Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1973 (1. évfolyam, 1-2. szám)
1973 / 2. szám
revolution of October 1918 brought Károlyi to power with Jaszi as his Minister for Nationalities. But the victorious Entente treated their government coolly; the minorities chose to join their co-nationals rather than remain in a federalized Hungary; and the bourgeois parties failed to retain popular support, which gravitated progressively toward their coalition partners, the Social- Democrats. In March 1919 the Social-Democrats merged with the recently founded Communist Party and took power, proclaiming a Soviet Republic. Six weeks later Jaszi left Hungary for exile. Jaszi’s Radical Party never succeeded in reaching the broad middle class, as he hoped, nor the peasantry, on whom he pinned great hopes; it remained restricted largely to the progressive intelligentsia. His nationality program was too radical for pre-war Hungary, and in the upheavals of 1918-19 it proved unattractive to the nationalities. Reisch, Alfred Alexander, (Columbia U., 1970) “The Continuation of Sándor Bölöni Farkas' Study of American Democracy and Institutions to the Political Perspective of the Nineteenth-Century Hungarian Age of Reform-1830-1848.” 452 pages. Microfilm and xerox order no. 73-8977. In the two decades of Hungary’s Age of Reform preceding the Revolution of 1848, the country rapidly moved from a traditional feudal structure toward more modern and democratic political, social, and economic institutions. This was a product both of domestic and general European conditions expressed by such events as England’s constitutionalism and the French Revolution. Another important inspiration was the United States and its political, social, economic, and cultural institutions. The dissertation aims to demonstrate how the “American model” affected the political perspective of Hungary between 1830 and 1848. In 1831 SaVidor Bölöni Farkas, a Transylvanian nobleman with reformist ideas, visited America. He was the first Hungarian reformer to do so, and his book introduced the “American model” into Hungarian reform politcs. The dissertation describes the socio-political structure and economic, financial and cultural conditions of Hungary on the eve of the Age of Reform. It surveys the reform issues and the reform Diets that culminated in the revolutionary Diet of 1847-48, and the legislation of March and April 1848. Two chapers cover Farkas’ life and book, relating his picture of America to American reality. Farkas’ influence on later travelers and the impact of American models on the debates of the Hungarian reform Diets up to 1848 are also examined. So, too, is the influence of Farkas’ book and Tocqueville’s Democracy in America on the leading Hungarian reformers. The main findings are: The ideological and institutional influence of America and the West was greatest upon reformers looking for models suitable for Hungary especially upon the younger generation. There is a clear line of continuity of foreign influence from 1830 to 1848, from Széchényi, Wesselényi and Farkas to the pro-reform delegates and the youth of the Diet of 1832-36, Kossuth, the Centralists and finally the middle nobility, the dominant element in Hungary’s domestic politics. The government’s immobilism and growing incoherence prevented the suppression of foreign influences. By the time DISSERTATIONS (Continued) Hungary’s inertia and underdevelopment nevertheless dampened distorted foreign models, impeding their implementation and making the Revolution of 1848 inevitable. Foreign influences on Hungary’s reformers were secondary to their nationalism. The “American model” which seemed radical in the early 1830’s was selectively conservative by the mid-1840s. In 1834 the government was reactionary and the nobility indifferent or even hostile to Farkas’ message. By the 1840s, the Jacobinism of the radicals of Young Hungary made the “American model” more attractive to the middle nobility. The American state union system and its bicameral legislature appealed to those who feared centralization and unicamerialism. The reformers, ready to embody the penological aspects of the “American model” in reform legislation, could be stopped only by the combined veto of the conservatives and the Crown. All in all, the influence of American democracy on the Hungarian Age of Reform was positive. But in practice, the reformers had to take a gradual approach. In the 1830s, many members of opposition paid only lip-service to the idealsthey professed, but by the 1840s, the impact of universal liberalism, including Jacksonian America, had gathered considerable strength. Once the remaining obstacles were removed, the country was quick to adopt many overdue reforms. Sozan, Michael, (Syracuse U., 1972) “The History of Hungarian Ethnography.” 405 pages. The study is an attempt to delineate the evolution of a science whose primary aim has been the study of the Hungarian peasantry. It is a diachronic work which locates the emergence of intellectual curiosity toward the Hungarian agricultural classes in the middle of the eighteenth century, and follows its development to the present. An important objective was to discern which sciences were invested with the solution of “ethnographic problems” before the emergence of modern-day ethnography, and how such problem areas or themes finally precipitated a science by itself with its specialists, methods and subject matter. The evolution of Hungarian ethnography is discussed in six epochs. The first one in which scientific curiosity turned toward the folk was the Baroque. At this time writers wanted to assess Hungary’s natural and human resources to eventually raise the nation to western European level. The age of “National Consciousness” wassucceeded bythreeformative periods “The Rise of Hungarology,” “The Advance of National Ethnography,” and “The Golden Age of Hungarian Ethnography” which were responsible for the formulation of what is essentially Hungarian ethnography today. Within the last two periods (“Selective Expansion of Hungarian Ethnography” and “The Present”) ethnographic objectives and scientific methods were considerably modified. These may be termed, “epochs of specialization.” While the major task of the work is to delineate and trace Hungarian ethnographical thought, its evolutionary process was also examined. A primary objective was to discern why Hungarian ethnographers were interested in their subject matter and why they chose a certain method rather than another. To gain meaningful answers to these questions, it (Continued on page 5, col. 1) Farkas’ book was banned, its contents had had their effect. 4 HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER
