OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search

The text below might contain errors as it was reproduced by OCR software from the digitized originals,
also available as Scanned original in PDF.

BOX-FOLDER-REPORT: 31-1-258
TITLE:             Polemics Among Hungarian Critics Over Russian Novel
BY:                
DATE:              1960-4-30
COUNTRY:           Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  Hungarian Unit
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1956-1965, Cultural Policy, Hungary--Literature

--- Begin ---

"E" DISTRIBUTION - 450	30 APRIL 1960

RFE EVALUATION AND ANALYSIS DEPARTMENT

Background Report
Hungarian Unit

POLEMICS AMONG HUNGARIAN CRITICS OVER RUSSIAN NOVEL

A dissenting voice has appeared among Hungarian critics
of the Russian novel "The Brothers Jersov" by Vladimir Kochetov.
Hungarian literary critic Perenc Botka wrote in the February 1960
issue of "Nagyvilag" that Hungarian critics were superficial in
their almost unanimous praise of the book which was published in
Hungarian in May 1959.

"The Brothers Jersov" is recognized in the West as an
"antidote" for Dudintsev's book "Not by Bread Alone" and as such
was warmly praised by most Communist literary publications.
Among Hungarian papers only that of the Education Ministry,
"Konyvbarat", No.8, which has a rather small circulation,
criticized weaknesses in the content and construction of the book.

Then, in the February issue of the well-known literary
journal "Nagyvilag" Ferenc Botka turned strongly against the
praises of the Hungarian reviewers and condemned the "schematism"
of the novel, Botka's stand raised a fuss among the reviewers.
"Nagyvilag" published three articles in its April issue, two of
them attacking Botka and one criticizing Kochetov, Thus it seems
that a fairly widespread debate is developing over Kochetov's
novel in Hungary, a debate which is swinging over from the
literary into the political field.

The "Poetry of Soviet Reality"

Kochetov's novel was published in Hungary half a year
after it appeared in the Soviet Union, on the occasion of the
"Book-Week Festival". The general tone of the Hungarian reviews
was set by "Elet es Irodalom" (29 May 1959) in an article nearly
one page long which praised the novel unreservedly.

With a wide social cross-section, the description of
countless individual destinies and persons, the novel is
a faithful mirror of Soviet reality. Kochetov's message
is clear, determined and passionate; he does not hide
the fact that his novel too is an active position taken
in a struggle, the soundness and efficiency of which was
already confirmed by the Third Congress of Soviet
Writers... It is never schematic, rigid or one-sided.
(Eva Millok).

"Esti Hirlap" (2 June 1959) tops these praises:

[page 2]

HUNGARIAN BACKGROUND REPORT, 30 April 1960

Kochetov's sole concern is to observe Soviet life...
He observes it and puts it on paper. And it becomes
clear that this life, even in its most usual everyday
form, is a hymn, is poetry. The poetry of truth. Of
a truth which gives evidence of human greatness,
intelligence and creative force... There is no truth more
poetic and no poetry more truthful than this. (Katalin
Imre).

Why this unanimous enthusiasm which even surpasses that of the
Soviet reviews? "Falusi Vasarnap" (7 June 1959) reveals also
this:

The picture Kochetov presents us is moving. And it is
also a very good reminder. In other surroundings, under
otherconditions,the same as those in the southern
iron-working town described, history has formed cadres...
In the framework of a southern Russian town, Kochetov
shows the atmosphere of the 1955-56 "thaw" and those
strange personalities who cropped up suddenly at that
time and who, in order to live their own parasitic lives
at the expense of the workers let their instincts run
wild, and did not choose their means... The man of the
epoch speaks here to the readers of the epoch. And the
moral to be drawn is so evident; the strength of the
intriguers is great, they can also be victorious for a
short time - trouble-mongerIng and the unworthy dragging
of men in the mud can be pursued with artistic perfection,
but finally Justice will prevail. (Foldes).

The "Tarsadalnd Szemle" review (August-September 1959) holds that
the chief merit of the novel is the exposure of the "revisionist
petty-bourgeois". Apart from the truly critical article of
"Konyvbarnt" only Istvan Gabor, the reviewer of "Magyar Nemzet",
risked mentioning also the stylistic weaknesses of the book, which,
however, he attributes mainly to the translator, Iren Institoris.

Hungarian Criticism Called Superficial

"Nagyvilag", February 1960, published Ferenc "Botka's review
("Once Again About the Brothers Jersov") which attacked above all
the Hungarian reviewers of the novel. The author of the article,
as a kind of defense, compares in the first place the reviews
published in Soviet periodicals with the Hungarian panegyrics.

Hungarian "criticism" is full of easy, and often
superficial praise, and thus, the reviews attribute "merits" to
Kocheiiv for which he is condemned by Soviet reviewers.
He was also praised for virtues which do not exist in
the novel...

Eotka acknowledges the "combative and pure idealism" of the novel.
but holds it to be a second-rate work from the point of view of
artistic creation.

[Page 3]

HUNGARIAN BACKGROUND REPORT, 30 April 1960

The artist's message was not toned down to even epic
proportions. The polemicist is present, the pamphlet
character led unintentionally to distortions...
Distortions in the descriptions of negative figures can
be attributed to the lack of sufficient knowledge and
vistas... The figure of Orleantsve and also the
symptoms of revisionism presented in the novel, in the
first place in their appearances and compared to their
importance, are strongly distorted. Orleantsev becomes
a common intriguer; revisionism, on the other hand,
becomes simply the venture of an untalented
artist-careerist... In fighting schematism, Kochetov's novel
falls into the mistake of a special kind of
"counter-schematism". While a part of earlier Soviet literature
was characterized by the fact that positive figures were
artificial, in his case schematism went over to the other
extreme...

And to conclude the attack against the Hungarian reviewers;

The true significance of "The Brothers Jersov" became
clear during the courageously conducted, comradely
Soviet debate following its publication. Hungarian
criticism unfortunately did not always approach these
heights. It was often superficial and erroneous: but
mostly it only nodded in agreement. It did not debate.

The Debate Develops

The critics flared out in protest against Botka's article,
especially those who had written favorable reviews. Comments
published in "Nagyvilag", April 1960, openly attacked Botka's
stand-point from the political point of view with the exception of a
short comment by Janos Elbert who condemns Kochetov. The first
contributor, Ferenc Hajdu, asks without hesitation, Why was
Kochetov's book praised by the Hungarian reviewers:

I am unable to agree with Botka's reasoning. He most
passionately holds that Hungarian criticism should state
clearly that Kochetov exaggerates the danger of
revisionism. This assumption, debatable in itself and also
debated, is even able to stand on its own in Hungarian
criticism. "The Brothers Jersov" reveals the activities
of the revisionists after the 20th Congress. And if the
revisionist attack in the Soviet Union was perhaps not
as dangerous as Kochetov presented it, let us not forget
that in our country, it led to armed counter-revolution.
Therefore, to demand in our country what Botka demands
in his article - however good his intentions -
inevitably adds grist to the mill of apolitical bourgeois
aestheticism.

Katalin Imre, reviewer of "Esti Hirlap", distorts Botka's article
completely. In her review Botka demanded that the Hungarian

[page 4]

HUNGARIAN BACKGROUND REPORT, 30 April 1960 

reviewers accept the viewpoints of the Soviet critics, some of
whom condemned the "book. According to Imre, the fact that the
Hungarian reviews praised the book, in contrast to the Soviet
critics, proves that Hungarian criticism was not merely "nodding
in agreement" "but was "forming its opinion independently";

The last article of the series, and undoubtedly the best, was
written by Janos Elbert, entitled "The One Who Sows a Debate,
Reaps a Debate".

Kochetov's book is a polemical novel; it takes up a
lively debate with two previously published Soviet
literary works: "Thaw" by Ilya Ehrenburg, also known
in Hungary, and "Not by Bread Alone" by Vladimir
Dudintsev, whose work is only known by its reputation
in our country. The acceptance of the task of polemics
determines almost naturally the outline of the novel's
subject, the direction of its development, determines its
pattern - and also its schematism... The other reason
for the writer's failure is not to be found in his
descriptive method, but in his false'
portrayal... Ehrenburg idealizes and Kochetov demonizes
revisionism which appears as a concomitant of the times
following Stalin's death and the 20th Congress. Ehrenburg
describes the melting snow with smooth, warm colors in
"Thaw", Kochetov sees the same as gray slush and describes
it with dark colors. But the most important thing
escapes the attention of both: spring.

End

  OSA / Guide / RIP / 1956 / RFE/RL Background Reports : Subjects | Browse | Search