Andor Sas’s – literary histórián, (economic) histórián, pedagogue – intellectualheritage, of which one part can be characterised as „burdensome heritage” or„moralistic polka”, can hardly build in/could be hardly built in the heritage ofHungárián educational history in Slovakia. It has two reasons. The first reasonis in any case the unprocessness of his heritage. Mapping his manuscripts and publications, collecting and publishing his letters and personal writings isstill not done. The second reason is that after 1948 Sas undoubtedly accepted the ideology of the totalitarian state. The contemporary Sándor Peéry perceived Sas’s loyality that decided the choice of topic of somé of his writingsas intellectual defencelessness and found it in the previously experiencedemigration fate or inner forced emigration(?).

The author sets out from the manuscripts and publications of economichistory character found in the Archive of the Slovak National Museum. He triesto analyse the genesis of Sas’s econonomic history writings from this point ofview and alsó to give a survey of Sas’s work methods. Summarising the foundmanuscripts and the published materials the authors tries to define Sas’speriod of economic history writing and his yet un-known studies. The author’smain goals to precise the bibliographic data.

Filep rightfully titled Sas’s first independent book Archive of the PatentHolder Munkács Town 1376-1850 (Szabadalmas Munkács város levéltára) as„the biggest performance” that was published in 1927 with the support of thetown. Sas created a par excellence professional archive book that includedarchive and fund history elements and had evén archive functions.

His literature history summary published in 1955 was titled A CarpathianLatifundium at the Decline of the Feudal World. The Munkács Schönborn-estate’s Social and Economic Relations in the First Part of the 19th Century- isconsidered to be a synthesis regardless of necessary facts, a culmination ofhis research in the field of economic history, a kind of a result of a continuingbuilding. As if Andor Sas mixed the signs of positive history writing withMarxistic expectations. In his approximations he followed linear model ofsocial development, of which new development curve was signalised by theclass war of villeins. He compared „feudal and civil history writing” withMarxistic history writing that he considered advancing. It is evitable, becausehe did not use Hungárián or foreign works before 1945 that dealt with thetopic, while he censored evén himself, when he did not integrated his previousstudies.

Consequently Andor Sas’s work in the field of economic history should beevaluated properly. His studies, that focused on a specific topic, on the history of the Munkács Schönborn-estate, should be analysed and their contribution to literature should be defined again. It would be worth to publish his worksin the fied of archive history, because today it is very hardly accessable in public collections. It would be alsó very worthful to publish his economic historystudies in one book.