(Angol-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok II. rész)

VI. Bölöni Farkas Sándor (1795-1842) and his Travels

IN THIS SECTION, we will cover:

· Bölöni Farkas Sándor’s career

· his outcast state and melancholy and their relationship to his perception of England

· the role of Transylvanian aristocrats in Anglo-Hungarian contacts

· his travels to Great Britain and the USA, and the travelogues written by him

· his practical achievements in Kolozsvár

· the most important topics in his British travelogue

Bölöni Farkas Sándor was born in Bölön, Transylvania. His father was a Secler nobleman and both of his parents were Unitarians (a branch of Protestantism). His forebears held the position of “lófő” for many generations back; this meant that they acted as border guard officers and were obliged to have a certain number of horses and be prepared in state of war. That is what explains Bölöni’s attachment to horse-riding and horse races; he was an excellent rider himself and no wonder he could give a very detailed and professional description of the Epsom Derby later on.

He studied in the Unitarian College of Kolozsvár and was an excellent student. The Unitarian College had always been famous for its open spirit and its receptivity for new ideas. Two names must be mentioned here. Körmöczi János, a professor and later the headmaster of the College made outlines of Tom Paine’s revolutionary piece The Rights of Man, one of the fundamental works of the American Enlightenment. What is more, Körmöczi did this in 1796, just one year after the suppression of the Hungarian Jacobine Plot led by Martinovich Ignác and the execution of its participants. Körmöczi’s follower, Kiss Mihály translated Claude Adrien Helvetius’s essay “Le vrai sens du systeme de la nature” (“The True Meaning of the System of Nature”), a basic document of French atheism and materialism. The translation was read and circulated in secret.

This revolutionary spirit, however, came to an end by the time Bölöni began to attend the Unitarian College. Partly because of this (and because of his natural preponderance for it), Bölöni became a solitary, sad, melancholic character. It should be added that due his melancholic spirit, he was not in favour of revolutionary ideas anyway. Bölöni often suffered from periods of depression. He smoked a lot, he was often too straightforward, capricious and impatient. He described himself in the following terms: “inconsequens, sokakba lázadozó, különös szituációkat csináló.” His loneliness was also reinforced by the fact that he was multiply an outcast: he was a Hungarian in the Habsburg Empire, he was a Secler among the Hungarians, he was relatively poor among rich noblemen, he was Unitarian in the Catholic Habsburg Empire and he was inspired by artistic inclinations among clerks and office workers. In short, he never found his place.

In 1817, he started to work as a clerk at the Court of Marosvásárhely (his official title was “a Királyi Főkormányszék tiszteletbeli jegyzője”), but he did not like his work as a bureaucrat. Next year he fell seriously ill with pneumonia, with a resulting darker mood, self-consuming lifestyle and periods of manic depression. He saw his life without any prospect, he was not promoted in his office, mainly because of his uncompromising, proud, straightforward attitude.

The first thing that moved him out of his depression was the Greek revolution against the Turks at the beginning of the 1820s. (Greece, like the Balkan area as such, was still under Turkish occupation at that time. Greece won its independence in 1829.) He met four Greek refugees at Wesselényi Miklós’s house, and many politicians thought at the time that the Greek uprising could be an example to be followed in Hungary as well. But Bölöni disagreed. First, he was not the revolutionary type. On the other hand, he was an eye-witness of the 1831 Paris revolution and he was astonished at the behaviour of the angry mob, which convinced him that patient reforms could be a better way to follow. Instead, Bölöni followed the utopian socialist ideas of the French Claude Henri de Rouvroy de Saint-Simon (1760-1825) and the English Robert Owen (1771-1858). They assumed the existence of natural law and that basic human rights should govern all human relations. Bölöni was probably one of the first Hungarian followers of their Utopian ideas and gave a description of Owen’s utopian socialism (Owen established a colony in New Lanark, Scotland, and then in New Harmony, Indiana, USA. He collected poor children and educated them in the spirit of utopian ideas based on the natural reason of man, mainly inspired by the writings of Jean-Jaques Rousseau). He coined the term “socialism.” Saint-Simon and Owen were among to first ones to react against capitalism that exploited workers. They imagined work as free from profit and serving the happiness of people.

For the next couple of years, he studied very hard in the hope of being promoted. He went to Vienna to study military law but gave up after five months and returned to Marosvásárhely. He was still an outcast. As he reported, “Keserűen kellett naponta nyelnem hazám piszkoltatását.” His love affair with a certain Polcz Josephina also failed.

He continued to work as a bureaucrat, but without any joy, especially when he contrasted the English and American experiences with the Hungarian ones. He summarised his bitter thoughts in the following way: “henyélés, fényűzés, közdolgok irénti tökéletes elzsibbadás, betyár szilajkodás, dicsőség az adósságrakásban, éhel halás a köznép közt, pazérlás a nagyok asztalánál, csillámló eszeskedés, apró pletykaságok, a nemzetiség nevetségessé tétele, német nyelc mindenütt, ki a míveltek közé akar tartozni, és lebzselő örökös semmit nem csinálás valának ezen időkor valóságos bélyegei.”

The way out from this distressing situation were two things. On the one hand, despite his boring job, Bölöni gained reputation as a very popular clerk. He was popular with the common people, because most often he decided in favour of them. On the other hand, he tried to counterbalance the situation described above by plunging in enormous work aimed at improving his town, Kolozsvár. He convinced his rich friends to help realise the plans for developing public life and infrastructure in town. His most important achievements initiated by him were the following:

1) He established a permanent theatre in 1821. The point about it was not just providing some means of entertainment to the public. At that time the function of a theatre was to bring people together where they could exchange their ideas (social function) and putting on stage plays in Hungarian (cultural function) to nurture the language, national sentiment, to spread culture and also, to oppose the Austrian supremacy (political function). Hamlet was first played here in Hungarian (1794).

2) Bölöni established a Casino in 1833. (The first Casino was established by Széchenyi in 1827 in Pest). The aim was basically the same: to provide a place for meeting, exchanging ideas, educated and polished conversation, fostering the national spirit. This was a venue of culture, not of politics (let alone gambling). The members could engage in conversation, read magazines, books, eat comfortably and discuss various topics. The whole idea was to adapt the English “club” system to Hungarian circumstances.

3) A similar purpose was reached by the School of Fencing, of which Bölni was twice the director.

4) Bölöni did not forget about the common people, either. He launched two newspapers, Népújság and Vasárnapi Újság to inform them about the latest developments.

5) He established a savings bank (see also: Széchenyi’s work Hitel) under the name of Kolozsvári Gondoskodó Társaság in 1825. This was the first savings bank in Hungary, and it existed until 1944 (!).

6) Bölöni also collected a private library. When he died, 961 books were donated to the Unitarian College. His books included practically all the classical works of ancient and contemporary literature, encyclopaedias, magazines, political and philosophical books and travelogues about England and Scotland.

In 1826, he began writing the history of Transylvania. This served as a kind of preparation for the later books, the travelogues. His book was not only a scholarly work but also the outline a future Hungary. Basically, he projected the contemporary ideas or desires back in time. He writes the following about King Matthias: “szabad királyi városok emelkednek, szabad polgárokkal, szemben a gőgös aristocratiával. Születik a harmadik státus, a szabad polgárság, ereje mindenütt a nemzetnek.” This is not really a scholarly account of Renaissance Hungary, but rather a projected image of an imagined ideal Hungary in the 1820s.

For Bölöni’s melancholic temperament, the year 1829 meant as a kind of outbreak. Something seemed to begin in the political and cultural life. He heard that Széchenyi established the Hungarian Academy, and that Wesselényi founded the National Museum. Becoming enthusiastic by these projects, he himself initiated the foundation of the Transylvanian Museum (which was only realised in 1859).

In these years, he also read four books that proved to be determining in his thinking and his ideas about Anglo-Hungarian contacts. These works were Lovakrul and Hitel by Széchenyi István and A régi nagy ménesek egyike megszűnésének okairul and Balítéletekről by Wesselényi Miklós. These works, directly or indirectly set England as an example to be followed for Hungary. The greatness of these men is proved by the fact that they condemned servile imitation. Széchenyi, Wesselényi, Bölöni and several other thinkers looked upon England (and the USA) as examples whose achievements must be adapted to Hungarian circumstances. As Széchenyi put it, “Céliránytalan volna Magyarországon egy merő angol gazdálkoást folytatni, amint Angliában egy tiszta Magyar gazdaságot űzni.” The same idea in the words of Wesselényi: “Gyűlölöm én az idegen-majmolást, nevetségesnek tartom akármi tárgyat is, cask azért, mert külföldi, a hazait megvetvén, annál előbb becsülni. Buzgó tisztelője vagyok mindannak, ami nemzeti.”

In 1830, Bölöni got permission to leave for abroad. He set out for a journey to Western Europe in the company of Béldi Ferenc. He spent three and a half months in Britain. Next year, he went to the USA and spent 39 days there. The result of this latter journey was the travelogue entitled Utazás Észak-Amerikában (1834), which immediately became a best-seller (the first edition was sold in 1,200 copies, the second edition in 1,000 copies).

The conclusion of the American trip was the following: Bölöni, as a jurist, believed in a written constitution as a safeguard for democracy. In his opinion, democracy is not the result of an organic historical process, but a summary of self-evident, eternal and essential truths and rights (see the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution). These principles, according to him, can be introduced anywhere with an appropriate constitution.

Within two months, Bölöni was elected a correspondent member of the Hungarian Academy (which was more like a burden for him than honour – “kicímerezett tudós … szegénységem büszkesége meg van alázva”, he wrote). In 1836, he was awarded the Great Prize of the Academy for his travelogue.

The British travelogue, however, was not published when it was written. In fact, it was banned for half a year. Why? In 1831, the political controversies surrounding the franchise (the right to vote) pushed the Tories (the conservatives) out of power in Britain, and after 50 years, the Whigs (the liberals) got to power. A slow, relatively peaceful process of reforms began. In the Victorian era, revolutions were prevented by liberal reforms. These were changes that an average Hungarian could not even dream of. The danger was recognised by the Austrian government and they prohibited the publication of anything that could show the Hungarians any kind of chance of reforming the country. The American travelogue was not deemed to be dangerous, since the USA was a young country, far away at the other end of the ocean and everyone supposed that a war of independence was out of question at this point. But moderate reforms and constitutional changes could have undermined the Austrian rule in Hungary.

Bölöni’s British travelogue and his career as a writer could be regarded within the context of four related topics: 1) earlier Hungarian travelogues; 2) the pro-British league of Transylvanian aristocrats; 3) the Reform Age politicians inspired by England.

Bölöni’s travelogue was not without precedents, of course. It must be seen within the context of earlier Hungarian travellers, such as Szepsi Csombor Márton, Bethlen Miklós, Bethlen Mihály and Weszprémi István. They did not devote too much to the description of English circumstances. The first longer diary belongs to Count Széchenyi Ferenc, who recorded his experiences during the customary “Grand Tour.”

Secondly, we must not forget that Bölöni was a Transylvanian writer and public figure. We already know that there were three centres within Hungary that inspired Anglo-Hungarian contacts: Sárospatak, Debrecen and Transylvania. Bölöni was close friends with one of the leading Transylvanian Reform Age politicians, Wesselényi Miklós. Wesselényi was educated in the spirit of freemasonry, supported the liberation of serfs and the rights of ethnic minorities of Hungary. He suggested the transformation of Austria-Hungary into a federation of Danubian nations. He firmly believed in the liberal humanist ideas of the age. As he put it. “There are certain human rights for which the human being is always ripe enough just because he is a human being and of which he can be deprived only by wild terror. Such rights are: that no-one should suffer from the tyranny of others; equality before law; the right to existence through work and so to prosperity; and the right to enjoy these in freedom and security.”

In 1822, Széchenyi and Wesselényi visited Britain, which stimulated interest in British politics, economy and culture. Wesselényi brought together a company of Transylvanian aristocrats – including Bánffy János, Béldi Ferenc, Jósika Miklós, Kemény Domokos, Kemény János, Kendeffy Ádám, Wesselényi Farkas and Zeyk József. The Austrian secret police suspected a plot. As an agent reported, “their main ideal is the British state administration. They intend to weaken royal power.”

When Béldi Ferenc made up his mind to make a tour in England, he asked Bölöni to accompany him as a secretary. They were not important enough to be in the focus of attention of the secret police, so they were granted passports.

The most important topics in the diary:

1) personal meetings with important people such as

Eszterházy Pál: the Austrian ambassador in London between 1815 and 1842, Queen Victoria’s personal favourite. He became the member of the first independent Hungarian government in 1848.

· Sir John Bowring: a radical politician who published an anthology of Hungarian poetry entitled The Poetry of the Magyar, which was dedicated to prince Eszterházy. Bowring was in direct contact with several Hungarian authors, including Döbrentei Gábor, who was also a Unitarian.

· Sir Francis Burdett: at the elections he was to first one to get into the Parliament with a reform programme. He was imprisoned for radical agitation in 1820.

· John Cam Hobhouse: a friend of Byron’s, a supporter of the Greek war of independence. The member of the Rota Political Club, he was also arrested for his radical pamphlets.

· John Gibson Lockhart: the son-in-law of Walter Scott, the chief critic of the Blackwood Magazine, and the editor of the Quarterly Review, the leading literary forums of the age.

2) Social controversies, poverty

3) Radicalism in politics, the 1831 elections

4) the opening of the Reform Parliament

5) innovations; the first Hungarian ever to travel by train on the line between Liverpool and Manchester

6) visits to the British Museum and his disappointment there

7) horses, horse breeding and horse racing, attended the Epsom Derby with the other 100,000 spectators

8) reported on English sports, the first Hungarian to learn boxing in 1822 (“boxírozás”, as he called it), cricket and squash.

9) described English houses and customs (the idea of a tea party was new for him)

10) he actually visited the places that Walter Scott mentions in his novels and the places of the Ossian poems (Scotland)

11) with a keen eye he noticed the widespread religious freedom (Catholics had just been emancipated, B. attended a Quaker meeting and met several English Unitarians)

VII. Széchenyi István and England

IN THIS SECTION, we will cover:

· the family background as a formative influence on Széchenyi

· his internal conflicts and melancholic temperament

· his connection with Wesselényi and its effects

· his visits to England and its consequences

· the practical achievements inspired by his travels

To assess the way Széchenyi’s system of ideas developed as a result of his visits in Britain, first we have to examine his family background. The great moral legacy of the father, Széchenyi Ferenc should be greatly emphasized. He was a patron of arts, a maecenas, who worked for the public, and was loyal to the ruler. In his youth, he was an admirer of the ideas of Enlightenment, but after the French revolution and its aftermath he became more prudent, disillusioned, lost his faith in reason, and turned more conservative. He took pleasure in religion, and tried to educate his son to read “moral” books – he had to turn his back on the whole of the Enlightenment. This generation lost its pleasures, turned to more practical things, preferred the “practical England” to “the amusing France”.

The father turned conservative, looked down on the “luxury” of the middle class, thought it was only the privilege of aristocracy. He thought it was not a privilege of his class to be an aristocrat, but a natural state of being, a kind of task to use this luxury. In other classes, he thought, it could only have a devastating effect. As a conservative, he thought in strict hierarchical /social categories. He was an international aristocrat, simply, a representative of European nobility (not Hungarian nobility), a collector of books, a supporter of literature. For this generation, art was not an individual accomplishment (as in Romanticism), not an ideal but a natural way of life to pursue a high standard of living. This kind of aristocrat set a task for himself: to serve culture and to create culture around himself. More than two hundred castles were built in the second half of 18th century (by the Esterházy, Pállfy, Zichy families). These noble families created great private collections, private libraries, they were supporters of printing, religion and sciences. So they did serve their nation, they were not “cosmopolitan” but did this as members of Western European aristocracy. It did not occur to them that they were doing it out of patriotism.

Consequently, the sons got a religious and national upbringing (which meant they had to be loyal to the Austrian emperor): Széchenyi Lajos (1781-1855), the firstborn son was attached to the court, became a hyper-loyal aristocrat. Széchenyi Pál (1789-1871) retreated to the private sphere, lead a prosperous estate.

In 1809, all three sons join the army fighting against Napoleon. After that, Széchenyi goes to Vienna to celebrate the victory over Napoleon. The young aristocratic people kept on celebrating, organizing balls and parties, etc. But underlying the pomp there was a feeling that the “world is out of joint”, things would never be the same again. Let us not forget: this is the age of Romantic poetry, and the predominant feeling was the melancholic Weltschmerz sentiment propagated by German and English romantics (especially Byron).

This is also a period of crisis in Széchenyi’s life. First, he breaks with the education and mentality of his father and turns against him. He totally turns against his education up to that time (which was Hungarian and religious). He wanted to see himself in the party of the winners, the elegant Austrian circles. He often talked about his company as “we Austrians”, and in his diary mocked the uneducated Hungarians. In spite of all his efforts, he remains an outsider. Theoretically, he belonged to the Viennese aristocratic circles, but somehow did not fit, he was often neglected, which – Széchenyi being an especially sensitive person – hurt him very much. His failed love affairs exacerbated the situation, he felt he was often not taken seriously enough. Still, he was not able to break away from his class, he felt he was totally linked to them.

This was the class whose loyalty was the most problematic. He could not afford to negate openly the authority of the Austrian house but felt the need for reforms at the same time. For Széchenyi Ferenc, his father, there was no strict difference between nation and class. He did not have to choose, being Hungarian and an aristocrat was a natural thing, he had no vision of national unity, the country was his “extended mansion”. Although he brought some practical examples from abroad but it did not occur to him that he should serve the nation with them (or, more precisely, that he was doing so out of patriotism, because he was Hungarian).

For Széchenyi István, however, a conflict occurred between his class and nation. This is something typical of the dilemmas of the Reform Age. Where should he belong? What is the direction of the nation? What is being a Hungarian? What does being a Hungarian aristocrat in the Austrian empire mean? Széchenyi slowly began to “perceive” his Hungarian identity.

He begins to learn a lot, has several plans, reads novels (by Voltaire and Rousseau), gets fascinated by Byron, starts to behave as a kind of Byronic hero. In his diary he wrote poems, fragments of plays, plans novel writing, wants to translate Byron's “Childe Harold”, in short, wants to create (father was just a collector of books, a maecenas). After an awkward affair he has to leave Vienna, and is sent to Italy. There he meets a new type of person, the educated aristocrat, William Gell. He chooses him as a model, the English scholar of antiquity. As a learned aristocrat he wants to deal with science and with politics.

He makes his first visit to England in 1815. There he was fascinated by the industrial revolution. His interest is not yet systematic, he wants to know everything, looks for adventures (but this makes him melancholic at the same time). THREE things capture his interest:

· The constitution: Széchenyi resolves that on returning to Hungary, he would study the Hungarian Constitution, because he was asked about it quite a lot. He often visited the Holland House, the circle of liberal aristocrats Lord and Lady Holland. There he meets again a new type of aristocrat: the liberal aristocrat who does not live in luxury doing nothing.

· Factories: this is now a quite exotic world for him, meets a new type of person, the factory owner

· Horses: this interests him the most, logically, because the former two are very far away from Hungarian realities

On returning plans three things: introduce horse-races, new methods of shipping and fox-hunting. In 1818, he plans a journey to the East. He was like Byron’s hero Childe Harold at this moment. The following quotation from Lord Byron’s poem exactly describes his mood: “But long ere scarce a third of his passed by, / Worse than adversity the Childe befell; / He felt the fullness of satiety: / Then loathed he in his native land to dwell, / Which seemed to him more lone than Eremite’s sad cell” (Canto I, Stanza 4). In fact, almost a complete similarity with Byron: dissatisfaction with people; lack of recognition; desire for development; spleen and melancholia are what was common in them. They were two dissatisfied, restless aristocrats, and two liberal aristocrats. In Greece, he visits all the important place of Byron’s life (the Romantics glorified ancient Greek culture to a great extent, especially Byron). But he was still quite pessimistic. As he wrote in particularly disillusioned lines, ”A szülők iránti kötelességet érett koromban csak a haza iránti kötelességel tudtam felváltani - és a haza pillanatnyilag nem létező.” (1819); “Olyan emberek között élek, akik jóllehet honfitársaim, mégis alig emberek – komikus, hogy itt Arábia pusztái helyett Magyarország pusztáin vagyok.” (1820)

The person who dragged him out of this melancholic state was a fellow aristocrat and politician, Wesselényi Miklós. The contrast between the two personalities and worldviews is well highlighted by this quotation by Wesselényi: “Széchenyi panaszol azon, hogy nincs mező a haza javára munkálódni (...) fájlalja, hogy nem anglusnak vagy americanusnak született. Természetes, hogy kívánatosabb egy töredelmesen előrenyomuló sereg babérral fedezett tagjainak lenni, de szabad-e kiszabott helyünkről elfutni vagy azon tehetetlenül állani?”

Wesselényi makes him realize that Széchenyi may also make a career as a Hungarian aristocrat, who is popular without protection and is independent. We are talking about two entirely different characters: Wesselényi was an average Transsylvanian nobleman (köznemes), Széchenyi is an aristocrat who sometimes behaved rudely with Wesselényi. (When, for instance, Wesselényi wanted to interfere once in his chess-play, Széchenyi said: “No, nem kell most itt izélni!” Wesselényi was deeply offended.) Wesselényi clearly felt inferior in this relationship, but nevertheless had a great effect on Széchenyi. He thought positively about Széchenyi, but supposed that he was a rich aristocrat wasting his money and talents (though he did not realize that Széchenyi felt just as outcast as he did). Wesselényi was more realistic, Széchenyi dreaming full of ideas (like Don Quijote and Sancho Panza). It is Wesselényi who “brings him down to the ground.” In the person of the Transylvanian count, Széchenyi met the “average Hungarian”, and realized that it is the gentry he has to deal with if he wants to reform the country.

They go to England to bring horses and to study racing and breeding (1822). Drawing on their experiences, Széchenyi published Lovakrul in 1828 and Wesselényi wrote A régi hires ménesek egyike megszűnésének okairól in 1829. Their approach was strictly practical: horse breeding should not only be a pleasant hobby but has to bring profit to the individual and to the state. Széchenyi: “nem a szenvedélyre, hanem a hasznot kereső lelkületre lehet építeni.”

As Széchenyi discusses in Lovakrul, the situation in Hungary is not fit for profit-making. The optimal model, according to him, is England. The solution is create suitable conditions for breeding and racing but Széchenyi establishes the whole project on the desire for profit among rich people and does not talk about national sentiment (“Csak a nagylelkűséget és a patriotizmust nem kell, az Istenért, összekeverni a gazdagsággal!”). A slight contradiction appears when he does talk about the first prize of Ft10,000: ”Már itt szép helye a patriotizmusnak”. The rich magnates should offer the prize. As Wesselényi formulated the same idea: “Ámbár egy-egy dolog a hazafiúi buzgó munkásságot s áldozatokat ennél meg nem érdemli; s minden jó hazafinak azon kell lenni, hogy a nemzeti lépesedésnek [gazdagodás, fejlődés] ezen fontos része gyarapodjék, de tudom azt, hogy ezen tárgy közönségesen előmenni nem fog, ha annak mozdító rugója csak a hazafiság leend (…). A lótenyésztés éppen úgy fabrika [mesterség, tudomány] mint akármely más mestermíveket készítő, mely ha haszonnal bíztat, gyarapodni, s elé fog menni. Hogy a csupa hazafiság vagy passio mely kevés fabrikát szül, s azokat is milyen csak sinlődő karban tudja fenn tartani, azt a két Hazában elég szomorú példa mutatta s bizonyítja.”

Wesselényi, beyond pointing out the importance of these practical matters to Széchenyi, made him realize a second thing. Széchenyi began to understand that his own identity, the superior, European, educated one, was absolutely different from that of his friend, which was seen by him as a more “natural”, “original”, “ancient” Hungarian identity. Széchenyi thought it to be a question of East and West, being essentially the contrast of an individual ”torn” out of his nation (Széchenyi), versus one organically “embedded” into it (Wesselényi). The new 19th-century phenomenon of nationalism complicated these matters. Before 19th century no such contrast existed. Before Wesselényi there was not a Western model to be adopted as forced upon as, but these European examples were part of the natural way of existence of the Hungarians, coming from such sources as Humanism, Protestant peregrination and values transmitted by the poets of the Enlightenment. The pre-19th century scholars and travelers were not familiar with alienation, because for them “foreign” was immediately Hungarian, they strove for the modern easily to be assimilated into Hungarian culture. They might have admitted that Hungary was lagging behind the West but this did not cause melancholia in them but a force to know more, and it did not occur to them that they were “less” Hungarian by following Western models and examples. The situation changed by the 1820s, because the new phenomenon of patriotism vs. cosmopolitanism appeared. The dilemma basically was: should we choose between England and Hungary? Are we less developed? Are those who are enthusiastic about England less patriotic by definition? Does getting to know foreign things endanger one’s loyalty to Hungary? It is in this period that the myth of East vs. West is created and Hungary was often conceived of as a bridge between East and West (that is, neither “Eastern” nor “Western” enough).

All of these experiences resulted in Széchenyi’s thinking turning towards more and more practical things from about 1825 on. The greatest achievements of Széchenyi were the following:

1, Horseracing, horse breeding

· Széchenyi himself was an excellent rider, got to know the basis of breeding in the army

· 1815: England – brought home 100 horses (20 stallions, 80 mares)

· one of the main organizers of the 1815 Simmering race, near Vienna

· petitioned the Emperor to be let him start races, no answer

· 1826: race in Pozsony

· 1827: first race in Pest

· 1828: publication of Lovakrul

2, Casino

· the first Casino opens in Pozsony in 1825

· 1827: the “Nemzeti Casino” opens Pest, rents one part of the Vogel house for it, later the “Nemzeti Casino” moves to Lloyd Palace

· a “casino” meant a different thing then: it was a sort of club, publishing newsletters, having a library, reading magazines, café, restaurants, snooker room, essentially a meeting place for upper-middle class and aristocratic men

· Széchenyi intended it to be a politics-free place (From the Statute of the Casino: „A Nemzeti Casino halhatatlan emlékű hazánkfia, gróf Széchenyi István által 1827. évben oly céllal alkotott egyesület, hogy az a hazai társadalmi életnek központját képezze. Mint ilyen, a Nemzeti Casino egyedül a társadalmi tisztességes élvezetek gyűlhelye, de egyszersmind a műveltség, a közhasznú elmélkedés és eszmecserének előmozdítására szolgál; testületi működése köréből azonban ki van zárva minden politikai jellegű tevékenység.”)

· the Casino existed until 1945 and was reorganized in 1990.

3, Magyar Tudós Társaság (the Hungarian Academy)

· 1825: Széchenyi offers the 6% interest of his yearly income

· 1831: first meeting, the minutes were kept by Döbrentei Gábor

· plan: publishing books, magazines, journals, compiling a dictionary of Hungarian language, the basic aim being to cherish the national language

· 1844: opening of library

· Széchenyi did not live to see the present building near Lánchíd

4, Regulation of Lower-Danube section

· the aim was to create a navigable line from Vienna to Black Sea, completed in 1834

· the English also supported the project financially, because it was also their aim to have access to the Black Sea (WHY?)

5, Steam shipping on Danube

· foundation of Dunagőzhajózási Társaság (1830)

· 48 ships in 1850

6, Chain Bridge

· no communication between two sides (there are transitory makeshift bridges)

· 1837: the foundation of Lánchíd Company

· everyone has to pay! – a major blow to feudal privileges

· Széchenyi studied chain bridges in England. This one was designed by William Clark, the project was led by Adam Clark.

· The construction began in 1839

7, Mill (József Hengermalom)

· 1841: beginning of work on the quayside of Danube

· good quality flour – business partners were not disappointed

8, Savings banks

· importance of credit system, see Széchenyi’s basic work entitled Hitel

· participated in the 1840 foundation of Fáy András Pesti Takarékpénztár, 1842: Sopron branch

9, Tunnel below the Castle

· beginning of work: 1853

· 1857: completed

10, Railway system

· 1846: the opening of the first line between Pest and Vác

· did not have the time to put his theories into practice

· Széchenyi was Secretary of Transportation in 1848

11, Other projects:

· silkworm breeding

· Pesti Hajós Egylet (boating)

· steam-shipping on Balaton

· regulation of the Tisza River

VIII. English Travellers in Hungary in the 19th Century

IN THIS SECTION, we will cover:

· the journeys of English travellers in the 18th century

· the reasons of English interest in Hungary in the 19th century

· four English travellers (Mrs. Gore, John Bowring, John Paget and Miss Pardoe) and their perceptions of Hungary

In the 18th century, few people dared to travel to Hungary. Still, some Englishmen, including Richard Pococke and Jeremiah Milles (who were cousins) undertook such a journey. They came to Hungary at a time when few risked to come to such a dangerous place. They famous figures in the Anglican Church (both of them were priests) and they were chiefly interested in archeology.

Richard Pococke arrived in Hungary in 1736. He saw great, big lands, which were uncultivated and great forests, but scarce population due to Turkish occupation and the Rákóczi war (1703-11). He was mainly interested in archeology, and does not really deal with contemporary situation in his description. He visits Buda and major cities of the Transdanubian area. He was quite naive and held rather confused motions (e.g. thinks that Hungarian language is a relative of Hebrew and other Oriental languages, and so he relies mainly on second-hand information).

In the 19th century, however, the interest in Hungary revived. The main reasons for the English coming to Hungary were the following: 1) it was obviously safer to travel; 2) the public life was Anglo- oriented (see “anglomania” above); 3) they heard of Széchenyi’s efforts in implementing institutions and ideas coming from England; and 4) the most important reason was that they could travel faster and safer due to the development of steam-shipping.

What were the different specific manifestations of these visits?

a, Horsemanship: Széchenyi and English example is always there. A great number of horses were imported from England, the so-called “Gyepkönyv” was edited along the lines of the English Racing Calendar and Stud Book, which were translated into Hungarian, and it was compulsory to follow their regulations. The description of early races in Pest contain the names of horses and riders, which are more often English rather than Hungarian. We know that English trainers also arrived here and we know Edward Jackson by name.

b, fox-hunting: these events were first organised in Nyitra and Sopron counties in 1823. Hounds and horses were brought from England. This was quite an expensive sport and it belonged to the practice of mainly copying the external features of English public life.

c, steam shipping: two Englishmen (John Andrews and Joseph Pritchard) start to operate a line on the Danube in 1829. The importance of steam shipping was naturally recognized by both Széchenyi and the English. Széchenyi could realize his plans with English help (machines, captains, loans). But it was also the English interest to have a navigable line till Constantinople (see the Crimean War in the 1850s!)

d, cheap English loans to build railways. England was also interested in railway building, businessmen came here to invest. The reason was the same as in the case of steam shipping: since it was quite evident that in the future, Russia would become the enemy of England.

e, engineers and bridge builders: the Chain Bridge, Adam and William Clark directed the construction. The great majority of the work was done by English workers. They arrived in great number, since they needed separate Scottish missionaries, William Duncan and William Wingate to take care of their religious life. According to one magazine (Életképek), 26,000 English workers were intending to come to Hungary. (“Az Életképek szerint 26.000 angol akarna hazánkban gyári foglalkozás végett megtelepedni. Tehát ismét egy népfajjal fogna megerősödni világhírű nemzeti egységünk.”) This is obviously a bombastic piece of news and a fantastically exaggerated number, but it shows clearly the extent of foreign workers coming to Hungary.

Now let us see the travellers themselves who came to Hungary.

Catherine Grace Frances Gore (1799-1861) travelled in Hungary somewhere before 1829. The contemporary press did not report her journey here. She published Hungarian Tales in 3 volumes in 1829. The topics were her personal experiences: she observed the great privileges of aristocracy, the subjected state of common people, the low level of culture in the countryside and the passionate feeling of patriotism. According to her, England's indifference towards Hungary is ingratitude, because anglomania “rages” more than in any other country; Hungarians like to compare themselves to the English (although it would be more appropriate to draw a parallel between the Irish and the Hungarian) She also points out that the most famous authors, Shakespeare, Byron, Scott works are generally known.

Sir John Bowring (1792-1872) was born Exeter in a puritan family. He became a businessman and later made acquaintance with Jeremy Bentham, the founder of Utilitarianism and began to work for the Westminster Review. He was a member of Parliament and dealt with commerce and economics. He was keenly interested in the culture and literature of European and Asian nations and edited several anthologies, including Specimens of Russian Poets (1820); Ancient Poetry and the Romance of Spain (1824); Sketch of the Language and Literature of Holland (1829); Poetry of the Magyars, 1830; and Cheskian Anthology (1832). The Hungarian Academy elected him a honorary member. He only visited Hungary in 1838 for a brief period. Later, he published Translations from Alexander Petőfi, the Magyar Poet in 1866. He is also ranked among the world’s greatest hyperpolyglots: he was said to be able to speak at least 100 languages. He also knew the Hungarian language very well and maintained that the Hungarian language was so singular and unique because nothing may be added to it, and it is not likely to add anything to other languages; in short, it is as solid as a rock.

“The Hungarian language goes far back. It developed in a very peculiar manner and its structure reaches back to times when most of the now spoken European languages did not even exist. It is a language which developed steadily and firmly in itself, and in which there are logic and mathematics with the adaptability and malleability of strength and chords. The Englishman should be proud that his language indicates an epic of human history. One can show forth its origin; and all layers can be distinguished in it, which gathered together during contacts with different nations. Whereas the Hungarian language is like a rubble-stone, consisting of only one piece, on which the storms of time left not a scratch. It's not a calendar that adjusts to the changes of the ages. It needs no one, it doesn't borrow, does no huckstering, and doesn't give or take from anyone. This language is the oldest and most glorious monument of national sovereignty and mental independence. What scholars cannot solve, they ignore. In philology it's the same way as in archaeology. The floors of the old Egyptian temples, which were made out of only one rock, can't be explained. No one knows where they came from, or from which mountain the wondrous mass was taken. How they were transported and lifted to the top of the temples. The genuineness of the Hungarian language is a phenomenon much more wondrous than this.” (Bowring)

John Paget (1808-1892) is the author of Hungary and Transylvania (1839). He travelled to Hungary in 1835 and 1836 and spent one and a half years here. His interest in Hungary was raised when he met the Baroness Polyxenia Wesselényi in Italy whom he married in 1837. After the wedding, they settled in Gyéres, Transylvania. They started to run a model estate. He participated in the War of Independence of 1848/49. After the Revolution of 1848 he emigrated to England but returned in 1855. He showed great interest in Hungary, specially the Transylvanian Unitarians; he was the founding member of the Erdélyi Gazdasági Egylet and was an active member of the Unitarian church. In his travelogue, he records his experiences with great precision, studies Hungary, but also criticizes it cleverly. He is deeply impressed by Hungary’s sympathy towards the English and urges the deepening of economic relationships between the two countries. He was greatly admired by Széchenyi, and met him personally.

A quotation from the second volume of his book: “It is in Debreczen and its neighbourhood that the true Magyar character may be the most advantageously studied. The language here is spoken in its greatest purity, the costume is worn by rich as well as poor, and those national peculiarities which a people always lose by admixture with others are still prominent at Debreczen.

The pride of the Magyar, which is one of his strongest traits, leads him to look down on every other nation by which he is surrounded with sovereign contempt. All foreigners are either Schwab (German) or Talyán (Italian); an it is difficult to imagine the supercilious air with which the Magyar peasant pronounces those two words. (…) The Magyar is accused of being lazy; and if by that is meant that he has not the Englishman’s love of work for its own sake, I believe the charge is merited. A Magyar never moves when he can sit still, and never walks when he can ride. Even riding on horseback seems too much trouble for him; for he generally puts four horses into his little wagon, and in that state makes his excursions to the next village, or to the market town. This want of energy is attended, too, with a want of perseverance. The Hungarian is easily disappointed and discouraged if an enterprise does not succeed at the first attempt. The Magyar character has a singular mixture of habitual passiveness and melancholy, mixed up with great susceptibility to excitement.”

Miss Julia Pardoe (1806-1862) wrote The City of the Magyar, or Hungary and Her Institutions (1840). She was a novelist, a traveller, interested in mainly historical subjects. She made several travels to the East, and these voyages inspired her first book, The City of the Sultan. The first volume of her Hungarian travelogue records her travels from east to west across the country and describes buildings, events, people, landscape, and institutions. The second volume is an inquiry into Hungary's national character, and the third volume is an account of Hungary's folklore, history, and social customs. Pardoe was the first person to describe many of Hungary's institutions. Much of her book is based on interviews with powerful people in Hungarian society. After the publication of this work, the English public begin to be interested in England. The Foreign Quarterly Review asked for material to present Hungarian literature.

“The Hungarian language (…) possesses intrinsically sufficient beauty as well as antiquity, to inspire interest (…). At present, worthy as it is of general notice, the peculiarities of the Magyar language are little known in Europe. (…) It has been more than once asserted by Sclavonian writers that the Magyar dialect was a mere corruption and admixture of several other tongues into which their own, greatly degraded and impoverished, had largely entered. This is, however, proved to be a fallacy even by the slightest study of the subject. It is a matter of history that like many other nations more or less civilised, the Magyars possessed their national bards and ballads at the period of the first invasion of the European provinces. The German chronicles mention and even quote several of these; adding that they not only indulged in war-songs but that they also delighted in others of a softer description; and at a very early period mention is made of a class of men called Dallos, or Menne-singers.” (Miss Pardoe)

IX. Fest Sándor, the Father of English Studies in Hungary

IN THIS SECTION, we will cover:

· Fest Sándor’s importance as the “father” of English Studies in Hungary

· the importance of English Studies themselves in Hungary

· the brief history of English Studies in Hungary in the 20th century

· the main events in Fest’s life, the areas of his research

· his work of his disciples carrying on the studies started by him

In the years preceding the First World War, there was a tendency of attempting to break with the one-sided German orientation and turning towards the culture of other nations. Alongside the birth of German and French philology, the branches of Italian, Slavic and English philology are born, of which the clear sign was that such departments were established at the Hungarian universities.

Fest Sándor (1883-1944), who is generally regarded to be the “father” of English Studies in Hungary, was born in Szepesváralja, Sopron county. The members of his family worked in administrative positions, or in the fields of economics or sciences. Fest Imre (1817-1883) was an under-secretary in István Gorove’s department of agriculture, industry and trade. Later he became the vice-governor of the Austrian- Hungarian Bank and had a great role in the preparation of the Compromise of 1867. The father, Fest Sándor, Sr., after various jobs, began to run an estate. His wife, Westphal Erzsébet, was a great intellect. She wanted to be a teacher, she spoke English and French very well (she died at the age of 96, in 1948, outliving her son). Fest Sándor was the third child in the family.

He graduated from high school in 1902. Meanwhile, her mother taught the children French and English. Fest probably inherited his pedagogical talent from her; he always liked to teach and deal with children, and became an excellent teacher. He was said to have been strict and demanding but without any rigidity or superciliousness.

He began his university studies in 1902, majoring in Hungarian and German. His main subject was Hungarian linguistics. He also had the privilege of being the student of the recently established Eötvös College. The Eötvös College was founded in 1895, based on the model of the French École Normale Superieur. Its aim was to provide elite education, with the help of scholarships, to talented students, of more or less humble middle-class origins, who prepared to be secondary school teachers. The principle was tutorial education, like at famous English universities. Each student had a tutor or mentor, with whose help he was immersed in literature, history, and other sciences. They could freely do research in the rich library at any time of the day. The idea was to go against the strict, formalised Prussian-based education system and introduce a French type of education.

Fest’s masters were Simonyi Zsigmond, the famous linguist and Heinrich Gusztáv, a professor of German philology. Their influence can be felt throughout Fest’s career, since they educated their students in the spirit of Positivism, which was based on the faithful collecting and minute examination of data and facts.

In 1906, Fest graduated as a teacher of Hungarian, German and French. During his studies, he also visited the lectures of the first English “lector” at Pázmány University, Arthur Yolland. This is all the more significant, since English as a subject was rather peripheral and the time and did not even form part of secondary school curricula. There were, however, some signs that proved Hungary’s interest in English studies (stemming, naturally, from the general 19th-century sentiment of “anglomania”): the Kisfaludy Társaság launched a scholarly journal called Magyar Shakespeare Tár (the aim was to create a new Shakespeare cult in Hungary and investigate Shakespeare’s effect in Hungary), Bayer József writes Shakespeare drámái hazánkban (1909), and in the same year, the British-American Literary Society organises a reading club.

In 1903, Fest’s father sold his estate and emigrated to the USA. Fest followed him and made trips in the US three times between 1907 and 1911 (besides a number of trips to Britain). He mastered the English language and the English way of thinking as well; according to Arthur Yolland, Fest had a full command of English and was able to talk and write like a native speaker. Fest’s attention turned fully towards English studies, he went to Oxford and began to do research in the Bodleian Library concerning English travellers in Hungary. In 1912, he was commissioned to teach at the Eötvös College.

Fest’s career may be divided into four distinct sections (1910-14; 1914-23; 1923-33; 1933-44)

In the years between 1910 and 1914, his main field of research was to look for references to Hungary in English authors’ works. Although it seems that he digs up unimportant, minute and obscure references, still, with these interesting details, he is able to transmit the feeling of a whole literary period. His main question around which his research was focused was how our culture and history was mirrored in another nations’ consciousness. It was assumed that we can get a more faithful picture of ourselves and we can understand ourselves better if we know what others think about us. This way of thinking was really popular in the 1930s, and Fest was one of its first pioneers.

In 1912, he gave a lecture on the necessity of teaching English in secondary schools. He talks about the painful lack of English studies in Hungary and referring to the whole of European culture, asserts that the national culture should be viewed as part of a European synthesis. He asserts that the danger for national culture is not its European or universal orientation but when its foreign orientation remains one-sided (referring to the German influence). He also refers to the often quoted fallacious concept that Anglo-Hungarian relations had been so scarce that it is not worth dealing with them. Fest maintains that if we do not look consciously for the traces of these contacts, naturally it will appear that there had been no such contacts. He sees the remedy for this situation in the introduction of English in high school curriculum. Of course Fest does not claim that we should replace the German orientation with the English one but only that English should be one of the optional subject and thus the scope of students could be broadened. Fest did not remain on the level of theories, he himself wrote a complete series of language books for high schools in collaboration with Országh László and Szenczi Miklós between 1939 and 1942 (published by Franklin Társulat).

The second period of his career started with the outbreak of the First World War. It caused him considerable difficulty, since travelling abroad became significantly complicated. On the one hand, he started to summarise his research done that far, on the other hand, areas of his research were carried on by his students, Országh László, Szenczi Miklós, Róna Éva, Gál István, and others. (Which also meant that for several decades “English Studies” meant investigating Anglo-Hungarian relationships.) Fest found a new area of research for himself, based on the material he had access to in Hungary: he started to investigate English influences in Hungarian writers’ works (for instance, Arany János). He always made a careful distinction between conscious borrowings and imitations, and influences, which were often unconscious and were apparent in particular motifs or phrases He set out to study the latter type. On the other hand, he became interested in a new period, the Reform Age and the English influences, the “anglomania” of the time (Széchenyi, Wesselényi, etc).

In 1917, he read out his dissertation at the Hungarian Academy entitled “Angol irodalmi hatások hazánkban Széchenyi István fellépéséig.” Interestingly, this is no literary history. He does not attempt to solve the great dilemmas in the field, such as Petőfi’s relationship to Shelley or Byron, questions of Shakespeare philology, Arany János’s relationship to English culture. He rather gives an image of the whole atmosphere of the age, and those circumstances that made possible the reception of English influences. In 1918, he completed his “habilitation” at Pázmány Péter University (a habilitation process, a German-origin term, qualifies one for teaching at a university). Fest became the professor of Older English Literature. (The fact that he became the professor of literature may shed light on certain political reasons in the background.) In the subsequent years, he taught Old English poetry, Chaucer and Shakespeare at the university.

In 1923, a break followed in his career. On the one hand, the economic situation of the country after the war necessitated the reduction of state employees. On the other hand, his wife died and the bringing up of their daughter became Fest’s responsibility. He quit his job and retreated to his estate near Graz. He lived in relative isolation there for the next ten years. Of course, it does not mean he had no contact with the developments of scholarship. He regularly read foreign language magazines and journals, worked on studies, and even in the family the language of conversation was English. It was in this period that his new area of interest began to be outlined: the earliest contacts between England and Hungary, the story of Edmund Ironside’s two sons (see first lecture), Agatha, Saint Margaret of Scotland, the Golden Bull and the Magna Charta. The simple reason for this choice was that Fest had access to excellent materials regarding the Middle Ages in the library of the University of Graz. It was Fest’s merit that he cleared up problems that even English professors had failed to do before.

In the final period of his career (1933-44), Fest returned to Budapest. He became the teacher of the Budapest Lutheran High School and resumed his old post at Eötvös College, and besides continued teaching at the university. In this period, he summarised his results, refined his former papers, “corrected” some of his old mistakes, digging up new and new pieces of evidence (shown by the fact that he wrote six versions of the St Margaret problem). In 1938, he became the correspondent member of the Hungarian Academy.

The same year the English ambassador informed the Hungarian foreign secretary that the British Council had offered the organisation of an English Department at the University of Debrecen. (Let us refer back to Debrecen as one of the centres of Anglo-Hungarian contacts since the 17th century.) Fest became the first chair of the new department, where he taught Shakespeare and Anglo-Hungarian contacts. The scholarly journal English Studies in Philology (Angol Filológiai Tanulmányok) launched by Yolland, became the joint publication of the Pázmány and Debrecen Universities. The journal was almost exclusively devoted to the study of the Anglo-Hungarian literary and cultural contacts. Unfortunately, due to the ill-conceived political decision of the Ministry of Education in the communist era, all the Western foreign language departments were closed down after the Second World War in 1950. A period of forced interruption followed for seven years. In 1957, these departments were re-opened, and so the journal, under the name of Hungarian Studies in English was restarted in 1963 by Országh László, Fest’s disciple. The title of the journal was a bit misleading, however, since those unacquainted with it could not decide whether the studies were in Hungarian, or were concerned with Hungarian topics, or were written by Hungarians in the field of English studies. Later it changed its name to Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS) and still exists. Depending on whether we count the years of interruption, as of 2013, it has been around now for 75 (or 50) years, and is thus the country’s oldest scholarly journal in the field of English studies and is also known internationally.

But returning to Fest’s career: in 1944, he moved back to Budapest. His aim was to activate his English channels in moving forward talks with the Allied Forces, trying to start peace negotiations. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs granted him the permission to stay in England from 18 September to 31 December. On 30 December, however, he died in a bomb attack that hit the house where he rented a room and Fest died together with 40 other people. The corpses were buried in a mass grave. He was exhumed in 1948 and his body was only recognised from the train season ticket in his pocket. He was buried in the Rákoskeresztúri cemetery.

Fest Sándor’s legacy is inestimable in the field of English Studies. After the Second World War, and the communist takeover, his work was not held in high regard. The main ideologists of the communist regime, including Lukács György and Lutter Tibor, accused him of not paying attention to achievements of Marxist ideology, and his method of Positivism (the careful collection of data) was characterised as “philological trifling.” After the unfavourable climate of the 1950s, his legacy was revived mainly by his former students and acquaintances. Let us here record once again the great old men (and women) of English studies: Országh László, Szenczi Miklós, Maller Sándor, Gál István, Róna Éva. Országh followed him as the chair of the English Department at the University of Debrecen (1947-50 and 1957-69). Országh was the only English Studies scholar in Hungary who was awarded the greatest order of merit by the Queen, and he became the Commander of the British Empire (CBE) in 1979 for his services in the spread of English culture. “Besides” this, Országh, was the founder of American Studies (“amerikanisztika”) in Hungary.

Recommended reading:

Abádi-Nagy Zoltán. “Anglisztika és amerikanisztika a mai Magyarországon.” Anglisztika és amerikanisztika: Magyar kutatások az ezredfordulón. Szerk. Frank Tibor and Károly Krisztina. Bp, Tinta Kiadó, 2009: 13-32.

Fest Sándor. “Székfoglaló beszéd a debreceni egyetemen.” In: Fest, Skóciai Szent Margittól…, pp. 495-502.

Szász Imre. Ménesi út: regény és dokumentumok. Bp: Magvető, 1985. [about the Eötvös College]

Sarbu Aladár. “Crisis in English?” HUSSE Papers. Vol. 1: Literature and Culture. Debrecen, 1995: 9-18.

Sarbu Aladár. “The Study of English and American Literature: Hungarian Orientations.” The Study of Literature. Bp: Akadémiai, 2008: 325-354.

Sarbu Aladár. “Declining English? Some Recent Anxieties.” The Study of Literature. Bp: Akadémiai, 2008: 355-365.

Virágos K. Zsolt et al. “The Life and Work of László Országh (1907-1984): A Round Table.” HJEAS 4.1-2. (1998): 367-406.

X. Anglo-Hungarian Relationships Between 1945-48. The Role of the British Council

IN THIS SECTION, we will cover:

· the situation of English after the First World War in Hungary

· Hungary’s position on the map of Europe in the given period (Seton-Watson vs. Lord Rothermere)

· the reviving diplomatic and cultural connections after 1945, and their dramatic decline in the 50s

· the main figures of English and American Studies in Hungary after the 1960s

the role of the British Council in building relationships From the point of view of Great Britain, at least politically, Hungary never played a central role. Hungary was dealt with only occasionally, as part of the European balance of power. Otherwise, the country was treated as belonging to the Habsburg-German-Russian sphere of influence. Only the revolution of 1848/49 managed to break this one-sided attitude, after which a certain sympathy could be felt towards Hungary.

After the Treaty of Trianon, the basic sentiment was sympathy from both sides (unlike that of towards the French). There were dissenting voices, though. In their articles published in The Times, Henry Wickham Steed and Robert William Seton-Watson explained their views according to which Hungary was constantly oppressing its Slavic and Saxon minorities and its dismemberment was entirely justifiable. Seton-Watson dealt with the minority question already before the war, and wrote books on the theme (Racial Problems in Hungary, 1908; The Southern Slav Question, 1911, Europe in the Melting-Pot, 1919). From 1917 to 1918 he served on the Intelligence Bureau of the War Cabinet in the Enemy Propaganda Department, where he was responsible for British propaganda to the peoples of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. It was mainly (the rather controversial) activity of Steed and Seton-Watson coupled with the French, Romanian, Czech, Serbian and Croatian propaganda that helped to fix the image of Hungary as a “guilty nation.”

In spite of these tendencies, there was a conscious effort on the part of the Hungarian politicians in the 1920s and 1930s to orientate towards England and the Anglo-Saxon world in general. This served two purposed: to counterbalance the German influence and the growing Nazi influence on Hungary; and to seek remedy for the injustices of Trianon from British politicians (and public figures as well, some of whom embraced the Hungarian cause, like Lord Rothermere, who launched a campaign “Justice for Hungary” with his article “Hungary’s Place Under the Sun”). Hungarian eminent figures of science were also seeking these contacts. Teleki Pál, the geographer and later prime minister, used his scientific connections to look for help, just like Kosáry Domokos, historian, who received a scholarship to London in 1938 (he was the first president of the Hungarian Academy after 1989).

Despite all efforts, these attempts to orientate towards the Atlantic Powers failed. Hungary was stigmatized once again in 1945 as a “guilty nation.” The first diplomatic contacts became possible after the horrors of the Second World War, in November, 1945. The missions and embassies arriving in Budapest also helped to build these contacts. The official diplomatic relations were established on 16 September 1947.

The strongest relationships were built in the field of sciences. The Council of Pázmány Péter University (later ELTE) decided, on 20 July 1945, to invite British scholars and Hungarian scientists living in Britain to give lectures. Out of the 89 scholarships offered by the National Scholarship Committee, 10 marked Great Britain as a destination. The British Council also had a great role in the revitalisation of Anglo-Hungarian contacts. Out of scholars, the following well-known personages were offered British scholarships in 1946: the biochemist Kovásznai László, the scholar of law Szladits Károly, the literary historians Berg Pál, Maller Sándor and Lutter Tibor, the chemist Gergely János, the architect Mololy Elemér. They went to the University of London, Cambridge, or Leeds. Szent-Györgyi Albert, the reputed biochemist lead a delegation of doctors in London in 1946. The British Museum and the University of Oxford donated a significant number of books and journals to Hungary (those that could not get here because of the war).

As for institutions and organisations, the Hungarian Group of the PEN Club was founded in 1946. The character of these initiations was democratic and “bottom-up”: autonomous groups, NGOs, associations, societies were established, with no state interference, that aimed at getting to know each others’ culture. Perhaps the most significant of these organisations was the Magyar-Angol Baráti Társaság, chaired by Kodály Zoltán. The Secretary of Education and Religion, Keresztúry Dezső also though it important to improve these relationships, as he explained it in a letter to the Secretary General of the British Council in 1946. However, a comprehensive and general treaty on cultural co-operation was not signed until the signature of the peace treaty (1947).

In spite of the growing signs of the Cold War and the break-up of Europe into two camps, there was no sign of recession in the cultural relations. Several British artists arrived in Hungary, for instance Arthur Bliss, the composer and Stephen Spender, the poet. The male choir of Hungarian Workers’ Choirs Association (Magyarországi Munkásdalegyletek Szövetsége férfikara) won the first prize at an international festival in Langollen. The BBC popularised the works of Bartók and Kodály. The “Modern Hungarian Art” exhibition was opened in London in 1948.

A comprehensive treaty on cultural co-operation was ready to be signed by December 1947. It would have included the establishment of English departments at colleges and universities, of cultural institutions, the granting of scholarships to scientists and artists, the regulation of the relationships between societies, the mutual acknowledgement of university degrees and a general plan of cultural and scientific co-operation.

Politics, however, decided otherwise. The growing hostility, the Cold War, the communist takeover in Central-Eastern European countries resulted in the reduction of contacts to a minimal level. The treaty was not signed. By the 1950s, the relationships practically ceased to be.

Signs of recuperation were visible from about 1963. This is the year of the signature of the above-mentioned treaty, and the establishment of the embassy of the United Kingdom in Budapest, Harmicad utca (which was probably under the observation of the Hungarian secret police) and the restart of the British Council’s activity. In 1987, a new treaty was signed by the Ministry of Education and the British Council. It included details of scientific, cultural and educational co-operation.

The British Council has been mentioned above several times. It also had a significant role in establishing and developing Anglo-Hungarian relationships. But what is, in fact, the British Council?

It is often called a “quango”, which means a “quasi non-governmental organisation.” (“Non-governmental organisation”, or NGO is “civil szervezet” in Hungarian.) This QNGO specialises in international educational and cultural developments. It was founded in 1934 and now it extends to 233 locations in 233 different countries.

The idea of the foundation of the BC came up in the 1920s on the part of an influential group of civil servants in the Foreign Office who felt the need for an organisation responsible for the promotion of British culture in the fields of education, science and technology. The reason for this was that after the First World War Britain felt the weakening of her power in the Empire. Instead of applying military force or classical colonial power (“hard power”) she choose to transform this into domination through cultural diplomacy (“soft power”). Another aspect of the foundation of the BC was the aim to spread British culture and its values of liberal parliamentary democracy to halt the rising tide of Fascism and dictatorships in general.

The geographical priorities of the BC were first extended to the Middle East and Latin America. Significantly, the Foreign Office prohibited the operation of the BC in the USA, learning the lesson from the USA’s sensitivity to British propaganda activities during the First World War. Only after the Japanese attack of Pearl Harbor (1941) was it possible for the BC to extend its influence there.

The founder of the BC was Sir Reginald “Rex” Leeper (1888-1968), who entered the Foreign Office in 1920 and worked for the News Department. In 1930-31, he persuaded his colleagues of the necessity of “cultural propaganda” and arranged lecture tours in nearly 30 countries to raise donations. In 1934, the British Committee for Relations with Other Countries was set up, which later changed its name to the British Council for Relations with Other Countries, BC for short.

Although the BC was set up by and was partly financed by the Foreign Office, the BC has its own Chairman and Committee. Today, it has a total income of £550 million. It receives about £200 million from the government, the rest comes from teaching, examination fees and the revenues of publications, and donations.

The BC first worked through the British embassies and High Commissions of foreign countries. It appointed its first overseas representative in 1938 to Egypt, then established representatives in Portugal, Poland and Romania.

During the Second World War, much of its staff was evacuated from European countries. Meanwhile, centres were set up in Britain to provide educational and cultural services for refugees.

In the 1950s, due to the reduction of its overseas network, the decline of the government funding and the political tensions caused by the Cold War, and some controversy about what the BC’s task exactly was, the BC relocated much of its activity to African and Asian countries. It also replaced its practice to send British teachers to teach English in these areas, rather it concentrated on the training of local teachers.

The period between the 1960s and 80s was marked by ups and downs and longer or shorter crises in the history of the BC. In 1963, Great Britain failed to join the European Economic Community (the predecessor of the EU), mainly because of the protest of the French. It was interpreted by many as the lack of the lobby force of the BC and its neglect in relationship building. In 1976, the whole foreign policy of the UK was reviewed; the so-called Berrill Report recommended the outright abolition of the BC and the entire closure of the overseas network (obviously also due to the economic crisis of the 1970s). Because of the tense political situation, the BC was forced to withdraw from Iran (after the Islamist revolution), from Afghanistan (after its invasion by the Soviet Union) and Lebanon in the 1970s and 80s.

The BC had to revitalise its activities after 1989, when the Central-Eastern European countries replaced communism for democratic systems. There was a quick and huge need for English teachers and the BC was more than willing to help. Since then, the co-operation of Hungary (and our neighbours) and the BC has been unbroken and is manifested in language teaching, the preparation of teachers of English, the organisation of conferences and meetings, launching projects, donating books, granting scholarships and so on.

Sources and Recommended Reading

Abádi-Nagy Zoltán. “Anglisztika és amerikanisztika a mai Magyarországon.” Anglisztika és amerikanisztika: Magyar kutatások az ezredfordulón. Szerk. Frank Tibor and Károly Krisztina. Bp, Tinta Kiadó, 2009: 13-32.

Arday Lajos: „Great Britain’s policies in Eastern Europe.” AFT[footnoteRef:1] (20) 1989: 25-47. [1: Angol Filológiai Tanulmányok (KLTE, Debrecen)]

Arday Lajos: Az Egyesült Királyság és Magyarország: Nagy-Britannia és a magyar-angol kapcsolatok a 20. században. Budapest: Mundus, 2005.

Bán András: Nagy-Britannia és Magyarország, 1938-1941: Illúziók és csalódások. Budapest: Osiris, 1998.

Bánhegyi Zsolt: „Sir John Bowring, a magyar nyelv és irodalom barátja.” In: Magyar Tudomány, 2004/4

Beretczky Ágnes: „Magyar-brit kapcsolatok 1848-tól napjainkig.” Századok, 2004 (138. évf.), 6. sz. 1431-9. old.

Beretczky Ágnes: Scotus Viator és Macartney Elemér. Magyarország-kép változó előjelekkel, 1905-1945. Budapest: Akadémiai, 2005.

Ernyey Gyula, szerk. Britain and Hungary: Essays and Studies. Budapest: University of Craft and Design, 1999.

Fest Sándor. “Székfoglaló beszéd a debreceni egyetemen.” In: Fest, Skóciai Szent Margittól…, pp. 495-502.

Fest Sándor: Skóciai Szent Margittól a Walesi bárdokig. Magyar-angol történeti és irodalmi kapcsolatok. Szerk: Czigány Lóránt és Korompay H. János. Budapest: Universitas, 2000.

Gál István: „The British travel diary of Sándor Bölöni Farkas, 1831.” AFT (3) 1967: 23-48.

Gál István: Magyarország és az angolszász világ. Budapest: Argumentum, 2005.

Gergely András: Széchenyi eszmerendszerének kialakulása. Budapest: Akadémiai, 1972.

Gömöri György: „Az angolok magyarságképe VIII. Henriktől I. Györgyig.” Hogyan látjuk egymást? – Látjuk-e egymást (Közép-) Európában? Hollandiai Mikes Kelemen Kör, 43. Tanulmányi Napok. Hága: Mikes International, 2004: pp. 16-27.

Gömöri György: Angol-magyar kapcsolatok a 16-17. században. Budapest: Akadémiai, 1989.

Halász Gábor: „A fiatal Széchenyi.” Nyugat, 1934/10-11.

Haraszthy Éva: „Széchenyi and Engand.” New Hungarian Quarterly (25) 1967: 156-164.

Jankovics József: „A Hungarian traveller in late seventeenth century England.” AFT (7) 1973: 87-102.

Kunszabó Ferenc: Itt alkotni, teremteni kell. Széchenyi István eszmevilága. Budapest: Magvető, 1983.

Maller Sándor: „Az egykönyvű író?” (Bevezető tanulmány Bölöni Farkas Sándor Utazás Nyugat-Európában c. művéhez)

Molnár Judit és Pálffy István: „The intellectual contacts of Debrecen, the ’capital’ of Eastern Hungary with England in the 17th and 18th centuries.” AFT (18) 1985: 23-34.

N. Szabó József: Magyar kultúra – egyetemes kultúra. Magyarország kultúrdiplomáciai törekvései, 1945-48. Budapest: Akadémiai, 1998.

Országh László: „Anglomania in Hungary, 1780-1900.” AFT (12) 1979: 19-36.

Országh László: „Magyar utazók Angliában 1842-ben.” AFT (3) 1938: 112-132.

Péter Ágnes: „Egy romantikus mítosz nyomában (Shelley, Vörösmarty és Hölderlin)” Happy Returns. Essays for Professor István Pálffy. Debrecen, 1999.

Rácz István: „Shelley’s reception in Hungary.” AFT (18) 1985: 59-70.

Reichard Piroska: „Babits angol irodalmi tanulmányai.” Nyugat, 1924/7.

Sarbu Aladár. “Crisis in English?” HUSSE Papers. Vol. 1: Literature and Culture. Debrecen, 1995: 9-18.

Sarbu Aladár. “Declining English? Some Recent Anxieties.” The Study of Literature. Bp: Akadémiai, 2008: 355-365.

Sarbu Aladár. “The Study of English and American Literature: Hungarian Orientations.” The Study of Literature. Bp: Akadémiai, 2008: 325-354.

Sárközi Mátyás, szerk.: Hungaro-Brits: the Hungarian Contribution to British Civilisation. London, S.N., 2000.

Szász Imre. Ménesi út: regény és dokumentumok. Bp: Magvető, 1985. [about the Eötvös College]

Turóczi-Trostler József: „Babits és az európai irodalom története. A renaissance és felvilágosodás között.” Nyugat, 1935/10.

Virágos K. Zsolt et al. “The Life and Work of László Országh (1907-1984): A Round Table.” HJEAS 4.1-2. (1998): 367-406.