Conceptualization of Imperial Markers in the Architectural Ensemble of Budapest

Introduction. This article presents an analysis of the key architectural structures and the general space of the historical center of Budapest in order to identify its key semantic, aesthetic, cultural dominants. The relevance of this article is due to the actual lack of reflection of the urban space of Budapest, although its relationship and structural similarities with the imperial cities of Europe are obvious. The scientific novelty of this article lies in the development and refinement of the modern content of the concept of an imperial city – a phenomenon that obviously exists in the absence of empires, its content, as it can be formalized on an individual example of the architectural appearance of Budapest.

Methodology and sources. Since the analytical tools of modernity are thoroughly “national”, while the empire cannot be described within the framework of any one model with help of any one metanarrative. Thus, the imperial city acts as an “archeology” understood in the spirit of the post-structuralist Foucainean paradigm, deconstructing the basic and normative ideas of the social sciences.

Results and discussion. The specificity of the correlation of imperial markers in the urban space of Budapest consists in the following features: first of all, the theme of the “second capital” in comparison with Vienna is consonant with the general national theme of “orphan hood” of Hungarian culture; at the same time, an intricate combination of references to imperial markers and aesthetic and stylistic solutions to other European cities demonstrates the secondary and ephemeral, self-referential nature of these references. In addition, the sacred center of Budapest is not the main temple, but the Parliament building, which embodies the main national, cultural, ideological project.

Conclusion. As a result of the study there were revealed the main features of the constitution of the imperial image of Budapest and the circumstances of its formation. Summarizing some of the most important historical trends that determined the architecture of Budapest, its aesthetic and architectural appearance and the influence that it experienced from other imperial cities, we can conclude that Budapest is a non-referential sign, reflection, and simulacrum of an imperial city that does not refer to any particular empire and to most empires at the same time.

1. Foucault, M. (1977), Les Mots et les Choses. Une archéologie des sciences humaines, Progress, Moscow, USSR.

2. “”Gesta Hungarorum” of magister P., who is named Anonymous Author” (2007), Transl. by Matuzova, V.I., comment. Yurasov, M.K., Studia Slavica et Balcanica Petropolitana, no. 1/2, pp. 87–98.

3. Sharyi, A. and Shimov, Ya. (2011), Korni i korona. Ocherki ob Avstro-Vengrii. Sud'ba imperii [Roots and crown. Essays on Austria-Hungary. The fate of the empire], KoLibri, Moscow, RUS.

4. Kontler, L. (2002), A history of Hungary: millennium in Central Europe, Transl. by Oleinik, V.T., Ves' Mir, Moscow, RUS.

5. Mészöly, M. (2002), “Competition of Literature: Equality of Chance or Handicap? (View from Central Europe)”, Vengry i Evropa. Sbornik esse [Hungary and Europe. Essay collection], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, RUS, pp. 360–370.

6. Koestler, A. (2001), The Thirteenth tribe. The Khazar Empire and its Heritage, Transl. by Kabalkin, A.Yu., Evrazija, SPb., RUS.

7. Jllуes, G. (1972), Petőfi Sándor, Transl. by Malykhina, E.I., Hudozhestvennaja literatura, Moscow, USSR.

8. Chaikovskaya, A. (2016), Triumf krasnoi gerani. Kniga o Budapeshte [The triumph of red geranium. A book about Budapest], Novoe literaturnoe obozrenie, Moscow, RUS.

9. Herder, I.G. (1977), Ideen zur Philosophie der Geschichte der Menschheit, Transl. by Mikhailov, A.V., Gulyga, A.V. (ed.), Nauka, Moscow, USSR.