Tanulmányok Erdély történetérol by István RáczReview by: Philip LongworthThe Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. 67, No. 3 (Jul., 1989), pp. 485-486Published by: the Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School ofSlavonic and East European StudiesStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4210064 .

Accessed: 16/06/2014 10:08

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

.

Modern Humanities Research Association and University College London, School of Slavonic and EastEuropean Studies are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Slavonic andEast European Review.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:08:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

REVIEWS 485

From the point of view of the general reader, the book might seem to focus rather too much on political history, at the expense of social, economic, cultural and intellectual history, despite the avowed intention of the author as stated in his preface. This commitment is adhered to in chapter 2 on the period I867-I9I8, where separate sections are devoted to social structure and economic development, ethnic relations and Magyar nationalism, religion, education, and cultural life. But the commitment appears to wane as the book proceeds. Social and economic issues are by no means dropped, but are woven in as subordinate elements in a mainly politically orientated narrative. This reviewer would have welcomed more extended thematic and/or conceptual discussion of specific topics such as the social and economic conditions of the peasantry; peasant culture; the 'populist' movement and the 'village writers'; the Jews; intellectual life in the interwar period; the conceptual bases of the reforms of the Ka'dar era. All these topics are referred to in the book, but some are covered sporadically, rather than as important discrete issues, while others are merely mentioned in passing. It is not only that concentration on the level of 'high politics' produces a sorry tale of repeated errors and failures on the part of Hungarian politicians, which is rather dry reading for the general audience at which the book is aimed and does not address those puzzles about everyday life, social mores, and national idiosyncracies which are likely to intrigue the intelligent and inquisitive visitor to Hungary. It also fails to illuminate the sources of that 'astonishing capacity for regeneration' to which Professor Hoensch alludes in his prefatory remark on the pattern of Hungarian history.

Department of Politics JUDY BATT

University of Leicester

Racz, Istvain (ed.). Tanulmanyok Erdely tbrte'neterol. Csokonai kiad6, Debrecen, I988. 312 pp.

IN October I987 a conference was held in Debrecen to discuss the new Hungarian History of Transylvania (Erdely tortenete, 3 vols, Budapest I986 and subsequent editions reviewed in SEER, 66, I988, PP. 482-85). The volume considered here records the well publicized proceedings (with a generous precis in English). It is a celebration both of the History itself and of the climate which allowed its publication. Its interest is therefore as much political as historical.

Two principles received general acceptance: rejection both of the old, chauvinist historiography and of the use of history to establish territorial claims. But while these principles set political bounds for Hungarian his- torians, they also justify criticism of the propagandist strain in 'official' Rumanian accounts of Transylvanian history. The alacrity with which many participants grasp this opportunity is understandable and many of their strictures carry weight, though some are led into nationalistic assertiveness. There are calls for teaching the geography of imperial Hungary and for a survey of 'Hungarian historical buildings' outside present borders; while Mihaly Korom declares that 'tyrannous elimination of nat'ional minorities. . . cannot be the subject of scholarly discussion' (pp. I67-80; 288-9 I).

17

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:08:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

486 THE SLAVONIC REVIEW

Nevertheless a scholarly tone prevails through most of the proceedings as reported, and some forthright criticisms are levelled at the History itself: for example, its failure to explain the ethno-genesis of Transylvania's peoples, its inadequate coverage of some economic, social and political aspects in the early modern period, and of international relations in the nineteenth century. There are also some new contributions to the historical literature (e.g. on expatriate university students, Freemasonry between the Wars, and Hungarian- Rumanian negotiations in I945), and not a little disagreement. Istvan Orosz (pp. 54-59; 265-67) dares to suggest that Hungarian historians who reject the idea of Daco-Rumanian continuity in Transylvania might be more convincing were they able to demonstrate that the Rumanians emerged elsewhere. This criticism and some others were ill received - though not by Bela K6pecsi, the History's general editor and Minister of Education who, in his concluding address, tries to relieve the many tensions expressed in the proceedings tensions between scholarship and emotional commitment, between history and polemic, between truth and public policy.

K6pecsi seeks the free pursuit of historical truth without polemic; he recognizes the existence of 'a national problem' but hopes that national consciousness will be informed by 'a rationalistic, realistic kind of patriotism which is ready to face the facts' (pp. 25 I-56; 303-o8). It will be interesting to see if his hopes will be justified in the work of the Rumanian-Hungarian Historical Commission if (at long last) it should proceed. But historical understanding will be difficult since Rumanians and Hungarians cannot meet on equal terms. One party is impoverished and still engaged in nation- building; the other, richer and nationally homogeneous, confronts different problems, not least coping with the new atmosphere of'frankness'. They share the problem of breaking free from 'the suffocating power of the past', but history has a popular function in both countries and exchange, however well intentioned, may only serve to let off steam. Department of History PHILIP LONGWORTH McGill University

Bacskai, Vera (ed.) Burgertum und burgerliche Entwicklung in Mittel- und Osteuropa. Volumes I and 2. Studia Historiae Europae Medio-Orientalis. Karl Marx Universitat fur Wirtschaftswissenschaften, Budapest, I986. vi + 486 and 487-9I6 pp. Notes. Tables.

THE Research Centre for the Social History of Central and Eastern Europe, established in I983, published this collection of fourteen essays and an introduction as its first piece of collaborative work. Based in Hungary, the centre was formed in order to fill a perceived void in social history in central Europe. Admittedly still in the formative stage in methodology and analysis, this group of social historians chose to focus their first publication on urban issues, despite the relative underdevelopment of urban life in Central Europe, and the fact that much of the urban population, certainly the urban aristo- cracy, differed ethnically from the people of the countryside. It is therefore interesting that the common language used by these scholars is German (even though only two of the essays were originally penned in that language).

This content downloaded from 185.44.78.129 on Mon, 16 Jun 2014 10:08:59 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions