Logos,Industrial Palace,and Urania: The Urban Forms of Knowledge in Budapest,1873-1914

Knowledge and Urban Space—The Concept of Knowledge Format

Applying the term knowledge format, this article initiates a possible research approach within the field of historical urban research. The term itself can be traced back to the Latin verb formare, which not only expresses the process of creating but also refers to aspects of making, expressing, strengthening, and forming, always indicating active participation. ² Knowledge transfer is mostly executed via practices of transmission and translation. Studying transfer shows the space where transfer takes place to be a dense network of various information which are transmitted at different times. ³ Based on this understanding, it can be assumed that knowledge transfer is not limited to abstract forms of knowledge but also includes practices, performance, and interpretative patterns of things and instruments. It is for this reason that knowledge transfer is seen as a process consisting of numerous components and changes that go beyond the mere description of its originating culture, the transmitting actors, or the target culture. The term knowledge format, as it is used in this article, consequently not only focuses on medial aspects of knowledge transfer but also includes actors, practices, and materiality of this transfer: “. . . it focuses the attention to transmitted rules that created, formed and thus transmitted knowledge, but also to the actors and their strategies and practices within the process of generating and transmitting knowledge . . .” ⁴ A knowledge format, therefore, is understood as a research approach that allows understanding actors, practices, and forms of knowledge transfer within urban space. Knowledge formats are also to distinguish by analyzing how differing scientific knowledge was transmitted within urban space. This article will discuss three case examples which represent three different levels of urban knowledge formats: materiality/representation, staging, and spatialization of knowledge in urban space. Consequently, this also allows describing urban formats in which the presentation, the transformation, and the reception of knowledge overlap, and that have not been studied by urban historic research yet .

Universities, research institutes, and libraries, all of them different places and institutions of knowledge production, have been objects of detailed study within the field of scientific history but have received only limited attention from the field of urban history. In addition, the “popularization” of knowledge has also been reflected particularly within the field-specific discourses of science history. ⁵ The concept of knowledge format, however, needs to be distinguished from such forms of knowledge transfer as they can be found, for example, in adult education. Its application allows differentiating clearly between modes and practices but also interests while offering the possibility to record their reciprocal connectedness. The application of knowledge format, on the contrary, also allows to employ a much broader perspective than an approach focused on the popularization of sciences or on adult education could offer. The latter approaches would limit the focus since they “suggest” a “one-way street” of “knowledge transfer” ⁶ ; they describe a “top-down”-process of communication from the knowledge elites to the “non-elites” ⁷ that fails to consider numerous aspects and relationships of the diverse transmissions of knowledge within a highly differentiated urban space. Knowledge format as a concept or a perspective, however, reflects the interdisciplinary diversity of academic knowledge which is transmitted or mediatized within urban space, in this case via the example of Budapest; second, knowledge format as a category of analysis reacts to innovation in the visualization and understandability of knowledge within urban space—beginning with its materiality toward the manner of its representation; knowledge format, third, also reflects the desire or the curiosity found in the city and among its inhabitants that were the among the basic conditions for the development of a receptive audience. ⁸ The three examples presented in this article, therefore, reflect three levels of knowledge transfer—materiality, representation/staging, and spatialization—within urban space; their analysis is based on the assumption that they originated from the intersections of European “knowledge” and its local transformation which accompanied the swift urbanization of the city of Budapest.

Keeping Balance: Logos and the Anthologie Philosophischer Autoren

Logos, the international journal Zeitschrift für Philosophie der Kultur was published between 1910 and 1933 by the publishers J. C. B Mohr in Tübingen, Germany. Its authors and editors were working in the prominent urban centers of knowledge in Germany and later in all of Europe. Logos was the result of an urban knowledge environment, ⁹ that is, following the arguments of sociologist Ulf Mathiesen, ¹⁰ understood as an interurban ¹¹ and intellectual network producing specific forms of knowledge. The origin and history of Logos were not only shaped by people and their networks, including, for example, Otto von Gierken, Edmund Husserl, Georg Simmel, Max Weber, and Ernst Troeltsch, but they were also influenced by the cities where these authors lived and worked, which included Berlin, Tübingen, Heidelberg, and later Moscow and St. Petersburg. ¹²

In its beginning, the journal was published in Freiburg and Moscow, a new editorial office was opened in 1913 in Italy where the first Italian issue of Logos was published in 1914. ¹³ Future national editorial offices were planned in Hungary, France, England, and the United States. In its program, the editorial staff of Logos declared that it planned to connect culture and internationalism. ¹⁴ It was the goal to create a so-called “supranational” and interdisciplinary culture. ¹⁵ Following this announcement of their international work, the local editorial offices were able to realize a special form of interurban transfer of philosophical, aesthetical, and cultural–philosophical knowledge. Cultural philosophy, in this context, was understood as philosophy’s new way to find answers for changing social structures that resulted from influences in science, industrialization, as well as urbanization. It was planned to open the Hungarian office of Logos in Budapest with the help of the two philosophers Vilmos Szilasi und György Lukács. Particularly Lukács was assigned a special role in this new office since he was member of the Heidelberg Network of Intellectuals and had an excellent relationship with Marianne and Max Weber. ¹⁶ However, the project fell through, not only because of personal conflicts but also because of Bernát Alexander’s attitude, another philosopher who had been included in the preparations.

After 1910, Alexander had become a famous academic who had excellent contacts with philosophy’s most important people and institutions all over Europe. Due to his prominent position, his rejection of the establishment of a Hungarian Logos meant the end of the project altogether. He feared a “deutsche Kulturhegemonie” ¹⁷ of Logos with unforeseeable consequences for an independent “local” Hungarian philosophy. ¹⁸ While German philosophy had been assigned an exemplary role by the Russian and Italian editions of Logos, Bernát Alexander remained much more critical and insisted that the establishment of a Hungarian edition of Logos and the including of an international focus at the same time were mutually exclusive. This meant, in Rüdiger Kramme’s words, that “. . . the offering of international cooperation led to an emphasis of autonomy as a nationalization of philosophy in the Hungarian context.” ¹⁹

The rejection of Logos resulted from Alexander’s strong belief which had influenced his lifelong work:

. . . I want to spread philosophical thinking, but paired with a Hungarian emotion for the sake of the Hungarian nation. In this I follow my own precept that the Hungarian spirit cannot not be improved through external and foreign additions but needs to carefully adapt itself to them . . . ²⁰

Accordingly, it was Alexander’s goal to unite circulating (European) ideas, movements, and knowledge with Hungarian national and local endeavors. However, this required an act of balance from his side. ²¹ In the context of his belief, Alexander judged Logos’s initiative to open another office in Budapest as imbalanced.

His biography, ²² his networks, and his work were all similarly influenced by this belief. While both “Ungarntum” and “Europäertum” played a central role in his work, his own vita and his networks were first and foremost influenced by the cities. Budapest was the center of this influence, the city he was most closely connected with from the beginning; in addition, he visited centers of knowledge such as Vienna, Leipzig, Berlin, Göttingen, Paris, and London during his research journeys between 1868 and 1874; the relationships he established there and that resulted in his networks also continued to influence his work for the rest of his life.

Bernát Alexander’s career began in the city of Pest, where the creation of a Hungarian national identity had influenced the intellectual life as well as the city’s university. Following the Austrian–Hungarian agreement in 1867, the construction of a European center or a metropolis as a symbol for a new and strong Hungary remained a national “joint project.” Before it should become the nation’s capital (in 1873), the city, therefore, became the center of national movements as well of culture. The population of Pest mainly consisted of a German and a Jewish bourgeoisie, to which Alexander himself belonged as well. He left this environment in 1868 when he received a state-funded scholarship. ²³ For Alexander, these six years meant “. . . this atmosphere and this great liberty which we were about to enjoy.” ²⁴ During his journeys, for example, to Vienna and Berlin, he learned about different forms of spreading philosophical knowledge, ²⁵ but he also discovered the importance of philosophy’s popularization and the establishing of a Hungarian audience. This developed into a recurring thought in his letters. ²⁶ For Alexander, his journey did not mean an “escaping” from the tightness of the periphery that is often suggested by the term “periphery” itself. ²⁷ It was rather a journey of self-discovery, of curiosity, a quest of experiencing the other. At the same time, the journey had been carefully planned, the cities had been chosen based on his motivation to learn as much as possible at the respective centers of knowledge. However, this did not mean that knowledge should be acquired automatically, it rather meant a reflected interaction with the experiences and the learning materials. In his letters, he critically evaluates methods, speakers, and lectures that he, at the same time, also experienced as a challenge to create something “better” following his return to his home country. It is possible to investigate these aspects in Alexander’s works when taking a closer look at two specific areas: first, his teaching in different environments (such as the Gymnasium, universities but also public lectures for associations and a public audience) and, second, his translations and his writings—knowledge formats which not only contain the aspect of staging but also feature materiality (as objects) in their form such as the numerous books which he wrote and had printed.

After his return to Hungary in 1874, he began to teach at a Gymnasium. Following a long period of waiting, he was appointed head of the chair of dramaturgy at the drama academy. Furthermore he gave public talks on aesthetics lic that contributed significantly to the formation of a certain bourgeois taste. His writings shared the main motivation of his lectures, where he intended to teach aestheticism and philosophy and through which he wanted to spread intellectual values as widely as possible. To him, journalism was one of the instruments to achieve this goal and in Budapest this was a new format of knowledge transfer that had developed during rapid urbanization. ²⁸ For several years, he published theater reviews in Budapesti Hírlap, Neues Pester Journal und Pester Lloyd, journals which had been founded during the 1860s and served a growing urban audience. In addition, he published in Die Presse and later in Unsere Zeit as well as the French Revue de Hongrie. His complex journalist publishing in many different languages spread all over Europe and developed into a network of information. He thus connected European philosophical developments with Hungarian circles and, through his writing and his lectures, provided his Budapest audience with access to philosophy and aestheticism.

In addition to his writing, his translations became a second pillar of his transfer endeavors. For Alexander and Bánóczi, the process of translating not only included the transfer of thoughts and structures but also meant to stimulate the respective environment and to fulfill its intellectual desires. This belief manifested itself in a project that Alexander implemented together with the literary historian József Bánóczi: the Anthology of Philosophical Authors (A Filozófiai Írók Tára). It consisted of twenty-nine volumes that were published between 1881 and 1919.The motivation of this project can be found in Alexander’s early works where he claimed that “. . . the philosophy and the art of a people indicate in how far it has developed a human side.” ²⁹ On December 22, 1878, Bernát Alexander and his friend József Bánóczi applied for funding at the scientific academy to publish their planned series of volumes. ³⁰ Budapest provided an excellent location for this project: the publishing conditions and the required infrastructure were excellent, but it was also, on one hand, a knowledge center with universities and academic institutions and, on the other hand, an environment of urban knowledge, a space of interaction for different networks and groups who could serve as potential audiences of the project. Alexander und Bánóczi had various intentions: the new knowledge format - twenty nine volumes on Philosophy published by the renowned publishing house Franklin - should introduce the audience to European philosophical culture, the translations should strengthen and support an individual perspective of philosophical culture in Hungary, and, furthermore, a new future audience should be created. All of these factors contributed the development of a civic-intellectual public in Budapest.

The Anthology of Philosophical Authors turned out to be a huge success. In his preface of the “Kritik der reinen Vernunft” published in 1891, Alexander wrote, “The success of the Anthology of Philosophical Authors exceeded our hopes . . .” ³¹ This was certainly helped by the fact that only relevant works of European philosophy were translated, for example, works by Diderot, Kant, and Schopenhauer, and that a broad diversity of texts was selected for translation; particularly at the beginning, fundamental but also easily comprehensible texts had been chosen for publication.

Alexander’s work was strongly influenced by his goal to orient European trends toward Hungarian “national” interests. He refused to include trends automatically and without reflection, as can be seen with the example of Logos. Instead, he was looking for the right balance between universal-European interests and particular national interests as he demonstrated with the example of theAnthology of Philosophical Authors. This can be witnessed in the transfer of philosophical works and trends, on one hand, to support the development of a national Hungarian philosophy, and, on the other hand, to provide Hungarian philosophy with access to European discourses. The city of Budapest not only served as the environment for this project but became a place of inspiration where the “missing” audience for philosophical knowledge could be raised.

The Industrial Palace

In addition to Bernát Alexander’s work, one further example for the city’s rise can be found that also originated at the intersection of European trends and local interests: the Industrial Palace of Budapest. In contrast to the anthology published by Alexander, a materialized format of knowledge and its products, the Industrial Palace represents the spatialization of knowledge transfer within urban space. Here, results and achievements of engineering were highlighted and communicated with a main focus on local inventions of the Hungarian industry that were able to compete internationally.

The London-based journal The Engineer, founded in 1856, mentioned the national exhibition in Budapest in 1885 as well as in 1886. An account of the exhibition halls was the main focus of the article published in September 1885:

The main building is, of course, the “Hall of Industries,” of which we publish a picture on page 106. It is from the design of Herr Christian Ulrich, architect and engineer. It contains an area of about 160,000 square feet. The building is supported on lattico columns, on the same principle as the cattle market in Vienna. The style is Italian Renaissance, which, owing to the hall being free on all sides, has been treated boldly. The weight of ironwork is about 10 lb. square foot. The main portion of the structure consists of two halls, each divided into three naves, intersecting one another, with a dome 150ft. high at the points of intersection. The naves terminate with triumphal arches, about 50ft. high, and are connected at the four corners with square pavilions. The general effect, from an external point of view, is good, and the internal arrangement is moat felicitous, 1\8 it enables the visitor to obtain a comprehensive view of the whole, as well as affording an easy division for a more detailed inspection. ³²

For Budapest, the Industrial Palace was not only exceptional because of its outstanding architecture and materiality but because it was the first building constructed according to foreign designs to present products of national industries and engineering. The idea of hosting an industrial exhibition (which was then called a commercial exhibition) had long been discussed in the public. A first smaller exhibition had been hosted in the Redoute Building in Pest on August 25, 1842, where 231 exhibitors had presented 298 objects. ³³ The exhibition was a large success and emphasized the central role of Pest among the cities of Hungary during this time. The Revolution and the struggle for liberation during 1848 to 1849 and the following years saw a break in the development of commercial exhibitions. However, the commercial modernization in the country began during the 1850s, mainly supported by laws and declarations of the Imperial court: the abolition of serfdom, the introduction of the Austrian laws of trade and exchange, the freedom of trade, the tax reform, and the customs union of the Habsburg Empire all supported the development of a capitalist system in Hungary. These developments also supported the growth of industries, particularly in the city of Pest which saw a rapid growth and urbanization. Following the political compensation between Austria and Hungary in 1867, the country prepared the unification of the three cities Buda, Óbuda, and Pest to form a future capital in 1873. The “old new” capital not only became the political and symbolic but also the economic center of the country. Its economic and cultural influence grew beyond the Empire into Italy and the Balkans. ³⁴

The idea of an industrial exhibition was rediscovered in the context of these developments: in 1868, the Industrial Association, founded in 1867, suggested to host a general Hungarian exhibition in Pest to reach the following goals: “1) to inform about the domestic production, 2) to further develop the production via information and experiences.” ³⁵ The Városliget (a small city forest), the largest green area of Pest, was chosen as a possible location for the exhibition that was to be opened in 1871. However, the preparations and the hosting of the world exhibit in Vienna in 1873 received priority over all other plans while also exhausting the available financial funds.

Following the project’s failure, Sándor Léderer, author and civil servant in the Hungarian Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Trade, published a booklet titled Industriehalle und ständige Ausstellung in 1880 that was printed in Hungarian and German. ³⁶ In his writing, he argued in favor of the economic as well as the urban advantages of an exhibition and an exhibition building, quoting a number of foreign examples from London to Karlsruhe ³⁷ :

The capital is, in my opinion, predestined to build a commercial hall of this size that completely fulfills the requirements of our modern times. Apart from the fact that this would mean everything but a material disadvantage, the capital’s population and its tax payers feature a number of industrials and business people who cannot be denied their rightful claims against the municipality. These claims even appear more justified since they are connected with the thriving of our metropolis; . . . ³⁸

The conjunction of the city’s urban development, while it was becoming the capital, with examples found in foreign countries was an important aspect during public and expert debates in Budapest ³⁹ : the conscious decision making of the municipality or other urban actors—in this case the industrial association and the Ministry of Agriculture, Industry and Trade—in favor of the construction of an exhibition hall—and in favor of best practices ⁴⁰ —can be witnessed on a number of levels in city development and planning, reaching from the extension of road lightning to the sewage system. ⁴¹ These models, however, were not simply taken over but were adapted to the respective conditions and, if necessary, further developed. The example of the Industrial Palace demonstrates this procedure, where a national exhibition, instead of a world exhibition, had been developed with a focus on an international audience and possible future business partners.

Consequently, a legislative proposal ⁴² for a Hungarian national exhibition in Budapest was presented to Count Pál Széchenyi in 1883. ⁴³ The construction costs were planned to be shared between the federal state and the capital hoping for revenue from tickets and stand fees. ⁴⁴ The Industrial Palace in Budapest, a central site of the exhibition, was completed in 1885 based on the plans of the Austrian architect Christian Ulrich. Ulrich—who successfully worked in Budapest between 1885 und1892—had attended the polytechnic college and had studied astronomy at Vienna University in 1855. He attended the college in Karlsruhe before he began his studies under Eduard van der Nüll and Carl Roesner at the Academy of Arts in Vienna around 1860 where he established himself as an architect between 1865 and 1886; from Vienna, he participated in the competition for the construction of the Industrial Palace in Budapest. The Industrial Palace became an outstanding example of his work that extraordinarily represents the materialization of architecture together with engineering sciences. As a construction made of glass and cast iron, the Industrial Palace followed similar constructions made for the world exhibitions in London and Paris where the same materials were used. The building, thus, not only combined technological innovation but it also, following the intention of its founders and the government, broadcasted a certain cosmopolitan flair. The construction consequently became one of the capital’s most popular motives on postcards.

. . . In regard to the exhibition buildings, the large and impressive Industrial Palace, whose gigantic dimensions dominate the entire municipal forest, has been nearly completed. This object made of stone, iron and glass will remain after the exhibition and the city will have a building suitable for exhibitions—including larger exhibitions for which Budapest did not have an appropriate building in the past. ⁴⁵

The national exhibition in 1885, for which the Industrial Palace had been completed, pursued a number of different goals: on one hand, to strengthen a national identity and the capital’s character, on the other hand to demonstrate the abilities, the development, and the potential of Hungarian engineers and its industry for a domestic as well as an international audience:

The exhibition in 1885 was intended as a national exhibition with products and goods either from the Hungarian Kingdom or from Hungarian producers living and working abroad. For the benefit of our nation, however, it is of great importance for our country’s industry to familiarize itself with more developed industries from foreign countries. Foreign objects thus need to be included into the exhibition and need to be presented in an exclusive foreign section organized and managed by a specific commission. ⁴⁶

The exhibition opened on May 2, 1885, and featured 600 exhibitors on a total surface of 270,000 square meters—it was the first exhibition of this format, attracted a large number of visitors, and was, altogether, very successful. The greatest attraction, however, was provided by the electro-technical industry: the Stefánia-Ring, which had been equipped with electric lightning, and the technological innovations of the Ganz factories were in the center of the audience’s interest. This demonstration of new technological and scientific developments was, even by contemporaries, considered a space of “knowledge acquisition.” The governing party’s annual calendar of 1885 thus noted,

It is one of the main goals of this exhibition to provide our country’s manufacturing industry with access to the industry’s most developed products in order to distribute industrial knowledge and design all over the country. We can only reach this goal if we enable even the poorest craftsmen to visit and study our exhibition. These craftsmen, particularly those living in rural areas, often lack the necessary means to cover their travel expenses. The aforementioned institutions and cities, therefore, agreed to provide small travel grants to enable craftsmen, apprentices and workers who are hardworking and interested in the profession’s development to study the exhibition. Respective institutions abroad have considered the offering of such a beneficial investment to be their duty during similar occasions. We are convinced that the necessary steps taken by our government and the exhibition’s commission will not remain without consequences. ⁴⁷

The example of the Industrial Palace demonstrates that it was not the result of an automatic “acceptance” of a model tried and tested in other European cities but rather the result of an adaptation of such a model. This was based on a conscious strategy that not only aimed at using the exhibition to present the results of and the creative energy behind the nation’s industry and its engineering sciences but also to demonstrate the intention and ability of its capital to become a metropolis. The transferred model was, therefore, adapted within the matrix ⁴⁸ of urbanization and national interests. The exhibition as well as the building followed a European trend and contributed to the perception of the capital as a metropolis; in addition, both also became spaces of knowledge transfer, knowledge formats of the national industry as well as the products of Hungarian engineering sciences. Consequently, a space had been built within the city where materialized engineering knowledge became visible and perceptible for every visitor.

Urania: The Scientific Theater

The knowledge format Urania, which had been established by the end of the nineteenth century in numerous cities of Europe including Vienna, Berlin, Milano, Breslau, and Budapest, represented the combination of knowledge and theater and, therefore, offered a new form of knowledge transfer to the curious urban audience: staged knowledge.

Max Wilhelm Meyer in his autobiography in 1908, the astronomer and journalist who established the first “theater of science” in Berlin named the Urania Company, wrote,

We received an invitation from Andrew Carnegie to present two of my lectures in his Music Hall in New York. They were the “Trip to the Moon” and the “History of the Primitive World.” I presented them myself, as the guest of the multi-millionaire. The lectures were translated into English and repeated more than a hundred times in New York, Boston, Philadelphia, etc.

This new scientific institute, established in 1888 with 205,000 Marks, aimed to present the newest discoveries in astronomy, geology, and the natural sciences to an interested, urban public in Berlin in a way that, as announced in the Urania Company’s statutes, “spread the joy of the knowledge of nature.” This “theater of science” combined various techniques, including “staging” lectures with dramaturgy, electricity, and machinery. The three main actors of the initiative, Professor Wilhelm Foerster, a columnist of the Berliner Tageblatt, Max Wilhelm Meyer, who has been quoted above, and the engineer and industrial Wilhelm von Siemens, in fact did represent the diversity of Berlin’s urban middle class that was active in this new field and was devoted to disseminating scientific knowledge. Foerster had held the chair of astronomy since 1863 and led the Royal Observatory; Meyer, who founded the “scientific theater,” was a well-connected journalist in Berlin, and Wilhelm von Siemens was a wealthy industrialist who supported the company financially.

The Urania in Berlin became popular within a short period of time. In his biography, Meyer emphasized the range of city dwellers that they successfully addressed Bürger and workers from the Trade Union, schools-classes, even members of the aristocracy visited the spectacles of scientific knowledge. The Urania’s success in Berlin attracted the attention of people in other cities who were similarly interested in this new arena of knowledge transfer. According to Meyer, the Berlin trio received numerous invitations to establish or at least to cooperate in the establishment of similar institutions elsewhere, noting that “movements emerged in a number of cities to establish Urania Institutes following our example.” Budapest, Wien, and Breslau were among the cities that followed Berlin when founding their own Urania.

Following the examples of Berlin and Vienna, the Urania was founded in Budapest in 1899. The contemporary examples had been studied carefully and the performances of the Berlin Urania were also staged in Budapest’s opera house ⁴⁹ ; from the very beginning, however, it was the goal to create an Uránia that strongly focused on the results of Hungarian sciences. The work and the format of the Uránia were thus oriented toward national scientific goals and the necessities of a local public (which was expected by the local political decision makers). This resulted in the goal to transmit and demonstrate a broad disciplinary range of academic knowledge: “. . . The Hungarian Uránia not only broadcasts astronomic and scientific knowledge but covers all areas of knowledge, all branches of skills to foster the delight of learning in hearts and minds alike!” ⁵⁰ Another significant difference in contrast to the Uranias in Berlin and Vienna was the fact that the Pest Urania, similar to the Industrial Palace, had been founded as a result of a strategic decision. The suggestion to establish a Hungarian Uránia was brought up by the Academy of Science’s two Faculties of Math and of Natural Sciences. It was the academy’s goal to strengthen national emotions and the knowledge about the “nation’s treasures” via the communication of knowledge about Hungarian literature, art, and geography within the knowledge format Uránia; in the end, this was also to support a Hungarization of Budapest’s multiethnic population. Another goal was to present the city as an open, modern, and cultivated metropolis and, in this regard, Uránia became an instrument of Budapest’s aspiration to develop into a metropolis. In addition, a third goal was to present progress via lectures and performances to demonstrate that the city and its inhabitants were up to date with European trends and developments.

The initial period saw the founding of the “Uránia Hungarian Scientific Association,” physicist and politician Baron Lóránd Eötvös became its first president. This initiative was received enthusiastically by the state and the capital. The Pest Uránia thus was supported by institutional or governmental actors from its very beginning, whereas the Berlin Urania had been established as a “civic initiative.” This also became apparent in the composition of the associations’ board of directors: its members Viktor Molnár, undersecretary of culture, Dr. Gábor Várady, member of parliament, and Graf Arisztid Dessewffy, parliament secretary, established the relationship between the association and Urania with political and governmental stakeholders. The necessary funds were guaranteed by the stock company “Science and Theatre Association” and included a stock capital of 100,000 crowns. The board of directors as well as the supervisory board contained numerous industrial magnates, businessmen, politicians, and even bishops. ⁵¹ Different academic sections were established within the Uránia that decided on the content of the performances. The high number of nonnatural scientific departments was particularly surprising and, consequently, led to performances that offered a broad range of areas including art, literature, and also geography and ethnology as well as physics and chemistry.

Henrik Schmal designed the building according to the so-called Moorish style during the 1890s; it was completed in 1895 at the Rákóczi Street, one of Budapest’s most important central boulevards. This was the location of various orpheas, including the “Caprice” or the “Alhambra.” The building, however, remained vacant following their insolvency. After a complete renovation, the scientific theater Uránia was reopened in April 1899 featuring the most advanced technologies in staging and projection of its times.

The theatre itself has been completely redesigned and has been equipped with the most modern optical instruments following the goals of the Uránia theatre. In comparison to its earlier form, it is now higher, more subjacent and equipped with all instruments of modern decoration and art. 1500 electric lamps light the audience’s hall and illuminate the nice curtain showing two mythological figures: Pallas Athenae and Helios, the symbol of science’s light. ⁵²

Technical innovation had been part of the Pest Uránia from its very beginning: the opening lecture held by physicist Jenő Klupáthy and titled “When air is liquefied” featured a number of spectacular experiments on stage. This was followed by a presentation on the “Battle for the North Pole” held by the geographer Jenő Cholnoky that featured a number of so-called Skioptikons (diapositive slides). After only one year, the repertoire was extended and, in addition to diverse thematic and technical lectures, included not only presentations in the natural sciences but also in ethnology, literature, and art. “Hungarian” cities, landscapes, works, and motives became an inherent component of the repertoire. This was also demonstrated in Vilmos Hankó’s lecture on Hungarian spa resorts titled “Our spas” (A mi fürdőink) on May 4, 1900, ⁵³ that “featured numerous static and moving images” as well as in Lajos Hentaller’s lecture on 1848 in 1903.

The audience was expected to not only include students and “citizens” and the theater also offered lectures for workers on Sundays. The Uránia became an inherent part of urban cultural and academic life and, at the same time, demonstrated that Budapest was able to compete with other European cities. This was not only repeatedly pointed out in the journal Uránia but also during the institution’s anniversaries beginning in 1916. From 1916 (until today), the Uránia has served as a movie theater after giving up its function as a scientific theater following the outbreak of World War I.

After World War I, the urban space of Budapest saw the creation of new and different forms of knowledge transfer; the “spatialization” of knowledge, however, resulting in a knowledge format that incorporated materiality and orchestration as compact as it had been achieved by the scientific theater of Uránia⁵⁴ was never experienced again in the city’s history.

Conclusion

Based on these three examples of knowledge transfer, that is, Logos, the Industrial Palace, and Urania, this article has tried to demonstrate the close connection and the reciprocal influences between the becoming of a metropolis and the conscious strategies of urban actors to choose, to transfer, to adapt, and to present specific knowledge. The complex process of accepting, balancing, and adaptation of knowledge circulating internationally as well as their reciprocal relationships within the respective urban space manifested itself in these three knowledge formats.

These reciprocal influences, as the three examples have shown, took place at intersections of European trends and local, national interests. The examples of Logos, the Industrial Palace, and Uránia or the anthology of philosophical authors also indicate that they were established during a rapid process of urbanization. This was the case because, on one hand, they were perceived as “requisites” of a metropolis and, on the other hand, because of the development of an audience who valued, visited, and used these institutions and who was only possible to find within urban space. It was this audience for whom the knowledge formats were made available, which meant to enable their adaptation along local sociocultural coordinates and interests. The act of adaptation required to choose the appropriate strategy when selecting knowledge, practices, or trends, as has been demonstrated with the study of Alexander Bernát’s activities. This also often included the conscious refusal of specific formats as was shown via the example of Logos. Budapest simultaneously used and provided the space for these endeavors and knowledge formats which strengthened the city’s struggle to become a regional political, economic but also cultural-scientific center.