City-Images in Contemporary Budapest:
The Mayor’s Nostalgia for the 19th Century Capital and Metropolis [1]

In my previous presentation at the IWM I dealt with the concept of ‘Europe’ in the city-image of Budapest. This time, I will deal with the 19th century city-image in the speeches of Budapest’s mayor Gábor Demszky.

By ‘city-image’[2] I refer to the image of the city – an imagination and a construction. The administration and politicians of the city would be projecting their city-images, and the city-images would also be produced and reproduced in different fora of activity. In the course of my doctoral research I have been looking at the urban-planning documents, speeches by both local and national politicians, tourist information brochures, and picture books on Budapest targeting the locals or tourists. The city-images that appear in this range of material are contingent and contested, loaded with different values, tied to different discourses, created to foster or to reject positions.

The image, with resonance to Ernesto Laclau’s discourse theory, is a caption which would be including certain things and excluding others. This character of inclusion and exclusion through representation or reproduction makes the image explicitly political – it involves choices and redescription that would have larger discursive effects. [3]

The creation of the city-image of Budapest can be seen as a political project. The mayor Gábor Demszky creates a contemporary image of Budapest drawing on the 19th century. Demszky is a former dissident and one of the most visible political figures in the country since the 1980s and of his party, the Liberal Democrats, a small left-wing party in Hungary, since 1990. He has been the mayor of Budapest since 1990. Here, I will look at his speeches since 1994, focusing on those making a reference to the 19th century.

The theme of this article is doing politics with the past. I will look at the way in which a historical image of an era in the city’s history is rearticulated to offer a chance for the liberal mayor to construct his discourse and vision for Budapest. The 19th century Budapest is the field of articulation and the ‘golden era’ of Demszky’s political project. This period was a necessary one for Demszky to invoke, as it was the high point of Budapest’s development, and as the later eras, characterized as they were by xenophobia or socialism, were problematic for his liberal party and in any case already occupied, as it were, by the Hungarian right. Demszky articulates the city-image as a response to the challenges of the time: to improve Budapest’s standing in national politics, where the Hungarian right had the emphasis on the countryside[4], as well as its standing compared to other cities in the Central Europe.[5] Demszky insisted in 1994: ‘Back then [in the 19th century] Budapest was the fastest developing capital city on the continent. Now it primarily depends on us whether we can make Budapest like that again by the millennium.’[6] The city-image shows his articulation of the metropolitan location, a central position in the region, to the liberal values of capitalism and progress as well as multiculturalism.

Budapest is a young city, created in 1873 when the towns of Pest, Buda and Óbuda united. Fastest growing of these three since the late 18th century was Pest, an old market town and node of transport. In the 19th century Pest multiplied in area and in population because of industrial development and the abolition of serfdom. Buda, with Esztergom where the Hungarian Catholic Church was based, had been historically one of the centers of governance. When the Hungarian leadership escaped the Ottoman occupation with the help of the Austrians, the Habsburgs ruled Hungary from Bratislava, closer to Vienna. The Habsburg emperor Joseph II declared Buda the political capital of Hungary in 1784. Pest became the site of the Hungarian revolution in the Spring of Nations 1848. Once Hungary was given an autonomous status in the Habsburg Empire in 1867, Pest-Buda became the political center of an area stretching from Croatia and Transylvania to Slovakia. It was also recognized as the little sister of, if not an equal to, Vienna. Major restructuring of Budapest started after severe floods of the Danube damaged the low Pest side in the early 19th century.

Metropolis and competition

In Demszky’s speeches, the image of the 19th century Budapest was focused on Habsburg Europe, although he also sometimes stressed the Euro-Atlantic tradition of the metropolis, which resonated in postcommunist NATO Hungary.[7] The Habsburg Empire, however, revoked the idea of Central Europe[8], where Budapest would emerge as a center.[9] Around the turn of the millennium and 2002 there were two reasons why Demszky was talking about Budapest as ‘a European capital’[10]. The process of joining Europe happens through the membership of the nation states. Also in the contemporary Hungary the government had organised celebrations of the millennium of the Hungarian state, which structured the discursive climate around nationhood.

The nostalgic investment in the ideas of the Habsburg Empire was also important for a memory of the independence of cities. Within the umbrella of the empire, the largest cities in that region – Prague, Bratislava, Budapest – could in this spatial structure be detached from the context of their respective nation states. In other words, parallels can be made between Budapest, Vienna, Prague and Bratislava without making parallels between Hungary, Austria, the Czech Republic and Slovakia. Demszky’s political project was to turn Budapest into an EU-time metropolis to counter the national government.

The 19th century regional metropoleis were centers of progress, development in technology and culture, and financial centers of their time. Budapest was built by the investment of capital. As savings were regulated, the most profitable form of investment was real estate. That is why the buildings, palaces even, in the center of Budapest competed in decorations: they had to show off the value invested in them. In postcommunist Budapest, the old buildings were severely decayed and needed foreign investment for renovation. Demszky argued on tourism in 1995:

Budapest has been for more than a century one of the centers of civilization in the Central European region. It always attracted large numbers of tourists and business people alike from abroad with its cosmopolitan (világvárosi) character, unusual panorama, historical parts of the city, vibrant cultural, business and nightlife, with its spas – except for the years at war and the more or less two decades after 1948. However, explosive global development of tourism that took place over the recent decades and increasing competition between the big cities of the region forces us to ask the question: in what areas can we remain or rather become the center of attraction of the region?
As a center of business and commerce Budapest must consider primarily the tough concurrence meant by Vienna and Prague. However, we have a very good chance of Budapest becoming the most important financial center of Central Europe.[11]

From this quotation we can see how the connection between the cities in Central Europe also takes the form of competition. The mayor employs this idea to call for support to Budapest.[12]

Progress, metropolis, nation

Through the 19th century spirit, Demszky evoked a sense of progress and development, and called for investment in the city and its infrastructure, without which it would not be able to rise to glory. This call is also apparent in his choice of role models. Demszky turned Count Frigyes Podmaniczky[13] into a metaphor for development in contemporary Budapest,[14] and into his role model, in a speech opening the commemorative exhibition of this late 19th century city-developer.[15] Demszky stressed that even if Podmaniczky did not belong in the canon of Great Hungarians, he should be remembered by Budapest’s two million citizens. In a similar way as the national hero István Széchenyi was, by a commemorative law, declared the ‘Greatest Hungarian’, Demszky suggested Podmaniczky was the ‘Greatest Budapestian.’

The way the ‘Greatest Hungarian’, Széchenyi, was the one to envision modern Hungary and to put Hungary on the track of European development, the same way Frigyes Podmaniczky was the most important planner of the European capital of modern Hungary, the Greatest Budapestian.[16]

He also declared this relatively unknown figure[17] the ‘second founder of Budapest.’[18] Here, the implicit reference of the ‘first founder’ is to Széchenyi, who proposed the unification of Budapest and in practice united it through the building of the city’s first permanent bridge in the early 19th century. Instead of the canonized heroes of that period, particularly of the 1848 revolution – Széchenyi, Kossuth, Pet?fi or Batthyány – Demszky’s role model here represents the later era which built Budapest into a flourishing metropolis and a capital of Hungary.

Demszky praised Podmaniczky for having ‘a character in which idealism was combined with realism in a rare harmony characteristic of great politicians’[19]:

When one had to fight tyranny – he fought. When one had to endure pause and wait – he endured and waited. When there was a need and opportunity to an intelligent compromise – he chose this politics. When there was a chance to build – he built.[20]

This pragmatism comes up with Demszky’s own comment on the phenomenon of the world exhibitions, important in the history of Budapest’s development. A World Expo was planned for Budapest in 1995/6, originally with Austria. While the Viennese rejected the plan in a referendum, the Hungarian conservative government of 1990-94 went ahead with the plans. Demszky saw that the Expo would help to build the city as the 1896 Budapest World Exhibition did. In an interview in 1994, Demszky answered the question of what he thought about the World Exhibitions as a genre:

Maybe honesty is not typical of politicians these days, but I will tell you: I truly don’t like them. I consider them as something from the last century, today just an out-dated vestige. But this is irrelevant for two reasons. First of all, because it is beneficial for Budapest, therefore, no matter how pre-historic, it must be done. Second, because it is true that in recent times there was a remarkable World Exhibition, the one in Sevilla: 10 billion dollars were spent, beautiful things were built, I envy them for it. However, Hungary cannot reach this level, because there is not enough money for this. […] What is determining is that if we get the money, there will be music, if we don’t, there won’t.[21]

Even though there finally was no money for the Expo in the 1994-98 left-wing government’s budget, already in the early 1990s the Expo plans had a specific function in providing guidelines for the development of the infrastructure of the city, and places reserved for the Expo have been used in contemporary projects. In the same way, the 1896 World Exhibition essentially transformed Budapest – and also formed a nation-building function, which the postcommunist Hungarian right wanted to revoke with the Expo plans.

Because of the emphasis on rigorous nation-building, Demszky was also partly critical of the 19th century. Nevertheless, the period’s values bring the nation to Demszky’s rhetoric. Commemorating Podmaniczky, Demszky listed how the family had defended the values of ‘homeland and progress, Hungarianness and Europeanness, patriotism and Budapest cosmopolitan (világpolgári) local patriotism.’[22] At the time, in 1995, with the Socialist-Liberal national government, local and national patriotism were relatively easy to articulate together, compared to the period when the Hungarian right monopolized nationhood in the national government 1990-94 and 1998-02.

Multiculturalism, metropolis and nationhood

In Demszky’s rhetoric nation does not form an opposite of multiculturalism. Multiculturalism contrasts to the vision of monocultural nationalism of the Hungarian right – which Demszky creates as his discursive-ideological counter pole.

An example of Demszky joining nation and multiculturalism is the celebration of the national day of 20 August 2000 – marking 1000 years of Hungarian statehood and membership in Catholic Europe. Demszky travelled to the predominantly Hungarian town of Salonta, in Transylvania, Romania, which in the late 19th century had been part of the – in effect multicultural Hungary. The speech given to the local Hungarian minority, presenting an image of both the contemporary and the 19th century Budapest is a critique of monocultural policies that had been plaguing the Hungarian minority in Romania. By doing so it also tackled monoculturalism in Hungary and articulated a vision of multicultural nationhood.

Out of the cities in Hungary Budapest happens to be the one that preserved most truly, even over the last two centuries, the thousand-year old Hungarian tradition of peacefully living together of different peoples languages and cultures. There are many reasons for this. Originally, the contemporary Hungarian capital was made to bloom mainly by non-native Hungarian speaking citizens in the last century. These citizens, language-wise and in terms of feelings, turned Hungarian, but at the same time they preserved their own culture, religion and customs.[23]

Demszky argued that Budapest was the center of Hungary and Hungarian nationalism, yet at the same time it was the regional hub and a multicultural metropolis in the 19th century and today. He recalled the past:

At the turn of the century Budapest grew into a metropolis, and afterwards it attracted many of the various peoples of the Monarchy at the time, and of the sons and daughters of the surrounding countries, to try their luck here. Croats, Slovaks, Gypsies, Ukrainians, Romanians, Serbs, Bulgarians, Poles, Armenians – each of them represented one color of the cloth that made the Hungarian capital similar to the European metropoleis. Budapest became the most liberal point in Hungary, regarding the pluralism of both views and nationalities (nemzetiségek).[24]

And he described the present:

Contemporary citizens of Budapest are worthy successors of the era of [King] St. Stephen. As real Europeans, as citizens belonging to the most advanced world, they are self-conscious patriots (hazafiai) of Hungary. And besides their Hungarianness, they can proudly declare to be German, Jewish, Roma, Serbian, Armenian, Greek or Romanian. The way it is natural in a real metropolis.[25]

The national day marked the millennium of the coronation of the first Hungarian king, celebrated by the national Fidesz government who invested heavily on symbols of nationhood. Using the terms the Hungarian Right sought to monopolize (such as hazafi, patriot, or polgár, citizen) with reference to Budapest citizens and linked to Europeanness, progress and multiculturalism, Demszky challenged the monocultural vision of the right. He made a link between multiculturalism and multilingualism both in Budapest and in Transylvania and emphasized the St.Stephen’s father Béla’s maxim, ignored by the Hungarian right: ‘a multilingual country is stronger than a monolingual one.’[26] Demszky rearticulated the advice: ‘We who for the last decades have been living in two very multiethnic countries, Hungary and Romania know that multicultural countries and cities are stronger than monocultural ones.’[27] This is how he evoked another tradition of Hungarianness than the Hungarian right, deriving from the same first king.

In the speech, Demszky also articulated a concept of ‘real metropolis‘ and named Budapest as the ‘most liberal point in Hungary.’[28] Taking a closer look at Budapest, however, multiculturalism barely shows in its cityscape. The celebrations supported by the City Hall reveal the liberal perspective toward the minorities that should be recognized, given rights and tolerated. Moreover, the celebrations offer a chance to consume cultural traditions. Alongside small ethnic and cultural festivals, celebrations of multiculturalism in Budapest included the Jewish festival. In the opening speech to the Budapest Jewish Summer Festival 2000, Demszky argued that Jewish culture and multiculturalism are essential for Budapest to be a European multicultural metropolis. Here Demszky challenges the concept of the ‘sinful city.’ His liberal party is accused of cosmopolitanism by the political Right and subjected to anti-Semitic rhetoric, but he invests pride in the Jewish character of the city. Opening the same festival in 2001 he stressed:

Budapest that became a metropolis a hundred years ago, at the time, pulled in masses of Central European Jews, in their hundreds of thousands. This Jewish community at the same time became the creative force for the development of the city. Following the right and left-wing isolationist dictatorships, we have been building a metropolis again in Budapest over ten years. The Jewish culture plays again an important role in shaping the character of an open-minded European metropolis. This year’s summer festival proved this as well.[29]

The festivals function as demonstrations of the metropolitan character, multiculturalism of Budapest. Multiculturalism emerges as the pluralist counterpart of the idea of homogeneous national culture. Yet simultaneously, it merely celebrated different consumable cultures and performance, such as the alternative pop culture of the Budapest Parade, the Jewish Budapest, or the Roma, rather than flagging multiculturalism in the everyday life.

Nineteenth century Budapest in its multiculturality was decisively European, rather than, for example, global. In 1995, Demszky recalled this spirit of the late nineteenth century with perhaps the most prominent metropolitan writer, Krúdy, who praised the multiculturalism and vibrancy of the metropolis.

The Budapest, where we feel so much at home where we guide our guests from abroad with such pride, he [Podmaninczky] envisioned and shaped it to what it is. He achieved and, in Krúdy’s words, “he could live to see that his well-respected Pest gained European appearance”.[30]

Nevertheless, Krúdy’s well-known argument was that, by 1900, the spirit of Budapest had been lost. This was due to the modernisation and standardisation by the Hungarian minded government. This is also where Demszky’s golden era also ends. The significance of the nineteenth-century past of Budapest lied in its metropolitan flair, multiculturalism and its position as a regional center. The past of Budapest as a developing metropolis in the nineteenth century also brought it closer to international development.

Conclusion

The revival of the memory of the 19th century offered a chance to articulate alongside each other liberal values of freedom, progress as development through investment and capitalism, as well as nationhood and multiculturalism of a European or Central European metropolis. All these ideas were reproduced by Demszky, for example, in his speeches on the national day of March 15, celebrating the beginning of the 1848 revolution, which I have studied elsewhere. Demszky, drawing on the late 19th century, constructed his city-image of contemporary Budapest to reflect ideas of progress, nationhood and freedom.[31] He chose this particular era deliberately. Afterwards, the peaceful co-existence of minorities made space for more exclusive Hungarian nationalism, which also appears in contemporary Hungarian politics. In his speeches Demszky opposes the contemporary nationalism promoted by the Hungarian right who have chosen the interwar period as their golden era. He contrasts this with his clear preference to the late 19th century past. It has also been chosen as the only possible era of reference given that the later eras are occupied by the others political parties or seen as too nationalist, socialist or insignificant for Demszky and his party. The example of multiculturalism shows how the discursive elements listed above do no carry much substance, but they are argued to existence through their counterparts. The 19th century functions as the counterpart to other eras of history.


Bibliography:

Gábor Demszky. Szabadság visszahódítása, Budapest: Új mandátum könyvkiadó, 2001.

Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor’s Office, City Hall. DATE

Laclau, Ernesto. New Revolutions of Our Time. London: Verso, 1990.

Pál Vajda and Gábor Demszky with a Podmaniczky sign. Photo: Heged?s Márta, Magyar Hírlap, June 12, 2005.


Notes:

1. The article is part of my doctoral research on contemporary politics in Hungary and Budapest. I would like to thank the Mayor’s Office, Budapest City Hall, for kindly providing me the crucial research material, a CD-rom of unpublished speeches of the Mayor Gábor Demszky, Demszky Beszédei 1994-2004, and the Körber Foundation and the Institute for Human Sciences, IWM, for offering me a fellowship on History and Memory in Europe, during which this article was written. In preparation of this article I would particularly like to thank János M. Kovács, Senior Fellow at the IWM, and my supervisors Aletta Norval and Sarah Birch at the Department of Government, University of Essex, for their generous support to my work. Warm thanks go also to Ulrike Spring, Museum Wien, my respondent at the IWM Junior Fellows Conference, and my Junior Fellow colleague Astrid Swenson at the IWM, for their feed-back on earlier drafts of this article. [return to text]

2. By this I do not refer to the German ‘Stadtbild’, although the Stadtbild as cityscape would be one of the sources to capture the city-image. [return to text]

3. See e.g. Laclau, Ernesto. New Revolutions of Our Time. London: Verso, 1990. [return to text]

4. This is something I will not address here, however, see on my forthcoming piece on Fidesz, and the myth of countryside metropolis divide in Hungarian politics demonstrated and promoted by Tamás Fricz. [return to text]

5. Here I could show some figures of the investment Budapest, rest of Hungary and other large East European cities get. [return to text]

6. Gábor Demszky. ‘ Fõvárosi Közgy?lés nyitóülése’ [(Speech at the) City Council opening], 22 December 1994. Kozgy.doc, Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

7. During the19th century, all over Europe and America, metropoleis emerged. During the twentieth century, with their rapid development they became critical points of economic, social, political, cultural development of the whole world and they spread out at an ever quicker pace, grew together with their suburbs and surrounding settlements. Demszky Gábor. ‘“Az 50 éves Nagy-Budapest…” c. levéltári napi konferencia megnyitója’ [The Opening of the archival day conference titled “50-year-old Greater-Budapest”’]. Nov. 16, 2000. Nagybpko.doc. Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. In another speech Demszky argued that ‘Romania and Hungary both equally will belong if already don’t belong to the Euroatlantic world.’ Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. [return to text]

8. The area of the former Habsburg Empire has become an important imagined region in the postcommunist period. [return to text]

9. In February 1998, in a conference on the future of Hungary Demszky referred to the transport network around Budapest, developed in the 19th century: Budapest as a metropolis is not only the centre of the country. Here not only all the Hungarian transport links meet but it is also the junction for transcontinental railway -, road and sea-way networks. […] Budapest – with Prague and Vienna – is the most important finance, trade and cultural capital in Central Europe. Demszky, ‘El?adás a “Magyarország 2000” tanácskozáson’ [Paper at the “Hungary 2000” conference], 20 February 1998, mao2000.doc, Beszédek 1994-2004. [return to text]

10. Demszky’s election campaign of 2002 was based on ‘Program for developing Budapest into a European Capital.’ Katalin Pallai The Budapest Model; A Liberal Urban Policy Experiment, Budapest: Open Society Institute (OSI/LGI), 2003. 75. [return to text]

11. Demszky. ‘A Turizmus c. lap fogadásán megtartandó beszéd’ [Speech delivered at the reception of the magazine called ‘Tourism’], January 1995, 1995-Turizmus.doc, Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

12. ‘Perhaps it’s needless to say that the bigger traffic development and building-works in Budapest are of national and regional importance (bridges over the Danube, fast-train network, circular roads, connections to motorways). Therefore, their influence on traffic reaches beyond the area of the capital city, and size of the investment is essentially out of the competences and capabilities of the Capital. Consequently, these issues also contain a suggestion to the government: if they take seriously catching up with Europe, they must help.’ Gábor Demszky. ‘Közlekedési koncepció + olimpia – közgy?lés’ [‘Transport concept + the Olympics – City Concil’, Budapest City Council. May 31, 2001. Olimpia-közgy.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. [return to text]

13. Podmaninczky, Frigyes (1824-1907) an MP and the President of the Capital’s General Works Council (Fôvárosi Közmunkák Tanács). [return to text]

14. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. See also Gábor Demszky ‘Mit ?l intelligens a város ’ [‘What makes a city intelligent’, an interview with Mihancsik Zsófia, Kritika 1997/4], Szabadság visszahódítása, Budapest: Új mandátum könyvkiadó, 2001, 75. [return to text]

15. See also e.g. Gábor Demszky ‘Mit ?l intelligens a város ’ [‘What makes a city intelligent’, an interview with Mihancsik Zs ófia, Kritika 1997/4]. Szabadság visszahódítása, Budapest: Új mandátum könyvkiadó, 2001, 75. [return to text]

16. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

17. His canonisation progressed, as he also gained a statue by the municipality in the centre of Budapest in 1991. In 2005 Demszky introduced Podmaniczky roadwork – improvement – signs in the city. MagyarH írlap, Monday 13 June 2005. [return to text]

18. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

19. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

20. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

21. Gábor Demszky. ‘Bennem nincs bosszúvágy’ [‘There’s no vengeance in me’, interview with Lázsló Kasza, Századvég, 1994.] Szabadság visszahódítása, Budapest: Új mandátum könyvkiadó, 2001, 24. [return to text]

22. In the speech Demszky describes how the members of Podmaninczky’s family had been symphatisers of the Hungarian Jacobins, the later generations died in Vietnam as an American citizen and patriot for the freedom and protection of Western culture, Demszky, an American educated anti-communist articulated his respect. Demszky Gábor. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky]. June 20, 1995. Podman.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

23. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. [return to text]

24. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. [return to text]

25. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. [return to text]

26. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

27. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

28. Gábor Demszky ‘Ünnepi beszéd a nagyszalontai múzeumkertben’ [Speech at the Salonta (Nagyszalonta) Museum Garden]. Aug. 20, 2000. 2000-aug20.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. Emphasis original. [return to text]

29. Gábor Demszky. ‘Beszéd a 4. Zsidó Nyári Fesztivál zárókoncertjén az Operaházban’ [ Speech at the closing concert of the Fourth Jewish Summer Festival at the Budapest Opera House]. Sept. 2, 2001. Zsidófeszt4.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

30. Gábor Demszky. ‘Podmaniczky Frigyes emlékkiállítás megnyitója’ [Opening of the commemorative exhibition of Frigyes Podmaniczky], 20 June 1995, Podman.doc, Beszédek 1994-2004. Budapest: Database courtesy of the Mayor ’s Office, City Hall. 2004. [return to text]

31. Gábor Demszky. ‘“Az 50 éves Nagy-Budapest…” c. levéltári napi konferencia megnyitója’ [The Opening of the archival day conference titled “50-year-old Greater-Budapest”’]. Nov. 16, 2000. Nagybpko.doc. Demszky Beszédek 1994-2004. Database from Mayor ’s Office. Budapest. 2004. [return to text]

IWM Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conferences, Vol. XIX/2

© 2006 by the author
Readers may redistribute this article to other individuals for noncommercial use, provided that the text and this note remain intact. This article may not be reprinted or redistributed for commercial use without prior written permission from the author. If you have any questions about permissions, please contact Klaus Nellen at IWM.
Preferred citation: Palonen, Emilia. 2006. City-images in Contemporary Budapest: The Mayor’s Nostalgia for the 19th Century Capital and Metropolis. In Reflections, ed. E. O’Carroll, Vienna: IWM Junior Visiting Fellows’ Conferences, Vol. 19.