Éva Standeisky
Hungary in the Early 1960s
Ivor Pink, the British Envoy, Reports
Ivor Pink, the British Minister and Envoy Extraordinary in Budapest, wrote a comprehensive memorandum to the
Foreign Secretary about cultural life in Hungary. In his assessment, which was based on official and informal sources alike,
he tried to find an explanation for the causes behind the events. His paper showed a thorough familiarity with the Hungarian
situation. Sometimes he even noticed interconnections that escaped the attention of most observers of Eastern Europe.
Hungarian analysts usually paid little attention to what was going on in the other satellite states, nor were they
genuinely interested in events taking place in the heart of the empire, unless these had a direct bearing on Hungarian
developments.
[..]
CONFIDENTIAL
(10112)
0.18. |
British legation,
Budapest,
March 22,1963.
|
The Right Honourable, The Earl of Home, K. T., etc.,etc., etc., Foreign
Office, S. W. 1.
My Lord,
I have the honour in this despatch to report on developments in art
and literature in Hungary since the beginning of the period of "Kádár-liberalism"
which followed the 22nd Congress of the Soviet Communist Party in October,
1961. For various reasons, which I shall try to explain, art and literature
in Hungary have not been
greatly affected by the zephyrs and squalls of the cultural wind from
Moscow. The new spirit referred to in Prague despatch No.8 of the 17th
of January had little influence here. This is because the Hungarian intellectuals
are not only allergic to Soviet ideas but have always maintained a wide
degree of independence from Government control. Consequently, the back-pedalling
in the Soviet Union, as reported in Moscow despatch No.4 of the 4th of
January, was not necessary here. The Hungarian communists, for their part,
have been very cautious, indeed negative, in their official attitude to
the arts. This is typified by their reaction to the recent spate of concentration
camp literature. According to a reliable report, "A Day in the Life of
Ivan Denisovich" was only published in a Hunqarian periodical (Nagy világ)
at the insistence of the Soviet Embassy. Later it was printed in a cheap
pocket edition in 13,500 copies-not nearly enough to satisfy the demand.
Similarly, the Editor of Új írás (New Writing)
was reprimanded for publishing József Lengyel's story "From the
Beginning to the End" which also dealt with prison camp life. Then, to
everyone's surprise, Lengyel, who has published little else in recent years,
received a Kossuth prize last week. As reinsurance, and perhaps in the
light of Mr. Khrushchev's recent warning not to overdo de-Stalinisation,
Party periodicals have now turned to criticising Lengyel. Mr. Khrushchev's
views on abstract painting produced little reaction in Hungary, where such
art had never been approved. In any case, Mr Kádár has no
known views on painting. He may well be as much of a Philistine as Mr Khrushchev,
but at least he does not air his views in public. While the authorities
have maintained a consistently orthodox and circumspect attitude to culture,
there has been in practice a moderate degree of liberalisation characterised
mainly by the growth of official cultural relations with the West and by
increased opportunities for certain kinds of Western literature and plays.
2. Hungary's cultural background is Magyar and West European,
not Slav. The attempt, between 1948 and 1956, to substitute Soviet for
Western inspiration failed
completely. The leading role of the intellectuals in the 1956 Revolt
showed that, in spite of intensive propaganda, Hungarian authors and artists
had refused to accept
the culture of their Soviet masters. Immediately after the Revolution
the government tried to control cultural and intellectual developments
by imprisoning or silencing the patriotic writers and by encouraging Muscovite
cultural stooges. But so called socialist art and literature was generally
received with scorn and contempt. Soviet books remained unread and Soviet
plays and films were performed in empty theatres and cinemas. Communist
blandishments, including release from detention and even free trips to
the Soviet Union, failed to make the silenced writers speak up for Socialism.
Those few who accepted the financial and social advantages of return to
work published only non-political work. Even some of the talented young
writers and artists, who at first allowed themselves to be officially lionised,
later turned away from socialist realism.
3. Communist cultural agitation and propaganda, with cheap books,
cinema and theatre tickets, the growth of public and travelling libraries
and national book weeks have, however, increased the public demand for
culture. So in order to satisfy an appetite of their own creation, the
publishing houses and the theatres and cinemas had to turn to the West
for material and to allow their own protegés to produce non-political
works. Apart from the usual European classics, works by English writers
such as John Galsworthy, Graham Greene, C. P. Snow, Somerset Maugham, Muriel
Spark, Kingsley Amis, William Cooper, Agatha Christie and others
have been translated and published in many thousands of copies. In the
theatre, there is a great vogue for Shakespeare, Moliére, Shaw,
O'Neill, Priestley and especially for Tennessee Williams, Arthur Miller,
John Osborne, Shelagh Delaney and other contemporary Western playwrights
who have the double advantage of belonging to the left wing and of depicting
the sordid side of life in the West. Arnerican and West European films
are also chosen mainly for unflattering revelations about life in their
country of origin, e.g. Saturday Night and Sun day Morning A Taste of Honey
A Kind of Loving La Dolce Vita etcetera. Thus plays, films and books by
Western authors have subsidised the empty houses and the unsold printings
of homespun or fraternal socialist realist literature. Painting and sculpture,
on the other hand, remained in the doldrums. There were few foreign exhibitions
of interest and the good Hungarian artists were swamped by a spate of mediocrity.
For years the annual "Academy" exhibition has made communist painting and
sculpture the laughing stock of the artistic world. Musical com-position
remains dominated by the octogenerian Kodaly (sic!) and the ghost of Bartok
(sic!). At the other end of the scale a surprising degree of freedom and
even of political criticism is permitted. For example, there is a political
variety show which specialises in debunking the bureaucracy and Stalinism.
Leading members of the Party patronise it and Mr Kádár himself
was a recent visitor. There is plenty of sex humour in the other variety
theatres and even a rather stately strip tease at the "Budapest"
night club. The Twist and, they tell me, the Madison are all the rage with
the youth who despise the traditional Csardas. (sic!) The weekly political
comic has a regular feature entitled "Down with bureaucracy". All this
is safety valve stuff.
4. In this situation the Party could boast that the writers were
free and claim statistical if not intellectual progress in Hungarian culture.
But the free breezes blowing after the 22nd Congress of the Soviet Communist
Party, and especially Mr Kádár's new "liberalism", set the
Party ideologists quite a problem. Higher living standards, greater personal
liberty, relative freedom of speech, technical exchanges with the West,
were one thing. Unfettered thinking, let alone publishing, was another.
So the intellectuals continued on a tight rein during 1962. Freedom to
live well at home and even to travel abroad and to have limited contacts
with Western culture had to compensate for continued restrictions on what
could be published or exhibited in Hungary. The occasional exception, like
László Németh's play The Journey, was permitted in
order to give the impression of liberalism. Similarly Tibor Dery has been
permitted to travel abroad mainly because he, too, seems to have reconciled
himself to Mr Kádár's brand of liberal Communism. I suspect
that the main reason why the new culture freedom in the Soviet union, about
which we heard so much last year, found little echo in Hungary was official
caution based on bitter experience of what happens when the intellectuals
are given their head. At their 8th Party Congress last November, the Hungarian
communists reiterated Mr Khrushchev's warning that peaceful co-existence
did not extend to ideology. Mr Kádár warned everyone to beware
of the corrupting influence of Western ideas. Új írás
(New Writing), the authoritative literary periodical, wrote at that time
"Imperialist penetration will exist so long as there remains an opening
for imperialist ideology". Mr. Kádár made it clear at the
Congress that his slogan "Those who are not against us are with us" should
not provide this opening. A welder could think petty bourgeois thoughts
with impunity while welding for socialism. But a writer or even a painter
must build socialism with his thoughts.
5. Recent authoritative articles in Új írás
and Pártélet (Party Life) explained that literature must
be entirely and exclusively at the service of socialist evolution: "The
ultimate aim is to develop a form of literature with a uniform socialist
content". It is not sufficient to fight against "bourgeois decadent formalism,
pseudo-modernism
and schematism". Even more dangerous are the philosophy of "the third
road", the theory "that artistic ethics and socialist ethics are two different
conceptions" and
the pernicious idea that "insistence on socialist realism is a step
back in the direction of dogmatism". The Party ideologists are particularly
sensitive to the heresy that
ideology is one thing and art or literature something quite apart.
The Hungarian intellectuals, for their part, seem skilfully to have touched
a sore point in hinting that
socialist realism is related to rightist dogmatism. They have also
won a degree of immunity for themselves. The official line is that the
Party fights opinions not persons. While criticising an artist's work,
they must still try to retain his confidence as a man.
6. In my despatch No.27 'S' of the 17th of April, 1962, I reported
that Mr Kádár's appeal for reconciliation had largely failed
to bring in the intellectuals. This remains true a year later. In this
connection, it is interesting to note that it was only in May 1962 that,
in preparation for last November's Party Congress, a Party Cell was set
up in the potentially dangerous Writers' Federation. According to a recent
press report the cell is far from well established. Work virtually started
only last September, there have been few meetings and even the question
or membership fees has not yet been settled. At recent elections to the
board of the Artists' Federation, nearly all the "Stalinists" were dropped
and replaced by non-party members. Budapest anecdote has it that Nóra
Aradi, the former chairman of the board, who got only eight votes in the
genuine secret ballot, complained that not even her numerous lovers had
voted for her.
7. The Government's preoccupation with the intellectuals reflects
the special position they hold in this country. By historical tradition
they are regarded, particularly in times of national peril, as the true
representatives of the national spirit. Many of them are of Transylvanian
origin and in the late XVI and XVII centuries the Principality of Transylvania
was the only part of Hungary which maintained its national identity and
managed to avoid being occupated either by the Turks or by the
Austrians. After the expulsion of the Turks the intellectuals were
prominent in the various national revolts against the Habsburgs, particularly
in the War of Independence of l848~l849, when the Austrians were obliged
to call in the armies of the Tsar to help them defeat the insurgents. History
repeated itself in 1956, when the nationalist movement; inspired by the
intellectuals, was again defeated by Russian bayonets. It is therefore
not surprising that the present Government should fear their influence
and attempt to diminish it by a combination of the carrot and the stick.
Nor is it surprising that the Government's attempt to impose an alien "socialist"
culture should have had so little success.
8. I am sending copies of this despatch to Her Majesty's Representatives
at Moscow, Warsaw, Prague, Bucharest, Sofia, Belgrade and Vienna.
I have the honour to be, with the highest respect,
My Lord,
Your Lordship's obedient Servant,
Ivor Pink
- Crown copyright material in the Public Record Office, London, reproduced
by permission of the Controller of Her Britannic Majesty's Stationary
Office. FO 371/171/1775.
The British Foreign Office View
Before the Second World War, the British Foreign Office showed
relatively little interest in Eastern Europe. One despatch from the British
minister in Budapest was minuted, "The Budapest Legation lacks all capacity
for condensation, and interesting points are buried in a mass of commonplaces"
(Public Record Office FO
371/18407/R 2783), and other despatches were not minuted at all. Almost
no attention was given to cultural affairs: it was noted of Emil Nagy,
Minister of Justice
in 1923, that "His numerous prosy articles on British institutions
and opinion are strangely lacking in literaty charm" (FO 371/20395/R 153),
but in general art and
literature were regarded as falling outside the Foreign Office's purview.
With the establishment of the Soviet bloc after 1945, however, attitudes
changed. The internal affairs of the Soviet Union's unwilling allies became
a subject of absorbing interest for Cold Warriors, especially as, for all
the talk of monolithic dictatorship, each of the Soviet bloc nations had
their own distinct social, legal, administrative and political arrangements.
And since there was no real autonomous public life, freely reported in
a free press, separate from the orchestrated clog-dancing of the ruling
Communist parties, developments in the artistic and literary sphere came
to be seen as an important indicator of possible shifts in both public
opinion and government policy: certainly much more worth monitoring than
hitherto. The Public Record Office-Britain's National Archive-contains
a number of reports on cultural affairs from legations in Eastern Europe
based, it seems, at least partly on informal conversations with sympathetic
locals at embasy drinks parties and other public occasions. The following
is a report by Ivor Pink (1910-66) who was British minister, later ambassador,
at Budapest from 1961 till 1965. Some readers will remember him as Sir
Ivor Pink: this despatch was written shortly before he received his knighthood.
A. D. Harvey
A. D. Harvey's next book, A Muse of Fire: Literature, Art and
War is soon to be published by the Hambleden Press.
Éva Standeisky,
a historian, is a research fellow at the 1956 Institute in Budapest. Her main field of
research is cultural policy after 1945.
Her most recent book, Az írók és
a hatalom, 1956–1963 (Writers and Power, 1956–1963) was published in 1996.