HUNGARY
I. Geography and Statistics.
HUNGARY (Hung., Magyarorszâg ; Ger., Ungarn;
Fr., Hongrie; It., Ongaria), the second factor of the dual Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, is an extensive country in the south-eastern portion of Central Europe, lying between 44° 10' and 49° 35' N. lat. and between 14° 25' and 26° 25' E. long. It thus covers about 5 degrees of latitude and 12 of longitude, and contains an area of 124,234 square miles, or more than half of the whole Austrian-Hungarian realm, being larger than the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland by about 3000 square miles.
The kingdom of Hungary in its widest extent, or the “Realm of the Crown of St Stephen,” comprises Hungary Proper, with the former grand principality of Transylvania, the town and district of Fiume, Croatia and Slavonia, and the Military Frontier. Dalmatia, which both from its geographical position and from historical associations ought also to form part of Hungary, sends its representatives to the Austrian Reichsrath. [table]
In the article Austria (vol. iii. pp. 115-141) the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy has already been treated of as a whole, and under the heading Croatia and Slavonia (vol. vi. pp. 591-592) will be found further special information with reference to that province (see also Fiume, vol. ix. p. 273). In the present article we shall therefore treat generally of the lands belonging to the Hungarian crown, and more particularly of the “mother country,” or Hungary Proper and Transylvania.
The province of Hungary Proper and Transylvania, now united under one administration, and sometimes officially styled simply “Hungary,” lies between 44° 30' and 49° 35' N. lat. and between 16° and 26° 25' E. long., and comprises an area of 108,263 English square miles. It is bounded on the N. by Moravia, Silesia, and Galicia; on the E. by Bukowina and Moldavia; on the S. by Wallachia, Servia, and Croatia and Slavonia; and on the W. by Styria, Lower Austria, and Moravia. The narrow strip of country known as the Military Frontier, which stretches as a border line between Bosnia and Servia and the south of Croatia and Slavonia, prior to 1873 extended beyond the limits of that province, through Hungary Proper to Transylvania. The whole Military Frontier thus constituted formerly a joint crown land, consisting of the present Croatian-Slavonian frontier, and the so-called Servian-Bânât frontier, now incorporated into the province of Hungary Proper and Transylvania. The political changes introduced between 1868 and 1876 will be considered below.
With the exception of the short extent of seaboard on the Adriatic belonging to the Hungarian Littorale, the Hungarian monarchy is entirely surrounded by other countries. Its natural boundaries are for the most part well defined: on the N.W. and N. it is separated from Moravia, Silesia, and Galicia by the Carpathian mountains; on the E. and S.E. the Eastern Carpathians form a natural barrier between Transylvania and Moldavia and Wallachia; on the S. it is bounded by the Danube, Save, and Unna, which separate it from Servia and Bosnia; on the S.W. by Dalmatia and the Adriatic; and on the W., where its natural boundaries are not so ’ clearly marked, by Carniola, Styria, and Lower Austria. From the riveι Lajta or Leitha, which, like the March, forms a portion of the boundary of the last-mentioned province, originate the terms Cisleithan and Translei than, sometimes applied to the collective provinces of Austria and of Hungary respectively.
The mountains of Hungary belong to the two great European systems, the Carpathians and the Alps. The former extend in a semicircular form over the north and east of the monarchy, enclosing the whole of the left basin of the Danube from Dévény near Pozsony (Pressburg) to Orsova, while spurs of the Styrian Alps traverse the country in the west; to these latter belong also the Bakony and Vértes ranges. The Central Carpathians consist of several groups, among which the Tâtra mountains form the most imposing mass, having an average elevation of about 6000 feet, and attaining at some points an altitude of over 8000 feet. To the south of these are the various ranges of the Hungarian Ore-Mountains or Erzgebirge (Liptô, Zôlyom, Bars, Hont), and the midland chains which connect the Carpathians with the Styrian Alps. The Eastern Carpathians and Transylvanian highlands cover the greater part of Transylvania, and the eastern portion of the old Servian-Bânât; the Fogaras is the highest group, some crests of which, as, for instance, the Négoj, Bucsesd, and Vurfu Ourla, attain an elevation of between 8000 and 9000 feet. The low western mountains of Hungary which traverse Croatia and Slavonia belong to the Julian Alps. Taking a general survey, it will be observed that the greatest elevations are in the north of Hungary Proper, in the east and south of Transylvania, and in the eastern portion of the Bânât. In the Northern Carpathians large plateaus are not unfrequent, but in Transylvania the Alpine character predominates. The sides of the Carpathians are generally covered with forests to a considerable height, and on some favourable slopes barley, oats, wheat, and rye are cultivated. The mountainous lands in the south-west of the Hungarian monarchy are in elevation much inferior to those in the north and east, but their greater proximity to the sea and their frequently bare and rugged character cause them to have a considerable influence both on the climate and commercial relations of the country.
The great Carpathian and Alpine mountain systems enclose two extensive plains, the smaller of which, called the “Little Hungarian Alföld” or “Pressburg Basin,” covers an area of about 6000 square miles, and lies to the west of the Bakony and Mâtra ranges, which separate it from the “Pest Basin” or “Great Hungarian Alföld.” This is the largest plain in Europe, and comprises an area of about 37,000 square miles, with an average elevation of from 300 to 350 feet above the level of the sea. The Pest Basin extends over the greater portion 'of central and southern Hungary, and is traversed by the Theiss and its numerous tributaries. This immense tract of low land, though in some parts covered with barren wastes of sand, alternating with marshes, presents in general a very rich and productive soil. The monotonous aspect of the Alföld is in summer time varied by the déli-bàb, or Fata Morgana.
The geological constitution of the mountains of Hungary is on the whole similar to that of the Alps. The central axis is in some places composed of granite, on which crystalline schists are superposed; in other places the rocks are of Mesozoic age, and associated with Tertiary beds. Whilst the Palaeozoic formations are of comparatively rare occurrence, the Mesozoic attain a very considerable development. These latter in part crop out at the base of the granite and schistose mountain masses, or themselves are the nucleus of more extensive ranges. In some neighbourhoods independent mountain groups are formed by Tertiary strata. Alluvial formations constitute the general external crust out of which the mountains arise. Recent formations on the banks of rivers, more especially in the south at the junction of the Danube, Theiss, Ternes, Drave, and Save, are mainly confined to the tracts subject to the inundations of the same, but are here and there, as in the neighbourhood of Pest, Totis, Esztergom (Gran), and some parts of the Great Alföld, represented by accumulations of driftsand; and in other places, as for instance on the left bank of the lake of Totis, and at Szomod in Komârom county, there are deposits of calcareous tufa.
The numerous caverns deserve a passing notice. One of them, the Aggtelek cave, in the county of Gömör, is about 50 feet in breadth by 16 in height, and extends in its recesses for a length of several thousand feet. In it various fossil mammalian remains have been found. The Fonâcza cave, in the county of Bihar, has also yielded fossils. No less remarkable are the Okno, Vodi, and Deményfalva caverns in the county of Liptô, the Veterani in the Bânât, and the ice cave at Dobsina in Gömör county. Of the many interesting caverns in Transylvania the most remarkable are the sulphureous Büdös in the county of Hâromszék, the Almâs to the south of Udvarhely, and the brook-traversed rocky caverns of Csetate-Boli, Pestere, and Ponor in the southern mountains of Hunyad county.
Nature has amply provided the greater part of Hungary with both rivers and springs, but some trachytic and limestone mountainous districts show a marked deficiency in this respect. The Mâtra group, e.g., is poorly supplied, while the outliers of the Vértes mountains towards the Danube are almost entirely wanting in streams, and have but few water sources. A relative scarcity in running waters prevails in the whole region between the Danube and the Drave. The greatest proportionate deficiency, however, is observable in the arenaceous region between the Danube and Theiss, where for the most part only periodical floods occur. This, however, is far from being the case in the north and east of the kingdom, where the rivers and streams are numerous. The misfortune is that the rivers of Hungary nearly all flow either mediately or immediately to the Danube, and are therefore not available in any other direction as a means of external communication, and even within the country can only serve to a limited extent as water-ways. Thus the Theiss, the greatest wholly native river, is at the present time serviceable for regular steam navigation only as far as Szolnok, while the Maros cannot be navigated except at certain seasons and for a portion of its course; the Drave and the Save, in like manner, are only partly available for steam vessels. But although the length of permanent water-way in Hungary might be much increased by means of canals and other improvements, the Danube must still remain the only river communication with foreign countries, either by way of Austria or the Black Sea, on account of the insurmountable obstacles to connecting the small extent of Hungarian seaboard with the regions through which the Danube flows. This river, which is navigable during the whole of its course through Hungary, enters the monarchy at Dévény near Pressburg, and leaves it at Orsova on the Turkish frontier, receiving numerous tributaries in its course, among which are, on the right, the Raab, Drave, and Save, and, on the left, Waag, Neutra, Gran, Eipel, Theiss, Ternes, and Czerna. The breadth of the Danube is about 900 feet near its entrance, 1400 at Budapest. 1800 at Fôldvâr, and 3500 near Pétervârad (Peterwardein). Among the extensive islands formed by branches of the Danube are the Great Schiitt and the Csepel in its upper course. The Theiss, the greatest tributary of the Danube, rises in the north-east, in the county of Mâramaros, and flowing first in a north-westerly and afterwards in a southerly direction ultimately joins the main river near Tittel, draining in its course the Great Hungarian Plain. Amongst the many affluents of the Theiss are (r.) the Bodrog, Sajö, and Zagyva, and (Z.) the Szamos, Körös, and the Maros, which last, after traversing Transylvania and eastern Hungary, joins the Theiss at Szeged. The Save, rising in Carniola, winds through Croatia, is fed by the Unna and Kulpa, and falls into the Danube at Belgrade. It will be observed that the whole river system of Hungary belongs to the Danube or the Theiss,—the Poprâd, which runs through the county of Szepes (Zips), alone having a northerly course, and flowing to the Dunajec, an affluent of the Vistula. The south-western or Trans-Danubian division of Hungary Proper, although comparatively meagre in water-courses, includes the two principal lakes.
The Balaton or Platten-See, the largest lake, not only in Hungary, but in the whole of the Austrian-Hungarian dominions, lies between the counties of Veszprém, Somogy, and Zala, is about 47 miles in length by 3 to 9 in breadth, and with the surrounding marshes occupies an area of about 400 square miles. It is supplied by the river Zala, 31 small streams, and 9 springs, while its surplus waters are carried off by the Sio. Phenomena peculiar to the Balaton lake are, that it sometimes becomes violently agitated without any apparent cause, and that in seasons of severe cold the ice on its surface occasionally bursts with a loud report. It is navigable for steamers, and abounds in fish. The Fertö or Neusiedler See lies in the counties of Moson and Sopron, and with the Hansâg marsh covers an area of some 130 square miles; it is about 23 miles in length by 6 to 8 in breadth, is very shallow, and its waters are strongly impregnated with salt and soda. In 1865 the bed became almost dry, but since 1870 it has filled again. The other lowland lakes, as, for instance, the Palics near Szabadka (Maria-Theresiopel) and the Velencze in the county of Fehér, are much smaller. Morasses and pools are generally frequent in the vicinity of the Danube and Theiss. The most extensive marshy region is the Sârrét, which covers a considerable portion of the counties of Jâsz-Kun-Szolnok, Békés, and Bihar. The Ecsedi Lâp in the county of Szatmâr is now for the most •part drained; and the Alibunâr and Illancsa marshes in the county of Torontâl will also be soon laid dry. Many thousands of acres of marsh land have already been reclaimed in Hungary, and hydraulic operations bid fair to still further reduce the extent of the marshy districts. In the deep hollows between the peaks of the Carpathians are to be found the curious mountain lakes called “eyes of the sea of these there are at least thirty-eight in the Tâtra alone.
The canals of Hungary are still far from sufficient for the wants of the country, although lately many improvements have been introduced, and enormous cuttings made in certain places to relieve the rivers from periodical overflow. The most important canal is the Ferencz or “Francis,” which traverses the county of Bâcs. It is some 70 miles in length, and shortens very considerably the passage between the Theiss and the Danube. A branch of this canal called Uj Csatorna, or “New Channel,” extends from Kis-Sztapâr, a few miles below Zombor, to Ujvidék opposite Peterwardein. The Béga canal runs from Nagy-Becskerek, in the county of Torontâl, to beyond Temesvâr, but is not navigable throughout. Among other canals are the Versecz in the county of Ternes; the Berzava in the county of Torontâl; the Siô, which connects the Balaton with the Danube; the Kapos or Zichy in the counties of Somogy, Baranya, and Tolna; and the Sdrviz or Nâdor, which runs through the counties of Fehér and Tolna.
On the Adriatic, at the northern extremity of the short line of sea-coast known as the “Hungarian Littorale,” lies the port of Fiume (q.υ.), which is the only direct outlet by sea for the produce of Hungary. Its commanding position at the head of the Gulf of Quarnero, and spacious new harbour works, as also its immediate connexions with both the Austrian and Hungarian railway systems, render it specially advantageous as a commercial port. As shipping stations, Buccari, Portoré, Selce, Novi, Zengg, Cirquenizza, San Giorgio, Stinizza, Jablanac, and Carlopago are of comparative insignificance. The whole of the short Hungarian seaboard is mountainous, and subject to violent winds.
The climate of Hungary, owing to the physical configuration of the country, varies considerably. If we except Transylvania, three separate zones are roughly distinguishable :—the “highland,” comprising the counties in the vicinity of the Northern and Eastern Carpathians, where the winters are very severe and continue for half the year; the “intermediate” zone, embracing the tract of country stretching northwards from the Drave and Mur, with the Little Hungarian Plain, and the region of the Upper Alföld, extending from Budapest to Nyiregyhâza and Sârospatak; and the “great lowland” zone, including the main portion of the Great Hungarian Plain, and the region of the lower Danube, where the heat during the summer months is almost tropical. In Transylvania the climate bears the extreme characteristics peculiar to mountainous countries interspersed with valleys; whilst that of the south-western Croatian and Frontier districts bordering on the Adriatic is modified by the neighbourhood of the sea. The minimum of the temperature is attained in January and the maximum in July. At Buda, which, if we exclude Transylvania, is near the centre of the kingdom, the mean average temperature (1862-77) in January i⅛ 31" 0' and in July 71° 7'; at Kolozsvâr (Klausenburg) in the same months it is 32° 7' and 68" 9' respectively. The rainfall in Hungary is small in comparison with that of Austria. At Buda, where the number of rainy days is 122, the rainfall is about 21∣ inches, whilst in the two Hungarian plains generally the rainy days are estimated not to exceed 96 annually. In the vicinity of the Carpathians, however, rain is very prevalent, amounting to between 30 and 40 inches. In these regions the greatest fall is during the summer, though in some years the autumn showers are heavier. Hail storms are of frequent occurrence in the Carpathians. On the plains rain rarely falls during the heats of summer; and, generally speaking, the showers though violent are of but short duration, whilst the moisture is quickly evaporated owing to the aridity of the atmosphere. The vast sandy wastes mainly contribute to the dryness of the winds on the Great Hungarian Alföld. Occasionally, as in the year 1863, the whole country suffers much from drought; but, on the other hand, disastrous floods not unfrequently occur, particularly in the spring, when the beds of the rivers and streams are inadequate to contain the increased volume of water caused by the rapid melting of the snows on the Carpathians. The low-lying arable and pasture lands in the vicinity of the Theiss and Maros are thus sometimes submerged for weeks, and in March 1879 the town of Szeged, situated at the point of junction of these two rivers, was almost completely destroyed. In December of the same year the counties of Arad and Bihar were extensively inundated by the Maros and the Körös. In 1838 the city of Pest, and in February 1876 several localities on the Danube, suffered disastrously from the sudden rising of that river. The average annual number of snow showers is estimated at 23 for the two Hungarian plains, 44 for Transylvania, 50 for the northern, and 30 to 35 for the western and south-western portions of the monarchy. In 1866—67, and again in 1872—73, cholera was very rife; of the 447,571 persons who were attacked by the epidemic in the latter case, 189,017, or over 42 per cent., died. Nevertheless Hungary cannot, on the whole, be regarded as an unhealthy country, excepting in the marshy tracts, where intermittent fever and diphtheria sometimes exhibit great virulence.
The whole of Hungary, but more especially Hungary Proper, can boast of the great variety and number of its natural productions. This is attributable partly to its geographical position, but chiefly to the varied nature of its surface and climate. The fertility of the soil, if we except the mountainous and sandy regions, is remarkable. The vegetable products include almost every description of grain, especially wheat and maize, besides Turkish pepper, rapeseed, hemp and flax, beans, potatoes, and root crops. Fruits of various descriptions, and more particularly melons and stone fruits, are abundant. In the southern districts almonds, figs, rice, and olives are grown. Amongst the forest and other trees are the oak, which yields large quantities of galls, the beech, fir, pine, ash, and alder, also the chestnut, walnut, and filbert. The vine is cultivated over the greater part of Hungary, the chief grape-growing districts being those of the Hegyalja (Tokay), Sopron, and Ruszt, Mènes, Szerémség, Szekszârd, Somlyô (Schomlau), Béllye and Villâny, Balaton, Neszmély, Visonta, Eger (Erlau), and Buda. Next to France, Hungary is the greatest wine-producing country in Europe, and the quality of some of the vintages, especially that of Tokay, is unsurpassed. A great quantity of tobacco is also grown, but it is wholly monopolized by the crown. In Hungary Proper and in Croatia and Slavonia there are many species of indigenous plants, which are unrepresented in Transylvania. Besides 12 species peculiar to the former grand-principality, 14 occur only there and in Siberia.
The fauna of Hungary includes about 14,000 species. The horned cattle are amongst the finest in Europe, and large herds of swine are reared in the oak forests. In 1870 the total number of cattle (including 73,243 buffaloes) was estimated at 5,279,193, and of swine at 4,443,279. Of sheep, the breed of which is now greatly improved, the number amounted to 15,076,997; of horses there were 2,158,819, asses 30,480, mules 3,266, and goats 572,95L The wild animals are bears, wolves, foxes, lynxes, wild cats, badgers, otters, martens, stoats, and weasels. Among the rodents there are hares, marmots, beavers, squirrels, rats, and mice,—the last in enormous swarms. Of the larger game the chamois and deer are specially noticeable. Among the birds are the vulture, eagle, falcon, buzzard, kite, lark, nightingale, heron, stork, and bustard. Domestic and wild fowl are generally abundant. The rivers and lakes yield enormous quantities of fish, and leeches also are plentiful. The Theiss, once better supplied with fish than any other river in Europe, has for many years fallen off in its productiveness. The culture of the silkworm is chiefly carried on in the south—in the Military Frontier, and in Croatia and Slavonia. The principal beerearing localities are in the counties of Gömör, Szepes, and Mosony, the Military Frontier, and the former Saxon districts of Transylvania. In 1870 the number of bee-hives was estimated at 617,407.
The chief mineral products are coal, nitre, sulphur, alum, soda, saltpetre, gypsum, porcelain-earth, pipe-clay, asphalt, petroleum, marble, and ores of gold, silver, mercury, copper, iron, lead, zinc, antimony, cobalt, and arsenic. The opals of Saros are famous, and precious stones of various descriptions (calcedony, garnet, jacinth, amethyst, carnelian, agate, rock-crystals, &c. ) are met with in several localities. Amber occurs at Magura in Szepes county. Gold and silver are found chiefly in , the districts of Selmecz (Schemnitz), Körmöcz (Kremnitz), Nagybânya, Szomolnok, Oravicza, Abrudbänya, and Zalatna. The average yearly yield of gold is equal in value to about £219,000, and that of silver to some £178,600. The sand of some of the rivers, as for instance the Maros, Szamos, Körös, and Aranyos, is auriferous. Iron is extensively produced in the counties of Gömör, Zôlyom, Liptô, Szepes, Saros, Borsod, Torna, Abaùj, Szatmâr, Bihar, and Krassô; coal in the neighbourhood of Pécsvârad, Oravicza, Salgo-Tarjan, and of the river Sil. There are fine marble quarries at Piszke and the neighbouring Almas in the counties of Esztergom and Komarom, as also at various places in the counties of Baranya, Veszprém, Abaιij, Szepes, and Lipto. The largest salt-mines are at Rénaszék, Sugatag, and Szlatina in the county of Mâramaros, in Hungary Proper, and at Vizakna, Parajd, Torda, Deésakna, and Maros-ujvar in Transylvania. In 1877 the value of the salt produced was 12,369,599 florins, of other minerals 18,787,757 florins. The yearly worth of the whole mining produce of the Hungarian realm is estimated at over £3,000,000, of which, however, the amount attributable to Croatia and Slavonia is comparatively small. There are several hundred cold and 64 warm mineral springs in Hungary Proper and in Croatia and Slavonia, whilst a relatively greater number are met with in Transylvania. Of warm springs the most famous are those of Buda, Mehâdia, Eger (Erlau), Nagyvarad (Grosswardein), Sztubnya, Szliâcs, Harkany, Pôstény, Krapina, and Teplitz. Among the cold mineral springs the more worthy of note are those of Suliguly, Borszék, Bartfa, Czigelka, Szulin, Farad, Koritnicza, and Szalatnya; the Buda keserü viz (bitter water) is also much prized, and largely exported.
The general agricultural division of the soil is shown approximately in the following table, adapted from Keleti’s Magyarorszàg Statistikdja∙.— [table]
Since the year 1867 the administrative and political divisions of the lands belonging to the Hungarian crown have been in great measure remodelled. In 1868 Transylvania was definitively reunited to Hungary Proper, and the town and district of Fiume declared autonomous. In 1873 the Servian-Bânât or Eastern Military Frontier was incorporated with Hungary Proper. In 1876 the whole administrative subdivision of Hungary into counties, districts, and sees was revised, and for the sake of uniformity one general system of counties was introduced, except for the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier, which is divided into border districts. The total number of subdivisions amounts to 80, of which 65 appertain to Hungary Proper and Transylvania, 1 to Fiume and district, 8 to Croatia and Slavonia, and 6 to the Croatian-Slavonian Military Frontier. Hungary Proper, according to ancient usage, is generally divided into four great divisions or circles, and Transylvania has since 1876 been regarded as the fifth. Neither numerically nor according to territorial extent are the present 65 counties distributed equally among their respective circles, which must be regarded as geographical rather than political divisions, for they are not recognized in the judicial, fiscal, military, postal, and administrative relations of the country. The circles are—
Cis-Danubia (north and east of the Danube), containing 13 counties: Pest-Pilis-Solt-Kis-Kun, Bacs-Bodrog, Négrâd, Hont, Esztergom, Bars, Zolyom, Lipto, Ärva, Thurocz, Trencsén, Nyitra, Pozsony.
Trans-Danubia (south and west of the Danube), 11 counties: Moson, Sopron, Györ, Komarom, Fehér, Veszprém, Vas, Zala, Somogy, Baranya, Tolna.
Cis- Tisia (north and west of the Theiss), 11 counties: Szepes, Gömör and Kis-Hont, Heves, Jâsz-Nagy-Kun-Szolnok, Borsod, Torna, Abaιij, Sâros, Zemplén, Ung, Bereg.
Trans·Tisia (south and east of the Theiss), 15 counties: Mâramaros, Ugocsa, Szatmar, Szilâgy, Szabolcs, Hajdù, Bihar, Békés, Csanàd, Csongrâd, Arad, Torontal, Ternes, Krassô, Szôrény.
Trans-Kirdlyhâgô, or Transylvania, 15 counties: Alsé-Feher, Besztercze-Naszôd, Brassé, Csik, Fogaras, Hâromszék, Hunyad, Kis-Küküllö, Kolozs, Maros-Torda, Nagy-Küküllö,Szeben, Szolnok-Doboka, Torda-Aranyos, Udvarhely.
In tbe following list of divisions the foreign forms of the names of towns are given which are most frequently met with in the German and English press. Not being recognized officially, these are falling into disuse in Hungary.
Political and Administrative Divisions. [table]
The population of Hungary comprises a great variety of races, differing in language and religion, although united under one common sovereignty. At the census of 1870 the whole population, civil and military (exclusive of children under the age of six), amounted to 15,509,455, while the total civil population was 15,417,327; of these 7,653,560 were males and 7,763,767 females, the ages of 185 males and 196 females being given as over 100 years.
On the occasion of the new political divisions that took place in 1873, a fresh census was taken of Croatia and Slavonia and the Military Frontier. This accounts for a slight discrepancy with the above number of the civil population in the total of the following table (from MM. Ballagi and Kiraly), in which the population is arranged according to the new administrative divisions: — [table]
According to the Magyar Statistikai Evkönyv (Budapest, 1879), the number of births in Hungary Proper and Transylvania during the year 1876 was 623,849, viz., 320,470 boys and 303,379 girls; of these 23,060 boys and 21,889 girls were illegitimate. The number of deaths in that year was 478,684, of whom 250,698 were males and 227,986 females. The number of marriages was 135,011. At the census of 1870 there were in the whole Hungarian monarchy 180 cities and large towns, 769 rural towns, 16,376 villages, and 2,450,213 houses. Budapest, the capital, contained 270,476 inhabitants, Szeged 70,179, andSzabadka (Maria-Theresiopel) 56,323. Four towns contained between 40,000 and 50,000 inhabitants, 3 between 30,000 and 40,000, and 21 between 20,000 and 30,000. Zâgrâb (Agram), the capital of Croatia and Slavonia, had 19,857 inhabitants.
As regards nationality the Magyar or pure Hungarian race is the most numerously represented in the kingdom, amounting, according to Dr Konek (see Schwicker, Statistik des Königreiches Ungarn, 1877), to 6,176,612, or 40 per cent, of the whole civil population. The Magyar element is chiefly confined to Hungary Proper and Transylvania, only about 15,000 Magyars residing in Croatia and Slavonia. The German population amounts to 1,898,202 (12 - 3per cent.), for the most part settled in the western and north-western counties of Hungary Proper, bordering on Austria, also in the county of Szepes in the north, in the former Bânât, and in the Saxon counties of Transylvania. The Roumanians, estimated at 2,608,120 (16’9 per cent.), are mostly resident in Transylvania and the counties immediately abutting on it. The Slovaks amount to 1,835,334 (ll - 9 per cent.), and the Ruthens to 469,420 (3 per cent.), the former chiefly located in the north and north-west and the latter in the north-east of Hungary Proper. The aggregate number of Croats and Serbs is 2,380,985 (15 - 5 per cent.), chiefly confined to Croatia and Slavonia and the Military Frontier, where they form 97 per cent, of the population, to the former Servian-Bânât, and the southern counties of Hungary Proper. The other nationalities, comprising Armenians, Greeks, Bulgarians, Macedo-Wallachians, Albanians, French, and Italians, are not largely represented, their total number being estimated at only 48,654 (about 0 ’ 3 per cent. ); the Italians are, however, to be met with in considerable numbers at Fiume and in its vicinity. In the above statistics the Jews scattered over the country, and amounting altogether to rather more than half a million, have been reckoned with the various nationalities where they happen to be settled. The Gipsies, classed partly as Magyars partly as Roumanians, and roughly estimated at 145,000, have their colonies in various parts of the monarchy, but more particularly in Transylvania, and in the county of Gömör in Hungary Proper. On the whole the Magyar element may be said to predominate in 27 of the 65 (new) counties appertaining to the mother country, the German or Magyar-German in 6, the Roumanian in 13, the Slovakian in 9, the Servian in 1, and the Ruthenian in 3. In 6 counties of Hungary Proper no one special nationality can be said to have the absolute majority.
The total number of the various confessions for the whole population (civil and military) has been computed thus :— [table]
The Roman Catholics are in overwhelming majority in 32 counties, the adherents of the Greek (Eastern) Church in 11, the Greek Catholics in 10, ' and the Lutherans in 5. Further the Greek Orientalists have a majority in 6 counties, the Calvinists in 5, the Roman Catholics in 4, the Lutherans in 2, and the Greek Catholics in
1 county. The Roman Catholic Church has 4 archbishops: Esztergom (Gran), Kalocsa, Eger (Erlau), and Zagrab (Agram), and 17 real diocesan bishops; to the latter must be added, moreover, the chief abbot of Pannonhalma, who likewise enjoys episcopal rights. The primate is the archbishop of Esztergom, who also bears the title of prince, and whose special privilege it is to crown the sovereigns of Hungary. The Greek Catholic Church, which is in connexion with the Romish communion, owns besides the archbishop of Esztergom the archbishop of Gyulafehérvâr (Carlsburg), or rather Balasfalva (i.e., “Blasiusville ”), and 6 bishops. The Armenian Catholic Church is partly under the jurisdiction of the Roman Catholic bishop of Transylvania, and partly under that of the Roman Catholic archbishop of Kalocsa. The Greek (Eastern) Church in Hungary is subject to the authority of the metropolitan of Carlowitz and the archbishop of Nagyszeben (Hermannstadt); under the former are the bishops of Bacs, Buda, Temesvâr, Versecz, and Pakrâcz, and under the latter the bishops of Arad and Karânsebes. The two great Protestant communities are divided into ecclesiastical districts, five for each; the heads of these districts bear the title of superintendents. The Unitarians, chiefly resident in Transylvania, are under the authority of a bishop, whose see is Klausenburg. The Jewish communities are comprised in ecclesiastical districts, the head direction being at Budapest. At the commencement of 1870 there were 19,858 clerics of various creeds in Hungary.
Since the year 1867 great improvements have been effected in the educational system of Hungary, especially in Hungary Proper and Transylvania. Before that year public instruction was in the hands of the ecclesiastics of the various confessions, and the public schools had in consequence more or less of a denominational character. One of the first cares of the new responsible ministry of
1867 was to provide for the education of all children not attending the then existing scholastic establishments, by the introduction of supplementary non-denominational schools. By a law passed in
1868 the Government made it compulsory on children of both sexes between the ages of 6 and 12 to attend school, and it moreover required that children from 12 to 15 should attend the “repetition schools.” The educational system of Croatia and Slavonia is autonomous, being under the independent direction of the Croatian-Slavonian provincial government.
The various educational establishments may be divided into four classes :—common, middle, high, and special schools. In 1877 Hungary Proper and Transylvania had 15,486 belonging to the first-mentioned class; of these 13,755 were private or denominational, and 1731 communal and state schools. These figures show a total increase of 2341 since the year 1865, when the number was only 13,145. It is estimated that at the end of 1877 there was one school for every 870 inhabitants. In that year the number of children between the ages of six and fifteen who came under the education act amounted to 2,127,950, and of these 1,559,636 or 73 per cent, attended; whereas in 1869 the percentage of day scholars barely reached 48, showing an increase of 25 per cent, in the course of eight years. In 1874 there was already an attendance of 1,497,144, or nearly 70 per cent. The number of children who attended school in Croatia and Slavonia, with the Military Frontier, at that date was 73,635, making a general total for the whole of Hungary for the year 1874 of 1,570,779. On account of the variety of languages and races prevailing in many parts of Hungary, the education in numerous schools has to be conducted in two,, and in several instances even in three languages. Out of 15,486 schools in Hungary Proper and Transylvania in 1877 Hungarian was used in 7024, German in 1141, Roumanian in 2773, Slovakian in 1901, Servian in 259, Croatian in 70, Ruthenian in 491, two languages in 1692, and three in 135. The aggregate number of teachers in the above schools was 20,717.
The middle schools consist of the gymnasia, real-schools, and similar institutions. In 1874 there were in Hungary Proper and Transylvania 146 gymnasia, with 1734 teachers and 26,273 pupils; in 1877 the gymnasia had increased to 149, the teachers to 1814, and the pupils to 31,455. In 1874 there were 32 real-schools, with 387 teachers and 7743 pupils; in 1877 there were 26 such schools, with 383 teachers and 6647 pupils. The above results added together give an aggregate, for the year 1877, of 175 schools, 2197 teachers, and 38,102 pupils. With the omission of a few of a specially sectarian, technical, or private character, the total number of middle schools at that time in the whole Hungarian monarchy (including Croatia and Slavonia and the Military Frontier) was, a⅛ nearly as can be computed, about 205, with some 2450 teachers, and 42,000 pupils. In the mother country there were also 51 training seminaries for masters (2853 scholars), and 14 for mistresses (1138 scholars); of these 65 establishments, 16 of the former and 6 of the latter kind were state, and the remaining 43 confessional, viz., 26 Roman Catholic, 3 Greek Eastern Church, 4 Lutheran, 9 Calvinist, and 1 Jewish. The number of commercial schools was 24, with 129 masters and 1114 pupils.
The high schools comprise the universities of Budapest, Kolozsvâr (Klausenburg), and Zâgrâb (Agram), the Joseph-Polytechnic, the theological institutes, the law academies, &c. The Budapest university (founded at Tyrnau in 1635) has four faculties,—theology, jurisprudence, medicine, and philosophy. In the year 1877 the number of professors amounted to 166, and that of students to 2929 (in 1878 to 180 and 3117 respectively). The university of Kolozsvâr was founded in 1872, and is similar in its organization to that of Budapest, excepting that it has a faculty for mathematics and natural science, but none for theology. The number of professors in 1877 was 64, and that of students 391. Zâgrâb university was founded in 1869, but was not in active operation till 1874, and was even then incomplete in its formation. It has three faculties,— jurisprudence, theology, and philosophy. The Joseph-Polytechnic, ranking as a high school at Budapest since 1871, had in 1877 as many as 56 professors with 800 students. The number of theological institutions in Hungary Proper and Transylvania at that date was 45, with 284 professors and 1534 novices; 25 of these institutions were Roman Catholic, 4 Greek Catholic, 3 Greek Eastern Church, 7 Lutheran, 5 Calvinistic, and 1 Unitarian. There were, moreover, 12 law academies, with 115 professors and 1067 students. In 1878 there were 125 professors and 1043 pupils. In Croatia and Slavonia there were 5 theological institutes (4 Roman Catholic and 1 Greek Eastern Church), with about 30 professors and some 200 students. The special schools are for particular branches of science and art. Among these are the school of design at Budapest; the music academy (founded 1875); several establishments for teaching mining, at Selmecz (Schemnitz), Nagyâg, Felsö-Bänya; farming and agriculture, at Magyar-Ovâr (Altenburg), Keszthely, Kolozsvâr, Debreczen; and the management of forests, at Selmecz; also institutes for the blind, deaf, and dumb, and for lunatics at Vâcz (Waitzen), Budapest, and Pozsony; and schools for veterinary surgery, obstetrics, &c. There are, moreover, military seminaries at Budapest, Kassa (Kaschau), Dé va, Köszeg (Güns), Fehértemplom, and Zâgrâb, and a naval school at Fiume.
The Hungarian academy of sciences is the supreme representative of the national culture. First constituted with royal sanction in 1830, the academy in 1879 consisted of 321 (224 home and 97 foreign) members, arranged in 3 classes. Next follow the Kisfaludy (comprising in 1879 only 50 home and 15 foreign members) and Petöli societies of Budapest, the royal meteorological institute, and the medical and physical (natural science), historical, archaeological, geological, geographical (founded 1872), and philological (1875) societies. To these must be added the Roman Catholic ‘ ’ St Stephen’s union,” the “Protestant union,” the Zâgrâb “South Slavonian Academy” (founded 1861), and the various Transylvanian and provincial learned societies.
As the industrial products and commerce of Hungary have been already described in the article Austria (vol. iii. p. 119-121), we need only add here a few remarks as to the chief localities of certain trades and manufactures.
The principal machine factories, foundries, bell and type works, and works for iron and other metallic wares are at Pest, Buda, Temesvâr, Resicza, Diosgyör, and Sopron (Oedenburg). Boat-building is carried on at the chief towns on the great rivers, especially at Szeged, Arad, Buda, Komârom (Komorn), and Györ (Raab); steam-vessels are constructed at Buda and Fiume. The glass manufacture, mostly carried on in the hilly districts, is not yet fully developed, and th,e articles are of an inferior quality.. The best manufactories of stoneware and earthenware are those of Csàkvâr, Pécs (Fünfkirchen), Rimaszombat, Murâny, Papa, Köszeg (Güns), Iglo, Körmöczbänya, Zâgrâb, and Kra-Çina; of porcelain the most important is that of Herend. Debreczen, âpa, Selmeczbanya, and Szigetvâr are famed for their clay pipes. The preparation of chemical stuffs is carried on chiefly at Pest, Nagyszombat (Tyrnau), Pozsony (Pressburg), Nagyszeben ( Hermann - stadt), and Ujmoldova; whilst Debreczen and Szeged are noted for their soap and candles. Oil factories are numerous, especially in Hungary Proper and Transylvania; the chief oil mills and refining houses are at Pest, New Pest, Râkospalota, Székesfehérvâr (Stuhlweissenburg), Györ, Pozsony, Kassa (Kaschau), Temesvâr, Brassô, (Kronstadt), and Cservenka, which last has forty mills. The manufacture of silk stuffs is still undeveloped, but there are spinneries at Nagyczenk, Hidja, Sopron, and Féltorony, also in the Banât, and in various parts of Transylvania and of the Frontier districts. Flax is mostly homespun, and confined to the commoner kinds of linen. There are factories for woollen yarn at Brassô, Nagyszeben, and Gurano, and for woollen stuffs at Losoncz and Szakolcza. Coarse cloth is made in many parts of the kingdom. Leather is prepared at Kassa, Pozsony, Rozsnyö (Rosenau), Könnend, Temesvâr, Kés-mârk, and Budapest. Paper is made at Diosgyör, Nezsider (Neusiedl), Hermanecz, Szlabos, and Fiume. Breweries are chiefly to be found in the neighbourhood of the large towns, which contain a mixed population, as the Magyars are drinkers of wine and spirits rather than of beer; the breweries of Köbänya near Pest are the most extensive. The taste for beer is said to be increasing, although the total number of breweries in Hungary has since 1860 been steadily falling, and many of the smaller establishments no longer exist, or have been absorbed. A considerable quantity of beer is, moreover, imported from Bohemia and the neighbourhood of Vienna. The largest sugar-works are those of Surâny, Moson (Wieselburg), Szent-Miklôs, and Edelény. The most important tobacco factories are those of Pest, Kassa, Debreczen, and Fiume.
As regards the number of factories exact data are not forthcoming. It appears, however, that in 1874 there were in the whole kingdom altogether 82,570 spirit distilleries, of which 991 were substantial factories and 81,579 rural stills. The breweries in activity at that date amounted to 247, of which 211 were in the mother country, and 36 in Croatia and Slavonia. There were, besides, 20 sugar refineries, and about 30,000 flour-mills of various descriptions, of which nearly 25,000 were in Hungary Proper and Transylvania. In fact the - preparation of flour, which is, moreover, largely exported to Germany and Switzerland, is one of the most important industries of Hungary.
According to a report of Μ. de Hieronimy, under secretary of state in the Hungarian ministry of public works, the length of Hungarian railways in operation in the year 1867 was only 1375 English miles. The length of railways constructed from that date to the year 1876 amounted to 2675 miles, and thus at the beginning of 1877 there were 4050 miles of railway in operation in Hungary. By the early part of 1879 the total length was about 7000 kilometres or 4400 miles. There are also some 18,000 miles of highways (good and bad), and more than 2500 miles of navigable river and canal communication. The imports (including those from Austria) may beroughly estimated at £45,000,000, and the exports at £35,000,000. There is also a considerable transit trade carried on between Austria and the western states and the regions of the lower Danube, estimated at £8,500,000 yearly. The number of freighted vessels that arrived at the ports of the Hungarian Littorale in 1876 was 3524, the number that left 3362; of the former 909, and of the latter 926 were steamers.
Besides the several branches of the “Austrian-Hungarian Bank” at Budapest, Kassa (Kaschau), Debreczen, and Temesvâr, Hungary possesses about 120 industrial, commercial, and credit banks. There are, moreover, 12 chambers of commerce and industry at Budapest, Pozsony (Pressburg), Kassa, Sopron (Oedenburg), Debreczen, Temesvâr, Arad, Kolozsvâr (Klausenburg), Brassô (Kronstadt), Fiume, Zâgrâb (Agram), and Eszék. The number of savings banks is about 310; of other associations, such as loan societies, popular, mutual, and alliance banks, &c., the aggregate is over 200. In the year 1876 the number of post-office orders issued amounted to 1,832,757. The total number of telegraphic messages sent, received, or transmitted was 6,462,335. The aggregate of postal missives was 112,851,516; of these 46,617,106 were prepaid and 1,452,233 not prepaid letters; 4,581,027 were registered, and 13,954,354 official letters; 9,016,232 were post-cards; 28,876,062 were articles per newspaper, 1,364,490 per pattern, and 6,990,012 per book post.
The form of government in Hungary is that of a constitutional monarchy. The sovereign power is at present vested in the house of Hapsburg-Lorraine, whose descendants succeed by right of primogeniture in the male line. By virtue of the Pragmatic Sanction, females may also reign in the event of there being no male successor. The king is the guardian of the laws, and the head of the army and of the executive. His power is limited by parliament, which consists of an upper and a lower house, and must be summoned yearly and elected triennially. The upper house comprises 407 members, viz., 3 princes of the reigning house, 31 Roman and Greek Catholic prelates, 11 standard-bearers, 57 lord-lieutenants of counties, 3 dukes, 219 counts, 81 barons, and 2 deputies for Croatia and Slavonia. The lower house, elected by the eligible tax-payers, consists of 446 members, of whom 403 represent Hungary Proper and Transylvania (including also Fiume), and 43 Croatia and Slavonia and the Military Frontier. The language used in the house is the Magyar, but the representatives of Croatia and Slavonia may use their native language. The executive is vested in a president of the cabinet and the following ministries :—court; finance; interior; religion and education; justice; public works; agriculture, industry, and commerce; honvéd (home-defence); and a ministry for Croatia and Slavonia. For matters relating to its special provincial administration, Croatia and Slavonia has at Zâgrâb (Agram) its own government, at the head of which is the ban, who is nominated by the king. The departments are three,—interior and finance, religion and education, and justice. (For the relations of the kingdom of Hungary to the joint Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, and for the delegations, comparative revenue and expenditure, joint army, &c., see Austria, vol. iii. pp. 122, 123.)
The judicial power is independent of the administrative, the functions of the minister of justice being to see that the laws are properly applied. The supreme courts of justice, as also those of second instance for Hungary Proper and Transylvania and Fiume, are at Budapest. There is also a secondary court of appeal at Maros-Vâsarhely in Transylvania. The number of royal courts of justice in the mother country (including also Fiume) in 1877 was 66, and there were 375 circuit courts. Of the 23,033 criminals condemned in 1877, 13,237 or 57'47 per cent, were completely illiterate, 1193 or 5'18 per cent, were able to read, 8314 or 36'10 per cent, could both read and write, and 289 or 1 '25 per cent, were persons of superior education. As to the punishments awarded, 34 persons were condemned to death (of whom only 3 were executed), 13 were sentenced to prison with hard labour for life, 124 to from 10 to 20 years’ imprisonment, 272 to from 5 to 10 years, 3537 to from 1 to 5 years, and 19,053 to less than a year’s imprisonment.
As regards the financial position of the kingdom, owing to the vast sums spent on state railways, the Fiume harbour works, and other large undertakings, the annual deficit rapidly increased until 1874, but from that date until 1878 it fell from about 33 to 21 million florins, the budget for the latter year giving a revenue of 219,846,016 and an expenditure of 240,967,435 florins.
The national colours are red, white, and green. The only order is that of St Stephen.
The shield contains four quarters :—1. azure, three leopards’ heads crowned, or, for Dalmatia ; 2, chequy, argent and gules, for Croatia ; 3, azure, on a fess wavy gules, cotised argent, a marten courant proper, in chief an estoile of six points or (Mars), for Slavonia·, 4. coupé: the chief azure, a demi-eagle issuant sable {Hungarian nation), in chief [a sun or, and] moon argent (Szekler nation); the base or, seven towers (Siebenbürgen) embattled four and three gules, over all a fesse gules, for Transylvania. In base enté, a double-headed eagle rising, contourné, for Fiume. On an escutcheon of pretence, harry of eight, argent and gules, impaling, gules, on a triple mount vert, out of a crown or, a patriarchal cross argent, for Hungary Proper ; the bars argent representing emblematically the Danube, Theiss, Drave, and Save; the triple mount, the Tétra, Fdtra, and Métra. The whole is surmounted in chief by the Hungarian crown, with two genii or angel supporters. The lower part of the crown is a circlet inlaid with jewels and enamelled portraits, and heightened in the centre by a figure of Christ in majesty forming the middle portion of the arch or upper part of the crown, which is surmounted by a slanting cross.
Bibliographical Sources.— K. Ballagi and P. Kiraly, A Magyar Birodalom leirdsa (Budapest, 1877-78), compiled with special reference to the new county divisions of 1876; Magyar Statistikai Evkönyv: Statistisches Jahrbuch, 1874-77 (Budapest. 1875-79), issued by the Hungarian Royal Statistical Bureau; K. Keleti and L. Beöthy. Magyarorszdg Statistikdja: Statistique de la Hongrie, published in Hungarian and French, for the International Congress at Budapest, in 1876; S. Konek, Magyar Birodalom statisztιkas kezikönyve (Budapest, 1875); J. H. Schwicker, Statistik des Königreiches Ungarn (Stuttgart, 1877); P. Hunfalvy, Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn (Budapest, 1877-79, vol. in.); add K. Keleti, Hazânk es népe (Pest, 1871 and 1873), and Uebersicht der Bevölkerung des Staatsgebietes der ungarischen Krone (Pest, 1871). A good native map for the new administrative divisions of 1876 is that of J. Hdtsek, A Magyar korona orszdgainak ..Jcözigazgatdsi beosztdsa (Budapest, 1877). For the physical features the Ueber-sichts-Karte von Oesterreich-Ungam (1:2,500,000) of A. Steinhäuser (Vienna, 1879) leaves little to be desired. For bibliography of geographical and statistical works and maps published previous to 1871, see F. Grassauer, Landeskunde von Oesterreich-Ungarn (Vienna, 1875).
II. History.
The south-western portion of Hungary, as formed by the Danube, belonged to the Roman province of Pannonia; the south-eastern portion, as formed by the Theiss (Ptol. iii. 8, § 4), to that of Dacia; the tract of country lying between these two rivers was inhabited by the Jazyges. As early as 274 a.d. Dacia was abandoned by the Romans to the Goths. In 376 the Huns crossed the Don, and, having overrun the intervening country, about 380 established themselves in Pannonia, where under Attila their power was so vastly extended that in 432 the authority of the Romans entirely ceased. After the death of Attila (453) the greater part of the country fell into the hands of the Ostrogoths and Gepidae. These yielded in their turn to the Longobardi, who in 526-548 gained possession of the whole of Pannonia. When the latter removed to Italy in 568, the Avars entered, but they were reduced to subjection by Charlemagne in 791-796.
The history of Hungary really begins with the appearance of the Magyars in Europe about the year 884. It is generally admitted that they were a branch of the Turanian stock, and descendants of the ancient Scythians; certain affinities of language show them to be related to the Lapps, Esths, and Finns. They are believed to have wandered from the’Ural mountains to the region of the middle Volga, and thence to have migrated westward over the Dnieper and the Bug. At the time of their crossing the Carpathians about 889, under the lead of Almos, they were divided into seven tribes, united by a compact which guaranteed justice and equality among their members. At the death of Almos in 889, the chiefs of the tribes elected his son Arpâd successor. His followers overran the whole of Hungary and Transylvania, extending their conquests beyond the ancient province of Pannonia. From the time of the conquest to the year 1000, Hungary was ruled by dukes, the regal title being first assumed by Vaik (Stephen). The following table gives the dates of accession of the Arpâd dynasty, which ruled over Hungary for upwards of four centuries :— [table]
The following ruled from the extinction of the native dynasty to the commencement of the Hapsburg period [table]
Under Zoltân and Taksony the Hungarians made various expeditions beyond the limits of their own country, spreading terror and devastation through Europe. They were ultimately checked, however, by the emperor Henry I., near Merseburg, in 933, and afterwards by Otho the Great at the Lech (955). These defeats caused the Hungarians to turn their attention to the consolidation of their power within their own territory. Geyza, who succeeded Taksony in 972, married a Christian princess, and also furthered the introduction of Christianity by entrusting the education of his son Vaik to Adalbert, bishop of Prague. On succeeding his father, Vaik applied for and received the title of “apostolic king” from the hands of Pope Sylvester II., and was crowned in the year 1000 under the name of Stephen. This monarch, known as “St Stephen of Hungary,” laid the foundation of many existing institutions. He subdivided the land into counties, and provided it with an ecclesiastical organization, establishing bishoprics, and founding churches, chapels, convents, and schools. Having elevated the bishops to the highest posts of trust and power in the state, he forced the people to pay tithes to the clergy. He also created a national council, consisting of the lords temporal and spiritual, and of the knights or lower nobility, from which assembly the subsequent diets originated. Stephen dying in 1038, and leaving no heir, the queen Gisela contrived to gain the throne for her nephew Peter, but a portion of the nobles declared for Aba, who was of Arpadian blood. In the wars which ensued both princes perished, when Andrew I., who was nearly related to Stephen I., succeeded to the throne in 1047, but he was ultimately forced to yield it to his brother Béla I. The next monarch’s reign that offers anything worthy of notice is that of Ladislaus I., whose religious zeal gained him the appellation of “Saint,” and who was distinguished on account of his conquest of Croatia (1089) and part of Galicia (1093), and for his victories over the Cumans (1086-89), the invaders of Transylvania and the neighbouring districts. His nephew Coloman, a brave and talented monarch, guarded the country against the depredations of the hosts of crusaders who passed through it during his reign. He also wrested Dalmatia from the Venetians (1102), and annexed it to the Hungarian kingdom. Coloman died in 1114, leaving the throne to his youthful son Stephen II., who soon entangled himself in warfare with neighbouring princes. The reign of his successor Béla II. (1131-41), like that of the other kings of the 12th century, presents few features of interest. That of Andrew II. (1205-35) is celebrated on account of the “Golden Bull,” or Hungarian Magna Charta, extorted from the king by the nobles in the year 1222, after his return from a crusade forced upon him by the pope. The Golden Bull guaranteed that the states should be convoked annually, that no noble was to be arrested without being first tried and legally condemned, that the property of the nobility should be exempt from dues, that foreign service was to be rewarded, that appointments to the highest offices should be under the control of the diet. It also contained numerous other clauses granting certain freedoms, privileges, and exemptions to the nobility and the clergy, and included a proviso of the right of armed resistance to tyrannical measures on the part of the crown. This charter was duly sworn to by subsequent kings of Hungary, but the article relating to the right of appeal to arms was abrogated in 1687. A few years after the accession of Béla IV., son of Andrew II., the Mongols invaded and devastated the whole country, massacring great numbers of the population (1241-42). Béla did all in his power, by the introduction of German colonists, to retrieve the disasters inflicted by the invasion; but his wars with Austria and Styria, and the revolts of his son Stephen, were prejudicial to the restoration of order. He, however, successfully repelled a second Mongol invasion in 1261. The reigns of the next two monarchs, Stephen V. (1270-72) and Ladislaus IV. (1272-90), are noticeable chiefly for the wars on behalf of Rudolf of Austria against Ottokar of Bohemia. Ladislaus is said to have been murdered in 1290 amidst violent commotions caused by his Cumanian amours. His successor Andrew III., the last king of the Àrpâd dynasty, after a short but disturbed reign, died in 1301, leaving no issue.
On the death of Andrew III. the royal dignity became an object of competition. One party elected Wenceslaus, son of the king of Bohemia and Poland (1301-5), and after him Otho of Bavaria (1305-8), both connected with the Arpadian house. Pope Boniface VIII. and the bishops successfully espoused the cause of Charles Robert of Anjou, nephew of the king of Naples, and related to the extinct dynasty through his mother, a daughter of Stephen V. Under Charles and his son Louis, which latter in 1370 succeeded Casimir III. on the throne of Poland, Hungary made great progress both at home and abroad. During the reign of Louis it became the most formidable state in Europe. Among many other territories he conquered Moldavia (1352) and Bulgaria (1365); he also greatly extended and developed the royal prerogatives in his own kingdom. Upon the death of Louis (1382), the states raised to the throne his daughter Maria, who, after the assassination of the pretender Charles II. (1386), reigned conjointly with her consort Sigismond of Brandenburg, son of the emperor Charles IV. In the early part of this reign the Turks under the sultan Bajazet infested some of the Hungarian provinces, and at length in 1396 utterly defeated Sigismond at Nicopolis, obliging him to fly the kingdom. During his absence a party headed by the palatine Gara raised the standard of rebellion, and upon his return deprived him of his liberty. Scarcely was he released when he met with a rival in Uladislaus, king of Poland, who had married Hedwig, second daughter of Louis. Elected emperor (1411), and afterwards king of Bohemia (1419), Sigismond, instead of providing for the safety of the country, employed his time in persecuting the Hussites. He ended his long and troublous reign 9th December 1437, and was succeeded by his son-in-law Albert, archduke of Austria.
The year 1439 witnessed the sudden death of Albert; his widow, however, was soon delivered of a son, Ladislaus Posthumus. The states invited Uladislaus of Poland to the throne, and thus considerable dissensions existed until the death of the queen in 1442, when the party of Uladislaus secured his accession. At the commencement of his reign the Turks were several times defeated by John Hunyady (Corvinus), and they were at length forced to conclude a truce for ten years. The Hungarians, having almost immediately broken faith with the Turks, and taken the field against them, were completely routed at Varna on the 10th November 1444. In this battle Uladislaus met his end, whilst Hunyady escaped with a few followers. Amid the troubles which ensued the states proclaimed Hunyady “governor of Hungary” pending the absence of Ladislaus Posthumus, whom the emperor Frederick III. refused to deliver to the Hungarians to be acknowledged king. After the release and recognition of Ladislaus in 1452, Hunyady resigned the office of governor, and was nominated generalissimo by the king.
After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Mohammed II. made preparations for the conquest of Hungary, and in 1456 appeared before Belgrade with an army of 150,000 men. This force was, however, utterly routed on July 21, 1456, by the combined Hungarian, Italian, and Spanish troops, in all about 70,000 men, under the command of John Hunyady and the monk John Capistran. Soon after this victory, which resulted in the Turks raising the siege, Hunyady succumbed to dysentery aggravated by excessive fatigue, leaving behind him two sons, Ladislaus and Matthias. The former was executed by order of Ladislaus Posthumus, while the latter, after that monarch’s death in November 1457, being supported by a strong party under the leadership of his uncle Michael Szilâgyi, was elevated to the royal dignity on the 24th January 1458, under the title of Matthias I. The emperor Frederick, having disputed his right to the throne, and assumed the regal title himself, was forced by Matthias to surrender all claims to the Hungarian dominions, and to conclude a peace in July 1463. During the next few years Matthias was employed in reorganizing the military system and repelling the Turks. He after this turned his arms against Podiebrad, king of Bohemia (1468), ostensibly for the purpose of defending the Catholics against the Hussites. Being victorious in these campaigns, Matthias in May 1469 caused himself to be proclaimed king of Bohemia and Moravia at Olmiitz. Meanwhile the Turks, taking advantage of the absence of the king, made incursions into the southern provinces of Hungary. This misfortune created a party against Matthias, who, having returned to Hungary and restored order, marched against the Ottoman forces, and totally defeated them in a sanguinary battle on the plains of Kenyérmezô in Transylvania (13th November 1479). After the death of Mohammed II. in 1481, Matthias renewed hostilities with the emperor Frederick, and having taken Vienna (1485), made it the seat of his government. Matthias was not only an able and warlike monarch, but a patron of letters, and administered his kingdom with impartiality, subduing the rebellious nobles, and restoring order, law, and prosperity.
At the death of Matthias, 6th April 1490, there were several pretenders to the throne, among them John Corvinus, a natural son of the late king, the emperor Frederick, and his son Maximilian. But the states disallowed their claims, and declared for Uladislaus of Bohemia, whose weak reign is marked chiefly by the insurrection of the peasantry in Transylvania, under D<5zsa, which was suppressed with great bloodshed in 1514, as also for the collection made by Verböczy of the common laws of the realm, entitled “Tripartitum Opus Juris Consuetudinarii Inclyti Regni Hungariae,” which code was sanctioned by the king and the diet in 1514. Under this monarch and his son Louis II., who succeeded him, the power of Hungary rapidly declined, and it was at length utterly overthrown by the Turks under Soliman the Magnificent. This powerful ruler, having captured Belgrade and Peterwardein, advanced at the head of 200,000 men into the interior of the country, and annihilated the Hungarian army at the battle of Mohâcs, 29th August 1526. In the carnage several prelates and the flower of the Hungarian nobility were destroyed, and Louis himself perished in his flight. The Ottomans, after pillaging Buda and spreading devastation over the whole country, took their departure with many thousands of captives.
After the catastrophe at Mohâcs and death of Louis . in 1526, a portion of the nobles declared for John Zâpolya, waywode of Transylvania, who was accordingly crowned at Székesfehérvâr (Stuhlweissenburg). Maria, the widow of Louis, immediately summoned a diet of the nobility of the western counties at Pozsony (Pressburg), who pronounced the election of Zâpolya illegal, and proclaimed the queen’s brother, Ferdinand of Austria, king of Hungary (16th December 1526). In the following August Ferdinand, having proceeded to Hungary, was again proclaimed king at Buda; he was afterwards crowned at Székesfehérvâr, 5th November 1527. With this monarch the Hapsburg period commences, the sovereign rulers of Austria after him succeeding to the title of the Hungarian crown. The following is a list of the kings of Hungary, and of the more prominent of the princes who ruled over Transylvania to the end of the 17th century :— [table]
John Zâpolya, being compelled to retire before the superior forces of Ferdinand, took refuge for a time in Poland, whence he sought the assistance of Soliman II. The sultan listened to his request, and in 1529 conducted a large army into Hungary, took Buda by storm (3d September), reinstated Zâpolya, and drove the Austrians before him to Vienna. Failing to take that city, Soliman in October retraced his steps, and after garrisoning Buda with Turkish troops returned in triumph to Constantinople. After several years of desultory warfare between John and Ferdinand, their rival claims were ultimately settled by a treaty concluded at Nagy värad (Grosswardein) on the 25th February 1538. By this treaty it was stipulated that John was to retâin the title of king, together with Transyl vania and the eastern portion of Hungary then in his possession, whilst Ferdinand was to hold the remainder, with the proviso that John’s male descendants were to surrender all claims to the regal dignity. John having died on the 21st July 1540, his infant son Sigismond was crowned by the adherents of his father, and he was subsequently confirmed in his title to Transylvania by Soliman. This sultan, however, retained a great portion of Hungary in his own possession, and even placed a pasha as regent at Buda; he, moreover, compelled Ferdinand to pay him an annual tribute of 30,000 ducats. Ferdinand, having caused his son Maximilian to be crowned as his successor in 1563, died on the 25th July of the following year. When Maximilian succeeded to the throne, he found himself obliged to continue the war with the young Zâpolya, whose cause was espoused by Soliman. In 1566 the sultan, advancing at the head of a large force, was arrested at the small fortress of Sziget by Nicholas Zrinyi, who with a garrison of 3000 men for four weeks heroically defied the whole power of the besiegers. Soliman himself died shortly before the final assault on the citadel, which was overpowered only after the destruction of a large part of his army. In the year 1570 Zâpolya concluded peace with Maximilian, and on his death in the following year Stephen Bâthori, with the consent of the sultan Selim, was elected prince of Transylvania. Maximilian, having in 1573 secured the succession of his son Rudolph to the throne of Hungary, died on the 12th October 1576.
By this time the Reformation had made considerable progress in Hungary, more especially among the higher classes, but with Rudolph the persecution of the Protestants commenced. In Transylvania, however, they met with a protector in Stephen Bâthori, from 1576 to 1586 distinguished as kipg of Poland. In 1604 the Protestants of Hungary, having raised the standard of freedom under Stephen Bocskay, defeated the generals of Rudolph in several engagements, and on the 23d June 1606 they forced him to conclude peace at Vienna, thus securing to themselves for a time their religious liberties. In 1608 Rudolph resigned the kingdom to his brother Matthias, who during his short reign showed great toleration towards the adherents of the Reformed creeds. He died 20th March 1619, leaving the crown to his cousin Ferdinand II., the hero of the “Thirty Years’ War.” The accession of this monarch was signalized by the insurrection of the Protestants of Bohemia, and the renewal of persecutions in Hungary, fomented by the Jesuit prelate Peter Pâzmân. But the victories of the Transylvanian prince Bethlen Gâbor (Gabriel BethlerQ over the imperialist troops forced Ferdinand to conclude the treaty of Nikolsburg, 31st December 1621. By this compact the privileges of the Protestants were declared inviolate, and Bethlen’s claim to the principality of Transylvania and seven counties of Hungary Proper was established. The infringement of this treaty on the part of Ferdinand brought about a renewal of hostilities, which resulted in a second peace, concluded at Pozsony (Pressburg) in 1626. After the death of Bethlen in 1629, the Jesuits succeeded in gaining over several powerful families to the Roman Church, and the religious persecutions were renewed by Ferdinand HL, who succeeded his father in 1637. The Transylvanians had elected George Râkôczy as their prince, who proclaimed himself the protector of Protestantism and of Hungarian liberty. Having drawn up a statement of grievances—those of fhe Protestants in particular—he laid the document before Ferdinand, who, however, paid no attention to it. Râkôczy thereupon collected troops and gained several successes over the imperialists (1644), and in the next year formed a league with the Swedes. This coalition brought Ferdinand into desperate straits, and he therefore soon entered into a treaty of peace with Râkôczy at Linz (16th December 1645). By this treaty, confirmed at the diet held in 1647, Râkôczy was formally recognized as the legitimate prince of Transylvania. He died the year afterwards (1648), and was succeeded by his son George II. Râkôczy. The year 1657 witnessed the death of Ferdinand III., who was succeeded by his second son Leopold I.
During the long reign of this monarch, so injurious to the cause of Hungarian liberty, Hungary was the theatre of intestine wars, insurrections, and the most tragic events. Shortly after his accession, Leopold became involved in war with the Turks, who had created Michael Apaffi. prince of Transylvania in the place of his own partisan John Kemény. The Turks, although at first successful, were ultimately defeated by the imperialists at St Gotthard, 1st August 1664. This victory enabled Leopold to conclude a hasty and disadvantageous peace at Vasvâr (10th August) with the infidels, and to direct his whole energies against the Protestants. The irritation consequent upon this harsh treatment resulted in a conspiracy, which was organized by the Croatian ban Peter Zrinyi, Count Frangepan, Francis Râkôczy, and the chief justice Nâdasdi, and had for its object the separation of Hungary from the house of Hapsburg. The plot having been discovered, the leaders were surprised, conveyed to Vienna, and, with the exception of Râkôczy, executed (3Oth April 1671). Although an amnesty was proclaimed on the 6th of June of the same year, Leopold in February 1673 appointed a bigoted Catholic, John Caspar Ambringen, governor-general of the kingdom, and made every effort to extirpate the Protestant religion. The oppression becoming at last intolerable, the Protestants again rose in arms under Michael Teleki and Emeric Tökölyi (1678), and were subsequently supported by the grand vizier Kara Mustapha, who in 1683 marched straight to Vienna with a large force. The valour of Sobieski, king of Poland, delivered the city (12th September 1683), and saved Austria from the threatened destruction. In 1686 Buda was taken from the Turks by Charles of Lorraine, and these troublesome foes were at length driven out of most of the provinces and towns of Hungary where they had been settled for about a century and a half. The glory of these achievements was, however, tarnished by the emperor’s revengeful treatment of the Hungarians, hundreds of whom, on suspicion of complicity with the enemy, were put to death upon the scaffold erected in the market-place of Eperies by order of General Carιffa, which remained standing from March
1687 till the end of the year. Leopold at length granted a general amnesty, but obliged the diet to declare the throne hereditary in the house of Austria, and to abrogate the clause of the Golden Bull which allowed the right of armed resistance to tyranny (31st October 1687). The victories of Prince Eugene, which completed the conquests over the Turks, resulted in the peace of Carlowitz, January 26, 1699, by which the Porte abandoned Hungary and Transylvania to the emperor. On the 5th May 1705 Leopold died, and was succeeded by his eldest son Joseph I. In the year 1703 Francis Râkôczy II. headed a new revolution, which lasted till May 1711, when peace was concluded at Szatmâr by Kâroly, the chief of the Hungarian generals. The emperor Joseph I. died on the 17th April of the same year, and was succeeded by his brother the archduke Charles. From this time until 1848 no open rupture occurred between Hungary and her Hapsburg rulers.
By the treaty of Passarowitz, concluded 21st July 1718, Temesvâr, the last of the Turkish possessions, reverted to Hungary. In 1722 Charles received the adhesion of the diet to the Pragmatic Sanction, which secured the right of succession to the throne in the female line. At the instigation of Russia hostilities were renewed against the Turks, but Prince Eugene being now dead, and no other leader of equal ability appearing in his place, the Austrians were subjected to a series of disgraceful defeats. These misfortunes were consummated by the humiliating treaty of Belgrade (18th September 1739), in accordance with which the emperor was forced to cede the fortress of Belgrade, with Servia and Austrian Wallachia. On the 20th October of the following year Charles died, leaving the throne to his daughter Maria Theresa. Her claims to the imperial dignity were almost immediately called in question by Prussia, Saxony, France, and Bavaria, and her hereditary dominions were invaded by hostile troops. Maria in despair fled to Pozsony (Pressburg), and summoned the Hungarian diet. Appearing before that assembly on the 11th September 1741, with her infant son Joseph in her arms, she appealed in Latin to the magnanimity and loyal spirit of the nobles. The result of her address was the unanimous declaration on their part: “Moriamur pro ‘ rege nostro ’ Maria Theresa.” Nor was this an empty burst of enthusiasm, for the “insurrectio” or general rise of the nation was proclaimed, and a large army collected, and Hungarian blood was profusely shed in support of her cause. Maria repaid the devotion of her subjects by the zeal which she showed for their welfare, and the salutary changes which she effected in the country. Transylvania was raised into a grand principality (1765), and the town and district of Fiume declared a corpus separatum of the Hungarian crown (23d April 1779). Maria Theresa also created an Hungarian guard, established several schools, and enlarged the university at Nagyszombat (Tyrnau), which in 1777 was transferred to Buda, and seven years later to Pest. But her efforts to ameliorate the condition of the peasantry, and the reforms which she introduced under the name of the Urbarium (1765), which determined the rights of the tenant serfs in relation to the landowners, are among the chief merits of her reign. She died on the 29th November 1780, and was succeeded by her son Joseph II.
This philosophic monarch was wholly carried away by his zeal for reforms, which were both subversive of the constitution and opposed to the will of the nation. He refused to be crowned in Hungary, and thus avoided the obligations of the usual coronation oath. In defiance of ancient custom he carried the crown of St Stephen to Vienna, dispensed altogether with the use of diets, and governed the country autocratically by decrees. He issued a general edict of toleration in religious matters (October 1781), but forced upon the people heavy taxes and foreign officials; he moreover enjoined the exclusive use of the German language in the schools, courts of justice, and public administration. The general discontent at these measures was heightened by the unfavourable issue of the war against Turkey; and Joseph, shortly before his death (1790), found himself compelled to revoke nearly all his edicts, and promise redress to his irritated subjects. His brother and successor, Leopold II., appeased the Hungarians by more definitely confirming the rights and liberties of the nation than any of his predecessors. After a reign of only two years Leopold died, and was succeeded by his eldest son Francis I. (1792). This monarch duly swore to maintain the laws and constitution of Hungary, but his efforts were eventually directed wholly against them. During the continuance of his war with France he repeatedly convoked the states, only, however, for the purpose of obtaining supplies of men and money to carry on the struggle. Through the whole of this crisis the Hungarians faithfully supported the Austrian cause, and disdainfully rejected the offers of Napoleon in his proclamation of the 15th May 1809, calling upon them to rise for national independence. But at the end of the great war the Hungarian nation received little gratitude for its devotion. Francis for several years discontinued the holding of the diet, and acted in direct violation of the constitution by levying troops and increasing the taxation to more than double. The opposition which these arbitrary measures provoked in the counties at length obliged him in 1825 to convene the states i and thus appease the widespread dissatisfaction.
To the holding of this diet, in which Count Stephen Széchenyi initiated the use of the Magyar instead of the accustomed Latin tongue, may be traced not only a reaction in favour of the native language, but also the commencement of the reform movement. The spirit of nationality was fully aroused, and liberal sentiments were diffused over the whole kingdom, notwithstanding the active opposition of the Viennese court influenced by Metternich, in the reigns of both Francis and his successor Ferdinand (1835). The diets of 1832, 1839, and 1843 passed several measures of reform, amongst which the most important were those demanding the official use of the Magyar language, the equality of the various Christian confessions, and the rights of the peasantry and of the non-ennobled citizens. Amongst the leaders of the liberal party the magnates were Count Louis Batthyânyi and Birons Nicholas Wesselényi and Joseph Eötvös, and the deputies Deék, KlauzAl, Fây, Beöthy, Balogh, Szemere, and Louis Kossuth. In the hope of intimidating the advanced liberals, the Viennese court in 1839 imprisoned Wesselényi and Kossuth, but they were released in 1840 owing to the amnesty then proclaimed for political offenders. The publication of the Pesti Hirlap (Pest Gazette) was commenced in 1841 by Kossuth as the organ of the liberal party. This paper, the leading articles of which were written in a spirit directly opposed to the policy of the Government, gained an immense circulation, and considerably influenced the public mind. A pamphlet styled A Kelet Népe (The People of the East), written by Széchenyi in order to counteract the schemes of Kossuth, only served to add to the importance of the Pesti Hirlap. The conservative journal Vildg (Light) was conducted by Count Aurél Dessewffy, who from 1833 until his death in 1842 was the leader of the conservative party.
Meanwhile intellectual and material improvement made rapid progress, especially in the Hungarian capital. Numerous works, literary and political, were published, the former due to the encouragement offered by the Hungarian academy and the Kisfaludy society, the latter the outcome of the great political excitement prevailing throughout the country. Cluhs really if not avowedly political were established in most of the principal towns. Steam navigation of the Danube, the Budapest suspension bridge (commenced May 1840), and other improvements of the means of internal communication, which had received their first impulse from Count Széchenyi, were rapidly proceeded with. In order to encourage native trade and industry, long obstructed by toll and custom duties, Kossuth called into existence the Védeyylcl (Protection Union), the members of which pledged themselves to abstain from the use of Austrian manufactures until the tariff should be reformed. This association soon overspread the country, and affected Austrian trade so seriously that some manufacturers had to transport their factories into Hungary in order to save themselves from ruin. The establishment of this association, the liberal measures of the late diets, and the unanimity of national feeling in Hungary Proper and Transylvania embarrassed the Government of Vienna, which could reckon only on the support of the Conservatives, whose numbers and moral influence were comparatively small. Metternich therefore determined to annihilate the municipal independence of the counties, in whose assemblies lay the real strength of the Liberals, by the appointment of “administrators” paid by the court to fill the places of all absent lordlieutenants. This measure raised the political excitement of the nation to the highest pitch. The Liberals were soon divided into two parties, the so-called “municipalists,” with Kossuth at their head, who urged the reaffirmation of the county institutions, and the “centralists,” led by Szalay and Eötvös, who insisted upon the nomination of a responsible ministry. On the approach of the elections for the diet of 1847 these two parties agreed upon a common course of action. In November the diet was summoned, when Kossuth appeared as a candidate for the county of Pest, and after a warm contest was elected. On the 12th November the diet was opened at Pozsony (Pressburg) by Ferdinand V. in person, who by addressing the assembled states in the Magyar language instead of Latin produced a very favourable impression. The first act of the diet was the unanimous election of a successor to the late palatine Joseph in the person of his son the archduke Stepien. Thus far all was well, but the address to the throne containing clauses, inserted by Kossuth’s party, deprecatory of unconstitutional measures by the Government, after passing the lower was rejected by the upper house, by which means the royal speech was practically ignored. At the commencement of the year 1848 an Act was carried through both houses, ordaining the exclusive use of the Magyar language in all branches of the administration, in legal documents, and in the schools and colleges. Certain provisions were, however, made respecting Croatia and Slavonia.
Upon the news of the French revolution the diet was powerfully impressed, and the Liberals assumed a more determined attitude. On the proposal of Kossuth it was unanimously resolved to send a deputation to Vienna demanding from the Government a responsible ministry, the abolition of all feudal burdens, the equalization of taxes, the extension of the franchise, freedom of the press, complete religious toleration, and several other measures of reform. On the 16th of March the address was presented to Ferdinand, who, by reason of the troubled state of his Italian pro. vinces and the .revolutionary aspect of Vienna, was compelled to yield his assent. The palatine archduke Stephen was nominated viceroy in Hungary, and Count Louis Batthyanyi entrusted with the formation of a ministry. The irritation of the Viennese Government at this enforced compliance with the Hungarian demands was increased by the choice of Kossuth as minister of finance. On the 11th April Ferdinand repaired to Pozsony (Pressburg), and the diet was closed with a Magyar speech from" the thröne.
But the Austrian Government, although compelled to abandon for the present its position of open and direct hostility to the national will of the Hungarians, was determined by other means to prevent the new reforms from being carried out. The plan adopted was that of secretly encouraging the southern non-Magyar nationalities to assert theiι ’ independence, and oppose by force of arms the consolidation of the new constitution. Croatia and Slavonia and the Bânât refused to submit to the Hungarian rule, and demanded separate rights and autonomous administration; while in Transylvania, the diet of which had proclaimed its reunion with Hungary Proper, the Wallachs and Saxons rose in arms against the Magyars. The whole of the south and south-west of the country was soon in a state of revolt, and a war of races was carried on with indescribable fury. Representations to the court of Vienna remained virtually unheeded, the emperor contenting himself with hypocritical proclamations against the rebels, and with placing at the disposal of the Hungarian ministry a few regiments of soldiers, whose officers were disaffected to the Hungarian cause.
It now became evident that the Hungarians, in order to retain their national existence, must rely entirely upon their own resources, and make an immediate and vigorous effort, more especially as Jellachich, the newly-appointed ban of Croatia, was making preparations to march upon Pest. Ferdinand, who still professed his determination to defend the integrity of the Hungarian monarchy, convoked the diet for the 5th of July, when it was opened by the palatine Stephen, as viceroy. At the suggestion of Kossuth a levy of 200,000 men and ample supplies for the purposes of national defence were unanimously voted; but to these measures Ferdinand withheld his assent. On the 6th of September a deputation of a hundred members arrived at Vienna in order to urge upon the emperor the necessity of taking immediate and decisive steps to oppose the Croatian invasion. On the 9th of September they were admitted to an audience, but, receiving only an evasive answer, they straightway returned to Pest. The abortive result of the deputation, and an official report that Jellachich had crossed the Drave, were announced to the diet on the 11th September, and brought matters to a crisis. A few days later the palatine archduke Stéphen, who at the demand of the diet had set out for the camp, but failed in his efforts at mediation, fled to Austria. The emperor thereupon nominated Count Lamberg royal commissioner and commander-in-chief of all the military forces in Hungary (September 25), but the diet pronounced his appointment illegal and invalid, and he was murdered on the Budapest bridge of boats by the infuriated populace (September 28). The Batthyânyi ministry now resigned, and a committee of national defence was formed under the presidency of Kossuth. On the 29th September, Jellachich, who had advanced to within 25 miles of Buda, was defeated at Velencze, whence he fled towards Vienna during a three days’ armistice that was granted to him by General Moga. Ferdinand now declared openly against the Hungarians, annulled the decrees of the diet, and nominated Jellachich generalissimo of the forces to be employed for the reduction of Hungary. While the Austrian Government, still further exasperated at the march of a Hungarian force to Schwechat (30th October), was preparing for a general invasion, the Hungarian diet hastily equipped a large army to resist it. In the meantime a new Austrian ministry was formed at Vienna, and on the 2d December Ferdinand was induced to resign the imperial throne. He was succeeded by his nephew archduke Francis Joseph, son of Francis Charles, the heir-apparent, who refused to accept the crown. The Hungarian diet, however, protested against this dynastic change as unconstitutional.
On the 15th of December the main body of the Austrian army under Prince Windischgrätz began to cross the western frontier of Hungary near Bruck on the Leitha, while the Hungarian army of the Upper Danube, commanded by Görgei, who had succeeded Moga, retreated in the direction of Moson (Wieselburg). On the 18th December the second Austrian army corps occupied Pozsony (Pressburg), which the Hungarian troops had evacuated, and upon the same day Jellachich, who commanded the first army corps, occupied Moson, compelling Görgei to withdraw towards Györ (Raab). Upon the occupation of this town by the Austrians, on the 27th December, Görgei removed to Babolna, where he hoped to effect a junction with Perczel, who had been ordered to reinforce him. But Perczel being overtaken and defeated at Moor on the 29th December by the troops of the ban, was obliged to beat a hasty retreat towards Székesfehérvâr (Stuhlweissenburg). These reverses having rendered Budapest insecure, the diet and the committee of national defence on the 1st January 1849 transferred their seat to Debreczen, and on the night of the 4th and 5th the Hungarian troops marched out of the capital, which on the following day was taken possession of by Windischgrätz. Perczel, who had gathered together the remains of his corps at Budapest, followed the Government by way of Szolnok, while Görgei made a flank movement to the north, and led his corps by a circuitous route through the Carpathians to join the army on the Theiss. Windischgrätz, mindful of Schwechat, and, regarding the Hungarians as rebels, had refused to listen to a deputation headed by Count Bat⅛yanyi making proposals of peace, and Batthyânyi himself wa⅛ arrested. While the Austrian generals were making this rapid progress in Hungary Proper, the Polish general Bern had succeeded in organizing a large force in Transylvania, by means of which he reduced the refractory Wallachs to subjection, and drove the Austrians out of the principality, which had been forced to submit to General Puchner.
In the diet now held at Debreczen Kossuth declared that the nation was on the verge of destruction, and could only be saved by extraordinary measures. But the inactivity of Windischgrätz, who, instead of hastening onwards to the Theiss, remained for several weeks at Pest, gave the committee of national defence time to concentrate its forces, procure war material, and make other provisions for a determined resistance. On the 12th of February Görgei arrived at Kassa (Kaschau), and the two Hungarian armies could now act in concert. Meanwhile the national cause made little progress in the south, a great portion of which was in the hands of the enemy. On the 14th February the fortress of Eszék in Slavonia was lost to the Hungarians; that of Lipôtvâr (Leopoldstadt) in the north had already fallen on the 2d of the same month.
At length the main body of the Austrians under Windischgrätz advanced, and attacked the Hungarians under the Polish general Dembinski on the 26th and 27th February at Kâpolna. The battle, though obstinately contested, proved indecisive, and the Hungarians were obliged to retire beyond the Theiss in order to recruit their forces. A few days later, however, an Hungarian corps, withdrawn from the lower Danube, and commanded by Damjanics, routed the Austrians under Grammont at Szolnok (5th March). Meanwhile the Russians, coming to the aid of the Austrians, had penetrated into Transylvania and occupied Nagyszeben (Hermannstadt) and Brassô (Kronstadt), but the Hungarians under Bern regained these fortresses on the 11th and 20th March, and drove the Russians into Wallachia.
By the middle of March au army of 120,000 men, provided with excellent generals and ample artillery, was concentrated on the Theiss. Towards the end of the month the Hungarians crossed the river at various points, and advanced on the road to Pest, under the command of Görgei, Damjanics, Aulich, Klapka, and others,— Guyon having been nominated to the commandership of Komârom (Komorn), the relief of which was the ultimate object of the campaign. The leadership of the Hungarian forces had meanwhile passed from Dembinski to Vetter, on account of whose ill-health it was provisionally transferred on the 31st March to Görgei. From this time the Austrians had to. endure a rapid succession of defeats, —at Hatvan (April 2), Tâpiô-Bicske (April 4), Isaszeg (April 6), Gödöllö (April 7), and Vacz or Waitzen (April 10). In consequence of these reverses Windischgrätz was recalled, and the chief command of the Austrian troops was given to Baron Weiden (April 12). In order to prevent the relief of Komarom, Weiden opposed the advance of Görgei with a force under Wohlgemuth, which was, however, defeated by Damjanics on the 19th April at Nagy-Sarlo, so that on the 22d the relief of the fortress of Komarom was effected upon the left bank of the Danube, Guyon having previously succeeded in passing through the hostile lines. The subsequent rout of the besieging forces at Uj-Szöny on the 26th April completed the discomfiture of the Austrians, and forced them to fly to the frontier. The ban Jellachich meanwhile retreated to Croatia, and nearly the whole country was once more in the hands of the Hungarians.
In the midst of these victories Kossuth proposed in the diet at Debreczen the dethronement of the Hapsburg dynasty, and upon the 14th April an act to that effect was almost unanimously passed, although afterwards unfavourably received by Görgei and a large portion of the army. The chief provocation to the passing of this extreme and, as it eventually proved, unfortunate measure was the promulgation of the new constitution on the 4th March by the emperor Francis Joseph, which made a tabula rasa of all the time-honoured laws, rights, and privileges of Hungary. The substance of the declaration of independence was as follows: “That the house of Hapsburg, having violated the integrity of the kingdom, treacherously levied war against the nation, and called in the aid of a foreign power to accomplish its aims, has trampled under foot all the treaties that united it to Hungary, and is therefore declared for ever excluded from the Hungarian throne.” The form of government was to be settled afterwards by the diet, but in the meantime Kossuth was nominated governor, the committee of national defence was dissolved, and a new responsible ministry formed under the presidency of Szemere.
It is generally admitted that, had the Hungarians followed up their victories by an immediate march upon Vienna, they would have been able to force the Austrian Government to terms, and thus have warded off the Russian invasion, the preparations for which were now being conducted upon an enormous scale. Instead, however, of acting on the offensive across the Austrian frontier, the Hungarian commander-in-chief, Görgei, after a few days delay at Komarom, made a retrograde movement towards the Hungarian capital. On the 4th May he arrived before Buda, which was still in the possession of the Austrians, but it was in vain that he summoned the commander Hentzi to surrender. On the 15th began the regular bombardment of the fortress, and on the 21st it was taken by assault. On the 5th of June Kossuth made his entry into Pest, and the diet having adjourned its sittings at Debreczen, the Government returned to the capital. Every preparation was now set on foot for a desperate defence against the combined armies of Russia and Austria, which by the middle of the month had completed their arrangements, and had begun to invade the country at various points. Prince Paskewitch advanced from Galicia at the head of the main body of the Russian army, consisting of over 100,000 men, while Haynau crossed the western frontier with an Austrian force of 60,000, supported by a Russian division of 12,000 under Paniutin. On the Drave and the Stγrian frontier Nugent commanded 12,000, and near Eszék was Jellachich with 25,000 men. In Transylvania the combined Austrian and Russian forces under Puchner and Lüders amounted to 60,000; so that, including the garrisons of the fortresses in their hands, the allied forces were in all not less than 275,000 men with 600 guns. The whole available forces of Hungary did not amount to more than half this number, the army of the Upper Danube under Görgei being 50,000, that of Perczel and Vecsey^in the south 30,000, the army of the north under Dembinski 12,000; while there were about 32,000 men under Bem in Transylvania, and a few thousands under Kazinczy in the county of Maramaros. On the 19th of J une the Russian corps under Lüders burst through the Red Tower Pass into Transylvania, and, having defeated the Hungarians, took the fortress of Nagy-Szeben, whilst in the following month Brasso in like manner surrendered to the Austrians. Jellachich was, however, defeated on the 14th July at Hegyes, and forced to retire from the Bacska. In the meantime Haynau’s operations on the Danube met with general success, while the Russian main army advanced over Eperies and Kassa into the interior of the country. These disasters to the Hungarian cause were aggravated by the want of unanimity between the Hungarian commander-in-chief and the Government, which, being again obliged to leave Pest, transferred its seat to Szeged (July 11). After various sanguinary engagements with the invading forces in the vicinity of Komârom, Görgei on the night of the 12th July left the fortress under the charge of Klapka. On the 15th and 17th Görgei encountered the Russians at Vacz, and proceeded thence over Vad-kert, Losoncz, and Rimaszombat, where on the 21st the Russian offers of truce were refused. Görgei, closely followed, finally crossed the Theiss on the 28th July near Tokay, whence he proceeded in the direction of Nagyvârad (Grosswardein) by routes to the east of Debreczen. There on the 2d August his first army corps under Nagy Sandor was defeated by the troops of Paskewitch. The Government had meanwhile removed to Arad, which fortress, having previously surrendered to the Hungarians, was made the last point of general concentration. In Transylvania the army of Bern had been overpowered on the 31st July at Segesvär (Schässburg); and in Hungary Proper Dembin ski retreated first to Szeged and Szoreg, whence he was repulsed on the 5th August by Haynau, and afterwards to Temesvâr. There on the 9th he suffered an overwhelming defeat. Upon the news of this catastrophe reaching Arad on the night of the 10th to llth, Görgei, who had already arrived there on the 9th by forced marches from Nagyvârad, induced Kossuth and the few ministers who were with him to lay down their authority, and upon the 11th received from them the supreme civil and military command. On the evening of the same day, after the departure of Kossuth for Lugos, the new dictator, believing further resistance hopeless, communicated with the Russian general Rüdiger, offering to surrender at discretion. The sally of Klapka from Komarom, and his signal victory over the besieging Austrian army (August 3), were unknown at Arad. On August 13 Görgei surrendered his army, consisting of some 24,000 men with 140 guns, to Rüdiger at Szöllös near Vilagos; on the 16th Kazinczy followed with his troops, and on the 17th Damjanics gave up the fortress of Arad, and on the 5th September a similar fate befell Peterwardein.
A few thousand men followed Bern and Guyon to Turkey, whither Kossuth and the late ministers Szemere, Casimir Batthyânyi, and Mészâros, and the military leaders Dembinski, Vetter, Perczel, Kmetty, and Wysocki also escaped. On the 2d to 5th October Komarom capitulated on honourable terms, General Klapka having refused to surrender until an amnesty and free passports had been granted by the Austrians. On the 6th October Aulich, Damjanics, Dessewffy, Kiss, Knézich, Lahner, Lâzàr, Leiningen, Nagy-Sândor, Pöltenberg, Schweidel, Török, and Vecsey met their end at Arad. On the same day Count Louis Batthyanyi, and subsequently Prince Woronieczki, Baron Jeszenak, Csanyi, Perényi, and others suffered at Pest. By a decree of Haynau, to whom the Russians had delivered up the prisoners of war, all officers below the rank of a general, if not consigned to prison, were pressed as privates into the Austrian service. The Hungarian commander-inchief Görgei, however, was pardoned, and interned at Klagenfurt in Carinthia.
Hungary now lay entirely prostrate, and was treated as a conquered country. The Russians retreated to the north and east, leaving the Austrians with their commander Haynau, who availed himself of the summary powers conferred on him by the state of siege to inflict the greatest cruelties on the vanquished people. Many of the Hungarian nobility were condemned to long terms of imprisonment; the estates of the richer patriots were confiscated; and numerous Austrian and Bohemian officials were thrust upon the exhausted country. A rigorous, censorship of the press was at the same time enforced. At length, in July 1850, Haynau was removed from the chief authority. A milder regime was inaugurated by the archduke Albrecht, who arrived at Pest on the 14th October 1851 as the new civil and military governor. But it was only after the visit of the emperor to Hungary (5th June to 14th August 1852) that the military courts were closed. The whole country, now reduced to a province of the Austrian empire, was placed under the direct control of the central Government at Vienna. On the 1st May 1853 the new organization was carried into effect, and the Austrian civil code made applicable to Hungary. On the 8th September the Hungarian insignia of royalty, which had disappeared from Arad at the time of Kossuth’s flight, were discovered in the neighbourhood of Orsova; they were conveyed on the 19th to Vienna, but were afterwards transferred to Buda. On the 17th April 1854 the state of siege was abolished, and on the 12th July 1856 an amnesty was proclaimed. On the 4th May of the following year the emperor visited Hungary, and on the 9th of the same month granted the restoration of their confiscated estates to late political offenders. In August he commenced a second progress through his Hungarian dominions, and availed himself of the opportunity to express his sentiments of consideration for the people.
Indeed, from this time (1857) both the emperor and the Government of Vienna seemed desirous of making the Hungarians forget the troubles of 1848 and 1849 by concessions to the national will, whilst the encouragement given to improvements in the means of communication, and to the new projects for the regulation of the Theiss, as. also the schemes for the colonization of sparsely populated districts, are well worthy of notice. During the year the railways from Szeged to Temesvar and from Szolnok to Debreczen were opened. By an imperial decree issued at the end of 1858 agricultural colonists, it of one nationality and creed, were allowed to settle in various parts of Hungary, with special exemptions from taxation. By a ministerial order of the 8th August 1859 the language used in the higher schools was for the future to be regulated according to circumstances of nationality, the predominance of German being thereby abolished. On the 21st of the same month the absolutist minister Bach was dismissed, in consequence of the ill-success of the Italian war, which was attributed to his ill-advised policy against the various nationalities of the realm. The so-called “Protestant patent” of September 1st, which ostensibly granted the communes the free administration of their own educational and religious. matters, was, however, the cause of much dissatisfaction, and more than 2,800,000 Protestants petitioned for its withdrawal. In April 1860 the archduke Albrecht was at his own desire removed from the civil and military governorship of Hungary, and the master of the ordnance, Benedek, a native Magyar, was appointed in his stead. The Hungarian members in the Reiehsräth, specially summoned for the purpose of finding a definite form of settlement for the whole empire, now put forward claims for the autonomy of their country, and by an imperial diploma of the 20th October their wishes were partly met. Benedek was removed from the general governorship of the kingdom, whilst the Hungarian court chancellery was restored, and Baron Vay nominated chancellor. At the same time the curia regia (supreme court of judicature) and the county assemblies were reinstituted, and the Magyar recognized as the official language. Furthermore, the emperor on the 27th December granted the reannexation of the Temesvar Bânat to Hungary Proper. In the following February it was decreed that their former constitutions should be restored to Hungary, Transylvania, and Croatia and Slavonia, and on the 6th of April the diet met at Buda, afterwards removing to Pest. But as the address sent to Vienna in June demanded the fullest autonomy for Hungary, and the Hungarians refused to yield their claims, in spite of the emperor’s declared inability to accede, the diet was dissolved by imperial decree on the 22d August. Meanwhile a new Hungarian court chancellor had been appointed in the person of Count Forgâch. Stringent measures were taken by the Government of Vienna to counteract the organized passive resistance of the counties, and in many places the payment of the taxes was enforced by military aid. On the 27th October the holding of all public county meetings was forbidden, and administratore or coadjutors were in many counties thrust upon the lord-lieutenants, who were forced to submit to the authority of the newly-appointed Government superintendent Count Palffy de Erdöd. On the 18th November 1862 a general amnesty was granted to those who were implicated by their hostility to the late Government measures. In the summer of 1863 Hungary suffered from a severe famine, but the Reichsrath voted 20 million florins to alleviate the distress. On the 22d April 1864 Count Forgâch was replaced by Count Arminius Zichy, who, on account of his unpopularity, was on the 26th June 1865 removed for Count George Majlath, a Conservative. In a visit to Budapest on the 6th to 9th June 1865, the emperor declared his willingness to do justice to the constitutional demands of the Hungarians, as far as was consistent with the integrity of the empire. On the 18th July Count Palffy de Erdöd was replaced by Baron Sennyey, one of the leaders of the old Conservative party. On the 14th December the diet was opened by the emperor in person, who assented to the principle of self-government for Hungary, and agreed to recognize the Pragmatic Sanction as the basis of a settlement of the questions involved. The diet, however, demanded also an acknowledgment of the continuity of the constitutional rights of 1848. After the outbreak of the war between Austria and Prussia the diet was prorogued (26th June 1866). Upon its reopening on the 19th November an imperial rescript was read in which the emperor acquiesced in the Hungarian demands for constitutional self-government, and promised to appoint a responsible ministry. The result of the “compromise” effected by Baron Beust between the Austrian Government and the committee, headed by Deâk, empowered by the Hungarian diet, was the dualistic system of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy, as finally sanctioned on the 18th February 1867. This arrangement secured to Hungary the restoration of the constitutional, legal, and administrative autonomy of 1848, while the supreme command and direction of the army were assigned to the emperor-king. A responsible ministry, including Barons Wenckheim and Eötvös, Count Mikô, Melchior Lonyay, and others, was formed on the 20th February 1867, under the presidency of Count Andrâssy. Ou the 8th of the following June the emperor and empress were crowned king and queen of Hungary at Budapest, and a complete pardon was proclaimed to all political offenders both at home and abroad.
The reconciliation of the Magyars with the Hapsburg dynasty being thus complete, both parties sought to throw a veil over the past by mutual concessions. Transylvania was incorporated with Hungary Proper, and a joint commercial contract was entered upon between Hungary and Austria. In like manner foreign affairs and joint finance were assigned to “common ministries.” On the 8th of August 1868 the Hunga. bin house of representatives accepted the dual Government military scheme, by which the standing army remained under the direction of the imperial ministry of war. The Honvéd (home defence) army obtained its own special organization and commander-in-chief. The long-existing misunderstanding between Hungary and Croatia was at length settled by the agreement concluded in September, which placed the relations of Croatia to the Hungarian crown on a more equable footing than hitherto. After the passing of various other measures of reform, including the emancipation of the Jews, a compulsory education act, and a special act (November 29) for the consolidation of all nationalities under the crown of St Stephen, the session of the Hungarian diet was closed on the 10th December 1868. In the elections for the next session (1869-72) the Deâk party, which had taken the lead in the previous diet, were returned by a large majority, and in the new diet, opened April 23, 1869, the policy of conciliation still prevailed. The ministry from time to time underwent certain modifications, owing to the death of Baron Eötvös, the minister of education (February 1871), the appointment of Count Lonyay (May 1870) to the imperial ministry of finance, and his subsequent nomination to the presidency of the Hungarian council in the place øf Count Andrâssy, who in November 1871 succeeded Beust as foreign minister of Austria-Hungary. Meanwhile the finances of Hungary were becoming rapidly embarrassed owing to the repeated contraction since 1867 of enormous loans for state railways and costly public works. The elections of 1872 were, however, again favourable to the Deâk faction. At the end of November Lonyay retired from the presidency of the ministry, and on the 1st December was succeeded by Szlâvy, who in March 1873 obtained the consent of the diet to some additional taxes. In August the Military Frontier districts were placed under civil jurisdiction, the eastern portion or the Servian-Banat frontier being incorporated with Hungary Proper. The new cabinet was not more fortunate than that which had preceded it in a solution of the financial question, and in March 1874 made room for a coalition ministry under Bitto, with Ghyczy as finance minister. Upon its resignation in February 1875, in consequence of the refusal of the house to grant further taxation, a strong liberal combination was formed by Tisza from members of the left and of the former Deâk party. The new ministry, under the presidency of Wenckheim (3d March), was supported by an overwhelming majority in the elections for the new session (1875-78). On the 16th October Tisza, minister of the interior, was nominated president, and the financial difficulty was met by an advance in the income tax, and a fresh loan. The death of Deâk on the 29th January 1876 casta gloom over the whole country. For some time previously he had withdrawn from the field of politics, where less moderate but more distinctly Magyarizing tendencies now prevailed. By its resolutions of the 24th and 27th March 1876 the diet deprived of their former privileges the so-called “Saxon” sees and districts in Transylvania. From these new counties were formed on the system adopted for the rest of Hungary, and were placed under the general administration. The number of royal free towns in Hungary was, moreover, much reduced, especially in the Transylvanian circle. The insurrectionary state of the Slavic provinces of Turkey excited the apprehensions of the Magyars with regard to the Slav races of southern Hungary, and aroused a strong feeling of sympathy for the Porte. This was still further increased by the attitude of Russia, and the cordiality towards the Magyars evinced by the sultan Abdul Hamid II., who in 1877 presented the university of Budapest with a portion of the remains of the library of Matthias Corvinus. During the course of the war between Turkey and Russia the Magyars were with difficulty restrained from open manifestations in favour of the former and against the latter power. Nevertheless, after the conclusion of peace, Hungary had, in conformity with the requirements of Art. XXV. of the Berlin Treaty (July 1878), to furnish her quota of troops for the occupation of Bosnia and the Herzegovina, a task effected only with a considerable loss of men, and an additional burden on the state finances. The diet having been closed by the king on the 30th June, the new elections weιe held at the time the struggle for the occupation of Bosnia was progressing. The popular excitement in Hungary Proper was very great, both on account of the losses suffered by the Hungarian troops and the destruction by a violent thunderstorm of the town of Miskolcz. On the 3d October Széll, minister of finance, resigned office; other ministers also tendered their resignations, but were induced to retain their posts for a time. In the elections the majority of votes had fallen to the Liberal or Government party. On the 20th October the Hungarian parliament was opened, and at the beginning of December the reconstruction of the ministry was completed, the only new members being, for finance Count Szapâry, and for commerce Baron Kemény. On the 14th a sum of 20,000,000 florins was granted for the occupation expenses of the following year.
Early in the spring of 1879 the attention of all parties was for a time distracted from political matters by the disastrous inundation of Szeged. At the beginning of May the friendly relations of the non-Magyar nationalities of Hungary, and more particularly of the Roumanians of Transylvania, towards the Magyars seemed to be endangered by the passing of the amended education bill ordering the state language to be taught in all the non-Magyar primary schools. The new law, as affecting many nationalities, is likely to have an important bearing on the future of Hungary. The urgent necessity for more extended river embankments and a better system of dykes and dredging in the water-coursed levels of the midland Trans-Tisian counties became more than ever apparent in December, when inundations of the triple Körös and the Maros submerged many villages, farms, and pasturages, devastated large portions of Nagyvärad (Grosswardein), Arad, and other low-lying communes, and rendered thousands of persons homeless. In March 1880 a loan of 40,000,000 florins was raised for the purposes of regulating the Theiss and the Maros, and of rebuilding and securing the town of Szeged.
Bibliography.— Besides the great historical works in the native language, by Szalay, Jiszay, Sziligyi, Count Teleki, and Michael Horvith, noticed under Literature below, and the useful summary by Gideon Lad4nyi, Magyarorszdg Türténelme (Debreczen, 1867), we mention for those who are unacquainted witlι Hungarian—Engel, Geschichte des ungrischen Reichs (Vienna, 1813-14, 5 vols.); Fessler, Geschichte der Ungarn und ihrer Landsassen (3d ed., Leipsic, 1867-68, 5 vols.); Mailith, Geschichte der Magyaren (2d ed„ Ratisbon, 1852-53, 5 vols); the German edition of Szalay, by Wögerer (Pest, 1870-75, 3 vois.); Horvâth, Kurzgefasste Geschichte Ungarns (Pest, 1863, 2 vols.), and Fünfundzwanzig Jahre aus der Geschichte Ungarns, 1823-48 (Leipsic, 1867, 2 vols.), both translated from the Hungarian; and Rogge, Oesterreich ton Vilagos bis zur Gegenwart (Leipsic, 1872-73. 3 vols.). To these may be added-E. Szabad, Hungary Past and Present (Edinburgh, 1854); E. L. Godkin. History of Hungary and the Magyars (London, 1853); Sayous, Histoire Générale des Hongrois (Paris, 1876, 2 vols.), and Histoire d'.s Hongrois et de leur littérature politiqu de 1790 à 1815 (Paris, 1872). For the revolutionary period see Genl. Görgei, My Life and Acts in Hungary (London, 1852, 2 vols.), and Genl Klapka, Memoirs (London, 1850, 2 vols.). both translated from the German; and Szι∙mere, Hungary from 1848 to 1860 (London, 1860). See also A. J Patterson, The Magyars, their Country and Institutions (London, 1869, 2 vols.), and the anonymous Francis Deâk, a Memoir (London, 1880).
III. Language.
The Magyar or native Hungarian language, is of Asiatic origin, belonging to the northern or Ural-Altaic (Finnic-Tataric) division of the Turanian Family, and forming along with the Ugro-Ostiakian and Vogul dialects the Ugric branch of that family. The affinity existing between the Magyar and the Finnic languages, first noticed by John Amos Comenius (Komensky) in the middle of the 17th century, and later by 01av Rudbeck, Leibnitz, Strahlenberg, Eccard, Sajnovics s , and others, has been proved “grammatically” by Samuel Gyarn∣athi, in his work entitled Affinitas linguae Hun∙ garicae cum Unguis Finnicoe originis grammatice demonstrata (Göttingen, 1799). The Uralian travels of Anthony Reguly (1843- 45), and the philological labours of Paul Hunfalvy and Joseph Budenz, may be said to have established it as an almost incontrovertible fact. The chief points of resemblance to Turco-Tataric and Mongolie dialects have been specially treated by Arminius Vâmbtry (1870) and Gabriel Bâlint (1877), the well-known recent travellers in Central Asia. Körösi-Csoma for many years zealously but unsuccessfully sought after traces of the origin of the nation and the language in Tibet. His grammar and dictionary of Tibetan, published by the Asiatic Society in 1834, have, however, earned for him a lasting name. The theory of Paul Beregszâszi that the Magyar is related to many of the so-called “Oriental” languages has now few supporters.
Although for nearly a thousand years established in Europe and subjected to Aryan influences, the Magyar language has yet retained its essential Turanian features, and the etymology and syntax still preserve these as their chief characteristics. 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 with which they are connected,—the former being represented ⅜ l " -j ∣ ri⅞ 8 by e, ö, S, ü, u, the latter by a, ά, ο, ό, u, ύ ; the sounds é, i, i are regarded as neutral. Since the number of consonants exceeds that of the Latin alphabet which represents them, the following combinations, forming single articulations, and inseparable as consonants, are used to make up the deficiency :— cs, cz, gy, ly, ny, sz, ty, zs, and in a few words dzs. Among the striking peculiarities of the language are the definite and indefinite forms of the active verb, e.g., ldtom, “I see” (definite, viz., “him,” “her,” “the man,” &c.), ldtok, “ 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 verb lenni, “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, “tome 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 sz6, “ many word,” &c.; the position of the Christian name and title after the family name, e.g., 0lmosy Kdroly tandr ur, “ Mr Professor Charles 01mosy”; 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. But, although presenting no auxiliary verb “to have,” no primitive possessive pronouns, no gender nor even separate pronominal forms and terminations for the distinction of the sexes, and (suffixed syllables or postpositions being used instead) hardly any true declension for objective terms, the Magyar far surpasses every Teutonic, Slavonic, Italic, and other Indo-European or Aryan language in the wealth of its verbal formations, as also in the power of harmonizing and assimilating the determinatives to the roots. 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 the Grammatica Hτιn-garo-Latina of John Erdösi alias Sylvester Pan nonius, printed at Sârvâr-Ujsziget in 1539. Among the grammatical works of recent date are the posthumous treatises of Nicholas Rêvai (Pest, 1809); the Magyar nyelvmester of Samuel Gyarmathi, published at Klausenburg in 1794; and the various grammars for the use of Germans, by J. Farkas (9th ed., Vienna, 1816), Mailath (2d ed., Pest, 1832), Kis (Vienna, 1834), Marton (8tlι 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), and Ney (20th ed., Budapest, 1879). One of the best modern grammars for the French is that of C. E. De Ujfalvy (Paris, 1876). Two Hungarian grammars have also appeared in English by S. Wékey (London, 1852), and J. Csink (London, 1853).
. The earliest lexicon is that of Gabriel (Mizsér) Pesti alias Pes-tinus Pannonius, Nomenclatura sex linguarum, Latinoe, Italicoe, Gallicae, Bohemicae, Ungaricoe, et Germanicae (Vienna, 1538), which was several times reprinted. The Vocabula Hungarica of Bernardino Baldi (1583), the original MS. of which is in the Biblioteca Nazi inale at Naples, contains 2899 Hungarian words with renderings in Latin or Italian. In the Dictionarium undecim linguarum of Calepinus (Basel, 1590) are found also Polish, Hungarian, and English words and phrases. This work continued to be reissued until 1682. The Lexicon Latino-Hungaricum of Albert Molnar 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, 1862-74). The next best native dictionary is that of Maurice Ballagi, A Magyar nyelv teljes szôtdra, (Pest, 1868-73). In aldition to the above may be mentioned the work of Kresznerics, where the words are arranged according to the roots (Buda, 1831-32); the Etymologisches Wörterbuch...aus chinesischen Wurzeln, of Podhorszky (Paris, 1877); the Magyar-ugor összchasonlitö szötdr (Magyar-Ugrian Comparative Dictionary) of Budenz (Budapest, 1872, &c. ); and that of new words, with German and Latin equivalents, by Kunoss (Pest, 1843). Other and more general dictionariesjfor German scholars are those of Marton {Lexicon trilingue Latino-Hungarico-Germanicum, Vienna, 1818-23), A. F. Richter (Vienna, 1836), E. Farkas (Pest, 1848—51), Fogarasi (4th ed., Pest, 1860), Loos (Pest, 1869), and Μ. Ballagi (Budapest, 3d ed. 1872-74). There are, moreover, Hungarian-French dictionaries by Kiss and Karady (Pest and Leipsic, 1844-48) and Babos and Mole (Pest, 1865), and English-Hungarian dictionaries by Dallos (Pest, 1860) and Bizonfy (Budapest, 1878).
IV. Literature.
The comparatively restricted and unobtrusive character of the Magyar or native Hungarian literature is partly owing to the fact that there are so many other languages current in Hungary, but it is chiefly to be attributed to the almost exclusive recognition, through many centuries, of Latin as the vehicle of cultured thought. The Romish 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, Béla kirdly nevlelen iegyzδje, Bud⅝, 1861, p. 48), which describes the early ages of Hungarian history, and may be assigned to the middle of the 12th century; the Carmen Miserabile of Rogerius; the Liber Cronicorum of 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 the Chronicon Rerum Hungaricarum of John Thuroczi. An extraordinarystimulus 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, Berum 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). Marzio Galeotti, the king’s chief librarian, wrote an historical account of his reign. The most distinguished of the native scholars was John Cesingβ alias Janus 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 own 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 KingColoman the Learned (1095-1114) were translated from that language into Latin. Among the literary relics of the 12th century are the ‘ ‘ Latiatuc” or Halotti Beszéd funeral discourse and prayer in Hungarian, to which Döbrentei in his Régi Magyar Nyelvemlékek assigns as a probable date the year 1171 (others, however, 1182 or 1183). From the Margit- Legenda, or “Legend of St Margaret,” composed in the early part of the 14th century, it 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 of 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 Sajô-St-Peter (1403) relating to the wine trade; by the testament of Kazzai·Karacson (1413); and by other relics of this period published by Döbrentei in vol. ii. of the R. Μ. 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 the Ének Pann6nia megvételérôl, 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 Tamas and Balint (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 extant Magyar version of part of the Scriptures (the Vienna or Rêvai Codex ?) is directly assigned by Döbrentei, but the exact date either of this copy or of the original translation cannot now be ascertained. With approximate certainty may be ascribed also to Tamas and Bâlint the original of the still extant transcript, by George Németi, of the Four Gospels, the Jdszay or Munich Codex (finished at Tatros in Moldavia in 1466). Amongst other important codices are CazJorddnszkyCodexiy⅛ ∖ ⅛-V∂'), an incomplete copy of the translation of the Bible made by Ladislaus Bâtori, who died about 1456; and the Döbrentei or Gyulafehervdr 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 irodalomtôrténet υdzlata, 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); the Siralomének Both Jdnos 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 the Emlékdal Mdtyds kirâly halâldra (Memorial Song on the Death of King Matthias, 1490). To these may be added the rhapsody on the taking of “Szabâcs” (1476); the Katalin- Legenda, a metrical “Legend of St Catherine of Alexandria,” extending to over 4000 lines; and the Feddôënék (Upbraiding Song), by Francis Apâthi.
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 Komjati (Cracow, 1533); of the Four Gospels, by Gabriel (Mizsér) Pesti (Vienna, 1536); of the New Testament, by John Erdösi (Ujsziget, 1541; 2d ed., Vienna, 1574), and by Thomas Félegyhâzi (1586); and the translations of the Bible, by Caspar Heltai (Klausenburg, 1551-65), and by Caspar Kâroli (Vizsoly, near Göncz, 1589-90). The last, considered the best, was corrected and re-edited by Albert Molnar at Hanau in 1608. Heltai published also (1571) a translation, improved from that by Blasius Veres (1565), of the Tripartitum of Verböczy, and Chronika (1575) adapted from the Decades of Bonfini. Karâdi in 1569 brought to light the earliest national drama, Balassi Mcnyhért. Among the native poets, mostly mere rhyming chroniclers of the 16th century, were Csanadi, Tinôdi, Nagy-Baczai, Bogati, Ilôsvay, Istvanfi, Görgei, Temesvâri, and Valkai. Of these the best and. most prolific writer was Tinôdi. Székely wrote in prose, with verse introduction, a “Chronicle of the World” under the title of Cronica ezvildgnac yeles dolgairöl (Cracow, 1559). Csaktornya and Kakony imitated the ancient classical poets, and Erdösi introduced the hexameter. Andrew Farkas and the homilist Peter Melius (Juhasz) 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 Hapsburgs, were unfavourable to the development of the national literature during the next literary period, dating from the Peace of Vienna (1606) to that of Szatmar (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 Kai di, and another complete translation of the Scriptures, the so-called Komdromi Biblia (Komorn Bible) was made in 1685 by the Protestant George Csipkés, though it was not published till 1717 at Leyden, twenty-nine years after his death. ® On behalf of the Catholics the Jesuit Peter Pazman, eventually primate, Nicholas Eszterhâzy, Sâmbâr, Balâsfi, and others were the authors of various works of a polemical nature. Especially famous was the Hodoegus, kalauz of Pazmân, which first appearedat Pozsony(Pressburg) in 1613. Among the Protestants who exerted themselves in theological and controversial writings were Németi, Alvinczy, Alexander Felvinczy, Marton-falvi, and Melotai, who was attached to the court of Bethlen Gabor. Telkibauyai wrote on “English Puritanism” (1654). The Calvinist Albert Molnar, already mentioned, was more especially remarkable for his philological than for his theological labours. Parispâpai compiled an Hungarian-Latin Dictionary, Dictionarium magyar és dedk nyelven (Locse, 1708), and Apaczai-Csere, a Magyar Encyclopae- dia (Utrecht, 1653). John Szalardi, Paul Lisznyai, Gregory Pethö, JohnKemény, and Benjamin Szilâgyi, which last, however, wrote in Latin, were the authors of various historical works. In polite literature the heroic poem Zriπywisz(l651), 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 monotonous Mohdcsi veszedelem (Disaster of Mohâcs), 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 MUrany, Murdnyi 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 Kohari is much esteemed, though his poems are of a very serious and contemplative turn. More fluent but not less gloomy are the sacred lyrics of Nyéki-Veres first published in 1636 under the Latin title of Tintinnabulum Tripudiantium. The songs and proverbs of Peter Beniczky, who lived in the early part of the 17th century, are not without merit, and have been several times reprinted. We may here mention that, from the appearance of the first extant printed Magyar work ® at Cracow in 1531 to the end of the period we have just been treating of, more than 1800 publications in the native language are known.
The period comprised between the peace of Szatmar (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 the 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 Spangâr, whose ‘ ‘ Hungarian Bookstore,” Magyar Konyvtdr (Kassa, 1738), is said to be the earliest work of the kind in the Magyar dialect; George Bârânyi, 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 title Magyar Athénds (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 Radai in his Lelki hodolds (Spiritual Homage), published at Debreczen in 1715. Among the didactic poets may be mentioned Lewis Nagy, George Kalmar, John Illey, and Paul Bertalanfi, especially noted for his rhymed “Life of St Stephen, first Hungarian king,” Dicsôséges Sz. Istυdn elsö magyar kirdlynak elete (Vienna, 1751).
The remaining 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 dates from the year 1830, and comprises the results of the native language and literature in the highest state of cultivation.
In consequence of the general neglect of the Magyar language during the reigns of Maria Theresa and her successor Joseph II., the more important prose productions of the latter part of the 18th century, as for instance the historical works of George Pray, Stephen Katona, John Engel, and Ignatius Fessler, were written either in Latin or in German. The reaction in favour of the native literature manifested itself at first chiefly in the creation of various schools of poetry. Foremost among these stood the so-called “French” school, founded by George Bessenyei, the author of several dramatic pieces, and of an imitation of Pope’s “Essay on Man,” under the title of Az embernekprdbdja (Vienna, 1772). Bessenyei introduced the use of rhymed alexandrines in place of the monotonous Zrinian measure. Other writers of the same school were Laurence Orczy and Abraham Barcsay, whose works have a striking resemblance to each other, and were published together by Rêvai (1789). The songs and elegies of the short-lived Paul Anyos, edited by Bacsânyi in 1798, show great depth of feeling. Versifiers and adapters from the French appeared also in Counts Adam and Joseph Teleki, Alexander Bârôczi, and Joseph Péczeli, known also as the translator of Young’s “Night Thoughts.” The chief representatives of the strictly “classical” school, which adopted the ancient Greek and Latin authors as its models, were David Barôti Szabo, Nicholas Rêvai, Joseph Râjnis, and Benedict Virâg. Among the most noteworthy works of Barôti are the Uj mértékre rett külömb versek (Kassa, 1777), comprising hexameter verses, Horatian odes, distiches, epistles, and epigrams; the. Paraszti Majorsdg{ Kassa, 1779— 80), an hexameter version of Vamere’s Praedium rusticum ; and an abridged version of “Paradise Lost,” contained in the KôUcményes munkaji (Komarom, 1802). Barôti, moreover, published (1810— 13) a translation of Virgil’s Aencid and Eclogues. Of Baroti’s purely linguistic works the best known are his Ortographia és Prosodia (Komârom, 1800); and the Kisded Szôtdr (Kassa, 1784 and 1792) or “Small Lexicon” of rare Hungarian words. As a philologist Barôti was far surpassed by Rêvai, whose linguistic labours have already been alluded to (see above, Language) ; but as a poet he may be considered superior to Rajnis, translator of Virgil’s Bucolics and Georgies, and author of the Magyar Helikonra vezetö ^kalauz (Guide to the Magyar Helicon, 1781). The “classical” school reached its highest state of culture under Virâg, whose poetical works, consisting chiefly of Horatian odes and epistles, on account of the perfection of their style, obtained for him the name of the “Magyar Horace.” The Poctai Mιmkai (Poetical Works) of Virag were published at Pest in 1799, and again in 1822. Of his prose works the most important is the Magyar Szdzadok or “Pragmatic History of Hungary” (Buda, 1808 and 1816). Vâlyi-Nagy, the first Magyar translator of Homer, belongs rather to the “popular” than the “classical” school. His translation of the Iliad appeared at Sarosρatak in 1821. The . establishment of the “national” or “popular” school is attributable chiefly to Andrew Dugonics, though Ins earliest works, Troja veszcdelme (1774) and Ulysses (1780), indicate a classical bias. His national romances, however, and especially Etelka (Pozsony, 1787) and Az arany per-eczek (Pest and Pozsony, 1790), attracted public attention, and were soon adapted for the stage. The most valuable of his productions is his collection of “Hungarian Proverbs and Famous Sayings,” which appeared in 1820 at Szeged, under the title of Magyar pél-dabeszédek és jeles monddsok. The most noteworthy follower of Dugonics was Adam Horvath, author of the epic poems Hunnidsz (Györ, 1787) and Rudolphidsz (Vienna, 1817). Joseph Gvadânyi’s tripartite workF ’ αfuOT notdrius (Village Notary), published between 1790 and 1796, as also his Runt6 Pal és gr. Benyowszkÿ t'ôrténeteik (Adventures of Paul Rontô and Count Benyowski), are humorous and readable, but careless in style. As writers of didactic poetry may be mentioned John Endrödy, Caspar Göböl, Joseph Takacs, and Barbara Molnar, the earliest distinguished Magyar poetess.
Of a more general character, and combining the merits of the above schools, are the works of the authors who constituted the so-called “Debreczen Class,” which boasts the names of the naturalist and philologist John Földi, compiler of a considerable part of the Debreczeni magyar grammatica ; Michael Fazekas, author of Ludas Matyi (Vienna, 1817), an epic poem, in 4 cantos; and Joseph Kovacs. Other precursors of the modern school were the poet and philologist Francis Verseghy, whose works extend to nearly forty volumes; the gifted didactic prose writer, Joseph Karman; the metrical rhymster, Gideon Raday; the lyric poets, Szentjôbi Szabo, John Bacsànyi, and the short-lived Gabriel Dayka, whose posthumous “Verses” were published in 1813 by Kazinczy. Still more celebrated were Michael Csokonai and Alexander Kisfaludy. The former is one of the most original and genial of poets, his style somewhat resembling that of Petöfi. The best edition of Csokonai’s works was published by Toldy (Pest, 1844). The first volume of Alexander Kisfaludy’s Himfy, a series of short lyrics of a descriptive and reflective nature, appeared at Buda in 1801, under the title of Kesergδ szerelcm (Unhappy Love), and was received with such applause as but few books have ever met with; nor was the success of the second volume Boldog szerelcm (Happy Love), which appeared in 1807, inferior. The-‰7⅛ or “Tales of the Past,” were published at Buda from 1807 to 1808, and still further increased Kisfaludy’s fame; but in his dramatic works he was not equally successful. Journalistic literature in the native language begins with the Magyar Hirmond6 (Harbinger) started by Matthias Rath at Pozsony in 1780. Among the magazines the most important was the Magyar Muzeum, established at Kassa (Kaschau) in 1788 by Barôti, Kazinczy, and Bacsànyi. The Orpheus (1790) was the special work of Kazinczy, and the Urania (1794) of Karman and of Pajor.
Closely connected with the preceding period is that of the “Revival of the Language” (1807-1830), with which the name of Francis Kazinczy is especially associated. To him it was left to perfect that work of restoration begun by Barôti and amplified by Rêvai. Poetry and belles lettres still continued to occupy the chief place in the native literature, but under Kazinczy and his immediate followers Berzsenyi, Kölcsey, Fay, and others, a correctness of style and excellence of taste hitherto unknown soon became apparent. Kazinczy, in his efforts to accommodate the national language to the demands of an improved civilization, availed himself of the treasures of European literature, but thereby incurred the opposition of those who were prejudiced by a too biased feeling of nationality. The opinions of his enemies were ventilated in a lampoon styled Mondolat. His bellelettristic works, or Szép Litcratura (Pest, 1814-16), extend to 9 vols., consisting in great part of translations. His EredetiMukai (Original Works), in 5 vols., appeared at Pest in 1836-45, under the joint editorship of Bajza and Toldy. Daniel Berzsenyi, whose odes are among the finest in the Hungarian language, was the correspondent of Kazinczy, and like him a victim of the attacks of the Mondolat. But the fervent patriotism, elevated style, and glowing diction of Berzsenyi soon caused him to be recognized as a truly national bard. A too frequent allusion to Greek mythological names is a defect sometimes observable in his writings. His collective works were published at Buda by Döbrentei in 1842. Those of John Kis, the friend of Berzsenyi, cover a wide range of subjects, and comprise, besides original poetry, many translations from the Greek, Latin, French, German, and English, among which last may be mentioned renderings from Blair, Pope, and Thomson, and notably his translation, published at Vienna in 1791, of Lowth’s “Choice of Hercules.” The style of Kis is unaffected and easy. As a sonnet writer none stands higher than Paul Szemere, known also for his rendering of Körner’s drama Zrinyi (1818), and his contributions to the Elct és Litcratura (Life and Literature). The articles of Francis Kölcsey in the same periodical are among the finest specimens of Hungarian aesthetical criticism. The lyric poems of Kölcsey can hardly be surpassed, whilst his orations, and markedly the Emlék beszéd Kazinczy fclett (Commemorative Speech on Kazinczy), exhibit not only his own powers, but the singular excellence of the Magyar language as an oratorical medium. Andrew Fay, sometimes styled the “Hungarian Aesop,” was an industrious writer in almost every branch of literature during both this and the following period, but is now chiefly remembered for his Eredeti Mesek (Original Fables). The dramatic works of Charles Kisfaludy, brother of Alexander, won him enthusiastic recognition as a regenerator of the drama. His plays, moreover, bear a distinctive national character, the subjects of most of them referring to the golden era of the country. His genuine simplicity as a lyrical writer is shown by the fact that several of his shorter pieces have passed into popular song. As the earliest Magyarizer of Servian folk-song, Michael Vitkovics did valuable service. Not without interest to Englishmen is the name of Gabriel Döbrentei, the translator of Shakespeare’s “Macbeth,” represented at Pozsony in 1825, and of Sterne’s “Letters from Yorick to Eliza,” Yorick és Eliza leυelci (Pest, 1828). But his chief merit in the eyes of his fellow-countrymen were his editorship of the Kolozsvar Erdélyi Muzeum (1814-18, vol. x.), and his laborious compilation of the Régi Magyar Nyelvemlékek (Memorials of the Magyar Language), which works are among the most important contributions to the literary history of the nation. An historical poem of a somewhat philosophical nature was produced in 1814 by Andreas Horvath under the title of Zircz emlékezete (Reminiscence of,Zircz); but his Arpdd, in 12 books, finished in 1830, and published' at Pest in the following year, is a great national epic. Among other poets of this period were Alois Szentmiklôssy, George Gaal, Emil Buczy, Joseph Szàsz, Ladislaus Toth, and Joseph Katona, author of the much-extolled historical drama Bdnk Ban. Izidore Guzmics, the translator of Theocritus into Magyar hexameters, is chiefly noted for his prose writings on ecclesiastical and philosophical subjects. As authors of special works on philosophy, we find Samuel Köteles, John Imre, Joseph Ruszek, Daniel Ercsei, and Paul Sàrvàri; as a theologian and Hebraist John Somossy; as an historian and philologist Stephen Horvath, who endeavoured to trace the Magyar descent from the earliest historic times; as writers on jurisprudence Alexander Kövy and Paul Szlemenics. (For an account of the historian George Fejér, the laborious compiler of the Codex Diplomaticus, see Fejér, vol. ix. pp. 64, 65.)
The establishment of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences ® (17th November 1830) marks the commencement of a new period, in the first eighteen years of which gigantic exertions were made as regards the literary and intellectual life of the nation. The language, nursed by the academy, developed rapidly, and showed its capacity for giving expression to almost every form of scientific knowledge. By offering rewards for the best original dramatic productions, the academy provided that the national theatre should not suffer from a lack of classical dramas. During the earlier part of its, existence the Hungarian academy devoted itself mainly to the scientific development of the language and philological research. Since its reorganization in 1869 the academy has, however, paid equal attention to the various departments of history, archaeology, national economy, and the physical sciences. The encouragement of polite literature was more especially the object of the Kisfaludy Society, founded in 1836.
Polite literature had received a great impulse in the preceding period (1807-30), but after the formation of the academy and the Kisfaludy society it advanced with accelerated speed towards the point attained by other nations. Foremost among epic poets, though not equally successful as a dramatist, was Michael Vörösmarty, who, belonging also to the close of the last period, combines great power of imagination with elegance of language. His historical tragedy Salamon Kirdly (King Solomon, 1821), though deficient in dramatic force, attracted considerable attention. As fine specimens of epic poetry the Zaldn futdsa (Flight of Zalan, 1824) and Cserhalom (1826) are unrivalled. His lyrical poems are exquisite both in taste and style; his Sz6zat (Appeal) is the Magyar national anthem. Vörösmarty is also celebrated as the translator of Shakespeare’s “Julius Caesar” and “King Lear.” Generally less varied and romantic, though easier in style, are the heroic poems Aιιgsburgi ütközet (Battle of Augsburg) and Aradi gyülés (Diet of Arad) of Gregory Czuczor, who was, moreover, very felicitous as an epigrammatist. Martin Debreczeni was chiefly famed for his Ki6vi csata (Battle of Kieff), published at Pest in 1854 after his death by Count Emeric Miko. The laborious John Garay in his Szent Ldszlô shows considerable ability as an epic poet, but his greatest merit was rather as a romancist and ballad writer, as shown by the “Pen Sketches” or Tollrajzok (1845), and his legendary series Àrpddok (1847). Joseph Bajza was a lyricist of a somewhat melancholy cast, but his Borének (Wine Song), Sohajtds (Sigh), Ébresztü (Awakening), and Apotheosis are much admired. He is known further as the translator of F. C. Dahlmann’s Geschichte der englischen Revolution. As generally able writers of lyrical poetry during the earlier part of this period may be mentioned among others Francis Csaszar, Joseph Székâcs, and Andrew Kunoss,—also Lewis Szakâl and Alexander Vachott, whose songs and romances are of an artless and simple character, and the sacred lyricist Béla Târkânyi. As an original but rather heavy lyric and didactic poet we may mention Peter Vajda, who was, moreover, the translator of Bulwer’s “Night and Morning.” Of a more distinctly national tendency are the lyrics of John Kriza and John Erdélyi, but the reputation of the latter was more especially due to his collections of folk-lore made on behalf of the Kisfaludy society. More popular than any of the preceding, and well-known in England through Sir John Bowring’s translation, are the charming lyrics of Alexander Petöfi, the t ‘ Burns” of Hungary. His poems, embodying as they do the national genius, have passed into the very life of the people; particularly is he happy in the pieces descriptive of rural life. In his verse “Folk-tales,” Népregék (1846), and “Ballads,” Regék (1852), may Michael Tompa, another popular poet, be regarded as sometimes hardly less felicitous. The most diversely gifted Magyar singer, however, is John Arany, whose talents have been displayed, not only in ballads and lyrical effusions, but in almost every branch of poetry except the dramatic. Especially famous is the Toldi trilogy, of which the first part Toldi, in 12 cantos, relating to the youth of the hero, was published at Pest in 1847; the third part, Toldi Estéje (Toldi’s Eve), describing his fall and death, in 1854; and the middle part, Toldi Szerelme (Toldi’s Love), in 1879. The Nagyidai ezigdnyok (Eida Gipsies), a fine humorous epic poem in 4 cantos, appeared in 1852. A collective edition of Arany’s poetical works was published at Pest and Vienna in 1867.
Among recent lyricists who have attracted attention are the following :—Coloman Toth, who is also the author of several epic and dramatic pieces; John Vajda, whose Kisebb Koltemények (Minor Poems), published by the Kisfaludy society in 1872, are partly written in the mode of Heine, and are of a pleasing but melancholy character; Joseph Lévay, known also as the translator of Shakespeare’s Titus Andronicus, Taming of the Shrew, and Henry IV. ; and Paul Gyulai, who, not only as a faultless lyric and epic poet, but as an impartial critical writer, is highly esteemed, and whose Romhdnyi is justly prized as one of the best Magyar poems that has appeared in modern times. To the above may be added the names of Charles Berecz, Joseph Zalar, Samuel Nyilas, Joseph Vida, Lewis Tolnai, the sentimental Ladislaus Szelestey, and the talented painter Zoltan Balogh, whose romantic poem Alpdri was published in 1871 by the Kisfaludy society. The lyrics of Anthony Vârady (1875, 1877) are somewhat dull and unequal in tone; both he and Baron Ivor Kaas, author of Az itélet napja (Day of Judgment, 1876), have shown skill rather in the art of dramatic verse. The poems of Count Géza Zichy and Victor Dalmady, those of the latter published at Budapest in 1876, are mostly written on subjects of a domestic nature, but are conceived in a patriotic spirit. Emil Abrânyi adopts a rather romantic style, but his Nagy péntek (Good Friday) is an excellent descriptive sketch. Alexander Endrödy, author of Tι'ιcs'6k dalok (Cricket Songs, 1876), is a glowing writer, with great power of conception, but his metaphors, following rapidly one upon the other, become often confused. Joseph Kiss in 1876 brought out a few lyric and epic poems of considerable merit. The Mcsék of Augustus Greguss (1878), a collection of verse “Fables,” belonging to the school of Gay, partake more of a didactic than lyrical nature. This feature is noticeable also in the Koltemények (1873) of Ladislaus Torkos, and the Modern Mesék (1874) of Ladislaus Nevy. An energetic satirical poet has recently appeared in Lewis Bartok.
As one of the latest remarkable productions of Magyar poetry, we must not omit to draw attention to the Salamon (1878) of Charles Szâsz, which poem was rewarded with the prize of the academy. The subject, taken from the age of Hungarian chivalry, is artistically worked out from mediaeval legends, and gives an excellent description of the times of St Ladislaus of Hungary. Charles Szâsz is generally better known as a metrical translator than as an original poet. He is the Magyarizer of Shakespeare’s Anthony and Cleopatra, Othello, Macbeth, Henry VIII., Winter's Tale, Romeo and Juliet, and Tempest, as also of some of the best pieces of Burns, Moore, Byron, Shelley, Milton, Béranger, Lamartine, Victor Hugo, Goethe, and others. A translator from Byron and Pope appeared also in Maurice Lukâcs.
Meanwhile dramatic literature has found many champions, of whom the most energetic is the late Edward Szigligeti, proprie Joseph Szathmâry, who has enriched the Hungarian stage with more than a hundred pieces. Of these the most popular are comedies and serio-comic national dramas. His recently produced tragedy Béla IV. is also much admired. A less prolific but more classical writer appeared in Charles Obernyik, whose George Brankovics is, next to Katona’s Bdnk Bdn, one of the best historical tragedies in the language. Several of the already mentioned lyric and epic poets were, as we have shown in the case of Vörösmarty, occasional writers also for the drama. To these we may add the gifted but unfortunate Sigismund Czakô, Lewis Dobsa, Joseph Szigeti, Ignatius Nagy, Joseph Szenvey (a translator from Schiller), Joseph Gaal, Charles Hugo, Lawrence Toth (the Magyarizer of the School for Scandal), Emeric Vahot, Alois Degré (equally famous as a novelist), Stephen Toldy, and Lewis Doczi, author of the popular prize drama Cs6k (The Kiss). Az ember tragoedidja (The Tragedy of Man), by Emeric Madâch (1861), is a dramatic poem of a philosophical and contemplative character, and is not intended for the stage. Among the latest most successful dramatic pieces may be mentioned the Falu rossza (Village Scamp) of the late Edward T6th (1875), which represents the life of the Hungarian peasantry, and shows both Eoetic sentiment and dramatic skill; A szerelem harcza (Combat of ove), by Count Géza Zichy; Iskdriot (1876) and the prize tragedy Tamora (1879), by Anthony Vârady; Jdnus (1877), by Gregory Csiky; and the dramatized romance Szép Mikhal (Handsome Michal), by Maurice Jôkai (1877). The principal merit of this author’s drama Milton (1876) consists in its brilliance of language. The Szerelem iskoldja (School of Love), by Eugene Râkosy, although in some parts exquisitely worded, did not meet with the applause accorded to his Ripacsos Pista Dolmdnya (1874). The Grôf Dor-mdndi Kdlmdn (Count Coloman Dormândi) of Béla Bercsényi (1877) is a social tragedy of the French school. Among the most recent writers of comedy we single out Arpad Berczik for his A hdzasitôk (The Matchmakers); Ignatius Sιilyovsky for his Nöi diplomatia (Female Diplomacy); and the above-mentioned Gregory Csiky for his Ellendllhatatlan (The Irresistible), produced on the stage in 1878. As popular plays the Sdrga csikô (Bay Foal) and A piros bugyelldris (The Red Purse) by Francis Csepreghy, have their own special merit, and were often represented in 1878 and 1879 at Budapest and elsewhere.
Original romance writing, which may be said to have commenced with Dugonics and Karman at the close of the 18th, and to have found a representative in Francis Verseghy at the beginning of the 19th century, was afterwards revived by Fay in his Béltcky hdz (1832), and by the contributors to certain literary magazines, especially the Aurora, an almanack conducted by Charles Kisfaludy, 1821-30, and continued by Joseph Bajza to 1837. Almost simultaneously with the rise of the Kisfaludy society, works of fiction assumed a more vigorous tone, and began to present just claims for literary recognition. Far from adopting the levity of style too often observable in French romances, the Magyar novels, although enlivened by touches of humour, have generally rather a serious historical or political bearing. Especially is this the case with Nicholas Josika’s Abafi (1836), A cs<∙hek MagyarorszAgon (The Bohemians in Hungary), and Az utolsô Bdtori (The Last of the Bâthoris), published in 1847. In these, as in many other of the romances of J6sika, a high moral standard is aimed at. The same may be said of Baron Joseph Eotvos’s Karthausi (1839), and Falu Jegyzδje (Village Notary), published in 1845, and translated into English (1850) by 0. Wenckstern (see Eötvös, vol. viii. p. 455). The Àrvizk'ônyv or “Inundation Book,” edited by Eötvös, 1839-41, is a collection of narratives and poems by the most celebrated authors of the time. Of the novels produced by Baron Sigismond Kemény the Gyulai Pal (1847), in 5 vols., is, from its historical character, the most im-f>ortant. His Férj és nö (Husband and Wife) appeared in 1853 latest ed., 1878), the Bajong6k (Fanatics), in 4 vols., in 1858-59.
The graphic descriptions of Hungarian life in the middle and lower classes by Lewis Kuthy won for him temporary renown; but his style, though flowery, is careless. Another popular writer of great originality was Joseph Radâkovics alias Vas-Gereben. The romances of Baron Frederick Podιnaniczky are simpler, and rather of a narrative than colloquial character. The fertile writer Paul Kovacs excels more particularly in humorous narration. Fay’s singular powers in this direction were well shown by his JAvor orvos és Bakator Ambrus szolgdja (Doctor Jâvor and his servant Ambrose Bakator), brought out at Pest in 1855. The Beszélyek (Tales) of Ladislaus Beöthy were produced in the same year, his Pusztdk Jia (Son of the Pusztas) in 1857. Pleasing humorous sketches are contained also in Ignatius Nagy’s Beszélyek (1843) and “Caricatures” or Torzképek (1844); in Caspar Bernât’s Fresko képek (1847-50); in Gustavus Lauka’s Vidék, and his A jô régi vilAg (The Good Old World), published respectively in 1857 and 1863; and in Alexander-Balazs’s Beszélyei (1855) and Tük'ôrdarabok (1865). Among authors of other historical or humorous romances and tales which have appeared from time to time are Francis Marton alias Lewis Abonyi, Joseph Gaal, Paul Gyulai, William Györi, Lazarus Horvath, the short-lived Joseph Irinyi, translator of “Uncle Tom’s Cabin,” Francis Ney, Albert Palffy, Alexander Vachott and his brother Emeric (Vahot), Charles Szathmary, Desider Margittay, Victor Vajda, Joseph Bodon, Atala Kisfaludy, John Kratky, and the several writers whose names and latest works are noticed at the end of this paragraph. But by far the most prolific and talented novelist that Hungary can boast of is Maurice Jokai, whose power of imagination and brilliancy of style, no less than his true representations of Hungarian life and character, have earned for him a European reputation. His earlier romances, published before the revolution of 1848, are chiefly of a social or political tendency. Of his more recent productions the best known are Egy magyar ndbob (A Magyar Nabob), with its continuation Kdrρdthy Zoltdn, published in 1853 and 1854 respectively; Szerelem bolondjai (The Fools of Love, 1867); Az d,j Joldesur (The New Landlord), translated into English by A. J. Patterson (1868); Fekete gyémAntok (Black Diamonds, 1870); A jövö szdzad regénye (The Romance of the Coming Century, 1873); Az élet komédidsai (The Comedians of Life, 1876); the historical romance Szép Mikhdl (1876) already referred to; and his justly admired and vividly interesting work Egy az isten, (God is One, 1877). The events of the last-mentioned novel, in which the Unitarians play an important part, are supposed to take place between the years 1848 and 1859, and the scenes are laid partly in Transylvania, partly in Italy. In his A névtelen wir (Nameless Castle, 1878), the author connects an epoch of French history with Hungarian, and gives an account of the Hungarian army employed so unsuccessfully against Napoleon in 1809. Bab Rdby (Captive Raby), produced in 1879, is a tale of the times of Joseph II. Defects occasionally observable in Jokai’s works are want of unity, consistency, and probability. Of the novels produced by other authors since 1870, we may mention A hoi az ember kezdödik (Where the Man Begins), by Edward Kavassy (1871), in which he severely lashes the idling Magyar nobility; Az én ismcr-δscim{My Acquaintances), by Lewis Tolnai (1871); and Anatol, by Stephen Toldy (1872); the versified romances Déli bdbok hose (Hero of the Fata Morgana), generally ascribed to Ladislaus Arany, but anonymously published, A szerelem höse (Hero of Love), by John Vajda (1873), and Talâlkozàsok (Rencounters) by the same (1877), and A Tünderöv (The Fairy Zone), by John Bulla (1876), all four interesting as specimens of narrative poetry; KAlozdy Béla (1875), a tale of Hungarian provincial life, by Zoltân Beöthy, a pleasing writer who possesses a fund of humour, and appears to follow the best English models; Edith tôrténctc (History of Edith) bv Joseph Prém (1876); Nyomordsdg iskoldja (School of Misery), by the pro·? lific author Arnold Vértesi (1878); Titkolt szerelem (Secret Love), by Cornelius Äbränyi (1879), a social-political romance of some merit; and Uj idok, avait emberck (Modern Times, Men of the Past), by L. Veka (1879). In the Itthon (At Home), by Alois Degre (1877), the tale is made the medium for a satirical attack upon official corruption and Hungarian national vanity; and' in the Almolc dlmodôja (Dreamer of Dreams), by John Asboth (1878), other national defects are aimed at. A rosz szomszéd (The Bad Neighbour), by Charles Vadnay (1878), is a felicitous representation of the power of love. The Az utolsô Bebck (The Last of the Bebeks), by the late Charles Pétery, is a work rich in poetic invention, but meagre in historical matter. The reverse is the case with, the Lajos pap (Priest Lewis), by Charles Vajkay (1879), the scene of which is placed at Pest, in the beginning of the 14th century. In this romance the interest of the narrative is weakened by a superabundance of historical and archaeological detail.
As regards works of a scientific character, the Magyars until recently were confessedly behind hand as compared with many other European nations. Indeed, before the foundation of the Hungarian academy in 1830, but few such works claiming general recognition had been published in the native language. Even in 1847 astronomy, physics, logic, and other subjects of the kind had to be taught in several of the lyceums through the medium of Latin. The violent political commotions of the next few years allowed but little opportunity for the prosecution of serious studies; the subsequent quieter state of the country, and gradual re-establishment of the language as a means of education, were, however, more favourable to the development of scientific knowledge.
In the department of philosophy, besides several writers of dissertations bearing an imitative, didactic, or polemical character, Hungary can boast a few authors of independent and original thought. Of these one of the most notable is Cyril Horvath, whose treatises published in the organs of the academy display a rare freedom and comprehensiveness of imagination. John Hetényi and Gustavus Szontagh must be rather regarded as adopters and developers of the ethical teaching of Samuel Köteles in the previous period. Hyacinth Ronay in his MutatvAny (Representation) and Jellemisme (Characteristics) endeavoured to popularize psychological studies. The philosophical labours of the already mentioned John Erdélyi and of Augustus Greguss won for them λvell-deserved recognition, the latter especially being famous for his aesthetical productions, in which he appears to follow out the principles of Vischer. The TanulmAnyok (Studies) of Greguss were brought out at Pest in 1872. The reputation of John Szilasy, John Varga, Fidelius Beély, and Francis Ney arose rather from their works bearing on the subject of education than from their contributions to philosophy.
The labours of Stephen Horvath in the preceding period had prepared the way for future workers in the field of historical literature. Specially meritorious among these are Michael Horvath, Ladislaus Szalay, Paul Jâszay, and Count Joseph Teleki. The Magyarok t'ôrténete (History of the Magyars), in 4 vols., first published at Papa (1842-46), and afterwards in 6 vols, at Pest (1860-63), and in 8 vols. (1871—73), is the most famous of Michael Horvath’s numerous historical productions. Ladislaus Szalay’s Magyarorszdg t'ôrténete (History of Hungary), vols. L-iv. (Leipsic, 1852-54), vols, v.-vi. (Pest, 1856-61), second edition, i.-v. (1861-66), is a most comprehensive work) showing more particularly the progress of Hungarian legislative development in past times. His style is elevated and concise, but somewhat difficult. Magyar history is indebted to Paul Jâszay for his careful working out of certain special periods, as, for instance, in his A Magyar nemzet napjai a legrégibb idötöl az arany bulldig (Days of the Hungarian nation from the earliest times to the date of the Golden Bull). Count Joseph Teleki is famed chiefly for his Hunyadiak kora MagyarorszAgon (The Times of the Hunyadys in Hungary), vols, i.-vi. (Pest, 1852-63), x.-xii. (1853— 57), the result of thirty years’ labour and research. In particular departments of historical literature we find George Bartal, author of Commentariorum . . . libri XV., tom. i,-iii. (Pozsony, 1847), John Czech, Gustavus Wcnczel, Frederick Pesty, and Γau[ Szlemenics, as writers on legal history; Joseph Bajza, who in 1845 commenced a “History of the World,” Alexander Szilagyi, some of whose works, like those of Ladislaus Kövary, bear on the past of Transylvania, others on the Hungarian revolution of 1848-49; Charles Ldnyi and John Pauer, authors of treatises on Roman Catholic ecclesiastical history; John Szombathi, Emeric Révész, and Balogh, w riters on Protestant church history; William Fraknôi, biographer of Cardinal Pâzmân, and historian of the Hungarian diets; and Anthony Gévay, Aaron Szilâdi, Joseph Podhradczky, Charles Szabo, John Jerney, and Francis Salamon, who have investigated and elucidated many special historical subjects. For the mediaeval history of Hungary the MdtyAskori diplomatikai emlékek (Diplomatic Memorials of the Time of Matthias Corvinus), issued by the academy under the joint editorship of Ivan Nagy and Baron Albert Nyâry, affords interesting material. As a masterly production based on extensive investigation, we note the Wesselényi Ferencz . . . ôsszeesküvése (The Secret Plot of Francis Wesselényi, 1664-71), by Julius Pauler (1876). Among the many historians of Magyar literature Francis Toldy alias Schedel holds the foremost place. As compilers of useful manuals may be mentioned also Joseph Szvorényi, Zoltan Beöthy, Alexander Imre, Paul Jâmbor, Ladislaus Névy, John Környei, and Joseph Szinnyei, junior. For philological and ethnographical research into the origin and growth of the language none excels Paul Hunfalvy. He is, moreover, the warm advocate of the theory of its Ugrio-Finnic origin, as established by the late Uralian traveller Anthony Reguly, the result of whose labours Hunfalvy published in 1864, under the title A Vogul fold és nép (The Vogul Land and People). Between 1862 and 1866 valuable philological studies bearing on the same subject were published by Joseph Budenz in the Nyelvtudomânyi kozlemények (Philological Transactions). This periodical, issued by the academy, has during the last decade (1870-80) contained also comparative studies, by Arminius Vâmbéry and Gabriel Balint, of the Magyar, Turkish-Tatar, and Mongolian dialects.
As compilers and authors of works in various scientific branches allied to history, may be particularly mentioned—in statistics and geography, Alexins Fényes, Emeric Palugyay, Alexander Konek, John Hunfalvy, CharlesGalgoczy, Charles Keleti, Leo Beöthy, Joseph Körösi, Charles Ballagi, and Paul Kiraly, and, as regards Transylvania, Ladislaus Kövary; in travel, Arminius Vâmbéry, Ignatius Goldziher, Ladislaus Magyar, John Xantus, John Jerney, Count Andrâssy, Ladislaus Podmaniczky, Paul Hunfalvy; in astronomy, Nicholas Konkoly; in archaeology, Bishop Arnold Ipolyi, Florian Romer, Emeric Henszlmann, John Érdy, Baron Albert Nyâry, Francis Pulszky, and Francis Kiss; in Hungarian mythology, Bishop Ipolyi, Anthony Csengery, and Ârpad Kerékgyârtô; in numismatics, John Érdy and Jacob Rupp; and in jurisprudence, Augustus Karvassy, Theodore Pauler, Gustavus Wenczel, Emeric Csacsko, John Fogarasi, and Ignatius Frank. Since 1867 great activity has been displayed in history and its allied branches, owing to the direct encouragement given by the Hungarian Historical Society, and by the historical, archaeological, and statistical committees of the academy.
Notwithstanding the exertions of Paul Bugât to arouse an interest in the natural sciences by the establishment in 1841 of the “Hungarian Royal Natural Science Association,” no general activity was manifested in this department of knowledge, so far as the native literature was concerned, until 1860, when the academy organized a special committee for the advancement of mathematical and natural science. The principal contributors to the “Transactions” of this section of the academy have been—for anatomy and physiology, Coloman Balogh, Eugene Jendrassik, Joseph Lenhossek, and Lewis Thanhoffer; for zoology, John Frivaldszky, John Kriesch, and Theodore Margo; for botany, Frederick Hazs-linszky, Lewis Jurânyi, and Julius Klein; for mineralogy and ⅞eology, Joseph Szabo, Max Hantken, Joseph Krenner, Anthony Loch, and. Charles Hoffmann; for physics, Baron Lorando Eotvos, Coloman Szily, and Joseph Sztoczek; for chemistry, Charles Than and Vin cent Wartha; for meteorology, Guido Schenzl. As good text-books, for which the so-called “Ladies’ Prize” was awarded by the academy, we may mention the Természettan (Physics) and Természettani fδldrajz (Physical Geography) of Julius Greguss.
Almost simultaneously with the formation of the above-mentioned committee of the academy, the “Natural Science Association”
showed signs of renewed animation, and soon advanced with rapid strides in the same direction, but with a more popular aim than the academy. This may be seen from the fact that between 1868 and 1878 the number of its members increased from some 600 to about 5000. Since 1872, in addition to its regular organs, it has issued Hungarian translations of several popular scientific English works, as, for instance, Darwin’s Origin of Species ; Huxley’s Lessons in Physiology ; Lubbock’s Prehistoric Times ; Proctor’s Other Worlds than Ours ; Tyndall’s Heat as a Mode of Motion, &c. Versions have also been made of Cotta’s Geologie der Gegenwart and Helmholtz’s Populäre Vorlesungen. As important original monographs we note— Az drapdly a Fiumei öbölben (Ebb and Floλv in the Gulf of Fiume), by Emil Stahlberger (1874); Magyarorszâg p6k- faunâja (The Arachnida of Hungary), by Otto Hermann (1876-78); Magyarorszâg υaskδvei és vasterményei (The Iron Ores and Iron Products of Hungary), by Anthony Kerpely (1877); Magyarorszâg neυezetesebb dohânyfajainak chemiai . . . megvizsgdldsa (Chemical Examination of the most famous Tobaccos of Hungary), by Dr Thomas Kosutâny (1877).
In order to give a general idea of the dominant position that the native Hungarian literature has obtained during the last half century, we conclude our sketch with a few statistics of the number of books and periodicals issued from the press at various dates since the foundation of the academy. In the year 1831 there were 184 Magyar works published; in 1853 there were 336; this number in 1874 increased to 946; in 1877 to 1067; and in 1878 and 1879 to 1312 and 1154 respectively. In 1879 there appeared also 111 German works, and 185 in other non-Magyar languages. In 1830 the number of Magyar periodicals was 10; in 1848-49 it increased to 80, but fell in 1850 to 9. In 1867, after the restoration of the Hungarian constitution, the number was again 80, and increased so rapidly during the next twelve years that by 1879 it reached 324, and has in the present year (1880) risen to 368. There are now, moreover, 197 newspapers and journals of all kinds in the nonMagyar languages, viz., 114 German, 61 Slavonic, 16 Roumanian, 4 Italian, and 2 Hebrew; so that there are at this date altogether 565 periodicals published in Hungary.
If we take a retrospective glance at the depressed state of the native language and literature as it was a century ago, when the first Magyar newspaper was published at Pozsony, 1st January 1780, and contrast its commanding position now,—or if we consider that, though constantly surrounded and pressed by foreign and antagonistic elements, the native language and literature have not only not been overpowered, but have even gained the mastery, —we cannot fail to admire the determined perseverance of the champions of Magyar literature, and believe that the state language is destined to be a common and enduring bond of union between the various nationalities comprised under the crown of St Stephen.
Bibliography.— The best authorities on Magyar literature are:—F. Toldy, A Magyar nemzeti irodalom. torténéte a legrégibbidôktôt a jelenkorig (Pest, 1864-65; 3d ed., 1872); S. Imre, A Magyar irodalom es nyelυ rövid tôrtënele (Debreczen, 1865; 4th ed., 1878); J. Szvorényi, Magyar irodalmi szemelvények (Pest, 1867), and A Magyar irodalmi tanulmdnyok kezikönyve (Pest, 1868); P. Jâmbor, A Magyar irodalom törtenete (Pest, 1864); J. Környei, A Magyar nemzeti irodalomtôrténet vdzlata (Pest, 1861; 3d ed., 1874); A. Lonkay, A Magyar irodalom ismertetése (Buddn, 1855; 3d ed., Pest. 1864); J. Ferencz, Magyar irodalom és tudomdnyossdg törtenete (Pest, 1854); J. Ferencz és J. Daιιielik, Magyar ∕rok. Életrajz-Gyüte-mény (2 vols., Pest, 1856-58); and the literary histories of L. Névy, Z. Beöthy, and B. Erödi. One of the most useful monographs on “Magyar Literary History Writing” is that of J. Szinnyei, junior, A Magyar Irodalomtôrténet-lrds ismertetése (Budapest, 1878). For information as to the most recent literature see A. Dux, Aus Ungarn (Leipsic, 1880). (E. D. BU.)
Index. [table] [table] [table] [table] [table] [table]
