the situation impossible, resigned on the 17th of February 1899. His successor,Széll Ministry, 1899.Kálmán Széll, obtained an immense but artificial majority by a fresh fusion of parties, and the minority pledged itself to grant an indemnity for the extra-parliamentary financial decrees rendered necessary by Hungary’s understanding with Austria, as well as to cease from obstruction. As a result of this compromise the budget of 1899 was passed in little more than a month, and the commercial and tariff treaty with Austria were renewed till 1903.48But the government had to pay for this complacency with a so-called “pactum,” which bound its hands in several directions, much to the profit of the opposition during the “pure” elections of 1901.The army language question.On the reassembling of the diet, Count Albert Apponyi was elected speaker, and the minority seemed disposed to let the government try to govern. But the proposed raising of the contingent of recruits by 15,000 men (Oct. 1902) once more brought up the question of the common army, the parliament refusing to pass the bill, except in return for the introduction of the Hungarian national flag into the Hungarian regiments and the substitution of Magyar for German in the words of command. The king refusing to yield an inch of his rights under clause ii. of Law XII. of the Compromise of 1867, the opposition once more took to obstruction, and on the 1st of May 1903 Széll was forced to resign.
Every one now looked to the crown to extract the nation from anex-lex, or extra-constitutional situation, but when the king, passing over the ordinary party-leaders, appointed as premier Count Károly Khuen-Hedérváry, who hadFirst Khuen-Hedérváry Ministry, 1903.made himself impossible as ban of Croatia, there was general amazement and indignation. The fact was that the king, weary of the tactics of a minority which for years had terrorized every majority and prevented the government from exercising its proper constitutional functions, had resolved to show the Magyars that he was prepared to rule unconstitutionally rather than imperil the stability of the Dual Monarchy by allowing any tampering with the joint army. In an ordinance on the army word of command, promulgated on the 16th of September, he reaffirmed the inalienable character of the powers of the crown over the joint army and the necessity for maintaining German as the common military language. This was followed by the fall of Khuen-Hedérváry (September 29), and a quarrelà outrancebetween crown and parliament seemed unavoidable. The Liberal party, however, realized the abyss towards which they were hurrying the country, and united their efforts to come to a constitutional understanding with the king. The problem was to keep the army an Hungarian army without infringing on the prerogative of the king as commander-in-chief, for, unconstitutional as the new ordinance might be, it could not constitutionally be set aside without the royal assent. The king met them half way by inviting the majority to appoint a committee to settle the army question provisionally, and a committee was formed, which included Széll, Apponyi, Count István Tisza and other experienced statesmen.
A programme approved of by all the members of the committee was drawn up, and on the 3rd of November 1903, Count István Tisza was appointed minister president to carry it out. Thus, out of respect for the wishes ofIstván Tisza Ministry, 1903.the nation, the king had voluntarily thrown open to public discussion the hitherto strictly closed and jealously guarded domain of the army. Tisza, a statesman of singular probity and tenacity, seemed to be the one person capable of carrying out the programme of the king and the majority. The irreconcilable minority, recognizing this, exhausted all the resources of “technical obstruction” in order to reduce the government to impotence, a task made easy by the absurd standing-rules of the House which enabled any single member to block a measure. These tactics soon rendered legislation impossible, and a modification of the rule of procedure became absolutely necessary if any business at all was to be done.Crisis of 1904-1906.The Modification of the Standing-orders Bill was accordingly introduced by the deputy Gábor Daniel (Nov. 18, 1904); but the opposition, to which the National party had attached itself, denounced it as “a gagging order” inspired at Vienna, and shouted it down so vehemently that no debate could be held; whereupon the president declared the bill carried and adjourned the House till the 13th of December 1904. This was at once followed by an anti-ministerial fusion of the extremists of all parties,The “Coalition.”including seceders from the government (known as the Constitutional party); and when the diet reassembled, the opposition broke into the House by force and wrecked all the furniture, so that a session was physically impossible (Jan. 5, 1905). Tisza now appealed to the country, but was utterly defeated. The opposition thereupon proceeded to annul the Lex Daniel (April 7) and stubbornly to clamour for the adoption of the Magyar word of command in the Hungarian part of the common army. To this demand the king as stubbornly refused to accede;49and as the result of the consequent dead-lock, Tisza, who had courageously continued in office at the king’s request, after every other leading politician had refused to form a ministry, was finally dismissed on the 17th of June.
(R. N. B.; W. A. P.)
Long negotiations between the crown and the leaders of the Coalition having failed to give any promise of amodus vivendi, the king-emperor at last determined to appoint anextra-parliamentary ministry, and on the 21st of June BaronFejérváry Government.Fejérváry, an officer in the royal bodyguard, was nominated minister president with a cabinet consisting of little-known permanent officials. Instead of presenting the usual programme, the new premier read to the parliament a royal autograph letter stating the reasons which had actuated the king in taking this course, and giving as the task of the new ministry the continuance of negotiations with the Coalition on the basis of the exclusion of the language question. The parliament was at the same time prorogued. A period followed of arbitrary government on the one hand and of stubborn passive resistance on the other. Three times the parliament was again prorogued—from the 15th of September to the 10th of October, from this date to the 19th of December, and from this yet again to the 1st of March 1906—in spite of the protests of both Houses. To the repressive measures of the government—press censorship, curtailment of the right of public meeting, dismissal of recalcitrant officials, and dragooning of disaffected county assemblies and municipalities—the Magyar nation opposed a sturdy refusal to pay taxes, to supply recruits or to carry on the machinery of administration.
Had this attitude represented the temper of the whole Hungarian people, it would have been impossible for the crown to have coped with it. But the Coalition represented, in fact, not the mass of the people, but only a small dominant minority,50and for years past this minority had neglected the social and economic needs of the mass of the people in the eager pursuit of party advantage and the effort to impose, by coercion and corruption failing other means, the Magyar language and Magyar culture on the non-Magyar races. In this supreme crisis, then, it is not surprising that the masses listened with sullen indifference to the fiery eloquence of the Coalition leaders. Moreover, by refusing the royal terms, the Coalition had forced the crown into an alliance with the extreme democratic elements in the state. Universal suffrage had already been adopted in the Cis-leithan half of the monarchy; it was an obvious policy to propose it for Hungary also, and thus, by an appeal to the non-MagyarKristóffy’s Universal Suffrage proposal.majority, to reduce the irreconcilable Magyar minority to reason. Universal suffrage, then, was the first and most important of the proposals put forward by Mr Joszef Kristóffy, the minister of the interior, in the programme issued by him on the 26th of November 1905. Other proposals were: the maintenance of the system of the joint army as established in 1867, but with the concession that all Hungarian recruits were to receive their education in Magyar; the maintenance till 1917 of the actual customs convention with Austria; a reform of the land laws, with a view to assisting the poorer proprietors; complete religious equality; universal and compulsory primary education.
The issue of a programme so liberal, and notably the inclusion in it of the idea of universal suffrage, entirely checkmated the opposition parties. Their official organs, indeed, continued to fulminate against the “unconstitutional” government, but the enthusiasm with which the programme had been received in the country showed the Coalition leaders the danger of their position, and henceforth, though they continued their denunciations of Austria, they entered into secret negotiations with the king-emperor, in order, by coming to terms with him, to ward off the fatal consequences of Kristóffy’s proposals.
On the 19th of February 1906 the parliament was dissolved, without writs being issued for a new election, a fact accepted by the country with an equanimity highly disconcerting to patriots. Meanwhile the negotiations continued,Coalition Ministry, 1906.so secretly that when, on the 9th of April, the appointment of a Coalition cabinet51under Dr Sandór Wekerle was announced, the world was taken completely by surprise. The agreement with the crown which had made this course possible included the postponement of the military questions that had evoked the crisis, and the acceptance of the principle of Universal Suffrage by the Coalition leaders, who announced that their main tasks would be to repair the mischief wrought by the “unconstitutional” Fejérváry cabinet, and then to introduce a measure of franchise reform so wide that it would be possible to ascertain the will of the whole people on the questions at issue between themselves and the crown.52In the general elections that followed the Liberal party was practically wiped out, its leader, Count István Tisza, retiring into private life.
For two years and a half the Coalition ministry continued in office without showing any signs that they intended to carry out the most important item of their programme. The old abuses continued: the muzzling of the press in theAndrássy’s Universal Suffrage Bill.interests of Magyar nationalism, the imprisonment of non-Magyar deputies for “incitement against Magyar nationality,” the persecution of Socialists and of the subordinate races. That this condition of things could not be allowed to continue was, indeed, recognized by all parties; the fundamental difference of opinion was as to the method by which it was to be ended. The dominant Magyar parties were committed to the principle of franchise reform; but they were determined that this reform should be of such a nature as not to imperil their own hegemony. What this would mean was pointed out by Mr Kristóffy in an address delivered at Budapest on the 14th of March 1907. “If the work of social reform,” he said, “is scamped by a measure calculated to falsify the essence of reform, the struggle will be continued in the Chamber until full electoral liberty is attained. Till then there can be no social peace in Hungary.”53The postponement of the question was, indeed, already producing ugly symptoms of popular indignation. On the 10th of October 1907 there was a great and orderly demonstration at Budapest, organized by the socialists, in favour of reform. About 100,000 people assembled, and a deputation handed to Mr Justh, the president of the Chamber, a monster petition in favour of universal suffrage. The reception it met with was not calculated to encourage constitutional methods. The Socialist deputy, Mr Mezöffy, who wished to move an interpellation on the question, was howled down by the Independents with shouts of “Away with him! Down with him!”54Four days later, in answer to a question by the same deputy, Count Andrássy said that the Franchise Bill would be introduced shortly, but that it would be of such a nature that “the Magyar State idea would remain intact and suffer no diminution.”55Yet more than a year was to pass before the promised bill was introduced, and meanwhile the feeling in the country had grown more intense, culminating in serious riots at Budapest on the 13th of March 1908.
At last (November 11, 1908) Count Andrássy introduced the long-promised bill. How far it was from satisfying the demands of the Hungarian peoples was at once apparent. It granted manhood suffrage, it is true, but hedged with so many qualifying conditions and complicated with so elaborate a system of plural voting as to make its effect nugatory. Every male Hungarian citizen, able to read and write, was to receive the vote at the beginning of his twenty-fifth year, subject to a residential qualification of twelve months. Illiterate citizens were to choose one elector for every ten of their number. All electors not having the qualifications for the plural franchise were to have one vote. Electors who,e.g., had passed four standards of a secondary school, or paid 16s. 8d. in direct taxation, were to have two votes. Electors who had passed five standards, or who paid £4, 3s. 4d. in direct taxes, were to have three votes. Voting was to be public, as before, on the ground, according to the Preamble, that “the secret ballot protects electors in dependent positions only in so far as they break their promises under the veil of secrecy.”
It was at once seen that this elaborate scheme was intendedto preserve “the Magyar State idea intact.” Its result, had it passed, would have been to strengthen the representation of the Magyar and German elements, to reduce that of the Slovaks, and almost to destroy that of the Rumans and other non-Magyar races whose educational status was low.56On the other hand, according to theNeue Freie Presse, it would have increased the number of electors from some million odd to 2,600,000, and the number ofvotesto 4,000,000; incidentally it would have largely increased the working-class representation.
This proposal was at once recognized by public opinion—to use the language of theJournal des Débats(May 21, 1909)—as “an instrument of domination” rather than as an attempt to carry out the spirit of the compact under which the Coalition government had been summoned to power. It was not, indeed, simply a reactionary or undemocratic measure; it was, asThe Timescorrespondent pointed out, “a measuresui generis, designed to defeat the objects of the universal suffrage movement that compelled the Coalition to take office in April 1906, and framed in accordance with Magyar needs as understood by one of the foremost Magyar noblemen.” Under this bill culture was to be the gate to a share in political power, and in Hungary culture must necessarily be Magyar.
Plainly, this bill was not destined to settle the Hungarian problem, and other questions soon arose which showed that the crisis, so far from being near a settlement, was destined to become more acute than ever. In December 1908The crisis, 1909-1910.it was clear that the Coalition Ministry was falling to pieces. Those ministers who belonged to the constitutional and popular parties,i.e.the Liberals and Clericals, desired to maintain the compact with the crown; their colleagues of the Independence party were eager to advance the cause they have at heart by pressing on the question of a separate Hungarian bank. So early as March 1908 Mr Hallo had laid a formal proposal before the House that the charter of the Austro-Hungarian bank, which was to expire on the 31st of December 1910, should not be renewed; that negotiations shouldDemand for separate Hungarian Bank.be opened with the Austrian government with a view to a convention between the banks of Austria and Hungary; and that, in the event of these negotiations failing, an entirely separate Hungarian bank should be established. The Balkan crisis threw this question into the background during the winter; but, with the settlement of the international questions raised by the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, it once more came to the front. The ministry was divided on the issue, Count Andrássy opposing and Mr Ferencz Kossuth supporting the proposal for a separate bank. Finally, the prime minister, Dr Wekerle, mainly owing to the pressure put upon him by Mr Justh, the president of the Chamber, yielded to the importunity of the Independence party, and, in the name of the Hungarian government, laid the proposals for a separate bank before the king-emperor and the Austrian government.
The result was a foregone conclusion. The conference at Vienna revealed the irreconcilable difference within the ministry; but it revealed also something more—the determination of the emperor Francis Joseph, if pressed beyond the limits of his patience, to appeal again to the non-Magyar Hungarians against the Magyar chauvinists. He admitted that under the Compromise of 1867 Hungary might have a separate bank, while urging the expediency of such an arrangement from the point of view of the international position of the Dual Monarchy. But he pointed out also that the question of a separate bank did not actually figure in the act of 1867, and that it could not be introduced into it,more especially since the capital article of the ministerial programme,i.e.electoral reform, was not realized, nor near being realized. On the 27th of April, in consequence of this rebuff, Dr Wekerle tendered his resignation, but consented to hold office pending the completion of the difficult task of forming another government.
This task was destined to prove one of almost insuperable difficulty. Had the issues involved been purely Hungarian and constitutional, the natural course would have been for the king to have sent for Mr Kossuth, who commanded the strongest party in the parliament, and to have entrusted him with the formation of a government. But the issues involved affected the stability of the Dual Monarchy and its position in Europe; and neither the king-emperor nor his Austrian advisers, their position strengthened by the success of Baron Aehrenthal’s diplomatic victory in the Balkans, were prepared to make any substantial concessions to the party of Independence. In these circumstances the king sent for Dr László Lukacs, once finance minister in the Fejérváry cabinet, whose task was, acting as ahomo regiusapart from parties, to construct a government out of any elements that might be persuaded to co-operate with him. But Lukacs had no choice but to apply in the first instance to Mr Kossuth and his friends, and these, suspecting an intention of crushing their party by entrapping them into unpopular engagements, rejected his overtures. Nothing now remained but for the king to request Dr Wekerle to remain “for the present” in office with his colleagues, thus postponing the settlement of the crisis (July 4).
This procrastinating policy played into the hands of the extremists; for supplies had not been voted, and the question of the credits for the expenditure incurred in connexion with the annexation of Bosnia and Herzegovina, increasingly urgent, placed a powerful weapon in the hands of the Magyars, and made it certain that in the autumn the crisis would assume an even more acute form. By the middle of September affairs had again reached animpasse. On the 14th Dr Wekerle, at the ministerial conference assembled at Vienna for the purpose of discussing the estimates to be laid before the delegations, announced that the dissensions among his colleagues made the continuance of the Coalition government impossible. The burning points of controversy were the magyarization of the Hungarian regiments and the question of the separate state bank. On the first of these Wekerle, Andrássy and Apponyi were prepared to accept moderate concessions; as to the second, they were opposed to the question being raised at all. Kossuth and Justh, on the other hand, competitors for the leadership of the Independence party, declared themselves not prepared to accept anything short of the full rights of the Magyars in those matters. The matter was urgent; for parliament was to meet on the 28th, and it was important that a new cabinet, acceptable to it, should be appointed before that date, or that the Houses should be prorogued pending such appointment; otherwise the delegations would be postponed and no credits would be voted for the cost of the new Austro-Hungarian “Dreadnoughts” and of the annexation of Bosnia-Herzegovina. In the event, neither of these courses proved possible, and on the 28th Dr Wekerle once more announced his resignation to the parliament.
The prime minister was not, however, as yet to be relieved of an impossible responsibility. After a period of wavering Mr Kossuth had consented to shelve for the time the question of the separate bank, and on the strength of this Dr Wekerle advised the crown to entrust to him the formation of a government. The position thus created raised a twofold question: Would the crown accept? In that event, would he be able to carry his party with him in support of his modified programme? The answer to the first question, in effect, depended on that given by events to the second; and this was not long in declaring itself. The plan, concerted by Kossuth and Apponyi, with the approval of Baron Aehrenthal, was to carry on a modified coalition government with the aid of the Andrássy Liberals, the National party, the Clerical People’s party57and the Independence party, on a basis of suffrage reform with plural franchise, theprolongation of the charter of the joint bank, and certain concessions to Magyar demands in the matter of the army. It was soon clear, however, that in this Kossuth would not carry his party with him. A trial of strength took place between him and Mr de Justh, the champion of the extreme demands in the matter of Hungarian financial and economic autonomy; on the 7th of November rival banquets were held, one at Mako, Justh’s constituency, over which he presided, one at Budapest with Kossuth in the chair; the attendance at each foreshadowed the outcome of the general meeting of the party held at Budapest on the 11th, when Kossuth found himself in a minority of 46. The Independence party was now split into two groups: the “Independence and 1848 party,” and the “Independence, 1848 and Kossuth party.”
On the 12th Mr de Justh resigned the presidency of the Lower House and sought re-election, so as to test the relative strength of parties. He was defeated by a combination of the Kossuthists, Andrássy Liberals and Clerical People’s party, the 30 Croatian deputies, whose vote might have turned the election, abstaining on Dr Wekerle promising them to deliver Croatia from the oppressive rule of the ban, Baron Rauch. A majority was thus secured for the Kossuthist programme of compromise, but a majority so obviously precarious that the king-emperor, influenced also—it was rumoured—by the views of the heir-apparent, in an interview with Count Andrássy and Mr Kossuth on the 15th, refused to make any concessions to the Magyar national demands. Hereupon Kossuth publicly declared (Nov. 22) to a deputation of his constituents from Czegled that he himself was in favour of an independent bank, but that the king opposed it, and that in the event of no concessions being made he would join the opposition.
How desperate the situation had now become was shown by the fact that on the 27th the king sent for Count Tisza, on the recommendation of the very Coalition ministry which had been formed to overthrow him. This also proved abortive, and affairs rapidly tended to revert to theex-lexsituation. On the 23rd of December Dr Lukacs was again sent for. On the previous day the Hungarian parliament had adopted a proposal in favour of an address to the crown asking for a separate state bank. Against this Dr Wekerle had protested, as opposed to general Hungarian opinion and ruinous to the national credit, pointing out that whenever it was a question of raising a loan, the maintenance of the financial community between Hungary and Austria was always postulated as a preliminary condition. Point was given to this argument by the fact that the premier had just concluded the preliminaries for the negotiation of a loan of £20,000,000 in France, and that the money—which could not be raised in the Austrian market, already glutted with Hungarian securities—was urgently needed to pay for the Hungarian share in the expenses of the annexation policy, for public works (notably the new railway scheme), and for the redemption in 1910 of treasury bonds. It was hoped that, in the circumstances, Dr Lukacs, a financier of experience, might be able to come to terms with Mr de Justh, on the basis of dropping the bank question for the time, or, failing that, to patch together out of the rival parties some sort of a working majority.
On the 28th the Hungarian parliament adjournedsine die, pending the settlement of the crisis, without having voted the estimates for 1910, and without there being any prospect of a meeting of the delegations. On the two following days Dr Lukacs and Mr de Justh had audiences of the king, but without result; and on the 31st Hungary once more entered on a period of extra-constitutional government.
After much negotiation a new cabinet was finally constituted on the 17th of January 1910. At its head was Count Khuen Hedérváry, who in addition to the premiership, was minister of the interior, minister for Croatia, andKhuen Hedérváry Government.minister in waiting on the crown. Other ministers were Mr Károly de Hieronymi (commerce), Dr Lukacs (finance), Ferencz de Szekely (justice, education, public worship), Béla Serenyi (agriculture) and General Hazay (national defence). The two main items in the published programme of the new government were the introduction of universal suffrage and—even more revolutionary from the Magyar point of view—the substitution of state-appointed for elected officials in the counties. The real programme was to secure, by hook or by crook, a majority at the polls. Meanwhile, the immediate necessities of the government were provided for by the issue through Messrs Rothschild of £2,000,000 fresh treasury bills. These were to be redeemed in December 1910, together with the £9,000,000 worth issued in 1909, out of the £20,000,000 loan agreed on in principle with the French government; but in view of the opposition in Paris to the idea of advancing money to a member of the Triple Alliance, it was doubtful whether the loan would ever be floated.
The overwhelming victory of the government in June at the polls produced a lull in a crisis which at the beginning of the year had threatened the stability of the Dual Monarchy and the peace of Europe; but, in view of the methods by which the victory had been won, not the most sanguine could assert that the crisis was overpassed. Its deep underlying causes can only be understood in the light of the whole of Hungarian history. It is easy to denounce the dominant Magyar classes as a selfish oligarchy, and to criticize the methods by which they have sought to maintain their power. But a nation that for a thousand years had maintained its individuality in the midst of hostile and rival races could not be expected to allow itself without a struggle to be sacrificed to the force of mere numbers, and the less so if it were justified in its claim that it stood for a higher ideal of culture and civilization. The Magyars had certainly done much to justify their claim to a special measure of enlightenment. In their efforts to establish Hungarian independence on the firm basis of national efficiency they had succeeded in changing their country from one of very backward economic conditions into one which promised to be in a position to hold its own on equal terms with any in the world.
(W. A. P.)
Bibliography.—(a)Sources.The earliest important collection of sources of Hungarian history was Johann Georg Schrandtner’sScriptores rerum Hungaricarum(4th ed., Vienna, 1766-1768).The Codex diplomaticusof György Fejér (40 vols., Buda, 1829-1844), though full of errors, remains an inexhaustible storehouse of materials. In 1849 Stephen Ladislaus Endlicher (1804-1849), better known as a botanist than as a historian, published a collection of documents,Rerum hungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana. This was followed by Gustav Wenzel’sCodex diplomaticus arpadianus continuens(12 vols., Pest, 1857) and A. Theiner’sVet. monumenta hist. Hungariam sacram illustrantia(2 vols., Rome, 1859, &c.). Later collections areDocuments of the Angevin Period, ed. by G. Wenzel and Imre Nagy (8 vols.,ib.1874-1876);Diplomatic Records of the Time of King Matthias(Mag. and Lat.), ed. by Ivan Nagy (ib.1875-1878);National Documents(Mag. and Lat.), ed. by Fárkas Deák and others (Pest, 1878-1891);Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia(8 vols., Budapest, 1885-1891), a valuable collection of materials from the Vatican archives, edited under the auspices of the Hungarian bishops;Principal Sources for the Magyar Conquest(Mag.), by Gyula Pauler and Sándor Szilágyì (ib.1900). Numerous documents have also been issued in the various publications of the Hungarian Academy and the Hungarian Historical Society. Of these the most important is theMonumenta Hungariae Historica, published by the Academy. This falls into three main groups:Diplomata(30 vols.);Scriptores(40 vols.);Monumenta Comitialia(records of the Hungarian and Transylvanian diets, 12 vols. and 21 vols.). With these are associated theTurkish-Hungarian Records(9 vols.),Turkish Historians(2 vols. pubd.), and theArchives of the Hungarian subordinate countries(2 vols. pubd.).On the sources see Hendrik Marczali,Ungarns Geschichtsquellen im Zeitalter des Arpáden(Berlin, 1882); Kaindl,Studien zu den ungarischen Geschichtsquellen(Vienna, 1894-1902); and, for a general appreciation, Mangold,Pragmatic History of the Hungarians(in Mag., 5th ed., Budapest, 1907).(b)Works:The modern literature of Hungary is very rich in historical monographs, of which a long list will be found in the Subject Index of the London Library. Here it is only possible to give some of the more important general histories, together with such special works as are most readily accessible to English readers. Of the earlier Hungarian historians two are still of some value: Katona,Hist. critica regum Hungariae(42 vols., Pest, 1779-1810), and Pray,Annales regum Hungariae(5 vols., Vienna, 1764-1770). Of modern histories written in Magyar the most imposing is theHistory of the Hungarian Nation(10 vols., Budapest, 1898), issued to commemorate the celebration of the millennium of the foundation of the monarchy, by Sándor Szilágyì and numerous collaborators. Of importance, too,is Ignacz Acsády’sHistory of the Magyar Empire(2 vols., Budapest, 1904), though its author is too often ultra-chauvinistic in tone.To those who do not read Magyar the following books on the general history of Hungary may be recommended: Armín Vambéry,Hungary in Ancient and Modern Times(London, 1897); R. Chélard,La Hongrie millénaire(Paris, 1896); Mór Gelléri,Aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des tausendjährigen Ungarn(Budapest, 1896); József Jekelfalussy,The Millennium of Hungary(Budapest, 1897); E. Sayous,Histoire générale des Hongrois(2 vols., Budapest, 1st ed., 1876, 2nd ed.,ib.1900); János Majláth,Geschichte der Magyaren(5 vols., 3rd ed., Regensburg, 1852-1853)—somewhat out of date (it first appeared in 1828), but useful for those who like a little more detail; Count Julius Andrássy,The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty, translated by C. Arthur and Ilona Ginever (London, 1908), containing an interesting comparison with English constitutional development; C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen,The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation(2 vols., London, 1908), strongly Magyar in sympathy; R. W. Seton-Watson (Scotus Viator),Racial Problems in Hungary(London, 1908), a strong criticism of the Magyar attitude towards the Slav subject races, especially the Slovaks, with documents and a full bibliography.(c)Constitutional:Anton von Virozsil,Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Ungarn(3 vols., Pest, 1865); S. Radó-Rothfeld,Die ungarische Verfassung(Berlin, 1898) and, based on this, A. de Bertha,La Constitution Hongroise(Paris, 1898), both supporting the policy of Magyarization; Ákos von Timon,Ungarische Verfassungs- und Rechisgeschichte(Berlin, 1904); Knatchbull-Hugessen,op. cit.(d)Biographical:In Magyar, the great serial entitledHungarian Historical Biographies(Budapest, 1884, &c.), edited by Sándor Szilágyi, is a collection of lives of famous Hungarian men and women from the earliest times by many scholars of note, finely illustrated.For works on special periods see the separate articles on the sovereigns and other notabilities of Hungary. For works on the Compromise of 1867 and the relations of Austria and Hungary generally, see the bibliography to the articleAustria-Hungary.
Bibliography.—(a)Sources.The earliest important collection of sources of Hungarian history was Johann Georg Schrandtner’sScriptores rerum Hungaricarum(4th ed., Vienna, 1766-1768).The Codex diplomaticusof György Fejér (40 vols., Buda, 1829-1844), though full of errors, remains an inexhaustible storehouse of materials. In 1849 Stephen Ladislaus Endlicher (1804-1849), better known as a botanist than as a historian, published a collection of documents,Rerum hungaricarum monumenta Arpadiana. This was followed by Gustav Wenzel’sCodex diplomaticus arpadianus continuens(12 vols., Pest, 1857) and A. Theiner’sVet. monumenta hist. Hungariam sacram illustrantia(2 vols., Rome, 1859, &c.). Later collections areDocuments of the Angevin Period, ed. by G. Wenzel and Imre Nagy (8 vols.,ib.1874-1876);Diplomatic Records of the Time of King Matthias(Mag. and Lat.), ed. by Ivan Nagy (ib.1875-1878);National Documents(Mag. and Lat.), ed. by Fárkas Deák and others (Pest, 1878-1891);Monumenta Vaticana historiam regni Hungariae illustrantia(8 vols., Budapest, 1885-1891), a valuable collection of materials from the Vatican archives, edited under the auspices of the Hungarian bishops;Principal Sources for the Magyar Conquest(Mag.), by Gyula Pauler and Sándor Szilágyì (ib.1900). Numerous documents have also been issued in the various publications of the Hungarian Academy and the Hungarian Historical Society. Of these the most important is theMonumenta Hungariae Historica, published by the Academy. This falls into three main groups:Diplomata(30 vols.);Scriptores(40 vols.);Monumenta Comitialia(records of the Hungarian and Transylvanian diets, 12 vols. and 21 vols.). With these are associated theTurkish-Hungarian Records(9 vols.),Turkish Historians(2 vols. pubd.), and theArchives of the Hungarian subordinate countries(2 vols. pubd.).
On the sources see Hendrik Marczali,Ungarns Geschichtsquellen im Zeitalter des Arpáden(Berlin, 1882); Kaindl,Studien zu den ungarischen Geschichtsquellen(Vienna, 1894-1902); and, for a general appreciation, Mangold,Pragmatic History of the Hungarians(in Mag., 5th ed., Budapest, 1907).
(b)Works:The modern literature of Hungary is very rich in historical monographs, of which a long list will be found in the Subject Index of the London Library. Here it is only possible to give some of the more important general histories, together with such special works as are most readily accessible to English readers. Of the earlier Hungarian historians two are still of some value: Katona,Hist. critica regum Hungariae(42 vols., Pest, 1779-1810), and Pray,Annales regum Hungariae(5 vols., Vienna, 1764-1770). Of modern histories written in Magyar the most imposing is theHistory of the Hungarian Nation(10 vols., Budapest, 1898), issued to commemorate the celebration of the millennium of the foundation of the monarchy, by Sándor Szilágyì and numerous collaborators. Of importance, too,is Ignacz Acsády’sHistory of the Magyar Empire(2 vols., Budapest, 1904), though its author is too often ultra-chauvinistic in tone.
To those who do not read Magyar the following books on the general history of Hungary may be recommended: Armín Vambéry,Hungary in Ancient and Modern Times(London, 1897); R. Chélard,La Hongrie millénaire(Paris, 1896); Mór Gelléri,Aus der Vergangenheit und Gegenwart des tausendjährigen Ungarn(Budapest, 1896); József Jekelfalussy,The Millennium of Hungary(Budapest, 1897); E. Sayous,Histoire générale des Hongrois(2 vols., Budapest, 1st ed., 1876, 2nd ed.,ib.1900); János Majláth,Geschichte der Magyaren(5 vols., 3rd ed., Regensburg, 1852-1853)—somewhat out of date (it first appeared in 1828), but useful for those who like a little more detail; Count Julius Andrássy,The Development of Hungarian Constitutional Liberty, translated by C. Arthur and Ilona Ginever (London, 1908), containing an interesting comparison with English constitutional development; C. M. Knatchbull-Hugessen,The Political Evolution of the Hungarian Nation(2 vols., London, 1908), strongly Magyar in sympathy; R. W. Seton-Watson (Scotus Viator),Racial Problems in Hungary(London, 1908), a strong criticism of the Magyar attitude towards the Slav subject races, especially the Slovaks, with documents and a full bibliography.
(c)Constitutional:Anton von Virozsil,Das Staatsrecht des Königreichs Ungarn(3 vols., Pest, 1865); S. Radó-Rothfeld,Die ungarische Verfassung(Berlin, 1898) and, based on this, A. de Bertha,La Constitution Hongroise(Paris, 1898), both supporting the policy of Magyarization; Ákos von Timon,Ungarische Verfassungs- und Rechisgeschichte(Berlin, 1904); Knatchbull-Hugessen,op. cit.
(d)Biographical:In Magyar, the great serial entitledHungarian Historical Biographies(Budapest, 1884, &c.), edited by Sándor Szilágyi, is a collection of lives of famous Hungarian men and women from the earliest times by many scholars of note, finely illustrated.
For works on special periods see the separate articles on the sovereigns and other notabilities of Hungary. For works on the Compromise of 1867 and the relations of Austria and Hungary generally, see the bibliography to the articleAustria-Hungary.
III. Language
The Magyar or Hungarian language belongs to the northern or Finno-Ugric (q.v.) division of the Ural-Altaic family, and forms, along with Ostiak and Vogul, the Ugric branch of that division. The affinity existing between the Magyar and the Finnic languages, first noticed by John Amos Comenius (Komensky) in the middle of the 17th century,58and later by Olav Rudbeck,59Leibnitz,60Strahlenberg,61Eccard, Sajnovics,62and others, was proved “grammatically” by Samuel Gyarmathi in his work entitledAffinitas linguae Hungaricae cum linguis Finnicae originis grammatice demonstrata(Göttingen, 1799). The Uralian travels of Anthony Reguly (1843-1845), and the philological labours of Paul Hunfalvy and Joseph Budenz, may be said to have established it, and no doubt has been thrown on it by recent research, though most authorities regard the Magyars as of mixed origin physically and combining Turkish with Finno-Ugric elements.
Although for nearly a thousand years established in Europe and subjected to Aryan influences, the Magyar has yet retained its essential Ural-Altaic or Turanian features. The grammatical forms are expressed, as in Turkish, by means of affixes modulated according to the high or low vowel power of the root or chief syllables of the word to which they are appended—the former being represented bye,ö,ő,ü,ű, the latter bya,á,o,ó,u,ú; the soundsé,i,íare regarded as neutral. In some respects the value of the consonants varies from that usual in the Latin alphabet.Sis pronounced asshin English, the sound of simplesbeing represented bysz.Corczis pronounced as Englishts;csas Englishch;dsas Englishj;zsas Frenchj;gyasdy. Among the striking peculiarities of the language are the definite and indefinite forms of the active verb,e.g.látom, “I see” (definite, viz. “him,” “her,” “the man,” &c.),látok, “I see” (indefinite); the insertion of the causative, frequentative, diminutive and potential syllables after the root of the verb,e.g.ver, “he beats”;veret, “he causes to beat”;vereget, “he beats repeatedly”;verint, “he beats a little”;verhet, “he can beat”; the mode of expressing possession by the tenses of the irregular verblenni, “to be” (viz.van, “is”;vannak, “are”;volt, “was”;lesz, “will be,” &c.), with the object and its possessive affixes,e.g.nekem vannak könyveim, literally, “to me are books—my” = “I have books”;neki volt könyve, “to him was book—his” = “he had a book.” Other characteristic features are the use of the singular substantive after numerals, and adjectives of quantity,e.g.két ember, literally, “two man”;sok szó, “many word,” &c.; the position of the Christian name and title after the family name,e.g.Ólmosy Károly tanár ur, “Mr Professor Charles Ólmosy”; and the possessive forms of the nouns, which are varied according to the number and person of the possessor and the number of the object in the following way:tollam, “my pen”;tollaim, “my pens”;tollad, “thy pen”;tollaid, “thy pens”;tollunk, “our pen”;tollaink, “our pens,” &c. There is no gender, not even a distinction between “he,” “she,” and “it,” in the personal pronouns, and the declension is less developed than in Finnish. But there is a wealth of verbal derivatives, the vocabulary is copious, and the intonation harmonious. Logical in its derivatives and in its grammatical structure, the Magyar language is, moreover, copious in idiomatic expressions, rich in its store of words, and almost musical in its harmonious intonation. It is, therefore, admirably adapted for both literary and rhetorical purposes.The first Hungarian grammar known is theGrammatica Hungaro-Latinaof John ErdösialiasSylvester Pannonius, printed at Sárvár-Ujsziget in 1539. Others are the posthumous treatises of Nicholas Révai (Pest, 1809); theMagyar nyelvmesterof Samuel Gyarmathi, published at Klausenburg in 1794; and grammars by J. Farkas (9th ed., Vienna, 1816), Mailáth (2nd ed., Pest, 1832), Kis (Vienna, 1834), Márton (8th ed., Vienna, 1836), Maurice Ballagi or (in German) Bloch (5th ed., Pest, 1869), Töpler (Pest, 1854), Riedl (Vienna, 1858), Schuster (Pest, 1866), Charles Ballagi (Pest, 1868), Reméle (Pest and Vienna, 1869), Roder (Budapest, 1875), Führer (Budapest, 1878), Ney (20th ed., Budapest, 1879), C. E. de Ujfalvy (Paris, 1876), S. Wékey (London, 1852), J. Csink (London, 1853), Ballantik (Budapest, 1881); Singer (London, 1882).The earliest lexicon is that of Gabriel (Mizsér) PestialiasPestinus Pannonius,Nomenclatura sex linguarum, Latinae, Italicae, Gallicae, Bohemicae, Ungaricae et Germanicae(Vienna, 1538), which was several times reprinted. TheVocabula Hungaricaof Bernardino Baldi (1583), the original MS. of which is in the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples, contains 2899 Hungarian words with renderings in Latin or Italian.63In theDictionarium undecim linguarumof Calepinus (Basel, 1590) are found also Polish, Hungarian and English words and phrases. This work continued to be reissued until 1682. TheLexicon Latina-Hungaricumof Albert Molnár first appeared at Nuremberg in 1604, and with the addition of Greek was reprinted till 1708. Of modern Hungarian dictionaries the best is that of the Academy of Sciences, containing 110,784 articles in 6 vols., by Czuczor and Fogarasi (Pest, 1862-1874). The next best native dictionary is that of Maurice Ballagi,A Magyar nyelv teljes szótára, (Pest, 1868-1873). In addition to the above may be mentioned the work of Kresznerics, where the words are arranged according to the roots (Buda, 1831-1832); theEtymologisches Wörterbuch ... aus chinesischen Wurzeln, of Podhorszky (Paris, 1877);Lexicon linguae Hungaricae aevi antiquioris, by Szarvas Gábor and Simonyi Zsigmond (1889); and “Magyar-Ugor összehasonlito szótar”Hungarian Ugrian Comparative Dictionary, by Bydenz (Budapest, 1872-1879). Other and more general dictionaries for German scholars are those of Márton,Lexicon trilingue Latino-Hungarico-Germanicum(Vienna, 1818-1823), A. F. Richter (Vienna, 1836), E. Farkas (Pest, 1848-1851), Fogarasi (4th ed., Pest, 1860), Loos (Pest, 1869) and M. Ballagi (Budapest, 3rd ed., 1872-1874). There are, moreover, Hungarian-French dictionaries by Kiss and Karády (Pest and Leipzig, 1844-1848) and Babos and Molé (Pest, 1865), and English-Hungarian dictionaries by Dallos (Pest, 1860) and Bizonfy (Budapest, 1886).
Although for nearly a thousand years established in Europe and subjected to Aryan influences, the Magyar has yet retained its essential Ural-Altaic or Turanian features. The grammatical forms are expressed, as in Turkish, by means of affixes modulated according to the high or low vowel power of the root or chief syllables of the word to which they are appended—the former being represented bye,ö,ő,ü,ű, the latter bya,á,o,ó,u,ú; the soundsé,i,íare regarded as neutral. In some respects the value of the consonants varies from that usual in the Latin alphabet.Sis pronounced asshin English, the sound of simplesbeing represented bysz.Corczis pronounced as Englishts;csas Englishch;dsas Englishj;zsas Frenchj;gyasdy. Among the striking peculiarities of the language are the definite and indefinite forms of the active verb,e.g.látom, “I see” (definite, viz. “him,” “her,” “the man,” &c.),látok, “I see” (indefinite); the insertion of the causative, frequentative, diminutive and potential syllables after the root of the verb,e.g.ver, “he beats”;veret, “he causes to beat”;vereget, “he beats repeatedly”;verint, “he beats a little”;verhet, “he can beat”; the mode of expressing possession by the tenses of the irregular verblenni, “to be” (viz.van, “is”;vannak, “are”;volt, “was”;lesz, “will be,” &c.), with the object and its possessive affixes,e.g.nekem vannak könyveim, literally, “to me are books—my” = “I have books”;neki volt könyve, “to him was book—his” = “he had a book.” Other characteristic features are the use of the singular substantive after numerals, and adjectives of quantity,e.g.két ember, literally, “two man”;sok szó, “many word,” &c.; the position of the Christian name and title after the family name,e.g.Ólmosy Károly tanár ur, “Mr Professor Charles Ólmosy”; and the possessive forms of the nouns, which are varied according to the number and person of the possessor and the number of the object in the following way:tollam, “my pen”;tollaim, “my pens”;tollad, “thy pen”;tollaid, “thy pens”;tollunk, “our pen”;tollaink, “our pens,” &c. There is no gender, not even a distinction between “he,” “she,” and “it,” in the personal pronouns, and the declension is less developed than in Finnish. But there is a wealth of verbal derivatives, the vocabulary is copious, and the intonation harmonious. Logical in its derivatives and in its grammatical structure, the Magyar language is, moreover, copious in idiomatic expressions, rich in its store of words, and almost musical in its harmonious intonation. It is, therefore, admirably adapted for both literary and rhetorical purposes.
The first Hungarian grammar known is theGrammatica Hungaro-Latinaof John ErdösialiasSylvester Pannonius, printed at Sárvár-Ujsziget in 1539. Others are the posthumous treatises of Nicholas Révai (Pest, 1809); theMagyar nyelvmesterof Samuel Gyarmathi, published at Klausenburg in 1794; and grammars by J. Farkas (9th ed., Vienna, 1816), Mailáth (2nd ed., Pest, 1832), Kis (Vienna, 1834), Márton (8th ed., Vienna, 1836), Maurice Ballagi or (in German) Bloch (5th ed., Pest, 1869), Töpler (Pest, 1854), Riedl (Vienna, 1858), Schuster (Pest, 1866), Charles Ballagi (Pest, 1868), Reméle (Pest and Vienna, 1869), Roder (Budapest, 1875), Führer (Budapest, 1878), Ney (20th ed., Budapest, 1879), C. E. de Ujfalvy (Paris, 1876), S. Wékey (London, 1852), J. Csink (London, 1853), Ballantik (Budapest, 1881); Singer (London, 1882).
The earliest lexicon is that of Gabriel (Mizsér) PestialiasPestinus Pannonius,Nomenclatura sex linguarum, Latinae, Italicae, Gallicae, Bohemicae, Ungaricae et Germanicae(Vienna, 1538), which was several times reprinted. TheVocabula Hungaricaof Bernardino Baldi (1583), the original MS. of which is in the Biblioteca Nazionale at Naples, contains 2899 Hungarian words with renderings in Latin or Italian.63In theDictionarium undecim linguarumof Calepinus (Basel, 1590) are found also Polish, Hungarian and English words and phrases. This work continued to be reissued until 1682. TheLexicon Latina-Hungaricumof Albert Molnár first appeared at Nuremberg in 1604, and with the addition of Greek was reprinted till 1708. Of modern Hungarian dictionaries the best is that of the Academy of Sciences, containing 110,784 articles in 6 vols., by Czuczor and Fogarasi (Pest, 1862-1874). The next best native dictionary is that of Maurice Ballagi,A Magyar nyelv teljes szótára, (Pest, 1868-1873). In addition to the above may be mentioned the work of Kresznerics, where the words are arranged according to the roots (Buda, 1831-1832); theEtymologisches Wörterbuch ... aus chinesischen Wurzeln, of Podhorszky (Paris, 1877);Lexicon linguae Hungaricae aevi antiquioris, by Szarvas Gábor and Simonyi Zsigmond (1889); and “Magyar-Ugor összehasonlito szótar”Hungarian Ugrian Comparative Dictionary, by Bydenz (Budapest, 1872-1879). Other and more general dictionaries for German scholars are those of Márton,Lexicon trilingue Latino-Hungarico-Germanicum(Vienna, 1818-1823), A. F. Richter (Vienna, 1836), E. Farkas (Pest, 1848-1851), Fogarasi (4th ed., Pest, 1860), Loos (Pest, 1869) and M. Ballagi (Budapest, 3rd ed., 1872-1874). There are, moreover, Hungarian-French dictionaries by Kiss and Karády (Pest and Leipzig, 1844-1848) and Babos and Molé (Pest, 1865), and English-Hungarian dictionaries by Dallos (Pest, 1860) and Bizonfy (Budapest, 1886).
(C. El.)
IV. Literature
The Catholic ecclesiastics who settled in Hungary during the 11th century, and who found their way into the chief offices of the state, were mainly instrumental in establishing Latin as the predominant language of the court, the higher schools and public worship, and of eventually introducing it into the administration. Having thus become the tongue of the educated and privileged classes, Latin continued to monopolize the chief fields of literature until the revival of the native language at the close of the 18th century.
Amongst the earliest Latin works that claim attention are the “Chronicle” (Gesta Hungarorum), by the “anonymous notary” of King Béla, probably Béla II. (see Podhradczky,64Béla király névtelen jegyzöje, Buda, 1861, p. 48), which describes the early ages ofEarly Latin chronicles.Hungarian history, and may be assigned to the middle of the 12th century; theCarmen Miserabileof Rogerius; theLiber Cronicorumof Simon Kézai, belonging to the end of the 13th century, the so-called “Chronicon Budense,”Cronica Hungarorum, printed at Buda in 1473 (Eichhorn,Geschichte der Litteratur, ii. 319); and theChronicon Rerum Hungaricarumof John Thuróczi.65An extraordinary stimulus was given to literary enterprise by King Matthias Corvinus, who attracted both foreign and native scholars to his court. Foremost amongst the Italians was Antonio Bonfini, whose work,Rerum Hungaricarum Decades IV., comprising Hungarian history from the earliest times to the death of King Matthias, was published with a continuation by Sambucus (Basel, 1568).66Marzio Galeotti, the king’s chief librarian, wrote an historical account of his reign. The most distinguished of the native scholars was John Cesinge,aliasJanus Pannonius, who composed Latin epigrams, panegyrics and epic poems. The best edition of his works was published by Count S. Teleki at Utrecht in 1784.As there are no traces of literary productions in the native or Magyar dialect before the 12th century, the early condition of the language is concealed from the philologist. It is, however, known that the Hungarians had their ownMagyar literature. Earliest relics.Arpadian period, 1000-1301.martial songs, and that their princes kept lyre and lute players who sang festal odes in praise of the national heroes. In the 11th century Christian teachers introduced the use of the Roman letters, but the employment of the Latin language was not formally decreed until 1114 (see Bowring,Poetry of the Magyars, Introd. xix.). It appears, moreover, that up to that date public business was transacted in Hungarian, for the decrees of King Coloman the Learned (1095-1114) were translated from that language into Latin. Among the literary relics of the 12th century are the “Latiatuc” orHalotti Beszédfuneral discourse and prayer in Hungarian, to which Döbrentei in hisRégi Magyar Nyelvemlékekassigns as a probable date the year 1171 (others, however, 1182 or 1183). From theMargit-Legenda, or “Legend of St Margaret,” composed in the early part of the 14th century,67it is evident that from time to time the native language continued to be employed as a means of religious edification. Under the kings of the house ofAnjou-Sigismond period, 1301-1437.Anjou, the Magyar became the language of the court. That it was used also in official documents and ordinances is shown by copies of formularies of oaths, the import of which proves beyond a doubt that the originals belonged to the reigns of Louis I. and Sigismond; by a statute of the town of Sajó-St-Peter (1403) relating to the wine trade; by the testament of Kazzai-Karácson (1413); and by other relics of this period published by Döbrentei in vol. ii. of theR. M. Nyelvemlékek. To the early part of the 15th century may be assigned also the legends of “St Francis” and of “St Ursula,” and possibly the original of theÉnek Pannónia megvételéröl, an historical “Song about the Conquest of Pannonia.” But not until the dawn of the Reformation did Magyar begin in any sense to replace Latin for literary purposes. The period placed by Hungarian authors between 1437 and 1530 marks the first development of Magyar literature.About the year 1437 two Hussite monks named Tamás and Bálint (i.e.Thomas and Valentine) adapted from older sources a large portion of the Bible for the use of the Hungarian refugees in Moldavia. To these monks the first extantJagelló-Matthias or pre-Reformation period (1437-1530).Magyar version of part of the Scriptures (theViennaorRévai Codex68) is directly assigned by Döbrentei, but the exact date either of this copy or of the original translation cannot be ascertained. With approximate certainty may be ascribed also to Tamás and Bálint the original of the still extant transcript, by George Németi, of the Four Gospels, theJászayorMunich Codex(finished at Tátros in Moldavia in 1466), Amongst other important codices are theJordánszky Codex(1516-1519), an incomplete copy of the translation of the Bible made by Ladislaus Bátori, who died about 1456; and theDöbrenteiorGyulafehérvár Codex(1508), containing a version of the Psalter, Song of Solomon, and the liturgical epistles and gospels, copied by Bartholomew Halabori from an earlier translation (Környei,A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata, 1861, p. 30). Other relics belonging to this period are the oath which John Hunyady took when elected governor of Hungary (1446); a few verses sung by the children of Pest at the coronation of his son Matthias (1458); theSiralomének Both János veszedelmén(Elegy upon John Both), written by a certain “Gregori,” as the initial letters of the verses show, and during the reign of the above-mentioned monarch; and theEmlékdal Mátyás király halálára(Memorial Song on the Death of King Matthias, 1490). To these may be added the rhapsody69on the taking of “Szabács” (1476); theKatalin-Legenda, a metrical “Legend of St Catherine of Alexandria,” extending to over 4000 lines: and theFeddöének(Upbraiding Song), by Francis Apáthi.In the next literary period (1530-1606) several translations of the Scriptures are recorded. Among these there are—versions of the Epistles of St Paul, by Benedict Komjáti (Cracow, 1533); of the Four Gospels, by Gabriel (Mizsér) PestiReformation period (1530-1606).(Vienna, 1536); of the New Testament, by John Erdösi (Ujsziget, 1541; 2nd ed., Vienna, 157470), and by Thomas Félegyházi (1586); and the translations of the Bible, by Caspar Heltai (Klausenburg, 1551-1565), and by Caspar Károli (Vizsoly, near Göncz, 1589-1590). The last, considered the best, was corrected and re-edited by Albert Molnár at Hanau in 1608.71Heltai published also (1571) a translation, improved from that by Blasius Veres (1565), of theTripartitumof Verböczy, andChronika(1575) adapted from theDecadesof Bonfini. Karádi in 1569 brought to light the earliest national drama,Balassi Menyhért. Among the native poets, mostly mere rhyming chroniclers of the 16th century, were Csanádi, Tinódi, Nagy-Báczai, Bogáti, Ilósvay, Istvánfi, Görgei, Temesvári and Valkai. Of these the best and most prolific writer was Tinódi. Székely wrote in prose, with verse introduction, a “Chronicle of the World” under the title ofCronica ez világnac yeles dolgairól(Cracow, 1559). Csáktornya and Kákony imitated the ancient classical poets, and Erdösi introduced the hexameter. Andrew Farkas and the homilist Peter Melius (Juhász) attempted didactic verse; and Batizi busied himself with sacred song and Biblical history. During the latter part of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th two poets of a higher order appeared in Valentine Balassa, the earliest Magyar lyrical writer, and his contemporary John Rimay, whose poems are of a contemplative and pleasing character.The melancholy state of the country consequent upon the persecutions of Rudolph I., Ferdinand II. and Leopold I., as also the continual encroachment of Germanizing influences under the Habsburgs, were unfavourable to the development of17th century period (1606-1711).the national literature during the next literary period, dating from the Peace of Vienna (1606) to that of Szatmár (1711). A few names were, however, distinguished in theology, philology and poetry. In 1626 a Hungarian version of the Vulgate was published at Vienna by the Jesuit George Káldi,72and another complete translation of the Scriptures, the so-calledKomáromi Biblia(Komorn Bible) was made in 1685 by the Protestant George Csipkés, though it was not published till 1717 at Leiden, twenty-nine years after his death.73On behalf of the Catholics the Jesuit Peter Pázmán, eventually primate, Nicholas Eszterházy, Sámbár, Balásfi and others were the authors of various works of a polemical nature. Especially famous was theHodaegus, kalauzof Pázmán, which first appeared at Pozsony (Pressburg) in 1613. Among the Protestants who exerted themselves in theological and controversial writings were Németi, Alvinczy, Alexander Felvinczy, Mártonfalvi and Melotai, who was attached to the court of Bethlen Gábor. Telkibányai wrote on “English Puritanism” (1654). The Calvinist Albert Molnár, already mentioned, was more remarkable for his philological than for his theological labours. Párispápai compiled an Hungarian-Latin Dictionary,Dictionarium magyar és deák nyelven(Löcse, 1708), and Apáczai-Csere, aMagyar Encyclopaedia(Utrecht, 1653). John Szalárdi, Paul Lisznyai, Gregory Pethö, John Kemény and Benjamin Szilágyi, which last, however, wrote in Latin, were the authors of various historical works. In polite literature the heroic poemZrinyiász(1651), descriptive of the fall of Sziget, by Nicholas Zrinyi, grandson of the defender of that fortress, marks a new era in Hungarian poetry. Of a far inferior character was the monotonousMohácsi veszedelem(Disaster of Mohács), in 13 cantos, produced two years afterwards at Vienna by Baron Liszti. The lyric and epic poems of Stephen Gyöngyösi, who sang the deeds of Maria Széchy, the heroine of Murány,Murányi Venus(Kassa, 1664), are samples rather of a general improvement in the style than of the purity of the language. As a didactic and elegiac poet Stephen Kohári is much esteemed. More fluent but not less gloomy are the sacred lyrics of Nyéki-Veres first published in 1636 under the Latin title ofTintinnabulum Tripudiantium. The songs and proverbs of Peter Beniczky, who lived in the early part o£ the 17th century, are not without merit, and have been several times reprinted. From the appearance of the first extant printed Magyarwork74at Cracow in 1531 to the end of the period just treated, more than 1800 publications in the native language are known.75The period comprised between the peace of Szatmár (1711) and the year 1772 is far more barren in literary results than even that which preceded it. The exhaustion of the nation from its protracted civil and foreign wars, the extinction of thePeriod of decline (1711-1772).court of the Transylvanian princes where the native language had been cherished, and the prevalent use of Latin in the schools, public transactions and county courts, all combined to bring about a complete neglect of the Magyar language and literature. Among the few prose writers of distinction were Andrew Spangár, whose “Hungarian Bookstore,”Magyar Könyvtár(Kassa, 1738), is said to be the earliest work of the kind in the Magyar dialect; George Bárányi, who translated the New Testament (Lauba, 1754); the historians Michael Cserei and Matthew Bél, which last, however, wrote chiefly in Latin; and Peter Bod, who besides his theological treatises compiled a history of Hungarian literature under the titleMagyar Athénás(Szeben, 1766). But the most celebrated writer of this period was the Jesuit Francis Faludi, the translator, through the Italian, of William Darrell’s works. On account of the classic purity of his style in prose, Faludi was known as the “Magyar Cicero.” Not only as a philosophic and didactic writer, but also as a lyric and dramatic poet he surpassed all his contemporaries. Another pleasing lyric poet of this period was Ladislaus Amade, the naturalness and genuine sentiment of whose lightly running verses are suggestive of the love songs of Italian authors. Of considerable merit are also the sacred lyrical melodies of Paul Rádai in hisLelki hódolás(Spiritual Homage), published at Debreczen in 1715. Among the didactic poets may be mentioned Lewis Nagy, George Kálmár, John Illey and Paul Bertalanfi, especially noted for his rhymed “Life of St Stephen, first Hungarian king,”Dicsöséges Sz. István elsö magyar királynak élete(Vienna, 1751).
Amongst the earliest Latin works that claim attention are the “Chronicle” (Gesta Hungarorum), by the “anonymous notary” of King Béla, probably Béla II. (see Podhradczky,64Béla király névtelen jegyzöje, Buda, 1861, p. 48), which describes the early ages ofEarly Latin chronicles.Hungarian history, and may be assigned to the middle of the 12th century; theCarmen Miserabileof Rogerius; theLiber Cronicorumof Simon Kézai, belonging to the end of the 13th century, the so-called “Chronicon Budense,”Cronica Hungarorum, printed at Buda in 1473 (Eichhorn,Geschichte der Litteratur, ii. 319); and theChronicon Rerum Hungaricarumof John Thuróczi.65An extraordinary stimulus was given to literary enterprise by King Matthias Corvinus, who attracted both foreign and native scholars to his court. Foremost amongst the Italians was Antonio Bonfini, whose work,Rerum Hungaricarum Decades IV., comprising Hungarian history from the earliest times to the death of King Matthias, was published with a continuation by Sambucus (Basel, 1568).66Marzio Galeotti, the king’s chief librarian, wrote an historical account of his reign. The most distinguished of the native scholars was John Cesinge,aliasJanus Pannonius, who composed Latin epigrams, panegyrics and epic poems. The best edition of his works was published by Count S. Teleki at Utrecht in 1784.
As there are no traces of literary productions in the native or Magyar dialect before the 12th century, the early condition of the language is concealed from the philologist. It is, however, known that the Hungarians had their ownMagyar literature. Earliest relics.Arpadian period, 1000-1301.martial songs, and that their princes kept lyre and lute players who sang festal odes in praise of the national heroes. In the 11th century Christian teachers introduced the use of the Roman letters, but the employment of the Latin language was not formally decreed until 1114 (see Bowring,Poetry of the Magyars, Introd. xix.). It appears, moreover, that up to that date public business was transacted in Hungarian, for the decrees of King Coloman the Learned (1095-1114) were translated from that language into Latin. Among the literary relics of the 12th century are the “Latiatuc” orHalotti Beszédfuneral discourse and prayer in Hungarian, to which Döbrentei in hisRégi Magyar Nyelvemlékekassigns as a probable date the year 1171 (others, however, 1182 or 1183). From theMargit-Legenda, or “Legend of St Margaret,” composed in the early part of the 14th century,67it is evident that from time to time the native language continued to be employed as a means of religious edification. Under the kings of the house ofAnjou-Sigismond period, 1301-1437.Anjou, the Magyar became the language of the court. That it was used also in official documents and ordinances is shown by copies of formularies of oaths, the import of which proves beyond a doubt that the originals belonged to the reigns of Louis I. and Sigismond; by a statute of the town of Sajó-St-Peter (1403) relating to the wine trade; by the testament of Kazzai-Karácson (1413); and by other relics of this period published by Döbrentei in vol. ii. of theR. M. Nyelvemlékek. To the early part of the 15th century may be assigned also the legends of “St Francis” and of “St Ursula,” and possibly the original of theÉnek Pannónia megvételéröl, an historical “Song about the Conquest of Pannonia.” But not until the dawn of the Reformation did Magyar begin in any sense to replace Latin for literary purposes. The period placed by Hungarian authors between 1437 and 1530 marks the first development of Magyar literature.
About the year 1437 two Hussite monks named Tamás and Bálint (i.e.Thomas and Valentine) adapted from older sources a large portion of the Bible for the use of the Hungarian refugees in Moldavia. To these monks the first extantJagelló-Matthias or pre-Reformation period (1437-1530).Magyar version of part of the Scriptures (theViennaorRévai Codex68) is directly assigned by Döbrentei, but the exact date either of this copy or of the original translation cannot be ascertained. With approximate certainty may be ascribed also to Tamás and Bálint the original of the still extant transcript, by George Németi, of the Four Gospels, theJászayorMunich Codex(finished at Tátros in Moldavia in 1466), Amongst other important codices are theJordánszky Codex(1516-1519), an incomplete copy of the translation of the Bible made by Ladislaus Bátori, who died about 1456; and theDöbrenteiorGyulafehérvár Codex(1508), containing a version of the Psalter, Song of Solomon, and the liturgical epistles and gospels, copied by Bartholomew Halabori from an earlier translation (Környei,A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtörténet vázlata, 1861, p. 30). Other relics belonging to this period are the oath which John Hunyady took when elected governor of Hungary (1446); a few verses sung by the children of Pest at the coronation of his son Matthias (1458); theSiralomének Both János veszedelmén(Elegy upon John Both), written by a certain “Gregori,” as the initial letters of the verses show, and during the reign of the above-mentioned monarch; and theEmlékdal Mátyás király halálára(Memorial Song on the Death of King Matthias, 1490). To these may be added the rhapsody69on the taking of “Szabács” (1476); theKatalin-Legenda, a metrical “Legend of St Catherine of Alexandria,” extending to over 4000 lines: and theFeddöének(Upbraiding Song), by Francis Apáthi.
In the next literary period (1530-1606) several translations of the Scriptures are recorded. Among these there are—versions of the Epistles of St Paul, by Benedict Komjáti (Cracow, 1533); of the Four Gospels, by Gabriel (Mizsér) PestiReformation period (1530-1606).(Vienna, 1536); of the New Testament, by John Erdösi (Ujsziget, 1541; 2nd ed., Vienna, 157470), and by Thomas Félegyházi (1586); and the translations of the Bible, by Caspar Heltai (Klausenburg, 1551-1565), and by Caspar Károli (Vizsoly, near Göncz, 1589-1590). The last, considered the best, was corrected and re-edited by Albert Molnár at Hanau in 1608.71Heltai published also (1571) a translation, improved from that by Blasius Veres (1565), of theTripartitumof Verböczy, andChronika(1575) adapted from theDecadesof Bonfini. Karádi in 1569 brought to light the earliest national drama,Balassi Menyhért. Among the native poets, mostly mere rhyming chroniclers of the 16th century, were Csanádi, Tinódi, Nagy-Báczai, Bogáti, Ilósvay, Istvánfi, Görgei, Temesvári and Valkai. Of these the best and most prolific writer was Tinódi. Székely wrote in prose, with verse introduction, a “Chronicle of the World” under the title ofCronica ez világnac yeles dolgairól(Cracow, 1559). Csáktornya and Kákony imitated the ancient classical poets, and Erdösi introduced the hexameter. Andrew Farkas and the homilist Peter Melius (Juhász) attempted didactic verse; and Batizi busied himself with sacred song and Biblical history. During the latter part of the 16th century and the beginning of the 17th two poets of a higher order appeared in Valentine Balassa, the earliest Magyar lyrical writer, and his contemporary John Rimay, whose poems are of a contemplative and pleasing character.
The melancholy state of the country consequent upon the persecutions of Rudolph I., Ferdinand II. and Leopold I., as also the continual encroachment of Germanizing influences under the Habsburgs, were unfavourable to the development of17th century period (1606-1711).the national literature during the next literary period, dating from the Peace of Vienna (1606) to that of Szatmár (1711). A few names were, however, distinguished in theology, philology and poetry. In 1626 a Hungarian version of the Vulgate was published at Vienna by the Jesuit George Káldi,72and another complete translation of the Scriptures, the so-calledKomáromi Biblia(Komorn Bible) was made in 1685 by the Protestant George Csipkés, though it was not published till 1717 at Leiden, twenty-nine years after his death.73On behalf of the Catholics the Jesuit Peter Pázmán, eventually primate, Nicholas Eszterházy, Sámbár, Balásfi and others were the authors of various works of a polemical nature. Especially famous was theHodaegus, kalauzof Pázmán, which first appeared at Pozsony (Pressburg) in 1613. Among the Protestants who exerted themselves in theological and controversial writings were Németi, Alvinczy, Alexander Felvinczy, Mártonfalvi and Melotai, who was attached to the court of Bethlen Gábor. Telkibányai wrote on “English Puritanism” (1654). The Calvinist Albert Molnár, already mentioned, was more remarkable for his philological than for his theological labours. Párispápai compiled an Hungarian-Latin Dictionary,Dictionarium magyar és deák nyelven(Löcse, 1708), and Apáczai-Csere, aMagyar Encyclopaedia(Utrecht, 1653). John Szalárdi, Paul Lisznyai, Gregory Pethö, John Kemény and Benjamin Szilágyi, which last, however, wrote in Latin, were the authors of various historical works. In polite literature the heroic poemZrinyiász(1651), descriptive of the fall of Sziget, by Nicholas Zrinyi, grandson of the defender of that fortress, marks a new era in Hungarian poetry. Of a far inferior character was the monotonousMohácsi veszedelem(Disaster of Mohács), in 13 cantos, produced two years afterwards at Vienna by Baron Liszti. The lyric and epic poems of Stephen Gyöngyösi, who sang the deeds of Maria Széchy, the heroine of Murány,Murányi Venus(Kassa, 1664), are samples rather of a general improvement in the style than of the purity of the language. As a didactic and elegiac poet Stephen Kohári is much esteemed. More fluent but not less gloomy are the sacred lyrics of Nyéki-Veres first published in 1636 under the Latin title ofTintinnabulum Tripudiantium. The songs and proverbs of Peter Beniczky, who lived in the early part o£ the 17th century, are not without merit, and have been several times reprinted. From the appearance of the first extant printed Magyarwork74at Cracow in 1531 to the end of the period just treated, more than 1800 publications in the native language are known.75
The period comprised between the peace of Szatmár (1711) and the year 1772 is far more barren in literary results than even that which preceded it. The exhaustion of the nation from its protracted civil and foreign wars, the extinction of thePeriod of decline (1711-1772).court of the Transylvanian princes where the native language had been cherished, and the prevalent use of Latin in the schools, public transactions and county courts, all combined to bring about a complete neglect of the Magyar language and literature. Among the few prose writers of distinction were Andrew Spangár, whose “Hungarian Bookstore,”Magyar Könyvtár(Kassa, 1738), is said to be the earliest work of the kind in the Magyar dialect; George Bárányi, who translated the New Testament (Lauba, 1754); the historians Michael Cserei and Matthew Bél, which last, however, wrote chiefly in Latin; and Peter Bod, who besides his theological treatises compiled a history of Hungarian literature under the titleMagyar Athénás(Szeben, 1766). But the most celebrated writer of this period was the Jesuit Francis Faludi, the translator, through the Italian, of William Darrell’s works. On account of the classic purity of his style in prose, Faludi was known as the “Magyar Cicero.” Not only as a philosophic and didactic writer, but also as a lyric and dramatic poet he surpassed all his contemporaries. Another pleasing lyric poet of this period was Ladislaus Amade, the naturalness and genuine sentiment of whose lightly running verses are suggestive of the love songs of Italian authors. Of considerable merit are also the sacred lyrical melodies of Paul Rádai in hisLelki hódolás(Spiritual Homage), published at Debreczen in 1715. Among the didactic poets may be mentioned Lewis Nagy, George Kálmár, John Illey and Paul Bertalanfi, especially noted for his rhymed “Life of St Stephen, first Hungarian king,”Dicsöséges Sz. István elsö magyar királynak élete(Vienna, 1751).
The next three literary periods stand in special relationship to one another, and are sometimes regarded as the same. The first two, marking respectively the progress of the “Regeneration of the Native Literature” (1772-1807) and the “Revival of the Language” (1807-1830), were introductory to and preparatory for the third or “Academy,” period, which began about 1830.