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: 34-5-159
TITLE:             Power and Letters in Hungary
BY:                Gyula Borbandi
DATE:              1970-4-16
COUNTRY:           Hungary
ORIGINAL SUBJECT:  Hungary/11
THEMATIC SUBJECTS: Hungary--1966-1975, Hungary--Literature, Freedom of Speech

--- Begin ---

RADIO FREE EUROPE Research

EAST EUROPE 

This material was prepared for the use of the
editors and policy staff of Radio Free Europe.

• HUNGARY/11
16 April 1970

POWER AND LETTERS IN HUNGARY

Summary: During the past decade, Hungarian writers
and the Budapest regime have established a modus
Vivendi which has given the writers a greater degree
of freedom than that enjoyed by their follow authors
in the other Warsaw Pact countries and in the USSR.
These writers are conscious of the advantages this
situation provides and try to exploit it to obtain as
much freedom as possible without upsetting the
applecart and bringing down upon their own heads a
return to the repressive controls of former years.

x x x

Some years ago, a British author wrote in notes on his
travels in Hungary, that the Hungarian author plays a role in
his homeland similar to that of Cardinal Wyszynski in Poland.
That is, the Hungarian writer embodies, exactly as does the
Polish primate, many of the popular wishes and yearnings. And
authors in Hungary enjoy as great a reputation and as broad a
popularity as does the prince of the church in Warsaw. Janos
Kadar can as easilly get along without the writers as Gomulka
can without the cardinal. Each must accept the other, must
recognize one another's existence, must take each other's
power into account, and in fact, must engage in controversy. 1)

This comparison is a pertinent one and one which is
still valid for the present day as well. Yet it would be
wrong to believe that the Hungarian men and women of letters
represent a compact entity, and that the above parallel applies
to all Hungarian writers. The Hungarian authors not only differ in
------------------------------
1) Anthony Rhodes, Encounter, London, October, 1961.

[page 2]

their artistic expression, their style, their working methods,
but also differ in their attitude to the given social structure,
and in their views about the government's cultural-political
decisions.

Nevertheless, observations show us that, in spite of this
qualification, there is a common denominator uniting them all.
Those who are promiment and talented in Hungarian literature,
the big names in present day Hungarian cultural life, as well as
the young artists, all, taken as a whole, share a comparable
approach to the basic problems of the nation. All, taken together,
offer a significant opposite pole, as it were, to power. This
is not so much because all the writers necessarily find themselves
in opposition to the government on all issues. Rather it is
this way because they, perhaps without wishing it themselves,
offer an alternative. That is, at critical moments, when the
so-called average citizen seeks orientation and guidance, the
writers are there to offer just this to the people, to their
public. the readers and followers of their work. In that way,
they constitute an alternative to power.

More than once in the history of Hungary have the
writers fulfilled this function of guides. Perhaps it is an
indication of the unhealthy political life of a country when
its writers must come to grips with problems that actually are
the province of the politicians, economic experts and journalists.
The fact is, however, that many a Hungarian writer and poet
continually offers a more pertinent, realistic, persuasive and
understandable answer to important political, sociological,
economic and cultural-political questions than do some experts in
the craft of politics. To this very day, this situation has hardly
changed. Accordingly, the people have from time immemorial tended
to trust men of letters more than men of politics. The old tradition
of the engaged, committed poet is still alive today, and is
evident in many areas. One expects the writers to offer an
alternative to an official policy that the popular will rejects.
The writers are expected to come up with an understandable,
sympathetic and convincing solution and to suggest it to the
people at large. Rightly or wrongly, it has become the custom
to count among the attributes that are called those of a "good"
author a concern about the future, and a degree of social and
of political engagement. The nation expects of its poets what it
does not get from its politicians. The writer is to be a prophet
rather than an entertainer. He is supposed to concern himself
more with right thinking and acting than with beauty of
expression. Now this situation leads many writers to choose the
easier way, that is, to involve themselves more deeply with the
message than with its form. That is why there were, and are,
so many literary works that, in fact, have no serious artistic

[page 3]

merit, yet evoke considerable repercussions and ensure their
author widespread esteem. There are only a few writers who can
combine significant and profound messages with a high artistic
level of presentation.

The general literary climate in today's Hungary is 
determined by two factors. One is concerned with the ideological
and literary-political attitude of the Communist Party and of
the state which it governs. The other factor is the efforts of
the writers to attain freer expression for their personal
talents.

The role of the Hungarian writers during the 1956 
revolution is universally known. They were held responsible for the
intellectual preparation that preceded the popular uprising, and
some of them had to go to prison, were interned, or suffered
other penalties for their attitudes and deeds. But the Party
and the government soon saw that, without the co-operation of
the intellectuals, nothing could be done and the restoration
process would have come to a halt. Then, during the process of
the general liberalization and relaxation, the intellectual
climate, too, became milder. Once all the writers had regained
their freedom, literary life came back to normal. The Writers'
Union, disbanded after the uprising, was organized anew. The
Hungarian branch of PEN resumed its activity, and the literary
journals, too, Were able to appear once more. The decisive year,
the turning point, was 1962. It is from this year that one
can date the start of a new literary era. More important than
the activity of the Workers' Union and the PEN Club is the high
level maintained and the popularity enjoyed, by the leading
journals. There have never been so many and such varied literary
periodicals in Hungary as there are today, and never before
have their circulations been as large as are those of the
contemporary cultural journals. 2) These journals have gained
new circles of readers and have awakened the interest of both
the older and younger generations in men of letters.
------------------------------
2) The two largest literary periodicals appearing in Budapest
are called Kortars (Contemporaries) and Uj Iras (New Writing).
Kritika specializes in publishing literary-historical
discussions (as does Helikon) and reviews. Nagavilag (The
Wide World) concerns itself with world literature, and
publishes significant Western works in the Hungarian
language. Valosag (Reality) is a sociological Journal, but
prints interesting literary material. Vigilia is a Catholic
literary and religious journal. In the provinces, Alfold
(Depths), Tiszataj (The Theiss Area), and Jelenkor (Now) , are
published, all specializing in presenting local interests.

[page 4]

The Communist Party and the government remain as true
today as ever to the basic idea of socialist realism. But the
concept has undergone further alteration during the 1960s. It
has been adjusted to the changing ideology and to general
political developments. The officials in charge of formulating
policies governing literature and the arts have constantly
tried so to word the requirements that there would be a place
for everybody under the umbrella called socialist realism --
that is, a place for everyone for whom one wanted, for strategic
or tactical reasons, to ensure a place. The arguments about
socialist realism that churned up waves in some "socialist"
lands, and also in the West, never took place in Hungary. 3)
Georgy Lukacs, the one person who would have had something basic to
say about socialist realism, uttered his ideas -- as he has not
been able to do at home for a long time -- principally in
publications abroad. The reason why there was no discussion
worth mentioning in Hungary was largely because nobody attached
much importance to arguing about socialist realism or would
have expected much to come of such a discussion. One simply set
socialist realism to one side and worried about other things.

But the literary and artistic authorities also continue
to demand that the authors write socialist realistic poems,
novels and plays. So socialist realism remains the basic ground
rule for literature, although, in fact, it is rejected by the
overwhelming majority of writers. That is, socialist realism
is indeed insisted upon, but not considered as an absolute
prerequisite for publication. In Party statements, an author's
"socialist" attitude is valued more highly than the degree to
which he sticks to the regulations about form and content.
Today, indeed, the authorities are satisfied if the author
proclaims no anti-socialist ideas, and if his work is not openly
hostile to the regime.

The new declarations and theoretical writings on the
matter of literary directions are concerned less with the
demand for socialist realism, and more with the correct and most
favorable form of orienting Hungarian literature. At the
Writers' Union Congress in November, 1965, the officials present
summarized the results of the deliberations with the declaration
that "between power and the individual, between power and ethics,
conflicts can develop, today as ever, and socialist realism
has no other possibility than to confront these questions." 4)

Two years later, Jozsef Darvas, chairman of the
Hungarian Writers' Union, said that the Party and the government
"regard responsibility for the creative artists as a very serious
thing, and depend on the regulatory role of the critic, as well
as of the ideological-aesthetic discussions." 5)
------------------------------
3) The Kafka debate evoked only a slight echo.

4) Nepszabadsag, 7 November 1965.

5) Ibid., 24 December 1967.

[page 5]

In other words, the authorities do not take administrative
action, but instead seek to implement their views and intentions
in the course of discussions. As early as in 1958, the Hungarian
Socialist Workers' Party stated, as part of its principles
regarding cultural policy, that the Party had no thought of
playing the referee's role in questions of style. A stand was
also taken in this context by the cultural theory working
committee of the Party; its analyses and studies have taken
over, although with lessened consequences, the role formerly
played by Party decisions. The working committee declared that
guidance of literature was to be effected above all "by means
of ideological persuasion and discussion." 6) This same Party
paper argued for a fine differentiation regarding partisanship
in a Party sense; engagement; and decadence. For Party members.
partisanship in a Leninistic sense remains the first law. 7)
Of non-Party members, it is simply expected that there be
support of "socialism" and the existing order. As for 
everything lumped under the term "decadence," battle is to be waged
against it. In theory, it is true, this battle is carried on
by means of persuasion and discussion; in practice, however,
administrative measures are also employed. 8)

It is easy to recognize that the authorities, in their
rejection of, and battle against, so-called decadent and 
"antisocialist" ideas or movements, couple ideological persuasion
and conviction on the one hand, with administrative measures
on the other hand. More precisely, the effort is made to use
"discussions" and "debates" to create a climate within which
it is believed it will later be easier to proceed by means of
administrative orders. This procedure found clear expression
in a statement by a leading Party literary figure. He stated
that "the intentions and measures which come from above are
only effective if they are based on a strong general cultural
opinion." 9)
------------------------------
6) Tarsadalmi Szemle, No. 7-8/1966, p. 53.

7) Ibid., p. 34.

8) Among these administrative measures are a prohibition
against writing, limited right of publication, reduced fee
or royalty, limitation of activity to specified media, e.g.,
only radio or only the provincial press, and in the case of
leading editors, transfer or dismissal.

9) Dezso Toth in Partelet, No. 9/1969.

[page 6]

Gyorgy Aczel, the Central Committee secretary who is
responsible for ideological and cultural affairs, has spoken
of the permanent and of the changing elements in Party
guidance. In his view, the changing elements are an important
part of the guidance. 10) In practice, it would appear that, 
although it is true the principles do not change, the methods
of applying these principles do change, and so do the methods
of interpreting various Party and government regulations. At
one point, these rules will be enforced strictly, dogmatically,
rigorously; at another time, more mildly, liberally.

To this circumstance we can attribute the fact that
Hungarian literary works representing the most varied trends
appear. Official announcements constantly emphasize that even 
authors may be published whose views are remote from
Marxist-Leninist philosophy; moreover, that even writers may be printed
whose works have nothing to do with the government's aesthetic
and cultural ideas -- in both cases, provided that the works
are not politically "hostile." In the statement of the Party's
cultural-theory working committee quoted above the formulation
appears:

Moreover, works which are politically not hostile but
which do possess humanistic values, yet at the same time
are ideologically debatable, and are more or less in
opposition to Marxism, or to socialist realism, may
appear and may be distributed. 11)

This commitment to a liberally applied system of
guidance emerges even more remarkably in an interview with the
above-mentioned Gyorgy Aczel that appeared last autumn in the
Soviet literary weekly Literaturnaya Gazeta. 12) The Central
Committee secretary frankly conceded that, in Hungary, Marxism
claims no monopoly in the realms of ideology and of culture.
The mission of the Party, he continued, consists in ensuring
the preservation of Marxism's existing hegemony and will to
lead. "Whether Marxism holds a monopoly or not, is not a
question of subjective decision, but rather an objective 
consideration." 13)

And, Gyorgy Aczel continued, the key idea behind the
Hungarian Party's concept of freedom is to foster broader
------------------------------
10) Gyorgy Aczel, lecture to the Political Academy of the
Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party, 1968.

11) Tarsadalmi Szemle, No. 7-8/1966, p. 53.

12) In Hungarian: Aczel Gyorgy valaszai a Literaturnaya Gazeta
kerdeseire(Gyorgy Aczel's answers to questions of 
Literaturnaya Gazeta), Tarsadalmi Szemle, October, 1969.

13) Aczel, op. cit. p. 35.

[page 7]

freedom for artistic initiative that serves "socialism." In his
opinion, it is accordingly necessary to let bourgeois-humanistic
artists do creative work. First, because these artists, too,
are in a position to produce valuable work that could become
part of "socialist" culture. Secondly, because the authorities
cannot wage ideological battle against silent dissenters. 14)
It is clear that the Hungarian Party leadership here defends its
standpoint with common sense arguments; nor does it shrink from
advancing such "heretical" attitudes in, of all places, Moscow --
and what is more, in a journal that in no sense could be
described as "liberal."

These utterances alone show that Hungary today pursues
a far more lax and understanding policy toward literature than
do the other Warsaw Pact states. There is no pre-censorship, as
for example in the Soviet Union, in Poland, or in Czechoslovakia.
Every editor, head of a publishing house or stage director is
personally responsible for what appears in his journal, is
printed by his company, or is played on his stage. Moreover,
censorship is not exercised by officials assigned to the Job,
but by the leaders of the cultural institutions. Here we have
the reason why, since 1956, there have been no protests on the
part of the authors in Hungary, as there have been in Poland and
Czechoslovakia, against institutionalized censorship.

It is indicative of the situation in present-day Hungary
that, for some time, no Party resolutions about literary or
artistic matters have been issued. Until about the beginning
of the 1960s, the system still operated via Party decisions.
Since then, the Party has been content to make do with "analyses"
and "statements," which can be discussed. This new way offers
the writer the advantage that he may argue about such policy
lines, and need not recognize them as binding. On the other
hand, these favorable and advantageous innovations are not anchored
in the Party constitution, so that they can far more easily be
withdrawn than if they were integral parts of the Party program.

During the past decade, the Hungarian state has been more
generous than previously in matters involving artistic forms
and methods. Writers enjoy a relative degree of creative freedom,
provided that they conduct themselves as loyal citizens of the
state, and do not bring into question the basic elements of the
existing system. This does not mean, however, that authors must
avoid making any criticism. In today's Hungarian literary world,
there is a strong stream of social and contemporary criticism.
But the criticism may challenge no taboo matters. One such taboo
subject, for example, is the presence of Soviet troops; another,
the "socialist" system of society; again, Hungary's international
alliances; the country's uranium deposits; the top leadership of
Party and government.
------------------------------
14) Aczel, op. cit. p. 34.

[page 8]

Nor are men and women of letters allowed the freedom to
organize. What is tolerated is the existence of various stylistic
trends, the use of varying methods of creative work, the
championship of non-Communist ideas and movements . But a union
of like-minded writers -- unless they are of a school that has
been approved by the government -- is strictly forbidden.
Neither the Populists, nor the Catholics, nor the fans of modern
Western currents, nor the younger generation may coalesce and
appear on the literary scene as a group. These taboos in regard
to choice of theme and to freedom to join together indicate
where the borders of artistic freedom lie; or, respectively,
where compulsion and obstacles begin.

In the past decade, Hungarian writers have been very
cautious and restrained. They do not want to endanger the small
freedoms and possibilities they have won, and they do not wish
to end their peace with the regime. The liberalization and the
thaw in literature have the same limits as the same phenomena
have in political life. The liberalism and the thaw dare not be
extended so far that the authority of the ruling group and of
party ideology -- however these are interpreted -- are called
into question. The writers seek, however, to exploit the existing
situation for their own purposes, and to obtain as much freedom
for themselves as the given possibilities permit.

Gyula Borbandi

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