The Eighth Tribe, 1977 (4. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1977-07-01 / 7. szám
Page 10 THE EIGHTH TRIBE June, 1977 families, and served them in various capacities. Moreover, following their death, they were buried separately, but still close to their lords, so as to be able to serve them in the other world. Between the tribal and clan aristocracy on the one hand, and the servant class on the other, there were two economically independent classes: The relatively well-to-do “middle elements,” and the poorer, but still personally free “common people.” While the members of the tribal and clan aristocracy followed the tradition of dividing their property among their sons, who then moved apart into their own settlements, this was not the case with the middle elements. The sons of the latter also divided their inheritance. But instead of moving apart, they tended to remain in the same settlement, or at least in close geographical proximity to one another. Thus, although they did not constitute an “extended family,” the members of such a family group cooperated with one another, and in times of need, collectively represented and defended the interests of their “family.” As a result, they often gained controlling influence over large areas, and similarly to the ruling class, they also began to acquire economically dependant servant families. The middle elements were followed by the relatively poor “common people,” who constituted the most numerous segment of the population. Although personally free, the common people were unable to form separate and economically independent family units. Thus, they congregated in communal villages, whose members were bound together partially by family, and partially by economic ties — with the latter gradually outweighing the former. While their villages were usually the results of natural developments, at times they came into 'being through the conscious efforts of the nearby clan and tribal aristocracy. The class of “common people” constituted the most populous and representative segment of tenth-century Hungarian society. Yet, not even this class was completely uniform. Its members were divided by various economic differences that became more pronounced after their settlement in the Carpathian Basin. Moreover, it was this class that absorbed most of the conquered people of the area, which made its composition even more varied. In light of recent excavations, therefore, our view of the social structure of the conquering Magyars has changed considerably. Past historians have generally regarded it as a society that was free from class differences — largely because they looked upon the conquering socialization and enculturation effects of the upper ruling class and the lower servile class with their speech, mannerisms, and customs. (One is beset by the notion of how quickly social realities can change! On the battleground, where the realities of life-and-death struggles are uppermost in the important matters of survival, inequalities can become equalized or even reversed; however, in the man-made grandeur of the stratified, artificial, social milieu, one notes that role expectations, hypocrisy, petty nuances begin to show up and be considered significant, while the basically fundamental or profound issues apparently are readily forgotten when danger no longer seems to threaten. A maganimous climax evolves in the following episode when our folk hero, exemplifying introspection and wisdom, thoughtfully relinquishes any possible intention of romantic-pairing with Marie Louise with realization of a judicious sense of reality just exactly where his genuine feelings are drawn—toward the land (Nature’s countryside environment as well as his nation’s homeland) and his ever-faithful maiden representing both simplicity and truth. A minor but poignant incident occurs when the peasant girl humbly beseeches the sovereign authority in the great hall regarding one last request since she vows never again to return here; but the response is simply dismissed and shrugged away with the emphatic utterance of “Eh!”—which, in itself, speaks louder and more firmly than any words otherwise could have stated (yet being fully charged with unmistakable meaning), whereupon she leaves immediately without further ado or recourse. The final, triumphant resolution shows János’ returning to his beloved nation’s land of beautiful, natural surroundings, arm-in-arm together with the ruler (apparently indicating their affability as well as sentiments over having much akin with each other in boundless ties and deep interests in their mutual Home Land. Conclusively, Hári János illustrates development into maturity as a result of the challenges faced via the courageous experiences when he acknowledges insight into the nature of himself and his sense of belonging plus purpose in his world— that he surmises social class structure and way of life could be kept by the upper nobility but that righteously and with continued straightforward expression, he proceeds to inform the monarch that the latter must share to a greater extent the yields of the nation’s wealth with the hard-working and deserving lower-echelon people who also love their native land dearly. The scenic ending is depicted by a harmonious and glorious course brilliantly illuminated throughout its length into the far-reaching future. Apropos to summation, the final statement: “The greatest hero in the world is Hári János!” In overview, throughout the context can be seen interspersed a good deal of symbolism reflective of Hungary and its people, customs, personality temperaments, cultural mores, as well as some philosophical truisms—one example of the latter, for instance, is that “Wine is the greatest thief of work” (stated lightheartedly but nevertheless deeply meaningfully) Altogether, this is a highly worthwhile film version of an operatic work of musical-literary art, having much laudatory merit in the nature of its social philosophic and cultural significance. The over-all thematic stream has a measure of deep pertinence to Hungarians, Europeans, Americans, Hun-
