The Glowing Past

. . . Let us sit upon the ground
And tell sad stories of the death of kings:
How some have been deposed; some slain in war;
Some haunted by the ghosts they have deposed;
Some poison’d by their wives; some sleeping kill’d.
- William Shakespeare, Richard II.

W. B. Forster Bovill: Hungary and the Hungarians, 1908 - CHAPTER I

THE GLOWING PAST

“The time has come, the Walrus said,
To talk of many things:
Of shoes - and ships - and sealing wax -
Of cabbages - and kings.” -Lewis Carroll

The Magyar enjoys retrospect. The songs of today are unsung; the books of today remain unread; the men of today, save in the arena of politics, are unknown. My dear old Hungarian host away in the Carpathians, how he delighted in sitting on the balcony those wonderful autumn evenings and speaking of the dead heroes of his land! At that moment the past had no fascination for me. I was a mere lounger in the land. Even the present - that out of which the future would be made - only concerned me but little. It is true there were vague questionings, and a desire to see the natural beauties of the land, but the seriousness of study had not fallen upon me then. Notwithstanding this absence of seriousness, I felt peculiarly amenable to impressions. The scent of those stately pines, the wild untaught song of the Tót servant as she gave liberty to her emotions and allowed the historic episode she perchance had dreamt of to find suitable expressive notes, the awful silence of the Carpathians and the unique charm of my environment, all these lifted me at this moment of my sojourn in Hungary high above the bickerings of the time-serving politicians residing in Budapest. It was atmosphere I was looking for, and it was atmosphere that I found. But, as my host reminded me on one occasion, when I had displayed some signs of distress during a long harangue on the virtues of the Matthias period, the present was made out of the past, and I must learn all about it. Now I realise the many lost opportunities, the many notes I might have taken, and the many stories I ought to have remembered. He was a genuine Hungarian, this host of mine. Retrospect was his virtue - and vice. In him memory became an organised agency against inexactitudes. His first words as I recall them now were these:

“Banish from your mind everything that you have ever heard about my country, its history and its politics, and let me give you my view. Make as many notes as you will, and in a year’s time, when perhaps you can speak our language, talk with others, and then winnow the wheat from the chaff.”

But there was little chaff to be winnowed, though it was hard sometimes to part with pet theories and ideas encrusted with ignorance and believed to be truth. My dear old friend could teach history as I had never been taught it before. I could almost hear the thin, insistent tones of the prophets of the past, men whom few regarded it as worth their while to listen to.

Sometimes a group of men would concern us, and so close did we get to them that one Almost caught the warmth of their breath. One afternoon a single historic figure stepped down from the High Tátra unattended, with none of the mustiness of the tomb about him, stepped down to retell the story of courage and sacrifice. Man in his varied r61es of bene- factor and destroyer was portrayed, until one realised fully what G. M. Trevelyan calls the “Poetry of Time.”

Whence came this strange company of warriors? Opinion even now is very divided upon this question. Some say the Magyars are the descendants of the Scythians who before 884 were satisfied with the quietude of the borders of the Caspian Sea. Others assert that they are a Finnish-Ugrian tribe who formerly inhabited Central Asia, and who, of a fighting, roving nature, entered Hungary by the pass of Vereczke, in the north-east of the Carpathians, more than a thousand years ago. Even the late Count Eugene Zichy, though he undertook an expedition of discovery to Central Asia, was unable to adequately satisfy the critics as to the origin of his race. There is a hypothetical uncertainty about the birth and parentage of these Constitutional Magyars. But whatever obscurity concerning their origin may exist even today, one thing history has made exceedingly plain, viz., that by the end of the eleventh century Hungary had so developed both materially and morally that it was able to take a commanding position amongst the independent States of Europe.

Professor Vámbéry, as the result of much research, has satisfied himself as to the Turkish nationality of Árpád and his companions; whilst the historian Ranke declared that the Magyars overrunning Hungary at the close of the ninth century were really Turks. The story of the “coming of Árpád” is not without its elements of romance. How real it was all made to me by so many! I could Almost see this mass of humanity being swept as it were against its will from the basin of the Lower Irtis and Ural rivers Westward; ever subjected to the privations, to the calamities consequent upon nomadic pursuits; and at last overtaken and stricken by the birth-pain of a new ambition, the ache of aspiration and conquest.

A halt was called somewhere between the Pruth, Sereth, and the Dniester. Here the wanderers rested a while, whilst the chiefs of the seven tribes not only united under one Prince, but gave evidence of a recognition of the value of federation. Árpád, long regarded as a compendium of wisdom, was elected Prince, and this son of Álmos was raised on a shield whilst the seven chiefs of the tribes allowed themselves to be robbed of some blood, which was placed in a common vessel, thus sanctioning by the Eastern blood- covenant the election and federation. Thus was it that Hungary’s first constitutional Prince was elected.

The founding of a kingdom, however, was left to one Vajk, a successor of Árpáds, who, embracing Christianity, at once sought to Christianise his followers. On his conversion Vajk took the name of Stephen, and was rewarded by being created a saint by Pope Sylvester II. Thus came the title of “Apostolic King” If Hungary has sometimes forgotten to erect monuments to her illustrious sons, her noble line of kings have not been neglected, and St. Stephen is an unforgettable name. It is difficult to appreciate fully the material out of which he built up so strong a kingdom. There was that nomadic, roving instinct which dethrones development and retards progress, whilst the warlike tendencies of the followers of Árpád were not conducive to a cultivation of the “arts of peace.” But, as my old friend of the hills told me, the rough edge had been taken off these traits, and the

Christianising influence of St. Stephen himself did the rest. It was an important epoch in history, because not merely the spirit, but in many cases the form of St. Stephen’s ecclesiastical administration remains the same in Hungary even today. Order and prosperity thus rose from the ashes of chaos and failure. Christianity was, however, soon called upon to defend its title, for an outburst of pagan feeling followed the death of St. Stephen; but though priests were severely persecuted and churches razed to the ground, the success of the disturbing elements was only of a temporary nature.

Ladislaus the Saint, who succeeded Béla I., is regarded in literature as the ” beau ideal of Hungarian heroism and courtesy.” His reign was rendered interesting by his attempted organisation of Croatia, and the founding of the bishopric of Zagrab. This work was excellently supplemented by Könyves Kálmán (Koloman the Studious), who conquered what was known as mediaeval Croatia, and carried the subjected territory to the seacoast, and thus brought many Dalmatian cities under subjection. It will be useful to remember - for the Croatian Question is eternally present in every epoch- - that from this period Croatia has been an integral part of Hungary.

The King, however, had his little foibles, for after massacring a host of crusading emigrants in 1096, he successfully stopped all prosecutions for witchcraft, straining his kingly prerogative and knowledge by declaring the non-existence of witches.

Meanwhile, unconsciously to all, a new epoch in history was dawning. The dark period through which the nation had passed, the main product of which had been the development of administrative organisation, was ending, and the birth-joy of a new hope encompassed the Magyars. Endre II., like his English prototype John, was a weak king. Ambition and avarice brought both to the feet of the nation. Singularly enough, both held strong religious tendencies and an overweening ambition to figure prominently in the religious world, for Rome at this period was dominated by that master craftsman Innocent III. The Pope wanted more help in the Crusades, and the price of Innocent’s support to Endre in his contest with the people was a promise to aid Catholicism in the East. Endre by craft and subterfuge collected men and money, and even succeeded in having himself crowned King of Jerusalem, but in the meantime he lost his grip of the country, and returning found it now beyond his grasp. In 1222 (exact date unknown) he found himself with a few hired fighting men behind him confronted by all the best elements of national life, headed by the heir to the throne. Thus the weakling, bowing to necessity and cowed by desertions, called the Diet together and granted the Bulla Aurea. This was not the end but the beginning of national struggle. It is worth noting that this Hungarian Magna Carta has only been subjected to two changes. Firstly, Louis the Great in 1351 omitted Article V., which deprived the nobility of their right of making a will in defence of male heirs; whilst the second change came in 1687, when Article XXXI. was deleted, an article which sanctioned the ultima ratio of armed resistance “and gave such a revolutionary character to the Charter.” Ever since, the Bulla Aurea has formed an integral part of the Coronation oath. There comes an end even to weakness. Béla IV. sought to rule in 1244. Much trouble had been nursed up for him by the Mongols, who commenced to overrun the land again. In vain did he beseech his neighbours help him disperse them.

Even the Austrian Duke Frederic of Badenberg, with whom he was supposed to be on friendly relations, not only refused to aid him, but robbed the Queen of her jewels when she fled to him for safety, and finally occupied a part of Hungary. Those were the good old land-grabbing days. Béla IV., however, was not devoid of qualities, and, roused by the ingratitude of his neighbours, sought to utilise his own skill and power in restoring his kingdom. Such a task demanded infinite patience and a stout heart. In many respects he succeeded, but at a great personal cost. It was during the reign of Béla IV. that human flesh was sold for food, probably during the famine caused by the devastating plague of locusts which followed on the heels of one of the Mongol invasions.

One of the practical ideas of Béla IV. was to introduce German colonists to make up the deficiency caused by the massacres of the Mongols. It must also be remembered that Hungary’ paid its first blood-tax to the House of Habsburg at this period, supporting as they did Emperor Rudolf against the Bohemians.

With the decease of Endre III. in 1301 the male ruling line of the House of Árpád became extinct.

Hungary now became a factor in international politics. Monarch vied with monarch for Hungary, and after many vicissitudes the Neapolitan family of Anjou was introduced in the person of Charles Robert of Anjou (1308-42). To no small degree he proved an excellent ruler; bringing as he did the nation into contact with Italian culture, he thus placed it on a level with Western civilisation. His son Louis, who succeeded him in 1342, possessed many of the qualities of a great ruler: “The more you took from him the greater he appeared.”

One of his first acts was to march on Naples, capture the city, and punish the murderers of his brother. To permanently hold the city became an impossibility. His influence on the nobles was beneficent. Recognising that military service depended upon them, he strove to improve their material condition. One tax, not perhaps very popular at first, the tax of a ninth which vassals must contribute of their total fruit and wine crops to the lord of the manor, was finally willingly paid by all. In all his enterprises he was gallantly supported by the nobles. They helped him to humble Venice and recapture Dalmatia. It was during the reign of Louis the Great that the Eastern Question began to disturb European chancellories. Another of his achievements was to subjugate Bulgaria, and make Widdin the direct property of Hungary. It may be said that from this juncture Hungary became the sentinel of Western civilisation against the Turk. Louis reigned forty years, and the nation enjoyed exceptional prosperity.

Sad to relate, his death marks the period of national decline. Zsigmond of Luxembourg succeeded him, and was considered by some to be a man of great force, seeing that he was also Emperor of Germany and Rome. His first encounter with the Turks in the spring of 1396 at Buda revealed the cowardly, craven heart of the man, for his 30,000 troops were for the most part routed owing to his temerity in action. Neither was he able to suppress the Bohemian ravages in Northern Hungary. Fortunately for the nation, a man of rich qualities rose to influence and power in the person of John Hunyadi. Truly was he called a pillar of the House of Jagello. Chiefly owing to Hunyadi’s genius, the Sultan Murad begged for a peace of ten years, which both Parliament and King accepted. For no apparent cause, Ladislaus broke his oath, and when the Pope attacked the Porte, Cardinal Julian was sent to urge the King to a new war. On November 10, 1444, the Hungarians were deserted by their Italian allies at Varna, Ladislaus was killed in battle, and the Hungarians defeated. Hunyadi, however, escaped, and his fiery genius averted a total national disaster.

Bent upon revenge, he enrolled an army at his own expense, and, aided by the eloquence of a monk named John Capistran, marched on Belgrade, and there annihilated the besieging Turks. Pestilence overtook this brave man in 1456, and he died, leaving two sons behind, the elder of which the King ordered to be executed, whilst the younger son - Matthias - he carried with him prisoner to Prague. The death of the King broke the bonds that bound the young Matthias Hunyadi, and, returning to his native land, he was placed upon the vacant throne.

The reign of Matthias Corvinus covered thirty-two years. It was a period of unrest and accomplishment. War followed war, success inspired success. He captured Vienna, but, before doing so, routed the Turks at Kenyérmező, and defeated Podiebrad of Bohemia. The instinct of generalship burned fiercely within him, and he created the celebrated “Black Band” of infantry. Organisation in him became almost a craze, but that it worked well for the nation is seen in the fact that he succeeded in making himself independent of the narrow, selfish aristocracy of the day. His ambition was to base his empire upon the lower nobility, and thus raise a new aristocracy. Such was his influence and gifts, that it was called “the Golden Age.” He loved his people, was a great legislator, a munificent patron of the arts, and a great judge.

Even today one occasionally comes into contact with the motto, “Matthias is dead: there is no more justice.” It seemed on the decease of Matthias that the nobility, weary of an energetic king, desired a respite, Ladislaus of Bohemia, who now assumed kingship, was a mere shadow of his predecessor. Absolutely indifferent to the dignity of the crown and the vital interests of the nation, his main achievement was that of always purchasing peace under shameful conditions. Naturally under such a ruler the country went to ruin.

The imposition of heavy burdens upon the vassals led to a peasants’ revolt, and ended in Zapolyai of Szepes, a great landowner, heading a movement which at the death of the King made him Regent. Domestic disorders and Turkish troubles were the characteristics of the reign of Lajos II. Solymon the Great took advantage of the inertia of Lajos II., and on August
29, 1526, came the calamity of Mohács. The Hungarians were overwhelmed, and Lajos killed in the act of retreating ; consequently the Turkish leader took Buda without opposition. After devastating the land, Solymon left in October. Following the departure of the Turks, Hungary was honoured by having two kings. The Parliament of Székesfehérvár crowned John Zapolyai King ; whilst during the closing days of 1526, Ferdinand, brother of Charles V., was chosen King. It has rightly been described as a period of political fluctuation.

In the summer of 1527, Ferdinand was crowned at Buda, driving all opponents of such an act to Poland. The position, however, was a difficult one to hold, for John Zapolyai returned, and, aided by Solyman, his claim was regarded as most secure. French politics also at this epoch did something to undermine the power of the Habsburgs, and thus Solyman was encouraged to contemplate a second march on Vienna. His efforts, however, were frustrated by Nicholas Jurisics. In nine years Buda again suffered from Turkish occupation. Internal development under such conditions of national life was practically impossible. Kingly caprice repeatedly sacrificed the national well-being to a personal whim. A kindly Providence, however, gave Hungary from time to time a noble array of commoners, literary statesmen, and warriors. Pen and sword were often allies. Just as another such man was needed, Nicholas Zrínyi appeared. What a crowd of stories my old friend of the hills told me of Zrínyi. But of Zrínyi, more in another chapter.

Towards the end of the sixteenth century the two great controversies were the prerogative of the nobility, and the religious question. This latter was natural for Mohács, and the Turkish hegemony considerably weakened the ancient organisation of the Catholic Church, whilst the spirit of the Reformation stirred the burgesses of the towns, creating an unrest, which bore no good. Protestantism even at this time was not a force to be lightly pushed aside. Melancholy King Rudolf wilfully tampered with the laws, and introduced a clause empowering him to arrest wealthy magnates on the most ridiculous of charges, and by such means secure their property. By force he deprived the Protestants of their cathedral at Kassa. Order under such conditions became an impossibility. The occasion demanded a new force or figure, and
Bocskay, that stout defender of Protestantism, made his entrance. Owing to the intervention of Bocskay, the Protestants received complete religious freedom and unconditional permission to practise their faith without interference. Protestantism fought valiantly for its existence, and Bocskay with Bethlen Gábor did much to stave off the extermination movement.

Transylvania had now reached the height of its glory, and Bethlen Gábor was the greatest of its princes. He was contemporaneous with Cromwell, was a staunch Calvinist, a successful general, a man of the most determined resolution and untiring energy. Many of his habits have been styled Puritan, and he would have presented a fine figure in fustian. He composed Psalms, which were sung in the churches, and rumour hath it that he had read his Bible through twenty times. His two constant aims were the banishment of the Jesuits from Transylvania, and the securing of the rights of the Protestants. The part that he played in the Thirty Years’ War gave a European importance to Transylvania. It was impossible to heal the divisions of Christendom by force, and Transylvania knew it perhaps better than many larger States in Europe. Bethlen Gábor was followed by George Rákóczy, who was a man of peace, but who willingly took up arms in the Protestant interest, and allied himself with the Swedes.

Gloomy days were in store for Protestantism, for Leopold I. declared his object to be to “impoverish, enslave, and re-catholicise Hungary.” His treatment of the Protestants was disgraceful, and led to a plot to break with the House of Habsburg; the ringleaders of the conspiracy, however, were discovered, and for years the hangman was busy. The Viennese Court in revenge tried to utilise the occasion, and attempted to destroy the constitution of Transylvania. Constitutions, like monarchs, are not often killed by hard names. At Pozsony, Protestant persecution was so rigorously conducted by the Viennese Court, that the fate of the victims awakened European sympathy. The principle of ” forcible conversion ” failed, and Holland sent out Admiral de Ruyter to free those sent as galley slaves.

Thököly and the Kurucz (fugitives) almost captured Vienna, for he was supported by the Sultan, and this Protestant uprising was one of the most successful of the period. Leopold, seeking the aid of Sobieski of Poland and others, then fell upon the Turks and overwhelmed them, and from this point their influence begins to wane in Hungary. One of the remarkable features of Hungarian history is the rallying capacity of the nation. A stupid blunder, scarcity of troops, it mattered but little the cause of the defeat, what was of real moment was the assurance that the nation would soon be “up and at ‘em” again. Even history, it is said, has its dull moments, but Hungarian history is surprisingly scant in this direction. The nation settled down in 1687 to the idea of legalised succession in the male line of the House of Habsburg. Many since have called it a mental lapse. Perhaps the people were again tired out and desired peace at any price. Or, better still, were contemplating an uprising which in a short time would undo the wrongs of past days.

Less than twenty years elapsed ere the great outbreak of the common people stirred the very foundations of the House of Habsburg, and struck with despair the hearts of its supporters. Who has not heard of Rákóczy II.? His history was as exciting as it was possible. Born the first son of his father, who died in a dungeon, he was carried from Transylvania to Austria to be educated under the influence of the Jesuit priests of Prague. His father, who had been a co-conspirator with Wesselényi, had his estates confiscated, but these were returned to his son on his marriage. The freedom of the young Prince was only short-lived, for Leopold I., afraid that Rákóczy would ferment the hostile spirits of the Hungarians, ordered him back to Austria, from whence he escaped to Poland. Here one day he was surprised in his solitude by receiving a deputation of North Hungarian peasantry, who pleaded with him to place himself at the head of the peasants of his Fatherland against the yoke of the Austrian. He did so, but not before securing the support of France and Poland. Issuing a national manifesto, the whole nation drew to his side. All the enemies of Austria supported the rising, and Rákóczy was chosen to command the combined forces. Success in dainty gown came out to meet him, and he was crowned Prince of Transylvania.

On May 31, 1707, Leopold was forced to proclaim the independence of Hungary. It was a war of liberty, and thus far the common people had won. In all such successes one may find the germs of disaster and defeat. The moderates left his side to treat with Austria, an action which led to the Peace of Szatmár (171), with which Rákóczy was dissatisfied; consequently he withdrew to a foreign land. First Paris sheltered him, and finally Turkey, where he was ministered to by some kind-hearted priests until the end came. The element of tragedy is seen in the fact that he died and was buried in an alien land, though his ashes now rest at Kassa. This practically closes the era of civil wars. It may be that Rákóczy and his movement came a trifle too late, and this accounts for his apparent lack of success. It is not to be doubted that at this juncture the nation was exhausted.

The reign of Charles III. was short but striking. Firstly, there was the organisation of a standing Hungarian army, to be fed by recruiting agencies; secondly, Parliament expressed its willingness that succession should be entailed in the female line of the Habsburgs; whilst finally, what is known as the Pragmatic Sanction, the first constitution-like alliance between the patrimony of the Habsburgs and the kingdom of Hungary, received parliamentary consent. The weakness of the Pragmatic Sanction is that a principle only is expressed, and not the manner of its relationship, consequently violent constitutional conflicts ensued. The gift of Charles III. to Hungarian rule was Maria Theresa, who was nobly defended by the nation against her neighbours. Several educational changes were introduced. The University was trans- planted from Nagyszombat to Buda. A law faculty and schools was founded, middle schools formed, and she - the Queen - applied the entire wealth of the suppressed Jesuit order to the cause of education, regulated agrarian matters for the benefit of vassals, and commenced a system of better water-supply and road-making. Joseph, her son, possessed the kingly grace of tactlessness, but to some degree furthered the reforms of his mother. His gift was autocratic rule, and he refused to be crowned. With a waywardness that brought its own revenge, he made German the official language. His tactlessness robbed his reign of usefulness, and towards its close he revoked most of the measures, which contained the germ of national well-being. During the two years reign of Leopold II. the unity between crown and nation was restored. It has often been asked.

How far did the spirit of the French Revolution penetrate into Hungary?

The answer is written with the iron of suffering upon the pages of history of the reign of Francis I. Whenever it appeared and whoever championed it, it was suppressed with cruel vigour by the Government. Nearly all the literary world was thrown into prison, but the whole country became imbued with French ideas. When Napoleon called in 1809 to Hungary to recover her political independence and select a new king, the idea fell flat. Leopold during the Napoleonic wars simply played at constitutionalism, but when the dangers consequent upon the activity of ” the incomparable Corsican ” were passed, he revealed himself in his true character, suspending the Diet, and levying taxes and troops at will. One of the most fascinating epochs now dawns. National consciousness awakened, intellectual and material needs were easily recognised. The spirit of reform was in the air.

Neither was the country bereft of the essential man. In looking over the achievements of Count Stephen Széchenyi, one is reminded of the truth of Emerson’s saying, “An institution is the lengthened shadow of one man.” In Budapest today the “lengthened shadow” of this man is seen everywhere. He was an untiring apostle of reform. In the Parliament of 1825 Széchenyi was one of the most prominent figures, and he won the heart of the nation by devoting a year’s income - some 60,000 forints - to the establishment of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Reform and practicality went hand in hand with him. He regulated the Danube and the Tisza, founded the Danube Steam- boat Navigation Society, built the chain bridge over the Danube, and instituted the Agricultural Society, together with a host of other things. Metternich was the great opponent of reform. Széchenyi, Deák, and Kossuth, with a crowd of others, captured the feeling of the nation, and the Viennese Court knew it, but failed to appreciate the growing body of new opinion it represented. Kossuth the eloquent and literary was soon driven into the ranks of the irreconcilables. The aims of Széchenyi and Kossuth were fundamentally alike, but the former kept in view peace with Vienna, whilst the latter, rightly as it proved, regarded Vienna as the sworn foe of all Hungarian progress and reform.

In the Diets of 1839 and 1843 some progress was made, particularly regarding the official use of the Hungarian language, the admittance of commoners to public offices, and the granting of equal rights to all Christian denominations. It was impossible, however, to stave off 1848. There was something international about 1848. Nationally it remains considerably more than a name, a date, a mere historic episode. It is an inspiration even to this day. The cry from Hungary was “Reform” The answer Vienna gave was, “No Reform.” Responsible ministers such as Batthyány, Deák, and Kossuth foresaw Austria’s refusal to grant measures - not an open opposition, it is true, but a secret movement. Students of history are well aware what happened, that agitators were thrown amongst the Croatians, the Serbs, and the Romanians in Hungary. Vienna fanned the flames of local discontent. Terrible massacres ensued. Whilst the Croatians, Serbs, and Romanians sought the aid of arms, the Germans, Slovaks, and Ruthenians loyally supported the national cause. Parliament unanimously voted the necessary military and financial means for suppressing the insurrection. In the September of the year the Viennese Court threw off its mask and recalled the Palatine Archduke Stephen, and appointed Count Lamberg as his successor. Parliament repudiated these acts, and Count Lamberg was murdered by the enraged Hungarians directly he appeared at Budapest. The Ministry resigning, a council of national defence was formed, with Kossuth as President. In a remarkably short time a very capable army was marshalled and sent out to meet Jellachich, who was marching on Budapest at the head of the Croatians. Thoroughly beaten, he fled, after an armistice, to Vienna. A short time after this came the news of the abdication of Ferdinand and the institution of Francis Joseph I. Success and failure, victory and defeat were the characteristics of the closing days of 1848. Bem subdued the nationalities for Hungary, but a great part of Hungary was captured by the Austrians. It is interesting to note the words of Palmerston concerning this conflict:

“I firmly believe that in this war between Austria and Hungary there is enlisted on the side of Hungary the hearts and souls of the whole people of that country. I believe that the other races distinct from the Magyars have forgotten the former feuds that existed between them and the Magyar population, and that the greater portion of the people have engaged in what they consider a great national contest. It is true that Hungary for centuries past has been a State, which, though united with Austria by the link of the Crown, has nevertheless been separated and distinct from Austria by its own complete constitution. That constitution has many defects, but some were remedied not long ago, and it is not the only ancient constitution on the Continent, which was susceptible of improvement. … I take the question which is now to be fought out on the plains of Hungary to be this: - whether Hungary shall continue to maintain its separate nationality as a distinct kingdom, and with a constitution of its own; or whether it is to be incorporated more or less in the aggregate constitution that is to be given to the Austrian Empire. … It is impossible to disguise from ourselves, that, if the war is to be fought out, Austria must thereby be weakened, because if the Hungarians should be successful, and their success should end in the entire separation of Austria from Hungary, it will be impossible not to see that this would be such a dismemberment of the Austrian Empire as will prevent Austria from continuing to occupy the great position she has hitherto held amongst European Powers; if, on the other hand, the war being fought out to the uttermost, Hungary should be completely crushed by superior forces, Austria in that battle will have crushed her own right arm. Every field that is laid waste is an Austrian resource destroyed; every man that perishes on the field among the Hungarian ranks is an Austrian soldier deducted from the defensive forces of the Empire.”

There is truth in every line of this, but there were no hearing ears. Prince Windischgrätz besieged Buda, and the Government fled to Debreczen, where a strong national army was organised under the generalship of Görgei, Klapka, Damjanich, and the Pole Bern.
These drove nearly all the Austrian troops out of the land. In vain did Hentzi besiege Pest, whilst Buda was recaptured by the Hungarians. On April 14, 1849, Parliament dethroned the Habsburg dynasty. Such was the chaos in the land. Unfortunately, so much was left to chance that no final form of government was determined upon. Kossuth was elected Governor President, but too much was left to his initiative, whilst in the ways of war he was not well versed. Trouble then loomed from their own ranks, for Görgei refused to listen to the advice of Kossuth upon a point upon which the latter was perfectly right. This cost the nation much. From this point the flag of victory began to droop. Görgei, instead of advancing on Vienna, decided to retake Buda en route, thereby giving the Austrians time to join forces with their Russian allies. This naturally led to many heated disputes between Görgei and Kossuth, until finally the latter resigned, the General then enjoying complete command. His first act was an abuse of his newly gained power, for he unconditionally surrendered himself to the Russian troops. It was a despicable act - an act of unpardonable treachery, as was afterwards proved. He tricked thirteen other generals into following his example, whilst many of the real leaders fled to Turkey. Görgei himself was sent to Klagenfurt, where he enjoyed a small pension. Világos was a dark day for Hungary. Then followed scenes of indescribable cruelty, of exceptional and unnecessary violence, of bestial revenge. Nothing was heard for months in Hungary but the groans of suffering men and women. Every prison was filled. Trial was dispensed with, and a coarseness and brutality equal to that of the French Revolution reigned supreme. Wholesale hanging was the order of the day. The gallant old Honveds were enrolled in the Austrian army. Hungary was incorporated in Austria. German again became the language, and all national endeavour was stifled. How my blood boiled as I listened to stories, highly coloured doubtless, but by eye-witnesses, of the terrible havoc made by hangman Haynau!

Professor Vámbéry also described his witnessing the Evangelical clergyman Paul Rarga carrying his own gallows up the Szamár-hegy at Pozsony, and how that his five little children were forced to the scene to witness the execution of their father. It was a blood drama. Licence took the place of liberty, and blood was the only negotiable currency.

On the Hungarian calendar stands a day underlined with red. It is October 6, 1849. No one is allowed to forget it, it is “Arad Day.” Every year on this date Budapest clothes itself in black. It is the nation’s mourning day. Never have I heard a nation sing as the Hungarians sang the first ” Arad Day ” procession I witnessed. But what is “Arad Day”? It is simply the day upon which the thirteen generals were killed at Arad by order of an illegally constituted Court-martial called together by Haynau the butcher.

These betrayed souls died nobly, as men and Hungarians only can. On the same day was shed in Pest the blood of one of the noblest martyrs in the cause of freedom. Count Lajos Batthyány. In vain did he protest against the Court called together to judge him. Strangely enough, the Court-martial acquitted him, but a second one condemned him to die on the scaffold. The first Hungarian Minister President revolted against such a death, and the Countess Károlyi smuggled a stiletto into the prison, with which Batthyány so wounded his throat that it became impossible to hang him. He was accordingly shot. Even women did not escape the cruelty of Haynau, “the Hyena of Brescia.” No woman can forgive Haynau for ordering Mrs. Maderspach to be dragged to the market-place of Ruszkabánya, there undressed by the soldiers, and beaten within an inch of her life. Her husband, when he learned of the episode, could not survive the dishonouring of his wife, and committed suicide. Hungary and the Hungarians will ever remain grateful to the employees of Messrs. Barclay & Perkins’ Brewery in London for the thrashing they gave Haynau when he visited them.

Many, however, were simply cudgelled to death. There was the case of the old coffee-house keeper Liedermann, who was thrashed by order of General Schlick. When revoked for his brutality, the General said “he did not mean it,” but did not suppose “that sixty blows would kill a sixty-years-old man.” But one case must not be omitted: it was that of a Honvéd lieutenant named Lamborg, who was badly wounded and imprisoned. When Haynau was in Arad it so happened that the lieutenant met him one day on his way to the pharmacy. Unable by reason of his bandages to doff his hat, this Austrian Marat immediately sent for a bench, placed the lieutenant upon it, and had him so thrashed that all his wounds opened, and amid indescribable sufferings he died in front of a huge crowd who were cowed by the brutality of the man.

From this story of ” ‘48 ” one name is missing, and I have willfully left it for the closing lines of the chapter - it is the name of the great Hungarian poet Alexander Petőfi. Some even today are able to recall the picture of a handsome, patriotic, but impetuous poet reciting to a vast crowd his “Talpra Magyar” on March 15, 1848:

“Magyars, up! your country calls you;
Break the chain which now enthralls you;
Freemen be, or slaves for ever.
Choose ye, Magyars, now or never.
For by the Magyars’ God above
We truly swear.
We truly swear the tyrant’s yoke
No more to bear.”

After this, the crowd marched to a printing-office, drove out the representatives of the Censor, took possession of the machines, and printed the poem, which was circulated all over Hungary. The spirit of the song awakened all, and it is impossible to overestimate its contributory force. The poet then joined the Honvéds, was made captain and attached to General Bem, and met a brave soldier’s death at Segesvár at the hand of a Cossack.

The old order now giveth place to the new.

From: W. B. Forster Bovill, Hungary and the Hungarians, 1908

history, Hungary, Hungarians