Oldal 197 [197]
THE INTELLECTUAL RESOURCES OF MODERN GOVERNANCE
Debrecen, and Pál Magda (1770-1841), who, after teaching various disciplines
at several institutions of Hungary, taught Staatenkunde at the Reformed College
of Sárospatak, both regarded their own works as the “updating” of Schwart¬
ner’s well-documented and clearly-structured Statistik. This structure is kept
throughout the 1840s, although some variations do take place in the mean¬
while. An additional goal in the works of scholars like Ercsei and Magda is
the translation of the terminology and contents of Staatenkunde into Hungar¬
ian. Indeed, translations became increasingly widespread, beginning with the
1820s, at the expense of the previously dominant Latin, and partly German,
treatises.” The state descriptions by Magda, but also those of Elek Fényes (1807¬
1876) during the Hungarian Reform Era after the Napoleonic wars, are telling
examples for the new demand to make Staatenkunde available in Hungarian
and other vernaculars, while still using German to reach a broader interna¬
tional readership.”
III
How did the taxonomy of Staatenkunde in Hungary modify over time? The
most significant change was the disappearance of the historical dimension
of description. While Schwartner makes use of the diachronic comparison
as an analytical tool in the Göttingen tradition, the next generation of Fe¬
nyes and Konek produces “presentist” accounts. Also, the explicit and implicit
comparison with other states disappears, turning into standard rationalised
calculations, such as population density — particularly visible in the works,
published in 1847 and in 1868 by Konek.** Some authors concentrate on the first
part of the triadic structure of Staatenkunde and turn to the material cause, as
seen in the description by Demian, who leaves out the characterization of the
legal and administrative spheres entirely. However, this classical division of
state descriptions is preserved surprisingly long into the nineteenth century,
as illustrated, again, by the table of contents in the Statistik by Konek.
Robert Horvath is also right inasmuch as the first part focusing on “Land und
Leute” becomes the most differentiated and richest domain of Staatenkunde.
” ErcsEI, Daniel, Statistica. Kozonséges statistica és Magyar Orszdgnak statisticdja, Vol. 1, Debre¬
czen, Csäthy, MDCCCXIV.; Maapa, Pal, Magyar Orszagnak és a hatarérzé katonasäg vidékeinek
legújabb statisztikai és geográfiai leirása, Pest, Trattner, 1819, 46—52. Magda does not follow
the Göttingen methods fully, but amalgamates them with the earlier style, which described the
administrative units of Hungary, the counties, one by one.
33 FÉNYES, Alexius von, Statistik des Königreichs Ungarn, 3 Vols., Pest, Trattner — Károlyi, 1843.
44 KONEK, A statistika, 23.