Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1982 (10. évfolyam, 31-34. szám)

1982 / 31-32. szám

Paper presented at the First International Congress of Bulgarian Studies, Sofia, May 23 - June 3, 1981.

The beginnings of the political entity known in the 7th century as Bulgaria, go back to the 6th century when Kubrat organized several lesser federations of Uralo-Altaic tribes into a polity in which the Onogouroi dominated. One of his sons, Asparuch, moved to the lower Danube area, the other into Pannónia. In 803 the “dynasty” was replaced by Krum of unknown origin. When the Hungarians in 896 met east of the Danube with the Sclavi de terra Bulgáriáé, their leader Salanus fled and his people subordinated themselves to the newcomers, whose name reflected a component part of a federation composed of Turkic Onogurs and the Finno- Ugric Magyars. The Annals of Fulda refers to the Ungari under the name of Avari or Avari qui Ungari dicuntur, once part of the Avar federation. Onogurs were active inside Bavaria in 862, 881 and 882, while the Magyars were still east of the Don. “The merger of the Magyars with the Onogur- Bulgars is reflected in the fact that the military organization of Árpád and of his successors is referred to in sources by outsiders by the name of the better-known component, namely as Onogurs or as Bulgars.” The author is prof, of history at the U. of Washington. □

Chaszar, Edward, “The Problem of National Minorities Before and After the Paris Peace Treaties of 1947,” Nationalities Papers 9 (Fall 1981) pp. 195-206.

There is no system of international protection for minorities in existence today. The efforts of the Congress of Vienna, and later of the League of Nations provided some protection, limited in scope and applied only in certain cases. The League provided for minority petitions to be presented in its Council, yet the League lacked sanctions and had to rely on internal (national) constitutions. The U.N. has not followed suit. The Paris Peace Treaties after World War II favored forcible transfer of minority populations. Thus, minority rights remained unprotected, although they were included in the human rights provisions of the Charter. Declarations in support of minority rights have been made, and Article 27 in the covenant of Civil and Political Rights made these more explicit. The effect of such declarations, however, has yet to be proven. The author is prof, of political science at Indiana U., Pennsylvania. (EMB.) □

Deák, István, “Historical Continuity and Change in Eastern Europe,” a working paper of the conference on scholarly exchanges with the USSR and Eastern Europe: two decades of American experience, IREX Occasional Papers I, no.5, pp.11-19.

The diversity among Eastern European countries is more significant than any observable unity. The diversity is rooted in history, language, political and social organization, leadership, and ethnic relations within individual countries as well as among the East European countries themselves. The dividing line in many, though not in all respects is between the tradition of Western Christianity in such countries as Poland and Hungary, and those historically linked to Byzantium, such as Romania and Bulgaria. In addition, there are memories of animosities, alliances, and periods of alien supremacy. Exchanges enable Eastern European scholars to benefit from freely exchanged ideas, from gaining knowledge for greater objectivity, and for research and writing with a

ARTICLES & PAPERS (Continued)

8

broadened horizon. The participation of American scholars in exchange programs results in a better understanding of the history and of the social forces shaping these countries. In some instances (Albania, Romania) these writings represent the only objective assessment available; in other instances they are treating topics not touched upon by native scholars. The results of the exchange do reach the “right kind of public: political leaders, other historians, and ... writers of history textbooks.” The author suggests an even more effective program, i.e., directed research, which had been somewhat haphazard in the past. The author is prof, of history at Columbia U. (EMB) □

Fejős, Zoltán, “Kivándorlás Amerikába a Zemple'n Középső Vide'ke'ről." [Emigration to America from the Central Region of Zemple'n. A brief survey of Ethnographic Problems of Economic Emigration at the Beginning of the Century.] InYearbook of the Herman Otto Museum, Miskolc. Vol. 19(1980)293-327. English abstract.

The study is based on secondary data originating in eight villages of the Zemplén Mountains in Northeast Hungary, and concerns itself with adjustment problems of Hungarian emigrants to the U.S. between 1899 and 1913. During this period of time, some 1.8 million Hungarian citizens came to the U.S. in search of dollars. The area under investigation was responsible for providing about 13% of the emigrants and 10% of the returnees. Those who spent a longer time in the U.S. or have not returned at all, had only one adjustment problem, as against the returnees who also had to readjust to the culture they left behind. In addition to objective and subjective factors, there were cultural factors which played a decisive role in emigration and return to the homeland. Of the cultural factors the mixed ethnic nature of the population was outstanding. Members of the Slovak ethnic groups emigrated in larger numbers than those who declared themselves Hungarians. The area in general had a longstanding tradition of internal, seasonal migration. Families were used to the absence of one or two members for long periods of time, and those who engaged in seasonal travel learned the ways of dealing with strangers. The author is a member of the Ethnographic Research Group of the HAS □

Frank, Tibor. “An Unknown Letter of Karl Marx to Bertalan Szemere.” Science and Society, 44:4 (Winter, 1980-1981) 466-473.

The author found Marx’s letter in the bequest of Bertalan Szemere, a leading personality in the 1848 revolution, in the Hungarian National Archives. The two emigre's, Marx living in London, Szemere in Paris, had a common objective: to discredit Kossuth. It was this antagonism toward Kossuth which brought Szemere in contact with Marx, who was also hostile to Kossuth on theoretical grounds. The letter, which was a reply to one from Szemere “touches on three important moments in the history of the emigre' circle headed by Kossuth: (1) Kossuth's role in the uprising in Milan in 1853; (2) the rather dubious activities of two Hungarian exiles, Gusztáv Zerffi and Janos Bangya; and (3) Ferenc Pulszky’s mission to America in 1853." The letter provides information on the relationship between Marx and the Hungarian exiles around Kossuth of whom Szemere regularly sent detailed and hostile reports. Further research may reveal the extent of Szemere's responsiblity for Marx’s poor opinion of Kossuth and of the Hungarian exiles in general. The author is on the faculty of the Eötvös L.U. □

NO. 31-32, SPRING-SUMMER. 1982 HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER