###

# Perspectives on the Past: Historiography and Journalism

The development of historiography was influenced by Transylvania's humanist traditions, the efforts to preserve the principality through critical times, and, finally, the Cartesian view of history.

Várad's once-flourishing circle of historians dispersed after 1660. The siege of Várad was recounted, in a religious style characteristic of the period, by János Püspöki in Prédikáció Várad veszedelméről [Sermon on the Catastrophe of Várad] (Debrecen, 1661). In Leiden, János Nadányi took a longer perspective and addressed the question of appropriate responses to new political challenges in his comprehensive history of the Hungarians, Florus Hungaricus (1669); the work, which drew on some hitherto untapped western sources, was designed to justify the objectives of the emerging political movement. Criticizing or dismissing traditional accounts of the Hungarians by chroniclers such as Thuróczy {2-471.} and Bonfini, Nadányi tried to look behind the legends and discover the truth about the origins and wanderings of the Magyar people. He laid stress on the fact that Hungary had espoused Christianity at the same time as other European countries, and that subsequent developments in Hungary and Transylvania formed an integral part of European history.

The other important work of the period, János Bethlen's Rerum Transylvanicarum, libri quatuor (Szeben, 1663; Amster-dam, 1664), was aptly characterized by László Szalay as the diary of a statesman. Bethlen wanted to convince other Europeans that their security was directly affected by what happened in Transylvania. The author experimented with techniques used by publicistic historians in the German empire, and his work thus bears some similarity to a genre that had become common in Europe, the historically-argued political pamphlet.

In the 1670s, Chancellor Farkas Bethlen followed Szamosközy's model of traditional historiography by writing His-toriarum Pannonico–Dacicarum. The author traced the existence of the principality to the division of the medieval Hungarian state after the Battle of Mohács; his intention was to justify Transylvania's policy to expel the Turks, and thereby rally Christian Europe to the cause of Transylvania and Hungary. With a good sense of timing, he had the book published at the end of 1683 by the printer at Keresd.

Farkas Bethlen was a keen observer of Transylvania's several national groups. Why, then, did he fall silent at the very time when Saxon and Romanian historiography began to unfold in the spheres of urban and church history? This chronicler of the endangered principality skirts the question. His official duties were too time-consuming, claimed Farkas Bethlen; a history of the events after 1609 should be written by patriotic people with more time to spare. The historians' resort to Latin, the international language, was to some extent justified by the country's growing dependence on {2-472.} assistance from western Europe. However, it was becoming anachronistic, for the trend favoured local languages, as evidenced by the English edition of Nadányi's work and the publication of Laurentius Toppeltinus' work in German. Although the writing of history in Hungarian history had a powerful model in Szalárdi's chronicle, the practice failed to strike strong roots.

The growing literature on the history of the nation and the state, including the more publicistic works, testified to greater depth and sophistication in the historians' outlook. Following the fashion of the times, both scholarly and publicistic authors integrated in their work theories of the state as well as principles of economic policy. The political scientist Johann Weber summarized the ideas of Machiavelli and Lipsius in Fejedelmi lélek (Princely Soul), which was published, in the younger Mihály Teleki's Hungarian translation, in 1690. In the early years of this period, István F. Tolnai and Mihály Tolnai analyzed the principles of government in sermons that were published under the titles Haza békessége (The Country's Tranquillity) and Szent Had (Holy Army), respectively in 1663 and 1676; Ferenc Pápai Páriz's political works, published at the end of the period, give a measure of the slow development of the genre.

There emerged after the defeat of Wesselényi's movement a combative genre of political journalism that did not fail to have an impact abroad. These works deplored domestic conditions in the principality and called for administrative reforms. At the same time, they condemned the Habsburgs' methods of government, the forceful efforts at Counter-Reformation, and military oppression.

When, in the 1670s, Miklós Bethlen wrote his first pamphlet, he could still draw moral encouragement from the existence of an independent principality. After 1690, he would base his arguments for such independence on mercantilist principles. And when, in 1704, peace negotiations began between Ferenc Rákóczi II and the Habsburgs, Bethlen published a pamphlet, Olajágat viselő Noé {2-473.} galambja (Columba Noe; Noah's Dove Bearing an Olive Branch), in which he argued that an independent principality was the precondition for a balance of power in Europe.

The most important Hungarian pamphlet of the era, Miklós Zrínyi's Az török áfium ellen való orvosság (The Cure Against the Turkish Poison), was published, with an introduction by General Simon Forgách, in 1705 at Kolozsvár. Transylvania's military chief had urgent political reasons for getting the pamphlet into print. The first was to dissuade the principality's resurgent Thököly party from pursuing a pro-Turkish policy. Second, he wanted to promote Rákóczi's state-building objectives, which were served by Zrínyi's advocacy of an independent Hungarian army and of a redistribution of the tax burden to include the nobility.

Mihály Cserei, who was the stereotype of a public servant from the lesser nobility, opined that everyone benefited from the orderly administration of a strong prince. He gained a deeper understanding of Transylvania's problems while working under Mihály Teleki, then cast his lot with Thököly. Upon returning from Thököly's headquarters in Wallachia, Cserei joined the Treasurer's secretariat. At the time of Rákóczi's war of independence, he withdrew to Brassó, and it was there that he put to paper his thoughts on political philosophy. The essential requirement for a well-governed country, argued Cserei, was a strong-handed ruler: 'A country will be badly served if its ruler is gentle and gives his councillors a free rein. [...] If God makes you king or prince, be not like a skeleton or a dead crow hung on a rick, frightening only to children. God gave you sceptre and sword so that you will not allow councillors to lead you by the nose, but make them fear you... If you cannot stand the pace of work and the constant worry, give up your royal or princely crown, for those called to lead a country are not expected to be idle.'[165]165. L. Szádeczky, 'Cserei történetbölcseleti műve', TT, 1906, pp. 472-73. Nor did Cserei exempt from responsibility his peers, the Transylvanian feudal estates: 'You act high and mighty, you presumptuous, arrogant, foolhardy, ungodly people who torment the {2-474.} poor, hating, cursing, despoiling people of your own blood; you should weep over your sins and not preen in your wickedness. [...] Prostrate yourself in humility, my beloved country, and make your life truly better. Let the faithful of the four recognized religions not quarrel, but coexist in civilized fashion and leave to God the task of saving souls. Do not scheme against each other, you three Transylvanian nations, but work together for the common good. Transylvania is the only home for Hungarians, Székelys, and Saxons alike; here you must live, and endure, together, for you will not be welcome anywhere else...'[166]166. Ibid., p. 468. Like many of his contemporaries, Cserei placed the public good above individual interests. He deplored the construction of a princely residence, in Gyulafehérvár, 'at great expense', with the 'tribute extracted from poor villeins'.[167]167. Ibid., p. 477.