Siegmund Feilbogen · Year unverified
Siegmund Feilbogen’s short book review presents Navay de Földeak’s study as a well-documented account of Hungary’s place in the world market and a timely invitation to French commercial engagement. The author’s fifteen years as the Hungarian commerce minister’s delegate in France establish his practical authority. Feilbogen’s praise centres on the combination of detailed economic information, restrained general judgments, and attention to national independence.
The review first follows Levasseur’s preface in describing Hungary’s transformation since 1873: formerly undercultivated land has become productive farmland, cattle herds have expanded, and industry has grown through sustained public and private efforts. Yet industrial progress does not displace agriculture as the country’s economic foundation. Feilbogen reproduces Levasseur’s caution:
« La Hongrie a été et est un pays agricole; elle le restera. C'est de la terre qu'elle continuera à tirer sa principale richesse. »
English translation: "Hungary has been and is an agricultural country; it will remain so. It is from the land that it will continue to draw its principal wealth."
This qualification frames rather than discounts the industrial statistics: more than 320,000 workers, output exceeding two billion, and an increase of almost 50 percent in eight years. The review thus commends an account of development that recognizes substantial industrial change without exaggerating its extent.
Feilbogen’s strongest interpretive endorsement concerns the connection between economic growth and political autonomy:
Sachons gré avant tout à l'auteur d'avoir rattaché le développement matériel de la Hongrie au souci constant de son indépendance.
English translation: Let us above all be grateful to the author for having linked Hungary's material development to the constant concern for its independence.
The accompanying quotation from François Deak distinguishes losses imposed by force, which circumstances may reverse, from rights voluntarily surrendered, which are lost permanently. In the review, this distinction gives political weight to the book’s economic survey: material advancement is understood alongside the preservation of national rights.
Feilbogen then sketches the book’s organization. A brief account of the political conditions of Hungarian independence precedes a systematic survey of agriculture, industry, commerce, and international economic relations, supported by recent, interpreted statistics. A separate section considers past and prospective reforms, especially measures undertaken during the preceding three years within the commerce ministry’s remit. Industrial encouragement receives particular attention: five enterprises established in Hungary by French investors reportedly represent capital exceeding sixteen million.
These examples support the review’s concluding commercial recommendation:
L'auteur est donc bien autorisé à insister sur cette idée que les négociants français auraient le plus grand intérêt à connaître les opportunités que leur offre la Hongrie.
English translation: The author is therefore fully entitled to insist upon the idea that French merchants would have the greatest interest in becoming acquainted with the opportunities Hungary offers them.
Feilbogen treats the invitation for French merchants to visit Hungary as credible advice grounded in demonstrated opportunities. His review’s relevance lies in this conjunction of economic description, national independence, and Franco-Hungarian commercial cooperation: the book is valued both as a measured account of Hungary’s development and as a practical means of making that development better known in France.
This work was divided into 1 sections when it entered the library's research corpus—an apparatus for search and citation, not necessarily the author's own table of contents. Each title opens its summary.
Put a question to this work; the Librarian answers from its 1 sections and cites the passage.
Ask the Librarian