Download Karađorđe among the Hungarians. Hungarian and Serb Theatre

Karađorđe among the Hungarians.­
Hungarian and Serb Theatre
Collaboration in the Early 19th Century
Zoltán Györe
University of Novi Sad
Abstract
This chapter examines the collaboration between Hungarians and Serbs in theatre performance and production. It focuses on these cultural interactions as an example of
positive relations between the two ethnic communities during a period marked by the
growth of nationalist politics and ideologies. A key concern is to explore the contrast
between these creative collaborations and the field of politics, which clearly expressed
the opposition of Hungarian and Serbian interests and also mobilised different cultural activities as important elements of nation-building. Thus this description of the
relationships and cooperation between Serbs and Hungarians in the field of theatre is
framed within a discussion of contemporany social and political circumstances.
Članak se bavi pitanjem najranijeg primera saradnje Mađara i Srba na polju pozorišne
umetnosti. Poseban naglasak stavljen je na činjenicu da je do saradnje došlo u vreme početka
nacionalnih preporoda dva naroda kada su dotadašnje istorijske, političke, verske i etničke
suprotnosti postale naročito zaoštrene usled sve veće uloge nacionalizma kod oba naroda.
Štoviše, usled poleta nacionalnog preporoda široko polje kulturnog stvaralaštva i školstva
postalo je poprište sukoba dva nacionalizma.
Na početku rada su skicirane opšte društvene i političke okolnosti u kojima je došlo do te
saradnje, kao i sami koreni nastanka modernog pozorišta kod Mađara i Srba. Kod Mađara
počeci pozorišta se mogu pratiti od kraja srednjeg veka, od delatnosti Petera Bornemise i
Balinta Balašija, preko nekoliko hiljada školskih predstava i rada putujućih družina (prva
koja je posedaovala kraljevsku dozvolu poticala je iz 1696. godine), do začetaka moderng
pozorišta poslednjih godina 18. veka. Kod Srba su začeci moderne pozorišne umetnosti nešto
kasniji, javljaju se u 18. veku, u Ugarskoj. Usled zajedničkih opštih društvenih i političkih
okolnosti početaka razvoja srpskog i mađarskog pozorišta, njihov razvoj je u određenim
elementima bio sličan, što je ujedno predtavljao pogodan okvir eventualnoj saradnji.
Značajan podsticaj razvoju modernog pozrišta Mađara i Srba dale su prosvetiteljske ideje,
ali i određene mere Josifa II, pre svega uredba o službenoj upotrebi nemačkog jezika, koja
je podtsakla nacionalne preporode nenemačkih naroda Habzburške monarhije. Pozorište
je u nacionalnom preporodu Mađara i Srba imala istaknutu ulogu širitelja liberalnih i
Representations
66
Zoltán Györe
nacionalnih ideja među najšire slojeve stanovništva.
Nastanak srpsko-mađarske saradnje bio je podstican i izrastanjem Budima i Pešte u
kulturni i ekonomski centar Mađarske u kojem se okupljala elita inteligencije oba naroda,
kao i izrazito povećano interesovanje mađarske javnosti za Srbe i Srbije izazvano srpskim
ustancima i delatnošću Vuka Karadžića. Na tim osnovama nastala je veoma uspešna
drama Cerni Đuro ili oslobođenje Beograda, autora Ištvana Baloga. Cerni Đuro je postao
temelj dalje pozorišne saradnje, koja se manifestovala u zajedničkom pripremanju prve
moderne srpske pozorišne predstave Kreštalice (prevod i režija Joakim Vujić); prevođenju
Balogljevog rada na srpski jezik, kao i inkorporisanjem srpkih pesama, junaka i korišćenjem
srpskih tema i motiva u nekim mađarskim dramama. Paralelno sa tim, kod srpske publike
u Mađarskoj uz pomenuto delo i druge mađarske drame su uživale ugled i popularnost.
Značaj mađarsko-srpske pozorišne saradnje je u njenoj višeslojnosti. Sama saradnja
dokazuje mogućnost saradnje pripadnika različitih nacija i u onim vremenima i okolnostima koje naizgled ne pogoduju pozitivnim interetničkim kontaktima. Lična zainteresovanost, čar umetničkog izazova i stvaranja prevazišli su barijere nacionalnog kulturnog
stvaralaštva i obogatile su kulturu obe nacije. Saradnja je značajna, jer je dala podsticaj i
srpskom i mađarskom pozorištu, štoviše, nesumnjivo je podsticajno delovao na srpski nacionalni preporod. S druge strane kod Mađara je podstaknuo interesovanje za Srbe, srpsku
revolucije i njihovu kulturu.
Serbs and Hungarians, as two neighbouring ethnic communities in southeast Europe,
share a history dating back more than one thousand years. The complexity of their
cultural, economic, and political relationships offers considerable challenges to both
Serbian and Hungarian historians. Unfortunately, the overwhelming influence of nationalist ideology on the historiography of Serbian and Hungarian culture has meant
that since the mid-19th century topics related to inter-ethnic relations and cooperation between these communities have received less attention than they deserve (except
during the socialist era in Hungary and Yugoslavia). As a result there are many poorly
researched themes. Nonetheless the works of Endre Arató, Emil Niederhauser, István
Fried, István Pót, László Hadrovics, Pál Sándor, Ágnes Ózer, Božidar Kovaček, Slavko
Gavrilović, Dejan Medaković, Dušan J.Popović have begun laying valuable foundations
for research in this field1.
The aim of this chapter is to examine a significant case of collaboration between Serbs
and Hungarians in the production and performance of plays during the early 19th
century. This collaboration took place despite the existence of conflict between the
political elites of both ethnic groups and despite the deep memory of past conflicts
between Serbs and Hungarians. This study also shows that this collaboration took
the form of cultural products that were devoted specifically to the construction of the
Serbian and Hungarian national communities.
The Habsburg Monarchy of the late 18th century could be seen as a conglomerate of
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
67
different types of communities. These communities organized themselves according
to a number of factors, such as common political, professional, or social concerns,
and shared cultural, geographical, religious, ethnic and class backgrounds. As these
different communities developed a wide array of structures and functions, they produced a variety of community identities, representing diverse interests. The following
study comments on this variety and diversity, and illustrates the way in which public cultural activity brought together two national communities at a crucial stage in
their formation.
The Habsburg Monarchy and the Origins of Hungarian and Serbian
Nationalism
The Habsburg Monarchy of the late 18th century formed a heterogeneous universe
of corporations, defined by a number of criteria, including reference to estate, socioprofessional groupings, religion and territory. The Empire’s subjects belonged to a wide
range of different corporations, and shared in collective identities of diverse historical
depth.
The Habsburg Monarchy comprised three autonomous states, Hungary, Bohemia and
Croatia; several historical provinces, such as the Austrian, Transylvanian and Slovenian
lands; and numerous autonomous territories under ample Habsburg jurisdiction, mediated through royal cities and local communities of noblemen. It moreover housed
Catholic, Protestant (Lutheran and Calvinist), Orthodox, Unitarian (anti-Trinitarian)
and Greek-Catholic churches. Ethnic and cultural division was further complicated by
the dozens of languages spoken and by the existence of ethnic communities with a diverse range of social, political, and religious structures. To illustrate this complexity: the
Germans had their own complete social structure and ruling dynasty; the Hungarians,
Croats, and Saxons had their own feudal political and social structure; the Serbs had
their own religious organization and educational system; while other groups such as the
Slovaks, Rumanians, Jews, or Ruthenians based their varying ethnic self-awareness on
specific social relations and religious institutions.
The Enlightenment seemed to offer a number of possibilities for progress and social
reorganization. A new sense of nationhood slowly but increasingly grew in political
and cultural importance and became the principal idea around which ethnic communities structured themselves. Cultural, artistic, professional, educational, and social and
even some gender-based associations were founded or reorganized on an ethnic basis.
Central to these efforts by ethnic groups to develop their cultures was the view that the
most important element needed to attain their cultural goals and to win self-determination, was language. In central and southeastern Europe languages were the foundation
for nation-building. Throughout the first half of the 19th century Hungarians, Greeks,
Representations
68
Zoltán Györe
Poles, Serbs, Rumanians, Slovaks, Bulgarians and the inhabitants of the other regions
mentioned above devoted considerable energy to the development and promotion of
their languages through a variety of cultural media and institutions. By establishing
the first national theatres, publishing houses, nation-wide cultural institutions, associations of scholars, national newspapers, and school systems they promoted an array of
national symbols and national heroes through literature and national history. In this
way, they set in motion the machinery of nation-building.
From the point of view of an ethnically-based vision of nationhood, existing political
borders were irrelevant. Serbian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Greek or Polish nationalists
were fairly indifferent to the fact that the potential members of their future national
communities lived under different jurisdictions, and often in distant and non-contiguous territories and within differing cultural contexts. For instance, until the end of the
18th century Serbs lived in the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy (mostly in
Hungary and Croatia) and in the Republics of Venice and Dubrovnik. Meanwhile,
Greek nationalists included all Hellenic communities in their future nation, despite the
fact that they were widely dispersed throughout Europe and along the north African
and Mideastern coasts.
The conflicting ideas regarding the nation-state and cultural conceptions of nationhood
had not only serious but also, as is shown below, disastrous implications for the political system and the future of the two neighbouring multilingual states, the Habsburg
Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the turbulent events of the French
Revolution and the effects of the domestic reforms of emperor Joseph II strongly encouraged the growth of nationalist ideas among the communities encompassed by the
Habsburg Monarchy.
In Hungary, members of both the Hungarian and the Serbian ethnic communities
clearly defined their national policies through extensive political activity in 1789 and
1790. They formulated their political demands through numerous assemblies, newspapers, brochures, books, and ecclesiastical organizations, among other means. On the
highest political level the Hungarians formulated their political requests at the Hungarian Dieta and the Serbs at their national-church congress at Temesvár (Timisoara,
Rumania). Apart from certain proposals for social change along classic middle-class
lines, there was more opposition than similarity between the political proposals of the
two groups. The Hungarians sought to maintain the sovereignty of Hungary and to
conduct limited social and political reforms; while the main concern of Serbs was to
separate from Hungary and establish an autonomous Serbian state, although within
the framework of the Habsburg Monarchy. The clash between these political objectives
would not be resolved until the fall of Austro-Hungry in 1918. During this early phase
of modern Serbian nationalism, the Serbian congress in Temesvár took on special significance, as it provided for the Serbs in Hungary a third centre, alongside Montenegro
and Turkey, from which a Serbian state could be built.
Underpinning these political developments were fairly well defined pre-modern Serb
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
69
and Hungarian national ideologies, which provided a foundation for the subsequent
development of modern nationalism during the 19th century. Hungarian pre-modern
national ideology emerged during the nation’s two centuries of defense of the existence
of the Hungarian state and its effective system of religious tolerance against Habsburgs
and Ottomans alike. The most important elements of this ideological complex were the
doctrine of the Holy Hungarian Crown, the Hungarian language, belief in a common
historical origin in Attila’s Huns, loyalty to the Hungarian state and commitment to the
defense of Hungarian liberty and law2. Religious affiliation was not a central element
of Hungarian national ideology because Hungarians belonged to several confessions,
including the Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, anti-Trinitarian, and even Greek-Orthodox Churches. In fact, the defense of existing religious tolerance became an important
element of Hungarian nation-building.
For the Serbs, in contrast, allegiance to a specific faith through affiliation with the Serbian Orthodox Church was one of the main elements of nation-building. The Serbian
Orthodox Church was all that remained of the Serbian medieval state which had been
defeated in 1459. For centuries, this religious-social institution consciously worked for
the preservation of Serbian ethnic awareness along with the traditions of the Nemanjić
state and of the “holy Serbian Kings”3. Other surviving elements of Serbian pre-modern
national discourse included the Serbian language, folklore and folk songs, and poetry4.
The latter praised the Nemanjić dynasty and the struggle against the Ottomans. Within
the Habsburg Monarchy, the Serbs enjoyed extensive autonomy in regard to ecclesiastical and educational matters, as well as certain questions of jurisdiction, thanks to the
privileges granted by emperor Leopold I. The same privileges also provided a foundation for the defense of their ethnic and religious identity.
While the Serbian Orthodox Church helped to preserve Serbian ethnic awareness and
traditions of statehood during the 19th century its role was supplemented by the efforts of members of the Serbian intelligentsia and bourgeoisie, who became the creators
of modern nationalist ideology. In particular the merchants played a key role by supporting writers, poets, newspapers, and other media for the expression of nationalist
sentiments. Again a contrast may be noted between the evolution of Serbian and Hungarian national ideologies. The Hungarian nobility had led this cause until the 1790s.
During the 19th century lawyers, professors, writers, poets, and newspaper editors as
well as other spokesmen for culture and education took over this role. However, during the third decade of the 19th century the nobility returned to play a very significant
role, as nobles such as counts István Széchenyi and Lajos Batthyány and baron Miklós
Wesselényi distinguished themselves as progressive and liberal representatives.
Unfortunately, from the beginning of the early modern period until the mid-19th
century, when tensions between Hungarians and Serbs in Hungary erupted into civil
war, conflict defined their relations more than cooperation. However, the Middle Ages
had witnessed positive contacts between Serbs and Hungarians, mainly in economic
and political terms, which even extended to marriages between the Árpádházi and
Nemanjić dynasties. The Kingdom of Hungary provided a strong and decisive ally for
Representations
70
Zoltán Györe
the Serbs when the Ottoman conquests of Balkan Peninsula began, and granted them a
safe refuge following the fall of Serbia in 1459. Indeed Serbian emigration to Hungary
between the 14th and the 19th centuries led to far-reaching changes in the ethnic composition of Hungary and may be considered as the most formative feature of Hungarian-Serb relations until the present day.
Until the battle of Mohács in 1526, Serbs in Hungary lived under the jurisdiction of the
Hungarian monarchy and had the same rights as Hungarians. They also enjoyed certain
privileges regarding taxation and, thanks to their membership in the Serbian Orthodox
Church, religious matters5. Then during the process of Hungary’s division into three
parts between 1526 and 1541 the Ottoman courts played a decisive role in HungarianSerb relations6. Following this territorial separation the role of the Habsburg court became increasingly important and after the central part of Hungary was liberated from
Ottoman rule in 1699 and the uprising of Rákóczi Ferenc II was defeated in 1711 it
became the decisive element in Hungarian history, with significant consequences for
Serbian-Hungarian relations as well. Habsburg dynastic policy concerning Hungarians
and Serbs, combined with the political and demographic structure of the Habsburg
Monarchy, drove the two peoples to political and ethnic confrontation.
From 1711 on the Kingdom of Hungary, a multinational, multireligious and multicultural country, was an autonomous state within the framework of the Habsburg Monarchy. From 1526 on the Hungarian nobility waged political disputes and, from time to
time, full-scale wars against the Habsburgs to preserve as much of their state sovereignty
as they could. However, hundreds of thousands of Serbs lived within Hungary. Many of
these had migrated there in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It was then that these
immigrant Serbs received religious, cultural, and even certain political privileges from
the Habsburg rulers and thus became bound to the Habsburg court.
By the end of the 18th century, most Serbs lived in the Habsburg Monarchy and more
than half of them in Hungary, while others could be found in Croatia and Dalmatia7.
The Serbs in Hungary lived in the southern part of the state, not far from the Serbian
communities in the Ottoman Empire. Serbian leaders on both sides of the HabsburgOttoman border had long been intent on regaining their state. They based their efforts
on their three cultural and political centres. These included during the 18th century
southern Hungary and Montenegro, and then from the beginning of the 19th century
Sanjak of Smederevo [Serbia], or as it is colloquially known Beogradski Pašaluk. The
Serbs from both Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were connected by a range of factors: their history, language, culture, and identitarian discourse as well as trade contacts
and family ties. Thus Serbs from both sides of Austro-Turkish border regarded themselves as members of the same nation8. The Serbian political elite contemplated the
possibilities of unifying the Serbs into a single state, under either Habsburg, Russian, or
Ottoman rule or even existing independently. However, all these options were clearly
opposed to the interests of the Hungarian state9.
By the third decade of the 19th century, the Hungarians had developed a completely
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
71
different idea of national unification. Liberal politicians had formulated the doctrine
of érdekegyesítés [unifying the interests]. Beginning in the 1830s their chief concern became the transformation of feudal society to a civil one. The central aim of Hungarian
nationalist doctrine was political integration of the complex, multi-layered Hungarian
society and the emancipation of the population of Hungary, whatever its social, political, ethnic or religious affiliations. Emancipation was considered the solution to the
tensions based on ethnic, class, or religious differences. The doctrine of “unifying the
interests” foresaw the creation of a Hungarian political, albeit not ethnic, nation based
on Hungarian citizenship. Political rights would be extended to individual citizens and
not to religious and ethnic communities. The aim was linkage among citizens in terms
of shared freedom and common interest in building a civil society. Another goal was
the disintegration of the old, feudal socio-political and professional institutions and
communities, as well as the abolition of serfdom and feudal privileges. It was expected
that “unifying the interests” would be the guiding principle for the reorganization of
all types of communities from guilds and city councils to the nobility, and finally to the
foundation of a community of all citizens10.
As Hungarians were the majority population, the creation of the Hungarian political
nation was marked by Hungarian hegemony as indicated by the plan to alter the official state language from Latin to Hungarian11. However, the Serbs living in Hungary
refused to support the concept of general unification. Not only did their political demands depend on the feudal privileges they had received at the end of 17th century,
but they also intended to establish an autonomous Serbian territory in the southern
regions of Hungary.
The difficult relations between the Serbs and Hungarians rested on several historical as
well as current political factors. Firstly, there had been many armed conflicts between
them. In terms of the negative effects these had on their relationships the most serious
was the uprising of Ferenc Rákóczi II (1703-1711) when the Serbs fought on the side
of Viennese court. The division caused by their opposing alliances had long been an
issue. Thus during the 16th and 17th centuries Hungarians and Serbs, serving in the
Ottoman army, fought numerous battles along the Habsburg and Hungarian-Turkish
border. Apart from these violent confrontations, a massive Serbian immigration to the
regions of Hungary destroyed by the Ottoman armies also provoked Hungarian discontent. As many Serbs remained in Hungary following its liberation from Ottoman
rule in 1699, conflicts arose over their different values and way of life. For instance,
at that time Serbian immigrants in Hungary were mainly stock-breeders and did not
respect the existing system of land ownership. Further reasons for discontent emerged
after the defeat of Rákoczi’s uprising. The Hungarians were completely disarmed and
the Viennese government organized a so-called military cordon, which in the southern
parts of Hungary and Croatia was maintained thanks a significant deployment of Serbs.
The aim of this cordon was not only to defend the Habsburg Monarchy from possible
Ottoman attack, but also to intervene against any new Hungarian revolts against the
Habsburgs.
Representations
72
Zoltán Györe
The privileges that the Serbs in Hungary had received between 1690 and 1695 from
emperor Leopold I were in fact issued in the name of the King of Hungary. However,
they were awarded without the agreement of the Hungarian Diet and in opposition
to Hungarian state interests12. The Serbs received preferential treatment in regard to
religious freedom; in the Habsburg state Orthodox Serbs not only were granted ecclesiastical autonomy, but also suffered fewer restrictions than the Hungarian Calvinists.
Habsburg court policy was moreover deliberately deceptive, and included spreading
rumours among Serbs that the Hungarian nobility intended to convert members of
the Serbian Orthodox Church to Catholicism13. Nonetheless, religion had less impact
on mutual Serbian-Hungarian relations than may be expected, and took a back seat to
political, historical, and cultural issues. The strained relationships between these two
ethnic groups may be understood as the result of the Viennese court’s policy of divide
et impera, and this adds a further dimension to our understanding of the bitter and at
times explosive relationships between these two nations. The sudden eruption of civil
war between 1848 and 1849 reveals the fragility of the situation.
Despite the antipathy between these two ethnic groups, positive contacts, mutual influences, and cooperation survived in everyday life and cultural activities. In regard to
the latter should be pointed out that from the beginning of the “renaissance” of the
Hungarian and Serbian national cultures, understood in the broadest sense, cultural
institutions became a tool of nationalist ideologies. This gradually converted culture
into an important battlefield. Due to these circumstances the positive, diverse, and
productive contacts between the Serbs and Hungarians, which had evolved during the
Middle Ages, were largely reduced in the 19th century to sporadic events or limited to
the sphere of everyday life.
The bright points of cooperation in the otherwise bleak history of inter-community
conflict resulted from the growing interest of the Hungarian public in the Serbs, Serbia, Serbian culture, and especially the leader of the First Serbian Uprising, Karađorđe
Petrović. Instances of Hungarian-Serbian cultural collaborations also attracted attention14. The most tangible and stimulating episodes were found in the field of literature
and above all in the theatre. The earliest known examples of cooperation in the theatre
date from 1812 and 1813 and are today woven into the origins of both modern Hungarian and Serbian theatre. Initiatives that are even more interesting followed these initial instances of Serbian-Hungarian collaboration.
The Development
of
Modern Hungarian
and
Serbian Theatre
In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the theatre was considered one of the most significant media for strengthening national self-awareness, in addition to national scholarly societies, literature, museums, and libraries. As a rule print was the most important
medium for diffusing the principles of a national renaissance. Liberal and national ideas
thus circulated among educated people in books, poems, studies, brochures and newspapers. However, as most of the population was illiterate, or were at least judged to
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
73
be so by their educated contemporaries, the theatre took on special importance. Since
literacy was not needed to understand a play, theatre was employed as an effective tool
for conveying the new national liberal and bourgeois ideas to the nation’s lower classes.
The leaders of both nations prioritised the development of the theatre amongst their
national-cultural tasks. The originator of modern Serbian theatre, Joakim Vujić, looked
on it as a kind of school that everyone had to attend. He emphasized that “educated
people” in towns had 6 to 8 theatres; according to him they even existed in smaller
towns and villages. His contemporaries the famous Hungarian writers József Bajza and
Mihály Wörösmarty considered the theatre, after churches and schools, the most important element for creating an ethical foundation for the Hungarian liberal bourgeois
transformation15. The same view received support in 1840 from the most important
Serbian newspaper Сербске Народне Новине, published in Budapest, which declared
that theatres were of the utmost importance for a national renaissance16.
Informed by its new cultural significance, turn-of-the-century theatre freed itself from
its previous religious associations and influences and turned toward secular, educational, and national themes. Not only were the works of A. von Kotzebue17, A.Steffani,
Schiller, Molière, Shakespeare, and other authors translated into Hungarian and Serbian, but considerable changes were made to the original texts so that the stories would
resonate more effectively with Hungarian and Serbian theatregoers.
The origins of modern Hungarian theatre may be traced back to the 16th-century
playwrights Péter Bornemisza and Bálint Balassi. During the 17th century Hungarian
theatre suffered from the strict control of the Protestant churches, which criticized it
as promoting illicit behaviour. As a result, by the second half of the eighteenth century
Hungarian theatre was restricted mainly to plays performed in schools, by the nobility
at courts, and by a few travelling theatre groups18.
In spite of the restrictions imposed by religious and moral views, school plays proved
very popular. The rehearsal and performance of plays were considered major events in
both Jesuit and Protestant schools. Their organizers dedicated great efforts and money to the acquisition of costumes, back drops, and the preparation of program notes.
Indeed, a number of sources testify that in some performances machinery was even
brought in from Italy to move backdrops and create special effects. Initially the plays
were performed in Latin, but with time more plays were performed in Hungarian. The
most popular themes were secular dramas, but biblical and mythological themes were
also frequently performed. In accordance with their purpose of providing moral education, events of current interest were often highlighted along with the biographies of
prominent individuals. Of the several thousand school plays that were performed only
the texts of a small number have been preserved. Some of these have even proved interesting to today’s theatregoing public, for example, Dániel Borss’ 1765 comedy The
Marriage of Michael Aspic.
In contrast, Serbian theatre had not been permitted the same freedom of expression. In
the Middle Ages, Byzantine influence relegated it to a minor cultural activity. Thereafter
Representations
74
Zoltán Györe
the Turkish authorities curbed its development. There is no tradition of theatre among
Orthodox Serbs prior to the eighteenth century save for certain special plays performed
outdoors. While Serbian and Croatian language theatre flourished in Dubrovnik from
the 16th to the 19th centuries, that particular tradition did not exert any significant
influence on the modern theatre of either the Serbian or Hungarian communities19.
The development of modern Serbian theatre may be traced back to 18th-century southern Hungary. It was shaped by Russian, German, and Hungarian traditions and was
informed by educational drama. The first recorded Serbian play was a historical drama
based on Emanuel Kozačinskia and called A Tragedy... of Uroš the Fifth and The Fall
of the Serbian Empire. The Latin school students of Sremski Karlovci performed it in
June 1736. By the end of the 18th century, school plays were performed from time to
time in Becskerek, Temesvár, and Versecz. This period also witnessed the beginnings
of amateur theatre. Amid new cultural and political conditions this development also
benefited from the influence of Dositej Obradović, who recommended watching theatre plays and in particular advocated the “shrewd and gentle disposition” of Molière’s
comedies. Like the school plays the works of amateur enthusiasts were performed publicly. In the wake of these cultural developments by the first half of the 19th century
Novi Sad became the Serbs’ theatrical centre.
In 1830, after almost four hundred years of discontinuity, there reemerged an autonomous political entity linked to the Serbian dynasty, which was now known as the Principality of Serbia. Shortly thereafter, in 1834, Joakim Vujić20 was appointed director of
the Principality’s Serbian theatre. However, it is important to point out that Serbian
theatre developed in Hungary, and that it developed in parallel with Hungarian theatre, both of which were shaped by Hungary’s social, political and cultural framework,
that is the Habsburg Monarchy.
The origins and growth of modern Serb and Hungarian theatre took place amid cultural and political trends affecting all of Europe, and which had been spread by the
Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic wars. In the late 18th century German-language theatre and the patronage of Joseph II lent especially important stimulus to the development of modern theatre. The emperor took measures to
upgrade German theatre performances and gave priority to the performance of works
by native playwrights. He also founded the Burgtheater and the Vienna Opera House.
Thanks to their quality, these two institutions established stylistic standards for other
theatres in the Habsburg Monarchy21. Despite the positive effects of Joseph II’s promotion of the theatre, his privileging German as the official language of administration
and education provoked a strong political and cultural reaction from the non-German
nations of the Habsburg Monarchy. One noticeable result was the formation of travelling companies and the production of propagandistic plays that promoted nationalist
ideas and culture.
Another part of Joseph’s cultural legacy in addition to supporting national theatre was
censorship. The censors carefully monitored plays and often prohibited them or or-
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
75
dered changes to their text or cast. It was the strict responsibility of both theatre directors and managers to ensure their actors’ performances did not violate the prohibition
of any allusion to contemporary public personalities through appearance, movements,
dress or voice22.
Censorship represented just one, and by no means the greatest, of the difficulties which
Hungarian and Serbian theatre confronted during this period. The most significant
problem they faced was that neither the Serbian nor the Hungarian public had the
economic resources to continuously support the travelling theatre companies. The enthusiasm of their members did not suffice to ensure the success of the travelling companies, which also needed the financial support of patrons, district offices, towns, or
other theatrical companies. The first Hungarian modern professional theatre company
was founded in 1790 in Budapest under the leadership of Kelemen László. It received
financial and moral support from several district offices in the surrounding region.
Another challenge that faced theatre companies was the lack of a permanent theatre in
which to rehearse and perform. The provision of performance space was considered a
patriotic act. For example, a theatrical company from Sremska Mitrovica appealed to the
army to solve this problem by giving up a drill shed for the performance of their plays.
The newspaper report emphasizes that the colonel in charge accepted their request because he was a good Serb23. Contemporary reports testify that organizing theatre was
considered an outstanding gesture of patriotism. During the opening decades of the
19th century Hungarian construction of permanent theatres was also seen as a patriotic
act. In the absence of permanent theatres “wandering” was necessary for the survival
of Hungarian and Serbian theatre companies24. These companies would travel around
the country performing in towns and villages, which both sustained their existence and
significantly increased the geographical and social scope of their performances.
Budapest
as a
Cultural Centre
The evolution of Serbian and Hungarian theatrical collaboration was connected, firstly,
with the gradual emergence of Buda and Pest as the economic and cultural centre of
Hungary and secondly, with the Hungarian public’s increased interest in the culture and
art of other nations, including the Serbs. Throughout the 18th century, Hungarian intellectuals had struggled to turn Budapest into Hungary’s literary and cultural centre. As
it became a leading economic centre in the early 19th century, their dream blossomed
into a reality far exceeding their expectations. In the buoyant mood of economic growth,
educational, political, religious, and cultural institutions were established in Budapest.
With a university, theatre, museums, libraries, numerous publishing houses, and newspapers Budapest attracted businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians of different national backgrounds. It was a city known for its tolerant atmosphere, where Hungarian
aristocrats and liberal noblemen, intellectuals, merchants, politicians, lawyers, and artists
could meet each other and collaborate in diverse activities. Even under the cautious and
suspicious eyes of Vienna’s secret police and censors, Budapest was the setting for fruitful
Representations
76
Zoltán Györe
intellectual and political activity. Leaders of the Slovakian, Czech, Rumanian, and Serbian national renaissances lived and worked there. Petru Maior, Samuel Klein, František
Palacki, Jan Kollar, Teodor Pavlović and many others published their first books promoting their national movements. These were accompanied by other important publications
linked to the Bulgarian, Greek, and Ruthenian national revivals25.
From 1777 to 1877, 283 Serbian books were published in Budapest. These included
the literary, historical, scientific and educational works of the most famous Serbian
intellectuals of the time, such as Z. Orfelin, D.Obradović, J.Rajić, J.Vujić, L.Mušicki,
Mihajlo Vitković, M. Vidaković, and J.Sterija Popović. Since the Serbs in the Ottoman
Empire did not found their own publishing house until 1831, Serbian books and newspapers had to be printed in Budapest. This explains why the first Serbian playwrights
and novelists, as well as the first Serbian liberal politicians emerged from this Hungarian city, which was also the location of the most famous and respected Serbian cultural
institution, the Matica Srbska, founded in 1826. The cultural importance of Budapest
is the reason why in both Serbian and Hungarian historiography it figures as the main
Serbian cultural centre in the Habsburg empire until 1848. The other important Serbian cultural and political centre in Hungary was Novi Sad. While it became the most
prominent Serbian cultural centre during the second half of the 19th century, Budapest
nevertheless maintained a certain degree of importance26.
The French Revolution and Enlightenment ideas were two key cultural factors that
contributed to the Hungarian public’s interest in contemporary European political and
cultural events. In addition to this, Hungarian students returning from their studies
in different European universities, along with Hungarian progressive aristocrats also
helped promote the culture and history of the non-Hungarian peoples in Hungary
and their neighbouring nations. After the Croats, with whom the Hungarians had serious political differences, they show greatest interest in Serbian culture and the Serbs,
including those in the Ottoman Empire. This interest encompassed the geography of
the Serbian lands, as well as its folklore, literature, epic poems, religion, and historical
heroes27. Between 1780 and 1789 more than 2,000 news, reports, travel accounts, and
works of literary criticism and political analysis concerning Serbs or Serbian lands were
published in Hungarian newspapers. This trend merely increased with time. Furthermore, studies appeared on the history of the Serbs, Belgrade, Karađorđe Petrović, and
Serbian folk songs. All of these articles and studies were written in the spirit of ethnic
and religious tolerance and out of genuine interest. They were moreover detailed, analytical and, considering the circumstances, accurate28.
Among the themes which attracted special attention were the Austro-Turkish War
(1788-1791), the First Serbian Uprising (1804-1813)29, and the work of Vuk Stefanović
Karadžić30. The First Serbian Uprising greatly interested the Hungarian public and its
events were closely followed in the newspapers31. Numerous articles dealt with the
famous leader of the Serbian Uprising and the founder of the Karađorđević dynasty,
Karađorđe Petrović. They informed the Hungarian public about his life, style of leadership, and successes, along with anecdotes relating to his colourful personality. Thanks
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
77
to this, readers of Hungarian newspapers and magazines were well informed throughout the course of the uprising. As a result, Karađarođe, as well as the uprising itself, won
the sympathy of Serbs and Hungarians alike.
“Black George –The Restoration
of
Belgrade
from the
Turks”
One of the results of the widespread interest in the Serbian Uprising was the authorship
and production of a play based upon Karađorđe and the liberation of Belgrade. Moved
by current interest in the topic, which promised good ticket sales, as well as the dramatic potential of the subject, one of the best actors and playwrights in Hungary, István
Balog, decided to stage a drama based upon Karađorđe and Belgrade’s delivery from
the Turks32. His decision continued a recent trend of staging plays representing Serbian
history and the theme of liberation from oppression. In previous years Budapest theatre
repertoires had included plays based upon the 1465 defense of Belgrade, the same city’s
liberation in 1790, and the liberation of Szeged and Buda from the Turks, as well as
plays on similar topics in both Hungarian and German33.
The text of the famous drama Black George34 – the Restoration of Belgrade from the Turks
was inspired by the aforementioned public interest in the events of the First Serbian
Uprising. Drawing on contemporary news reports of the revolt the play records the
events and heroes of the First Serbian Uprising, while focusing on the personality, heroism, and leadership of Karađorđe and the liberation of Belgrade from Turkish rule at
the end of 1806. Although it is a dramatic work based on historical documents, these
are freely intertwined with theatrical elements such as the grotesque, folklore, and tragedy. Indeed, the play’s historical basis was seemingly well concealed; a report from a
Viennese court spy described the play as a comedy!
A key factor making the staging of this play possible was the support of relatively wealthy
Serbian citizens. Some of these pledged their sponsorship prior to the first performance:
thus, for example, Serbian merchants from Pest and Buda helped purchase the costumes35.
The first performance was on 24 August 1812 during the annual fair. It was a huge success
and very well received by both the Hungarian and Serbian theatre publics. An anecdote
that occurred shortly after Black George’s première testifies to the play’s success and István
Balog’s popularity among the Serbs at that time. Passing through Taban, the Serbian quarter of Buda, Balog was recognized by one of the Serbian merchants and invited into the
man’s store. As a display of nationalist gratitude for Balog’s contribution to the play dedicated to Karađorđe and the Serbs the merchant made him a present of the material for
a suit. Pleasantly surprised, and yet confused, Balog then tried to continue his journey,
however, other Serbs also wanted to show their gratitude and respect so they all presented
him with gifts. Balog returned home late at night and stumbling under a load of presents,
as well as the effects of the food and drink he had been offered36.
Unfortunately, the reaction of the authorities was quite the opposite. Since the uprising, which was still in progress, had already provoked Hungarian sympathies, the Viennese court concluded that it was not in its interest that a play based upon a war of
Representations
78
Zoltán Györe
national liberation be staged in Budapest. Therefore, after the second performance it
issued a warrant to the Hungarian Court Office to ban any further performance of
the play. The Hungarian count Erdődy interceded immediately on behalf of the play,
emphasizing that its text did not violate censorship rules and that the representation of
the Serbs followed the official line. Despite such arguments, the court stuck to its ban.
A factor that may have influenced its intransigence was that prior to the première of
Black George the Hungarian Regency Council, expecting the court’s negative reaction,
did not inform the Vienna censors about the play’s performance.
The reason behind a Christian government’s banning a play about the liberation of
the Serbs, a European Christian community, from rule by a non-Christian sovereign
was essentially due to the fact that after the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars
the Habsburg dynasty considered political liberalism and national ideology, based on
language and culture, as two of the greatest threats to the the future of its multi-ethnic
empire. The play not only referred to Karađorđe and the defeat of Ottoman armies.
It also advocated a national and social revolution fired by patriotic emotions and proclaimed the Serbs’ goal of building an ethnic national state. As mentioned above, less
than half of the Serbs then lived in the Ottoman Empire, while the majority lived
in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Many among the latter considered themselves the
brothers of the Serbs under Ottoman rule and had shown great sympathy for their
uprising. In addition the Austrian Serbs had started two small rebellions near the Austrian-Turkish border during which they expressed their desire to be united with the
Serbs in the Ottoman Empire, which ran counter to the Habsburg Monarchy’s official
policies.
Despite the ban from Vienna Balog’s company staged the play over sixty times outside
Budapest until 1838. It appears to have been one of the most profitable and popular plays
of the 1820s, 30s and 40s in Hungary. Thus, Karađorđe was both “present” and popular
among Hungarians during the early decades of the 19th century. Theatre visitors not only
enjoyed the good script. They also sympathised with the heroism of Karađorđe and the
Serb people in their struggle against the Ottomans. With regard to Hungarian appreciation of Serbian theatre, it should be noted that this was reciprocal, as a number of Hungarian plays proved to be a great success with Serbian theatregoers37.
Hungarian-Serbian Cooperation
in the
Field
of
Theatre
István Balog and his play based upon Karađorđe represent the beginning of SerbianHungarian collaboration in theatre projects. Balog’s success made him aware of the Serbian theatre audience, and in subsequent productions he incorporated “comic scenes
along with Rascian songs”38. The great success of Black George also led to collaboration
between Balog’s theatre company and Joakim Vujić who was then the lecturer of a Serbian teacher-training college in Szentendre (Hungary). This cooperation resulted in
two of Vujić’s undertakings: the founding of a Serbian theatre company and translation
of the Karađorđe play into the Serbian language.
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
79
Keen to financially support the recently founded Serbian teacher training college in
Szentendre, Serbian students from Pest and Buda planned a performance of a play in
Serbian, following the example of their fellow Hungarian and German students. Unfortunately, the Serbian students’ project failed to materialise, so Joakim Vujić took the
initiative and asked Balog and actors of his theatre company to organize the Serbian
play, with the same purpose in mind, that is, financial support of the Serbian teacher
training college. Regardless of the ban on other ethnic communities’ use of the Hungarian theatre building, the Rondela, the Pest city hall at Vujić’s request approved the
Serbian play’s performance along with the necessary decorative and technical devices.
For this special occasion, Vujić prepared the translation of a play titled Jay by Kotzebue,
one of the most popular Austrian writers.. The performance was given by both Serbian
and Hungarian actors including Joakim Vujić as well as István Balog.
The première of the Serbian version of Jay took place on 12 August 1813. Two more
performances followed, which confirmed the play as a great success and assured it a
610 forint profit. One third of this profit was donated to the Serbian teacher’s college
in Szentendre, another third was paid to the Hungarian actors, and the remainder was
divided amongst the poor Serbian pupils and students who had helped prepare and
stage the play. The performance of Vujić’s translation of Jay is considered to be not only
the first Serbian play to be performed in Hungary, but also the first work of Serbian
modern drama. The Serbian Newspaper, launched just two weeks earlier in Vienna, expressed the hope that the play would prove the beginning of and a promising omen for
a Serbian theatre that would “...dignify the taste of the Serbian people along with the
emotions of nice relatives of ours....”39. In an interview Vujić emphasized that thanks to
the play’s success even people abroad had heard of “...the fame of Serbian people…”40.
Following this success Vujić continued to work with his Hungarian theatre colleagues.
They produced Serbian adaptations of two German dramas. Unfortunately, serious
protest from the German theatre administration constituted a serious obstacle to the
further success and development of Serbian theatre performances in Buda and Pest.
One example of the censorship of Serbian-Hungarian theatre productions was the case
of Vujić’s Serbian translation of Balog’s play Black George and the Liberation of Belgrade,
which continued the Serb-Hungarian theatre collaboration of 1812-181341. While
the Viennese court banned the Serbian performance, it was successfully performed in
Szeged and Novi Sad, among other places. It officially premièred on 17 August 1815.
The second performance of Black George took place in Petrovaradin42 on 4 September
1815, during Karađorđe’s imprisonment there. As it may be expected, the Novi Sad city
judge banned the play and began an investigation into the matter.
Conclusions
Serbian-Hungarian collaboration in theatre productions has continued up until the
present. A more general but nonetheless important conclusion is that cultural cooperation between different ethnic communities in the Balkans was not only possible but,
Representations
80
Zoltán Györe
under certain conditions, one of the important elements in the transition from ethnic
identities to national communities. Collaboration could be more easily achieved at an
individual level or among groups of the intelligentsia, than among institutions or associations. As this example has demonstrated, collaboration at this level between persons
and groups a priori ascribed to rival national projects could be both stimulating and
rewarding and at the same time extremely efficient in the nation-building process. The
field of culture was more suitable for cooperation in this early stage of the nationalist
projects than the fields of politics or economy. Through their training and work scientists, scholars, intellectuals, and artists were aware of the role of politics and often tried
to avoid its negative influences on their creative work. Personal interests and the attraction of artistic challenge and creativity were for Balog and Vujić of greater importance
than the nationalist politics of their leaders, even though they were themselves active
agents of nationalization. It is thanks to this that they crossed inter-ethnic barriers and
thus enriched both Serbian and Hungarian culture. Moreover, Serbian-Hungarian collaboration represented an indirect contribution to the process of the Serbian national
“renaissance”, as proved by the reactions of certain Serbian newspapers. The positive
effects this collaboration had on the field of culture continued in the following decades.
Serbian readers demonstrated a keen interest in the Hungarian poets Sándor Petőfi and
János Arany, as well as the novelist Mór Jókai. Serbian theatregoers also appreciated
and enjoyed Hungarian plays, especially those of József Szigligeti. Furthermore, the importance of Hungarian culture for Serbs is also apparent in that Hungarian educational
and cultural institutions served as models for Serbian intellectuals. In the same way,
Hungarians developed a respect for the beautiful Serbian folk poems and songs and
continued to develop their interest in Serbia and its culture.
An additional conclusion that may be drawn is that shared experiences between ethnic
communities had greater significance in the opening decades of the 19th century, in the
initial steps of the nation-building process, than after the 1830s. The joint history of the
Serbs and Hungarians in the social and political context of the Habsburg Empire combined with similar contemporary cultural influences to foster communication between
them and make mutual tolerance and understanding easier to achieve. The strengthening of national identities and the development of political institutions founded upon
the new “imagined communities” created barriers between the until then relatively interrelated intelligentsias and publics.
A final conclusion, is that in the second decade of the 19th century nationalist ideas
did not have the impact they would later achieve. Although the historical, political,
and ideological differences between the Serbs and Hungarians caused tension on the
political level and proved important for their respective leaders and politicians, this
was much less the case for the common people, the audience of plays. For the “ordinary
people” general moral and human values were more important. These included: friendship and loyalty, the heroism of Karađorđe and Serbs, the fight for freedom and Christianity, and mercy. The huge success of the play Black George, during the same decades,
which witnessed an escalation of nationalism and international tensions, proves that
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
81
intercultural and human values could prevail over the nationalist agitation of political
leaders, despite the fact that they contributed to shape certain images of the communities represented. It also emphasizes the importance of personal, private, professional,
and business contacts among members of different ethnic groups. As was frequently
the case in the history of Serb-Hungarian relations during the 19th and 20th centuries,
these kinds of contacts, combined with positive individual attitudes, could significantly
improve Serb-Hungarian relations and in some cases even avoid violent conflict.
Notes
1
For instance the following books: E. Arató, A magyarországi nemzetiségek nemzeti ideológiája [National ideology of non-Hungarian ethnic communities in Hungary], Budapest 1983; Z. Ács, Nemzetiségek a
történelmi Magyarországon [Nationalities in Hungary through the centuries], Budapest, 1996; Б. Кoвачек,
Р. Ластић (eds.), Из историје српско-мађарских културних веза, A szerb-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok
történetéből [Studies from in the History of Serbian-Hungarian relations], Újvidék - Budapest 2003; С.
Гавриловић, Срби у Хабзбуршкој монархији 1792-1849 [Serbians in the Habsburg Monarchy], Novi
Sad 1994; E. Niederhauser, A nemzeti megújhódási mozgalmak kelet Európában [National Renaissance in
Eastern Europe], Budapest 1977; Š. Pal, Jugoslovenske teme i ličnosti u mađarskim listovima časopisima i
beletrističkim knjigama 1780-1825 [Yugoslavian topics and personalities in the newspapers and belleletristic
literature 1780-1825], unpublished doctoral thesis, Novi Sad 1987; Н. Пантелић (ed.), Етнички односи
Срба са другим народима и етничким заједницама [Ethnic relations of Serbs with other Nations and ethnic communities], Београд 1998; I. Póth, Pešta i Budim kao srpska kulturna središta u prvoj polovini 19.
veka, Budapest 1982; Д.Ј. Поповић, Срби у Војводини [Serbs in Vojvodina], 1-3, Novi Sad 1990.
2
T. Joó, A magyar nemzeteszme, Szeged 1990, p. 72; Ács Z., Nemzetiségek a történelmi Magyarországon,
Budapest 1986, p. 127; I. Csekei, A magyar nemzetfogalom, Budapest 1938, p. 133.
3
The Nemanjić family ruled Serbia from 1169 to 1371. The founder of the dynasty was Stefan Nemanja
(1169-1196); his son Stefan Prvovenčani (the “First-Crowned”), became the king of Raška in 1217.
His younger brother, Rastko (later canonized as St. Sava), became in 1219 the first archbishop of an independent Serbian Orthodox church. The succeeding Nemanjić kings expanded the territory of Serbia
and built up the Serbian state. The greatest of the Nemanjić kings was Stefan Dušan, who conquered
Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro in addition to Epirus, Aetolia, and Thessaly. He was crowned
emperor in 1346. Under the reign of Stefan Dušan’s weak son and successor, Stefan Uroš V (13551371) the Serbian empire dissolved into fragments. The Serbian Orthodox Church later canonized all
the rulers of this dynasty.
4
V. Čubrilović, Istorija političke misli u Srbiji XIX veka, Belgrade 1982, pp. 28-33; D. Janković, Srpska
država i nastajanje srpske nacije, in Postanak i razvoj srpske nacije (Neki metodološko-teorijski problemi u
izučavanju nastanka i razvitka srpske nacije), Belgrade 1979, pp. 45-49; Ćorović V., Istorija Jugoslavije,
Belgrade 1989 (1933), pp. 312-313.
5
Corpus Juris Hungarici, vol. 1 (1000-1526), Budapest 1899, pp. 389, 589, 607, 609.
6
As a result of the civil war and the struggles against the Habsburgs and the Ottoman Kingdom, Hungary was divided into three parts. The western regions came under rule of the Habsburg dynasty and
they were colloquially called “The King’s Hungary”; following the war of 1541-1547 the Ottoman
Empire annexed the middle section of the kingdom; finally, the eastern parts became the Principality
of Transylvania (in Hungarian Erdélyi Fejedelemség), also under Ottoman rule.
7
According to the data published by C. Гавриловић, Срби у Хабсбуршкој монархији од краја 18. до
средине 19. века, in С. Владимир (ed.), Историја српског народа, 5-2, Љубљана 1981, pp. 14-15 and
R. Ljušića, Istorija srpske državnosti, knjiga II, Srbija i Crna Gora, Novi Sad 2001, pp. 27-28, 36-37.
Representations
82
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Zoltán Györe
S. Gavrilović, Vojvodina i Srbija za vreme Prvog srpskog ustanka, Novi Sad 1974, p. 13-16.
М.Благојевић, Д.Медаковић, Историја српске државности, књига I, Novi Sad 2002, pp. 324-331;
I. Romsics, Expanzionizmus és regionalizmus. Integrációs törekvések közép- és kelet Európában a 19-20.
században Budapest 2000, pp. 10-12. Р. Љушић, Историја српске државности, књига II, Србија и
Црна Гора, Novi Sad 2001, pp. 18-24.
A. Gergely, A magyar reformellenzék kialakulása és megszilárdulása 1830-1840, in M. Gyula (ed.), Magyarország története 1790-1848, 2, Budapest 1983, p. 700; I. Z. Dénes, A magyar liberálisok szellemi horizontja
és értékvilága 1830-1848, in Szabadság és nemzet, 1993, 130-131; L. Tőkéczky, (ed.), Magyar liberaliznus
(Mađarski liberalizam), Budapest 1993, 515; Z. Fónagy, Wesselényi Miklós, Budapest 1999, pp. 84-86.
Cs. Bódi, Nemzetfelfogás a magyar politikai gondolkodásban, in Történelem és nemzet, Budapest 1996, p. 5.
A. Hegedűs, A kiváltságolt szerb nemzet a 18-19.században Magyarországon [The privileged Serbs in
Hungary in 18-19th centuries], in I. Zombori (ed.), A szerbek Magyarországon [Serbs in Hungary],
Szeged 1991, p. 127.
I. Szüts (ed.), Szemere Bertalan miniszterelnök emlékiratai az 1848/49 – iki magyar kormányzat
nemzetiségi politikájáról, Budapest 1941, pp. 76-77.
George Petrovic or in Serbian, Ðorđe Petrović (1762-1817), leader of the Serbian people in their struggle for independence from the Ottomans, and founder of the Karađorđević dynasty. In spring 1804
the Serbs rose up against the tyrannical regime of the Janissaries and chose Karađorđe to be their leader.
After defeating the Janissaries, whom the Sultan regarded as rebels, the Serbs claimed political autonomy. When Selim refused their demands, Karađorđe started a war of independence in 1805. After
significant military successes and the declaration of a Serbian constitution, the State Council declared
Karađorđe the “first and supreme Serbian hereditary leader”.. After 1809, under military and diplomatic pressure from the Ottomans, the revolt lost strength and was finally defeated in 1813. A sick and
broken man, Karađorđe fled to Austria and later went to Russia. He secretly returned to Serbia hoping
to organize an uprising against the Turks in alliance with Greek patriots, but the the Serb leader, Miloš
Obrenović, had him murdered in his sleep..
J. Szentpétery (ed.), Magyar Kódex 4, Budapest 2000, p. 284.
Serbske Narodne Novine, 15 August 1840, 65, p. 257.
August (Friedrich Ferdinand) von Kotzebue, 1761-1819, was a highly influential German playwright.
His works are characterized by melodrama and sentimental philosophy. Because of his murder by a member of a radical student organization, Karl Sand, stricter censorship was imposed on German universities.
The travelling company leaded by playwright György Felvinczy, which received a permit from emperor
Leopold I in 1696, is considered the first Hungarian professional travelling theatre company.
S. Šumarević, Theatre with Serbs, 1939, p. 68.
J. Vujić (1772-1847) was one of the most productive Serbian dramatists and writers. He is known as the
“Father of Serbian Theatre”.
B.S. Stojković, Istorija srpskog pozorišta od srednjeg veka do modernog doba, Belgrade 1977, p. 31.
Magyar Országos Levéltár, Kancellária, Acta praesidialia, A 45, 278, 1847/105.
Serbske Narodne Novine, 17, 5 March, 1842/65.
Arató Endre, A magyarországi nemzetiségek nemzeti ideológiája, Budapest 1983, p. 70.
Шандор Пал, Витковић(и?) о српској књижевности и језику, in Б.Кoвачек-Р. Ластић, Из историје
српско-мађарских културних веза, A szerb-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok történetéből, Újvidék - Budapest 2003, pp.189-190.
J. Kósa, A nagyar nacionalizmus kialakulása, Budapest 1937, pp. 23-24.
Pal Šandor, Jugoslovenske teme i ličnosti u mađarskim listovima časopisima i beletrističkim knjigama
1780-1825, pp. 401-403.
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Karađorđe Among the Hungarians
83
Z. Györe, Mađarski i srpski nacionalni preporod [Hungarian and Serbian national renaissance 17901849], Novi Sad 2005, unpublished doctoral thesis, pp. 290-295.
The “First Serbian Uprising” of 1804-1813 was the first autonomous revolt against Ottoman rule by
the Serbian people within the territory of former Kingdom of Serbia in modern times. During it, the
Serbian state was temporarily restored. Shortly afterward, in 1815, followed the Second Serbian Uprising, Russian diplomatic pressure aided the definitive re-establishment of Serbian statehood in 1830.
Vuk Stefanović Karadžić (1787-1864), Serbian language scholar and folklorist, and participant in the
First Serbian Uprising. He became famous as the founder of modern Serbian literary language, based
on colloquial Serbian language (instead of the mixture of archaic Serbian and Russian Church Slavic
language), as well as the author of a Serbian Grammar (1814) and Dictionary (1818). He also translated
the New Testament.
Györe, Mađarski i srpski nacionalni preporod cit., p 296.
István Balog (1790-1873), actor, playwright, and director. Founder of the most important Hungarian
itinerant theatre, he was also the most popular playwright and actor of the early 19th century. His first
drama was the Black George.
P. Šandor, Jugoslovrenske teme i ličnosti u mađasrkim listovima, časopisima i beletristici 1780-1825, unpublished doctoral dissertation, Novi Sad 1987, pp. 222-225.
The name Karađorđe in English means Black George. The original Hungarian title of the play was Cerny
Gyuró vagy Belgrádnak megvétele a törököktől.
Šandor, Jugoslovrenske teme i ličnosti u mađasrkim listovima, časopisima i beletristici 1780-1825 cit., p. 298.
I. Balog, Egy agg magyar szinész életéből [autobiography of István Balog], Makó 1927, p. 67.
Иштван Њоморкаи, Слика о Мађарима код Срба, in: Б.. Кoвачек-Р. Ластић (ed.), Из историје
српско-мађарских културних веза, A szerb-magyar kulturális kapcsolatok történetéből, Újvidék - Budapest 2003, p.179.
Hungarians usually called Serbs from the Ottoman Empire Rác and their lands as Rácország, following
medieval usage when the Serbian state was known as Rascia in Latin or Raška in Serbian. Gradually, the
meaning of the word Rác was extended to Serbs in Hungary. In the 19th century as the Serbian national
revival gained strength, the Serbs insisted on the ethnonym Serb, and rejected Rác as offensive.
Мираш Кићовић, Позоришни рад Јоакима Вујића, in Зборник прилога историји југословенских
позоришта, Novi Sad 1961, p. 45.
Ibid., p. 45.
However, it should be emphasized that the above-mentioned translation was not published until Aleksandar Karađorđević ascended the throne in 1843.
Petrovaradin was the suburb by the Danube, which housed the strategically important fortress opposite
Novi Sad. After the end of the First Serbian Uprising, its leader, Karađorđe, was for a while imprisoned
in this fortress.
Bibliography
Ács Z., Nemzetiségek a történelmi Magyarországon [Nationalities in the Historic Hungary], Budapest
1986.
Arató E., A feudális nemzetiségtől a polgári nemzetig [From Feudal Concept of the Nation to Civil Concept], Budapest 1975.
Бешлин Б., Европски утицаји на српски либерализам од 1848. до средине осамдесетих година 19.
века,[European influences upon Serbian Liberalism from 1848 to Eighties of the 19th Century], Novi
Sad 2006.
Representations
84
Zoltán Györe
Гавриловић С., Срби у Хабзбуршкој монархији 1792-1849 [Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy 17921849], Novi Sad 1994.
Kefer I., Veselinović-Šulc M., Južnoslovenski narodi u Mađarskoj periodici 1780-1800 [South-Slavic Nations in Hungarian Newspapers 1780-1800], Novi Sad 1993.
Kósa L. (ed.), Magyar művelődéstörténet [History of Hungarian Culture], Budapest 2001.
Kosáry D., Újjáépítés és polgárosodás 1711-1867 [Reconstruction and civil transformation 1711-1867],
Budapest 1990.
Костић Л.М., Срби и Маџари у 19. и 20. веку [Serbs and Hungarians], Toronto 1975.
Кoвачек Б., Ластић Р., Из историје српско-мађарских културних веза [Excerpts from the History of
Serbian-Hungarian Cultural Relations], Újvidék - Budapest 2003.
Id., Из историје српског позоришта и драме [Excerpts From History of Serbian Theatre], Novi Sad
1991.
Љушић Р., Историја српске државности. Србија и Црна Гора [The History of Serbian Statehood], Novi
Sad 2001.
Niderhauser E., Szász Z. (eds.), Nemzeti és etnikai kisebbségek Magyarországon [The National and Ethnic
Minorities in Hungary], Budapest 1998.
Пантелић Н. (ed.) Етнички односи Срба са другим народима и етничким заједницама [Ethnical Relations of Serbs with other Nations and Ethnic Communities], Belgrade 1998.
Id. ( ed.), Етнички и етнокултурни контакти у панонско-карпатском простору [Ethnic and EthnoCultural Contacts in the Pannonian-Carpathian Region], Belgrade 1997.
Пот И., Српско-мађарски културни односи у 19. веку, Студије о Србима [Serbian-Hungarian Cultural
Relations in 19th Century. Studies About Serbs], Gorin Milanovich - Belgrade - Novi Sad 1993.
Vörös K., A magyar nép kulturális élete [Cultural Life of Hungarians], in Mérei G. (ed.), Magyarország
története 1790-1848 [The History of Hungary 1790-1848], Budapest 1983, pp. 1055-1148.
Томандл М., Српско народно позориште у Војводини [Serbian National Theatre in Vojvodina], Novi Sad
1953.
Зборник прилога историји југословенских позоришта 1861-1961 [Repertory of Studies Concerning the
History of Yugoslav Theatres 1861-1961], Novi Sad 1961.
Zombori I. (ed.), A szerbek Magyarországon [Serbs in Hungary], Szeged 1991.