In a review article Péter Pór asks "Do prose canons exist?" appreciating that Mihály Szegedy-Maszák sticks to his, to that of the enlightenment rigorously differentiating between fact and fiction, to that of the meeting point between romanticism and realism where the narrative reigns, and to that of the difference between the modern and the post-modern which clearly discriminates between the certain and the uncertain. Recalling these canons is, however, in Pór's view, untimely, as are some of Szegedy-Maszák's questions, e.g.: to what degree can life and work be identified, do narrative and artistic value respond to each other, or can Hungarian literature be fitted into the writing of an international history of literature based on stylistic trends. Pór, however, accepts that Szegedy-Maszák's questions are legitimate since, as he puts it: "The formulation of the questions is frequently the proposition of importance."
"Was Moravia in the Great Hungarian Plain?" is Henrik Birnbaum's question in response to two books by Martin Eggers. The latter maintains that the central part of the Moravia which antedated Sventopulk whose rule started in 870 lay in the Hungarian Great Plain and that, contrary to what has so far been believed, the tribes which dwelt there were South Slavs. Eggers argues that the occupation of the Great Plain by the Hungarians was the reason why medieval Moravia disappeared. But, Birnbaum asks, if, as Eggers maintains, the Hungarians did not really reach those areas of Greater Moravia, which extended from Dalmatia to Bohemia, then what was the reason for their collapse? Indeed, the archeology of the Great Plain also leads one to question Eggers' theory.
Ferenc Ruzsa notes about Buddhist Logic that only a single school, the classic Indian Mahayana, is represented, and that of the four masters only one writes about logic--Dignaga's text is indeed the first attempt to create an Hungarian terminology for a logic of Indian origin--the title of the volume is therefore far from accurate. Albeit his impressions of the quality of the translations are mixed, Ruzsa appreciates the fact that this is an anthology which presents the basic writings of the most important masters of classical Mahayana. Works presented include Vigrahayyavartani by the 2nd century Nagardzhuna, whose central proposition is the doctrine of emptiness, and Vimshatika, the famous text by Vassubandhu, the key figure of the Yogachara school, who maintains that only consciousness exists, but not the objective world, as well as Kamalashila's 8th century writing which argues for "selflessness," the doctrine shared by every kind of Buddhism.
György Péter Hárs expresses his incomprehension vis à vis Miklós Bodrog's The Caves of Our Dreams which is subtitled "After C.G. Jung."
Hárs considers a present psychological work of doubtful validity which is based on Jung alone, on just one of his volumes what is more, which takes a mystic and oversimplified view of the world. It seems, that is precisely what Bodrog wants, and he simplifies even that. He is tuned purely to Jung's metaethics which he then transforms into bombastic moralising. Thus he urges us to recover at long last from the chief cause of our mental troubles, from pride or hybris, that original sin, for if we do not we will soon be finished morally.
Sándor Striker attempted to produce an "Ur"-text of Imre Madách's Hungarian classic The Tragedy of Man and is roundly told off for that by Ferenc Kerényi. According to Kerényi no such thing can exist since Madách himself offered his work to János Arany, one of the great Hungarian poets, asking him to make corrections where he saw fit, indeed entrusting Arany with preparing the work for the press. Thus what exists is Madách's basic text, the text which Madách himself corrected, the text which Arany corrected, and Arany's changes made at proof stage.
Which, then, is the 'ur-text? According to Striker that untouched by Arany's hand. Kerényi considers that notion to be mistaken. He rejects Striker's two-volume enterprise which, according to Kerényi, also contains numerous errors in textual criticism.
Pál Lôvei's "Jubilees here and there" is a broad survey which exhaustively deals with the numerous art, historical, tourist, ethnographical and topographical exhibitions and displays arranged in Hungary on the occasion of what was called the millecentenary of the country, and in Austria on the 1000th anniversary of the first mention of the toponym. His point of view is aesthetic and scholarly, and he examines what lessons can be learnt as regards finances and organisation, usefulness and its absence, ideas good and bad, not to mention image creating or image destroying. He concludes that anyone in Austria or Hungary who, in 1996, had a mind to visit exhibitions and displays was certainly not bored.
Kornél Steiger subjects the Hungarian translation of an English work, Johathan Barnes' Aristotle to close scholarly scrutiny, and is forced to conclude that the result is artful distortion, primarily because of the incompetence of the editing.
László Borhi writes on a volume of French documents which give an insight into what went on in the background of the peace conferences which concluded the Great War. Most of these documents, taken from the Quai d'Orsay, Ministry of War, and Nanterre archives have not been previously published. As these documents show, it was the intention of the victorious Allied and Associated Powers to apply the vae victis principle to Hungary, especially as regards questions of strategy and communications.
Ambrus Miskolczy writes about Adolf Armbruster's The Romanness of the Rumanians: "Cunning tacking in stormy weather." Armbruster did his best to satisfy both the requirements of an ideology which declared the Rumanians to be of Roman (and Dacian) decent, as well as the demands of scholarship (and his own). He mentions that there is no empirical proof for such a genealogy.
Ivo Banac particularly praises Barbara Jelavich's work on the three most recent centuries of Balkan history, whose Hungarian translation has just appeared. He argues that such an important comprehensive book, filling a long felt gap, could only be produced by an outside (i.e. American) scholar who was not prejudiced in favour of any particular country, nation, religion, people or tribe.
According to János Bak the 19 papers included in Höfische Kultur in Südosteuropa aim to apply a West and Central European conceptual framework to the Balkans. The shirt, however, does not fit. The attempt is obviously made by natives of the area to prove the point of Western features of their own societies, even if this is done at the expense of sound scholarship.
Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, the author of Hitler's Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans and the Holocaust answers his critics in a contribution to the Miscellany section. According to Goldhagen those Germans who readily, indeed enthusiastically, weeded out the Jews must be considered a representative sample of the population. He argues that what he calls eliminationost anti-Semitism was widespread. Eliminationist anti-Semitism considered the Jews to be biologically different, wicked, terribly power-hungry and noxious to Germans. It is therefore necessary and proper to eliminate them. Goldhagen understands that the views he expressed offend certain groups which therefore try to defend themselves. The use of euphemism, or letting sleeping dogs lie, or a careful weighing up of pros and cons, are, however, much more offensive than an honest confrontation with the past.
Jürgen Habermas too speaks of this past, once again, and not for the first time. He too desires a conscious confrontation of this past, even if this be an intractable past according to some, or a past that will not pass.
Horia R. Patapievici points out that the one-sided French orientation of Rumanian intellectuals also served the purposes of Communist censorship. According to him interbellic French culture was stuck in the mud of fin de siècle thinking, in later decades ideologies sympathetic to totalitarianism dominated, furthermore they were always subjected to a single school of thought, leaving possible alternatives out of account from the start. By their reception of a French spirit that knew no alternatives, Rumanian intellectuals self-condemned themselves to slavery. There can be no freedom where there is no alternative.
Our E-mail address: buksz@c3.hu