Ireland and Hungary: A Study in Parallels with an Arthur Griffith Bibliography by Thomas Kabdebo (review)

Abstract

REVIEWS 357 Frankis to be congratulatedon the thoroughnessof his researchesin largely unexplored fields. He has written a mind-stretching and very informative book. Swansea N. C. MASTERMAN Kabdebo, Thomas. Ireland andHungary: A Study inParallels withanArthur Griffith Bibliography. Four Courts Press, Dublin, 2001. I22pp. Notes. Bibliography .Index.f29.95: $30.00. RECENT studies on Hungarian history in a European context have sought to place that nation in a comparativelight, with a view to elucidating its history and re-directingit in a more occidental manner. Thomas Kabdebo's volume is not the firstto place Ireland on the scales, balancing her western European historicaldevelopment with the Magyar one in Central Europe, but his is the most comprehensive(theantecedentsarethe chaptersby CsillaBertha,Ferenc Takacs, by Istvan Palffyon 'Hungarian Views of Ireland in the Nineteenth Century' and by Aladar Sarbui on 'Literary Nationalism: Ireland and Hungary', all in Heinz Kosok and WolfgangZach [eds.], Literary Interrelations: Ireland, England andtheWorld, Tubingen, I987). In seven shortchapters,manythe textsof oralpresentations,and alltreating nineteenth- and twentieth-century events, Kabdebo strives to construct a narrative thread woven of both national histories, of the emergence of nineteenth-century nationalism in Ireland and Hungary, and the bid for autonomy in these lands which share 'historical similarities and spiritual affinities'(dustjacket).The parallelaspectsto both nations' pasts and possible futures have not been lost on Hungarian or Irish academics or academic establishments:in 2000 the Englishpoet and I956 child emigre George Szirtes was invited by Dublin University, Trinity College, to present a series of lectures on nationalism while in residence as a guest writer. Speaking on the 'highlyvexed' question of nationalismin Ireland, Szirtesnoted that this 'very powerful force draw[s] on a persuasive version of historical memory' ('Hungarian Roots, English Traditions. George Szirtes on Becoming an EnglishPoet', TheHungarian Quarterly, 42: I64, Winter 2001). It is thishistorical memory, which seeks to place Irish experience in a comparative light, which lies at the core of Dr Kabdebo's work. The primaryfocus of the text isArthurGriffith,his researchand sourcesfor his TheResurrection of Hungary. A ParallelforIreland(Dublin, I904) and how Griffithwas often 'fascinated by the struggle of the Hungarians' (p. 3I and n. 36). Such citationsfrom Griffithand otherfiguresin the Irishpoliticalarena buttress Kabdebo's thesis; indeed, such quotations often seem to be the cornerstone of a rather shaky construction. The same applies with regard to Sir Roger Casement, who may have been predisposed to be influenced by Griffith'swriting, we are told, by his fatherRoger Senior, who acted as a gobetween , carrying a letter from Lajos Kossuth, then at Vidin, to Viscount Palmerston (p. 74). 'How similar Ireland is to Hungary' Roger Casement is quoted as writing (p. 78), in these lands where the Irish and Magyars share 'the ability to celebrate, to throw a party, to produce and enjoy instant merrymaking'(p. I4). 358 SEER, 8i, 2, 2003 Yet Griffithwas no Hungarian specialist and however genuine his interest in the countryand herpeople his citation of sourcesoften underscoreshis lack of understandingof both language and context. The 'Smallholders'(p. 84) (? Kisgazdcak)whom he refers to were, rather, farmers, and not all of smallholdings of land. Griffith'suse of 'Vedegylet' (p. 4I and n. 74) in the context of a 'VedegyletAssociation' indicates a lack of comprehension of the meaning of the word: Ved,'protection', egylet,'association'. And Griffith's reference to Mor (Maurus)Jokai (p. 4', n. 75), whom he read in English, is both misleading and inaccurate.J6kai was a romantic writer,the 'greattaleteller ' and again reflects Griffith'sreliance on what materialwas available to him, not necessarily the most pertinent or relevant material to reference. Griffithmay have had as few as twenty-six Hungarian sources (pp. I I5-I6), we subsequentlyascertain. A Study inParallels makesreferenceto a numberof academic texts,but many of these (Balint Homan and Gyula Szekfti, Magyartdrtebnet, Budapest, I939 [p. 20, n. 3] and the reference to Arminius Vamb6ry [p. 33, n. 44]) appear outdated and symptomatic of convenience rather than relevance. Arminius Vambery is best known as an orientalistand a turkologistand is more typical of a somewhat naive reliance on material to hand, for, while being a Hungarian, Hungarianhistorywas not his researchinterest.Furthermore,the text is peppered with over-simplifications,which tend to suggesta determined effortto supportthe thesisat all...