Vi. Bölöni Farkas Sándor (1795-1842) and his Travels
VII. Széchenyi István and England
Yüklə 125,07 Kb.
|
- Bu səhifədəki naviqasiya:
- Wesselényi Miklós
- 1, Horseracing, horse breeding
- 3, Magyar Tudós Társaság (the Hungarian Academy)
- 4, Regulation of Lower-Danube section
- 5, Steam shipping on Danube foundation of Dunagőzhajózási Társaság (1830) 48 ships in 1850 6, Chain Bridge
- 7, Mill (József Hengermalom)
- 9, Tunnel below the Castle beginning of work: 1853 1857: completed 10, Railway system
- 11, Other projects
VII. Széchenyi István and EnglandIN THIS SECTION, we will cover:
To assess the way Széchenyi’s system of ideas developed as a result of his visits in Britain, first we have to examine his family background. The great moral legacy of the father, Széchenyi Ferenc should be greatly emphasized. He was a patron of arts, a maecenas, who worked for the public, and was loyal to the ruler. In his youth, he was an admirer of the ideas of Enlightenment, but after the French revolution and its aftermath he became more prudent, disillusioned, lost his faith in reason, and turned more conservative. He took pleasure in religion, and tried to educate his son to read “moral” books – he had to turn his back on the whole of the Enlightenment. This generation lost its pleasures, turned to more practical things, preferred the “practical England” to “the amusing France”. The father turned conservative, looked down on the “luxury” of the middle class, thought it was only the privilege of aristocracy. He thought it was not a privilege of his class to be an aristocrat, but a natural state of being, a kind of task to use this luxury. In other classes, he thought, it could only have a devastating effect. As a conservative, he thought in strict hierarchical /social categories. He was an international aristocrat, simply, a representative of European nobility (not Hungarian nobility), a collector of books, a supporter of literature. For this generation, art was not an individual accomplishment (as in Romanticism), not an ideal but a natural way of life to pursue a high standard of living. This kind of aristocrat set a task for himself: to serve culture and to create culture around himself. More than two hundred castles were built in the second half of 18th century (by the Esterházy, Pállfy, Zichy families). These noble families created great private collections, private libraries, they were supporters of printing, religion and sciences. So they did serve their nation, they were not “cosmopolitan” but did this as members of Western European aristocracy. It did not occur to them that they were doing it out of patriotism. Consequently, the sons got a religious and national upbringing (which meant they had to be loyal to the Austrian emperor): Széchenyi Lajos (1781-1855), the firstborn son was attached to the court, became a hyper-loyal aristocrat. Széchenyi Pál (1789-1871) retreated to the private sphere, lead a prosperous estate. In 1809, all three sons join the army fighting against Napoleon. After that, Széchenyi goes to Vienna to celebrate the victory over Napoleon. The young aristocratic people kept on celebrating, organizing balls and parties, etc. But underlying the pomp there was a feeling that the “world is out of joint”, things would never be the same again. Let us not forget: this is the age of Romantic poetry, and the predominant feeling was the melancholic Weltschmerz sentiment propagated by German and English romantics (especially Byron). This is also a period of crisis in Széchenyi’s life. First, he breaks with the education and mentality of his father and turns against him. He totally turns against his education up to that time (which was Hungarian and religious). He wanted to see himself in the party of the winners, the elegant Austrian circles. He often talked about his company as “we Austrians”, and in his diary mocked the uneducated Hungarians. In spite of all his efforts, he remains an outsider. Theoretically, he belonged to the Viennese aristocratic circles, but somehow did not fit, he was often neglected, which – Széchenyi being an especially sensitive person – hurt him very much. His failed love affairs exacerbated the situation, he felt he was often not taken seriously enough. Still, he was not able to break away from his class, he felt he was totally linked to them. This was the class whose loyalty was the most problematic. He could not afford to negate openly the authority of the Austrian house but felt the need for reforms at the same time. For Széchenyi Ferenc, his father, there was no strict difference between nation and class. He did not have to choose, being Hungarian and an aristocrat was a natural thing, he had no vision of national unity, the country was his “extended mansion”. Although he brought some practical examples from abroad but it did not occur to him that he should serve the nation with them (or, more precisely, that he was doing so out of patriotism, because he was Hungarian). For Széchenyi István, however, a conflict occurred between his class and nation. This is something typical of the dilemmas of the Reform Age. Where should he belong? What is the direction of the nation? What is being a Hungarian? What does being a Hungarian aristocrat in the Austrian empire mean? Széchenyi slowly began to “perceive” his Hungarian identity.
On returning plans three things: introduce horse-races, new methods of shipping and fox-hunting. In 1818, he plans a journey to the East. He was like Byron’s hero Childe Harold at this moment. The following quotation from Lord Byron’s poem exactly describes his mood: “But long ere scarce a third of his passed by, / Worse than adversity the Childe befell; / He felt the fullness of satiety: / Then loathed he in his native land to dwell, / Which seemed to him more lone than Eremite’s sad cell” (Canto I, Stanza 4). In fact, almost a complete similarity with Byron: dissatisfaction with people; lack of recognition; desire for development; spleen and melancholia are what was common in them. They were two dissatisfied, restless aristocrats, and two liberal aristocrats. In Greece, he visits all the important place of Byron’s life (the Romantics glorified ancient Greek culture to a great extent, especially Byron). But he was still quite pessimistic. As he wrote in particularly disillusioned lines, ”A szülők iránti kötelességet érett koromban csak a haza iránti kötelességel tudtam felváltani - és a haza pillanatnyilag nem létező.” (1819); “Olyan emberek között élek, akik jóllehet honfitársaim, mégis alig emberek – komikus, hogy itt Arábia pusztái helyett Magyarország pusztáin vagyok.” (1820) The person who dragged him out of this melancholic state was a fellow aristocrat and politician, Wesselényi Miklós. The contrast between the two personalities and worldviews is well highlighted by this quotation by Wesselényi: “Széchenyi panaszol azon, hogy nincs mező a haza javára munkálódni (...) fájlalja, hogy nem anglusnak vagy americanusnak született. Természetes, hogy kívánatosabb egy töredelmesen előrenyomuló sereg babérral fedezett tagjainak lenni, de szabad-e kiszabott helyünkről elfutni vagy azon tehetetlenül állani?”
Wesselényi makes him realize that Széchenyi may also make a career as a Hungarian aristocrat, who is popular without protection and is independent. We are talking about two entirely different characters: Wesselényi was an average Transsylvanian nobleman (köznemes), Széchenyi is an aristocrat who sometimes behaved rudely with Wesselényi. (When, for instance, Wesselényi wanted to interfere once in his chess-play, Széchenyi said: “No, nem kell most itt izélni!” Wesselényi was deeply offended.) Wesselényi clearly felt inferior in this relationship, but nevertheless had a great effect on Széchenyi. He thought positively about Széchenyi, but supposed that he was a rich aristocrat wasting his money and talents (though he did not realize that Széchenyi felt just as outcast as he did). Wesselényi was more realistic, Széchenyi dreaming full of ideas (like Don Quijote and Sancho Panza). It is Wesselényi who “brings him down to the ground.” In the person of the Transylvanian count, Széchenyi met the “average Hungarian”, and realized that it is the gentry he has to deal with if he wants to reform the country. They go to England to bring horses and to study racing and breeding (1822). Drawing on their experiences, Széchenyi published Lovakrul in 1828 and Wesselényi wrote A régi hires ménesek egyike megszűnésének okairól in 1829. Their approach was strictly practical: horse breeding should not only be a pleasant hobby but has to bring profit to the individual and to the state. Széchenyi: “nem a szenvedélyre, hanem a hasznot kereső lelkületre lehet építeni.” As Széchenyi discusses in Lovakrul, the situation in Hungary is not fit for profit-making. The optimal model, according to him, is England. The solution is create suitable conditions for breeding and racing but Széchenyi establishes the whole project on the desire for profit among rich people and does not talk about national sentiment (“Csak a nagylelkűséget és a patriotizmust nem kell, az Istenért, összekeverni a gazdagsággal!”). A slight contradiction appears when he does talk about the first prize of Ft10,000: ”Már itt szép helye a patriotizmusnak”. The rich magnates should offer the prize. As Wesselényi formulated the same idea: “Ámbár egy-egy dolog a hazafiúi buzgó munkásságot s áldozatokat ennél meg nem érdemli; s minden jó hazafinak azon kell lenni, hogy a nemzeti lépesedésnek [gazdagodás, fejlődés] ezen fontos része gyarapodjék, de tudom azt, hogy ezen tárgy közönségesen előmenni nem fog, ha annak mozdító rugója csak a hazafiság leend (…). A lótenyésztés éppen úgy fabrika [mesterség, tudomány] mint akármely más mestermíveket készítő, mely ha haszonnal bíztat, gyarapodni, s elé fog menni. Hogy a csupa hazafiság vagy passio mely kevés fabrikát szül, s azokat is milyen csak sinlődő karban tudja fenn tartani, azt a két Hazában elég szomorú példa mutatta s bizonyítja.” Wesselényi, beyond pointing out the importance of these practical matters to Széchenyi, made him realize a second thing. Széchenyi began to understand that his own identity, the superior, European, educated one, was absolutely different from that of his friend, which was seen by him as a more “natural”, “original”, “ancient” Hungarian identity. Széchenyi thought it to be a question of East and West, being essentially the contrast of an individual ”torn” out of his nation (Széchenyi), versus one organically “embedded” into it (Wesselényi). The new 19th-century phenomenon of nationalism complicated these matters. Before 19th century no such contrast existed. Before Wesselényi there was not a Western model to be adopted as forced upon as, but these European examples were part of the natural way of existence of the Hungarians, coming from such sources as Humanism, Protestant peregrination and values transmitted by the poets of the Enlightenment. The pre-19th century scholars and travelers were not familiar with alienation, because for them “foreign” was immediately Hungarian, they strove for the modern easily to be assimilated into Hungarian culture. They might have admitted that Hungary was lagging behind the West but this did not cause melancholia in them but a force to know more, and it did not occur to them that they were “less” Hungarian by following Western models and examples. The situation changed by the 1820s, because the new phenomenon of patriotism vs. cosmopolitanism appeared. The dilemma basically was: should we choose between England and Hungary? Are we less developed? Are those who are enthusiastic about England less patriotic by definition? Does getting to know foreign things endanger one’s loyalty to Hungary? It is in this period that the myth of East vs. West is created and Hungary was often conceived of as a bridge between East and West (that is, neither “Eastern” nor “Western” enough). All of these experiences resulted in Széchenyi’s thinking turning towards more and more practical things from about 1825 on. The greatest achievements of Széchenyi were the following: 1, Horseracing, horse breeding
2, Casino
3, Magyar Tudós Társaság (the Hungarian Academy)
4, Regulation of Lower-Danube section
5, Steam shipping on Danube
6, Chain Bridge
7, Mill (József Hengermalom)
8, Savings banks
9, Tunnel below the Castle
10, Railway system
11, Other projects:
Yüklə 125,07 Kb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|
