Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-26T16:15:23.780Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The nation in the city: ceremonial (re)burials and patriotic mythmaking in turn-of-the-century Budapest

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 February 2013

ALEXANDER VARI
ALEXANDER VARI*
Affiliation:
Social Sciences Department, Marywood University, Scranton, PA 18509, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract:

The funerals and reburials of prominent Hungarian leaders (Count Lajos Batthyány, Ferenc Deák, Lajos Kossuth and Prince Ferenc Rákóczi II) over the course of the Dualist decades (1867–1918) – a time period when Hungary was integrated into a federal structure with Austria – were important moments in the imagining of Hungarian national identity. The article argues that turn-of-the-century Budapest served not just as stage for patriotic mythmaking on the occasion of these funeral ceremonies but was both affected by and shaped the former's content and significance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Urban History , Volume 40 , Issue 2 , May 2013 , pp. 202 - 225
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2013

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 This is not to say that this was a typically Hungarian phenomenon. For the literature looking at the links between funerals and the city in other national contexts, see Ben-Amos, A., Funerals, Politics, and Memory in Modern France, 1789–1996 (Oxford, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and Reis, J.J., Death is a Festival: Funeral Rites and Rebellion in Nineteenth-Century Brazil (Chapel Hill, 2003).Google Scholar

2 Lakner, J., Halál a századfordulón (Budapest, 1993)Google Scholar.

3 See Stéfán, I., ‘Batthyány Lajos halála és temetései’, Sic Itur ad Astra, 7, 2–4 (1993), 6–17Google Scholar; Katona, C., ‘“Ezen gyászünnepélynek kiválóan városi jeleggel kell bírnia. . .” Gróf Battyány Lajos 1870 évi. újratemetésének háttere’, Kissebség-Kutatás, 16, 3 (2007), 539–62Google Scholar; Lovas, K.M., ‘Batthyány Lajos gróf és a kilencek újratemetése 1870-ben’, Honismeret, 35, 6 (2007), 26–33Google Scholar; Katona, T., ‘Kossuth temetése’, História, 11, 3 (1989), 19–21Google Scholar; Lampland, M., ‘Death of a hero: Hungarian national identity and the funeral of Lajos Kossuth’, Hungarian Studies, 8, 1 (1993), 29–35Google Scholar; Baják, L., ‘Kossuth Lajos temetése’, Honismeret, 22, 2 (1994), 10–12Google Scholar; Borus, J., ‘Kossuth a főváros hallotja’, Budapesti Negyed, 2, 1 (1994), 35–58Google Scholar; Hanák, P., ‘Kossuth temetése és a Wekerle kormány’, História, 14, 5–6 (1994), 45–47Google Scholar; Várkonyi, Á.R., ‘Visszatérés Europába. II Rákóczi Ferenc és bujdosótársai hamvainak temetéséről’, Magyar Tudomány, 167, 10 (2006), 1211–21.Google Scholar

4 Losonczy, A.-M. and Zempléni, A., ‘Anthropologie de la ‘patrie’: le patriotisme hongrois’, Terrain, 17 (1991), 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

5 Losonczy, A.-M., ‘Dire, chanter et faire: la construction de la “patrie” par l'hymne national hongrois et l'Exhortation’, Terrain, 29 (1997), 97–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar It should be noted that, since its publication in 1836, Vörösmarty's ‘Exhortation’ served the role of a second national anthem.

6 Zempléni, A., ‘La politique au bord de la tombe. Hongrie (1989–2008)’, in Gossiaux, J.-F. and Petric, B. (eds.), Europa mon amour, 1989–2009: un rêve blessé (Paris, 2009), 61–85.Google Scholar

7 Karády, V. and Kozma, I., Név és nemzet: családnév-változtatás, névpolitika és nemzetiségi erőviszonyok Magyarországon a feudalizmustól a kommunizmusig (Budapest, 2002).Google Scholar

8 Nemes, Robert, The Once and the Future Budapest (De Kalb, 2005)Google Scholar; and Freifeld, A., ‘The de-Germanization of the Budapest stage’, Yearbook of European Studies/Annuaire d'études européennes, 13 (1999)Google Scholar, Special issue: Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences, ed. K. Bullivant, G. Gilles and W. Pape, 148–73.

9 See Freifeld, A., Nationalism and the Crowd in Liberal Hungary, 1848–1914 (Washington, DC, and Baltimore, 2000), 288Google Scholar; and Gerő, A.’ s chapter ‘The millennium monuments’, in his Modern Hungarian Society in the Making: The Unfinished Experience (Budapest, 1995), 203–22Google Scholar.

10 It is beyond the purposes of this article to offer an exhaustive bibliography on this topic. A few seminal works that I would like to mention here are Gillis, J. (ed.), Commemorations: The Politics of National Identity (Princeton, 1994)Google Scholar; Winter, J., Sites of Memory, Sites of Mourning: The Great War in European Cultural History (Cambridge, 1995)Google Scholar; and Bucur, M. and Wingfield, N.M. (eds.), Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, 1848 to the Present (West Lafayette, 2001).Google Scholar

11 On Czech attempts to capitalize on Prague, see Wingfield, N.M., Flag Wars and Stone Saints: How the Bohemian Lands Became Czech (Cambridge, MA, 2007)Google Scholar; Paces, C.J., Prague Panoramas: National Memory and Sacred Space (Pittsburgh, 2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, while for similar Polish attempts regarding Cracow, see Dabrowski, P.M., Commemorations and the Shaping of Modern Poland (Bloomington, 2004)Google Scholar; and Kozińska-Witt, H., Krakau in Warschaus langem Schatten: Konkurrenzkämpfe in der polnischen Städtelandschaft, 1900–1939 (Stuttgart, 2008).Google Scholar For a comparative perspective on nationalist agendas in these empires, see Roshwald, A., Ethnic Nationalism and the Fall of Empires: Central Europe, Russia and the Middle East, 1914–1923 (London, 2001), 7–69.Google Scholar

12 This was different in the case of the Italians, Romanians and Serbs living in Austria-Hungary who were looking rather at Rome, Bucharest and Belgrade as their national capitals. It was also different in the case of the Ukrainians, Slovenes and Slovaks, who were a small minority in the provincial urban centres of the provinces which they inhabited, and who as a result focused more on the nationalist mobilization of the countryside. By contrast, the Croats had a provincial centre (Zagreb), where they constituted a majority, and which they could therefore consider a de facto capital. Of course, the situation of the Jews and Romanis living in Austria-Hungary was also different. The Jews were members of a diasporic community, for whom transregional linkages mattered more than the creation of a capital, while in the case of the Romani language-speakers it was their illiteracy which impeded them from articulating a nation-building project.

13 Dabrowski, Commemorations, 90.

14 Agnew, H.L., The Czechs and the Lands of the Bohemian Crown (Stanford, 2004), 126.Google Scholar

15 See Iggers, W., Women of Prague: Ethnic Diversity and Social Change from the Eighteenth Century to the Present (Providence and Oxford, 1995), 84–6.Google Scholar

16 Havránek, J., ‘Bohemian spring 1848 – conflict of loyalties and its picture in historiography’, in Körner, A. (ed.), 1848: A European Revolution? International Ideas and National Memories of 1848 (Basingstoke, 2000), 131.Google Scholar

17 See Frank, T., ‘Hungary and the Dual Monarchy, 1867–1890’, in Sugár, P.F., Hanák, P. and Frank, T. (eds.), A History of Hungary (Bloomington, 1994), 252–66Google Scholar, quote from 252. For a thorough discussion of the circumstances leading to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, see Hanák, P., 1867 – európai térben és időben (Budapest, 2001).Google Scholar

18 Evans, R.J.W., Austria, Hungary and the Habsburgs: Essays on Central Europe, c. 1683–1867 (Oxford, 2006), 246.Google Scholar While Austria and Hungary became separate entities within the empire, each having separate governments and parliaments, they were still connected with each other through the existence of common ministries of foreign affairs, defence and finance, as well as a common army. Members of the Vienna and Budapest parliaments were also connected through an institution known as the Delegations, made up of 60 members of each parliament who met periodically. The most important common link, however, was the person of Francis Joseph, who ruled as Austrian emperor in the Austrian half of the Dual Monarchy, and king of Hungary, in its Hungarian half.

19 On the eve of the conclusion of the Austro-Hungarian Compromise, Kossuth sent an open letter to Deák from Paris in which he warned him about the nationally negative consequences of his actions. For the full text of the letter see http://mek.oszk.hu/04800/04882/html/szabadku0183.html (accessed 13 Dec. 2011).

20 Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 212–13.

21 According to historian András Gerő, the parliamentary majority gained in 1869 by Deák's supporters on the occasion of the first post-Compromise elections held in Hungary was achieved through a larger share granted in the Hungarian electoral system to non-Magyar constituencies, such as the Croats in Croatia and the Saxons in Transylvania. See Gerő, A., The Hungarian Parliament (1867–1918), East European Monographs, CDLXX (New York, 1997), 12–25.Google Scholar

22 Batthyány's government formed with Emperor Ferdinand V's benediction on 11 Apr. 1848 was responsible not to the emperor but to the Hungarian parliament. It was therefore the first democratically elected government in Hungarian history.

23 By 1867, there were already many illustrious examples of reburials organized elsewhere – such as those of Friedrich Schiller, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Voltaire and Napoleon, although none of them is mentioned in the sources which I consulted – from which Hungarians could draw inspiration. On the reburial of Rousseau's and Voltaire's remains during the early 1790s in the Parisian St Geneviève church – soon to be turned into the French National Pantheon, see Clarke, J., Commemorating the Dead in Revolutionary France: Revolution and Remembrance, 1789–1799 (Cambridge, 2007)Google Scholar, and ‘Voltaire, or the body of the philosopher king’, in de Baecque, A., Glory and Terror: Seven Deaths under the French Revolution, trans. Mandel, C. (New York, 2001), 37–60Google Scholar, while on Napoleon's reburial in Paris in 1840, see J. Tulard, ‘Le retour des cendres’, in P. Nora (ed.), Les lieux de mémoire, vol. II: La Nation (Paris, 1986), 81–110. For American precedents, see Kammen, M., Digging Up the Dead: A History of Notable American Reburials (Chicago, 2010).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

24 The initiative came from the editors of the Pesti Napló at the end of 1869. For more on this, see Stéfán, ‘Batthyány Lajos halála és temetései’, 6–17.

25 Katona, ‘“Ezen gyászünnepélynek kiválóan városi jeleggel kell bírnia. . .”’.

26 Urbán, A., ‘Gróf Batthyány emlékezete’, Aetas, 15, 12 (2000), 132–58.Google Scholar

27 Katona, ‘”Ezen gyászünnepélynek kiválóan városi jeleggel kell bírnia. . .”’.

28 Ibid.

29 ‘Batthyány-gyászünnepély’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 12 Jun. 1870.

30 Ibid. As mentioned earlier the organizer of the funeral was Pál Királyi, another city official. For the plan of the funeral pageant as conceived by him, and which was closely followed on 9 Jun., see the anonymous tract published before the event took place as Gróf Batthyány Lajos. Az első magyar miniszterelnök élete és vértanui halála (Pest, 1870), 25–6.

31 On the celebrations surrounding the coronation see Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 213–19.

32 In addition to the queen, Deák's catafalque was also visited by several other prominent members of the Habsburg family. See Törs, K., Deák Ferenc emlékezete, 1803–1876 (Budapest, 1876), 226.Google Scholar

33 Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 227.

34 ‘A nemzeti gyász hete’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 6 Feb. 1876. See also Csengery, A., Deák Ferenc emlékezete (Budapest, 1877), 5, 110Google Scholar; and Filó, L., Ima és emlékbeszéd Deák Ferencz gyászünnepélyén 1876. év február 8-an a nagykörösi református templomban (Budapest, 1876), 8–9, 13Google Scholar. In Austria-Hungary, it was not just funerals but also historic commemorations which often allowed for such competing claims to come to the fore. See the discussion in Prokopovych, M., Habsburg Lemberg: Architecture, Public Space and Politics in the Galician Capital, 1772–1914 (West Lafayette, 2009), especially 198–225.Google Scholar

35 ‘Deák Ferenc’, Fővárosi Lapok, 29 Jan. 1876.

36 ‘Deák Ferenc temetése’, Fővárosi Lapok, 4 Feb. 1876.

37 Törs, Deák Ferenc emlékezete, 224.

38 ‘A temetés’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 6 Feb. 1876, 90–1.

39 Törs, Deák Ferenc emlékezete, 229–30.

40 ‘A temetés’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 6 Feb. 1876, 90.

41 Ibid., 91.

42 Freifeld, Nationalism and the Crowd, 227.

43 ‘A temetés’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 6 Feb. 1876.

44 See Borus, ‘Kossuth a főváros hallotja’; and Freifeld, A., ‘Kossuth: the hermit and the crowd’, Hungarian Studies, 16, 2 (2002), 205–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 The latter was erected in 1887, at the end of a long campaign of public subscription.

46 See ‘Tűntetések a színházak ellen’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 25 Mar. 1894.

47 Borus, ‘Kossuth a főváros hallotja’.

48 Historian Péter Hanák even argued that it was the Wekerle government that secretly asked the Budapest municipality to organize Kossuth's funeral. See Hanák, ‘Kossuth temetése és a Wekerle kormány’.

49 May, A.J., The Hapsburg Monarchy, 1867–1914 (Cambridge, MA, 1960), 347.Google Scholar According to Alice Freifeld, the number of onlookers at Kossuth's funeral was over one million. See Freifeld, ‘Kossuth: the hermit and the crowd’, 206.

50 Krúdy, G., ‘A holt Kossuth Pesten’, Budapesti Negyed, 7, 2 (1999), 28–31.Google Scholar This piece was first published as part of a feuilleton about Kossuth's sons in Esti Kurír in 1931. See Fábry, A., ‘Utószó’, in Krúdy, G., Kossuth fia (Budapest, 1976), 371–83.Google Scholar

51 Up to 1903, the official anthem of Hungary was the imperial anthem. It was only in 1903 that a law adopted by the Hungarian parliament replaced Haydn's Gott Erhalte with Kölcsey's Himnusz, as the official anthem of Hungary. See Bónis, F., A himnusz (Budapest, 2010)Google Scholar.

52 For a contemporary description of Kossuth's funeral ceremony see ‘A temetés Budapesten’, Vasárnapi Ujság, 1 Apr. 1894, 215–16.

53 Gerő, András, ‘Kossuth kultusza’, Mozg ó Vil ág, 29, 4 (2003), 95–103.Google Scholar

54 See the speech reproduced in Nagy, M. (ed.), Kossuth Lajos temetése (Budapest, 1894), 30–3.Google Scholar

55 ‘Budapest székesfőváros törvényhatósági bizottságának 1894. évi márczius 21-én délután 4 órakor tartott rendes közgyülése’, Fővárosi Közlöny, 23 Mar. 1894. The same claim was repeated by Károly Gerlóczy in the funeral speech that he gave in front of Kossuth's coffin in the National Museum on 1 Apr. 1894. See ‘Kossuth’, Fővárosi Közlöny, 3 Apr. 1894.

56 A small town located on the northern shore of the Sea of Marmara, about 90 miles from Istanbul.

57 ‘Kassa szabad királyi város közgyűlésének felirata a Képviselőházhoz II. Rákóczi Ferenc, Zrínyi Ilona és Bercsényi Miklós hamvainak hazaszállítása tárgyában (Kassa, 1894. május 29.)’, in Halász, H., Katona, C. and Ólmosi, Z. (eds.), Dokumentumok II. Rákóczi Ferenc és társai újratemetéséhez (1873–1876), (Budapest, 2004), 64–5.Google Scholar

58 See ‘Vita Kassa szabad királyi város kérvényéről (1896. Február 8)’, in ibid., 66–74. Quote from 70.

59 Reason for it was that the Gellért Hill still housed the Citadel, a fortress, which the Austrian military authorities ordered to be built in 1850 in order to be able to control strategically the city and impede the outbreak of new revolutionary disturbances in Buda and Pest.

60 For a summary of the most important turning points in the return of Rákóczi's remains to Hungary see Kincses, K.M., ‘‘Minden különös ceremonia nélkül’. A Rákóczi kultusz és a fejedelem hamvainak hazahozatala’, Hadtörténelmi Közlemények, 116, 1 (2003), 46–76.Google Scholar

61 See also Thaly, Kálmán, Rákóczy-emlékek Törökországban és II. Rákóczi Ferenc fejedelem hamvainak föltalálása (Budapest, 1893)Google Scholar; and Köpeczi, Béla, ‘A Thököly- és Rákóczi-hamvak felkutatása Törökországban’, Magyar Tudomány, 167, 10 (2006), 1205–10.Google Scholar

62 Várkonyi, ‘Visszatérés Europába’.

63 ‘Rákóczi’, Fővárosi Közlöny, 30 Oct. 1906.

64 See Tamás, E., ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc újratemetése Kassán 1906-ban’, Művelődés, 78 (1996), 52–4Google Scholar; Halász, G., ‘II. Rákóczi Ferenc és bujdosó társainak újratemetése Kassán’, Széphalom: A Kazinczy Ferenc Társaság évkönyve, 13 (2003), 43–50Google Scholar; and Gayer, V., ‘‘A szabadság sziklavárában mi fogjuk itt õrizni mindörökre’ – II Rákóczi Ferenc és buidosó társainak újratemetése Kassán’, Kortárs, 55, 2 (2011), 81–90.Google Scholar

65 For a discussion of the strengths and limits of the latter in both halves of Austria-Hungary see the essays in Cole, L. and Unowsky, D., The Limits of Loyalty: Imperial Symbolism, Popular Allegiances and State Patriotism in the Late Habsburg Monarchy (New York, 2007).Google Scholar

66 See Cornwall, M., ‘The Habsburg monarchy: ‘National Trinity’ and the elasticity of national allegiance’, in Baycroft, T. and Hewitson, M. (eds.), What is a Nation? Europe 1789–1914 (Oxford, 2006), 171–91.Google Scholar

67 While at Kossuth's funeral in 1894 there were still a few examples of domestic dissonance – for instance, because Kossuth was an evangelical Lutheran, who was buried according to the rites of his religious belief, the high Catholic clergy stood aloof and external signs of mourning were not displayed on ecclesiastic buildings; and in Budapest in the Catholic church of Lipótváros the bells did not toll when Kossuth's funeral cortege passed it, acts that the opposition was quick to highlight as examples of ‘unpatriotic behaviour’, see ‘Budapest székesfőváros törvényhatósági bizottságának 1894. évi április hó 11-én délután 4 órakor tartott rendes közgyülése’, Fővárosi Közlöny, 13 Apr. 1894 – by the time of Rákóczi's reburial in 1906, as we have seen above, the whole political class was converted to the gospel of Magyar nationalism.

68 See Zempléni, A., ‘Les manques de la nation. Sur quelques propriétés de la “patrie” et de la “nation” en Hongrie contemporaine’, in Fabre, D. (ed.), L'Europe entre cultures et nations (Paris, 1996), 121–56CrossRefGoogle Scholar, quote from 142.

69 Lampland, ‘Death of a hero’, 33. One can presume that if completed the mixing together of clumps of soil from all these historical sites in Kossuth's grave would have turned it into a powerful counterpoint to Francis Joseph's ‘public symbolic act in Pest in front of the urbanized Hungarian citizen-nation’, when after being anointed king of Hungary in Buda in 1867, he crossed the Chain Bridge on horseback to Pest, to ‘gallop up onto a coronation mound composed of soil sent in from all corners of Hungary’ where ‘he raised his sword in four directions to acknowledge the historic boundaries of the Hungarian kingdom’. See Cornwall, ‘The Habsburg monarchy’, 182. The soil from which the coronation mound was made was taken from sites connected to the arrival of Hungarian tribes to the Carpathian basin, the birthplace of St Stephen, the place where Empress Elizabeth stepped in 1857 for the first time on Hungarian soil and Deák's home in Zala county, all serving to legitimize symbolically Francis Joseph as Hungarian king. The blatant exceptions were samples of soil taken from places associated with Rákóczi's fight against the Habsburgs and sites associated with the 1848 revolution. For a detailed discussion of the symbolic dimensions of the coronation mound see Vörös, K., ‘A koronázási domb szimbolikája, 1867’, História, 18, 8 (1996), 6–8.Google Scholar

70 See Basics, B., ‘A “basilica minor” és a Szent Jobb’, Budapesti Negyed, 3, 1 (1994), 3–18.Google Scholar On the modern cult of St Stephen in Hungary, see v Klimó, A., ‘A nemzet Szent Jobbja. A nemzeti-vallási kultuszok funkcióiról’, Replika, 37 (Sep. 1999), 45–56.Google Scholar

71 Thus Kerepesi Avenue became Rákóczi Avenue, while the old Csömöri Avenue was renamed Thököly Avenue.

72 The first conscious attempt to turn the Kerepesi Cemetery into a National Pantheon goes back to 1871. Although the Kerepesi was a new cemetery, which was officially opened only in 1858, during the 1860s it became a burial ground for Pest notables, including many former 1848 revolutionaries, a process which culminated with Batthyány's reburial in 1870. A year later, architect Frigyes Feszl proposed that, on the model of the Père Lachaise Cemetery in Paris, the Kerepesi be turned into a ground for the burial only of the greatest members of the nation. For more on this, see Tóth, V., ‘A Kerepesi úti temető másfél évszázada’, Budapesti Negyed, 7, 2 (1999), 5–126Google Scholar.

73 The first Kossuth statue was erected in Budapest in 1913. After an unsuccessful competition in 1903, another major public monument celebrating him and the other eight members of the 1848 Hungarian government was commissioned from sculptor János Horvay in 1906, but its completion was delayed by the events of World War I. The monument – located in front of the Hungarian parliament – was finally unveiled in 1927. See Prohászka, L., Szoborhistóriák (Budapest, 2004), 96–9Google Scholar.

74 Some of them even preceded Budapest in erecting a Kossuth statue, e.g. Marosvásárhely (today Târgu Mureş, Romania), Cegléd and Békéscsaba, where Kossuth statues were erected as early as 1899, 1902 and 1905, respectively. For more on Kossuth statues in other locations, see Ádámfy, J., A világ Kossuth-szobrai (Budapest, 1979).Google Scholar

75 The Board of Public Works which supervised the rebuilding of Budapest was directly responsible to the government.

76 Barenscott, D., ‘Trafficking in photographs: representational power and the case of Lajos Kossuth, Budapest, 1894’, History and Memory, 22, 2 (2010), 34–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar Quote from 34.

77 Ibid., 48.

78 Ibid., 49.