On May 8, the Senate of Eötvös Loránd University will honor Dalibor Čepulo, professor emeritus of the University of Zagreb, with the title of doctor et professor honoris causa. Gergely Gosztonyi, university professor in the Department of the History of Hungarian State and Law, spoke with the Croatian legal history professor about how a "compromise" led him to his career choice, why the comparative perspective is indispensable, and how history shapes legal thinking.
What sparked your interest in law back when you were a student?
To be honest, I initially intended to study philosophy and sociology that at the time were seen as naturally linked to social and political criticism. Yet, I switched to law as a compromise better suited to the labor market. I have never regretted it; law is a fantastic field that offers specialized legal expertise, develops a specific way of thinking, and provides broad theoretical and social knowledge.
Looking back on my student years, the first thing I think of is my editing the student’s research journal, within which we launched a series of public forums. In 1981, I was in charge of the first forum, ‘Terror and Terrorism’. It was the time when censored news about demonstrations and police brutality and military activity in Kosovo were coming. One of the participants was a philosophy professor known as a critic of the regime. Yet, I was anyway surprised when I was invited for a ‘conversation’ with the local head of the Communist Party, as I was neither a member of the organization nor close to it in any way. They tried to persuade us to quietly remove the announcements for the debate and let it vanish. We somehow dared to refuse, and the debate took place with the largest hall at the faculty fully packed, and few ‘men in suits’ in the audience. It seems they were afraid of some actions in the audience, but nothing happened except the interesting debate. I took that experience as my extended education in legal and political culture.
You are Professor of Croatian legal history, but you often stress importance of the comparative approach. Also, you are credited with writing of the first comprehensive textbook on Croatian legal history entitled „Croatian legal history in the European context “. Why do you think the comparative perspective is so important?
Perhaps it sounds somewhat contradictory, but I emphasize a comparative perspective precisely because I am a professor of Croatian legal history that is characterized by immense territorial, political, and cultural diversity. Throughout history, the Croatian lands have shifted across various power structures, experiencing direct and indirect legal influences from Byzantine, Frankish, Venetian, Hungarian, Austrian, and Soviet traditions, to name only the most important ones. Consequently, the study of Croatian institutions cannot be treated as an isolated island. This is true for most European legal histories, but Central Europe, in particular, is a zone of deeply entangled histories. Apart of that, I believe that a broader view that examines not only direct influences, but also general similarities and dissimilarities is essential for a profound understanding of the legal and social development within a specific country. While national history remains the primary focus, and a comparative approach is not always feasible or required, it nonetheless provides a more complete understanding of both specific institutions and the legal system as a whole.
Regarding the textbook, I am very proud of it, though I must emphasize that my predecessors would have certainly been capable of such a task. However, for a long time, the Croatian legal past was taught within a Yugoslav framework, which resulted in summarized histories of various nations or republics. Furthermore, the diversity of the Croatian experience and its integration in a coherent and not mechanical system is even greater challenge. In the textbook, I aimed to explicitly identify the channels of interaction between Croatian legal history and the broader European environment. I shall mention that the most extensive among introductory summarized presentation of other legal traditions is a 14-page overview of Hungarian legal development, but Hungarian dimension is also extensively present in the respective parts of the text.
It has always struck me that you are fascinated by the work of Ban Ivan Mažuranić. I have rarely heard anyone speak with such passion about a 19th century politician. What is it about him that captivates you?
I am often passionate at my lectures, possibly due to my Mediterranean origins (laugh). Yet, my doctoral thesis dealt with the so called ‘Mažuranić reforms’, an intensive program of institutional modernization in 1870s, so I got very familiar with Mažuranić as a person too, not just with his grandeur but also his weak points. What fascinated me was Mažuranić’s “self-made man“ journey from ordinary city-peasant family in the small Adriatic town to the multilingual, well-educated and famous poet and politician. I also like his realism, rationality and integrity as principal mode of dealing in politics. By the way, Mažuranić attended gymnasium in neighboring Rijeka and started his studies in Szombathely, but then he returned to Zagreb to graduate in law. His teacher of Hungarian language in gymnasium who strongly supported him was Ferenc Császár. I liked the poem that young Mažuranić wrote in honor of Császár, ending with a verse ‘Hajó az ember, tenger az élete, Császár’, ‘Man is a boat, his life is a sea, Császár’.
From 2004, you served as the Head of the Department of Legal History at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb for nearly two decades. How do you see the role of legal history in 21st-century legal education? Is it even important to study and teach legal history at all?
When greeting students at my first lecture of the semester, I often compare legal history to the field of genetics, which reveals the evolutionary codes upon which organisms are built, as well as to evolutionary psychology, which uncovers the inherited patterns that unconsciously guide our behavior. Beyond its role as a general introduction to legal studies,
I believe legal history provides an understanding of the specific ‘spirit of the law’ and the practical functioning of institutions within a particular country.
It helps us grasp the formation and substance of a legal culture and a ‘legal mind’, not only among jurists but within the broader population as well.
These deep-seated patterns cannot be constructed or altered overnight, nor can they be manipulated through a simple change in legislation. I believe both Croatia and Hungary possess a wealth of historical and contemporary experience in this regard. I am often reminded of the words of Mirjan Damaška, the world-renowned Yale professor and former Zagreb professor of criminal procedure who noted during a lecture that the more experienced he becomes, the more he believes that knowing a country’s legal history is more important than knowing its current legislation.
After you retired from the Department of Legal History at the Faculty of Law of the University of Zagreb, your students took up the torch. Looking back, are you satisfied with the work you did in launching your successors’ careers as teachers and researchers?
This is a complex question, and part of the answer should perhaps be addressed by my younger colleagues and the broader academic community. However, from my subjective point of view, I am deeply satisfied and even proud of the work we have accomplished at the department, including the mentorship of my younger colleagues. I have always been keen to transfer to them the importance of working with primary sources, the value of theoretical and multidisciplinary analysis and the necessity of a comparative approach and international cooperation. I believe they have adopted this fundamental framework and that the department, as a whole, maintains a distinctive presence in the Croatian research landscape. Yet again, this is my subjective view.
Of course, these younger colleagues have long since ceased to be ‘young’; they are now mature academics with their own established identities.
An exceptionally productive and perhaps even friendly collaboration has developed over the past decade with the Department of the History of Hungarian State and Law at ELTE’s Faculty of Law. How do you remember the early days, and why was this relationship important to you?
I am truly delighted with the cooperation I have enjoyed with ELTE, from my very first visit to the present day. It has been more than just a professionally successful partnership but also a remarkably friendly journey from the very beginning. My visit to your faculty was one of my first research trips abroad, a sort of ‘reconnaissance’ mission at a time when international mobility was far less common than it is today.
I was motivated both by the undeniable importance of the Hungarian dimension for understanding Croatian legal history and by a firm belief in the necessity of international cooperation.
My first host was Professor Mihály T. Révész, and my primary contact was Professor Lajos Rácz; both welcomed me warmly and supported the idea of a long-term partnership. That initial visit led to occasional stays in Budapest in the following years within the framework of my two other research projects. During one of these visits, I met Professor Gábor Máthé, who initiated a joint publication, edited and published in Budapest, which brought together the work of members from both departments. Most significant, however, was the initiative and support of Professor Barna Mezey, the Rector at the time, to further expand our cooperation. It was then that you and the younger colleagues from my department in Zagreb joined us, and the rest is a success story that has since gained stable institutional foundations. I am particularly proud that, a few years ago, we enlarged the cooperation into a single, tripartite Budapest-Vienna-Zagreb cluster.
Although I am conducting this interview with you in connection with your honorary doctorate from ELTE, it must be emphasized that you maintain excellent relations not only with our faculty but also with the law faculties of several other Hungarian universities. Moreover, your honorary doctorate lecture will focus on the 1868 Croatian-Hungarian Compromise. Linking these two facts, I would like to ask: how do you view Croatian-Hungarian relations in the past and nowadays?
In my response, I would naturally seek to avoid strictly political or ‘oil-related’ issues as much as possible (laugh). I believe it is widely accepted that Hungarian-Croatian relations, from the collapse of the medieval Croatian Kingdom up to the modern nation-building period of the 19th century, were remarkably complementary and friendly, devoid of any serious disturbances. While this perception primarily concerns the history of the elites, it still resonates in the general experience as it provided stable environment, as much as it was possible at those times, for a whole general population, instead of conflicts and crises. In the 19th century, the era of nation-building saw a clash between two overlapping processes that sparked significant controversy. Yet, it was also a time of essential institutional stability and growth for modern Croatian culture and government, albeit with the latter manifesting only in a limited capacity. What I particularly realised during my visits to Budapest that there was a much stronger and more concrete focus on Ban Josip Jelačić in Hungary than in Croatia. I believe this can be connected to the previously mentioned diversity of historical experiences in Croatia, where the 1848 Croatian-Hungarian conflict was not directly felt in Dalmatia, let alone Istria and therefore not a part of general Croatian experience. While Ban Jelačić is undoubtedly an important national symbol
of Croatian resistance, I would say that in Croatia this remained on a more general level rather than being specifically directed toward Hungary.
The restoration of his monument to the main square in Zagreb in 1990, along with the change in its orientation (no longer figuratively directed toward Hungary) was met with general public acclaim in Croatia.
Regarding contemporary times, I think that Hungary is primarily perceived as a country that fully and sincerely supported Croatia on its path to independence in numerous ways, both by its successive governments and sincere solidarity of its people. Such memories are not easily forgotten. I do not believe that occasional problems can seriously undermine this mutual respect. When asked abroad about these issues I always describe Hungarian-Croatian relations as a real successful and friendly story. Maybe our academic collaboration played a small part in this.