István Nemere: History of Hungary Volume 1

Foreword by Eugen Macko

Historic objectivity? At universities endeavours are made to pursue authentic historical sciences as far as possible, or rather to attain a certain objectivity. This has been especially important since the natural sciences and technology have complied with exact criteria, consistently exercising a universal effect. However, this requirement, which first arose in the Renaissance and has persisted to the present day, has not been achieved in the human, social and historical sciences to this day. In the intervening centuries, alongside this trend many pseudoscientific theories and hypotheses came into being which were dialectically opposed to each other.

The ideas embedded in them have already caused several catastrophes for humanity. Then science became aware of its limits. This changed the belief in the concept of objective reality. The hope of objectivity that can grasp everything no longer dominates reality, but has made way for explanations closer to everyday reality.

New sciences have emerged which did not exist at all a hundred years ago. These, based on experience, explain the impossibility of exactly understanding various phenomena. Such sciences include psychology, social psychology, sociology, political science – and, more generally, in philosophy the new dialogical thinking, whose origins are to be found a few hundred years ago in ‘stepping over’ the classical in art. The process of understanding which could not be accomplished in classical frameworks is continuing in the latest branches of sciences in the present day and is achieving results.

The problem which currently exists is that the power accumulated in classical forms often acts as a brake on further development. In nation states scientific research and teachings that do not conform with the prescribed programme are not permitted. Such disturbances between development and the classical are evident in the European Union, where dialogical development would be essential.

For the EU to remain together, the free evolution of internationality and research which promotes the further development of methods of international democracy are required; a radically new departure that has not existed in our past but is of existential importance to the present because the national democracies that have functioned to date and, as the experience of history shows, have led to cataclysms on several occasions do not work in the situation today.

However, realising that there is no objective truth in history does not mean that we can write our histories in whatever way we want, in other words, following the classical concept of Greek origin, placing ourselves in the centre and attributing an accidental character to everything that occurs around us. This perception only became a conscious political problem in the late modern period when human equality appeared in the evolution of democracy.

Ignoring this new democracy contributed to the process of the disintegration of the multiethnic Habsburg monarchy to a great extent. This not only brought the monarchy and aristocratic privileges to an end, but also meant that the positive experiences of the coexistence of different peoples gained over the centuries were lost – which is equally important but regrettably hitherto has not received the attention it deserves. Using the concept of ‘inter-nationality’ as a basis, the principle of ‘inter-ness’, which for example elevated the United States of America into a world power, was not recognised.

Internationality and the dialectic of nationalism were not permitted to evolve in the general direction of development but were used by the ruling aristocracy to save the monarchy. The classical culture of the different peoples and the development of political consciousness after the French Revolution were used to incite discord, which directly led to substantiating the causes of the two world wars. The horrors of war inflicted wounds between nations that are difficult to heal, and which, after a hundred years, as a result of the process of mutual forgiveness, have opened a new dialogical relationship in the European Union in our time.

By observing the facts which have remained from our history, it can be concluded without any (or with at most a modicum of) imagination that Hungarians played a large part in obstructing the development of the nascent internationality originating in the Habsburg monarchy. Or rather, their part in providing the underlying reasons for the last two major wars in Europe was perhaps too large. Acknowledging those mistakes would in all likelihood greatly assist Hungary’s assimilation into the European Union and the development of the requisite internationality.

According to current social psychological understanding (which was non-existent a hundred years ago), the experiences of the many centuries of coexistence could be further developed adapting to the present forms of international coexistence. The mutual positive effects must be lifted from historic oblivion and made conscious in order to place the current (re)unification – in a European Union of a larger unity – on authentic foundations.

For this process it is necessary to rewrite classical national histories; to expunge unilaterally created conflicts and create an awareness of the dialectic mechanism which, starting from classical ethics, led to the deformation of human relations. There are deeply entrenched beliefs in national histories which may only be dispelled by thorough awareness-raising activities that can set in motion conscious development. There is a strong need for this in the European Union as the nationalist remnants directly interfere with and threaten further development.

As to which remnants need to be discarded for disturbing ‘inter-national’ coexistence, these can be identified by dialogical thinking when we try to think with another person’s mind, when we strive to fathom what it is that is contrary to peaceful coexistence. What did we establish only in our own selfish interests? Or what is it that only arises from vanity as a formality of pseudo-knowledge expressed as dialectical persuasion? Naturally, after often several hundred years of classical habituation and conviction, these are hard to recognise let alone acknowledge.

Yet nowadays acknowledgement does not occur always in a larger dialogical dimension because humanity is generally smarter and can morally recognise its previous mistakes but because technical development has reached its classical peak where we face the choice of existence and non-existence. Thus now is the time to decide and to do so dialogically as there is no time for classical dialectical persuasion.

If we choose existence as the alternative, we must begin building a dialogical relationship with the environment, that is society and nature. Various endeavours in this vein are underway at present but these must appear not only in the family, ethnic groups, the nation and the state, but also in the international relations of the European Union if we wish to preserve this unity in the future.

In order to achieve this, it is necessary that each nation comprising the European Union identifies and consciously comes to terms with its historically disturbing factors, and includes them in a dialogical conversation. Every nation must start with its own history. First it must look for and examine parts which clearly appear not to correspond with reality. Then it must be open to listen to and respond to the criticism of other peoples and nations.

While doing this, if we wish for true reconciliation, we must renounce the ‘real truth’ of the classical ideal which does not exist (and never existed) consistently or classically – as proved by countless historical tragedies. The dialectical ‘art of persuasion’, which through the pride, or rather stupidity, of classical heroism has led to many catastrophes in history, can only be overcome by dialogics.

The dialogical element has always existed since we have been aware of our history but has been repressed by dialectical force although precisely this element has sustained dialectics in the background, which is why it is so difficult to distinguish the two. The need for the dialogical element appeared in international politics in the second half of the 20th century, clearly in the choice between existence and destruction.

The understanding and practical application of dialogics, this existentially important topic for humanity today, is expressed by István Nemere in a concrete form in his History of Hungary. The dialogical elements can be recognised in a tangible form in the author’s interpretation of history following a new way of thinking which represents the necessary transcending of the classical historiography of the past.

Nemere has found the appropriate voice and style for writing history today. He expresses with literary brilliance all that can be said, free of rapturous exaggerations, using the surviving old chronicles, making intelligent use of the latest approaches of the human sciences and reducing these to contents which can be supported by facts.

Exaggerations created from nationalist romantic zeal yet which lack rational evidence are not omitted but highlighted. These are exactly those irrational exaggerations which provoke neighbouring peoples and often cause deep offence. These things need to be expressed and must not be suppressed; they need to be processed intellectually and psychologically, and, where necessary, apologies need to be made reciprocally expecting forgiveness. In this lies the dialogics our times require.

Nemere’s approach of an international standing to Hungarian history stems from his direct international experiences and, not least but essentially, from the influence of Esperanto, the effect of this language transcending classical linguistics which is dialogically and artfully composed from different languages, whose originator, L. Zamenhof, belongs to the time of the appearance of the new dialogical thinking also historically.


Foreword Volume 2

In the second volume of this trilogy on the history of Hungary, István Nemere presents the most tragic period of the country’s medieval past: Hungary’s rise to the status of a major European power and its subsequent fall when it almost totally disappeared from the map. He describes the successes of the Hunyadi family, the repulsion of the Ottoman attacks and the reign of King Matthias, followed by Hungary’s collapse after the defeat at the hands of the Turks at Mohács, and the ensuing Turkish occupation.

From the aspect of social psychology, these historic events had, and still have, perceptible effects on the Hungarian national psyche and the country’s international relations, which are apparent in ambivalent forms of behaviour in many cases. The psychological impressions which lie deep below the national consciousness and can now be shown by modern scientific analysis can be traced back to these times.

Phenomena are described which can be explained by research in sociology, political science and psychology and which may elucidate historic events and reactions that hitherto have been less comprehensible, especially for foreigners. The facts which have driven Hungary into tragedy on many occasions in the course of the country’s history have been raised from the depths of time and presented clearly.

The findings and application of these new sciences, which did not exist in their current form 100 years ago, are present in the background of Nemere’s account, and these overstep the unilateral classical idealism that has resulted in disastrous lack of understanding between European nations over past centuries.

Using the dramaturgy of fate and literary artistry, Nemere points out the negative developments in the past that caused these tragedies. He narrates the events that inevitably led to catastrophic consequences with literary skill and no emotional exaggeration.

Hungary collapsed as a major power after the death of King Matthias primarily due to dissension among the nobility, which weakened the country to the point where it was unable to join forces in order to repel the attacks of the Islamic Ottoman Turks. A period of Turkish occupation and oppression lasting 150 years followed. After the expulsion of the Turks, the Habsburg Monarchy extended and took over areas that were formerly Hungarian territory.

The so-called ‘golden age’ of Transylvania is a relative concept with regard to the whole of Hungary as it occurred while the largest part of the country was under direct Ottoman rule and Transylvania itself was under Turkish suzerainty. Today this golden age is particularly foreign and distant because present-day Hungary does not even include this part of the former Hungarian realm.

Various influences during these times became the reasons for renewed dissension later, which were manifest in the conflict between the ‘kuruc’ anti-Habsburg rebels and the ‘labanc’ loyalists. In this relationship the old East-West division of Europe, whose line passed, and still today passes, through Hungary, appeared in a new form.

On one side there was the differing Eastern European mentality which originated from the time of Constantinople and soon Turkicized under the impact of a religion from outside Europe. The anti-Habsburg kuruc fighters in a sense identified with this. Opposing them were the labanc loyalists, who inclined towards Western Europe and the Catholic Habsburgs.

The Hungarians in the middle of Central Europe found themselves between East and West, separated by the line between these currents. Around that time, these differences were strengthened by the appearance of Protestantism in opposition to Catholicism, which drove its opponents to the other side of the conflict, and in consequence Protestantism developed more strongly in Transylvania.

This difference can be traced to the present day through social psychology in the opinions and stances of the Hungarians. On the one hand, there is loyalty to Europe and, on the other hand, there is the disenchantment of having been abandoned by the West in the face of repeated threats from the East when the Hungarians fought and bled defending not only themselves but Western and Northern Europe as well.

In the period of the 15th to the 17th centuries, several world-changing events occurred. The Renaissance revived Graeco-Roman classicism, which spurred the sciences and arts while shedding medieval dogmas. The court of King Matthias flourished and abounded in scholars and artists from foreign countries, from whom the Hungarian lords could learn the current knowledge of the age.

Advances in navigation and maritime technology led to the discovery of America. Emigration began, which resulted in reducing the growing social tensions in several European countries but also contributed to the weakening of these states. At the same time, having adopted Islam, a consolidated Caucasian Turkic ethnic group threatened Southern Europe. First they captured the Byzantine capital, then acquired territory westward along the North African coast almost to the Iberian Peninsula, while progressively expanding across the Balkans towards Central and Northern Europe.

At this time, however, the so-called ‘Christian Europe’ was occupied with very different problems that were more important for many than repelling a common threat to Europe. Christianity at the time did not only have to cope with the schism of Eastern and Western Europe, but a separate conflict had developed in the West between Rome and Protestantism.

Martin Luther’s translation of the Bible in the spirit of Protestantism established the classical German language, which provided the basis for a ‘national culture’ to evolve as opposed to ‘universal’ Catholicism. Influenced by this, other European peoples started to establish their own classical languages, cultures and nations, which would lead to problems in the future.

As regards Nemere’s work, because of the necessity of dialogical conditions today, it is important to highlight that he avoids the bias of classical ethical customs which usually characterises the description of national histories and often omits the negative aspects. Instead, he explains the weaknesses of human nature against the background knowledge of the new sciences. He does not spare rulers, kings and emperors, who in many cases were born with mental disorders through cousin marriage and interbreeding and ascended the throne with a disability.

A monarch with such an intellectual deficit could aggravate the situation of an already oppressed and exploited people to an intolerable extent. Irrespective of which side of a conflict a country was on, its people were the victims of epidemics, famine, and the pillaging and robbery of enemy, and often their own, soldiers.

After the relative order of the golden age, Transylvania was struck by a catastrophic visitation of the plague and famine, when instances of cannibalism occurred. The alternation of enemies led to new wars, which were accompanied by a flourishing of the slave trade. Venice was in need of manpower to row its galleys and paid well for slaves. War was needed for the specific purpose of supplying them. When mercenaries were not paid, they simply changed sides.

The main problems of the 16th and 17th centuries stemmed from the ingrained social differences which the Christian Church avowed to be the ‘will of God’ despite its power originating in the fight against a classical slave-owning society and proclaiming that ‘all men are equal before God’. Inevitably, these gave rise to a struggle to secure a new social order by force. Whereas this represented a step forward in development, it was still far from the above fundamental statement of Christianity.

Clearly, the greatest problems in this period of history were generated by these circumstances. On one side there were the nobles, who had privileges yet were unable to resolve the dissension between each other as they were consumed by rivalry, jealousy, power lust and the negative manifestations of classical qualities. On the other side was the cruel exploitation and oppression of the people.

Signs of a new era emerged at the end of the 17th century that were pointing towards the Age of Enlightenment, indicating its nature. Rational thought and science began to occupy a greater space alongside the still very powerful religious and classical dogmas. As the religious dogmas were gradually sidelined, the classical dogmas with new idealistic interpretations gained a greater presence. These would then cause ideological problems in 18th- to 20th-century society.


Foreword Volume 3

In the third part of this trilogy, the reverberation of the impact of European and world history on Hungarian history is experienced. Over time this tends to appear as a secondary effect, which is evident in a certain conservative reaction to this day. At the start, a dialectical advantage can be found, which, however, is completely reversed under the influence of time and development.

The so-called ‘Age of Enlightenment’ should have replaced and illuminated the ‘Dark Ages’. However, great expectations should not be pinned on this because the humanist disciplines were not able to keep pace with the discoveries and the accelerated development of science. Not wishing to fall behind in development, the humanist disciplines, relying on the natural sciences, arrived at false results which provoked social disasters.

Uprisings against domination, rebellions against repression, regime-changing revolutions, and civil wars which then evolved into conflicts between nations followed. Major social differences emerged in societies. Through economic development, the growth of the middle classes came to challenge the privileges of the aristocracy, while these social disparities culminated in bourgeois capitalism and the exploited proletariat.

The dialectical conditions of these social disparities unleashed revolutions that swept aside everything, each one resulting in a terror regime, such as the French Revolution leading to the Jacobin dictatorship and the October Revolution in Russia bringing communist dictatorship. All these events changing the social world greatly affected the course of Hungarian history as well.

In Hungary, the direct impact of these events appeared in the development of nationalism and fascism. Nationalism was a direct consequence of the growth of the middle class, and fascism became the dialectical opposite of communism. The actual experience of living through these historical processes subsequently gave the Hungarian people the opportunity of learning from the experience of these tragic events.

The Hungarians tended to be on the conservative side, where they defended what they were accustomed to. The conflict between the revolution of development and conservatism escalated until hostilities erupted. Napoleon wanted to force the achievements of the revolution on the whole of Europe. At first, the monarchies successfully resisted and Napoleon was defeated, but social development could not be stopped. Two world wars compelled the world to understand and accept this.

During these periods, the Hungarians sided with the Habsburg Monarchy, which resulted in self-evident conservatism. The peak of feudalism was reached in the Habsburg Monarchy through considerable Hungarian influence. Its economy was built on countries located in areas with favourable climatic conditions that were united in a common state which was able to function as a major power in Europe (in political terms this meant the world at that time) until the late Middle Ages. Austria benefited from this for 500 years.

However, this medieval advantage turned into a dialectical disadvantage which hindered social progress in later periods of development. Failing to adapt to development, endeavours were made to retain the status quo by force. War was provoked in the hope of classical victory, which was then lost. Then the victors partitioned the former major power, their rival, aided by a wave of nationalism which came at just the right time for them.

Thereafter, more was lost than should have been. This could be experienced later after the nationalist, fascist and communist dictatorships. Today in the European Union exactly those international values which were already emerging in the ‘unity of the peoples of Austria’ at that time are lacking.

The Austrians of the age of Maria Theresa evolved over centuries in the relationship between peoples of different ethnicity. They lived, worked and fought together, under the rule of the same state. They were jointly suppressed and exploited by the same upper class, but they also shared the joys of life, married and had children, and taught them under the effect of the same cultural traditions. Often their retained language was the only difference between them. The ruling nobles, clerics and scholars communicated in an international language, Latin, for over 300 years.

This ‘community-dialogical mode’ needs to be expressed in our times, in today’s descriptions of history instead of, or at least complementing, the descriptions of wars between different rulers that hitherto have been communicated in the classical style mostly through ‘dialectical opposites’. For this new style to be able to come about in the current age, the development of various new sciences through honest, authentic comprehension and the recognition of the limitations of their capabilities was necessary.

Psychology and then its combination with sociology, social psychology, have contributed most to the relativisation of the historical sciences. These new sciences are barely more than a hundred years old. Considering that writing about historical events is almost as old as writing itself, the desire of classical understanding to record the one and only truth, the ‘sacred’ writings, soon emerged. In this context, the importance and necessity of the current dialogical understanding of history gains relevance.

A new branch of psychology which has developed over roughly the last forty years is narrative psychology, which is used as therapy for some psychological disorders through telling stories. This method is also suitable to be used as therapy for the disorders of the classical understanding of history, which has caused so much suffering to humankind.

Thus, the most authentic style for rendering historic events is narration, telling stories, – the nearer in time to their happening the better – applying current scientific knowledge. Nevertheless, the honest admission that the truth is incomplete must always be added to the historical ‘knowledge’, because the problem of history in the past was not so much the inaccuracy of the ‘facts’ presented, but the belief in the accuracy of the statements of written history.

This trilogy on the history of Hungary by Nemere is an integral part of European and world history, which offers general lessons to be learnt, in particular in order to avoid the mistakes that have been made repeatedly in the past, but with the difference that this now concerns the whole of humanity and not only one or a few nations.

All that remains now is to accept what has happened whether one likes it or not. There is no point in extracting and celebrating an event from the depths of history when this offends other nations, such as the annual commemoration of the 1848 Revolution in Hungary, which was revived after the fall of communism. Its historic meaning received an ambivalent response from other Central European nations, particularly in the European Union. The name of the new state created by the 1867 Compromise, Austria-Hungary, in itself hurt the sensitivities of all the other 10 to 15 ethnicities that lived in the state’s territory because it added the country name of one particular nationality to the original name Österreich, which was a general term meaning ‘eastern realm’.

Various ‘-isms’ in history have attempted to step over the classical on numerous occasions. However, these occurred mainly using dialectical force, the result of which was not stepping over classicism but going to the other extreme, and it was the social sphere of reality that bore the brunt of these extreme swings.

Social revolutions erupted when change over the course of time was resisted and endeavours were made to apply constraints. Tensions rose through the suppression of progress which then exploded. Dogmas, laws, customs and social relationships cannot withstand the developmental process of time, which can be rationally experienced in reality.

An important realisation of our present from history is that it is not possible to interfere with time. One has to adapt to development in the adequacy of being (because being is time according to Heidegger). Attention must be paid to what develops. However, to be able to see the new, we need to sensitise ourselves by learning from what has happened and has been recorded in history.

This is why history and our relationship to it is important and not without relevance. The classical tries to perpetuate the ‘best’, but the manifestation of time does not allow this. We need to find the relationship which reveals the method of the manifestation of being. This is the same as raising awareness of experience in scientific observations, that is to say classical science stepping into reality.

However, there is no exact method for doing this, thus first of all this road was explored by art, followed by scientific observations and then society learnt from these. In this complementary unity, a limit appeared in social politics that cannot be crossed if we want to continue to exist in our world. The boundary and end of the art of dialectic persuasion was reached there. This was not the end of history, as some historians thought, but the end of classical history.

This is where new dialogical history necessarily begins if we want to continue to live in peace. For this dialogical thinking is essential. This means that the awareness must be instilled that not only I, my family, my people, my nation, my etc. exists in the world but I only exist in relation to someone and something. This is the point of realisation that creation is endless and ungraspable for me, in which I cannot exist by myself, only in relation to someone and something.

Nemere treated Hungarian history like a literary novel which, however, surpasses all lulling entertainment usual in novel writing. In the background he effortlessly amalgamates history with literary art and new knowledge gained through political sciences and social psychology on a middle way which is understandable for most literate, intelligent people.

Nemere is an artist of literary language. His knowledge of Esperanto and the language’s artistic qualities contribute a great deal to this. Esperanto is known to be an artificial, artistically composed language (artefarita lingvo). What this means from a psychological viewpoint is that Esperanto makes an impact on whoever speaks this language perfectly and uses it to create even when they express themself in any other language including their mother tongue. Moreover, this broadens horizons and stretches the boundaries of knowledge and science.

In Nemere, these effects are clearly obvious. He is typically a person whose endeavours to move on from the classical can be traced existentially from his childhood and adolescence. As a child, he disliked school and in his teens he learnt such an ‘exotic’ language as Esperanto. None of these traits impress entrenched classical thinkers. Nevertheless, delving into the biographies of important people, we find that it is those who have such a character that tend to create something lasting.

Keeping to historical facts, his views do not lack scientific thinking but the definitiveness of classical science is absent, which provides him with the option to be multifaceted and to recognise manifestations of the new. The mentality required for science fiction literature freed him from the constraints of the classical. Not being afraid of esoterica pushed the limits of his thinking to the point where something starts which is still not nothing. In eastern cultures this sphere is approached through meditation.

In order to understand history in the present, we need this new way of thinking to resolve the past’s dialectically tragic history through a dialogical approach which is existentially necessary for the present.

Based on a knowledge of social psychology, it can be stated that Nemere’s background in science fiction and Esperanto enabled him to interpret history with the approach necessary for the present, liberated from the shackles of classical ethics. Thus, of his complete oeuvre, his works describing history are the most important because the product of his previous experience as a writer can be seen in them expressed through the new dialogical thinking.

His dialogical attitude is also democratically evinced when he does not propound a definite opinion but leaves an issue open for readers to form their own point of view. He does not force his own opinion, and even less so his political standpoint, upon others, as opposed to some classical academics and sometimes scientists who are jealous of the truth to the point where they cannot tolerate other truths or the truth of others.

This style which is needed to process history today is not merely of incidental importance but is essential to avoid all forms of quasi-science and pseudo-objectivism. Put simply and plainly, in history and the other humanities there is not the objectivity which our ancestors have striven to achieve classically as a result of the natural and technical sciences over recent centuries.

The new method of understanding used in this work is important not only for the necessary dialogical interpretation of Hungarian history but also for the whole of Central Europe, which is very relevant in the European Union today.