A hundred years on, the last few decades of the 19th century in Hungary seem to be a period full of paradoxes. The country was poised on the threshold of a new age; eager for renewal, yet still clinging to its traditions;
desiring independence, yet remaining in a state of dependency. On 8 June 1867, the Emperor Franz Joseph was crowned King of Hungary in the historic Matthias Church in Buda. This put an end to the feud between the Habsburgs and the Hungarian nation that had gone on for three and a half centuries. On 30 May 1867, a week before this symbolic event took place, a treaty was signed between Austria and Hungary, officially referred to as the
"Compromise",^^ which legally united the two countries in a dual state, the
"kaiserliche und königliche" monarchy of Austria-Hungary. Not only did the new state share the same king, it also shared the same ministries for Foreign Affairs, Defcnce and Finance and had a common e c o n o m y . ^
The architect of this treaty was the clever practitioner of realpolitik Ferenc Deák (1803-76) who, with great pragmatic insight and persistent political arguments, carried through (his still controversial and frequently criticized act. Most h i s t o r i a n s ^ today, however, acknowledge that given the tense political and social situation during the period that followed the 1848 Revolution, a compromise with Austria was the only realistic solution.
The long, hard struggle for freedom started on 15 March 1848 as a bloodless revolution. The February Revolution in Paris led surprisingly quickly to one further east. But whereas the political revolt in France was inspired by a social, even a socialist idea, the equivalent revolt in Hungary could best be described as a national uprising. The year-long struggle for freedom was to cost the land dear. Sándor Petőfi (1823-49) fell at the Battle of Segesvár. The intellectual and military leaders of the revolution were brutally executed. The life of General Artúr Görgey (1818-1916) was spared, though, after diplomatic intervention; he was let off with banishment to a small village in Austria. Lajos Kossuth (1802-94), the leader of the independent Hungarian government, fled the country, together with a number of leading political activists, including Ferenc Pulszky (1814-97).
Severe punishment of the insubordinate Hungarian nation now followed.
Between 1849 and 1867 - the so-called Bach Period named after Alexander Bach (1811-93), the Austrian Minister for Home Affairs - the country's intellectual and political temperature sank to below freezing-point.
During these difficult years, when the Austrian bureaucracy and police kept a close watch on the Hungarians, several attempts were made to restore the country's political existence, but both diplomatic and military initiatives failed because of the lack of interest displayed by the European great powers.
Although Kossuth won a great deal of sympathy during his political Odyssey to England and the United States, the huge waves of emotional support did not really result in much practical help.
But what kind of political solution was possible, given Hungary's situation? There were only two realistic possibilities. The first was to retain the old constitution of 1847, based on the so-called "Pragmatic Sanction" of 1713, which affirmed the indivisible "Gesamtmonarchie" with a joint ruler, who was, however, required to respect Hungarian law. The second possiblity was based on the "April Laws" of 1848, according to which Hungary's constitutional relationship with Austria was to be maintained, but with an accountable Hungarian Prime Minister as leader of an independent Hungarian parliament. A third, but unimplementable solution was proposed by the emigres, led by Kossuth. They wanted complete autonomy, in accordance with the Declaration of Independence of 14 April 1848. The conservative, pro-Habsburg aristocracy preferred to return to the conditions that prevailed before 1848, as though the revolution had never taken place.
Finding himself between these two flanks, Ferenc Deák opted to carry through the above-mentioned treaty, which was based on the "Pragmatic Sanction" and which included an accountable, Hungarian prime minister, as proposed in the "April Laws".
Yet it was far from everyone who thought the establishment of the Dual Monarchy a satisfactory solution to Hungary's political situation after the failure of the War of Independence of 1848-49. The "constitutional and parliamentary autonomy" within the monarchy that formed the cornerstone of the treaty was regarded by the treaty's opponents as an insult to the nation.
The question of national sovereignty continued to be a very sensitive issue.
Two distinct fronts were created, closely linked to partisanship for or against the treaty, which were to have a strong influence on political consciousness for many years to come. This 'for-or-against' attitude was almost an automatic reflex that reacted with small twitches to all irritations brought on by political and cultural developments - no matter how trivial each one might be. But the treaty was a reality and Hungary had to learn to live with Austria. In the last analysis, the treaty was responsible for the sudden awakening from the dreams of freedom, for the realisation that the time was more than ripe for self-examination and for a review of the country's relationship with the rest of Europe. The vulnerable, antagonistic,
Map of Hungary as it looked in 1867. Croatia and Slovenia are included.
intellectual atmosphere led indirectly to a steadily increasing interest in affairs and events outside the borders of Hungary.
T h e political changes could not help but affect the whole of society. T h e parliamentary system that formed part of the treaty created a basis for a bourgeois-liberal society. Of course, this tendency was already apparent in 1848, but after the treaty the process speeded up. With the growing industrialisation, the brisk construction of roads and railways and the bold entrepreneurial spirit, agriculture was suddenly pushed down into second place. As a result of the changes in the economic base, the proportion of workers involved in agriculture declined from 75% of the labour force in 1869 to 64% in 1910, while the proportion of those involved in industry grew from 10% to 2 3 . 3 % .1 8
The property-owning aristocracy managed to acquire a powerful position for themselves in the new, capitalist development. No self-respecting bank or industrial concern could do without an aristocratic-sounding surname on its board. However, it was a time of decline for the Hungarian peasantry - the two million peasant families and three and a half million so-called agrarian proletarians who formed the majority of the Hungarian population. They found it increasingly difficult to make ends meet. Small farmers and smallholders simply had to stop trying to make a living out of agriculture.
For many of them an enforced move to a town or emigration to America was a last desperate attempt to keep body and soul together. Entire villages in Hungary were depopulated at the turn of the century.
But the strongest ferment and the biggest social unrest could be observed in the rapidly growing middle class, the actual nucleus of which was formed by the lower reaches of the aristocracy and the landed gentry. This so-called 'historical middle class', which had formed Hungary's middle class during the 1848 Revolution, began to use the English term 'gentry' to describe themselves in the 1870s. By doing this they hoped to draw a distinction between themselves, with their inherited, aristocratic rights, and the increasingly powerful, new bourgeois middle class. At this time the gentry were already in debt and had sunk into partial social dccline; by the end of the century they had to put up with leading a middle class existence in the towns, without the financial security they had previously enjoyed as landowners. As a result of this social descent, the gentry had to apply for posts in the newly created administration and received, by way of consolation, several leading posts in the ministries and in the state administration.
Queen Elisabeth, dressed in deep mourning, lays a wreath on the catafalque of Ferenc Deák, while an angel (the genie of time) casts an illuminating glow over the dead statesman, who implemented a treaty between Austria and Hungary. The ribbons on the wreath symbolise the interdependence of the Dual Monarchy. (Painting by Mihály Zichy)
The actual bourgeois middle class was a veritable hotchpot of people. T h e Hungarian bourgeoisie was a melting pot that absorbed individuals with very different social and racial backgrounds. The wealthiest and most numerous minority groups were the Germans (Schwabians) and the Jews. In 1868 parliament passed a resolution that gave equal rights to all citizens, whatever their nationality or religion. This resolution led to an increased flow of people into the capital, especially of those belonging to the Jewish minority.
In 1870 there were approximately 45,000 Jews in Budapest, but by 1890 the number had risen to 1 0 2 , 0 0 0 . ^ The process of assimilation took place very quickly, though not always, of course, without problems. In the last quarter of the 19th ccntury, second and third generation Jews became both linguistically and culturally assimilated. It would be wrong, though, to regard this element of the population as an economically, socially or culturally homogeneous, integrated group. Nevertheless, these young members of the bourgeoisie soon realized their strength and in many areas they became the leaders of f a s h i o n . T h e y were born freethinkers with a great deal of sympathy for political radicalism and it seemed natural to them to seek inspiration from abroad, especially from Western Europe where the middle classes had stronger traditions and a more solid background.
Thus, in the wake of the treaty, a vigorous middle class emerged, which quickly established itself as consumers and producers of literature. In the twenty years between 1870 and 1890, a Hungarian intelligentsia grew up, which was both interested and active in literature. The earlier link between membership of the aristocracy and level of education was quickly disintegrating. The aristocratic landed gentry had gradually lost its earlier patent on culture. T h e dissemination of literature was no longer a lofty national duty but a more down-to-earth, practical question of profitability and economic interests.
Budapest played a leading role in every aspect. In 1872 the twin towns of Buda and Pest were joined together. This wonderful capital city on both banks of the Danube, which took away the breath of foreign visitors, succeeded within the space of a few years in becoming the country's financial centre and the unrivalled focus of intellectual life. T h e area around Budapest was still unusually varied as far as the nationality of its people was concerned. But by 1867 72% of its population spoke Hungarian.2 1 As mentioned above, two new ethnic groups were particularly prominent in the demographic composition of the city: the German administrators who had been moved to Hungary after the crushing of the 1848 Revolution, and the immigrants of Jewish extraction. Both of these 'foreign' elements helped swell the size of the reading public. Many of the 'newcomers' were absorbed
into the city's intellectual middle class, which was strongly differentiated, not just in terms of social and national origins but also as far as age and educational background were concerned. The older generation had a thorough grounding in German, while the younger generation tried to close their ears to anything in that language. The language hung on, however, in spite of this political aversion.
So what did this intellectual middle class read? As consumers, they had their own needs that could best be catered for by newspapers, periodicals and monthly magazines. There had never been such a profusion of these organs, encompassing such a comprehensive range of subjects, as there was in this period. And who wrote this wide-ranging, varied material? This too was done by the intellectual middle class. A circle of writers belonging to the dccaycd gentry class, who might be described as intellectual proletarians, were particularly prominent on the literary and cultural magazines.
There is a reason why these periodicals were the favourite reading material of the Hungarian public. Literary publications were one of the most effective channels for communicating the idea of liberalism. To the Hungarians in the 1870s, the concept of liberalism was associated with a free, independent nation rather than with a free, independent i n d i v i d u a l . ^
Most magazines o f t h a t period maintained the 18th century tradition of regarding its most important function as that of informing the reading public. The material was presented in a didactic form; as in The Spectator, the readers were supposed to learn "after their reading what to think",23 they should first and foremost learn how to relate the foreign material to the Hungarian reality. Everything could be both written and read in a transposed Hungarian context.
Naturally, there were differing views in the active generation of authors as to how the liberal, cultural policy of the age should be implemented. But notwithstanding these divergent opinions, all agreed that literature should be made to perform a new, demanding task, the essence of which was that national romanticism should make way for a committed, realistic literature, in harmony with modern European trends. In other words, the isolated national literature should now enter into a fruitful dialogue with 'world literature'. The 1870s generation were convinced that their positivist liberalism was the only real way forward. There was ferment in these literary activists and "they saw themselves as the men of the f u t u r e " . ^ With a fine sense of topicality, the literary avant-garde of the period had noted the changed function of literature in their journals. While they wrote their deeply felt, programmatic articles, they kept an eye on the literary stage of Europe.
T h e most obvious route to contacts with Western Europe was via Vienna, but this direct link turned out to be not always traversible. The antipathy towards the Imperial City that had developed over the centuries forced the Hungarians to seek alternative routes, especially in the period immediately after the treaty. The channel through which Hungarian intellectuals received their information and new impulses was thus not Vienna, as one might have expected. Political aversion drove them to Berlin, to the power centre of Wilhelm II and Bismarck, which experienced a dynamic development after the Peace Treaty of 1871. In just under ten years, up to the end of 1880, it had grown into a city of a million inhabitants. The Hungarians' orientation towards Berlin in the last quarter of the 19th century was of crucial importance to the way in which Georg Brandes was received. That Brandes aroused the interest of the 1870s generation was by no means accidental. The
"intellectual deafness to outside influences" of which Brandes had accused Denmark, was read in Hungary in a specific context of experience that was a natural consequence of the contemporary situation of the Hungarian readers.