English Travelers in Hungary

In the wake of the changes in France at the end of the eighteenth century, some ruling elements in England gave serious contemplation to renewing the traditional anti-French alliance with the Habsburg Empire. However, more information was necessary about Hungary. English diplomats operating in Vienna had already been sending detailed reports on the growing resistance on the part of the Hungarian nobility against the reformist policies of Joseph I (1780-1790), which could have cast doubt on the effective use of the military and economic power of the Habsburg-ruled Kingdom of Hungary if a major European war were to break out. Following the death of Emperor Joseph I in 1790, Baron Miklós Vay (1756-1824), a military engineer, undertook a secret mission on behalf of the Hungarian estates. On the pretext of seeking medical treatment for an injured eye, Vay conducted personal, albeit unsuccessful, negotiations in London with Prime Minister William Pitt Jr. (1759-1806) about the possible enthronement of an English royal prince in Hungary.

It was in light of such developments that the mineralogist and naturalist Robert Townson (1762–1827), scion of a wealthy merchant family, set out on a lengthy journey to Hungary in 1793. His written account of his travel experiences, published in London in 1797 (Travels in Hungary, with a Short Account of Vienna in the Year 1793), was dedicated with thanks to the prime minister’s friend Henry Dundas (1742–1811), the secretary of state for war and president of the Board of Control.

 It is also not coincidental that the English traveler – at least at the time of writing his book – gathered information by consulting the travelogue of the English physician Edward Browne (1644–1708), who visited Hungary in the second half of the seventeenth century, and the works of the contemporary Hungarian statistician János Mátyás Korabinszky (1740–1811). It should also be noted that Townson had previously studied in Germany, at the University of Göttingen, and his teacher was the highly educated mathematician, physicist, and physician Georg Lichtenberg (1742-1799), who was already considered a friend of the Hungarians by his contemporaries for his support of the Protestant Hungarians studying there.

Although Townson emphasizes in his introduction the scientific aspects of his journey, such as the expansion of mineralogical knowledge and the presentation of contemporary scientific life, he spends a great deal of time discussing Hungary’s social and political characteristics. While he spends barely thirty pages reviewing his observations of fossils in a five-hundred-page-volume containing engravings, plant and insect depictions, and various tables, he devotes an entire, almost one-hundred-page chapter to the constitutional practices of the Kingdom of Hungary, Maria Theresa’s Urbarium decree of 1767 (which clarified the rights and duties of the peasantry), the situation regarding the Protestants in the country, and, not least, “the national resentment towards the Austrians.”  

Townson also met many members of the Hungarian nobility and recorded extremely positive impressions of them. Among others, he visited the estate of Count Ferenc Széchényi (1754-1820) in Nagycenk, in Hungary’s western Transdanubian region, and did not fail to mention that his host had an extremely valuable collection of books and medals. The count himself had visited England in his own right and had a very high opinion of the island country. He was also a welcome guest of another Transdanubian landowner, Count Mihály Viczay (1756-1831), where he found a valuable collection of antiques and coins at the latter’s castle in Hédervár. While there, he also obtained firsthand experience of England’s influence in shaping taste and fashion as he was confronted with the English landscape design of the surrounding area in addition to a chance meeting with two English grooms included among the count’s employees.

Naturally, the English traveler did more than just visit the castles of Hungarian nobles. He also visited the university in Pest and met many members of Hungarian intellectual life of the day in addition to providing a vivid account of everything he saw and experienced on his travels, from farming to what the peasants wore, and the various foods and wines he encountered and whatever he found to be strange and unusual. After traveling through the Tiszántúl region of eastern Hungary, passing through Debrecen, Nagyvárad, and Tokaj, he visited the Szepes (Spiš) region in present-day Slovakia before passing through the mining towns around Nagyszombat (Trnava) and ending his journey in Pozsony (Bratislava).

Townson’s book, in which he spoke highly of both Hungary and Hungarians, had a major influence in the island country. The obvious authenticity of his personal experiences made his work a reference source for other authors, as evidenced by the relevant chapters in the five-volume Geo­g­raphical and Historical View of the World (London, Longman, 1810), written by John Bigland (1750–1832), a historian and popular writer of the time. Bigland, who provided a detailed overview of the physical geography and history of Hungary, clearly drew on Townson’s earlier account when it came to describing recent events in the country. It is no coincidence that Biglund gave remarkably serious attention to the positive changes effected in the life of the peasantry as a result of Maria Theresa’s Urbarium decree. In this respect, he noted, “The Urbarium of Maria Theresa may be considered as a curious monument in the history of society, and far more interesting than the relation of a battle or a siege.” At the same time, he was critical of the privileged position enjoyed by the Hungarian nobility under contemporary Hungarian social and political conditions yet still expressed sympathy for the nobility’s resistance to Emperor Joseph’s “tyranny,” which subverted the country’s constitutional order. 

Richard Bright’s tour of Hungary

In the first decade of the nineteenth century, numerous travelers from England – chiefly diplomats and distinguished persons – visited Hungary, primarily at the invitation of noble families of the Transdanubian region. For example, the Viscount Charlemont, Francis William Caulfeild (1775–1863), also visited Keszthely as a guest of Prince Lajos Batthyány (1753–1806), in addition to visiting the Georgikon, an agricultural school founded in 1797 by Count György Festetics (1755–1819). It is worth noting that he later thanked Festetics for his hospitality in a letter written not in French but in English, meaning that he and the Hungarian nobleman, who otherwise spoke five languages including French and English, spoke the latter language throughout his stay in Keszthely.

November 1814, however, saw the arrival in Vienna not of an English nobleman but of a twenty-five-year-old youth of a wealthy merchant family in Bristol. Richard Bright (1789–1858), who initially read for philosophy, economics, and mathematics at the University of Edinburgh and eventually graduated as a doctor, spending his internship at Guy’s Hospital in London, decided to take advantage of the opportunities provided by his wealthy family background and embark upon a lengthy European journey. His trip took place upon the conclusion of the Napoleonic Wars, just as the international congress was meeting in the Habsburg capital to decide the political future and peace of Europe with numerous rulers and diplomats in attendance. 

Bright witnessed the flurry of diplomatic activity taking place there and had the opportunity to meet many of the leading political figures and, of course, medical authorities of the day. His resourcefulness and connections with the highest social circles were such that he managed to meet and have a lengthy conversation with Napoleon’s son – the grandson of Emperor Francis I of Austria (r. 1804–1835). A few months later, after visiting various art and natural science collections in the capital and meeting many prominent figures from among the contemporary scientific community, he took advantage of the opportunities offered to make acquaintances with several Hungarian noblemen. This was certainly a factor in his decision to continue on to Hungary in mid-March 1815, now suitably armed with the appropriate letters of introduction.

Despite the hustle and bustle of his stay in Vienna and his experiences there, the highlight of Richard Bright’s Central European tour would be his trip to Hungary. Even after a span of two hundred years, his experiences in a land far remote from his island country provide the modern reader with very important information on the perception of contemporary Hungarian conditions from a foreign perspective. 

Bright crossed the border at Hainburg, and after passing through Pozsony, Nagyszombat, and Nyitra (Nitra), he visited the estate of Count József Hunyady (1773–1822) in Ürmény (Mojmírovce). He then made his way to the Hungarian mining towns, and after passing through Körmöcbánya (Kremnica) and Selmecbánya (Banská Štiavnica), he followed the route of Ipolyság (Šahy), Vác, and Dunakeszi before arriving at the country’s capital. From there he continued on along the right bank of the Danube, crossing the river at Oroszvár (Rusivce), near Pozsony, and passing through Szőny, Komárom, and Győr, before returning to Vienna after visiting the Esterházy estate at Köpcsény (Kittsee).

Bright had originally planned to return home by way of Italy, but anecdotally, it was during his stay in Hungary that he learned of Napoleon’s escape from the island of Elba from a Jewish merchant in Vác. Thus, in view of the situation in Western Europe becoming unstable once again, he was forced to abandon his previous plans and, for lack of a better alternative, he continued his travels in Hungary. His meeting with Count László Festetics (1785-1846), son of the Georgikon’s founder, played a decisive role in this, and he set off for the Transdanubian region armed with letters of introduction from the Hungarian nobleman.

Bright followed the route running from Sopron through Kismarton (Eisenstadt), Németújvár (Güssing), and Szombathely to Keszthely, where he stayed for a lengthy period of time. Through the hospitality of his host, György Festetics, he was able to tour the southwestern parts of the Balaton, visiting Szigliget, Szentgyörgy, Hévíz, and Balatonkeresztúr. He then continued southward, passing through Csáktornya and Varasd before visiting the Festetics family estate in Csurgó, and then carried on to Szigetvár, Pécs, Mohács, and Szekszárd, and finally the capital once again. Finally, having passed through Martonvásár, Székesfehérvár, Veszprém, Sümeg, and Körmend, he headed towards Graz – the capital of the Austrian province of Styria – before returning to Vienna. 

Upon his return home, the English doctor recorded his experiences in a large, almost seven-hundred-page volume titled Travels from Vienna through Lower Hungary, with Some Remarks on the State of Vienna during the Congress, in the Year 1814, published in Edinburgh in 1818. Although Bright, unlike Townson, only visited the western and southwestern parts of the country, his book offers a comprehensive overview, detailed analysis, and accompanying documentation regarding what he saw in Hungary. Using Townson’s method, Bright also included translated excerpts from contemporary works such as Márton Schwartner’s (1759–1823) Statistik des Königreichs Ungarn [Statistics of the Kingdom of Hungary], published in Pest in 1798, which was reissued and expanded several times.

It is not surprising, therefore, that in his introduction he makes clear reference to the Hungarian travelogue published two decades earlier and to his compatriot’s serious efforts to describe the conditions in this distant country, which lay “outside the usual sphere of interest to travelers.”

Bright, however, also brought up the fact that the recent European events, namely, the Napoleonic Wars, had hardly affected Hungary, unlike the conflicts that the country experienced in its earlier history. This implied in an indirect way that Hungary could expect far less attention from England’s political leaders and its interested public not only because of its distance from the island country but also because of its negligible involvement in military affairs. At the same time, there is also a clear difference in terms of the direct experience and motivation behind the two travelogues, since, unlike Townson’s government-financed journey, Bright set out to visit the distant Hungarian lands as a private individual.

Bright’s retelling of his experiences in Hungary comprises thirteen chapters and provides a historical and statistical account of the country, while Townson’s volume is seemingly more extensive, consisting of nineteen chapters. It should be noted, however, that the latter’s interest in mineralogy and other natural sciences, not to mention possible trade and commercial relations, also led him to include technological and even botanical elements in his work. Moreover, his recounting of his trip to Szepes also includes a cross-border perspective on the Polish salt mine at Wieliczka.

Bright also explores the country’s history, its constitutional laws, and its public administration, and after a brief description of the circumstances surrounding the country’s founding, he discusses the significance of the Golden Bull of 1222, which placed constitutional limits on the Hungarian crown, and emphasizes its similarities to the English Magna Carta. Although he discusses the period of Turkish occupation in an objective manner, he fails to mention the role played by the Principality of Transylvania, and when exploring the relationship between the Habsburg dynasty and the Hungarian nobility in the eighteenth century, he presents it in terms of the latter’s “jealousy,” implying a clearly negative value judgment, while failing to provide an account of Emperor Leopold I’s (1657-1705) absolutist and repressive rule. Bright references the work by the Hungarian statistician Márton Schwartner (1759–1823), Statistik des Königreichs Ungarn (Statistics of the Kingdom of Hungary), published under royal censorship, of course, augmented with his own observations of the Hungarian legal system, property relations, and the administration of justice.

When discussing the country’s social structure, Bright does not fail to mention several times the existing situation between the priviliged nobility and the peasants who made up the majority of the country’s population. Naturally, the regulatory role of the Urbarium decree and the issue of feudal privileges enjoyed by the nobility were also key topics. He is extremely critical of the peasantry’s condition which, in addition to landlord services, was also burdened by county exactions such as road repairs, state taxes, and military conscription. He completed his critique of the system as a whole by referring to the legal regulations that hindered the free circulation of land, entrepreneurship, and the creation of wealth while also upholding the principle of entailment, which prevented the alienation of noble lands, stating that “this was bad for both peasant and landlord alike.” He also dealt with the possibilities of landlord and peasant trade and considered the role of Armenian, Greek, and Jewish merchants and crop buyers to be particularly important. He also perceived the vulnerability of the peasantry and an obstacle in the path of their wealth creation in the fact that merchants, relying on established networks, were able to buy up their crops at depressed prices. In sum, he averred that the peasantry in Hungary existed in an “oppressed and humiliating” situation.

Bright drew a very complex yet nuanced picture of everyday life, social interaction, and the material and intellectual characteristics that determined the quality of life. He was surprised by the linguistic diversity and ethnic divisions in the country and saw the positive side in this in the fact that not only merchants – due to their profession – were able to speak several languages, e.g., German, Slovak, Croatian, and even Romanian, in addition to Hungarian, but also very often peasant farmers traveling to the market from their native villages and military recruits drafted into the army could make themselves understood in two or three languages. 

Bright pays conspicuous attention to his encounters with the Roma population in his book. He visited their poor shacks in the same way that he visited the house of one Roma family near Ipolyság (Šahy) who had become wealthy through trading and performing music, and he even had Roma musicians play Hungarian music for him. He found their language so intriguing that he published a comparative Roma glossary in the appendix of his book. However, Bright also provided examples of the practical benefits and cultural value of language knowledge that went beyond ethnic considerations. He conversed in Latin with a postmaster who did not speak German when negotiating a change of horses and did the same on another occasion when speaking with a female member of a noble family. At the same time, he took it for granted that noble families placed great emphasis on the development of language skills. It is also worth mentioning Robert Townson’s observation about how Ferenc Széchényi’s ten-year-old eldest son spoke Croatian in addition to German, Hungarian, Latin, French, and Italian, with the added reminder that a working knowledge of English was not uncommon among some families. 

Not surprisingly, whatever positive views he entertained about the aforementioned phenomena were tempered by an appraisal of the housing, attire, and even the quality of services. He wrote very tersely about the domiciles of one Slovak village in Nyitra (Nitra) County, stating that “if you’ve seen one, you’ve seen them all.” In other places, such as the villages inhabited by Hungarians, the disorder in the courtyards was also striking, although he could already see much tidier premises in the villages around Pest and along the right bank of the Danube and encountered a surprising abundance of assorted foodstuffs in their larders. 

His impressions of the inns were very mixed, as there were some places where the staff found it strange that he requested fresh bedding for himself. When in Pest, he originally wanted to stay at the Hét Választófejedelem [Seven Electors] hotel but could not find an empty room, on the one hand, and found it too neglected and crowded, on the other. He finally checked in at the Magyar Király [King of Hungary] hotel, which he judged extremely good in all respects – especially in terms of the layout of the rooms and the quality of the services – compared to his previous experience in Vienna.

Pest and Buda were especially important stops on his journey through Hungary. He made it a point to visit all the university faculties and, as a doctor, understandably paid special attention to the functioning of the medical faculty. It speaks volumes that he provided the entire curriculum in his book, broken down by academic year, and that he toured the hospital, essential clinical training, and the university’s botanical garden accompanied by Professor Pál Kitaibel (1757–1817). He spoke highly of the university library’s collection and particularly appreciated the fact that, unlike in his own country, anyone could access the books for free. He also paid tribute to Count Ferenc Széchényi’s dedication to Hungarian national culture in the founding of the National Museum and National Library, making reference to information he had received from the writer, historian, and Georgikon professor Rumy Károly György (1780–1847) about the usability of the library’s manuscript collection and the ability to access original documents. At the same time, he spoke at length about the importance of the Hungarian language renewal movement, emphasizing the work of Hungarian writers dedicated to defending the language, especially György Bessenyei (1747–1811). To his lasting regret, however, he was unable to obtain printed copies of the works of Hungarian poets when in Pest, not even from Ferenc Kazinczy (1759–1831) or Sándor Kisfaludy (1771–1844), whom the Hungarians highly valued.

He also painted a sad picture regarding the potential for Hungarian-language theater and the poor state of Hungarian theater venues, although he did mention that a suitable theater building was now available in Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) in Transylvania. He regarded Hungarian fine arts to be almost nonexistent, claimed that painters working in Pest – based on his own observations – were German, and limited his appreciative comments to contemporary Hungarian engravers, such as Ferenc Karacs (1770–1838), only. He had a positive opinion of the Gellért Hill observatory, however, and – based on what he saw in Pest and Buda – spoke highly of the intellectual abilities of Hungarians, calling them technical geniuses.

In Keszthely, György Festetics accommodated Bright in his castle and tried to introduce him to all the interesting things arrayed about his extensive estates, the natural beauties of the area, and, of course, his farming practices. Bright wrote approvingly about the agricultural institute, the Georgikon vocational training system, the Advanced Agricultural School, and the Forestry School. The prefect, János Asbóth (1768–1823), who was also a professor at the Georgikon, showed him the experimental farm, which employed crop rotation practices introduced from England, while the veterinarian Gyula Liebbald (1780–1846) acquainted him with the manor management at the estates in Csáktornya and Csurgó. Bright found György Festetics’s library in Keszthely to be a prodigious affair and deemed his host to be even more knowledgeable about conditions on the island country than he was. In this regard, the count expressed his shock as to why a country so rich and so educated as England would employ such strict criminal laws against children, some carrying the most severe sentences.   

Both Townson and Bright sought to present an extremely comprehensive picture of Hungary in their books. The authenticity of their accounts was strengthened by the inclusion of encyclopedic references and translated excerpts from other works. Bright, however, unlike Townson, did not provide a summary, nor did he formulate any theoretical principles in connection with his trip to Hungary, although he did not fail to mention how warmly he had been received. Pál Gerics (1792–1868), a professor at the Georgikon, who made a study trip to England in the early 1820s, referred to his encounters with Bright in his dispatches sent back to László Festetics. In them, he stated that although Bright was incorrect in “some of the things” he had written in his book, he had proved to be “an able assistant in everything” during Gerics’s time in London.  

(translated by John Puckett and Andrea Thürmer)