Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1976 (4. évfolyam, 9-12. szám)
1976 / 9. szám
1 ARTICLES AND PAPERS Dreisziger, N.F., “Count István Bethlen’s Secret Plan for the Restoration of the Empire of Transylvania,” East European Quarterly VIII (January 1975) 413-423. Bethlen, born into a historic Transylvanian family, was premier of Hungary from 1921 to 1931. After he fell from power, he continued to be active in Hungarian political life. One of his chief ambitions was to work for the revision of the terms of the Treaty of Trianon. In this connection, he went on a lecture tour to England and published The Treaty of Trianon and European Peace (1933), a compilation of his addresses. The two points he made here he later developed in a memorandum to the Hungarian government: (1) the vacuum created by the dismemberment of the Austro- Hungarian Monarchy had to be filled, and (2) the “Transylvanian question" had to be solved. It was the latter problem that lay closest to his heart. He advocated an independent Transylvania in which the Hungarians, Romanians and Germans would be equal, somewhat along Swiss constitutional lines. The vacuum could then be filled by a federation of non-German speaking nations of Eastern Europe. He thought of an union between Poland and Hungary as the most feasible solution. Slovakia was to return to the “fold of the Holy Crown.” These plans depended on the quick defeat of Germany and the neutrality of Hungary in the war. They also assumed that the victorious democratic nations would accept these terms as the best solution for peace in this region. Essentially, all of these plans were doomed as early as the defeat of France in 1940. Prof. Dreisziger is on the staff of the Royal Military Coll, of Canada. □ Gömöri, George, (József Lengyel: Chronicler of the Cruel Years,” Books Abroad 49 (Summer 1975) 471-474. After a brief review of the phases of Lengyel’s life that influenced his literary work, Gömöri assesses the “Russian Cycle" in the work of this modern Hungarian Marxist author. Like many of his generation, his opposition to injustice led him to become a follower of Bela Kun, though his espousal of terrorist methods contradicts the high ideals he professed. Living in Vienna and Berlin after the defeat of the Kun regime, he moved to Moscow in 1930 only to be arrested during one of the Stalin purges. He spent seventeen years in Siberia, both as a slave-laborer and a “free" settler before being allowed to return to Hungary in 1955. His most successful stories are rooted in these experiences. However tempting a comparison with Solzhenitsyn might be, it should be avoided. Aside from the subject matter and the moral opposition to the system, the two writers are vastly different. Lengyel lacks the epic sweep of the Russian; he is less analytical and more cinematographic. His use of certain symbols, notably bread, make some stories almost scenarios for a symbolisticexpressionistic film. His stories also reflect the bitterness of an exile condemned to silence. Lengyel’s other stories generally have some connection with the Revolution of 1919: the same characters are used “to illustrate certain human ambitions and moral dilemmas inherent in every action.” His latest novel, Szembesítés (Confrontation, 1968 or 1969), in which the two cycles intersect, is Lengyel’s “first attempt to depart from an . . . account of personal experiences to formulate some kind of NO. 9 1976 HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER general judgment about the Stalin era.” (The book has not been published in Hungary.) Dr. Gömöri teaches at the U. of Cambridge, England. □ Hay G. “Trial of Julius Hay; with an introduction by A. Koestler,” Horizon 17 (Winter 1975) 25-31. Julius Hay, prominent Hungarian playwright and devoted Communist since 1919, played a prominent role, with the Writers’ Union in 1956. Arrested for treason and eventually sentenced to six years in prison, his Memoir gives the details of his arrest, notes on prison life, the procedures of the sham trials and the concerted effort of public opinion that was the only force preventing the imposition of the death sentence on more prominent authors. Hay’s chief crime was the creation of Comrade Kucsera, “the know-nothing by conviction and passion, who looks down on us from the pedestal of his ignorance and clings fanatically to the fallacious principle of the permanent sharpening of theclassstruggle.” Hay himself likened his own fate to that of Moliere’s who had been similarly attacked for his satiric portrayal of a Tartuffe. □ Hollos, Marida. “Logical Operations and Role-taking Abilities in Two Cultures: Norway and Hungary," Child Development, 46 (1975), 638-649. Piagetian measures of conservation, classification, and role-taking, and a task designed to test verbal egocentrism (Continued on page 4) EDITORS CORNER I received the following letter: Dear Dr. Maday, The Fall 1975 issue or Hungarian Studies Newsletter, like all others, was read with great interest. But. . . I suppose I should, after 26 years, give up hope that anyone interested in knowing the facts about Janos Xantus’ career in America will look for them in my Xantus. On p. 11 of H.S.N. Xantus is described as an explorer and cartographer who surveyed Kansas and chartered the Arkansas River. He was not an explorer or cartographer, and he neither surveyed Kansas nor chartered the Arkansas River. If Inglehart and Mangione say so, they’re wrong; if H.S.N. says so, it’s wrong. It's unfortunate that Xantus' important contribution to science in America are lost in the errors of Charles Feleky's biography in the Dictonary of American Biography (preceding the publication of my book) and Könny u’s sketch (following its publication). To have errors attributed directly to my book is particularly galling. Of the 23 words in the precis reproduced from Inglehart and Mangione, only one is correct. Xclntus was a naturalist. But still I haven’t given up hope. Yours sincerely, Henry Madden I feel a warm personal appreciation toward anyone who takes the time and effort of commenting favorably, or unfavorably, on the HSN. Prof. Madden of California State University at Fresno is correct, of course, in setting the record straight, and I hope the publisher of The Image of Pluralism in American Literature, from which we have reproduced the objectionable text, will make efforts to correct the errors. In any event: Many thanks, and never give up hope, Prof. Madden. And thanks to the following for offering and providing assistance to the editor: Kathleen Engleman, A.L. Gabriel, Jean T. Joughlin, Peter Pastor, Conrad Reining, George Simmonds, and Bela Szepesi. The Editor 3
