² Kann, Robert A., The Multinational Empire (2 vols., New York: Columbia University Press, 1950), Vol. I, p. 142Google Scholar; Hans, Kohn, Pan-Slavism (Rev'd. ed., New York: Random House, Vintage Paperback, 1960), pp. 80 and 190.Google Scholar

³ For the term “centrifugal forces,” see Oscar, Jászi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, Ill.: University of Chicago Press, 1929), pp.215–267.Google Scholar

⁴ Hans, Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism (New York: Macmillan Paperback, 1961), p. 527Google Scholar. See also Jászi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, pp. 298–301. For the theory of the Crown of St. Stephen, see Charles, d'Eszláry, Histoire des institutions publigues hongroises (2 vols., Paris: Librairie Marcel Riviére et Cie, 1963), Vol. II, pp.7–15.Google Scholar

⁵ “De institutione morum ad Emericum Ducem,” in Henrik, Marczali (ed.), A magyar történet kútföinek kézikönyve— Enchiridion fontium historiae Hungarorum (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1901), p. 66.Google Scholar

⁶ Gyula, Kornis, A magyar politika hösei [Heroes of Hungarian Politics] (Budapest: Franklin, 1940), pp. 8–11Google Scholar; Kosáry, Dominic G., A History of Hungary (Cleveland: The Benjamin Franklin Bibliophile Society, 1941), pp. 428–429Google Scholar; Gyula, Szekfű, A magyar állam életrajza (Budapest: Dick Manó, n. d.), pp. 30–31.Google Scholar

⁷ See, for instance, the relevant articles in the Golden Bull of 1222 and in the laws enacted under Andrew III in Marczali, Enchiridion, pp. 138, 141, and 187, respectively.

⁸ See also the “Planctus destructions regni Ungariae per Tartaros,” published by Henry Marczali in Neues Archiv der Gesellschaft für ältere deutsche Geschichtskunde, Vol. II (1877), pp. 616–626. The first official document stressing that Hungary is an integral part of Europe is a letter of King Béla IV to Pope Innocent IV in November, 1253. Marczali, Enchiridion, pp. 161–166. For a propagandistic treatment containing some interesting data, see Lajos, Elekes, The Hungarian Bastion and the Rumanian Gates of Europe (Budapest, 1940).Google Scholar

⁹ Cited in Kosary, A History of Hungary, p. 117. See also László Makkai, “A Hajdúk ‘Nemzetités ‘Függetlenségi’ ideólógiája” [The “National” and “Independence” Ideology of Heyducks], Tortenelmi Szemle, Vol. VI, No. 1 (1963), pp. 23–25.

¹⁰ Translated by the author. The original reads as follows:

Ne higgy, magyar, a németnek,

Akármivel hitegetnek,

Mert ha ád is nagy levelet,

Mint a kerek köpenyeged,

S pecsétet üt olyat rája,

Mint a holdnak karimája,

Nincsen abban semmi virtus,

Verje meg a Jézus Krisztus.

¹¹ Recent Marxian views on Hungarian “feudal” or “estates nationalism” and questions relevant to it can be found in Várkonyi, Agnes R., “A nemzet, a haza fogalma a török harcok és a Habsburg-ellenes küzdelmek idején, 1526–1711” [The Concept of the Nation and Fatherland at the Time of the Struggles against the Turks and Habsburgs], in A magyar nacionalizmus kialakulása és története [The Formation and History of Magyar Nationalism] (Budapest: Kossuth kiadZó, 1964), pp. 27–78Google Scholar; Erik, Molnár, “Ideológiai kérdések a feudalizmusban. A nemzeti kérdéshez” [Problems of Ideology in the Feudal Period; the Nationality Question], Történelmi Szemle, Vol. IV, No. 3 (1961), pp. 261–278Google Scholar; and Pál Zsigmond, Pach, “A ‘haza’ fogalma az osztálytársadalmakban (Hozzászó1ás Molnár Erik: Ideológiai kérdések a feudalizmusban c. tanulmányához),” [The Concept of “Fatherland” in the Class Societies. On E. Molnár's Study of Problems of Ideology in the Feudal Period], Századok, Vol. XCVI, No. 1–2 (1962), pp. 393–399Google Scholar. Also see the papers read at a meeting held under the auspices of the Historical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in June, 1962, which have been published under the title “Nemzet, haza, honvédelem a parasztság és a nem nemesi katonáskodó réteg gondolkodásában (XV-XVIII. század)” [The Concepts of Nation, Fatherland, and National Defense in the Thinking of the Peasantry and the Non-Noble Military Strata of the XV-XVIII Centuries], in Törté-nelmi Szemle, Vol. VI, No. 1 (1963), pp. 1–101.Google Scholar

¹² For the role of Protestantism in Hungarian national life, see Macartney, C. A., Hungary (London: E. Benn, 1934), pp. 149–151Google Scholar; and Mihály, Bucsay, Geschichte des Protestantismus in Ungarn (Stuttgart: Evangelisches Verlagswerk, 1959).Google Scholar

¹³ Metternich to Ficquelmont, April 2, 1837, in Erzsébet, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége [The Habsburg-Romanov Alliance] (Budapest: Akadéiniai kiadó, 1961), p. 188Google Scholar; police reports of January 27 and April 12, 1839, and August 27 and September 8, 1840, in László, Bártfai-Szabó (ed.), Adatok gróf Széchenyi Istvén és kora történetéhez, 1808–1860 [Contributions to the History of Count Stephen Széchenyi and His Age] (2 vols., Budapest, 1943), Vol. I, pp. 331–332, 341–342, and 361–363Google Scholar. See also George, Bárány, “The Hungarian Diet of 1839–40 and the Fate of Széihenyi's Middle Course,” Slavic Review, Vol. XXII, No. 2 (June, 1963), p. 296.Google Scholar

¹⁴ Domokos, Kosáry, “A Pesti Hírlap nacionalizmusa, 1841–1844” [The Nationalism of Pesti Hírlap], Századok, Vol. LXXVII (1943), p. 392Google Scholar. See also Jászi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, p. 309.

¹⁵ Although the overwhelming majority of the Hungarian nobility was Magyar, the line between Magyar and non-Magyar was not sharply drawn. The powerful Hunyadi family in the fifteenth century was of Rumanian origin. In the sixteenth century the Zrinyis were Croats, and half of Kossuth's kinship was Slovak. Royal favor and intermarriage, economic and political advantages, the medieval Hungarian constitution's indifference toward nationality, and the permanent immigration of privileged foreigners into the country made for natural assimilation or “Magyarization.” Nevertheless, Hungarian historians strongly emphasize the existence of a reverse trend of “de-Magyarization” since Mohács, the latter process being strengthened by the alien dynasty, repeated foreign invasions, the repopulation of the country with non-Magyar elements, and the increasing impoverishment and social destitution of large segments of the nobility. According to the calculation of Elek, Fenyes in his Magyarorszdg atatisztikája [The Statistics of Hungary] (3 vols., Pest: Trattner-Károlyi, 1842), Vol. I, pp. 64 and 118Google Scholar, out of a total population of 11,187,288 (without Transylvania) in 1840, 544,372 persons belonged to the nobility. The latter figure included “about 58,000 Slavs, [and] 21,666 Germans and Rumanians, thus leaving 464,705 Magyar speaking nobles.”

¹⁶ For the general background see Georges, Weill, L'iyeil des nationalités et le mouvement libéral. Vol. XV of Peuplea et Civilisations, edited by Louis, Halphen and Philippe, Sagnac (Paris: Presses Universitaires, 1930).Google Scholar

¹⁷ For the national pride of the Hungarian peasants and “sandal” nobility, see the remarks made by a French writer who visited Hungary in 1846, Hippolyte, Desprez, in his “La Hongrie et le mouvement magyare,” Revue des deux mondes, December 15, 1847, pp. 1071–1072.Google Scholar

¹⁸ For details, see Henry, Marczali's Hungary in the Eighteenth Century (Cambridge: University Press, 1910)Google Scholar. The rather informative third chapter (pp. 196–246) which deals with nationality and nationalism has to be read very critically because of the author's one-sided interpretation of “the peaceful and gradual process of Magyarization.”

¹⁹ The term has been used by ProfessorRothenberg, Gunther E.. See his The Austrian Military Border in Croatia, 1522–1747 (Urbana, Ill.: University of Illinois Press, 1960), p. 84Google Scholar.

²⁰ For details and bibliography, see Julius, Miskolczy, Ungarn in der Habsburger-Monarchie (Vienna: Herold Verlag, 1959), pp. 20–33, 63–65, and 71–79Google Scholar. For Kossuth, see Domokos, Kosary, Kossuth és a Védegylet. A magyar nacionalizmus történetéhez [Kossuth and the Protective Union. Contribution to the History of Magyar Nationalism] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1942)Google Scholar. For the problems involved, see especially Seton-Watson, R. W., “Metternich and Internal Austrian Policy—II,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XVIII, No. 52 (July, 1939), pp. 137–139Google Scholar.

²¹ Friedrich, Walter, “Die Wiener Sudostpolitik im Spiegel der Geschichte der zentralen Verwaltung,” in Friedrich, Walter and Harold, Steinacker (eds.), Die Nationalitätenfrage im alten Ungarn und die Südostpolitik Wiens (Munich: Oldenbourg, 1959), pp. 20–22Google Scholar.

²² Ibid., pp. 9–19 and 23–27. As justification for the reversal of the “administrative dualism” begun under Joseph II and resumed in the Compromise of 1867, Prince Kaunitz suggested in 1791: “Je sichtbarer und bedenklicher die Absicht ist, die man heget, aus Hungarn, Siebenbürgen und der illyrischen Nation eine vim unitam zu machen, desto räthlicher und nothwendiger wird das Principium divide et impera.” Ibid., p. 23. See also Friedrich, Walter's Die österreichische Zentralverwaltung. Vol. I, Pt. 1, of Veröffentlichungen der Kommission für neuere Geschichte Österreichs, No. 35 (Vienna: Adolf Holzhausens Nachfolger, 1950), p. 82Google Scholar. For the incipient “administrative dualism” in the empire, see Ibid., pp. 16–23 and 65. For the reversal of Joseph II's policy, see Ernst, Wangermann, From Joseph II to the Jacobin Trials (London: Oxford University Press, 1959), p. 87Google Scholar.

²³ Francis is reported to have described his peoples to the French Ambassador in these words: “Chacun garde son voisin. Us ne se comprennent pas, ils se détestent. De leur antipathies naît l'ordre, et de leur haine réciproque la paix généerate.” As quoted in Paul, Henry, “Le problèems des nationalités,” L'Europe du XlX^e et du XXé siècle, edited by Beloff, M., Renouvin, P., Schnabel, F., AND Valsecchi, F. (Milan: Mareorati, 1959), pp. 175–176Google Scholar.

²⁴ Marczali, Enchiridion, pp. 765–766.

²⁵ Bálint, Hóman and Gyula, Szekffü, Magyar Töortinénet [Hungarian History] (2nd ed., 5 vols., Budapest: Kir. Magy. Egyetemi Ny., 1935–1936), Vol. V, pp. 56–57 and 73–74Google Scholar.

²⁶ It has rightly been pointed out that “Magyar nationalism was not the monopoly of the magnates and gentry,” and that the wave of national enthusiasm that swept Hungary during the last years of Joseph II's life went well beyond the closed ranks of the privileged classes. Soon, however, political initiative again passed into the hands of the estates, and the “Fourth Estate relapsed into a disillusioned inactivity.” Wangermann, From Joseph II to the Jacobin Trials, pp. 3–4, 34–35, and 52–57. For the reform movement of the 1790's, see Eleme'r, Máilyusz, “A reformkor nemzedeice” [Generation of the Reform Age], Szdzadok, Vol. LVI (1923), especially pp. 19–28 and 36–39Google Scholar.

²⁷ For the Martinovics conspiracy, see Kalman, Benda (ed.), A magyar jakobinus mozgalom iratai [Documents on the Hungarian Jacobin Movement]. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (3 vols., Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1952–1957)Google Scholar; and Wansrermann, From Joseph II to the Jacobin Trials, especially pp. 71, 77, 86–88, 103, 138–139, 153, 156, 173–175, and 179–183. For the rejection of the traditional concept of the Magyar “political nation” by Martinovics, see Endre, Arató, A nemzetisigó kérdes töorténete Magyarországon—1790–1848 [History of the Nationality Question in Hungary] (2 vols., Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1960), Vol. I, pp. 63–67Google Scholar.

²⁸ See the instructions given by Pest County to its deputies to the diet of 1847, in Istváan, Barta (ed.), Kossuth Lajos az utolaó rendi orazággyűlésen, 1847–48 [Louis Kossuth at the Last Feudal Diet of 1847–481. Vol. XI of Kossuth Lajos Ősszes Munkái. In Fontea Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1951), especially pp. 171–174Google Scholar. See also Kossuth's speech in the diet on November 22, 1847, Ibid., pp. 315–321 and 325–328.

²⁹ Hugh, Seton-Watson, “‘Intelligentsia’ und Nationalismus in Osteuropa, 1848–1918,” Hiatorische Zeitachrift, Vol. CXCV, No. 2 (October, 1962), pp. 335–336 and 339–340Google Scholar.

³⁰ The pertinent documentation is available in Gyula, Szekffű (ed.), Iratok a magyar államnyelv kérdésének tórténetéhez 1790–1848 [Documents concerning the History of the Magyar Idiom as a State Language]. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (Budapest: Magyar Tórténelmi Társulat, 1926)Google Scholar. For a critique of the shortcomings of Szekfű's collection, see Endre Arató, A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarorazágon, Vol. I, pp. 310–311.

³¹ For literary trends in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, see Cushing, G. F., “The Birth of National Literature in Hungary,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XXXVIII, No. 91 (June, 1960), pp. 459–475Google Scholar. For the Magyar cultural renascence in general, see the introductory chapter of Mihá, Horvá, Huszonöt év Magyaror-szág történelméböl [Twenty-Five Years of the History of Hungary] (3rd ed., 3 vols., Budapest: Ráth M., 1886)Google Scholar, which is still the most informative study of Hungarian history during this period.

³² Gyula, Farkas, A “Fiatal Magyarország” kora [The Era of “Young Hungary”] (Budapest: Magyar Szemle, 1932), pp. 8–11Google Scholar; Gyula, Farkas, A magyar romantika [The Era of Magyar Romanticism] (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1930)Google Scholar.

³³ As cited in the introduction to Cushing, G. F., Hungarian Prose and Verse (London: Athlone Press, 1956), p. xivGoogle Scholar.

³⁴ Frederick, Riedl, A History of Hungarian Literature (New York: Appleton, 1906), pp.95–97Google Scholar; Gyula, Kornis, A magyar művelődés eszményei [Hungarian Cultural Ideals] (2 vols., Budapest: Magyar Kir. Egyetemi Ny., 1927), Vol. II, pp. 84–88Google Scholar.

³⁵ Da sind Sie [i. e., the Magyars] jetzt unter Slawen, Deutschen, Wlachen und andern Völkern der geringere Theil der Landeseinwohner, und nach Jahrhunderten wird man vielleicht ihre Sprache kaum finden.” Herder, Johann Gottfried, Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Mensehheit. Pt. IV of Herders Werke, edited by Eugen, Kühnsmann (Stuttgart, n. d.), pp. 660–661Google Scholar. Herder's subsequent more optimistic remarks regarding the development of the Magyar language and literature went unheeded in Hungary. Tibor, Joó, A magyar nemzeteszme [The Magyar National Idea] (Budapest: Franklin, n. d. [1939]), p. 106Google Scholar.

³⁶ Harold Steinacker believes that exaggerated Magyar nationalism stemmed directly from this “panicky feeling of decline” (panisches Untergangsgefühl). See his “Das Wesen des madjarischen Nationalismus,” in Walter and Steinacker, Die Nationalitätenfrage im alten Ungarn, pp. 56–57. Steinacker's approach represents some progress compared to an earlier work, “Österreich-Ungarn und Osteuropa,” Historische Zeitschrift, Vol. CXXVIII (1923), pp.377–414Google Scholar. Unfortunately, the latter article, which is marred by racial thinking and a German superiority complex (note, for instance, pp. 390–391, 402–403, 405, and 410–411), is still regarded as basic by Hugo Hantsch. See his Die Nationalitátenfrage im alten Österreich (Vienna: Herold Verlag, 1953), p. 117, n. 48Google Scholar.

³⁷ For Herder, see Kohn, The Idea of Nationalism, pp. 428–451.

³⁸ Riedl, Hungarian Literature, pp. 100–101.

³⁹ See Cushing's, G. P. excellent article, “Problems of Hungarian Literary Criticism,” The Slavonic and East European Review, Vol. XL, No. 95 (June, 1962), pp. 341–355Google Scholar. For Köolcsey's efforts to reconcile the concept of cosmopolitanism and patriotism, see Kornis, A magyar műve-Iődés eszményei, Vol. II, pp. 287–288.

⁴⁰ De hiremet nemcsak keresem pennámmal, Hanem rettenetes bajvívó szablyámmal.From the “Peroration” of Obsidio Sigetiana (Szigeti Veszedelem) by Count Nicholas Zrinyi (1618–1664).

⁴¹ See, for instance, J0ó, A magyar nemzeteszme, p. 119.

⁴² See Ibid., pp. 103–112.

⁴³ Kosáry, “A Pesti Hírlap nacionalizmusa,” p. 377.

⁴⁴ For examples, see, for instance, Joó, A magyar nemzeteszme, pp. 111 114, 120–121, and 134; Szekfű, J., Etat et nation (Paris, 1945), p. 195Google Scholar; and Hóman and Szekffű, Magyar történet, Vol. V, pp. 365–367.

⁴⁵ Arató, E., “Die verschiedenen Formen der nationalen Unterdruckung in Osteuropa und die Madjarisierung in der ersten Hälfte des 19. Jahrhunderts,” Studien zur Geachichte der Österreichisch-Ungarischen Monarchie (Budapest: Akadémiai kiadó, 1961), pp. 423–425Google Scholar. In a review of the above work, Kann, Robert A. has written: “In this volume imperial Austria is no longer the chief villain of nineteenth-century political and national oppression. A more important and truly tragic reflection reveals that only the entrenchment of Communist tyranny has put an end to the frequent smug self-satisfaction of official Magyar historiography in the treatment of the nationality question in royal Hungary.” The American Historical Review, Vol. LXVII, No. 2 (January, 1962), p. 409Google Scholar.

⁴⁶ Doc. Nos. 36–37, Szekffű, Iratok a magyar államnyelv kérdésének történetéhez, pp. 276–277.

⁴⁷ Arató, “Die verschiedenen Formen der nationalen Unterdrückung,” pp. 426–430.

⁴⁸ For further examples see Ludwig, Spohr, Die geiatigen Grundlagen des Nationalismus in Ungarn (Vienna: W. de Gruyter, 1936), pp. 111–112Google Scholar.

⁴⁹ For Széchenyi, see the bibliographical references in my two articles, “The Széchenyi Problem,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 3 (October, 1960), pp.249–269Google Scholar; and “The Hungarian Diet of 1839–40 and the Fate of Széchenyi's Middle Course,” The Slavic Review, Vol. XXII, No. 2 (June, 1963), pp. 285–303Google Scholar.

⁵⁰ See the entry of September 21,1825, in his diary in which he ridiculed those who try to uphold the injustice done by the privileged 400,000 to the “ten million not even mentioned in the diet.” Gyula, Viszota (ed.), Gr. Széchenyi István naplói [Count Stephen Széchenyi's Diaries]. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (6 vols., Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1925–1939), Vol. II, p. 609Google Scholar. In the same entry, Szé-chenyi admits that the situation of the Magyar peasant is better than that of his brethren in other parts of the Austrian empire—a view which was shared by many a contemporary observer and modern historian. See Fényes, , Magyarország statisztikdja, Vol. II, pp.108–110Google Scholar; Emile, Langsdorff, “La Hongrie—La Diéte et les Réformes sociales,” Revue des deux mondes, Vol. XXIV (December 16, 1848), pp.968–974Google Scholar; Daniel, Irányi and Chassin, C. L., Histoire politique de la révolution de Hongrie, 1847–1849 (2 vols., Paris: Paguerre, 1859–1860), Vol. I, p. 40Google Scholar; Jerome, Blum, Noble Landowners and Agriculture in Austria, 1815–1848: A Study in the Origins of the Peasant Emancipation of 1848. Ser. LXV, No. 2 of The Johns Hopkins University Studies in Historical and Political Science (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins Press, 1948)Google Scholar; István, Hajnal, “Az osztálytársadalom” [Class Society], in Gyula, Miskolczy (ed.), Az uj Magyarország [New Hungary]. Vol. V of Magyar művelődéstörténet [Hungarian Cultural History], edited by Séndor, Domanovszky et al. (Budapest, n. d.), p. 186Google Scholar; Zoltán Trócsányi, “Uj é1etformák” [New Ways of Life], in Ibid., pp. 260–261. Szekfű, however, maintains that except for the eighteenth century, the lot of the serfs had been deteriorating ever since the time of Verbficzi. According to him, the period of “feudal nationalism” immediately preceding the Széchenyi era was the most hopeless in the process of this decline. Hóman, and Szekfű, , Magyar Történet, Vol. V, p. 240Google Scholar.

⁵¹ Stadium. Irta Gróf Széchenyi István 1831-ben. Kiadta Z 1833-ban [Stage. Written by Count Stephen Széchenyi in 1831. Published by in 18331. 2nd ed. in Vol. II, pp. 1–260, of Gróf Széchenyi István Munkái [Count Stephen Séechenyi's Works], edited by Kálman, Szily (2nd ed., 2 vols., Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 1904–1906), p. 47Google Scholar. All my citations from Stadium are from this edition.

⁵² István, Barta (ed.), Széchenyi István válogatott irásai [Stephen Széchenyi's Selected Writings] (Budapest, 1959), p. 183Google Scholar.

⁵³ See his Hitel, edited by Béla, Iványi-Grünwald. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1930), pp. 279–280, 328, 351, 360–363, 430, 467, and 490–491Google Scholar.

⁵⁴ Ibid., p. 400.

⁵⁵ Entry of October 10, 1832, Viszota, , Gr. Széchenyi István naplói, Vol. IV, p. 132Google Scholar.

⁵⁶ Arató, , A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarorszdgon, Vol. II, p. 56Google Scholar. See also Kosary, D., “Széchenyi in Recent Western Literature,” Acta Hiatorica, Vol. IX, No. 1–2 (1963), pp. 275–278Google Scholar.

⁵⁷ For the text of the law, see Szekfű, Iratok a magyar államnyelv kérdésének történetéhez, pp. 612–613. For an evaluation of the law in English, see Wagner, Francis S., “Szféchenyi and the Nationality Problem in the Habsburg Empire,” Journal of Central European Affairs, Vol. XX, No. 3 (October, 1960), pp.307–308 and n. 74Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ See, for instance, Szekfű's interpretation of SéSchenyi's ideas in Hóman, and Szekű, , Magyar Történet, Vol. V, pp. 260–261 and 272–273Google Scholar. For a Marxist critique of Szekfű's extremely influential and in many ways misleading portrait of Széchenyi, see Gyula, Mérei, “Szekfű Gyula történetszemlelétének birálatához” [On the Critique of Gyula Szekfű's Interpretation of History], Századok, Vol. XCIV, Nos. 1–3 (1960), pp.216–220Google Scholar.

⁵⁹ Quoted in Gyula, Miskolczy, A horvát kéerdés története és irományai a rendi állam korában [History and Documents of the Croatian Question in the Period of the Feudal State]. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (2 vols., Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1927–1928), Vol. I, p. 351Google Scholar.

⁶⁰ Arató, , A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarorszdgon, Vol. I, pp. 27–28, 190, 245–246, and 252Google Scholar.

⁶¹ Entry of May 25, 1833, Viszota, , Gr. Széchenyi István naplói, Vol. IV, p. 380Google Scholar.

⁶² For details and further references, see Wagner's “Széchenyi and the Nationality Problem,” pp. 289–311. For Szechenyi's popularity among the non-Magyars, see František, Palacky's opinion as cited in René Saint Taillandier, “Homines d'Etat de la Hongrie. Le comte Stephan Séchenyi,” Revue des deux mondes, Vol. LXX (August 1, 1867), pp. 653–654Google Scholar; and Arató, , A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarországon, Vol. II, pp. 51–52 and 236–237Google Scholar.

⁶³ For the most important polemical literature centering around the Kelet Népe (including thirty-seven leading articles in Pesti Hírlap), Széchenyi's work, Kossuth's answer, and the pamphlets by Joseph Eötvös, Aurel Dessewffy, and Michael Vörösmarty, see Zoltán, Ferenczi (ed.), Gr. Széchenyi István. A kelet népe. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1925)Google Scholar.

⁶⁴ Ferenczi, Gr. Széhenyi István. A kelet népe, pp. 260–265, 272–274, 281, 299–301, 316, 319–320, 338–339, 352, 360–361, 368, 376–390, 400, and 403.

⁶⁵ Ibid., pp. 238, 240–241, 245–253, 374–376, 380–381, 386–388, and 397–398.

⁶⁶ Ibid., p. 403. See also pp. 220, 236, and 272.

⁶⁷ Ibid., p. 219. The italics are Széchenyi's.

⁶⁸ For Paul Nagy, see Szekfü, Iratok a magyar államnyelv kérdésének történetéhez, pp. 123–124, 130, 326–328, and 330–331; and Horváth, , Huezonöt év Magyarország történelméböl, Vol. I, p. 177Google Scholar.

⁶⁹ Ferenczi, Gr. Széchenyi István. A kelet népe, p. 215.

⁷⁰ Cited in Hans, Kohn, The Twentieth Century (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. 15Google Scholar.

⁷¹ X.Y.Z. [Aurel Dessewffy], “Pesti Hírlap és Kelet Népe közti vitály” [The Debate between íPesti Hírlap and People of the Orient], in Ferenczi, Gr. Széchenyi István. A kelet népe, pp. 90–91 and 590–592.

⁷² Those who wish to read about the debates in detail should consult Gyula, Viszota (ed.), Gr. Széchenyi István írói és hírlapírói vitája Kossuth Lajossal [Count Stephen Széchenyi's Literary and Journalistic Debate with Louis Kossuth. In Fontes Historiae Hungaricae Aevi Recentioris (2 pts., Budapest: Magyar Történelmi Társulat, 1927–1930)Google Scholar; and Barta, Kossuth Lajos az utolsó rendi országgülesen.

⁷³ See my “The Fate of Széchenyi's Middle Course,” pp. 287–292; and Lóránt, Tilkovszky, “Ismeretlen Széchenyi-levelek. Üabb adatok Széchenyi politikai pályája 1831–1848 közti szakaszának értékeléséhez” [Unknown Széchenyi Letters. New Contributions to the Evaluation of the 1831–1848 Period of Széchenyi's Political Career], Valóság, Vol. II, No. 1 (1959), pp. 92–97.Google Scholar

⁷⁴ See his “Transylvania and the Union—Unity for the Magyar,” in No. 30 (April 14, 1841) of Pesti Hírlap, as reprinted in Ferenczi, Gr. Széchenyi István. A kelet népe, pp. 183–185.

⁷⁵ Reply to an article in the Augsburger Allgemeine Zeitung printed in Pesti Hírlap in 1842, as cited in Kosáry, “A Pesti Hírlap nacionalizmusa,” p. 375.

⁷⁶ Miklós, Asztalos, Wesselényi Miklós, az elsö nemzetiségi politikus [Nicholas Wesselényi, the First Politician aware of the Nationality Question] (Pécs, 1927), pp. 6 and 19Google Scholar.

⁷⁷ In a speech delivered in the Hungarian diet on December 10, 1847, as published in Barta, Kossuth Lajos az utolsó rendi országgyűlésen, p. 380.

⁷⁸ In a speech to the diet on December 11, 1847, Ibid., p. 382. The italics are Kossuth's. See also his speech of January 7, 1848, Ibid., p. 435.

⁷⁹ In a speech to the diet on January 8, 1848, Ibid., p. 439. For similar views which were expressed by Deák at the diet of 1839–40, see Jászi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, p. 305.

⁸⁰ Dated June 15, 1832, in Béla, Majláth (ed.), Gróf Széchenyi István levelei [Letters of Count Stephen Széchenyi] (3 vols., Budapest: Athenaeum, 1889–1891), Vol. I, p. 226Google Scholar. See also the entries of June 28, 1830, and July 22, 1832, in Viszota, , Gr. Széchenyi István naplói, Vol. IV, pp. 60 and 281Google Scholar.

⁸¹ In a letter to Bishop Sztankovits on May 17, 1838, in Bártfai, Szabó, Adatok gróf Széchenyi lstván és kora törtenetéhez, Vol. I, p. 309Google Scholar.

⁸² In a letter dated October 5, 1845, in Viszota, , Gr. Széchenyi István naplói, Vol. VI, p. 266Google Scholar.

⁸³ Asztalos, Wesselényi, pp. 21 and 34–40.

⁸⁴ For a critique of Wesselényi's book, see Wagner, “Széchenyi and the Nationality Problem,” p. 306.

⁸⁵ See Ferenczi, Gr. Széchenyi István. A kelet népe, p. 601.

⁸⁶ In the April 14, 1841, issue of Pesti Hírlap, as quoted in Ibid., pp. 184–185. See also Kosáry, Kossuth és a Védegylet, pp. 25–26; and Kossuth's report on the work of the diet of 1847, in Barta, Kossuth Lajos az utolsó rendi országgyűlésen, p. 743. For Deák, see his letter of March 25, 1841, to Wesselényi, in which he stressed the community of interests between the Magyar nation and the Austrian monarchy. Cited in Asztalos, Wesselényi, pp. 46–47.

⁸⁷ For information on this topic, in addition to the works listed previously, see Domokos, Kosáry, Kossuth Lajos a reformkorban [Louis Kossuth in the Age of Reforms] (Budapest, 1946), especially pp. 207–238, 261–262, and 273–277Google Scholar.

⁸⁸ Kosáry, Kossuth és a Védegylet, p. 4.

⁸⁹ See, for instance, the suppressed article which he had written in 1845, as cited in Ibid., p. 5.

⁹⁰ Blackwell to Sir Robert Gordon, July 1, 1843, in Eugene, Horváth (ed.), “Anglo-Hungarian Documents, 1841–1850,” South Eastern Affairs, Vol. I (1931), p. 140Google Scholar.

⁹¹ Blackwell to Sir Robert Gordon, September 12, and November 22, 1844, Ibid., pp. 200–201 and 207–208.

⁹² For the limitations of Kossuth's radicalism in the pre-March era, which has so frequently been misunderstood in the West, see Ervin, Szabó, Társadalmi és párthareok az 1848–49-es magyar forradalomban [Social and Party Struggles in the Hungarian Revolution of 1848–49] (Budapest: Népszava, n. d.), pp. 46–101Google Scholar. Strongly influenced by (pre-Bolshevik) Marxist views, this work, which was originally published in Vienna in 1921, was, in Kosáry's words, the first “profound study” which attempted to interpret the Hungarian events of 1848–49 neither in terms of national resistance to the Habsburgs or the Tsar nor in terms of clashing Danubian nationalist forces but rather from the point of view of developing social struggles. See Dominique, Kosáry, “L'aspect social de la Révolution de 1848 en Hongrie,” Actes du congrès historique du centenaire de la révolution de 1848 (Paris, 1948), p. 133Google Scholar.

⁹³ Arató, , A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarországon, Vol. II, pp. 58–63Google Scholar. For a discussion of Petőfi's ancestry, see András, Dienes, “Petőfi nemesi származásának kérdése” [The Question of Petőfi's Noble Origin], Irodalomtörtinéti Közlemények, Vol. LXVII, No. 1 (1963), pp. 20–28Google Scholar.

⁹⁴ As quoted in Asztalos, Wesselényi, p. 51.

⁹⁵ Jászi, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, pp. 307–308; Kornis, , A magyar művelodős eszminyei, Vol. II, pp. 145–146Google Scholar; Asztalos, Wesselényi, pp. 19 and 47–48.

⁹⁶ Metternich hoped to be able to rely both on external assistance and the outbreak of a social revolution in Hungary to keep the Magyar nobility in line. See my “The Hungarian Diet of 1839–40,” pp. 292–293 and 299–303.

⁹⁷ Kornis, , A magyar művelődéa eszményei, Vol. II, pp. 83–216Google Scholar; Szekfű, Iratok a magyar államnyelv kérdésének törtinetihez, pp. 7–208.

⁹⁸ Asztalos, Wesselényi, pp. 44, 56, and 58–60.

⁹⁹ The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, pp. 298–343. For the limitations of Jászi's works on the nationality question before World War I, see Zoltán, Horváth, “A nacionalizmus kifejlődése és a nemzetiségi kérdés alakulása a dualista Magyarország utolsó étizedeiben” [The Development of Nationalism and the Nationality Question in the Last Decades of Hungary in the Dualistic Eraj, Századok, Vol. XCV, No. 2–3 (1961), pp. 327–328 and 331–335Google Scholar. Although it is not without political overtones, Horvath's criticism is in many respects correct. An English translation of Horváth's, article was published in Acta Historica, Vol. IX, No. 1–2 (1963), pp. 1–37Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁰ The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy, pp. 274–275 and 303–304.

¹⁰¹ Kosáry, “A Pesti Hírlap nacionalizmusa,” pp. 407–12.

¹⁰² Kosáry, Kossuth Lajos a reformkorban, p. 369.

¹⁰³ For an evaluation of Kossuth's election, see Barta, Kossuth Lajos az utolsó rendi országgyűlésen, pp. 31–33 and 220–22. For Kossuth's effort to appeal to the patriotic sentiments of the “poorer electorate of Pest County,” see his speech on October 17, 1847, in Ibid., p. 211.

¹⁰⁴ See, for instance, Tóth, Zoltán I., “A nemzetiségi kérdés a dualizmus korában” [The Nationality Question in the Era of Dualism], Századok, Vol. XC, No. 3 (1956), pp. 370–373Google Scholar; Tóth, Zoltán I., “Quelques problèmes de l'état multinational dans la Hongrie d'avant 1848,” Acta Historica, Vol. IV, No. 1–3 (1955), pp. 123–149Google Scholar; and Tóth, Zoltán I., “The Nationality Problem in Hungary in 1848–1849,” Acta Historica, Vol. VIII, No. 1–2 (1961), pp. 235–277Google Scholar. See also “Discussion sur les origines historiques du nationalisme,” Ibid., pp. 211–16; Arató, , A nemzetiségi kérdés története Magyarországon, especially Vol. I, pp. 13–16, 19–25, 297–299, and the references cited in n. 11Google Scholar.

¹⁰⁵ Barta, Koseuth Lajos az utolsó rendi orazággyűlésen, p. 675.

¹⁰⁶ Ibid., p. 743.