The national movement to foster the social, political, and economic rejuvenation of Hungary began in earnest some twenty years before the Revolution of 1848. There was a direct line of development from the first reform diet of 1825, which demanded the redress of national grievances but no economic or social reform, to the last diet of feudal Hungary in 1847–1848, which demanded and obtained national sovereignty, the emancipation of the peasants, and the codification of basic human rights. During these years Hungary's political climate definitely changed, and every political group, even the court circles in Vienna, moved in what can be called a generally progressive or leftist direction. The court, the Hungarian chancellery in Vienna, the royal administration in Budapest, the conservative, liberal, and radical parties in the diet, and the extra-parliamentary opposition in the streets and the cafés—all assiduously planned, advocated, and introduced reform programs.

Unlike their Czech and Hungarian colleagues, Polish historians have traditionally paid little attention to the history of the Habsburg monarchy and its nationalities, except for their studies of Galician affairs and Austro-Polish relations. Before the fall of the monarchy Polish scholars were primarily interested in Austrian constitutional and legal developments, thereby reflecting the concern that Galician Poles felt for their position in the monarchy.

The 1840's were a decade of dynamism for Hungarian liberals. Two important developments had produced a measure of unity in the liberal camp. As the Habsburgs increased their colonial treatment of Hungary, the Hungarians attempted to counter that policy with an economic program and, simultaneously, drafted a political platform. This collision between Habsburg reactionary policy and Hungarian liberalism made it imperative that the liberals unify, clarify their ideology, and shape a political strategy. More than anything else, the liberals needed a resolute leader who could consolidate the various reform factions into a united body. Ferenc Deák was considered the figure of greatest stature among all the liberals and the natural head of the nascent liberal party. Yet he was at his most undecided stage during this prerevolutionary period of ferment.

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.

In the first hours of the revolution in Budapest on March 15, 1848, a young radical historian, Pál Vasvári, warned a crowd of demonstrators that the strength of the absolutistic government of Vienna lay in its ability to set one people against another. Referring to the Italians, Austrians, Czechs, and Magyars, he stated: “We are all brother nations. By ourselves we are weak, but together, strong, powerful and invincible. … Therefore, long live brotherhood among the nations!