Old Mythologies and New Nations: Social Discourse in Trianon Hungary By Joseph Kiss-Illés Submitted to Central European University History Department In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts CEU eTD Collection Supervisor: Professor Andras GerĘ Second Reader: Professor Michael Miller Budapest, Hungary 2010 Copyright in the text of this thesis rests in the Author. Copies by any process, either in full or part, may be made only in accordance with the instructions given by the Author and lodged in the Central European Library. Details may be obtained from the librarian. This page must form a part of any such copies made. Further copies made in accordance with such instructions may not be made without the written permission of the Author. CEU eTD Collection i Abstract In the post-Trianon era there were efforts by not only the new nation of Czechoslovakia and the enlarged Romania but also by Hungary to continue asserting their claims by the use of cultural diplomacy. All three engaged in various sorts of propaganda, attempting to put forth an image of their Europeanness to the Western nations. Though these campaigns were directed toward the West, in Hungary there was a necessary need to recreate an identity within the nation. This thesis will seek to find the ways in which Hungary was represented to the West, both from within and by western historians, primarily those in Britain, and the reasons and means by with they were able to utilize a return from the Finno-Ugric origin theory to the Hun myth by the late 1930s. CEU eTD Collection ii Table of contents Table of contents............................................................................................................iii INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... - 1 - CHAPTER 1 THEORETICAL APPROACHES: SITUATIONAL DISCOURSE...... - 6 - Situational Ethnicity............................................................................................... - 6 - Social Discourse..................................................................................................... - 8 - Imagined Communities......................................................................................... - 11 - Situational Discourse............................................................................................ - 14 - CHAPTER 2 UNCERTAIN PAST: THE MALLEABILITY OF HUNGARIAN HISTORIOGRPHY.................................................................................................. - 15 - Gesta Hungarorum ............................................................................................... - 16 - Finno-Ugrian connection ...................................................................................... - 20 - Other Uses of History........................................................................................... - 24 - Conclusion ........................................................................................................... - 26 - CHAPTER 3 REPRESENTATION: IDENTIFYING THE NATION AND THE ‘OTHER’ THROUGH SOCIAL DISCOURSE ....................................................... - 28 - The Changing Discourse....................................................................................... - 29 - The British Discourse ........................................................................................... - 33 - Before 1914...................................................................................................... - 33 - Between 1914-1927.......................................................................................... - 34 - After 1927 ........................................................................................................ - 36 - The Exported Discourse ....................................................................................... - 37 - Conclusion ........................................................................................................... - 40 - CHAPTER 4 BACK TO THE BOOKS: CHANGING THE DISCOURSE THROUGH PUBLIC EDUCATION............................................................................................ - 42 - The Hungarian Social Discourse in Public Education ........................................... - 44 - Late 19th century............................................................................................... - 44 - Early 20th century – 1927.................................................................................. - 47 - 1927 – 1938...................................................................................................... - 51 - CONCLUSION........................................................................................................ - 54 - BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................................... - 57 - Primary Sources ................................................................................................... - 57 - Secondary Sources ............................................................................................... - 58 - CEU eTD Collection iii INTRODUCTION Even today there seems to be no consensus among historians as to the origins of the Magyar people. This is really rather misleading; there is plenty of verifiable evidence, yet it is left open- ended, or rather the question has been re-opened time and again for political purposes. Beginning around the end of the 19th century this uncertainty was utilized for the purpose of identity formation from the top down. The skepticism concerning the Hungarian origins – shrouded in myth and folklore on the one hand, counterbalanced by a scientific, linguistic approach on the other – leaves much room for adapting theories to fit the needs of the situation, as has been done several times throughout the 1100 year history of the Hungarians in their current territory. One question this paper will address is how and why the origin myth was rewritten by historians and politicians, as well as re-contextualized in the public discourse, in the inter-war years in Hungary? In fin-de-siecle Hungary the government – specifically the Ministry of Education – officially turned away from the Hun origin myth as a version of Hungarian ethnic identity and consciously chose to emphasize the Finno-Ugric linguistic root of Hungarian heritage. This view of Hungarian origin was seen at once as both more scientific and much less aggressive than CEU eTD Collection identifying with the Huns as ancestors of the Hungarians. There weer two very beneficial and practical reasons why this was an agreeable choice of identity. First, it was a verifiable link to the past (though noticeably one leaving plenty of room to which any number of the myths - 1 - concerning ethnic origin could be attached.) Secondly, it was a very benign point of departure for cultural diplomacy with the West. At once it emphasized the Hungarian origin on the slopes of the Ural Mountains, imagining the Hungarians as always having been Europe’s east guard, and de-emphasizing the often utilized myth of the Hun heritage, a people who were obviously seen as the exact opposite of defenders of Europe. Yet, by the late 1930s the dialogue in the public spheres pointedly turned back to this more aggressive Hun origin myth, certainly as far as discourse within the nation is concerned. That is to say, the dialogue between the Hungarians and the West may have retained the Finno-Ugric heritage as a Hungarian identity, but within the borders, specifically through education, a shift back to a stronger lineage occurred. The Huns had been utilized as part of the Hungarian identity time and again throughout the nation’s history, and so this return was neither out of character with Hungarian historiography, nor difficult to accomplish. This paper will show that the rather malleable origin myth of the Hungarians – there is not even a consensus as to whether they migrated from the east or west slopes of the Ural Mountains – allows much room for the use of situational identity. In his essay “Situational Ethnicity,” Jonathan Y. Okamura explains how (generally in poly-ethnic societies) actors are able to modify their ethnic identity to given situations. Though he details several levels, the primary level is explain as such: “The structural dimension of situational ethnicity would refer to the restraints enjoined upon parties within social situations as a consequence of the setting of social action”1 That is to say, the setting is the greater social structure which dictates the variable amount of CEU eTD Collection identity one can ascribe to themselves in given situations. Though there are some specifics which will make it impossible to map this theory directly onto the Hungarian situation, it gives a framework from which to view the multi-ethnic historical Hungary, in which for the last one 1 Jonathan Y. Okamura, “Situational Ethnicity”, Ethnic and Racial Studies Volume 4 number 4 (Oct. 1981) p. 452 - 2 - hundred and fifty years the Hungarian were trying to solidify and assert their identity, as well as post-Trianon Hungary during which time the Hungarians were in a sense faced with a new nation and forced to recreate the Hungarian identity. As a result of the loss of two-thirds of their historic territory, the setting, or the structural framework within which they were able to identify themselves, had changed. The hypothesis of this paper is that there were two primary factors which encouraged