Magyar Hírek, 1987 (40. évfolyam, 1-23. szám)

1987-02-07 / 3. szám

ABOUT THIS ISSUE AND THE PREVIOUS ONE

The historic work on Transylvania reviewed in the Hungarian part of the previous issue is the most important undertaking by Hungarian historians in recent decades. * As Béla Köpeczi wrote in his editorial forword: “Research into relations between Hungarian and universal history is one of the important tasks facing Hungarian historians.. A full understanding of the past and the present sit uation is impossible without a knowledge of our immediate and broader surroundings, both old and new. In recent years Hungarian historians have made efforts to write the history of Central and Rastern Europe, of other European regions and even other continents considered both on their own and from the aspect of our relations with them. . . The desire to apprehend scientifically the broader historic environment and the necessity of shaping public opinion were the motives behind the team of historians which undertook to write the history of Transylvania.”

To write the history of Transylvania is a complex and difficult task. Even the concept of Transylvania is not unequivocal. From the geographic point of view Transylvania (Erdély, Ardeal, Siebenbürgen) means the Eastern marches of tlie Carpathian Basin. This region covers some 52,000 km2 and has been identified for centuries as Transylvania in the eyes of the public as well as in political-administrative practice. In current terminology, however, T ransylvania

means the whole of the territory annexed bv Rumania following the decision of the victorious Allies after the tlreat War. This territory covering about 100.000 km2 includes besides historic Transylvania also districts lying North and West of it. Fart of the counties of Máramaros, S/.atmár, Bihar and A rati, as well as half the district bordered by the rivers Tis/.a and Maros known as Bánát, the other half going to Yugoslavia. The ethnic composition of Transylvania is also complicated: the region fulfilled a spéciid function in the defence of borders for some time in medieval

(iábor Bethlen, the famous ruler of the so called “(»olden Age”

Hungary and in the process of realizing these defence tasks Hungarian Szeklers settled close to the Eastern Carpathians. Later Hungarian kings settled knights of the Teutonic Order temporarily, then Saxons permanently, while Rumanians, originally forming a society of shepherds, migrated into and settled in Transylvania. The coexistence of the three nations settled there at varying times — yet not very far apart in the historic perspective — their differing social structure and situation, had left their mark on the history of Transylvania.

It is not possible to trace here the history of Transylvania along the succession of centuries — from the 16th —17th centuries, when the Princes of Transylvania ruled the three ethnic groups (Hungarians, Rumanians, Saxons), the three nations (Hungarians, Szeklers, Saxons) and the members of six religions (Calvinist, Lutheran, Unitarian, Roman Catholic, Unate and Greek Orthodox) with a tolerance unusual in that era to the 19th century, from the end of which the possession of Transylvania became a subjectof increasingly bitter antagonism between Rumania and Hungary. The present work deals with the analysis and sinning up concerning this by endeavouring to acquaint the reader with the full historic truth. Contrary to works describing the stream of histoiy exclusively from the presumed or real point of view of one nation the new work asserts (he view that the history of Transylvania is tied with innumerable bonds to the history of Hungary—but it also forms an integral part of the history of the Rumanian people. Béla Köpeczi pointed out that: “ . . . in writing the history of Transylvania we tried to pay attention to the history of all three ethnic groups and to the relationships between them. In addition to Hungarian historians we have relied on the works of Rumanians and Saxons. The task has not been made easier by the circumstance that the historians of different ethnic backgrounds formulated different ideas on such questions as the continuity of some ethnic groups, the nature of Transylvania’s statehood in various periods, the relationship between state and ethnic groups in the course of history, the connection between t he class struggle and the fight for national independence in the region ”

In this recently published History of Transylvania each of the authors freely expounded the result of their research. The editors made no attempt to reconcile contrary views. This is how the work became a summing up, presenting analytically and comprehensively the processes of historic development of Transylvania and in it that of its peoples, Hungarians, Rumanians and Saxons. “Our basic approach is... governed by a relative historic optimism” writes Béla. Köpeczi “which assumes that new social evolution can contribute to the development of the socialist

Érdéin Wrlcnele (History of Transylvania), Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, (1986) :i volumes, pp. till, 568 and 757 respectively, with 396 blackand-white and Vi colour illustrations, maps and graphs.

nations, to the rapprochement and cooperation between nationalities which opposed each other.”

György Halász, who visited Újvidék (Novi Sad, Yugoslavia) wrote an article on his encounters and experience there. He had discussion with editors, who have been publishing an important literary journal in Hungarian for many years now, with Hungarian writers whose works are read beyond the Vojvodina, in Hungary and elsewhere too, saw Hungarian theatre performances, which prove that Hungarian theatre in Újvidék is an integral part of the theatrical culture of Yugoslavia, as well as of Hungary and the whole of Europe.

A report giving an account of the thirty-years work of the Hungarian Theater of Toronto came from another part of the world, from Canada. Low brow works dominate the repertoir of the Toronto company : The Gypsy Baron, Csárdás Princess, The Land of Smiles, Ferenc Molnár’s comedies — Olympia, The Guardsman, Liliom, The Devil — dominate the field, but more serious plays, such as Pirandello’s Henry IV, or János Kodolányi’s Földindulás (The earth is moving) are also billed from time to time. Sándor Kertész, the actor-directormanager has invited and presented numerous actors and actresses from Hungary in the course of years, amongst them Tivadar Biliesi, Kálmán Latabár, Kamill Eelekí, László Kazal and Jémos Sáidv. Katalin Karády and Rózsi Bársony also gave performances there. The “Kertész Theatre” has gradually became a little piece of Hungary, the home of jollity, merriment, art and tile Hungarian language. Unfortunately, as Sándor Kertész adds, the audience with Hungarians as their native language is getting older and smaller, and it is more difficult for the Hungarian theater to win over the younger generation. In spite of this, Kertész is optimistic. With the staging of Ferenc Molnár’s play, The Guardsman, they won the

multicultural theatrical festival of Canada, and Kertész published a book on theatrical experiences of three decades in Canada under the title Déryné voltam Kanadában (1 was Mrs Dérv in Canada). The final sentence of the book: "I can’t give it up. . .” is characteristic of his optimism.

The Historic Gallery visited by Tamás Fényes on the occasion of an anniversary occupies a modest part of the groundfloor of the classicist building of the Hungarian National Museum. The first exhibition organized from the material of the collection was held a hundred years ago at the Várbazár at the foot of Buda Castle. Since the rooms carved into the hillside were found to be too damp to store the valuable picture material and etchings there the collection was eventually transferred to ihe National Museum.

The Historic Gallery is a veritable treasure of facts and illustrated materials on the past of Hungary. I also [>aid many visits to the Gallery looking for appropriate illustrations for books and articles 1 was writing, and these visits have always been fruitful thanks to a great extent to György Rózsa, the curator of the collection, and an eminent scholar of historic iconography.

Looking at the pictures and portraits recalling events of Hungarian history, portraits of the child Rákóczi, Count István Széchenyi, Lajos Kossuth and a picture of the Empress Elizabeth, Queen Elizabeth of Hungary, catch the eyes in succession. A familiar face looks down from one, of the walls: that of Károly I’ulszky, without whose work neither the National Museum of Fine Ai ts nor the Historic Gallery would have come to life. I saw a few years ago his grave in a Brisbane cemetery, in Australia, where his difficult and tragic life ended.

ZOLTÁN HALÁSZ

29