Good writers, bad Jews: the “Jewish Question” among Hungarian Jewish intellectuals of the interwar period

ABSTRACT

This paper investigates the perceived place of the Jewish writer in interwar Hungarian Jewish literature. Post-World War I Hungary suffered from the effects of a short-lived communist regime, and the Trianon Treaty by losing two-thirds of its territories and more than half of its population. Though previously Jewish communities had thrived in the country, these events caused resentment that manifested itself in the creation of anti-Semitic laws in 1920. Within this new context, assimilated liberal young Jewish writers posed the question of “what is a Jew,” reflecting on their Jewishness and Hungarianness at the same time and pondering about the value of each. They answered the question in their creative works, where they indirectly explored issues such as whether Jews are able to write Hungarian novels or whether only a Hungarian can do so; whether Jewish Hungarians could write Hungarian Jewish novels; whether Hungarianness and Jewishness are compatible or whether writing literature is preconditioned on identity. Through the lens of Aladár Komlós, this paper examines the way in which liberal and assimilated young Hungarian Jewish writers interpreted their place in Hungarian culture and society within the framework of these questions.

KEYWORDS:

• Hungarian Judaism
• modern central Europe
• Budapest
• Jewish writers
• Jewish conversion
• Hungarian Jewish novels

Notes on contributor

Mari Réthelyi is an Assistant Professor of Religious Studies at Louisiana State University. She received her PhD in Jewish Studies from the University of Chicago in 2009. Her research interests include modern Hungarian Jewish history and literature, Jewish race theories, Jewish gender studies, nationalism, and Orientalism.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.

Notes

1 When dealing with the subject matter of Hungarian Jewish literature, one needs to thank János Kõbányai, who has spent the last 20 years or so excavating, publishing some materials for the first time and writing about Hungarian Jewish literature. Without his archaeological, detective, and intellectual work, one could hardly engage with Hungarian Jewish materials. Most of the writings that I mention are possible to read and are available only because as the editor-in-chief of Múlt és Jövõ press he reintroduced them after their near loss in the Holocaust or subsequent communist oppression. See his writings: Virágzás Halál Után: A Magyar Zsidó Költészet 150 éve republished in Kõbányai (2012).

2 Such writers were, for example Ferenc Molnár, Tibor Déry, Frigyes Karinthy, etc. For an extended list and introduction, see, for example Hernádi (2010).

3 1951 Hungarian writer, editor, literary critique.

4 Such writers were, for example Theodor Herzl and Max Nordau.

5 On multiple identities within Austria–Hungary as a multi-ethnic and multi-cultural empire, see Feichtinger, Prutsch, and Csaky (2003).

6 Like the German Bürghers, the Greek and Serbian merchants. See, for example Gerõ (1992).

7 See discussion on linguistic policy, assimilation, and why Jews chose a second assimilation into Hungary in Hanák (1974, 513–36) and Kõbányai (2012, 10–12).

8 Trianon was a peace treaty in 1920 to end the First World War between the Allies and Hungary. The treaty redrew the borders of Hungary by vastly reducing its territory and excising the territories that were mainly inhabited by the minorities.

9 On Hungary and the Jewish Question, see Baron (1938, 51–65), Fehér (1980, 3–46), Frank (2009), Hanebrink (2005, 192–203), Hanebrink (2008, 55–80), Klein (1996, 70–98).

10 On Budapest and Jews, see Gluck (2013, 289–306), Gluck (2004, 1–22), Gerõ (2006, 179), Gyáni (1999), Horváth (1961), Hanák (1984), Laczkó (1995, 139–189), Lukacs (1991), Monostori (2003), Monostori (2004), Vörös (2001, 88–125), Vörös (2010, 136–160).

11 On Hungarian Jewish literature, see Cogdon (1973, 57–74), Hernádi (2010), Laczkó (1995), Török (1997).

12 1875–1957. A social scientist and historian of Jewish origin.

13 1900–1919. A progressive radical journal.

14 Péter Ágoston (1874–1925) was a Hungarian politician. For a detailed account, see Gyurgyák (2001, 478–83).

15 The existence of Hungarian Jewish literature was posed by Büchler (1905, 259–65), Bacher (1911, 193–4), Raab (1919), Eisler (1926, 142–52), Keszi (1937, 109), Szerb (1943), Henényi (1998, 39–42), Török (1997).

16 In the 1930s, this was used for establishing laws (Zsidótörvények) similar to those of Nazi Germany that excluded the Jews from intellectual and artistic life in Hungary.

17 Like Oszkár Jászi, Alexander Bernát, Lajos Biró, Ervin Szabó, Pál Ignotus, Antal Szerb, Miklós Radnóti, etc.

18 The situation was complicated by the fact that at the same time a new phenomenon emerged among the Hungarian writers: the depiction of Jews in Hungarian novels so the need emerged to demarcate a Hungarian Jewish writer, since subject matter did not distinguish between Hungarian and Jewish writers.

19 Such writers are: Sándor Bródy, Tibor Déry, Milán Füst, Lajos Hatvany, Jenõ Heltai, Ignotus, Figyes Karinthy, Tamás Kóbor, András Komor, Anna Lesznai, Ferenc Molnár, Zoltán Somlyó, Dezsõ Szomory, Béla Zsolt.

20 The terminology used to express Jewish converts is telling. Naturally, there are numerous ways to say that a person has converted to another religion. The choice of words is important as it communicates values, opinions, and bias. In Hungarian, there are many words to express “convert.” In Komlós’s case, the word used is kitért, which he uses in his writings that I discuss in this paper. In this word, the emphasis is on the “out,” that is, converted out of Judaism to Christianity.

21 For the attitude of the Hungarian Jewish community towards the converted intelligentsia, see Konrád (2010, 1–44). Konrád emphasizes that though the number of converted grew greatly between the Dualist and Post-Trianon eras, what mattered was the person who converted. Numerous members of the Jewish intelligentsia and elite converted. However, generally speaking, they retained their connection with the Jewish community and supported them. The best example is Armin Vámbéry. The Neolog community judged a certain person’s conversion based on whether they retained ties with the Jewish community and with Jewish matters. Further, whether the Neolog community believed it or not, they utilized racial ideas about Jewishness, in that a Jew is eternally connected and related to the Jewish community. Conversion did not change this.

22 Gluck (2004, 1–22) claims that Ágai and Budapest Jewish humour argued against the existence of a Jewish essence and exposed the futility of looking for a universal commonality of Jewish identity. Contrary to this, Komlós argued for the existence of a Jewish essence that predestined most writers of Jewish descent to engage with Judaism in their work.

23 Nyugat started in 1908 as a literary journal by Ignotus. The Huszadik Század started in1900 as a sociological review by Oszkár Jászi. The Hét published between 1890 and 1924 was a literary review founded by Kiss József, and the Toll was published between 1920 and 1939 in Romania by Emil Brázai.

24 1879–1942, a Hungarian writer.

25 The debate continued between Radnóti and Komlós in the 1930s.

26 1843–1921, editor of the Hét from 1890.

27 Like Oszkár Gellért.

28 1872–1950, a writer and literary critic.

29 1878–1952, novelist.

30 1898–1944, novelist.

31 In this novel of 1926, Móricz wrote about the possibility of Jewish Hungarian coexistence and assimilation.

32 Therefore, Ignotus, Heltai, Szilágyi, Gellért, Szép, Füst, Balázs (converted-kitértek) were more Jewish than the congregational (felekezeti) Molnár, Kóbor, Bródy, or Szomory. Komlós in this way protected the baptized (hitehagyott/kitért) Jewish writers as better Jewish writers than the congregational ones (felekezetiek). It is worth noting that he did not mean to popularize conversion (kitérés), but wanted to avoid creating a ghetto (klikk irodalom történet).