Seite 106 [106]
OCR
Encountering the Hungarian Alterity: An Analysis of a Narrative by a Finnish Traveller was more temperamental than the one of the Finns, Jalava surmised (Jalava 1876b: 4-5, 9). Historically viewed, the main difference between Hungary and Finland for Jalava was that the peasantry of Hungary was still enslaved; whereas, Finnish peasants had enjoyed considerable “freedom” already under an otherwise “oppressive” Swedish rule (pre-1809). In Hungary, the nobles had fought against each other at the expense of the serfs, which had led to “uprisings, persecution, murder and destruction” (Jalava 1883:7). However, in the nineteenth century, each nation had risen to realize its own national consciousness: the Hungarians during the reform movement and the Finns, the fennoman one. Jalava picked out Széchenyi and later Deák (the architect of the 1867 compromise) as the main (moderate) heroes, and castigated Kossuth as a French-type revolutionary (“political jester”) given to excesses of “national pride,” too typical of Hungarians and repulsive to commonsensical and moderate fennomen (who believed that the position of the Finns could also be improved by compromises with the Russian government, and thus diminish the dominance of the Swedes in Finland) (Jalava 1876b: 40-55, 59). However much Jalava admired “noble” Hungarians, he often balanced this evaluation by pointing to other peculiarities of their character (ill. 30). Although favorable natural conditions had made them “honest, open- and nobleminded, enthusiastically patriotic, careless of sorrows and misfortunes, valiant in war (two imperial armies were needed to beat them in 1849), chivalrous in manners, sharp and splendid speakers,” they were too often “over-ambitious, proud, boastful and ostentatious” (Jalava 1882: 12). They liked pomp and luxury, they were not prone to painstaking efforts and their enthusiasm was soon exhausted. They were usually deep in debt as German and Jewish bankers and usurers became enriched at their expense. When thinking big, they imagined that Hungary could become one of the great powers of Europe, and ready to fulfill its mission to lead the peoples of the Carpathian Basin (Jalava 1876b: 60, 65), but at the same time they lived beyond their means, were easily corrupted amusing themselves as they could, and enjoying ease and comfort. Most striking to Jalava was their national egotism: “Outside Hungary there is no life, but if there is, it is just a little” (Jalava 1876b: 324). On the positive side, it egged them on to sacrifice their fortunes and lives for their country. This Jalava regarded as exemplary to his “sullen” compatriots who should learn to use it against the svecomen (Swedish-minded, dominant minority in Finland). On the negative side, such an egotism made Hungarians scorn the Others, most notably the Slav minorities (“Slovak is not a man”: Jalava 1876b: 326), the Romanians, and the Jews. In politics, it offended the principles of tolerance and moderation, and Jalava was shocked that even Görgei, the general who laid down arms in face of an inevitable defeat in the war of liberation in 1848—1849, whom Jalava met and respected, considered Slavs too uncivilized for home rule. In Jalava’s vision, Austria-Hungary could have been reformed toward federation, but the Hungarians (not to say anything of the Habsburgs), “hot-blooded” as they were, exaggerated everything bad in Others and good in themselves, and their politics was spoiled by too much talk103
