A Case Study on Trianon

The views formulated by Klebelsberg were generally acclaimed and applied by most Hungarian historians. These views certainly came to dominate much of Hungarian historical writing during the 1920s and 1930s, including scholarly works, popular tracts, and of course officially sanctioned textbooks. Even the books written by professional historians such as Sandor Domanovszky, Dezso Szabo, Istvan Miskolczy, and others reflected this orientation.⁴³ The authors of these textbooks all took pains to emphasize the Hungarians' primary historical rights to the Carpathian Basin, their unique ability for political and cultural leadership, as well as the numerous past sacrifices that they have made in defending Western Christendom against Eastern barbarisms. In this way they played upon the Hungarians' fundamental ties to Christian Central Europe, and contrasted these ties with the Eastern (Orthodox Christian) culture and world view of the majority of their neighbors, including most of the Southern and Eastern Slavs and the Romanians. In effect these

textbooks all intimated that Western Christian culture in Central Europe had been basically preserved by the sweat and blood of the Hungarians.⁴⁴ (This claim, by the way, was not unique to the Hungarians, for similar contentions were also advanced by most of the peoples of Central and Southeastern Europe.)

In addition to portraying the Hungarians as the primary defenders of Western Christendom, interwar textbooks also stressed the unusual geographical and economic unity of historic Hungary, which they all characterized as being absolute in Europe, and claimed that its forced dismemberment cannot be upheld for a protracted period of time. This was one of the reasons why Hungary's history and geography in interwar Hungarian schools was taught as if Trianon had never taken place.

These views came to characterize interwar Hungarian historiography and were generally accepted and popularized by most professional and non-professional historians of the post-Trianon period. Yet, the scholar who first expressed the essence of these views, and did so most effectively, was Gyula Szekfu, the "father" of the new Hungarian Geistesgeschichte School and the most influential historian not only of the interwar years, but perhaps also of 20th-century Hungary in general.

Szekfu first summarized his views on the nature of Hungarian historical evolution in 1917, in his well-known A Magyar allam eletrajza [The Biography of the Hungarian State]," wherein he discussed the history of the Hungarians within the context of the history of "German-Christian" Central Europe, which he regarded as the most important single factor in the development of Hungary. And even though the collapse of Austria-Hungary and the Second Reich in 1918 brought to an end this whole German-Christian Central European configuration, Szekfu continued to stick to this basically defunct idea right into the late 1930s and early 1940s. This is quite evident from most of his writings of the interwar years, including the second edition of the above work (1923), in which he expressed the view that "the Hungarians can hope to escape from their current predicament only by following the well-tread path ... , i.e. by walking hand in hand with German Central Europe." In Szekfu's view of the 1920s, this was "one of the clear-cut teachings of our [Hungarian] history," that cannot be disregarded without perils and misfortunes to the nation as a whole.⁴⁶

Contrary to many Hungarian historians who held anti-Habsburg

views, Szekfu believed that Habsburg-Hungarian relations represented simply the unavoidable common destiny of Germandom and the Hungarian nation. He was so convinced of the benefits of this common destiny that he even bemoaned Hungary's newly won independence that followed World War I. As he put it: "Those of us who amidst the nerve-wracking fever of our collapse were able to preserve our sense of history ... , were also forced to recognize . . -that our suddenly gained freedom is only the freedom ... of a hungry winter wolf. Having been freed from the clutches of Central Europe, we stood there alone and friendless. ... We were a free but also a bloodied and a despoiled small nation. ... A free prey, free to be robbed, looted and destroyed by anyone who happened to be stronger. Then, as if to drive his point home, Szekfu finished his assessment by pointing to the harsh consequences of this freedom from Central Europe: "And the 'stronger ones' did come and the borders of our free nation became ever more constricted. ... Thus did Hungary, freed from its dependence on Central Europe shrink back by centuries within the span of a few days. As if, together with the war, we also lost our millennial history."⁴⁷

Although anti-Habsburgism continued to pervade a sizable segment of Hungary's educated circles, Szekfu's above analysis of Hungary's dependence on Germanic Central Europe was soon widely accepted. It became one of the important dogmas of interwar Hungarian historical thinking, and then took its place alongside the already discussed emphasis upon the unique historical role and destiny of the Hungarians in the Carpathian Basin.

While appealing in themselves to the dejected Hungarian mind of the early post-Trianon period, these views could not have been made into the dogmas of Hungarian historical thinking without Szekfu's influential multivolumed Hungarian History (1928-1934) that he co-authored with Balint Homan.⁴⁸ This work popularized Szekfu's views-some of them derived from other "Trianon books" by fellow historians-on such a mass scale that they soon came to form the cornerstones of interwar Hungarian historiography. These views penetrated and saturated the works of most professional historians, and then the writings of most popularizers as well. This was true, even though during the 1920s and the early 1930s Szekfu's views fell increasingly under the scrutiny and criticism of a number of the old "National Romantic" historians (e.g. Istvan Rugonfalvi-Kiss, Jeno Csuday, Jeno Zovanyi, etc.);⁴⁹ while during the late 1930s and early

1940s they were being questioned and attacked by some of the prominent spokesmen of the so-called Populist Movement in Hungary⁵⁰ (e.g. Dezso Szabo, Laszlo Nemeth, and the leaders of various youth movements, both in Trianon Hungary and in the lost territories).⁵¹ The latter generally rejected past and future associations with Germanic Central Europe-at least as interpreted by Szekfu-and sought some sort of accommodation with the small peoples of East Central and Southeastern Europe. But as the National Romantics' influence in the profession was very limited, and as the Populists were primarily poets, novelists and publicists who were not taken seriously by professional historians, Szekfu's and his followers' views continued to dominate Hungarian historical thinking right up to 1945, and, to some degree, even beyond.

While the emphasis on the Hungarians' historical rights and destiny in the Carpathian Basin and their overriding desire to remain part of Central Europe became the dominant features of interwar Hungarian historical thinking, Hungarian historians and the whole profession concentrated increasingly on the nationality question, which was rightfully regarded as the primary cause of historic Hungary's dismemberment. This became evident in the Klebelsberg initiated source publications, among others, especially in the Fontes series-a sizable portion of the forty-four volumes published during the interwar years dealt either directly or indirectly with the nationality question and with the development of Hungarian national consciousness.⁵²

One of the most important of these volumes was Szekfu's own Iratok a magyar allamnyelv kerdesenek tortenetehez, 1790-1848 [Documents Concerning the History of the Question of Hungarian State Language, 1790-1848] (1926),⁵³ which, introduced by a 200-page analytical study, is still viewed today as "one of the most significant works on the history of Hungarian national consciousness."⁵⁴ Some of the other related significant works included Gyula Miskolczy's two-volume The Croatian Question: Its History and Documents in the Age of the Feudal State (1927-1928), Jozsef Thim's three-volume The History of the Serbian Uprising in Hungary in 1848-1849 (1930-1940), Lajos Steier's two-volume The Slovak Nationality Question in 1848-1849 (1937),⁵⁵ as well as various memories, diaries, letters and other papers of a number of prominent national leaders whose life and activities were intertwined with the development of nationalism in 19^th-century Hungary.⁵⁶ The

publication of these documents gave a new impetus to the study of nationalism and the whole nationality question in interwar Hungary, and at the same time elevated this study to a far more scholarly level than the polemic political literature that preceded it.

However significant, the publication of the Fontes volumes, with their predilection for the nationality question, was only one of several similar undertakings in interwar Hungarian historiography. Much attention was also given to a question that had already been touched by some of the early Trianon-pamphlets, namely: who settled first in the Carpathian Basin? This became a particularly acute historical question in view of the Hungarian-Romanian dispute over Transylvania. Like contemporary Western scholars, Hungarian historians rejected outright the Romanian theory of Daco-Roman-Romanian continuity, and devoted much of their efforts to demonstrating the untenability of these views, which they perceived as being purely politically inspired.⁵⁷ But in addition to disproving the Daco-Roman origins of the Romanians, Hungarian scholars also paid considerable attention to the question of the origins of the Hungarian speaking Szekelys (Szeklers) of Eastern Transylvania. Although unable to arrive at a scholarly consensus on their origins, most of them viewed the Szekelys as Transylvania's "autochtonous" population-the descendants of the related Huns or Avars or both⁵⁸-whose settlement in that province preceded by centuries the presence of the Vlach ancestors of the Romanians. With a very few exceptions (e.g. Laszlo Erdelyi, who was generally thought to be eccentric in most of his views),⁵⁹ all interwar Hungarian historians prescribed to the view that their own (and their related predecessors') ancestors were the first continued settlers in the Carpathian Basin. This enforced their historical claims to the area-which they believed to be significant in their struggle against Trianon-and also strengthened their national pride.

Dealing with these and similar topics was certainly not an unworthy or unscholarly occupation. But given the general tendencies in Western historical studies toward new approaches (e.g. the sociologically oriented Annales School in France, Toynbee's civilizational approach, etc.), these Trianon-inspired undertakings certainly occupied a far greater portion of the Hungarian historians' time and talents than normal circumstances would have warranted. This did not, of course, mean that interwar Hungarian historiography was devoid of all innovations; the fact that it wasn't is best demonstrated

by references of Szekfu's Geistesgeschichte, Domanovszky's Kulturgeschichte, Malyusz's Ethnohistory, and Hajnal's new Universal History Schools.⁶⁰ But given their preoccupation with Trianon, the results of their efforts were less, or at least different, than could have been without the burdens of this national tragedy and the resulting national and personal traumas.

The attention given to the above discussed Trianon-inspired topics in Hungarian historical research was paralleled after Trianon by the historians' switch of emphasis from the state to the nation-a phenomenon that was also an important component of Klebelsberg's ideology of Neo-Nationalism. Although increasingly widespread among historians, this tendency came to be expressed on the highest scholarly level in the new Hungarian Ethnohistory School founded by Elemer Malyusz (1898- ), which can also be viewed as the Hungarian manifestation of the German Volkstumkunde, combined with the early influences of Marc Bloch's and Lucien Febvre's sociologically oriented Annales School in France. It was this school that introduced the serious study of settlement history in Hungary, while at the same time emphasizing the unique role of the Hungarian "folk spirit" as a driving force behind Hungarian creativity, and thus behind the progress of Hungarian history.⁶¹

Notwithstanding contemporary political pressures, Malyusz's Ethnohistory School always remained on a strict and high scholarly level, and it had much to offer to interwar Hungarian historiography. Even so, however, the fact that it did become a relatively viable orientation in contemporary Hungarian historical studies was due less to its innate scholarly value, than to its basic tendency to transcend the artificially created political frontiers and thus serve as a scholarly instrument for the study of the ethnic and cultural development of the Hungarian nation without regard to the artificially established political barriers. Moreover, Ethnohistory's emphasis upon the role of the "national or ethnic spirit," as opposed to the role of the "universal spirit" of Szekfu's Geistesgeschichte School, also made it more soothing to the battered Hungarian national soul that needed such intellectual medicaments to regain its will to live. For this reason, the Ethnohistory School can also be viewed as a partial by-product of Trianon, or at least as an orientation that suited the nation's post-Trianon needs, and therefore was able to ride on the waves that were produced by the explosion that tore historic Hungary to five different parts.

At the beginning the reaction of historians was emotional and somewhat haphazard. Moreover, it was mixed with elements of disbelief, and a kind of uncertain conviction that the harsh terms of Trianon cannot possibly become lasting or permanent. Later, when the hope for a quick return to normalcy faded, historians calmed down and began to organize a more systematic attack against the post-Trianon realities. In line with their goals they redoubled their efforts in the study of certain historical questions (e.g. the settlement of the Carpathian Basin, the origins of the various nationalities in Hungary, etc.), because they felt that the undoing of Trianon depended to a large degree on the appropriate and correct marshaling of historical arguments. Although the inadequacy of their approach should have become rapidly evident, most of them retained their faith in historical arguments throughout the whole period. This was perhaps their most important shortcoming; or at least the shortcoming that preoccupied most of their energies without any real hope of success. Apparently, interwar Hungarian historians were so assured of the significance of historical arguments in deciding current events that they were unable to accept the fact that historical truth or past historical realities carry very little weight in the 20th century.

Nevertheless, interwar Hungarian historiography did register some improvements in a number of areas; and some of these can be attributed directly to Trianon. Not the least of these were Klebelsberg's activities that gave a meaningful impetus to Hungarian historical research, and did so on a high scholarly level. But of at least equal importance were some of the above-mentioned new orientations in Hungarian historical studies, all of which owed at least part of their origin and inspiration to the impact of Trianon upon the Hungarian mind. It should perhaps also be pointed out that by the late 1930s and early 1940s, many Hungarian historians were becoming more realistic about their nation's chances-or rather, lack of chances-for total revision. Moreover, a growing number of them were increasingly alienated by Hitlerite Germany and its heavy-handed involvement in Hungarian and Danubian politics. Thus,

driven also by the earlier clarion calls of some of the populist intellectuals, they began to turn more and more toward the idea of some sort of a compromise and cooperation with a number of their lesser neighbors. One of their dreams was partial revision within the context of a resurrected Danubian Confederation that was to have taken the place of the new defunct Habsburg state. This relatively healthy trend was halted only by World War II and by the rise of new national confrontations in the Danubian region. Underneath these confrontations, however, the work of more objective scholars and historians continued almost unabated.

Notes

1. Freeman's exact words were.' "History is past politics and politics are present history." Cf. The Encyclopedia Britannica, 11th ed. (1910), XI, 76-77.

2. This is most evident in current Romanian historiography and its emphasis upon the theory of Daco-Roman-Romanian continuity, which has become a national dogma enforced by the country's political regime. This is exemplified among others, by the recent official commemoration of the 2050th anniversary of the alleged foundation of the Romanian State that was in evidence also at the Fifteenth International Congress of Historical Sciences in Bucharest (August 10-17, 1980). For recent assessments on the scholarly value of this theory see M. Dinic, 'The Balkans," The Cambridge Medieval History, new ed. (Cambridge: The Cambridge University Press, 1966), VI, 319-565; Aldo Dami, La controverse de la continuite daco-roumaine. Reprinted from Humanitas Ethnica. Ethnos 5 (Wien-Stuttgart: W. Braumuller, 1967); Andre du Nay, The Early History of the Rumanian Language (Lake Bluff, Ill.: Jupiter Press, 1977).

3. See S. B. Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography (Boulder and New York: The East European Quarterly and Columbia University Press, 1976), pp. 32-33; Thomas L. Szendrey. The Ideological and Methodological Foundations of Hungarian Historiography, 1750-1970 (Ph.D. dissertation, St. John's University, Jamaica, New York, 1972). pp. 96-100; and Louis J. Lekai, "Historiography in Hungary, 1790-1848," Journal of Central European Affairs, XIV, 1 (April 1954), pp. 3-18.

4. Ferenc Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika. Szekfu, Steier, Thim es Miskolczy nemzetrol es allamrol [The Historian and Politics. Szekfu, Steier, Thim and Miskolczy on the Nature of the State and the Nation] (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1980), pp. 15-25. This chapter of Glatz's book had first appeared in a slightly altered form under the title: "Trianon es a magyar

tortenettudomany" [Trianon and Hungarian historical Sciences], Tortenelmi Szemle, XXI, 2 (1978), pp. 411-421.

5. On Gyula Szekfu and the Geistesgeschichte School see Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 62-101; idem, Hungarian Historiography and the Geistesgeschichte School (Cleveland: Arpad Academy, 1974); Jozsef Szigeti, A magyar szellemtortenet biralatahoz [A Critique of Hungarian Geistesgeschichte] (Budapest: Kossuth Konyvkiado, 1964): Borbala H. Lukacs, Szellemtortenet es irodalomtudomany [Geistesgeschichte and Literary Scholarship] (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1971).

6. Gyula Szekfu, Harom nemzedek. Egy hanyatlo kor tortenete [Three Generations: The History of a Declining Age] (Budapest: Elet Irodalmi es Nyomdai R. T., 1920), p. 4.

7. On this strange phenomenon in the interwar period see Gyula Szekfu, Harom nemzedek es ami utana kovetkezik [Three Generations and What Follows] (Budapest: Kiralyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1934). pp. 480-492; Joseph A. Kessler, Turanism and Pan-Turanism in Hungary, 1890-1945 (Ph.D. Dissertation; University of California, Berkeley, 1967); S. B. Vardy, The Ottoman Empire in European Historiography: A Re-Evaluation by Sandor Takats (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Studies in History, 1976), reprinted from Turkish Review, II, 9 (1972), pp. 1-16; and idem, The Image of the Turks in Twentieth-Century Hungarian Historiography (Pittsburgh: Duquesne University Studies in History, 1980), final version to appear in the proceedings of the Fourth International Congress of Southeast European Studies, August 13-18, 1979, Ankara, Turkey.

8. The two works in question are: Oszkar Jaszi, Magyar Kalvaria-magyar feltamadas (Hungarian Calvary-Hungarian Resurrection) (Vienna, 1920); and Hugo Ignotus, The Dismemberment of Hungary, Written Especially for American Readers (Berlin, 1920).

9. Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, pp. 17-18.

10. See for example Laszlo Buza, "A magyar szent korona igenyei a volt mellekorszagokra" [The Hungarian Holy Crown's Claim to the Former Associated Provinces], Budapesti Szemle, CLXVII (1916), pp. 397-429; Istvan Gyorffy. "Magyarorszag regi balkani birtokai" [Hungary's Former Balkan Possessions], Foldrajzi Kozlemenyek LV (1916), pp. 19-37; Stefan Hollosy, "Die Ungarn und die Geschichte Osteuropas," Kelet Nepe, nos. 7-8 (1916) pp. 63-67; Janos Karacsonyi's work discussed below.

11. Concerning Hungary's losses as a result of Trianon see C. A. Macartney, Hungary and Her Successors: The Treaty of Trianon and Its Consequences (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1937); and Ladislas Buday, Dismembered Hungary (London: Grant Richards Ltd., 1922).

12. David Angyal, A Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia valasza a cseh akademianak [The Reply of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences to the

Czech Academy] (Budapest: Hornyanszky, 1920), reprinted from Akademiai Ertesito.

13. On these historians see Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 34-42, 122-127, 139-144; idem, "Antal Hodinka," Hungarian Historical Review (Buenos Aires), III, 2 (June 1972), pp. 266-274; idem, "The Social and Ideological Make-up of Hungarian Historiography in the Age of Dualism, 1867-1918," Jahrbucher fur Geschichte Osteuropas, Neue Folge, XXIV, 2 (1976), pp. 208-217.

14. Jozsef Holub, La Hongrie. Canes et nations geographiques, historiques, ethnographique, economiques et intellectuelles (Budapest, 1918).

15. Pro Hungaria. Magyarorszag igazsaga. Szozat a bekekonferenciahoz (For Hungary. Hungary's Justice. An Appeal to the Peace Conference] (Pozsony, 1918).

16. Istvan Rugonfalvi Kiss, A Debreceni Magyar Tudomanyegyetem szozata a muvelt vilag egyetemeihez [An Appeal of the Hungarian University of Debrecen to the Universities of the Civilized World] (Debrecen, 1918).

17. On these early "Trianon pamphlets" see also Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, pp. 15-16.

18. Janos Karacsonyi, A magyar nemzet torteneti joga hazank teruletehez a Karpatoktol le az Adriaig [The Historical Right of the Hungarian Nation to the Territory of our Fatherland from the Carpathians down to the Adriatic Sea] (Nagyvarad: Szent Laszlo Nyomda, 1916).

19. Arnold Toynbee, The Nationality and the War (London, 1915). Toynbee's work was immediately reviewed by Albert Gardonyi in the Szazadok, LI, 1 (January 1917), pp. 77-79.

20. Toynbee may have been motivated by his intense Philhellenism and his consequent Turkophobia, which he projected over all of the Central Powers.

21. Quoted by Imre Lukinich in his review of Karacsonyi's work in the Szazadok, LI, 1 (January 1917), pp. 61-65. For a more recent, but much too critical treatment of Karacsonyi's work see Matyas Unger, A tortenelmi tudat alakulasa kozepiskolai tortenelemtankonyveinkben [The Development of Historical Consciousness in our History Textbooks for Secondary Schools] (Budapest: Tankonyvkiado, 1976), pp. 93-95.

22. John Karacsonyi, The Historical Right of the Hungarian Nation to its Territorial Integrity (Budapest: Hungarian Territorial Integrity League, 1920).

23. Janos Karacsonyi, Tortenelmi jogunk hazank teruleti epsegehez [Our Historical Right to Our Country's Territorial Integrity] (Budapest: Szent Istvan Tarsulat, 1921).

24. Ibid., pp. 4-6,

25. These include pamphlets by the Hungarian Territorial Integrity League, published in English, French, Italian and German, as well as an "East

European Problems" series, published simultaneously in London (Low, W. Dawson & Sons), New York (Steiger & Company) and Budapest (Ferdinand Pfeifer). For some of these publications see the bibliographies of the following two works: Count Teleki, The Evolution of Hungary and its Place in European History (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1923), pp. 245-312; La Hongrie dans les relations internationales (Budapest: Edition de l'Association Hongroise des Affaires Etrangeres pour la Societe des Nations, 1935), pp. 354-383.

26. Bela Ivanyi, Pro Hungaria Superiore. Felsomagyarorszagert [For Upper Hungary] (Debrecen: Debreceni Sz. Kir. Varos es a Tiszantuli Ref. Egyhazkerulet Konyvnyomda Vallalata, 1919). On Ivanyi see Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 192-193.

27. See for example Wilhelm Fraknoi, Die ungarische Regierung und die Entstehung des Weltkrieges (Wien, 1919); David Angyal, Magyarorszag felelossege a vilaghaboruert [Hungary's Responsibility for the World War] (Budapest, 1923); Eugene [Jeno] Horvath, Hungary and Serbia: The Fate of Southern Hungary (Budapest: Hungarian Territorial Integrity League, 1919); idem, Magyarorszag felelosege a haboruert [Hungary's Responsibility for the War] (Budapest, 1926); idem, A trianoni beke megalkotasa [The Formulation of the Peace Treaty of Trianon] (Budapest, 1924); Horvath's major summary of this whole problem, A magyar kerdes a XX. szazadban [The Hungarian Question in the 2Oth Century], 2 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, 1939). The two volumes are entitled respectively: Felelosseg a vilaghaboruert es a bekeszerzodesert [Responsibility for the World War and for the Peace Treaties], and A trianoni bekeszerzodes es a revizio utja [The Peace Treaty or Trianon and the Path Toward its Revision]. See also Horvath's debate with R. W. Seton-Watson concerning Transylvania: Transylvania and the History of the Rumanians: A Reply to Professor R. W. Seton-Watson (Budapest: Sarkany Printing Company, Ltd., 1935). On the above historians see Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 37-53, 139-140, 198-199; Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, pp. 162-168; Agnes R. Varkonyi, A pozitivista tortenetszemlelet a magyar tortenetirasban [The Positivist View of History in Hungarian Historiography], 2 vols. (Budapest: Akademiai Kiado, 1973), I, 217-245.

28. Henrik Marczali, A beke konyve. A mult tanulsaga [The Book of Peace. Lessons from the Past] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1920).

29. Ibid., pp. 190, 194. The reference is to Louis Eisenmann, Le compromis austro-hongrois de 1867, Etude sur le dualisme (Paris: Societe Nouvelle de Librarie et d'Edition, 1904), p. 555.

30. On Domanovszky and the Hungarian Kulturgeschichte School see S. B. Vardy "The Birth of the Hungarian Kulturgeschichte School," in Tractata altaica: Denis Sinor Sexagenario optime de rebus altaicis merito dedicata, eds. W. Heissig, I. R. Krueger, E. J. Oinas, E. Schutz (Wiesbaden: Otto Harrassowitz, 1976), pp. 675-693,

reprinted in Duquesne University Studies in History (Pittsburgh, 1976); idem, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 161-174; Ferenc Glatz, "Domanovszky Sandor helye a magyar tortenettudomanyban" [Sandor Domanovszky's Place in Hungarian Historical Sciences], Szazadok, CXII (1978), pp. 211-234.

31. Sandor Domanovszky, A magyar kerdes torteneti szempontbol tekintve [The Hungarian Questions from a Historical Perspective] (Budapest: Magyarorszag Teruleti Egysegenek Vedelmi Ligaja, 1920).

32. See also Imre Lukinich's review of Domanovszky's volume in the Szazadok, LV-LVI (1921-1922), pp. 100-10l.

33. Alexander Domanovszky, Die Geschichte Ungarns (Munchen-Leipzig, 1923). See also his critique of the methods of the Romanian historian Nicolas Iorga: La methode historique de M. Nicolas Iorga (A propos du compte rendu) (Budapest: Universite Royale Hongroise, 1938).

34. Balint Homan, A magyarsag megtelepulese [The Settlement of the Hungarians] (Budapest: Szabad Lyceum Kiadvanyai, 1920), reprinted in Homan's Magyar kozepkor [Hungarian Middle Ages] (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1938), pp. 111-127.

35. Balint Homan, A honfoglalo torzsek megtelepedese [The Settlement of the Conquering Tribes] (Budapest, 1912), reprinted in Homan's Magyar kozepkor, pp. 63-109.

36. Homan, Magyar kozepkor, p. 127. Homan also treated this question in a later study entitled A magyarok honfoglalasa es elhelyezkedese [The Conquest and the Settlement of the Hungarians] (Budapest: A Magyar Tudomanyos Akademia, 1923). reprinted in Homan's Magyar Kozepkor, pp. 129-189.

37. For a general assessment of Homan as a historian see Laszlo Toth, Homan Balint a tortenetiro [Balint Homan, the Historian] (Pecs: Dunantuli Pecsi Egyetemi Konyvkiado, 1939); Szendrey, The Ideological, pp. 319-323 338-445; Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 79-94.

38. The first Marxist scholar to reassess Klebelsberg's interwar role and to put him into a favorable light was Ferenc Glatz in his study "Historiography, Cultural Policy, and the Organization of Scholarship in Hungary in the 1920's," Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae. XVI (1970). pp. 273-293, which is a somewhat abbreviated version of his "Klebelsberg tudomanypolitikai programja es a magyar tortenettudomany" [Klebelsberg's Program on Scientific Policy and the Hungarian Historical Sciences], Szazadok, CIII (1969), pp. 1176-1200. See also Vardy, Modern Hungarian Historiography. pp. 50-61; Szendrey, The Ideological, pp. 307-309; and Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, pp. 20-2l.

39. For Klebelsberg's program proposals see his presidential speeches before the Hungarian Historical Association in the appropriate issues of the Szazadok. His most significant speeches between 1917 and 1926 were

reprinted in his Grof Klebelsberg Kuno beszedei, cikkei es torvenyjavaslatai, 1916-1926 [Count Kuno Klebelsberg's Speeches, Studies, and Parliamentary Bills, 1916-1926] (Budapest: Atheneaum, 1927), pp. 3-73

40. See Ivan Nagy, Becs es a magyar tudomanyossag [Vienna and Hungarian Scholarly Research] (Budapest, 1928). See also the Institute's yearbooks, which appeared under the title A Grof Klebelsberg Kuno Magyar Tortenetkutato Intezet Evkonyve [Yearbook of the Count Kuno Klebelsberg Hungarian Historical Research Institute], ed. David Angyal (1931-1935) and Gyula Miskolczy (1936-1941) (Budapest, 1931-1941).

41. On the Fontes Series see note 52.

42. On Klebelsberg's neo-nationalism see his own Neonacionalizmus (Budapest, 1928). See also Sandor Balogh, "A bethleni konszolidacio es a magyar neonacionalizmus" [The Bethlen Consolidation and Hungarian Neo-Nationalism], Tortenelmi Szemle, V (1962), pp. 426-448; Mihaly Mak, "A Magyar neonacionalizmus es terjesztesenek tobb modszerei az ellenforradalmi rendszer idejen" [The Chief Methods of the Propagation of Hungarian Neo-Nationalism in the Age of the Counterrevolutionary Regime], Pedagogiai Szemle, XIII (1963), pp. 441-4M; and Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 50-51.

43. For a list of these textbooks see Unger, A tortenelmi tudat, pp. 334-336.

44. On the influence of neo-nationalism in Hungarian history textbooks see ibid., pp. 87-196.

45. Gyula Szekfu, A magyar allam eletrajza [The Biography of the Hungarian State] (Budapest: Dick Mano Konyvkereskedese, 1917). See also its German version: Julius Szekfu, Der Staat Ungarn. Fine Geschichtsstudie (Stuttgart-Berlin: Deutsche Verlags-Anstalt, 1918).

46. Gyula Szekfu, A magyar allam eletrajza, 2nd ed. (Budapest: Dick Mano Konyvkereskedese, 1923), p. 222.

47. Ibid., pp. 204-205.

48. Balint Homan and Gyula Szekfu, Magyar tortenet [Hungarian History], 8 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Kiralyi Egyetemi Nyomda. 1928-1934).

49. See Vardy, Modern Hungarian Historiography, pp. 121-128.

50. Ibid., pp. 129-135.

51. The reference here is primarily to the "Sarlo" (Scythe) Movement in former Upper Hungary (Slovakia) and to the "Erdelyi Fiatalok" (Transylvanian Youth) Movement in Romania.

52. For a complete list of the Fontes Series and the related A magyar tortenettudomany kezikonyve [The Handbook of Hungarian Historical Sciences], ed. Balint Homan (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1923-1934); see Vardy, Modern Hungarian Historiography, pp. 305-309.

53. Gyula Szekfu, Iratok a magyar allamnyelv kerdesenek tortenetehez, 1790-1848 [Documents Concerning the History of the Question of Magyar

State Language, 1790-1848] (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1926).

54. Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, p. 21.

55. Gyula Miskolczy, A horvat kerdes tortenete es iromanyai a rendi allam koraban [The Croatian Question. Its History and Documents in the Age of the Feudal State] 2 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1927-1928); Jozsef Thim, A magyarorszagi 1848-49-iki szerb folkeles tortenete [The History of the Serbian Uprising in Hungary in 1848-1849] 3 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1930-1940); Lajos Steier, A tot nemzetisegi kerdes 1948-49-ben (The Slovak Nationality Question in 1848-1849] 2 vols. (Budapest: Magyar Tortenelmi Tarsulat, 1937). For a detailed analysis of these works and the views of their authors see Glatz, Tortenetiro es politika, pp. 26-86.

56. See Vardy, Modem Hungarian Historiography, pp. 55-58, 305-307.

57. See the works mentioned in note 2, as well as the references listed in respective bibliographies of these titles.

58. Studies on the Huns and on their real or alleged relationship to the Magyars abounded during the interwar period. One of the most scholarly compendiums is Attila es hunjai [Attila and his Huns], ed. Gyula Nemeth (Budapest: Magyar Szemle Tarsasag, 1940), which was co-authored by half a dozen top scholars, who summarized the generally accepted views on this question. For another significant work that puts much greater emphasis on Magyar-Hun relationship see Bela Szasz, A hunok tortenete. Attila nagykiraly [The History of the Huns. Attila, the Great King] (Budapest: Bartha Miklos Tarsasag, 1943). This huge volume was intended to be only the first of a projected four-volume work on the Huns and their descendants.

59. On Erdelyi see Vardy, Modern Hungarian Historiography, pp. 41-43; idem, "Hungarian Kulturgeschichte School," pp. 682-685; idem, "The Hungarian Economic History School," Journal of European Economic History, IV, 1 (Spring 1975), pp. 121-136. with particular attention to pp. 129-130. On Erdelyi's views concerning the origin of the Szekelys see his A tizenket legkritikusabb kerdes [The Twelve Most Critical Questions] (Kolozsvar: Szent Istvan Tarsulat, 1918); idem, A szekelyek tortenete [The History of the Szekelys] (Brasso: Erdelyi Naptar Kiadasa, 1921); and idem, "A szekelyeredetkerdes megoldasanak sarkpontjai" [Cornerstones of the Solution of the Origins of the Szekelys], Akademiai Ertesito, XXXIII (1922), pp. 205-214. The last study was in response to one of Balint Homan's studies, A szekelyek eredete [The Origins of the Szekelys] (Budapest: Szabad Lyceum Kiadvanyai. 1920-1921). which also appeared in German: Der Ursprung der Siebenburger Szekler (Berlin, 1922), reprinted from the Ungarische Jahrbucher. For Homan's response to Erdelyi's attack see Homan's "Szekely eredetkerdeshez" [Concerning the Origins of the Szekelys], Akademiai Ertesito, XXXIV (1923). pp. 405-408, reprinted in Homan, Magyar kozepkor, pp. 61-62.

60. On these historical schools see Vardy, Modern Hungarian Historiography, pp. 62-94, 102-120, 161-174, 196-204.

61. Ibid., pp. 102-120; Vardy, "A magyar nepisegtortenet atyja, a nyolcvaneves Malyusz Elemer" [The Father of Hungarian Ethnohistory School, the Eighty Year Old Elemer Malyusz], Uj Latohatar, XXIX, 3 (1978), pp. 232-237. For a list of Malyusz's publications see Album Elemer Malyusz (Burxelles: Les Editions de la Librarie Encyclopedique, 1976), pp. x111-xx1; Istvan Soos, "Malyusz Elemer muveinek bibliografiaja" [A List of Elemer Malyusz's Works], Tortenelmi Szemle, XXI, 3-4 (1978), pp. 609-621.

A Case Study on Trianon