Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1976 (4. évfolyam, 9-12. szám)
1976 / 11. szám
Danubian states. He opposed dictatorship and Marxist historical materialism. They were diametrically opposed to his humanistic views of individual responsibility. He lectured against the facile ideas that attempted to reduce all events to economic factors and supported Ady’s summons to national regeneration even in a memorial lecture upon the poet’s death. He urged the creation of a New Hungary by “the selfsacrificing action of morally responsible men.” His hopes lay in the KaVolyi Government, but when it cal lapsed, he, too, fled to Vienna. Prof. Congdon is at Madison Coll., Harrisonburg, Va. (For another of his article on Polanyi, see below.) □ Fodor, István, “Are the Sumerians and the Hungarians or the Uralic Peoples Related?” Current Anthroplogy 17 (1, March 1976) 115-118. After reference to works dealing with Sumerian-Hungarian relations and the prehistory of the Finno-Ugric and Uralic peoples, the author concludes that “It is relatively unlikely that the Hungarians directly contacted ethnic groups still preserving the Sumerian language, but it is possible ... that some Sumerian words entered Hungarian through other (Caucasian, Iranian, and Turkic) languages. Thus, few of the fancies of the adherents of the Sumerian theory might turn out to be real Sumerian borrowings in the last analysis. Such new, verified data might then contribute to a more precise history of the migration of the Hungarian and other tribes before the 10th century in southern Russia.” He says that “This puzzling language, extinct since the 2d millennium B.C., has so far resisted all generic comparison__The difficulties of reliable research are methodological: ... profound knowledge, not only of the languages in question, but also of the scientific literature and the methods of comparative linguistics, is indispensable... this knowledge has been lacking up to now in the students of this problem. No partisan of the Hungarian-Sumerian hypothesis is an expert in Hungarian or Uralic linguistics, none of them can read the Sumerian texts, no one is able critically to select the word material to be compared.” He advises his readers of the need for excellence in scholarship, and believes that any such study must begin with the evaluation of Zsigmond Varga’s comparisons. The author is at the Institut für Afrikanistik der Universität zu Köln. □ Held, Joseph. “Young Hungary: the Nyugat Periodical, 1908- 1914, from Intellectual and Social Developments in the Habsburg Empire from Maria Theresia to World War I. Essays in Honor of Robert A. Kagan, Stanley B. Winters and Joseph Held, eds. (New York: Columbia U.P. and East European Quarterly Press, 1975) 272-289. After a brief and somewhat simplified review of the literary and cultural scene in early 20th century Hungary, Held proceeds to examine the role of the writers who clashed with prevailing literary trend. He asserts that, guided Pál Gyulai, Zsolt Beöthy and Jenő Rákosi, Hungarian literature was closely connected with the ideals of the Hungarian gentry and aristocracy. They favored the works of the classical authors like Mór Jókai and Janos Arany and, among the younger ones, those of Kalman Mikszáth, Géza Gárdonyi and Ferenc Herczeg. They were hostile to the writers who represented urban themes and whosoughtto bring both new ARTICLES (Continued) ADVERTISING SPACE AVAILABLE IN HSN styles and new concerns into Hungarian literature. Endre Ady, who introduced a revolutionary new style into poetry, was an outspoken advocate of individual fulfillment, a champion of the poor of the cities, and a critic of the prevailing social policies. Others who did writings along similar lines were Ernő Osváth, Gyula Juhasz, Dezső Kosz/ / / / tolanyi, Árpád Toth. The new generation of writers launched a periodical, Nyugat, with Osváth, Ignotus, and Miksa Fenyő as editors. Later, Lajos Hatvány and Endre Ady became editors. Though far from a homogeneous group, they were united in their determination to defend the new literature from political interference, and advocated the “right of the authors to set standards for moral, ethical and political values.” Attacks by the conservatives, including those by István Tisza, were motivated by the belief that these new writers were polluting Hungarian literature and were enemies of the nation. The politization that resulted was chiefly because the Nyugat writers saw nationalism in different terms from the conservatives. Literary criticism associated with the Nyugat was “characterized by [a] reluctance to employ any rigid criteria in judging the merits of literary creations,” though in practice few followed an unrestrictedly subjective approach. □ Komjáthy, Anthony. “Hungarian Jobbágyság in the Fifteenth Century,” East European Quarterly 10 (Spring 1976) 76-111. The meaning of the word jobbágy in the 15th century though different from the original meaning of a person from a better family, still referred to all persons (nobles and nonnobles, free peasants and liberated slaves, guild members and individual craftsmen) who were working for a rich landlord or for the king. Jobbágy had not become equivalent of serf until after the peasant revolt of 1514. Feudalism did not exist in Hungary until after that time, and then only in a sense different from the French form. Instead, there existed a system of noble and non-noble jobba'gys working as soldiers (familiáris) or administrators (officialis) for a lord. The familiaritas worked within a system in which all nobles enjoyed the same privileges, all were obliged to join the king’s army personally, and all land was in the possession of the Holy Crown as ennunciated in the Golden Bull and other royal edicts. Thus, vassalage, homage, fiefs were not known in the system, and military service had a different context from the Western situation. While the jobbágys owned their houses and paid rent for the use of their land, they had also considerable self-government, the right to appeal to the county against their landlord, and most importantly, the right of migration. All newcomers, regardless of nationality, religion or ethnic background were welcomed equally. Skilled craftsmen rose to economic independence and, as the citizens of privileged free cities or as privileged craftsmen of individual nobles, enjoyed considerable advantages. Others, servants and landless cottars were not as well off generally; though they could rise to a comfortable economic level, few in fact did unless they had either the skill or the capital to make themselves independent. The landless jobbágys were worse off, but being free to migrate could seek the most advantageous position or move into the city as craftsmen. The article concludes with relevant documents (the Golden Bull of 1222 and the Bull of 1531), a summary of the doctrine of the Holy Crown, and a comparative price list to give an idea of the purchasing value of amounts quoted in the text. Prof. Komjáthy is at Loyola U., of Chicago. □ (Continued on page 13) NO. 11. 1976, HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER 12
