No CrossRef data available.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
It would certainly be rash to attempt to correct anything that Béla Király has written about Ferenc Deák or to try to add anything important to what he has to say, since his biography of Deák is the most recent and, in English, the most detailed assessment of the life of the “sage of the Fatherland” that has thus far been published. It would be even more temerarious for someone who, like myself, has never engaged in original research on that particular period to attempt to do so. Therefore, I will only raise a few general questions about Kiraly's article.
1 Published in Boston in 1975 by Twayne Publishers.
2 Horváth, Mihály, Fünfundzwanzig Jahre ungarischer Geschichte (2 vols., Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1867), Vol. II, p. 262.Google Scholar
3 See ante, p. 14.
4 Kosáry, Domokos, Kossuth és a Védegylet [Kossuth and the Protection Association] (Budapest: Athenaeum, 1942).Google Scholar
5 Király, . Ferenc Deák, pp. 33–35.Google Scholar
6 See ante, p. 13.
7 See ante, p. 25.
8 See Vol. II, p. 476, of the second edition, which was published in Budapest in 1967 by Gondolat Könyvkiadó.
9 Horváth, Fünfundzwanzig Jahre ungarischer Geschichte.
10 Kónyi, Manó (ed.), Deák Ferenc beszédei [The Speeches of Ferenc Deák] (6 vols., Budapest: Franklin Társulat, 1883), Vol. IV, p. 442.Google Scholar
11 Spira, György, “Auf der Suche nach dem besseren Verständnis des ungarischen Achtundvierzig,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae, Vol. XIII (1967), pp. 431–432.Google Scholar
12 See ante, p. 25.
13 See Századok, Vol. XCI (1957), p. 644.
14 Spira, , “Auf der Suche nach dem besseren Verständnis des ungarischen Achtundvierzig,” p. 432.Google Scholar
15 See ante, pp. 16–18.
16 Published in Vienna in 1976 by Europaverlag.