181_HStud_24(2010)2-chap02.vp


NATIONAL IDENTITY IN HUNGARIAN ARCHITECTURE

AND THE SHAPING OF BUDAPEST

ANDRÁS FERKAI

Moholy-Nagy University of Art and Design, Budapest
Hungary

Great cities are usually considered to be cites of modernity, so it may seem a bit bi-
zarre to connect them with national identity. Indeed, the face of the Hungarian capi-
tal is rather international, reflecting well the universal tendencies of modernization
and urbanization that occurred from the end of 18th century. There are, however,
some key-buildings and a few other examples in Budapest that give evidence of a
counter intention: to provide architecture with a distinctive character as an expres-
sion of Hungarian nationality in a modern sense. The 19th century was a high period
of Nationalism, and the issue of national style in the arts was raised in many places
in Europe and even in the Americas. How could it have been avoided in a multi-eth-
nic Hungary that tried in vain to regain its independence from the Habsburg Empire
throughout the century? It is no wonder that the national character of the arts was the
subject of a more or less permanent discussion from the 1850s to the outbreak of
World War I. The following paper offers an overview of the urban development of
Budapest, followed by presentation of the concepts of the national style with refer-
ence to the example of buildings erected in the capital city and a brief discussion of
their antecedents.

Keywords: Budapest, architecture, national style, Imre Henszlmann, Frigyes Feszl,
Ödön Lechner, Károly Kós, Béla Lajta

Budapest was once three separate towns each of which remained provincial un-
til the end of the 18th century, at which time Emperor Joseph II made them the
center of the Hungarian territory. While earlier Buda, essentially an enclosed bas-
tion on castle hill, had been more significant, from the beginning of the 19th cen-
tury the small civic community of Pest began to gain importance. The growth of
the population began to increase in the 1820s, when industrialization and com-
merce attracted masses from the countryside to Pest. In this period, the pace of the
assimilation of the German speaking population (mostly of German, Slovak and
Jewish origin) started to accelerate. The Absolutist period following the defeat of
the revolution of 1848 slightly hindered urbanization, but with the Compromise of
1867 urban development began at a pace comparable to that in the United States

Hungarian Studies 24/2 (2010)
0236-6568/$20.00 © 2010 Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest

HStud 24 (2010)2, 181–187
DOI: 10.1556/HStud.24.2010.2.2



as the unified capital city of Budapest turned into a real metropolis, with all infra-
structure, public buildings and residential quarters. This process took place in the
three decades before 1900. Models for urban development were first and foremost
Paris and Vienna, while the style of public and private buildings mostly followed
universal European trends: Classicism in the first half of 19th century and
Historicism in the second (Preisich, 1964).

Dissatisfaction with the international manner of building in Pest was first ex-
pressed by enlightened aristocrats, such as Count István Széchenyi, and young in-
tellectuals, like Bertalan Szemere, who traveled widely in Europe and discovered
that our “Italianate” buildings did not differ from what was being built in the rest
of the continent. Both men longed for the comfort of the English house and the
practical construction in Britain, but did not call for the imitation of these struc-
tures (Sisa, 1999, 81–4, 86–7). On the contrary, they invited Hungarian architects
to invent something new that could respond to local climatic conditions and at the
same time express national character. However, this period, the so-called Age of
Reform (1790–1848) was not able to formulate this peculiar character; its archi-
tecture followed the universal style of Classicism, due perhaps to the attraction of
the cultured West.

The intention to establish a national style appeared first within the vocabulary
of historic styles. The first record is a pamphlet written by Johannes Schauff, a
German art teacher in Pressburg (today Bratislava), with the design of a Hungar-
ian order (Bibó, 1989, 60–3). Classical orders had been regarded as the invention
of the Greeks tribes and the essence of architecture. Hence, it seemed quite natural
to continue the sequence of orders with new ones that expressed the characters of
nations as the modern equivalent of tribes. However, like his French, German and
British forefathers, Schauff used heraldic symbols (in his case the double cross
and the horizontal bands of the flag) referring to a concept prior to nation-states,
when the monarchy had been decisive and the ethnic origin, language and culture
of the subjects had not mattered.

Even fifty years later, when criteria for the nation in the modern sense were de-
fined, such as ethnicity, common language, religion, territory and common histor-
ical memories, the task of finding the appropriate means of expressing this content
in the arts was the source of much debate. The art historian Imre Henszlmann, who
insisted on the creation of a national style, believed that, given the lack of a native
architectural tradition, Hungary was compelled to choose from existing styles. He
proposed the Byzantine style first and later the Gothic, claiming that “heydays of
our national history were related to the ogival style” (Széles, 1973–75, 45), and
the Gothic was of French and not German origin. For the building of the Hungar-
ian Academy of Sciences he suggested using Gothic forms, but the jury was in fa-
vor of the Neo-Renaissance, which they felt more appropriate to express the uni-
versal idea of the sciences. Three decades later the House of Parliament was built

182 ANDRÁS FERKAI



with a Gothic superstructure, but in this case the reference to the London Parlia-
ment was certainly more significant than any allusion to the glorious Hungarian
kingdom of the Middle Ages (Sisa, 1998, 205–6).

The age of Romanticism made possible the birth of an architectural work delib-
erately national in style. Romanticism led everywhere to an interest in the national
past and popular culture. This trend was amplified by particular historic events in
Hungary. The defeat of the war of independence against Habsburg reign rein-
forced national emotions, either by encouraging escape into a romanticized past
or resistance against the repression of Habsburg absolutism. The building of the
Vigadó, erected on the Pest riverfront in this period, was therefore of considerable
importance. Its architect, Frigyes Feszl who had been born in a German patrician
family and whose mother tongue was German, decided to provide this stately cul-
tural building with singularly Hungarian traits. At first glance, it does not differ
much from the oriental-Islamic tradition of European Romantic architecture, but
rather shows a striking originality in the use of Moorish, Byzantine and Roman-
esque motifs. The arcaded main façade was designed by the architect on the model
of the ‘porch,’ the traditional archway of peasant houses and country mansions
(Komárik, 2002, 177, 179). The national character, in tune with 19th century
thinking, resides mostly in the sculptural and ornamental decoration of the build-
ing: sculptured heads of Hungarian kings and statesmen and the coat of arms
crown the top of the façade, and the motifs borrowed from clothing, for instance
the ceremonial knot of the Hungarian hussar’s uniform, were used as an element
of the decoration. This reflects a common belief that national taste was better pre-
served in the form of clothing than buildings (Moravánszky, 1998, 218). Feszl
“dressed” (so to speak) his Assembly Hall in garb that contemporaries definitely
felt to be Hungarian. This is not entirely evident now. When compared to a bank
building in Vienna by Heinrich von Ferstel completed some years earlier
(1856–60), the Vigadó shows embarrassing similarities. Feszl apparently bor-
rowed a few architectural elements from this Vienna building, while Ferstel did
the same with figures that have typical Hungarian faces and cloths. One should
not forget that formalities like Hungarian dances, clothing, Gypsy music, and
rhapsodies by Franz Liszt were in fashion at that time throughout the Empire and
beyond. In the 1870s Feszl himself used romanticized elements of peasant life in
bizarre ruined monuments (Moravánszky, 1998, 218–19), probably to the mem-
ory of the failed 1848–49 revolution, where the Caryatides are replaced by Hun-
garian shepherds wearing the cifraszûr (a traditional heavy woolen cloak).

While Feszl’s attempt remained unique in his time, the 1890s saw the renais-
sance of national style in architecture. The most prominent figure of this shift was
Ödön Lechner, an architect of German origin and a graduate of the Berlin
Bauakademie. Lechner sacrificed his whole life to the creation of a Hungarian
‘language of form.’ His style was based on a collection of ornamental samples

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN HUNGARIAN ARCHITECTURE 183



published by József Huszka, a Transylvanian art teacher. Using formal analogies,
Huszka had tried to prove the ancient Asian origin of these motifs. The richness,
originality and the pedigree of folklore motifs induced Lechner to transpose this
recently discovered treasure in his new style. The first example in Budapest is the
Museum and School of Applied Arts. Like most 19th century artists and design-
ers, he was convinced that the ornament was a language with its own grammar, as
the title of Owen Jones’ book suggested, and if there was Celtic, Persian, Moorish
ornament, why could there not be a Hungarian one? First he applied these orna-
ments to a French Renaissance structure, but after a trip to London he realized that
the Indian Mughal style could be a more organic bearer of the same decoration.
The cross-fertilization of these cultures, he believed, would be useful. All the
components that had a great effect on his architecture can be distinguished indi-
vidually on the building: the French Renaissance distribution of volumes, the
Moorish constructions in Andalusia as reflected in the large window over the en-
trance, the Persian influence at the entrance gate, the Indian at the cave-like open
entrance-hall and the top-lit exhibition hall, and the colorful ornaments manufac-
tured by the famous Zsolnay-factory (Moravánszky, 1998, 225). The idiosyn-
cratic style of Lechner, though it did not manage to curry the favor of politicians,
became very popular among a band of younger architects at the turn-of-the-cen-
tury, who brought it into fashion in private constructions.

Lechner’s program to establish an architecture that is modern and has a na-
tional character was acceptable for the next generation of architects, as well. The
so-called ‘Young Architects’, however, rejected Lechner’s style, as is clearly visi-
ble on the Main Square of the Wekerle Garden City, as overly imbued with indi-
vidualism and speculation about ornaments. They did not want to draw from pat-
tern books and other secondary sources, but rather directly from village buildings.
The Arts and Crafts movement and Finnish National Romanticism directed their
attention to the unspoiled world of peasant culture. Not only their style, but also
their whole worldview differed from that of the previous generation. While the art
of Lechner and his pupils had been deeply anchored in urban culture and liberal-
ism, the younger generation was anti-liberal and against the metropolis (Ferkai,
1993, 13). The romantic anti-capitalism of Pre-Raphaelites drove them to the vil-
lages, where they hoped to find a remedy to the artistic poverty of the mass culture
of the cities in organic peasant culture. They preferred to build in the countryside
and, when compelled to erect buildings in the capital, they used the same romanti-
cally exaggerated roofs, wooden structures, and stonework, in other words ele-
ments typical of the Transylvanian medieval churches and old mountain houses of
which they were fond.

The Wekerle Garden City, with its four thousand apartments in small semi-de-
tached houses, was the most ambitious housing scheme at the beginning of 20th
century. The central square designed by Károly Kós, who was twenty-nine years

184 ANDRÁS FERKAI



old at the time, differs from the rest of the village-like colony. Since he had been
born in Transylvania (again to a family of German origin), he found inspiration in
the main squares of medieval Transylvanian towns, such as Hermannstadt (or
Nagyszeben in Hungarian and Sibiu in Romanian) and Klausenburg (Kolozsvár
in Hungarian and Cluj-Napoca in Romanian), where terraces of two-storey houses
surround the central park (Gall, 2002, 252). In order to avoid breaking the closed
composition, he bridged over the streets on the longer sides. Façades designed by
Kós and his friends followed the detailing of national romanticism which was ap-
propriate in this suburban environment. Kós never built in the city center of Pest,
and all of his designs in the capital city are situated in a garden or park, where he
was able to use his favorite picturesque rural structures, even in the case of larger
public buildings. These can be regarded as a critique not only of Historicism and
Jugendstil, but the whole metropolitan context, which previously had not been
called in question.

Parallel to the architecture of Kós and the Young Architects, another loosely
affiliated group appeared before World War I with Béla Lajta as its most outstand-
ing representative. His Municipal Commercial School (1909–12) was built in the
dense 8th district of Budapest. As a student Lajta (originally Leitersdorfer), who
had been born to an assimilated Jewish family, became enthusiastic about the ar-
chitecture of Lechner. He even worked together with his master, but apart from a
few common projects and early independent works his oeuvre bears witness to
other influences. He traveled a great deal in Western Europe and was familiar with
contemporary tendencies, which are evident in his Commercial School. The
brickwork recalls industrial buildings by Peter Behrens, the verticality of the
façade and the Mansard roof Messel’s department store in Berlin, so one may
wonder why this building is considered part of the Hungarian national tendency.
The explanation may lie in the ornaments borrowed from Hungarian folklore. Yet
it is not easy to recognize the Hungarian origin of these geometric patterns.
Sculpted stone boards on both sides of the entrances seem closer to Pre-Colum-
bian friezes or the ornaments used by Frank Lloyd Wright, and interior wall paint-
ings seem to bear more affinity with the patterns of Josef Hoffmann and the
Wiener Werstätte. One may well agree with the comment of a contemporary, who
stated in 1919 that by the eve of World War I the program of national style in ar-
chitecture had lost its validity (Ligeti, 1919, 27).

The war did indeed put an end to this tendency. Pre-war nationalistic aspira-
tions, represented by Lechner and his followers, including Béla Lajta, did not con-
tinue, while the Young Architects had to adapt their style to new conditions.
Lechner and Lajta died and others emigrated. In addition, the conservative regime
of the 1920s applied the ‘national’ label to its own constructions, which reflected a
renewed Historicism and primarily Neo-Baroque style (Ferkai, 1998, 245–50).
Little mention is made of the fact that the very reason for the pursuit of a national

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN HUNGARIAN ARCHITECTURE 185



style had vanished. With the dissolution of the Dual Monarchy, Hungary became
an independent nation-state and lost most of its ethnic minorities, along with
two-thirds of its former territory. Neither the struggle for independence nor the as-
similation of minorities justified a national style. Followers of Lechner were
blamed for distorting their master’s style with their Jewish character and prefer-
ence for individuality and excesses. The official cultural policy and the gentry
mentality was similarly adverse to everything related to peasantry and folklore,
and even architects who refreshed their National Romantic style with Turanian
ideology (Ede Thoroczkai Wigand and István Medgyaszay) found themselves on
the periphery. The issue of national style was raised again in discussions of the
late 1920s, when the International Modern Movement suddenly conquered Hun-
garian architecture. Those who claimed in the mid-1930s that modern architecture
should be assimilated to conditions in Hungary did not want to create an overall
national style. Instead, they were in favor of regional styles based on local tradi-
tions. This did not affect the architecture of Budapest; it remained basically mod-
ern until the Stalinist cultural policy designated 19th century Neo-Classicism as a
‘progressive tradition.’ In the late 1960s and 70s, monolithic housing projects
provoked a harsh reaction on behalf of the Hungarian organic movement, which
in many respects was a continuation of previous national tendencies. As was the
case with National Romanticism, the typical sphere of action of the organic move-
ment was the countryside; they only rarely built in the capital.

Thus the image of Budapest has essentially been defined by international influ-
ences, whether they arrived from the West or East. The diversity of influences not-
withstanding, its architecture has nonetheless coalesced into a unique, recogniz-
able cityscape. While the city has been labeled cosmopolitan from time to time,
or, in worse periods, the ‘wicked city’, most of its architecture apparently has a
particular character which visitors are able to distinguish.

Bibliography

István Bibó (1989) ‘Johann Schauff nemzeti oszloprend terve 1790-bõl’ (The national order project
by Johannes Schauff in 1790) in Katalin Keserû et al. (eds) Sub Minerae Nationis Praesidio.
Tanulmányok a nemzeti kultúra kérdéskörébõl Németh Lajos 60. születésnapjára (Studies on
the national culture in honour of Lajos Németh on his 60th birthday) (Budapest: ELTE
Mûvészettörténeti Tanszék) 60–63.

András Ferkai (1993) Nemzeti építõmûvészet. A nemzeti fogalom jelentésváltozásai a két világhá-
ború közötti magyar építészetben (National style in architecture. Changes in the concept of ‘na-
tional’ in the Hungarian architecture of the inter-war period). Kandidátusi értekezés, kézirat.
(PhD dissertation, manuscript) (Budapest).

András Ferkai (1998) ‘Hungarian architecture between the wars’, in Dora Wiebenson and József
Sisa (eds): The Architecture of Historic Hungary (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, Ch.
10).

186 ANDRÁS FERKAI



Anthony Gall (2002) Kós Károly mûhelye. The Workshop of Károly Kós (Budapest: Mundus).
Dénes Komárik (2002) ‘A Note on Frigyes Feszl’s Romantic Search for a Hungarian National

Style’, Centropa, A Journal of Central European Architecture and Related Arts, Vol. 2, No. 3,
177–81.

Pál Ligeti (1919) ‘A világháború és az új stílusra való törekvésünk’ (The World War and our attempt
to a new style), Építõ Ipar – Építõ Mûvészet (Building Industry – Architectural Art) Vol. 43, No.
4, 27–8.

Ákos Moravánszky (1998) ‘The search for a national style’, in Ákos Moravánszky Competing Vi-
sions. Aesthetic Invention and Social Imagination in Central European Architecture,
1867–1918 (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, Ch. 7).

Gábor Preisich (1964) Budapest városépítésének története a kiegyezéstõl a Tanácsköztársaságig
(The history of Budapest’s urbanization from the Compromise to the Soviet Republic) (Buda-
pest: Mûszaki Könyvkiadó).

József Sisa (1998) ‘Hungarian architecture from 1849 to 1900’, in Dora Wiebenson and József Sisa
(eds): The Architecture of Historic Hungary (Cambridge and London: The MIT Press, Ch. 8).

József Sisa (1999) ‘The ‘English Garden’ and the Comfortable House. British Influences in Nine-
teenth-Century Hungary’, in Gyula Ernyey (ed.) Britain and Hungary. Contacts in Architecture
and Design during the Nineteenth and Twentieth Century. Essays and Studies (Budapest: Hun-
garian University of Craft and Design).

Klára Széles (1973–75) ‘Henszlmann és a magyar mûvészettörténetírás kezdetei’, in Klára Széles
(1992) Henszlmann Imre mûvészetelmélete és kritikusi gyakorlata (Budapest: Argumentum)
42–5.

NATIONAL IDENTITY IN HUNGARIAN ARCHITECTURE 187