Narrating the Hungarian–Jewish National Past
The “Khazar Theory” and the Integrationist Jewish Scientific Discourse
MIKLÓS KONRÁD
Everywhere in nineteenth-century Europe, Jews who wished to become full members of the nations in which they dwelt, developed an integrationist discourse to foster their acceptance. The intensity of the discourse varied according to the level of animosity directed against the Jews. It was far more intense in Germany, where Christian intellectuals seem to have been negatively obsessed with the Jews than in England, where the “Jewish Question” did not become a mobilizing political issue.1 Even if to varying degrees, the Jews nevertheless felt the need to construct an apologetic discourse aimed at sustaining their integration.
In Hungary the Jewish integrationist discourse did not really develop until the 1840s, the feverish period of political and cultural ebullition that led to the revolution of 1848. Its primary aim was then to advance the cause of the emancipation of the Jews.2 After they had finally been granted legal equality in December 1867, the integrationist discourse strove to counter antisemitic rhetoric and to fight against all forms of discrimination and social exclusion.
Putting forward the largest possible range of apologetic arguments, it sought to advance the recognition of Jews as authentic Hungarians, as citizens equal in their “Hungarianness” to their Christian fellow citizens.
In what follows, I will first sum up the principal themes and characteristics of this discourse. In the second part of my article, I will present the so-called
“Khazar theory”, which is undoubtedly the most original creation of the Hungarian Jewish integrationist discourse. In the third and last part, I will focus on the reception of the theory, i.e. its immediate and lasting success among Jews and its no less immediate and constant rejection by non-Jewish historians and scholars.
When talking about Jews, and unless otherwise stated, I mean integrationist Jews, and when talking about the Jewish authors of this apologetic discourse, I intend to designate integrationist intellectuals (rabbis,
1 Robertson, ‘Jewish Question’ in German Literature; Endelman, “Jewish Self-Hatred,” 331–63;
Endelman, Jews of Britain.
2 Kőbányai, Zsidó reformkor.
scholars, journalists writing in Neolog Jewish publications). For the sake of simplicity, I will call them Neolog intellectuals, even though this term is an anachronism when used to describe Hungarian Jewish intellectuals before the late 1860s. Hungarian Orthodox Jews did not take part in the elaboration of the integrationist discourse. This is no surprise, since for the most part, they did not endeavour to integrate into the Christian society, but on the contrary strove to maintain a cultural and social separateness from the Gentiles, this being, according to them, the only way to remain faithful to their tradition.
The Orthodox Jews did develop some kind of patriotic discourse, and from the 1890s on, they put regularly forward the progress in the linguistic acculturation of the orthodox Jewish elementary schools, but no narrative could dissolve the fundamental antagonism between Hungarian expectations of Jewish assimilation and Orthodox Jew’s opposition to it. The best thing was to remain silent on this matter – which they did.3
The main themes of the integrationist discourse
The Jewish integrationist discourse developed along several lines. On one hand, it rested on an apology for contemporary (Hungarian) Jewry. When they were still fighting for the bestowal of equal rights, the Jews’ official advocates and Neolog intellectuals repeatedly voiced the argument first advanced in 1781 by the Prussian civil servant Christian Wilhelm Dohm about the cause of Jews’ supposed moral corruption; their “degeneration” was only due to their oppression and would vanish if Jews were given equal rights and would again enjoy men’s natural state – freedom.4 Before as well as after emancipation, Neolog intellectuals constantly insisted on the natural good-heartedness of the Jews that manifested itself in their inclination to help their fellow human beings through charity work.5 From the 1880s onwards, they stressed the cultural (pre)disposition of the Jews to play a role model in the formation of Hungarian bourgeois society, and their outstanding contribution to all areas of modern economic and cultural life.6
Yet the main argument was eminently political: by emancipating and integrating the Jews, the Hungarian political elite, which ruled a country
3 Katzburg, “Assimilation in Hungary,” 49–50; Katz, “Identity of Post-Emancipatory Hungarian Jewry,” 21–24. On the history of the Orthodox-Neolog schism, see Katz, House Divided, 31–233.
On Hungarian assimilationist expectations, see Konrád, Zsidóságon innen és túl, 72–104.
4 A magyarországi zsidóság, 2; Hartmán, Magyar zsidó, 6, 9–11; Pillitz, Sechs Capitel, 8. For the classic Enlightenment statement on the cause of Jewish degeneration, see Dohm, Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden. On Dohm’s views about the Jews, see Katz, “The Term ‘Jewish Emancipation’,” 32–36; Hess, Germans, Jews, 25–49.
5 Konrád, “Zsidó jótékonyság,” 257–85.
6 Brachfeld, “A magyar zsidóság missziója,” 5; Palágyi, “Zsidó-keresztény házasság,” 3;
Szabolcsi, “A zsidó hitű magyarok,” 2–3.
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
where the majority of the population belonged to other nationalities, would at once gain several hundreds of thousands of new and enthusiastic Magyars.7 After the Jews had been emancipated, and until the collapse of the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy, this argument evolved into the emphasis on the role of the Jews as pioneers of Magyarization in the border regions populated mostly by nationalities.8
On the other hand, and this is what I am mainly interested in here, the integrationist discourse offered a new interpretation of the Hungarian past.
This part of the discourse did not focus as much on the Jews as on Hungarians.
Its intent was to serve the common present of Jews and Hungarians by the construction of a common past. A new narrative of the national past was constructed in order to convince Christian Hungarians that their own history – which they were supposed to cherish, and abide by its values – obliged them to recognize their Jewish fellow citizens as true Hungarians.
Since I am talking about arguments advanced by Jews over the span of a century, from the 1840s to the eve of the Holocaust, it is necessary to say a few words about their relation to historical circumstances. Although the arguments themselves changed slightly over time, what varied the most was the intensity of their use. Obviously, this is in itself an indication of the ideological nature of the discourse. These arguments were much more frequently advanced in periods of duress or, on the contrary, in periods of optimistic fever: in the 1840s and the 1860s, when Jews fought for emancipation; in 1867, when they obtained it; in the first half of the 1880s, at the time of the Tiszaeszlár ritual murder affair and the emergence of modern Hungarian political antisemitism;
at the mid-1890s, in the enthusiasm following the millennium anniversary of the foundation of the country and the passing of the “reception law,” which granted the Jewish denomination equal status with Catholic and Protestant churches; in the beginning of the 1920s, at the time of the antisemitic fever that followed the revolutions and the introduction of the numerus clausus law, which limited Jews access to the university; and finally at the end of the 1930s, under the shadow of the so-called “Jewish”, i.e. antisemitic laws.
The first historical argument was that Hungarians had always been friendly to Jews, or at least incomparably less hostile to them than other European nations, particularly in the Middle Ages. This idea appeared for the first time in the 52 pages survey of Hungarian Jewish history published in 1845 and 1846 by Lipót Löw, the leading Reform rabbi of nineteenth-century
7 Zsoldos, 1848–1849 a magyar zsidóság életében, 180; Lusztig, “Zsidó – honfi – ember,” 41–42.
8 Kardos, A magyar zsidóság, 17, 25, 27; Vázsonyi, “A zsidók és a német nyelv,” 1. According to calculations by the statistician Elek Fényes, at the turn of the 1840s Hungarians comprised 45.2 percent of the population in Hungary and 28.0 percent in Transylvania. Together with Croatia, only 37.4 percent of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary was Hungarian. In 1910 Hungarians were now in a slight majority in proper Hungary and Transylvania (54.4 percent).
But together with Croatia, they still comprised only 48.1 percent of the population of the Kingdom of Hungary. Katus, A modern Magyarország, 123; A magyar szent korona, 136.
Hungary in a German-language Kalender und Jahrbuch für Israeliten. With this writing, which was the first Jewish attempt to treat the history of the Jews in Hungary at a scholarly level, Löw was also “the first among Hungarian Jewish historians who, like other contemporary Jewish historians, made use of history to advance political causes”, in this case the political emancipation of the Jews.9 The idea of the historical benevolence of the Hungarians to Jews, which would still constitute the main subject of a study published by the lawyer Artúr Stein between 1938 and 1941,10 evolved significantly on one – but essential – point: the agents of this peculiar empathy. In Löw’s writing, it was the Hungarian rulers, the kings of Hungary. In the book published in 1851 by the rabbi, political economist and politician Ignác Einhorn – a would-be Secretary of State under its Magyarized name of Ede Horn –, the agents of this benevolence toward the Jews were not the rulers anymore, but the Hungarian people.11 The last stage would be achieved by the rabbi of the Jewish Community of Pest and its first Hungarian-language preacher, Sámuel Kohn, in a pamphlet published in 1880 to arm his coreligionists against the then emerging antisemitism. In his wordings, it was now the Hungarian nation itself that had always been much better disposed toward Jews than other European nations.12
A second argument, which appeared regularly in Neolog Jewish writings from the 1840s to the 1930s, focused on the allegedly striking similarities in Jewish and Hungarian history and destiny. According to this line of thought, both Jews and Hungarians had oriental origins. The sheer fact that they survived in spite of all trials and misfortune was in both cases a miracle in itself. And finally: both Hungarians and Jews had been chosen by God to achieve a specific historical mission: the spread of pure monotheism in the case of the Jews, and the spread of freedom in the case of Hungarians.13 The underlying idea of this argument was that parallels meet in the end: the similarities in their destinies made the meeting and the fusion of Hungarians and Jews a divinely – or at least historically – ordained necessity. The argument evolved with time on one point. In the interwar period, with Hungarian antisemitism becoming increasingly threatening, it was more and more elevated in mystical heights devoid of all concreteness. An article published in 1933 after Hitler seized power spoke about “the mysterious hundred-years community of destinies and spiritual kinship that binds together the Hungarian soul and the Jewish soul”.14
9 Katzburg, “Hungarian Jewish Historiography,” 215.
10 Stein, A zsidók köz- és magánjoga.
11 Einhorn, Die Revolution und die Juden.
12 Kohn, Mit tegyünk, 4.
13 For some formulations of this idea, see Frieder, A magyar zsidók egyenjogosítása, 9; Handler,
“Szónoklat,” 25–27; Silberstein, “Ezer év,” 1–2; “Ezredévi istentisztelet,” 7–8.
14 Szabolcsi, “Elul-gondolatok,” 4.
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
The Khazar theory
As inventive as they were, these arguments had one major default. In both of them Hungarians and Jews appeared as two distinct communities, as agents of stories that did prepare the ground for the Hungarian-Jewish symbiosis, but remained nonetheless distinctive, and followed each their own paths. By elaborating a common origo through the melting and merging of Hungarian and Jewish past, the Khazar theory suppressed this distinctiveness.
At this point, I would like to emphasize that this ambition was in no way exceptional. The specific content varied according to each country’s own past, but Jews felt the need to develop similar argumentations even in countries where their integration proved to be much easier than in Hungary. In 1892, for the fourth hundred anniversary of the discovery of America by Christopher Columbus, the American Jewish Historical Society commissioned the rabbi and German-language preacher of the Jewish Community of Pest, the great scholar Moritz Kayserling to write a history of the Jews’ participation in the discovery of America. In a letter written to Kayserling in 1891, the first President of the society, Oscar Straus added the express wish that the rabbi’s study should “bring to light the extent to which our race had a direct part and share with Columbus in the discovery of our Continent”. As Straus wrote in another letter, this would represent an “answer for all time to come to any antisemitic tendencies in this country”. Unfortunately, Kayserling’s book was not completed until 1894, it was then published under the title Christopher Columbus and the Participation of the Jews in the Spanish and Portuguese Discoveries.15
Were we to ignore this ambition to link the history of American Jews to the prehistory of American history, we could confidently argue that the already mentioned Sámuel Kohn, the first author who fully developed the Khazar theory, did so because he perceived and understood that one of the characteristics of modern Hungarian national consciousness lied in its inability to free itself from the spell of the myths of origin that constituted the pillar of Hungarian “national” consciousness in the Middle Ages.16 Yet the American example indicates that even in completely different historical circumstances, in countries whose past were incomparably less burdened with memories of Jewish oppression and inequality, the Jewish intellectual elite felt the disadvantage and feared the potentially detrimental effects of being regarded as not having been part of the game from the beginning. It may be, then, that Neolog intellectuals wished to offer with the Khazar theory an answer to a question that had never been explicitly asked, but hovered in the air. If Jews living in Hungary became or were becoming Hungarians simply because at the time of their emancipation they happened to live on the 15 Roemer, “Outside and Inside the Nations,” 45–46.
16 Szűcs, “Történeti ‘eredet’-kérdések,” 334–41.
Hungarian soil, was not their “Hungarianness” then a simple historical accident, and as such, something that could be called into question, doubted and even negated?
It was precisely this disturbing perception of historical fortuitousness that the Khazar theory aimed to exclude. Even though some Neolog intellectuals, among whom Lipót Löw or the historian Ignác Acsády alluded to it before Sámuel Kohn,17 the latter was the first to fully develop the theory in a Hungarian-language scholarly book with references and footnotes. The Hungarian-born Kohn, a graduate of the Breslau Rabbinical Seminary, where he was a pupil of the famous historian Heinrich Graetz, became rabbi at the Jewish Community of Pest in 1866. He was the first rabbi of the community to preach in Hungarian at the Dohány Street synagogue. He would become in 1906 chief rabbi of the Pest community. Kohn published his major historical work in 1884. Entitled History of the Jews in Hungary from the Earliest Times to the Mohács Disaster (1526), it was the first attempt at a comprehensive historical survey of Hungarian Jewry in the medieval period. The second and third chapters were dedicated to the Khazar theory.
The theory was based on the following historical events that were at the time both well-known and unquestioned by the historical community. From the 7th to the 9th centuries, the Hungarian tribes lived next to the Khazar empire (which lasted from the 7th to the 10th century) in the steppes north of the Black Sea. Sometime in the 8th century, or maybe toward the end of the 8th and the beginning of the 9th century, part of the Khazar people, or at least its elite converted to Judaism. Around the beginning of the 9th century, one tribe among the Khazars, the so-called Khabars revolted against the Khazar rulers and joined the Magyar tribes in their journey westward, and their subsequent conquest of the land, which became the Kingdom of Hungary. By linking together these scattered “facts”, Kohn did nothing else than to draw from all this what seemed to him the logical conclusion. According to his theory, some of the Hungarians living next to the Khazars and some of the Khabars who joined the Hungarian tribes had also adopted the Jewish faith. Thus, the conquest of Hungary was the common feat, the common achievement of Hungarians and Khabars of mainly pagan, but partly Jewish faith.18
Kohn readily admitted that his theory could not be substantiated by any direct empirical proof, but only what he considered circumstantial evidences.
What is striking is that among these, the one he considered the strongest was also by far the most speculative. As he wrote: “The first two centuries of the history of Hungarian Jews are in themselves a clear testimony that there were a relatively important number of persons of Jewish faith among the Hungarians who conquered the country.” For Kohn, the testimony resided in the fact that until the synod of Szabolcs in 1092, not a single Hungarian document made
17 Löw, “A magyar nemzetiség,” 32–33; Acsády, Zsidó és nemzsidó magyarok, 5–6, 9.
18 Kohn, A zsidók története, 12–26
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
any mention of the Jews in Hungary. Since at that time, speculated Kohn, mention was made of the Jews only if they were persecuted or if some legal step was taken against them, “the very silence proves that Jews in those times enjoyed in all regards the same rights as the Hungarians”.19
There can be little doubt that the Pest rabbi’s was at least partially motivated by the desire to foster the acceptance by the Hungarians of his coreligionists. Even though the first years following the emancipation in 1867 of Hungarian Jews were rather peaceful for the Jews, by the time Kohn published his book in 1884, nine years had passed since the first antisemitic speech of the MP Győző Istóczy, the pioneer of modern Hungarian antisemitism. The social integration of Hungarian Jews, which had already been slowing down from the end of the 1870s, abruptly halted with the irruption on the public scene, two years before Kohn’s book, of the ritual murder affair of Tiszaeszlár.20
But what was exactly Kohn’s message? The Khazar theory being the most original argument of the Hungarian Jewish integrationist discourse, many historians have already offered an answer. From the Zionist Ernő Márton in 1941 to Anikó Prepuk in the recent years, the two main – and sometimes intermingling – answers are the following. On one hand, Kohn’s Khazar theory aimed at establishing a one thousand year continuity of the Jewish presence in Hungary. One the other hand, its aim was to prove that the Jewish presence in Hungary had its origin in people who were not Jews by their ethnic background, their “race”, but only by their religious faith. Accordingly, their descendants, i.e. at least part of the Jewish population living in 19th- century Hungary could not be defined by ethnic or racial criteria.21
Both of these answers seem problematic to me. Kohn never spoke of any kind of continuity between the Khazars or Hungarians of Jewish faith and the Hungarian Jews of his own time. The Pest rabbi was certainly motivated by extra-historical agendas, but was too serious a scholar to ignore the repeated and well-known breaks in the demographic history of Hungarian Jewry.
This also means that there would not have been much point in asserting that the ‘Jews’ who participated in the conquest of Hungary were Jews only by their religion. This would have been all the less effective in fighting antisemitism that if the assertion that Jews were nothing more than a community of faith was the fundamental tenet presiding over the integration of Jews into Hungarian society, it was also – and that is certainly its irony – a blatantly false description of the realities of Jewish life, a description in which nobody, neither the Gentiles nor the Jews ever seriously believed.22
19 Ibid., 32–34.
20 On the ritual murder affair and Hungarian antisemitism in the 1870s and 1880s, see Handler, Blood Libel at Tiszaeszlár; Patai, Jews of Hungary, 347–57.
21 Marton, A magyar zsidóság családfája, 8, 12–13; Prepuk, “A zsidóság a Millenniumon,” 93.
22 Konrád, “Hungarian Expectations,” 329–48.
In my opinion, the message of Kohn’s Khazar theory was the very fact of the common conquest of the country by pagan and Jewish Hungarians and Khabars, and even more importantly, it resided in its alleged consequences.
From the absence of all documents relating to the history of the Jews in the two centuries following the conquest of the Carpathian basin, Kohn concluded that not only did the Jews enjoy the same rights and the same freedom as the Hungarians, but that “as organic parts of the nation, they also enjoyed all the privileges of the Hungarian conquerors, and were most tightly and intimately connected to the life of the Hungarian people”.23 In this way, the recognition of emancipated contemporary Jews as authentic Hungarians became a return to the origins of the Hungarian nation. The emancipation of Hungarian Jews in 1867 no longer meant a belated union between Hungarians and Jews – it became a symbol of their reunion. The recent past of mutual isolation was not a burdening beginning but an abnormal parenthesis in the course of Hungarian history. To say, as the antisemites did, that Jews could not become Hungarians turned out to be a historical absurdity since from the very start, Hungarians and Jews were one. From this narrative of the beginnings of the Hungarian national past, the conclusion was inevitable: if enmity toward the Jews was completely foreign to the Hungarian nation at the time of its inception, then antisemitism was unhungarian.
Reception history
As Sámuel Kohn’s Khazar theory was an apologetic construction, the main question it raises is not whether it was original or grounded on solid arguments but rather whether it proved to be successful. Concerning the core idea of his theory, that is the conversion of some Khabars and Hungarians to Judaism under the influence of the Khazars, let us just remark that it is all the less likely since it seems quite certain that even the conversion to Judaism of the Khazars never took place.24 As far as Neolog Jews were concerned, however, the theory met with an immediate, resounding and lasting success. It became a central component of the historical and patriotic consciousness of integrationist Hungarian Jews, who would refer to it until the Holocaust, and repeat it again and again, but particularly in times of trial, such as the early 1920s and during the debates on the anti-Jewish legislation introduced from 1938 onwards.25
It should be emphasized that the Neolog reception was a creative one.
The theory remained fundamentally the same over the decades but the historical meaning it was given and the conclusions that one could draw from
23 Kohn, A zsidók története, 34.
24 Stampfer, “Did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?” 1–72.
25 Nemzetgyűlési napló, 1920–1922, 1: 483; Képviselőházi napló, 1935–1939, 18: 402; Stern, A zsidókérdés Magyarországon, 5.
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
it would vary over time. Let me give a few examples. In the modern Hungarian national consciousness, the “new ideological bridge”, to quote Jenő Szűcs, wasn’t any longer between the conquest of the land and the present but the foundation of the Hungarian state and the present time. It had moved from Hungarians’ military ability to conquer a country to their political capability to establish a State.26 Yet Kohn still put the weight on the Hungarian conquest of the Carpathian basin. This flaw was corrected by Béla Vajda, chief rabbi of Abony. In the first yearbook published in 1896 by the Israelite Hungarian Literary Society, and later in other articles, he put forward the idea that the rather savage Hungarian tribes developed their ability to form a state thanks to the civilizing effect of their encounter with the Jewish religion, the taming influence of Jewish ethics.27
According to the leading Neolog Jewish weekly Egyenlőség (Equality), it was also thanks to the beneficial Jewish influence that pagan Hungarians found their way to Christianity. When they adopted the Christian religion, so the argument went, this process was facilitated by the fact that Hungarians were already familiar with Judaism, which they came to know first. When becoming Christians they embraced a religion of which they already knew the pristine form. There could be no doubt: “The Christianization of the Hungarians was also in large part the Jews’ merit.”28
Beyond these innovations, the most striking feature of the integrationist discourse is the constant repetition that the participation of the Jews in the Hungarian conquest represents a fact irrefutably proven by historical research.
This was still asserted in 1941 by Ernő Munkácsi, the director of the Hungarian Jewish Museum. Almost seventy years after Sámuel Kohn, he confidently stated that during the two centuries that followed the Hungarian conquest, Hungarian laws did not mention the Jews “because there was nothing to mention, since there was no difference between them and other inhabitants”.29
This apparent absence of doubt is all the more confounding if we turn our attention to the reception of the Khazar theory by professional Gentile historians. Indeed, among these, the theory was either ignored or rejected.
From the time Kohn published his book until the Holocaust, no important Hungarian non-Jewish historian ever gave the theory the slightest credit. In fact, most of them simply ignored it altogether, dealing in length with the Khabars who joined the Hungarian tribes without even mentioning Sámuel Kohn’s book or any of his followers’ writings.
Only once did a Gentile historian discuss Kohn’s Khazar theory in length.
It was when the well-known medievalist Gyula Nagy published in 1884 a scathing review of Kohn’s book in the journal of the Hungarian Historical
26 Szűcs, “Történeti ‘eredet’-kérdések,” 339.
27 Vajda, “A honalapítás,” 265–270; Vajda, “A reformátusok,” 4.
28 “A második millennium,” 2.
29 Munkácsi, “Dr. Kohn Sámuel,” XXV.
Association. According to Nagy, by the time Judaism took root in the Khazar empire, the Hungarian tribes had left the region a long time ago. The whole theory, this could be clearly felt from the tone of the review, irritated the medievalist, whose conclusion was peremptory: “The Jewishness of the Hungarians who conquered the country is a mere hypothesis without any serious historical basis. It is a question that is totally useless to discuss and whose forced intrusion in the prehistory of our nation is utterly unjustified.”30
For sure, there were some exceptions to this categorical rebuttal but the result was not any more favourable to the Jews. In 1922, the rabbi of Újpest and historian Lajos Venetianer published an openly apologetic book entitled History of the Hungarian Jews from the Conquest of the Country until the First World War. The book began by the repetition of the Khazar theory.31 The anonymous review published on Venetianer’s book in the venerable Budapesti Szemle (Budapest Review) did not reject the Khazar theory, it only considered it completely irrelevant. For the anonymous reviewer, probably the literary historian Jenő Péterfy, what mattered was not the religion of those who conquered the country but the ulterior triumph of the “Christian idea”, the adoption by the Hungarians of Christianity which enabled the country to take its place among the European nations. This was what determined the course of Hungarian history, and this was what determined the nature of the relations – the total cultural separation – between Jews and Christian Hungarians.32
Conclusion
The simultaneity between the last repetitions by the Neolog Jewish intellectuals of the common Hungarian-Jewish conquest of the country and of the fundamental benevolence of Hungarians toward Jews on one hand, and the passing of the antisemitic laws from 1938 on the other hand can certainly be considered as a tragic symptom of the failure of Hungarian Jews to reshape their Christian fellow-citizens’ understanding of Hungarian national identity.
Yet it may well be that by the end of the 1930s the aim of the discourse had also changed. Its primary purpose by then was probably to offer an emotional refuge, the image of a past and of a would-be Hungarian nation whose Jewish sons and daughters were and would be recognized as equal members.
30 Nagy, “A zsidók története Magyarországon,” 893–94.
31 Venetianer, A magyar zsidóság története, 12–17.
32 x., “A zsidók története Magyarországon,” 470–78.
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
Bibliography
Acsády, Ignác. Zsidó és nemzsidó magyarok az emanczipáczió után. Budapest: Weiszmann Testvérek, 1883.
A magyar szent korona országainak 1910. évi népszámlálása. Hatodik rész. Végeredmények összefoglalása. (Magyar statisztikai közlemények. Új sorozat. 64.) Budapest: Athenaeum, 1920.
A magyarországi zsidóság a főherceghez, a rendekhez és karokhoz. Pest, 1809.
“A második millennium.” Egyenlőség, August 4, 1907.
Brachfeld, M. “A magyar zsidóság missziója.” Egyenlőség, December 31, 1882.
Dohm, Christian Wilhelm. Über die bürgerliche Verbesserung der Juden. Berlin – Stettin:
Friedrich Nicolai, 1781.
Einhorn, J. Die Revolution und die Juden in Ungarn: Nebst einem Rückblick auf die Geschichte der Letztern. Leipzig: Carl Geibel, 1851.
Endelman, Todd M. The Jews of Britain, 1656 to 2000. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2002.
Endelman, Todd M. “Jewish Self-Hatred in Britain and Germany.” In Two Nations:
British and German Jews in Comparative Perspective, edited by Michael Brenner, Rainer Liedtke, and David Rechter, 331–63. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 1999.
“Ezredévi istentisztelet az ország első zsidó templomában.” Egyenlőség, May 15, 1896.
Frieder, Mór. A magyar zsidók egyenjogosítása 1867-dik évben. Pest: Hornyánszky és Träger, 1868.
Handler, Mark. “Szónoklat.” In Jubiláris emlékmű Handler Mark tatai rabbi 40 éves hivatali jubileuma alkalmából, edited by Simon Hevesi (Handler), 20–27. Lugos: Handler Rudolf, 1904.
Handler, Andrew. Blood Libel at Tiszaeszlár. Boulder: East European Monographs, 1980.
Hartmán, Lipót. Magyar zsidó, vagy: zsidó magyar? Pécs: Lyceumi nyomda, 1848.
Hess, Jonathan M. Germans, Jews and the Claims of Modernity. New Haven – London:
Yale University Press, 2002.
Kardos, Albert. A magyar zsidóság nemzeti hivatása. Budapest: Pallas, 1892.
Katus, László. A modern Magyarország születése: Magyarország története 1711–1914. Pécs:
Pécsi Történettudományért Kulturális Egyesület, 2009.
Katz, Jacob. “The Term ‘Jewish Emancipation’: Its Origin and Historical Impact.” In Emancipation and Assimilation: Studies in Modern Jewish History, 21–45. Westmead:
Gregg International, 1972.
Katz, Jacob. “The Identity of Post-Emancipatory Hungarian Jewry.” In A Social and Economic History of Central European Jewry, edited by Yehuda Don, and Victor Karady, 13–31. New Brunswick – London: Transaction Publishers, 1990.
Katz, Jacob. A House Divided: Orthodoxy and Schism in Nineteenth-Century Central European Jewry. Translated by Ziporah Brody. Hanover – London: University Press of New England, 1998.
Katzburg, Nathaniel. “Hungarian Jewish Historiography.” In The Rabbinical Seminary of Budapest 1877–1977: A Centennial Volume, edited by Moshe Carmilly-Weinberger, 215–37. New York: Sepher-Hermon Press, 1986.
Katzburg, Nathaniel. “Assimilation in Hungary During the Nineteenth Century:
Orthodox Positions.” In Jewish Assimilation in Modern Times, edited by Bela Vago, 49–
55. Boulder: Westview Press, 1981.
Képviselőházi napló, 1935–1939. 22 vols. Budapest: Athenaeum, 1938.
Kohn, Sámuel. Mit tegyünk az ellenünk intézett támadásokkal szemben? Budapest: Zilahy Sámuel, 1880.
Kohn, Sámuel. A zsidók története Magyarországon: A legrégibb időktől a mohácsi vészig.
Budapest: Athenaeum, 1884.
Konrád, Miklós. “Zsidó jótékonyság és asszimiláció a századfordulón.” Történelmi Szemle 43, no. 3–4 (2001): 257–85.
Konrád, Miklós. Zsidóságon innen és túl: Zsidók vallásváltása Magyarországon a reformkortól az első világháborúig. Budapest: MTA Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont Történettudományi Intézet, 2014.
Konrád, Miklós. “Hungarian Expectations and Jewish Self-Definitions, 1840–1914.” In Modern Jewish Scholarship in Hungary: The ‘Science of Judaism’ between East and West, edited by Tamás Turán, and Carsten Wilke, 329–48. Berlin – Boston: De Gruyter Oldenbourg, 2016.
Kőbányai, János, ed. Zsidó reformkor. Budapest: Múlt és Jövő, 2000.
Löw, Lipót. “A magyar nemzetiség és a zsidók.” In Történelmi és vallástudományi értekezések, 1–44. Szeged: Burger Zsigmond Bizománya, 1861.
Lusztig, Zsigmond. “Zsidó – honfi – ember.” Magyar Izraelita, February 7, 1861.
Marton, Ernő. A magyar zsidóság családfája: Vázlat a magyarországi zsidók település- történetéhez. Kolozsvár: Fraternitas, 1941.
Nagy, Gyula. “A zsidók története Magyarországon.” Századok 18, no. 10 (1884): 884–94.
Nemzetgyűlési napló, 1920–1922. 17 vols. Budapest: Athenaeum, 1920.
Palágyi, Lajos. “Zsidó-keresztény házasság.” Egyenlőség, November 28, 1890.
Patai, Raphael. The Jews of Hungary: History, Culture, Psychology. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1996.
Pillitz, Daniel. Sechs Capitel aus der Freiheit: Ein freies Wort an die wackern deutschen Bürger in Budapest. Pesth: Georg Kilian, n. d. [1848].
Prepuk, Anikó. “A zsidóság a Millenniumon.” Századvég 5, no. 17 (2000): 89–117.
NARRATING THE HUNGARIAN–JEWISH NATIONAL PAST
Robertson, Ritchie. The ’Jewish Question’ in German Literature 1749–1939: Emancipation and its Discontents. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Roemer, Nils. “Outside and Inside the Nations: Changing Borders in the Study of the Jewish Past During the Nineteenth Century.” In Modern Judaism and Historical Consciousness: Identities, Encounters, Perspectives, edited by Andreas Gotzmann, and Christian Wiese, 28–53. Leiden – Boston: Brill, 2007.
Silberstein Ötvös, Adolf. “Ezer év.” Egyenlőség, April 24, 1896. Supplement.
Stampfer, Shaul. “Did the Khazars Convert to Judaism?” Jewish Social Studies 19, no. 3 (2013): 1–72.
Stein, Artúr. A zsidók köz- és magánjoga Magyarországon a honfoglalástól napjainkig. 3 vols.
Pestújhely: s. n., 1938–1941.
Stern, Samu. A zsidókérdés Magyarországon. Budapest: Pesti Izraelita Hitközség, 1938.
Szabolcsi, Lajos. “Elul-gondolatok.” Egyenlőség, September 2, 1933.
Szabolcsi, Miksa. “A zsidó hitű magyarok és a nemzet szellemi tőkéje.” Egyenlőség, January 4, 1895.
Szűcs, Jenő. “Történeti ‘eredet’-kérdések és nemzeti tudat.” In A magyar nemzeti tudat kialakulása, 334–70. Budapest: Balassi Kiadó – JATE – Osiris, 1997.
Vajda, Béla. “A honalapítás és a zsidó vallás.” In Évkönyv. 1896, edited by Vilmos Bacher, and Ferenc Mezey, 265–70. Budapest: Izraelita Magyar Irodalmi Társulat, 1896.
Vajda, Béla. “A reformátusok és a többi bevett felekezet.” Magyar-Zsidó Szemle 22, no. 1 (1905): 1–9.
Venetianer, Lajos. A magyar zsidóság története a honfoglalástól a világháború kitöréséig.
Budapest: Fővárosi Nyomda Részvénytársaság, 1922.
Vázsonyi, Vilmos. “A zsidók és a német nyelv.” Egyenlőség, April 25, 1890.
x. “A zsidók története Magyarországon a középkorban.” Budapesti Szemle 42, no. 102 (1885): 470–78.
Zsoldos, Jenő, ed. 1848–1849 a magyar zsidóság életében. Budapest: Múlt és Jövő, 1998.
