Documenting the History of Religions in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1950–1970): Letters, Reports and Requests across the Iron Curtain 9789004459274, 2021001923, 2021001924, 9789004459267

Citation preview

Documenting the History of Religions in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1950–1970)

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Numen Book Series Studies in the History of Religions

Texts and Sources in the History of Religions Series Editors Steven Engler (Mount Royal University, Calgary, Canada) Richard King (University of Kent, UK) Kocku von Stuckrad (University of Groningen, The Netherlands) Gerard Wiegers (University of Amsterdam, The Netherlands)

volume 172

The titles published in this series are listed at brill.com/nus-tshr

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Documenting the History of Religions in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1950–1970) Letters, Reports and Requests across the Iron Curtain By

Valerio S. Severino

LEIDEN | BOSTON

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Cover illustration: Visual Study of Oxidation Behavior of Iron Walls, n. 7. Photo by courtesy of Dania Gennai. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: Severino, Valerio Salvatore, 1972-, author. Title: Documenting the history of religions in the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (1950–1970) : letters, reports and requests across the Iron Curtain / by Valerio Severino. Description: Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2021. | Series: Numen book series, 0169–8834 | Includes bibliographical references and index. Identifiers: LCCN 2021001923 (print) | LCCN 2021001924 (ebook) | ISBN 9789004459267 (hardback : acid-free paper) | ISBN 9789004459274 (ebook) Subjects: LCSH: International Association for the History of Religions. | Religions—History—20th century—Sources. Classification: LCC BL98 .S48 2021 (print) | LCC BL98 (ebook) | DDC 200.72/2—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021001923 LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021001924

Typeface for the Latin, Greek, and Cyrillic scripts: “Brill”. See and download: brill.com/brill-typeface. ISSN 0169-8834 ISBN 978-90-04-45926-7 (hardback) ISBN 978-90-04-45927-4 (e-book) Copyright 2021 by Valerio Severino. Published by Koninklijke Brill NV, Leiden, The Netherlands. Koninklijke Brill NV incorporates the imprints Brill, Brill Nijhoff, Brill Hotei, Brill Sense, Brill Schöningh, Brill Fink, Brill mentis, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Böhlau Verlag and V&R Unipress. Koninklijke Brill NV reserves the right to protect this publication against unauthorized use. Requests for re-use and/or translations must be addressed to Koninklijke Brill NV via brill.com or copyright.com. This book is printed on acid-free paper and produced in a sustainable manner.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

To my wife, Orsolya

∵

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Contents Acknowledgments xi Introduction 1 1 From the First Eastern Policy of the IA(S)HR toward the “Intellectual Emigrants” to the New Policy of USSR toward the UNESCO (1950–1954) 6 1 To “Represent the Scholarship behind the Iron Curtain”: András Alföldi (1951) 6 2 “Russia Decided to Join the UNESCO!” (Raffaele Pettazzoni, October 1954) 10 3 The Failure of the “Dualism of Representation” 11 2 The First IA(S)HR Congress (Rome 1955) at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact 16 1 The Nature of the People’s Republic Delegations 16 2 The Italian Christian Democratic Party and the IA(S)HR: The Conspiracy-Theory 20 3 A Comparison with the International Congress of Historical Sciences (September 1955). Balancing Marxism and Christianity in Rome 23 4 Invitation of the Hungarian Delegation: A Low Level of Security (November 1954) 26 5 Remarks on Giovanni Casadio’s Essay “Companions in Arms”: Irrationalism and Sub-Logical 29 6 Károly Marót: “Pártonkívüli” 32 7 The “True Reasons of the Exile”: The Lecture of Károly Marót on Ovid at the Accademia d’Ungheria in Rome (29 April 1955) 36 8 Interview in Népszava: “Science Needs Peace” (Marót, 25 May 1955) 38 9 The “Real Internationalism [Internacionalizmus]” 39 10 Negotiating Secularism and Religion 41 3 The Affiliation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences to the IAHR in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising 43 1 The Departments and Ministries Involved (19 November 1955– 10 October 1956): The Overload of the Opening Process 43 2 Dissimulating Political Opposition in Religious Studies: The “Polemical Speech” of Károly Czeglédy 48 Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

viii

Contents

3 The Hungarian Uprising in the Middle of the Process of Affiliation 51 4 The Three Versions of the Official Membership Request of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2nd, 7th and 30th August 1957): The Information Available to the IAHR Presidency 56 5 The Purge of the Vallástudományi Group (August 1957) and the Reform Committee of the Faculty of Arts at ELTE 60 6 László Vajda: A Political Refugee in West Germany 64 7 A Comparison between the Affiliation of the MTA to the IAHR and Its Affiliation to the International Federation of Associations of Classical Studies (December 1957–January 1958): Data and Reflections on the Different Hungarian Membership Processes within the CIPSH 72 4 Remarks on the UN Blocs at the End of the Fifties 78 1 The IAHR Congress in Tokyo 1958: New Documents Concerning the MTA Attempt at Attending 78 2 The Afro-Asian Group and the IAHR: A Comparative Approach to the Issue of the Blocs 79 5 Early Activities of the MVT 84 1 The Belated Opening Reunion (1958) and the Slow Extension of the MVT 84 2 A Cross-Bloc Editorial Event through the Channels of the Italian Communist Intelligentsia (Ambrogio Donini, 1959–1961) 87 3 Hungarian Atheist Framework: The Intertwining of Scholars of MVT and Világosság (1960) 92 4 Tracing the Diffusion of Trencsényi-Waldapfel’s Works after the Affiliation to the IAHR 95 6 The Report of Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Czeglédy on the IAHR Congress at Marburg (September 1960): A Document on the Cold War Escalation 98 1 The Hungarian Delegation: Details on Its Reduction in Size 98 2 “Could Hardly Be [Considered] Apolitical”: The Deferral of the Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze Membership and the Representatives of the GDR 100 3 The Issue of the “Dissidents” 102 4 “Not to Abandon the Organization”: Marxist Polarization in the IAHR and Alliance-Program 103

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

ix

Contents

5 The Context of the Second Vatican Council: Comparing Ostpastoral and IAHR Diplomacy 107 6 Strasbourg, September 1964: The Re-Creation of Contacts after Marburg 109 7 The Report of Trencsényi-Waldapfel on the IAHR Congress in the USA (September 1965): Reflections on the Détente 113 1 The Vacancy of the MVT President Office (27 October 1963– 8 June 1965) 113 2 The FIEC Congress in Philadelphia and the Polish Delegation (August 1964): A Comparison of the Freedom of Scholars 114 3 Invitation and Support by the American Program Committee 116 4 The IAHR as a “Shared Platform of Diverse Scientific Tendencies” (Trencsényi-Waldapfel) 118 5 “His Specialized Knowledge of Bucolic Poetry Would Hardly Seem Subversive”: An Intertextual Analysis 122 6 The Ideological Corrections within the Hungarian Academic System: “On the Level of Terminology” 125 7 The Public Report 128 8 The MVT Agenda for International Cooperation after the 1965 IAHR Congress: Data and Considerations on Security Measures 128 8 Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties 133 1 A New Document on the Special IAHR Conference at Messina (1966) 133 2 “As Agreed”: The Relationship between U. Bianchi and I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel 135 3 The Forced Absence of Delegates from the GDR and the IAHR Telegraph Univocally Voted 137 4 The IAHR Conference at Jerusalem in the Context of the Six-Day War (1967): A Participation “Not Advised” 138 5 The IAHR Congress at Stockholm and the Membership of the Polish National Group (August 1970) 140 9 Epilogue 142 1 “New Perspective of the Open Intellectual Association” in Poland: 1979–1989 143 2 1990–91: The Soviet Experiment in the Last Years of the Perestroika 145

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

x

Contents

3 The Nineties: The Reorganization of Central and Eastern Europe 146 4 In the Framework of the European Association for the Study of Religion: 2000– 149 Bibliography 153 Index 171

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Acknowledgments First, I need to highlight that none of what I have accomplished would have been possible without the support of Antal Babus, head of the Department of Manuscripts of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, who hosted my research project in Budapest, started in September 2017, from which this book originated. I need to express my wholehearted gratitude to him. I would like to thank the staff of the Department too, for their assistance during my visits. I need to express sincere thanks an acknowledgment to Diana Hay as well, who has led my research at the Archives of the Academy in the right direction, and put the MVT dossier belonging to the MTA Department of International Relationships in my hand, while the documents were not yet provided with an inventory. The research was funded by the Tempus Public Foundation to whom I would like to express my gratitude. Tomáš Bubík deserves special mention for his inspiring outcome on the history of the Academic Studies of Religion in Central and Eastern Europe. His influence on some of the key issues of the book is relevant. I would also like to show appreciation to András Máté-Tóth and the network he established on the topic of “Un(b)locking Religion” at the Department of Religious Studies of the University of Szeged and within the “International Study of Religion in Eastern and Central Europe Association”, by which I was stimulated when I elaborated on the issue “Religious Studies – un(b)locking”. I have benefited greatly from conversations with Mihály Hoppál, Ábrahám Kovács, Miklós Vassányi, and Bulcsú Hoppál, on many occasions. Balázs Mezei, president of the Hungarian Association, supported my integration to the MVT, i.e. my participation in the MVT conferences in Budapest in 2018, and 2019. I am indebted to him for his precious help. Tim Jensen, the president of the IAHR, encouraged me to pursue my studies on the history of the IAHR. The public interview I conducted with him as interviewer, The Academic Study of Religion from a Global Point of View. Tim Jensen and the IAHR (May 22, 2019, University of Rome, Roma Tre) represents a milestone in this research. The event was organized in cooperation with Alessandro Saggioro who supported a second event as well, that I chaired at La Sapienza of Rome, The Academic Study of Religion in Central and Eastern Europe: What Future? (April 8, 2019). My sincere appreciation and warmest thanks are extended to all of them, and to Giovanni Casadio too, who had introduced me to the study of Károly Marót in Italy, in 2015.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

xii

Acknowledgments

Even though they are cited in the footnotes, I acknowledge also here Mario Gandini, Richard Kuba, Erica Mosner, Federico Santangelo, Sheila Campbell, Ádám Szabó, Ágnes Bencze, Marcello Massenzio, Petra Brelich, who provided me with information, advice and/or material. During my stay in Hungary, Tibor Keresztesi provided me with help in every administrative issue, for which I would like to thank him. Acknowledgment is due to Brill editors, Numen Book Series, particularly to Brill’s assistant editor for Religious Studies. Tessa Schild has been kind and helpful during the production process of the text. I would like to thank my two peer reviewers for advice and suggestions. Finally, but before anyone else, I would like to express gratitude to my wife, Orsolya Varsányi who knows this research project since its very first stage. I take this opportunity of acknowledging her valuable cooperation, translation of the Hungarian texts, advice and encouragement. During the research, I presented some of the results of my work in conferences, i.e. the paper UNESCO and the Cold War: Archival Research in Hungary and Italy on the History of the International Association for the History of Religions during the ISORECEA conference at the University of Szeged (Hungary, May 25, 2018); the paper The Process of Affiliation – Memberships in Central and Eastern Europe of CIPSH/UNESCO and European Organizations for the Academic Study of Religions during the international symposium “Central European Identity” at the Szigliget Esterhazy-Mansion, organized by the Research Institute of Art Theory and Methodology of the Hungarian Academy of Arts (Hungary, May 14, 2019); the paper Science and Diplomacy: The Membership of the Hungarian National Group to the IAHR in the Context of the 1956 Revolution at the Conference of the European Association for the Study of Religions in the University of Tartu (Estonia, June 27, 2019); the paper Materials for a History of the MVT: A Research Project during the national conference of the MVT at the Hungarian National Museum, Budapest (Hungary, October 18, 2019).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Introduction 1. In 2010, the so-called “UNESCO – history project” launched research programs to study the past of the organization of the United Nations. A working group was established in order to examine the Cold War period. In their conclusion, they state that the UNESCO was an “arena for ideological confrontation” and it “provided rare channels for exchange between the opposing blocs […] through cultural […] and scientific spheres”.1 My aim here is to continue this project through the study of the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR), established in 1950 as a member organization of the International Council for Philosophy and Human Sciences  / Le Conseil International de la Philosophie et des Sciences Humaines (CIPSH), in the UNESCO framework, and to understand the effort made by this International Association in un(b)locking2 flows of knowledge on religion and to foster the ideal of science community as an “open society”. I shall focus on the key-study of Hungary that was the first Socialist state as well as a member of the Warsaw Pact which joined the IAHR with an official national group of scholars, namely the Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság (Hungarian Society for the Science of Religion, hereinafter MVT), in 1957. The group was representative of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, hereinafter MTA). Starting from the destalinization period until the epoch of the détente, it intended to provide an East – West exchange and transfer of data, methods, research experience, and skills. The issue of the permeability or the flexibility of the Iron Curtain, and to some extent its temporary opening for discussion about religious topics, has been pointed out particularly with regard to the Roman Catholic diplomacy in the second half of the twentieth century, i.e. the negotiations of the Vatican Ostpolitik engaging first toward Hungary. The ambition of my essay is to reconsider this issue, by reconstructing a little-known chapter, concerning – instead of the history of the Church – the “History of Religions”-studies, designated by

1 Conference Report by Laura Elizabeth Wong (HCA Heidelberg/RIJS Harvard), UNESCO and the Cold War, March 4–5, 2010 at the Heidelberg Center for American Studies (HCA archives). 2 I elaborated on the theme of “un(b)locking religion” in a study prepared for the 2018 ISORECEA Congress held at the University of Szeged (Hungary), organized by András Máté-Tóth, titled Un(b)locking Religions. Studying Religion in Today’s Central and Eastern Europe. In this frame, with Tomáš Bubík (University of Olomouc, Czech Republic), I cochaired the panel Religious Studies  – Un(b)locking, by involving scholars from Poland, Hungary, Czech Republic, Ukraine, and Russia.

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_002

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

2

Introduction

the IAHR as scientific, that is non-confessional, non-apologetical, academic, secular, in the international framework of the CIPSH-UNESCO activities. My project intends to illustrate and understand aspects of “science diplomacy”. The expression can be used in different ways, as there is no shared definition. I will not refer to the intergovernmental policies, which either enable multilateral cooperation in science or are informed by science advice, within such cooperation, as a matter of foreign affairs. Those are not the only, and much less the most relevant definitions on the issue under discussion. Instead, I speak of science community as an open-society in which circulation of knowledge through national boundaries is intended to be free, to such a degree to cross borders, i.e. between societies, groups of states, regardless if interactions between these borders are compromised or imposed. My purpose is to adopt the standpoint of “science diplomacy”-studies on questions related to the history of the IAHR, not to provide a theoretical approach. 2. As for the documentation, I present the results of my research started in Budapest in September 2017, at the Department of Manuscripts of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, supervised by Antal Babus, and the Archives of the Academy headed by Diana Hay, i.e. on the dossier 40 of the “Department of International Relations” 313/3, opened in 1955 and closed in 1967. I examine the unpublished international correspondence of the first two presidents of the MVT, namely Károly Marót (1885–1963) and Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel (1908–1970), and the “confidential reports” submitted by the members of the group to the Hungarian Academy after their foreign visits and participation in the congresses of the IAHR in Western Europe and the USA. I integrated these results with further documents located in Italy, i.e. in the archives of Raffaele Pettazzoni, the second President of the IAHR (Biblioteca G. C. Croce, San Giovanni in Persiceto) and Ambrogio Donini (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Rome). Minor but profitable studies have been conducted in cooperation with the Shelby White and Leon Levy Archives Center, Institute for Advanced Study (Princeton, NJ, USA), the Frobenius-Institut für kulturanthropologische Forschung – Goethe-University/Frankfurt, and the archive of the Hungarian Ministry of Education (Művelődésügyi Minisztérium). 3. In the framework of the Academic Studies of Religions, this book applies an interdisciplinary approach, including Political Sciences. This interdisciplinary method has been designed for the evaluation of the impact of twentiethcentury ideologies on the shaping of scientific programs and academic settings

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Introduction

3

of Religious Studies.3 Only recently has it been applied in the field of the Cold War history. One of the first ground-breaking works dates back to 2001, titled The Academic Study of Religion during the Cold War: East and West (Proceedings of the special IAHR conference at Brno in 1999).4 In April 2015, a volume of the Numen book Series (Brill) dedicated to the history of the Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe, titled Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, rekindled the debate remarkably.5 The examination published in 2015, supervised by T. Bubík and H. Hoffmann on the study of the “History of Religions” with the Iron Curtain closed and opened deserves to be continued, in a new way, by checking the permeability of the Iron Curtain. The question of what happened not only “behind” and/or “after”, but “across” the Iron Curtain – intellectual exchanges, flow of information, interaction, and emigration of intellectuals – should be evaluated, particularly in the field of European studies. Without denying the importance of the “Fall of the Berlin Wall” event for contemporary history, but considering 3 Horst Junginger, ed. The Study of Religion under the Impact of Fascism (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008). 4 Iva Doležalová, Luther H. Martin, and Dalibor Papoušek, eds. The Academic Study of Religion during the Cold War. East and West (New York, Bern, et al.: Peter Lang Publishers, 2001). Contributors are: Kurt Rudolph, Charles Marie Ternes, Gary Lease, Michał Buchowski, Weigang Chen, Břetislav Horyna, Josef Kandert, Ján Komorovský, Milan Kováč, Dalibor Papoušek, Halina Grzymała-Moszczyńska, Dmitriy Mikulskiy, Linnart Mäll, Luboš Bĕlka, Jan Bouzek, Karel Werner, Luther H. Martin, Gustavo Benavides, Willem Hofstee, William E. Paden, Donald Wiebe, Jacques Waardenburg, and Michael Pye. 5 Tomáš Bubík, and Henryk Hoffmann, eds. Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened: The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015). Contributors are: Tomáš Bubík, David Václavík, Henryk Hoffmann, András Máté-Tóth, Csaba Máté Sarnyai, Ülo Valk, Tarmo Kulmar, Jānis Priede, Liudmyla O. Fylypovych, Jurij O. Babinov, and Ekaterina Elbakyan. Some information related to the 4-year-long debate on this book: Tomáš Bubík, “Is the Study of Religions in the Eastern Europe still behind the Iron Curtain?,” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 191–99, comments to Gregory D. Alles, “Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened,”; Barbara Krawcowicz, “Religious Studies, Theology and the Sociopolitical,”; and Stefan Ragaz, “Reading Scientific Atheism against the Grain,” the 3 reviews in the journal Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 185–90; 173–77; and 178–84, and my comments: “Behind and across the Iron Curtain. Reflections Following the Discussion in Method & Theory in the Study of Religion on T. Bubík’s and H. Hoffmann’s The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 84, no. 1 (2018): 345–49; and the reviews of Donald Wiebe in Temenos. Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 52, 2 (2016): 333–35; Branko Sekulić in Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 36, no. 3 (2016): 50–63; Marta Kołodziejska in Religion 47, no. 2 (2017): 293–95; William Paden in Numen 64, no. 2–3 (2017): 323–26, and others.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

4

Introduction

the slow negotiation mechanisms in the East-West conflict, a research of this kind shall focus analytically on the making of a dialogue between historians of religions of NATO and Warsaw Pact countries during the Communist era.6 This book adds to the scope of the above-mentioned studies/books and may be considered complementary to them. I do not intend to give an outline of the history of the discipline, i.e. the Academic Study of Religions in CEE, as this outline is already written. My book has the specific and new aim of focusing on the international learned societies for the study of religions in the context of the ideological opposition and/or interaction of the East-West blocs. In this regard, the Hungarian membership to the IAHR is selected as a key-case, in order to provide the debate with an up-close examination and high quality documents from archives. 4. The events reported in this book follow one another in a chronological order. The book starts with a chapter on the early Eastern policy of the IA(S)HR,7 implemented in the first half of the Fifties toward scholars emigrated from Hungary, and reflects on how the new policy of the USSR toward the UNESCO in 1954 affected the decision of the IA(S)HR to include representatives of the academic institutions in the countries behind the Iron Curtain. I place the first IA(S)HR Congress (Rome, 1955) in the context of the incoming signature of the Warsaw Pact, and investigate the nature of the People’s Republic delegations, by referring to the veto issued by the Italian government led by a Christian Democratic Party. New data are available on the basis of both a comparison with the International Congress of Historical Sciences held in the same period in Rome, and the documents related to the invitation of a Hungarian delegation submitted by the IA(S)HR to the MTA’s authority, the relatively low level of security of the approval process, the position of the delegate, Károly Marót, and his statements concerning the topics of exile, peace and secularism. The interpretation of the affiliation/membership8 of the Hungarian Acad­ emy of Sciences to the IAHR in the context of the October 1956 Revolution 6 Severino, “Behind and across,” 358. 7 In 1955, the name of the association switched for “International Association for the History of Religions” (IAHR). 8 Since the Presidency of Tim Jensen in the IAHR, the International Association has started to differentiate between “membership/member” and “affiliation/affiliated”. Members are either national or regional associations. Affiliates can be, for instance, regional or international associations that focus on a specific theory, approach, or even area. In this book, I apply the two words to the Hungarian case, in order to make a specific distinction i.e. the affiliation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences which authorized the “membership” of the Hungarian group, and the membership of the MVT which belonged to the MTA.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Introduction

5

represents one of the most relevant outcomes of the research. It has required studies on the MTA departments and ministries involved between November 1955 and 10 October 1956 in the establishment of the MVT group led by K. Marót within the Academy, the dissimulation of political opposition in Religious Studies, and a close analysis of the process of authorization of the Hungarian IAHR membership by the MTA in August 1957. In this respect, I provide documentary evidence on the purge of the MVT in the Kádár era, and reach further conclusions by reflecting on different Hungarian memberships of the MTA within the CIPSH organization in this period (1957–1958). As far as the issue of ideological/political blocs is concerned, I point out that in 1958, the IAHR congress in Tokyo gave room to a new kind of UN Bloc, i.e. the Afro-Asian Group. An unsuccessful attempt of the MVT to attend the congress is reconstructed. After an examination of the early activities of the MVT in Hungary, in the first Sixties, characterized by its relationship with the Italian Communist Intelligentsia and the Hungarian atheist framework of Világosság, I turn to the commitment of one of the Marxist members of the MVT, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel. His participation in the congresses of Marburg in 1960 and Strasbourg in 1964 is evaluated with respect to his unpublished and confidential reports submitted to the MTA, which refer to the Marxist polarization in the International Association, the launch of an alliance-program, the accusation of dissidents, the failed application of a Polish group for membership to the IAHR, and the Cold War Escalation. In 1965, in his quality of new president of the MVT, Trencsényi-Waldapfel joined the congress in Claremont (USA). The East-West relationship is exemplified by the support provided by the American Program Committee to the Hungarian delegation and the idea of the IAHR as a “shared platform” of diverse scientific tendencies. The examination is completed by an intertextual analysis of the strategies of communication employed by Trencsényi during the congress, and the MVT Agenda for international cooperation which, issued after the congress, illustrates the deployment of security measures. The activities in the second half of the Sixties are characterized by openings and closures, respectively in the conferences in Messina (1966) and, in the context of the Six-Day War, in Jerusalem (1967). The investigation concludes with an account on the membership of the Polish national group in 1970 (Congress at Stockholm), at the end of the MVT presidency of Trencsényi. Finally, an epilogue outlines the further memberships of national groups from countries of Central and Eastern Europe that follow the Fall of the Berlin Wall and the enlargement trends resulting in the European Union era, in order to provide the Hungarian case-study with an overview of the opening process of the Iron Curtain.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 1

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA(S)HR toward the “Intellectual Emigrants” to the New Policy of USSR toward the UNESCO (1950–1954) 1

To “Represent the Scholarship behind the Iron Curtain”: András Alföldi (1951)

At the very beginning of the foundation of the IAHR (at the time called IASHR, according to its earlier nomenclature: International Association for the Study of History of Religions), in 1950, the issue that the “countries” of the Eastern Bloc “should have a voice” in the “body” of the Association was expressed in these words, by two Hungarian emigrant intellectuals,1 who both moved to Switzerland at the end of the Forties, András Alföldi and Károly Kerényi. It was only one year after the establishment of the People’s Republic of Hungary (Magyar Népköztársaság). Previous studies have already examined the complex issue of their forced emigration, in details.2 For further information I refer 1 Circular letter, Claas Jouco Bleeker, General Secretary, to the members of the Executive Board of the IASHR, Amsterdam, 12.12.1950; original text: English: “[…]  how would it be to have prof. Alföldi or prof. Kerényi as the fourth associate in the vacant place [after the death of G. van der Leeuw]? This would perhaps meet the urgent desire uttered by these gentlemen during the discussions of the international committee [of the IASHR] at Amsterdam that their countries should have a voice in our body” (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 2 Péter Forisek, “A Scholar’s Fate in Hungary after 1945. Reflections on the Emigration of András Alföldi,” in Kalendae. Studia Sollemnia in memoriam Johannis Sarkady, ed. György Németh (Debrecen: University of Debrecen, Dept. of Ancient History, 2008), 117–139; Cornelia Isler-Kerényi, “Károly Kerényi. An Unwilling Emigrant into European Classical Scholarship,” in Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain, eds. György Karsai, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska (Ljubljana, Budapest, and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales”, 2013), 45–54. New documents of this concern can be found for instance, in the archives of the Department of manuscripts of the MTAK, the letters of András Alföldi to Károly Marót, e.g. from Basel, 27.02.1948, original text: Hungarian, in which Alföldi refers to the illness of his son that forced him to stay in Switzerland, however, confirming that he is on a non-paid leave; and from Uppsala, 22.03.1948, when he mentions the purely material reasons that made him ask for such a long leave; and from Bern, 14.04.1948: during the first phase of his exile, Alföldi considered Marót one of the few who understood the reasons “of a merely financial nature” why he still stayed abroad (“If others also look at my work with such trust and compassion as yours, then we will discuss these things in the summer [in Hungary] [S ha mások is annyi bizalommal s megértéssel nézik munkásságomat, mint Te,

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_003

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA ( S ) HR

7

to them, without claiming to give an account of the international scenario of the Est-to-West European emigration, which is not the focus here. Rather, this chapter deals with the early NATO-centric character of the IA(S)HR in the world scenario of the UNESCO, and examines the process of de-NATOization, beginning already in 1950, in the light of the Hungarian case, alongside the examination of the so-called “de-Europeanization” of the IAHR (question formulated by Tim Jensen),3 and globalization. In January 1951, the members of the IA(S)HR Executive Board were called upon to express their opinion regarding the two Hungarian nominations. The French scholar Henri-Charles Puech, asked “to co-opt [original text: French “coopter”] one of these emigrants”, and to take into consideration Mircea Eliade as well.4 In the same framework, Edwin Oliver James pointed out the “advantage” to link “one of these isolated countries”, Romania and Hungary, “(or both of them)”5 to the Association. As far I can see in unpublished letters of the President, Raffaele Pettazzoni, written to the General Secretary, Jouco Claas Bleeker, Alföldi was eventually nominated as an associate of the Executive Board as  – I quote from a letter of February 1951  – “a representative of the Hungarian emigration, [or the] Romanian and other [ones]”,6 while Bleeker wrote  – in a letter to Pettazzoni  – that Alföldi was elected to “represent somewhat the scholarship [savoirs] behind the Iron Curtain and the emigrants”.7 Both make the relevance of the IA(S)HR policy to the matter of the Cold War evident. It is unclear, however, if the nomination intended to represent the emigrants from the Eastern bloc or to address this emigration for the

3 4

5 6

7

nyáron sokat beszélgetünk majd Isten segitségével ezekről a dolgokról]”); and Bern, 25.05.1948 (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, respectively Ms. 5209/24; 25; 26; 27). Tim Jensen, “The EASR within (the World Scenario of) the IAHR: Observations and Reflections,” in Nvmen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects, eds. Tim Jensen and Armin W. Geertz (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2016), 168, 171. The opinion of Puech is reported by C. K. Bleeker to Pettazzoni in the letters: Amsterdam, 17.01.1950 [sic! 1951]; original text: French (« ce serait un beau geste de coopter un de ces émigrés ») and Amsterdam, 27.01.1951; original text: French: « J’approuve la désignation de M. Alföldi qui me paraît très heureuse. Mais n’aurait-on pas dû penser également à M. Eliade? » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). The opinion of James is reported by C. K. Bleeker to Pettazzoni in the letter, Amsterdam, 27.01.1951; original text: English (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 05.02.1951; original text: French: « Je me rallie à la proposition de plusieurs parmi nos collègues, que le siège soit attribué à M. Alföldi, comme représentant de l’émigration hongroise, roumaine et autres » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). Letter, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 21.12.1954; original text: French: « Il a été élu pour représenter plus ou moins les savoirs derrière le rideau de fer et les émigrés » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

8

chapter 1

purpose of establishing the only possible contact with the countries which, at this point, looked behind political and ideological barriers. In the course of the discussion of the Executive Board, Pettazzoni raised this issue by considering the fact that these countries, at the time, could not provide the IA(S)HR with “groups of national representatives” who were “expected to have a normal relationship […] with the Executive Committee”.8 Therefore, he hesitated in voting for the nomination of Alföldi, but finally accepted the decision which was virtually unanimous.9 The decision of the IA(S)HR to nominate a representative not of Hungarian national institutions, but Hungarian emigration, and to let him play a role, is taken – between December 1950 and February 1951, according to the correspondence Pettazzoni-Bleeker – while Hungary was a member of the UNESCO, but the Soviet Union was not, so it would pressure Hungary, along with Poland and Czechoslovakia to withdraw between December 1952 and January 1953. Pettazzoni informed Alföldi about his “election” in a letter which reached him later, in France. Alföldi answered in August 1951 and wrote how “unexpected” the nomination was for him.10 He did not attend the first meeting of the Executive Committee of the IA(S)HR held in Amsterdam (15–16 November 1951), but sent a letter from Bern in which it can be clearly seen that the Association was looking forward to Alföldi’s bringing a national group of historians of religions to life in Switzerland. The confusion concerning the goal of the nomination is evident again, and would require investigation – which I am not in a position now to complete – whether it undermined the relationship of Alföldi with the IA(S)HR, since the Swiss project contradicted the stance that had allegedly been adopted earlier, to nominate Alföldi for representing the intellectual emigration from People’s Republics. With regard to the formation of a Swiss group, Alföldi expressed misgivings about the IA(S)HR project.11 8 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 23.12.1950: « Quant à la désignation d’un nouveau membre à la place vacante au sein du Comité Exécutif, je suis d’avis que le choix de la personne doit être subordonné au choix préalable du Pays représenté. Il serait préférable, je crois, dans cette phase initiale, que le choix tombe sur un Pays où l’on puisse envisager la constitution d’un groupe national ayant des rapports normaux et suivis avec le Comité Exécutif. Tel n’est pas malheureusement le cas, actuellement, pour la Hongrie, pas plus que pour la Roumanie, Tchécoslovaquie, Pologne, et autres » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 9 Copy of letter, Pettazzoni to Bleeker, 05.02.1951; mentioned above: “I rally behind the proposal of several of our colleagues […]”. 10 Letter, A. Alföldi to R. Pettazzoni, Tonnoy (M[eurthe-et-]Moselle), 06.08.1951; original text: French: « Cette élection inattendue m’a causé plus de joie que je ne le puis dire » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 11 Letter, A. Alföldi to R. Pettazzoni [“Sehr verehter Herr Kollege!”], Bern, 04.11.1951: «Die Formung einer nationalen Gruppe der Religionshistoriker der Schweiz wird wohl gelingen, Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA ( S ) HR

9

Between April and May 1953, Alföldi suggested the central theme of the first IA(S)HR Congress  – to be held in Rome in 1955  – in the following: The Sacral Kingship, which was formulated by Alföldi originally in German: Das Sakralkönigtum in den primitiven und in den Hochkulturen. He had previously contacted Bleeker in order to deal with the subject of the congress,12 and presented it during the meeting of the Executive Committee of the IA(S) HR held in Paris, 28th and 29th May 1953 at the Maison de l’UNESCO.13 The topic was thought-provoking. Luigi Salvatorelli, member of the Italian IA(S) HR group, argued that the theme of that congress stimulated consideration on the analogies with the “totalitarianisms” of the time, i.e. the survival of the sacred-king, and the sacred nature of sovereignty, in the “national state” and the “proletarian class” of the Twentieth century too, despite the “rationalist” and “secularist” claim of the latter.14 wenn - ich es nicht selbst vornehme. Denn es gibt so viel Gegensätze und Hemmungen, dass ich als Ausländer - der auch ein ausgesprochener Gegner Barths bin - nicht die Initiative ergreifen darf [The formation of a national group of religious historians in Switzerland will probably succeed if - I do not make it myself. For there are so many oppositions and inhibitions that I, as a foreigner (…) cannot take the initiative]» (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). For further information concerning the context of the IASHR meeting at Amsterdam which, in my point of view, the above-mentioned letter refers to, see Mario Gandini “Raffaele Pettazzoni intorno al 1951. Materiali per una biografia,” Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 61, no. 2 (2006): 181. Further data on the idea to consider Alföldi a sort of representative of Switzerland are indicated in the letter, C. K. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 17.01.1950 [sic! 1951] (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 12 Letters, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 01.05.1953: report concerning a letter of Alföldi sent to Bleeker; and Amsterdam, 21.12.1954, original text: French: « il [Alföldi] a proposé le thème du Congrès de Rome » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 13 Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1952–1953. Materiali per una biografia,” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 62, no. 1 (2007): 124 (a description of the meeting based on the minutes hosted at the Pettazzoni archive); and Giovanni Casadio, “Numen, Brill and the IAHR in Their Early Years: Glimpses at Three Parallel Stories from an Italian Stance,” in Nvmen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects, eds. Tim Jensen and Armin W. Geertz (Leiden-Boston: Brill, 2016), 314. The IASHR Bulletin edited by Bleeker mentions the meeting at Paris but not the proposal: Claas Jouco Bleeker, “Bulletin. The International Association for the Study of History of Religions (IASHR),” in Numen 1, no. 1 (1954): 90. 14 Luigi Salvatorelli, “Il congresso romano di Storia delle Religioni,” La Nuova Stampa, Avril 23, 1955: 5: “Even today, historical sense, ethic and political criticism urge us to find residues [of the sacred kingship] still effective in the current and opposing totalitarianisms: no matter if the National State or the Proletarian Class is the divine, the representatives are the Dux [Duci] or the Pontifex [pontefici] for both. These phenomena are not related to modern rationalism and ‘secularism’ [laicismo] – as someone claimed and still claims by turning the facts inside out. On the contrary, they are of concern to counterforces, i.e. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

10 2

chapter 1

“Russia Decided to Join the UNESCO!” (Raffaele Pettazzoni, October 1954)

The Soviet tactics toward the UNESCO affected the Eastern policy of Pettazzoni and Bleeker. In April 1954, the Soviet Union joined the UNESCO, followed by Hungary, Poland, and Czechoslovakia, which, between July and September, revoked their withdrawal. At this point, Pettazzoni acknowledged the political change, therefore decided that an official invitation shall be sent to the Academies of Sciences of the People’s Republics to attend the planned International Conference of the IA(S)HR, because it was not possible to “ignore” and exclude these countries any more, as we can read in a letter of 14th October to the General Secretary: Given that we [the IA(S)HR] will invite the Universities, Academies, etc., can we ignore the Universities, Academies, etc. of countries as Poland, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria, Romania, and others (Russia decided to join the UNESCO!)? How will we justify their exclusion? […] the History of Religions is not represented, as such, in the Universities of these countries. Should we then exclude other countries as well, such as Spain and Portugal etc.?15 Such opening of the IA(S)HR did not represent an isolated reaction, but was endorsed by other member organizations of the CIPSH / UNESCO at the same time, e.g. the Comité International des Sciences Historiques (CISH). While the IAHR congress was about to be arranged, and the invitation of countries of the Eastern bloc planned, on 22nd October 1954, the Organizer Committee of the 10th Congress of the CISH, which was to be held in Rome in 1955 as well as the IA(S)HR congress, asked the Russian Academy of Sciences (and other Academies of the Eastern area) to attend, and explained the delay of the invitation with the fact that “only recently has the USSR joined the UNESCO”, and that, as a rule, the “invitations were issued only to member countries of this organization”.16 Ambrogio Donini, an Italian historian of religions, irrational and fanatic movements that represent the transposition and degeneration of the religious passions of the past centuries and epochs” (original text: Italian). 15 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 14.10.1954; original text: French: « La Russie a décidé de rentrer dans l’UNESCO ! » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 16 Copy of letter, Ambrogio Donini to “Pankratova N. [Anna Mikhaïlovna] Institute of History of the Academy of Sciences at Moscow”, 22.10.1954; original text: Italian: «A giustificare il ritardo con cui questo invito vi è stato rivolto, il comitato organizzatore ha addotto la scusa che solo ultimatemene l’URSS ha aderito all’UNESCO e che gli inviti venivano diramati solo

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

11

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA ( S ) HR

representative of the Cultural Policy of the Italian Communist Party, mediated the CISH operation. Close in time (October 20th), he asked his colleague Pettazzoni to extend, “for the first time” in the framework of the international congresses on the “History of Religions”-studies, an invitation to “a team of Soviet scholars”.17 3

The Failure of the “Dualism of Representation”

Shortly after the European People’s Democracies joined the UNESCO, the IA(S)HR began a new phase of its Eastern politics. It is around this time that first Eastern policy of the IA(S)HR’s concentrating on “intellectual emigrants” ran into difficulties, when it lost its representative. Alföldi cut the cord with the IA(S)HR, as it has emerged from documents of the Pettazzoni archive. In June 1954, Geo Widengren informed Pettazzoni that Alföldi would not attend the Congress in Rome, because he was invited to the USA.18 He did not answer to the letters sent by Pettazzoni, who, in August, started to consider his replacement.19 In December 21, 1954, Alföldi was accepted at the Institute for Advanced Study (IAS), at Princeton NJ, for a professorship in the School of ai paesi aderenti a questa organizzazione» (Fondazione Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, 1° versamento). A detailed examination of the position of Pankratova, referring both to her role in the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and the accusation directed at her concerning her alleged revisionism of Leninism starting from the second half of 1956, based on documents of the archive of the Fondazione Gramsci, is available in: Albertina Vittoria, “Pci, le riviste e l’amicizia. La corrispondenza fra Gastone Manacorda e Delio Cantimori,” Studi Storici 44, no. 3–4 (2003): 798. 17 Copy of letter, Ambrogio Donini to R. Pettazzoni, Rome, 20.10.1954; original text: Italian: “As the International Congress of the History of Religions is approaching, I wonder if it would be appropriate [opportuno], for the first time, to address the invitation to a group of Soviet scholars, who would lend an undoubtedly original and interesting touch to our work and help to break down many barriers and privileges [spezzare tante barriere e privilegi]” (Istituto Fondazione Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini anni ’50, B. 14, Pettazzoni). 18 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 17.06.1954, in which he mentioned the information concerning Alföldi provided by Widengren (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 19 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, 04.08.1954; original text: French: “The participation of Alföldi still remains unknown [l’incognita de Alföldi]. I wrote him at Basel. I guess he left (to America?), because he did not answer. We can wait, but at some point a replacement will be needed (il s’agira de le remplacer)”. And letter, J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 30.08.1954; original text: French: “It is regrettable ( fâcheux) that our colleague did not answer […]. I would suggest to keep the name ‘Alföldi’ in the 2nd circular-letter and as long as he does not provide us with a negative reply” (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

12

chapter 1

Historical Studies, as we can read in the minute of the meeting of the Faculty, now preserved at the Shelby White and Leon Levy Archives Center. The account of his career and scholarship, enclosed to the related documents of the Director’s Office, took into consideration his status of emigrant by declaring that he “had fled from Budapest in 1947”.20 He distanced himself from the IAHR while he maintained affective and intellectual bonds with Europe.21 Alföldi did not attend the IA(S)HR congress in Rome. In the days of the congress, Károly Kerényi, i.e. the second candidate to the Executive Board as representative of the intellectual emigration, stayed in Rome, but did not attend the working sessions either. This absence did not set a breakpoint with Pettazzoni, according to Natale Spineto,22 who examined the relationship of Kerényi with the Italian scholars in History of Religions, but displayed his estrangement from the IA(S)HR framework. In a page of his diary, during the days of the conference, Kerényi wrote that he wished “to not belong” to the Congress of

20 Memorandum to the Board of Trustees, signed by Robert Oppenheimer, 19.01.1955; original text: English (Director’s Office - Faculty Files, Box 1: Alföldi, Andrew, Copies of Statement, Shelby White and Leon Levy Archives Center, Institute for Advanced Study [IAS], Princeton, NJ, USA). 21 As part of the results of an OTKA research project Life and Work of an Outstanding Hungarian Scholar of 20th Century (2005–2008), Péter Forisek mentioned a letter of Martin Nilsson, Lund, March 15, 1955, concerning the membership of Alföldi and the IAHR (work still unpublished). In my view, the question of his estrangement from the IAHR could be clarified only thanks to the information preserved in the letters, which unfortunately are scattered. The so-called “Andreas Alföldi Papers” of Princeton, initially at the IAS in Princeton, were sent to the Hungarian National Museum of Budapest. In this new repository, the cataloguing process is still ongoing (information by Ádám Szabó, art curator of the Archaeology Repository of the Museum, provided to me in March 2018). A basic description of the contents of this collection was made in September 1, 2011 by the IAS (File Cabinets). I would like to thank Erica Mosner (Archival Assistant at the Shelby White and Leon Levy Archives Center, Princeton) for her help in this matter. This investigation led me to further sources of information, i.e. witness testimonies, to which I refer here briefly: Sheila Campbell, a scholar of Elisabeth Rosenbaum, the wife of Alföldi, who met both of them after 1967, when they moved to the University of Toronto, told me that she did “not recall any mention at all of this organization [IAHR]” when she visited Alföldi and his wife at their home both in Princeton and in Toronto on many occasions (information of March 2018). I would like to thank Campbell, along with Federico Santangelo who provided me with contacts with scholars of Alföldi, and his interpretation (James H. Richardson and Federico Santangelo, eds., Andreas Alföldi in the Twenty-First Century, [Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015]). 22 Natale Spineto, Storia e storici delle religioni in Italia (Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2012), 138. The chapter related to Kerényi had a wide diffusion, in Hungary as well: Id., “Kerényi Károly és a vallástörténeti tanulmányok Olaszországban,” in Mitológia és humanitás, ed. János G. Szilágyi (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 1999), 52–84.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA ( S ) HR

13

History of Religions,23 and added an enigmatic sentence which highlights the emotional side of this disaffection, that is: “We all bear wounds; praise [original text: German “Lob”] is a soothing if not necessarily healing balm for them” (quoting The genesis of Doctor Faustus, published by T. Mann in 1949).24 The sense of this reference is cryptic, but we can gain some information from the context, that is the commitment of the IA(S)HR to the invitation-program of delegations from People’s Democracies, which entails the formal recognition of the Communist-established new intelligentsia as having official authority after and despite the political emigration/expulsion of intellectuals. It is to be noticed that in the summer 1947, the delegate of the MTA, Károly Marót, backed by the Minister of Public Education, Gyula Ortutay, was nominated at the University of Budapest, despite the fact that the selection committee had called Kerényi by majority vote – it was also due to the tacit consent of Alföldi.25 23 Karl Kerényi, Tage- und Wanderbücher 1953–1960 (München: Langen Müller, 1969), 109: “[21 April 1954] Rome, Palazzo dei Conservatori. I was glad to come here today, much more than a few days ago, in the evening, to the mass welcome-reception of the participants to the Congress of History of religions, to which I wish to not belong (zu denen ich nicht zu gehören wünschte), while, in my own way, I belong to Rome” (original text: German). I owe the reference to Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1954–1955. Materiali per una biografia,” in Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 63, no. 2 (2007): 167–168. 24 I quote from the English translation of the text of Thomas Mann, The Story of a Novel: The Genesis of Doctor Faustus [Die Entstehung des Doktor Faustus Roman eines Romans], trans. Richard Winston and Clara Winston (New York: Alfred Knopf, 1961), 127. With reference to the quotation by Kerényi, Tage- und Wanderbücher, 110: “[23 April 1954, last day of the IAHR Congress] After this congress, of which I attended only the social evenings, comes to my mind the remark of the Novel Roman eines Romans which contains much wisdom: ‘Wir alle tragen Wunden, und Lob ist, wenn nicht heilender, so doch lindernder Balsam für sie’” (original text: German). 25 The Dean of the Faculty asked Alföldi for a referatum on Kerényi, but instead, Alföldi sent an ambiguous message on Kerényi’s intentions, which gave the opportunity to restart the voting process in which, finally, Marót received the majority support – with the excuse of Kerényi’s alleged reluctance to return. I refer to the correspondence of Kerényi, and Lajos Fülep, József Huszti (member of the committee) and András Alföldi, written between July and August 1947 (Dóra Csanak, ed., Fülep Lajos levelezése. Vol. 5 1945–1950 [Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó, 2001], 249–251; János György Szilágyi, “Egy halálhír – Kerényi Károly (1897–1973),” and “Levelek Kerényi Károly Archívumából [Kerényi’s archive],” Beszélő 3, no. 4 [1998]: 101–104). Another reference can be found in a letter written by Marót: “[illegible], as it seems, has received an urgent call – just like Kerényi – to return, or …” implying that in case they fail to return urgently, it would have serious consequences (Letter, K. Marót to Béla Zolnai, 07.10.1947; original text: Hungarian, MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4125/449). A letter written in 1944 demonstrates a kind of an aversion toward K. Kerényi on Marót’s behalf, which is expressed in the choice of the expressions. Referring to a work by an author mutually known by him and Zolnai, the addressee of the letter, he writes:

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

14

chapter 1

Kerényi felt that the attempt led by Ortutay to expel him and remove his work from the country was not unrelated to the articles published in Hungary, since September 1946, that injured Kerényi’s reputation politically.26 Might a different scenario be contemplated concerning the issue of intellectual emigrants? At that moment, in Rome, in 1955, another conference was held, a few months after the IA(S)HR, by the Comité International des Sciences Historiques (CISH), to which I referred previously in order to make a comparison with a similar international organization. In this case, the CISH sought to bring the “Eastern European” delegations to a position of balance, by accepting e.g. both the Polish Academy of Sciences and the Polish Historical Society Abroad. After negotiations, the CISH recognized the official character of the latter.27 The Association of Polish historians in exile attended the conference in Rome, published its own proceedings as a group in the journal having the significant title Antemurale,28 and took this opportunity to oppose the Communist historiography supported by the delegation of the Polish Academy of Sciences. The Polish Historical Society Abroad put effort into displaying within the CISH a “dualism of the representation of Polish historiography”.29 In a review dedicated to the proceedings of the papers presented by members “After your work, I am now starting to read ‘the Greek literature’ [a “Görög irodalmat”]. It seems to be a nice and intelligent thing, but it is not free from some K. K.-infections [nem ment bizonyos K. K. infekcióktól] that do not suit it well” (Letter, K. Marót to Béla Zolnai, Budapest, 27.05.1944; original text: Hungarian, MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms. 4125/423). 26 Gábor Lőrinc, “Irracionalizmus és fasizmus. Hogyan került az SS pénze egy demokratikus vallástörténészhez [Irrationalism and Fascism. How did the money of the SS end up at a democratic historian of religions?],” Köztársaság: politikai hetilap, September 4, 1946 and György Lukács, “Kerényi Károly: Napleányok. Elmélkedések Heliosról és görög istennőkről,” Társadalmi Szemle 6–7 (1948): 494: the “atmosphere of mythology” in Kerényi’s works is considered as the “ideological preparation of the atmosphere of Fascism”. 27 Mirosław A. Supruniuk, “Fr. Prof. Walerian Meysztowicz and the Polish Historical Institute in Rome,”; and Maria Zadencka, “Polish Exile Historians at the International Historical Congresses,” both in East and Central European History Writing in Exile 1939–1989, eds. Maria Zadencka, Andrejs Plakans, and Andreas Lawaty (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 146; and 180. 28 Societatis Historicae Polonorum in Exteris, “Dissertationes in X Internationali Congressu Scientiarum Historiarum Romae A. MCMLV a Sociis Societatis Historicae Polonorum in Exteris Praesentatae,” Antemurale 2 (1955). 29 Oscar Halecki, “Poland at the Tenth International Congress of Historical Sciences,” The Polish Review [University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Polish Institute of Arts & Sciences of America] 1, no. 1 (1956): 5; Id., review of Obiektywny charakter praw historii [The Objective Character of the Laws of History], by Adam Schaff (ed.), and La Pologne au X Congrès International des Sciences Historiques à Rome, The American Historical Review 61, no. 4 (1956): 973; and Supruniuk, “Fr. Prof. Walerian Meysztowicz,” 146.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

From the First Eastern Policy of the IA ( S ) HR

15

of the Society in exile, Oscar Halecki, who attended the CISH congress, pointed out that “continuing the tradition of Polish participation in the earlier international congresses, its representatives gave evidence at the latest one [i.e. congress] that the Marxist interpretation of history – which, under Moscow’s influence, seems to prevail in Communist-controlled Poland – is not shared by independent Polish scholarship”.30 Not all the issues related to the Polish “dualism of the representation” in CISH framework can be considered here. This quick reference aims at mentioning only this aspect – the attempt to hold the divergent factions of Polish historiography together – in order to understand what might be done in an international congress of historians in Rome in the middle of the Fifties, i.e. the opportunities and the possibilities. As the CISH, the IA(S)HR likewise supported an Eastern policy based on representatives of the intellectual emigration, too, but this policy was not followed to a sufficient degree to give full effect and failed, as noticed in the foregoing paragraphs. For reasons beyond the control of the Executive Committee of the IA(S)HR, no representative of the emigrated / exiled scientists was displayed in the conference in Rome. At the same time – to the best of my knowledge, and according to the diary of Kerényi – no attempt has been done to reinstate such representatives in 1955 and to authorize and consent a “dualism of the representation”. 30

Halecki, “Poland at the Tenth International Congress,” 5; Id., review of Obiektywny, 973; Id., review of Antemurale, I and Antemurale, II, Speculum 31, no. 1 (1956): 128–129.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 2

The First IA(S)HR Congress (Rome 1955) at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact 1

The Nature of the People’s Republic Delegations

Yet in the reunion of the Executive Committee of the IA(S)HR in 1954 April 23th, as we can read in handwritten notes taken by Raffaele Pettazzoni, the International Association planned an “invitation to colleagues beyond the Iron Curtain [Italian idiom: “oltre-cortina”]: [Otakar] Pertold [Czechoslovakia], [Dionisie Mihail] Pippidi [Romania], [Gavril] Kazarov [Bulgaria] […]”.1 From the middle of October, as mentioned in the previous chapter, the Association considered to involve the “countries behind the Iron Curtain”.2 Although for Claas Jouco Bleeker it was uncertain/improbable (French original word: « douteux ») that scientists from these counties would be allowed to come to Rome,3 on 3rd November, Pettazzoni asked him to proceed with these invitations to “Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, […] Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, […] China”.4 In a previous and preparatory list of countries to which an invitation should be addressed, Pettazzoni did not indicate Yugoslavia,5 as far as a wider involvement of scholars was concerned. The invitations to the Academy of Sciences mark the start of a new Eastern policy based on national representative institutions, by replacing the previous program oriented to the intellectual emigrants particularly from Hungary (Károly Kerényi, András Alföldi) and Romania (Mircea Eliade) in Western Europe. An appropriate study in this matter is available, conducted by Mario Gandini, largely focused on documents of the Pettazzoni archive.6 Gandini provides us with an insight into this first outcome of the new Eastern policy of 1 Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1954–1955. Materiali per una biografia,” Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 63, no. 2 (2007): 66. 2 See previous chapter, and letter, Claas Jouco Bleeker to Raffaele Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 17.10.1954; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 3 Ibid. 4 Copy of letter, Raffaele Pettazzoni to Claas Jouco Bleeker, Rome, 03.11.1954; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 5 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 14.10.1954; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 6 Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni 1954–1955,” 66–72.

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_004

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

17

the IAHR. The proceedings of the conference supply only few pieces of information on the “delegates and representatives of Universities, Academies and scientific institutions” from Czechoslovakia, Poland, Hungary and the GDR,7 and on the fact that the Russian and Chinese Academies of Sciences addressed greeting telegrams to the congress.8 A further step can be done after Gandini’s work by examining the nature of the delegations from the countries “behind the Iron Curtain”. For instance, the Czechoslovak delegation was not representative of the national Academy, established in 1953, but of the Comenius Evangelical Theological Faculty of Prague, which appointed Miloš Bič, a scholar of Biblical Studies.9 According to biographical accounts, even if referring to a period long after the congress, Bič was removed from his academic position in 1977, and then sent to retirement, by a decree of the Ministry of Culture, which, to some degree, is significant of the side-lined position he has occupied in the national framework. The delegate representative of the GDR research institutions, i.e. the “Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin”, Otto Eissfeldt, a protestant theologian, and a scholar of Old Testament studies, was employed at the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg, along with the second delegate, Kurt Aland, a scholar of theological-historical studies.10 In 1958, Aland was forced to emigrate to West Germany, finding a new position at the University of Münster, where he founded the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung. His departure is considered an instance serving to illustrate the pressure of the GDR regime against “politically unyielding theologians”.11 The Polish Academy arranged a delegation too, but did not receive the travel visa from the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The Polish question of the missing visa was publicly discussed at the time, in Italy, e.g. in the official newspaper of the Italian Communist Party, L’Unità (the “delegations of the Socialist

7 IAHR, Atti dell’VIII congresso internazionale di Storia delle religioni (Roma, 17–23 aprile 1955) (Firenze: Sansoni, 1956), 8–12. 8 Ibid., 48. 9 Ibid., 8: «Komenského Evangelická Bohoslovecká Fakulta, Praha». He was well-known for his book, published in 1960 by his Faculty and the ecclesiastical central publishing house in Prague, on the Dead Sea Roll Scrolls, Miloš Bič, Poklad v Judské poušti (kumránské nálezy) [Treasure in the Judean Desert (Qumran findings)] (Prague: Komenského evangelická bohoslovecká fakulta, Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1960). 10 IAHR, VIII congresso internazionale: Roma, 9. 11 Martin Hengel, “Laudatio Kurt Aland,” in Kurt Aland. In memoriam, ed. Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zur Förderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung (Münster: HKSFNT Publisher, 1995), 28–29.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

18

chapter 2

countries and People’s democracies” is considered “totally inadequate”),12 and in Hungary, e.g. in the public report of the MTA delegation (“the visa [for the Polish delegation] was not received”13). In 2007, Gandini drew attention to new pieces of evidence, namely the letters and telegrams exchanged between Pettazzoni and the Polish Academy.14 According to these documents, it is clear that on 13th April 1955, a few days before the beginning of the congress, problems concerning the visa to be granted by Italian authorities were discussed with the Secretariat of the organizers of the congress15 which informed the Polish Academy that “according to the instructions of the Foreign Affairs, the Italian embassy at Warsaw should ask the visa for the delegates by telegram to the Foreign Affairs of Rome”.16 The 23rd April, the Academy stated: “Having not received entry visas, Professor Stefan Strelcyn and Professor Kazimierz Majewski were unable to attend the Congress”.17 These documents show that the Italian authorities (the Ministry or/and the embassy) are accountable. The matter would require to be investigated more extensively, e.g. in the archives of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This is not the proper time for this examination now, both because it is not the focus of this essay and it raises real difficulties in investigation. A prior step should be to consider the specific

12

Ernesto de Martino, “In margine a un congresso internazionale. La storia delle religioni.” L’Unità, April 27, 1955: 3. In the Fifties, the author of the news article mentioned above, the historian of religions Ernesto de Martino, worked in the network of R. Pettazzoni at the University of Rome and, at the same time, participated in the cultural activities of the Italian Communist Party e.g. within the Fondazione Gramsci. 13 Károly Marót, “Beszámoló a VIII Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról,” A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának Közleményei 8, no. 1–4 (1956): 190. 14 Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni 1954–1955,” 153. I would like to thank M. Gandini who provided me with copies of the documents from the Pettazzoni archive that he used for his essay, in which, in this point, he presented in skeletal form, i.e. without mentioning specific sources, the result of his inquiry on the invitation of the Polish Academy to the IA(S)HR congress. 15 Telegram, Polish Academy of Sciences to the Secretariat of the VIII International Congress of History of Religions, Warsaw, 13.04.1955; original text: French: « Les délégués de l’Académie Polonaise des Sciences au VIII congrès international d’histoire des religions Professeur Stefan Strelcyn et Professeur Kazimierz Majewski attendent visas » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 16 Telegram, Secretariat of the VIII International Congress of History of Religions (signed: Pettazzoni) to the Polish Academy of Sciences, 13.04.1955; original text: Italian (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 17 Telegram, Polish Academy of Sciences to the Secretariat of the VIII International Congress of History of Religions, Warsaw, 23.04.1955; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive). Further and general information in Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni 1954–1955,” 152–153.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

19

nature of the visa problems, i.e. to study the nature of the Polish delegation by a close examination, to which I limit myself in this issue. Greater attention should be given first to the profile of the members of the Polish delegation, in order to have a better understanding of the specific problems involved. With regard to S. Strelcyn, his expulsion from France in 1950 due to his Communist position18 is a feature of the matter which could hardly have been overlooked during the Italian visa-process in 1955. Strelcyn was a scholar trained in Ethiopian studies in Paris from the middle of the Forties (previously, since 1938, he had taken up residence in Belgium), having scholarly relationship with Marcel Cohen. After his expulsion, he moved back to Poland and the University of Warsaw employed him.19 Concerning the effective involvement of Strelcyn in Marxism, an argument can be made that he had a critical attitude in France e.g. under the influence of the “Marxist” linguist M. Cohen, who – according to Strelcyn – “tried to apply dialectic materialism to linguistics” but “never accepted Marx’s linguistic theory even when it became compulsory in the Communist world”.20 Strelcyn emphazised that this “refusal” was “possible only because he [Cohen] was living in the West”.21 Although allusively, Strelcyn disclosed information also on the ideological pressure under which his own work stood in Poland, which affected his scientific production. For instance, the references to Marxist authors, as A. B. Ranovitch’s Marxist 18

The expulsion of S. Strelcyn from France occurred after the events that followed the arrest of a French citizen, André Robineau, accused of espionage in Poland: “Many Polish communists were removed from France as an act of retaliation of the French government. Stefan Strelcyn as a member of Polish Workers’ Party was brutally expelled from France before his scheduled autumn return to Poland. He was blacklisted without the right to return to France” (Ewa Wołk-Sore, “Among Manuscripts and Men of Ethiopia. Stefan Strelcyn’s Quest for African Studies,” in African Studies. Forging New Perspectives and Directions, ed. Nina Pawlak, Hanna Rubinkowska-Anioł, and Izabela Will [Warsaw: Elipsa. 2016], 84). According to the opinion of the Communist député Jean Cristofol, expressed during a French Parliament debate in 1951, the expulsion of Strelcyn occurred in the context of the expulsion of both Polish and Spanish citizens from France in 1950 for political reasons: « Le droit d’asile, pourtant expressément reconnu dans la Constitution, est foulé aux pieds. Le nombre des expulsions scandaleuses décidées en 1950 est impressionnant » (Jean Cristofol, [speech] “2° Séance du Mardi 6 Février 1951,” Journal Officiel de la République Française. Débats parlementaires. Assemblée Nationale 17 [7 February 1951]: 796). 19 Wołk-Sore, “Among Manuscripts,” 84. And the testimony of Edward Ullendorff, “Stefan Strelcyn 1918–1981,” Proceedings of the British Academy 67 (1981): 480–481: “his [Stefan Strelcyn’s] reception at Warsaw was highly gratifying, a consummation to which his scholarly stature and the manner of his departure from France probably contributed in equal measure”. 20 Stefan Strelcyn, “Obituaries. Marcel Cohen,” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies [University of London] 38, no. 3 (1975): 619. 21 Ibid.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

20

chapter 2

Analyses of Hellenism, included in Strelcyn’s book on Ethiopian magic prayers (almost completed in France, but eventually published, after his expulsion, in Warsaw in 1955) were not “of his [Strelcyn] free will”.22 At this stage no effective conclusion can be reached, but the awkward situation of Strelcyn cannot be denied. It is true, however, that this situation did not enable him to attend the international congress of orientalists at Cambridge in 1954, with a paper dedicated to the Oriental studies in the Polish People’s Republic,23 close in time to the conference in Rome. The awkward position held by Strelcyn is to be considered as well within the Polish institutions. In 1969, he was forced to leave Poland as an effect of the so called “anti-Zionist” campaign promoted by the government, which led to the mass emigration of Polish Jewish intelligentsia, and eventually found a new academic position in London and Manchester.24 2

The Italian Christian Democratic Party and the IA(S)HR: The Conspiracy-Theory

The Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers formed in the Alcide De Gasperi VI Cabinet, under the leadership of the Italian Christian Democratic Party (Democrazia Cristiana [DC]), was accused of attempting to prevent the IA(S)HR from organizing its congress in Rome, because it was found to be inappropriate (it.: inopportuno) to hold it in the city of the Holy See. In certain cases, and in private conversations, the Undersecretary of State, Giulio Andreotti, was specifically charged with undertaking an attempt at banning the congress on July 1951. Above, I summarized the essentials of the accusation, as an abstract of the several articles and correspondences in which this information was supplied. Unfortunately, we still have few studies that are looking at the overall spread of this information. As far as we know, Pettazzoni raised the issue with the Italian Academy (Accademia dei Lincei, Section of Moral, Historical and Philological Sciences) in the meeting held on 8th December 1951,25 and then, 22

Stefan Strelcyn, Prières magiques Éthiopiennes pour délier les charmes (Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955). Strelcyn disclosed to his colleague, Joseph Tubiana, this information, which is reported in Ullendorff, “Stefan Strelcyn 1918–1981,” 487, and Joseph Tubiana, “Stefan Strelcyn FBA 1918–1981,” Journal of Semitic Studies 27, no. 1 (1982): 1–15. 23 Stefan Strelcyn, “Dix ans d’études orientales en Pologne Populaire,” in Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 21st–28th August, 1954, ed. Denis Sinor (London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1956), 43–60. 24 Wołk-Sore, “Among Manuscripts,” 85; Ullendorff, “Stefan Strelcyn 1918–1981,” 484. 25 Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni intorno al 1951. Materiali per una biografia,” Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 61, no. 2 (2006): 152–153. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

21

on 19th January 1952, published an article in this matter in the weekly politicalcultural magazine Il Mondo titled “An ‘inappropriate’ [it.: inopportuno] congress”.26 This news quickly reached massive exposure especially through the Italian Left-wing newspapers (e.g. L’Unità, Mondo operaio, Nuovi Argomenti, etc.) that re-shared the content.27 On 19th December 1951, Ambrogio Donini, the above-mentioned leader in the cultural policy of the Italian Communist Party, and historian of religions, became aware of the rumor coming from the Italian Academy, that “the Christian Democratic Government did ‘forbid’ [aveva proibito] the IASHR from holding the congress in Rome”, and “about a letter of Andreotti concerning this ‘prohibition’”, and then – still according to what Donini wrote in his correspondence – suggested Pettazzoni to promote a public discussion in the Italian press.28 In that concern, more recently, Mario Gandini published the outcome of his investigation. The results are strictly based on the records of events and activities kept in a diary by Pettazzoni at the time, and related to the organization of the congress. No documents were found which could provide us with a piece of evidence of neither the statement of inopportuneness of the congress by the government nor the alleged reason of the prohibition, i.e. the provisions of Art 1 of the Italian Concordat with the Holy See, and the obligation of the Italian state to prevent anything in Rome that could be in contrast with the “sacred character of the Eternal City, […] center of the Catholic world”.29 Even before the above-mentioned newspapers, first Pettazzoni referred to this reason as his own personal interpretation of the government ban.30 As a 26 Raffaele Pettazzoni, “Un congresso ‘non opportuno’,” Il Mondo. Settimanale di politica e letteratura, January 19, 1952, 4; published again in: Id., Italia religiosa (Bari: Laterza, 1952), 86. 27 Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli, “Lettera aperta a Carlo Antoni,” L’Unità, December 13, 1951: 3; D. M. [Ernesto de Martino], “Città moderna o città metafisica? La ‘missione’ di Roma,” L’Unità, May 24, 1952: 3; Giulio Ubertazzi, “L’ottavo Congresso di storia delle religioni,” Mondo operaio 8, no. 10 (1955): 12–14; Ernesto de Martino, “Coscienza religiosa e coscienza storica: in margine a un congresso,” Nuovi Argomenti 14 (1955): 86–94. 28 Copy of letter, Ambrogio Donini to Raffaele Pettazzoni, 19.12.1951; original text: Italian: «Mi si è anche detto che esiste una lettera di Andreotti, a proposito di tale “proibizione”» (Istituto Fondazione Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, B. 14). 29 Art. 1. “[…] In consideration of the sacred character of the Eternal City, the Episcopal See of the Sovereign Pontiff, centre of the Catholic world and place of pilgrimage, the Italian Government will take care to impede in Rome whatsoever may be in opposition with its said character” (Concordat, 11 February 1929; original text: Italian). 30 Pettazzoni, “Un congresso ‘non opportuno’,” 4: “And if, nonetheless, it [the Italian Presidency of the Council of Ministers] has ruled that the congress was ‘inappropriate’ [si è pronunciata nel senso della inopportunità], it must be said that it was moved by stronger reasons. Which ones? One might be tempted to look for them, for the lack of a better alternative, in an article of the Concordat where it is said that the Italian government will Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

22

chapter 2

matter of fact, the response of the Presidency of the Council, i.e. G. Andreotti, was communicated by an officer of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Pettazzoni by telephone and not in writing.31 However, the information went viral and circulates to the present day, both despite of the lack of discernible sources and – as far as I know – without stimulating new researches, besides Gandini’s work published only in 2006, while Pettazzoni’s papers had been available to scholars since the Eighties.32 In this short paragraph, I do not intend to deal with the intricacy of the Christian-Democratic veto, except to mention it and to point out the need of further investigation. For later researchers who hope to reconstruct some features of the events, not only the lack of sources and the archival problems, but also the prevailing of the conspiracy-theory over historical research, both are to be regarded as factors which hinder examination of facts. Rather, my only aim now is to draw attention to a historiographical trend that has flourished, which addressed the question of the entry-visa for People’s Democracies delegations as an aspect related to the government veto.33 In this regard, Gandini found pieces of evidence to be tested, based on the personal records by Pettazzoni who reported information on a private meeting with the Italian Minister of Public Education, Antonio Segni, member of the Christian-Democratic Party. On 16th March 1952, the Italian Minister, referring to the question of the IA(S)HR congress in Rome, asked Pettazzoni “if the participation of Russians was to be expected”.34 In February 1955, the same Ministry asked for “exhaustive indications” concerning the participation of scholars from countries behind take care to prevent anything in Rome that could be in contrast with the sacred character of the Eternal City, the capital of Catholicism” (original text: Italian). 31 Gandini, “Pettazzoni 1951,” 151: I quote and translate the following passages in which Gandini provided a description of the events based on the diary of Pettazzoni: “In the afternoon [July 14th, 1951], the same official [of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs] called Pettazzoni on the phone: […] the negative response of the Presidency of the Council of Ministers is communicated: […] as for the congress, ‘its convocation in Rome is not deemed appropriate’ (signed Andreotti, state undersecretary in charge and for the Entertainment Service)”. Pettazzoni “asked for the answer to be communicated in writing to him; the official gives assurance. […] Notwithstanding the official’s reassurance, he does not receive the written statement; and he does not even know the reason for the negative answer; he can imagine it” (original text: Italian). 32 Mario Gandini, “Il Fondo Pettazzoni della biblioteca comunale ‘G. C. Croce’ di San Giovanni in Persiceto (Bologna),” Archaeus. Études d’Histoire des religions 7, no. 3–4 (2003): 295. 33 An early example of this historiography is de Martino, “In margine,” 3. 34 Gandini, “Pettazzoni 1951,” 155: I quote a passage of the transcription made by Gandini of a note written down by Pettazzoni related to his meeting with Antonio Segni, 16 March 1952: «Mi ha chiesto se era da prevedere la partecipaz[ione] di Russi» (original text: Italian).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

23

the Iron Curtain.35 The thesis of Gandini on the influence of “McCarthyism” on the Italian government,36 based on these two documents, deserves to be thoroughly explored. However, it would not account for the different availability of the entry-visa issued e.g. for the Hungarian and not the Polish delegation, and the different reactions to the same invitation depending on the country and the institution involved. A further fact can be highlighted, that the People’s Republics did not act – and would never act during all the Communist era – as a single and homogenous bloc by joining the IA(S)HR activities. 3

A Comparison with the International Congress of Historical Sciences (September 1955). Balancing Marxism and Christianity in Rome

Extensive studies would be needed to give a more actual understanding of the diverging practices of foreign delegations in international conferences in Rome in the middle of the Fifties. Here, I am not in a position to reach a global view of the situation. Therefore, I shall limit myself to a single case serving as an example, because of its relevance, which I already referred to in the previous chapter, i.e. the 10th International Congress of Historical Sciences held in Rome in 1955, five months after the congress of the IAHR. The comparison is appropriate due to the similarity with the Comité international des sciences historiques (CISH) which joined the CIPSH in 1949, close in time to the membership of the IAHR and, following the same project of a global community of historians, met the same challenge in the period of the Cold War.37

35 Gandini, “Pettazzoni 1954–1955,” 145. Gandini referred to a letter of the Head of the Academies and Libraries, Guido Arcamone, dated 12 February 1955, who forwarded the request of information by the Ministry of Public Education, asking for «esaurienti elementi» concerning the congresses in Rome, both of the IAHR and the International Committee of Historical Sciences, i.e., inter alia, the participation of scholars from “countries behind the Iron Curtain” (I quote from the text of Gandini who wrote a paraphrase of the letters, which aims rather at providing the general content of the documents). 36 Gandini, “Pettazzoni 1951,” 155: the following comment of Gandini: «Pettazzoni non si stupisce per la domanda del ministro circa la partecipazione di russi al Congresso: siamo negli anni della guerra fredda e anche il governo italiano è influenzato dallo spirito del maccartismo» (original text: Italian). 37 Karl Dietrich Erdmann, Toward a Global Community of Historians. The International Congresses and the International Committee of Historical Sciences 1898–2000 (New York: Berghahn Books, 2005), 220–243 the chapter titled: Political History in the Defense  – Encounters in the Cold War in Rome, 1955.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

24

chapter 2

In the case of the CISH, the participation of delegations of e.g. Poland, Hungary, the USSR, which was considerable, revealed the full organizational potential of People’s Democracies scholars as a bloc. We read in the reports about the “late registration” of the Soviet delegation,38 and that “the participation of delegates from Poland was decided upon almost at the last minute, following a similar decision of the Soviet historians”.39 Despite the difficulties, the participation worked out and led the Academies to disseminate the results of their delegations as if they had made a breakthrough in the debate on Marxist historical materialism in West Europe, in Rome, both by securing ideologically/methodologically oriented papers and publishing the proceedings of their speeches, e.g. of the members of the Polish and the Hungarian delegations.40 With regard to the comparison with the IAHR, it would be interesting to reflect on the reason why the CISH succeeded in arranging Soviet and “Eastern Europe” delegations, dealing with similar difficulties, inasmuch as this participation had no precedents in the history of the CISH as well, e.g. in the previous congress held in Paris in 1950, no delegates behind the Iron Curtain had been permitted to attend.41 It is plausible to say that the non-religious issue of the CISH congress in Rome had enabled better agreement, although such a thesis oversimplifies the problem in a way that cannot include all facts. Here, I cannot assess the complexity of the East-West exchange which, even if limited to a partial review of the congress, would demand an extended illustration. I just intend to reflect on one issue by way of example, which was considered to be relevant at the time. In a letter to the General Secretary of the IAHR C. J. Bleeker, the President, R. Pettazzoni, pointed out the difference between their congress and the CISH one in Rome as a matter of laicism/secularism, by referring to the fact that the program of the congress of Historical Sciences included a “solemn reception given by the Pope”, while the IAHR did not 38 Robert Mandrou, “Les Historiens soviétiques au Congrès de Rome,” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 13, no. 3 (1958): 527. 39 Oscar Halecki, “Poland at the Tenth International Congress of Historical Sciences,” The Polish Review [University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Polish Institute of Arts & Sciences of America] 1, no. 1 (1956): 5. 40 Comité International des Sciences Historiques, ed., La Pologne au X congrès international des Sciences historiques à Rome (Warsaw: Académie polonaise des sciences, institut d’Histoire, 1955); Erzsébet Andics, ed., “Études des délégués Hongrois au X congrès international des Sciences historiques, Rome 4–11 septembre 1955,” Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–3 (1955). 41 Halecki, “Poland at the Tenth,” 5; Günther Stökl, “Die Geschichte Osteuropas auf dem X. Internationalen Kongreß für Geschichtswissenschaft in Rom (4.–11. September 1955),” Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 3, no. 3 (1955): 357.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

25

and, on the contrary, made “effort […] in order to contrast similar tendencies within our [IAHR] congress”.42 During the audience held for the participants of the CISH Congress, Pius XII was involved and stated that “there is no opposition between Christianity and history”.43 I understand the point of view of Pettazzoni, and I share it to some extent, but I do consider, as he did not, the controversy which affected the CISH, which, at the same time, had authorized delegations from People’s Democracies, e.g. Erzsébet Andics, representative of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and President of the Hungarian Historical Society (Magyar Történelmi Társulat), who chaired the delegation to the CISH congress, and was head of the Cultural Department of the Hungarian Workers Party (MDP).44 I suggest integrating the criticism of Pettazzoni with the criticism of the Polish intellectual emigrant Oskar Halecki, at the time employed by the Catholic Fordham University in New York. With regard to the CISH congress, Halecki commented on the influence of Adam Schaff – promoter of the Polish Communist Party ideology – on the Polish national delegation, and disapproved of the references in their papers to political leaders (Lenin, Stalin), the Marxist phraseology, the omission of the Polish historiography in exile, and the USSR delegation who pretended to act like “diplomats”.45 I agree with Karl Dietrich Erdmann, expert on the history of the congresses of the Committee of Historical Sciences, that the papal reception was “counterpoint to the presence of Marxist-Leninist historians”.46 This suggestion, that the CISH followed a 42 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 27.08.1955; original text: French: « Je tiens à vous signaler que le Congrès int. des Sciences Historiques qui s’ouvre dimanche 4 sept. aux Palais de l’EUR annonce dans son programme une réception solennelle chez le Pape. Cela peut vous donner une idée de l’effort que j’ai du faire pour résister à des tendances analogues au sein de notre Congrès. Tout cela est naturellement ignoré par la grande majorité de nos Collègues : j’ai l’impression qu’ils ne se sont pas assez rendu compte que ce n’est pas la même chose que de réunir un Congrès intern. d’histoire des religions à Rome que de le faire à Amsterdam ou à Marbourg ou à Strasbourg » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 43 “Il discorso del Papa ai partecipanti al congresso di studi storici. ‘Fra il Cristianesimo e la storia non si rivela alcuna opposizione’,” Il Giornale d’Italia, September 8, 1955: 5. 44 Erzsébet Andics, “Développement et problèmes principaux de la science historique hongroise au cours des dix dernières années,” in Id., ed., Études des délégués Hongrois au X congrès international des Sciences historiques, 1–44. 45 Oskar Halecki, review of Obiektywny charakter praw historii [The Objective Character of the Laws of History], Warsaw, 1955, by Adam Schaff, ed.; and La Pologne au X Congrès International des Sciences Historiques à Rome, by Comité International des Sciences Historiques, ed., The American Historical Review 61, no. 4 (1956): 972–973; Id., “Poland at the Tenth,” 7: “In general, the USSR wanted to give one more evidence that the ‘Cold War’ was over, and the scholars who in 1955 came from Moscow were as smiling as the diplomats”. 46 Erdmann, Toward a Global Community, 233.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

26

chapter 2

balanced strategy which was expected to address both the Marxist-Communist and Christian-Catholic view of the history, is worth discussing, since it helps to make a comparison with the IAHR approach and its outcomes, and to highlight differences. 4

Invitation of the Hungarian Delegation: A Low Level of Security (November 1954)

As previously mentioned, the decision to invite delegations of national institutions from People’s Democracies was taken by the IAHR Executive Board between October and November 1954. According to the correspondence with Bleeker, on 14th October, Pettazzoni stated that it was not possible to ignore Universities and Academies of these countries any longer,47 and after further discussion on 17th October (Bleeker to Pettazzoni: “we could invite them”), in a letter of 3rd November, Pettazzoni asked the General Secretariat to proceed (“I ask you if you agree to send a letter of invitation”).48 On 17th November, Bleeker accepted the claim.49 I found no pieces of evidence which could help to keep track of the delivery of the letter of invitation in Hungary. The archive of the MTA preserves a letter of a correspondent member of the Hungarian Academy, the classicist and historian of religions Károly Marót, to the director of the Ist Department, written on 1st November 1954, in which Marót stated that he had “just received the second invitation of the Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions for the VIIIth session to be held in Rome, between 17th–23rd April, 1955”, noting that he had “not received the first invitation, which they [the IA(S)HR] allegedly sent to me in April [1954], from Amsterdam”.50 Marót was writing before the final agreement of the IA(S)HR Executive-Board on dispatching a letter of 47 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 14.10.1954; original text: French: « La Russie a décidé de rentrer dans l’UNESCO ! » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 48 Letter, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 17.10.1954; original text: French: « on pourrait les inviter » (replying to the letter of Pettazzoni 14.10.1954) and copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 03.11.1954; original text: French: « je vous demande si vous êtes d’accord d’envoy[er] une lettre d’invitation à une Université et éventuellement à une Académie pour chacun des Pays suivants » referring to the countries “Yugoslavia, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, […] Czechoslovakia, Poland, Russia, […] China” (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 49 Letter, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 17.11.1954; original text: French: « Je suis d’accord que vous envoyez une lettre d’invitation à une université etc. dans les pays nommés ». 50 Letter, Károly Marót to Bence Szabolcsi, director of the Ist Department of the MTA, Budapest, 01.11.1954; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, NKFO.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

27

invitation to the Hungarian Academy requesting a delegation, and referred to a personal invitation by the IA(S)HR, i.e. one sent to individual scholars and not to institutions (Universities, Academies, etc.). The above-mentioned letter of Marót of 1st November 1954 is in an envelope with the following description “[to the] D[epartment] of I[nternational] R[elations]. Proposal c[oncerning] the delegation of K. Marót Corr[espondent] m[ember] to Session VIII of the International Conference of History of Religions”, attached to a note of the General Secretary of the Academy who forwarded the letter of Marót to Albert Kónya, mentioning clearly that “Károly Marót, correspondent academician has received an invitation specifically addressed to his name [névszerinti meghivás] for the VIIIth session of the Congress mentioned above”.51 Kónya was an academician, at the time Deputy Head of the Central Office of the “Science and Culture Department” (Központi Vezetőség, Tudományos és Kulturális Osztály) of the Hungarian Communist Party. The Secretary of the Academy sent “the ‘cadre’ dossier [káderanyag]” of Károly Marót and “his letter addressed to the department” and asked “comrade Kónya to inform the Presidency [of the Academy] at his earliest convenience on the decision”.52 The document related to the participation in the congress of the IA(S)HR had a low level of security, which was marked in the document by a green colored line, as the working documents of the Academy were categorized in different security layers, whose content were sensitive, and the access was restricted in different degrees.53 The final addressee and the content of the letter, as well, show the ideological nature of the application process. In this framework, K. Marót used the argument that in the conference of the IA(S)HR he intended to provide support to the “methodology of historical materialism [a történelmi materializmus módszere]”.54 A second argument used by Marót addressed the a-political trend of the congress calling it “strictly scientific [szigoruan tudományos kongresszus]”.55 Marót Károly lev.t kiküldetése tbn a Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Konf. VIII. Ülésszakra. Előterjesztés Tük 0847/54 1954, 50/5/8). 51 Letter, György Osztrovszki (General Secretary) to Albert Kónya «elvtárs [comrade]», doc. n. 0847/1954, Budapest, 30.11.1954; original text: Hungarian; it referred to the attached letter of K. Marót to Bence Szabolsci, 01.11.1954 mentioned above (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, these two documents are held together in the same envelope: NKFO. Marót Károly, above mentioned). 52 Letter, Osztrovszki to Kónya, 30.11.1954, mentioned above. 53 I would like to thank Diana Hay, director of the Archives of the Academy, who provided me with this information. 54 Letter, Marót to Szabolcsi, 01.11.1954, above mentioned. 55 Ibid.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

28

chapter 2

In the dossier of the MTA archives, I did not find any document related to the acceptation of the request of Marót. As we learn from a letter of Pettazzoni written to him, still in the middle of March 1955, the Italian organizer committee of the IA(S)HR congress was waiting for a “formal notice concerning the decision [of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences] to send a representative to the congress” in which Marót would be officially nominated.56 The correspondence of Marót with Pettazzoni, which had been interrupted since 1937, resumes at that point,57 when the IA(S)HR was pushing so that Marót attended the congress not as an individual scholar, but as an official delegate of the Hungarian Academy. The previous paragraph aimed to provide data on the political monitoring, and the negotiation of the MTA with the IA(S)HR in response to its new Eastern policy. In this regard, a further consideration can be that Marót was already familiar with the IA(S)HR, inasmuch as he attended the congresses on the “history of religions” (Histoire des religions: according to the original name of the discipline and its French traditional rendering) held in Lund (1929) and Brussels (1935), that is the 6th and the 7th congresses, from which, at a later time, the IA(S)HR, as an association, would originate. The Congress of Brussels gave Marót the opportunity to start a correspondence with the historian of religions Gerardus van der Leeuw who, in 1950, would become the first president of the IA(S)HR. The archive of Marót preserves a part of the correspondence, i.e. the letters of 1935, when van der Leeuw remembered the discussion with Marót at the congress in Belgium.58 Since the congress at Lund in 1929, which he had attended, he started a long-lasting correspondence with Pettazzoni.59 He started to publish in the journal Studi e Materiali di Storia 56 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 18.03.1955; original text: French: « […] je vous prie de faire savoir à l’Académie Hongroise des Sciences qu’il nous faut recevoir de sa part au plus tôt possible une communication officielle concernant sa décision d’envoyer un représentant officiel à notre Congrès dans la personne de vous-même » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/619). 57 After the letter of Pettazzoni to Marót, written on 15th May 1937 (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/618), a gap interrupts the correspondence until the letter to which I refer above, that is: Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 18.03.1955, cit.: « Je suis très content d’avoir reçu de vous bonnes nouvelles depuis un si long silence ». The letter to which Pettazzoni answered in March 1955, after a “long silence”, is missing. 58 Letter, Gerardus van der Leeuw to Karóly Marót, Groningen, 09.12.1935; original text: German (MTAK Department of manuscripts, Ms. 5210/197), up to 1938. The review by van der Leeuw of the work of K. Marót shall be considered, too: “Refrigerium. Sermone nativo et germanico,” Gnomon 14, no. 10 (1938): 573–574. 59 The first letter of Marót to Pettazzoni bears the date 08.10.1929. He wrote in German, then in the following letters he switched for French, in order to use a foreign language more familiar to Pettazzoni which he usually adopted in his international correspondence. The

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

29

delle Religioni edited by Pettazzoni,60 in this framework having previous contacts with his assistant at the University of Rome, the Italian and Hungarian Angelo Brelich, trained by A. Alföldi and K. Kerényi in Hungary, who moved to Rome in the Thirties.61 In 1958, Brelich took over the position of chairman held by Pettazzoni. The case-study here is interesting for clarifying and specifying the relationship between the political and academic communities. In short, the MTA chose Marót not in response to the request by the IA(S)HR which, in the light of the opening of the Eastern bloc to the UNESCO, asked the Academy to send a representative, but by replying to a personal invitation to a follower of the congresses on “History of religions”-studies, which put in motion the bureaucratic process that led to appoint Marót as delegate. 5

Remarks on Giovanni Casadio’s Essay “Companions in Arms”: Irrationalism and Sub-Logical

An ongoing historiographical trend shows Marót as representative of the cultural policy of the Communist Regime, due to the fact that he took a prominent position in the years of the Hungarian People’s Republic and in the institutional framework, i.e. the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. Hence, we read in an essay published in 2014 that 1) Marót would have succeeded “also thanks to his convinced political adherence to the new totalitarian Communist letters preserved at the Pettazzoni archive (San Giovanni in Persiceto, Bologna, Italy) and the Department of manuscripts of the MTAK of Budapest include 38 letters of Marót and 22 of Pettazzoni related to the period 1929–1937 (as for the second part of the Thirties, the correspondence preserved seems incomplete) and 13 of Marót and 10 of Pettazzoni related to the period 1955–1958 when the exchange of letters resumed, overall. 60 The paper of Marót, mentioned in the Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions, ed., Actes du V Congrès international d’Histoire des Religions à Lund, 27–29 Août 1929 (Lund: Gleerup, 1930), 87, was eventually published in the journal edited by Pettazzoni: Karóly Marót, “Der primitive Hochgott, ein Problem der Gestaltpsychologie,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 5 (1929): 173-185. A second long essay was published in two issues in the same journal: Id., “Kronos und Titanen,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 8, no. 1 and no. 2 (1932): [respectively] 48–82, and 189–214. After the death of Pettazzoni, he published two other articles when the journal was edited effectively by A. Brelich, that is Id., “Homerus expurgans,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 30, no. 1 (1959): 3–13, and Id., “Magie-magisch,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 33, no. 2 (1962): 203–226. 61 The MTAK Department of manuscripts hosts 43 letters of Brelich to Marót (Hungarian language) from 1955 up to the death of Marót in 1963. The Brelich archive, now hosted by the International association Ernesto de Martino (Rome), and related to Petra Brelich’s heritage, preserves only 1 letter by Marót from Budapest 08.05.1959.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

30

chapter 2

government”,62 and 2) the Hungarian Association for the History of Religions, which is an outcome of his work, came to light “also thanks to the conformity to the new Communist orthodoxy by its main supporter [Marót]” (to be considered “also, unofficially, its political commissary”).63 Further considerations are raised by the question of his “political – historically and psychologically understandable – engagement and his ideological premises”.64 These quotations belong to an essay of the Italian historian of religions Giovanni Casadio, which promoted this interpretation – I have summarized here – as a chapter of a broader research project dedicated to the study of religion under the impact of communism, particularly rewarding, but which in my view failed at this point in misunderstanding the complexity of the position of Marót and the originality of the Hungarian communism in the middle of the Fifties. The essay of G. Casadio successfully contributes to unmask some misunderstanding concerning the conformity of Marót to the “Communist orthodoxy”. For example, he proved that the suspicion that Marót was “making his career in the sphere of the Hungarian Communist Party refounded by Kádár”, after the Hungarian Uprising of 1956, is baseless.65 It is also true that Casadio acknowledged the contradiction of his own conclusions, when he made the divergence of Marót from the Marxist’s model of criticism based on an opposition to the so-called “irrationalism” clear, in view of the fact that Marót “persisted in tracking the origin [and development] of historical human formation [of consciousness]”, and locating the “source for the human intellectual progress, including all the new religious, magical, poetical, scientific creations”, in an “irrational process”.66 In 1954, the Marxist criticism against “irrationalism” hit 62 Giovanni Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni and Károly Marót, Companions in Arms in the Field of the History of Religions,” in New Trends and Recurring Issues in the Study of Religion, eds. Ábrahám Kovács and James L. Cox (Budapest: L’Harmattan, Budapest 2014), 37. 63 Ibid., p. 39. 64 Ibid., p. 40. 65 Ibid. p. 39 and note 10, the critic of Casadio to the essay of Mario Gandini in which Gandini stated (original text: Italian): “Pettazzoni no longer receives letters from Marót, who is involved in the events (vicende) of Budapest; he will be appointed (egli sarà chiamato a far parte) to the Central Control Commission of the Party (Commissione centrale di controllo del partito)” (M. Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1956–1957,” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 64, no. 1 [2008]: 35). In the archive of Pettazzoni, Gandini found a page of an Italian newspaper in which the text is marked with a vertical line in correspondence with a passage related to the nomination of a certain “Maróti Károly” at the Central Commission of Control of the Party, and then considered “Maróti” identical to Marót, sharing with Pettazzoni the same mistake (Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 46 / note 10). 66 Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 41.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

31

a high spot in Hungary, with the MTA edition of the studies of György Lukács on the “dethronement of the reason”.67 Although Casadio acknowledges the “sub-logic” category introduced by Marót into the formative theory of religion, intended as “irrational”68  – and provides us with an accurate description of this theory  – it was unnecessary for him to re-examine his assumptions on Marót: “sharing the official pervasive doctrine of the dialectic materialism, […] at the apex of Zhdanovism”.69 In an essay of Marót related to the main topic of his paper for the IA(S)HR congress in Rome, i.e. The Sirens, he fully applied the category of the “sub-logical” in order to explain the formation of myths. He referred to the “momentary pathological disintegration of consciousness” as a “cardinal moment in the evolution of human consciousness”, that is the stage of “subliminal ecstasy […] provoked by trance, inspiration, reverie, intoxication, etc.” when “Man […] gains the faculty of such a ‘sub-logical’ power of thinking”, which “will lead him to […] a logically higher level” at which “he will be able to formulate that what seemed to be impossible before”.70 Marót continued to elaborate more, as he had done before e.g. in the Thirties, on his theory that the “sub-logic feeling (fr. sentiment) […] as a result, will force the intelligence […] to come in suddenly”.71 67 György Lukács, Az ész trónfosztása. Az irracionalista filozófia kritikája (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1954). 68 Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 41. 69 Ibid. 70 Károly Marót, “The Sirens,” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7, no. 1–2 (1958): 44: I transcribe here the full text of the passage to which I refer. I believe that a lengthier quotation would be valuable for the reader to get the opportunity to listen better to Marót’s own words, and thus make it possible to make her/his own interpretation: “We attempted to shed light on those cardinal moments in the evolution of human consciousness at which man, following the thread of normal and logical thinking, arrives at the outside limit of his own mental capacity. What happens at such moments? Man (a) involuntarily tries to find a way-out or voluntarily drives himself into (b) a condition of outlaw which leads to (c) a subliminal ecstasy; at this stage, provoked by trance, inspiration, reverie, intoxication, etc., he gains the faculty of such a ‘sub-logical’ power of thinking (d) as will lead him to a new […] level, a level logically higher than the initial one, at which – endowed with an increased thinking power – he will be able to formulate that what seemed to be impossible before” (original text: English). 71 Károly Marot, “Langue et Religion. Une esquisse,” L’antiquité classique 5, no. 2 (1936): 255: concerning the elaboration of the concept of god (divinité), he wrote: « cette élaboration résulte d’une étrange conjonction de forces, mais cette conjonction ne s’opère que par l’apparition visible ou audible d’un désir ou d’un sentiment sublogique, sous la forme d’un geste ou d’un phonème qui forcera ensuite l’intelligence, en désespoir de cause, à intervenir brusquement » (original text: French).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

32 6

chapter 2

Károly Marót: “Pártonkívüli”

This is not the place and time to provide an exhaustive profile of Marót, which would require an expert’s study. Three Festschrift, in 1955 and in 1973, a number of essays by e.g. Gyula Moravcsik, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, László Kákosy, Zsigmond Ritoók, Vilmos Voigt, Iván Zoltán Dénes, Csaba Máté Sarnyai, Simon Attilla, Giovanni Casadio, and others have already rewarded and investigated his life and works.72 In the hope that my essay shall stimulate further interest 72 Moravcsik Gyula, ed., “Carolo Marót Septuagenario de studiis antiquis optime merito collegae amici discipuli hoc volumen grato animo D. D.”, Antik Tanulmányok 2 (1955): essays by Szabó Árpád, Sarkadi János, Brusznyai Árpád, Harmatta János, Horváth István Károly, Trencsényi-Waldapfel Imre, Szilágyi János György, Ritoók Zsigmond, Töttössy Csaba, Wessetzky Vilmos, Mészáros Ede, Castiglione László, Hahn István, Szilágyi János, Pekáry Tamás, Kádár Zoltán, Czuth Béla, Szádeczky-Kardoss Samu, Czeglédy Károly, Vekerdy József, Pais Dezső, Qyöni Mátyás, Moravcsik Gyula, Meller Péter, Borzsák István, including the bibliography: Ágnes Szalay, “Marót Károly irodalmi munkássága,” in Ibid., 189–198; Ortutay Gyula, ed., “Professоri Carolo Marót septuagenario sacrum 1955,” Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955): essays by G. Ortutay, В. Gunda, I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, A. Szendrey, Т. Köves, L. Vajda, L. Boglár, M. Belényesy, L. Vargyas, L. Takács, В. Avasi; Gyula Moravcsik, “Károly Marót 1885–1963,” Antik Tanulmányok 11 (1964): 1–4 (including the bibliography 1955–1963 edited by Ágnes Szalay, in Ibid., 5–6); Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “In Memoriam of Károly Marót 1885–1963,” Numen 12, no. 1 (1965): 74–75; László Kákosy and Ernő Gaál, eds., Idő é́s történelem: a Marót Károly emlékkonferencia előadásai [Time and History: Presentations of the Károly Marót Memorial Conference (Budapest, June 6–8, 1973)] (Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 1974); Vilmos Voigt, “Marót Károly és a magyar néprajztudomány,” Antik Tanulmányok 34, no. 2 (1989–1990): 154–162; Id., “Anekdotikus érvelés egy ügy érdekében (Lektori jelentés Marót Károly tanulmányairól),” Holmi 19, no. 10 (2007): 1328–1334; Id., “Marót Károly. A csurunga népéről,” Vallástudományi szemle 7, no. 2 (2011): 71–92; Zsigmond Ritoók, “The Contribution of Hungary to International Classical Scholarship,” Hungarian Studies 12, no. 1–2 (1997): 7–8; Id., “Marót Károly (1885–1963) [September 17, 2001],” in Emlékbeszédek az MTA elhunyt tagjai felett 2001 (Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2002), 1–25; Iván Zoltán Dénes, ed., “Magántörténelem: Marót Károly és a Bibó család levelezése,” Holmi 9, no. 4 (1997): 531–544; József Havasréti, “A ‘poétikai közvetítés’ eszméjének kontextusai és változatai Thienemann Tivadar és Marót Károly írásaiban,” Helikon Irodalomés Kultúratudományi Szemle 54, no. 2–3 (2008): 141–189; Csaba Máté Sarnyai, “Vallás, mágia és áldozat Marót Károly és Domján Elek nézeteinek tükrében,” in Tanulmányok a magyar vallástudomány történetéről, eds. Mihály Hoppál and Ábrahám Kovács (Budapest: L’Harmattan Kiadó, 2009), 181–187 (partially translated in English in András Máté-Tóth and Csaba Máté Sarnyai, “The History and Recent Trends of Religionswissenschaft in Hungary,” in Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, eds. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann [Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015], 151–152); Simon Attila, “Recepció és médium. Marót Károly irodalomszemléletéről,” in Id., Dionysos színrevitele. A közvetítés kulturális technikái az antik irodalomban és filozófiában (Budapest: Ráció, 2009), 243−275; Id., “Forschungen zur Medien- und Kommunikationsgeschichte in der ungarischen

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

33

in Marót’s work and legacy, I shall only focus here on his political engagement, as far as this book is concerned. I suggest recognizing some ideological/Marxist inabilities of Marót. In this regard, scholars close to him criticized unfavorably his academic production, for example Gyula Ortutay, an ethnographer in various ways engaged in the Hungarian Communist Party, involved as Minister of Religion and Public Education between the Hungarian Second Republic and the beginning of the People’s Republic, who joined Marót’s group of historians of religions that gathered within the MTA in 1956. In 1955, Ortutay publicly showed in Marót’s work a certain degree of ideological dissidence. According to him, Marót “goes too far” in “overemphasizing the importance of creative”, individual, and “‘sub-logical’ moment” in folk traditions, and undermining the ideas of social transmission, conscious-logical expressions, and historical reality.73 Despite of the divergences, his admiration for him was always revealed both privately and publicly,74 to such an extent that he directed attention to the changing Altertumswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert,” in Wissen – Vermittlung – Moderne. Studien zu den ungarischen Geistes – und Kulturwissenschaften um 1900, ed. Lőrincz Csongor (Köln: Weimar, Wien, and Böhlau, 2016), 263–285 (the paragraph: Die kollektive Dichtung und der diktierende Dichter); András Máté-Tóth and Csaba Máté Sarnyai, eds., Szemelvények a magyar vallástudomány történetéből II. Jeles szerzők 1921–1945 (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2013), 39–41; Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 33–51. 73 Gyula Ortutay, “The Science of Folklore in Hungary between the Two World-Wars and during the Period Subsequent to the Liberation,” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955): 38: “Marót’s criticism and the critical standpoint of the Marxist ethnography meet at this juncture, the only trouble being that Marót goes too far in attaching exaggerated importance to the creative-psychological and communalpsychological effects of the creative moment. By this attitude, he makes us forget about the historically decisive factors actually at work behind these processes, and makes us blind to the fact that by overemphasizing the importance of the creative, ‘sub-logical’ moment and the non-recurring individual happening, the fundamentally unchanged transmission of the ballads and tales through several generations will remain unexplained” (original text: English). The criticism of Ortutay to the theory of the sub-logic in Marót deserves a more accurate examination, which shall go behind the political context of the Fifties. Yet in some letters of the beginning of the Forties, Ortutay contested Marót’s rejection of the role played by tradition in the formulation of rite and his concentration only on the so-called ‘sub-logic’: “Is not your rejection too strict when it comes to the existing and pre-formative tradition in the life of the actualizing rite, that comes to be directed by new sub-logicums in new situations? [vajjon a meglévő hagyománnyal szembeni, a preformáló hagyománnyal szembeni elutasításod az aktualizálódó s új helyzetekben újabb sublogikumok által irányított rítus életében nem túlszigorú-é?]” (letter, G. Ortutay to K. Marót, Parádfürdö, 23.07.1940; original text: Hungarian, MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms.5210/474). 74 Letter, G. Ortutay to K. Marót, Budapest, 25. 03. 1950; original text: Hungarian: “I can only think of you, your work and the teaching received from you with greatest affection. And,

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

34

chapter 2

in Marót’s studies by which those differences would be resolved (“having, by now, [Marót] become acquainted with the theory and the scientific methods of Marxism-Leninism”75) even if this changing, as far as I can see, did not ever occur. Until his death, Marót’s way of thinking seems unchanged,76 and the benefits of his studies for the Marxist research remain obscure. The paper of Marót at the IA(S)HR Congress in Rome  – Musen, Sirenen, Chariten77  – did not meet the needs of the Marxist methodology. In 1959, Ambrogio Donini, one of the leaders in the Italian Communist cultural policy, complained that Marót’s interpretation of the Muses phenomena failed to explain the “social nature” of myths.78 Marót’s work was evaluated infrequently by Donini, and in the case of the research on the sirens it had been drawn to his attention by Marót himself who sent his essay to him.79 if the disciple [i.e. Ortutay refers to himself] then thinks it over again in another way, and listens to other teachers, too, and is educated further in such a school as politics [olyan iskolán nevelődik tovább, mint a politika], this does not change things essentially” (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms.5210/522). And the obituary: Gyula Ortutay, “Marót Károly temetésén 1963.10.31,” Ethnographia 75, no. 1 (1964): 161; original text: Hungarian: “He was our Master, our friend, and [he was] like our father [apánk helyett apánk]. A real paidagogos”. 75 Ortutay, “The Science of Folklore,” 39. 76 Marót, “Magie – magisch,” 203–226: one of his last publications (printed in March 1963), where he did not stop using the theory of the sub-logical. 77 Károly Marót, “Musen, Sirenen und Chariten,” in IAHR, VIII congresso internazionale: Roma, 303–304: the abstract. The paper was published with reference to the IAHR Congress, in German and with the same title: Id., “Musen, Sirenen und Chariten,” Filológiai Közlöny 4, no. 3–4 (1958): 657–662. An English and further developed version of this essay is provided by Károly Marót, “The Sirens,” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7, no. 1–2 (1958): 1–60. 78 Ambrogio Donini, Breve storia delle religioni (Rome: Newton Compton editori, 2008) (First Italian edition Editori Riuniti 1959), 134: “Karl Marot […] connects the etymo of their [of the Sirens] name to the Semitic sir, i.e. ‘to enchant’; but the thesis is very controversial, both because the Phoenician origin of this legend is anything but sure, and the explanation is always of a social nature and rarely corresponds only with the passage of the phoneme from a people to the other” (original text: Italian). 79 Letter, Ambrogio Donini to K. Marót, 08.11.1958; original text: English: “I wish to thank you very much indeed for sending me your important essay on ‘The Sirens’, published in the Acta Ethnographica of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. I found your work very interesting and I took the liberty of quoting it in a book I am writing at present, on some aspects of the history of religions [Lineamenti di storia delle religioni]. I will be glad to mail a copy of this volume to your address as soon as the work will be printed at the beginning of next year […] We still remember your visit to Rome” during the IASHR congress in 1955 (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/467/a–b). The collection of the papers of Donini at the Istituto Fondazione Gramsci’s archive (Rome) does not hold any letter of Marót. Only a draft of a letter is stored at the MTAK, in which he informed Donini that he made available to his students at ELTE University the essay of Donini on the Dead

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

35

With reference to a commemorative conference held 10 years after the death of Marót, in 1973, the Egyptologist and historian of religions László Kákosy wrote: “his monumental oeuvre is still waiting to be evaluated in detail, and it is far from clear what theories and insights can be further developed, and what Marxist research can use from his works”.80 In 2007, Vilmos Voigt draws attention to a certain meeting held at Siófok, in Hungary, which had the aim of outlining the theoretical base of Socialist Hungarian Ethnography. He notes, that even prior to this event, Marót volunteered to prepare a “Marxist-Leninist” theoretical work, in which he presented a dichotomy – placing Ulrich von Wilamowitz and Lucien Lévy-Bruhl on the one side, and himself, Ortutay, and Stalin on the other. Later on, Marót sought to rewrite the piece – De-Stalinizing the theory, but the outcome, according to Voigt, is a hardly comprehensible reasoning. This work was not published, and Voigt writes that no extant exemplars can be detected.81 As for the Siófok gathering, Voigt expresses a similar evaluation of this, as well, claiming that Marót was not aware of the meaning of the concept of “social class”, and was not interested in the concept of “people”. Notwithstanding that this latter concept was unconceivable for him, he frequently used the “vulgus in populo” as a starting point, and “idios en koinoi” as revelation. As a result, Voigt claims that it was not possible for Marót to really contribute to a making up of a Socialist theory of ethnography.82 As long as this subject, Marót and Marxism, is brought up, before and after the fall of the People’s Democracies, further investigations would be required e.g. in the national archives. In this regard, an administrative record of 1961, preserved in the archive of the Hungarian Ministry of Education (Művelődésügyi Minisztérium), with the title: “Decree proposal to the Hungarian Revolution­ ary Laborer-Peasant Government concerning the dismissal ( felmentés) of

Sea Scrolls, first published in the journal of the Italian Communist Party Rinascita, in a Hungarian translation, by comparing it to a Russian translation, considered not always accurate (« pas toujours fidèle » [French original text]) and in a lithographic printing (Copy of letter, K. Marót to A. Donini, undated but following the above mentioned letter, MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/467 c). Donini was late in replying: “I am honoured by your decision to make my work known to the scholars of Ancient History of your noble country” (Letter, A. Donini to K. Marót, Rome, 30.04.1959; original text: French [Ibi, Ms 5209/468]). 80 László Kákosy, “Beszámoló az ‘Idő és történelem’ konferenciáról,” Antik Tanulmanyok 20 (1973): 272. The papers of the conference were published in Kákosy and Gaál, eds., Idő é́s történelem. 81 Voigt, “Anekdotikus,” 1329. 82 Ibid.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

36

chapter 2

university professors”,83 should be noted. In the right above corner, the following is written in an underlined format: “Strictly confidential [Szigoruan titkos]”.84 The list mostly refers to elderly professors and their retirement, but on some occasions, political-ideological reasons are given for the termination of the employment. Marót is merely described as “Non-partisan [pártonkívüli, i.e. is not a member of the Party], born in Arad, in 1885. His father was a clerk. He is 76 years old. Despite his outstanding scientific oeuvre – due to his sanitary state – he can no longer keep up to the requirements”.85 7

The “True Reasons of the Exile”: The Lecture of Károly Marót on Ovid at the Accademia d’Ungheria in Rome (29 April 1955)

After the IAHR Congress, Marót extended his stay in Italy for some more days, in order to deliver a lecture at the Hungarian Academy in Rome (Accademia d’Ungheria in Roma), chaired by the above mentioned A. Donini. The subject of the paper on the Latin poet Ovid raised the sensitive issue of exile. In this chapter, I intend to provide my interpretation of the aim of the lecture with an analysis of some passages and keywords. Although the style, the manner of expression in writing and the general character remain philological, and refer exclusively to the imperial Rome of Augustus, in my view, the lecture conceals subversive contents, and, by implying it only indirectly, hinders the recognition of the references to the issue of the exile at the time when Marót was writing. The allusion to the emigration of scholars and artists from Hungary for political reasons, to me, seems possible to be understood from the topic, the arguments, and the context, though unexpressed and omitted. Marót talked about the “true reasons of the exile”86 and unveiled the “opposition” of Ovid “toward any idea of state” hidden in the subtext of his poetry.87 In order 83

Document n. 3196/61 of the Művelődésügyi Minisztérium [Ministry of Education]; signed by the officer Benke Valéria, Budapest, 18.07.1961; subject: Egyetemi tanárok felmentéséről [On the Dismissal of University Professors] (Magyar Nemzeti Levéltár [The National Archives of Hungary] MNL-OL-XIX-A-83-b 3131-3200/19613196/1961). 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Károly Marót, “L’esilio di Ovidio,” Acta Antiqua. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, no. 3 (1955): 230 («i veri motivi dell’esilio di Ovidio»), conference held on 29th April 1955, and chaired by Ambrogio Donini; Italian translation by Angelo Brelich. Information in this subject: B. T., “Külföldi utazások 1955-ben,” Ethnographia. A Magyar Néprajzi Társaság folyóirata 67, no. 1–2 (1956): 170. 87 Marót, “L’esilio di Ovidio,” 230.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

37

to examine the text, and to observe its vocabulary and the nuances, I quote a passage of his lecture, published in Italian. Ovid […] representative of that individualistic type [tipo individualista], which the more gifted the more dangerous is, and which was widespread in Rome at the end of the Republic, but far from desirable from the point of view of the political program of August; the type that […] was the incarnation of the opposition against any idea of the state and any political realism [ogni idea statale e ogni realismo politico].88 Marót showed Ovid as a model of individualism, and informed about the unsuccessful attempt to put him under the pressure of the “official ideology” and the “ideology of the Regime”, illustrated by the Fasti poems.89 The expressions used, such as “to put a muzzle to the poet”, “political uselessness [inutilizzabilità politica]”,90 look critical, although allusive. In only one point of the text, Marót clearly mentioned the political problems of his time, and called attention to the condition of being segregated. He considered the “studies” as the only “thread” which can connect peoples “momentarily isolated from each another”, referring to the “assignments and problems to be solved in humankind’s best interest”. In this regard, the argument of the exile of Ovid is considered as “particularly suitable […] in order to illustrate our [i.e. this] thesis”.91 88 Ibid., 229–230: «Ovidio non sapeva esser che tenerorum lusor amorum, cioè un rappresentante, quanto più dotato tanto più pericoloso, di quel tipo individualista che verso la fine della repubblica era assai diffuso a Roma e che dal punto di vista del programma politico di Augusto era tutt’altro che desiderabile; di quel tipo che, come se ne era accorto già Cicerone, con il suo indifferentismo soprattutto epicureo e con il suo quietismo politico, era l’incarnazione stessa dell’opposizione contro ogni idea statale e ogni realismo politico». 89 Ibid., 227, with reference to the Hungarian edition of the Fasti edited by István Borzsák and revised by Marót in 1953, he notices that “even if the Metamorphoses and Fasti are in compliance with the ideology of the regime [regime] […] nevertheless […] several passages of the texts […] betray that Ovid did not choose those topics spontaneously, but under the pressure of circumstances”; “[…] The Fasti reflect the official ideology, but only apparently” (original text: Italian). 90 Ibid., 228 «Il princeps dovette mettere la museruola sulla bocca del poeta […] perché questi minava il suo programma [The princeps had to put a muzzle to the poet […] because he undermined his program]». 91 Ibid., 223: “If there is a thread which, despite everything, connects peoples momentarily isolated from each other, this thread is undoubtedly that of the studies, and that of the assignments and problems that are waiting to be solved in the best interest of humankind. As a modest scholar of Classical Studies, who has the good fortune and the pleasure to speak here today, in Rome – from which these studies ultimately derived – and

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

38 8

chapter 2

Interview in Népszava: “Science Needs Peace” (Marót, 25 May 1955)

During the second day of the congress of the IA(S)HR in Rome, 18th April 1955, the Hungarian government of Imre Nagy, established in the first phase of the de-Stalinization, fell. One month after the Congress in Rome, the Warsaw Pact was signed. In this context, soon after Marót came back to Budapest, he gave an interview for the Népszava [“People’s voice”], the official newspaper of Hungarian trade unions, related both to the Warsaw event and the Congress in Rome. He presented the Congress as one of the “negotiation tables” (tárgyalóasztal) that should be taken into account. He informed that the delegates of People’s Democracies-countries were welcomed, and issued a warning in Hungary not to see the East-West dialogue as impossible. This struggle for peace has an echo also in countries that lay on the West in comparison to us. I had the opportunity to see it for myself in the past days. I participated in a congress on the history of religions in Rome. The presiding Raffaele Pettazzoni, professor of the University of Rome, has mentioned especially what a pleasure it gave to him that representatives from People’s Democracies – among them Hungary – participate in this congress. Science needs peace, because the scientists of different countries can fight (küzdhetnek) for humankind and for the raising of the level of science only under such circumstances [i.e. in peace].92 in front of sympathetic friends, I have chosen a topic, and a question still a little obscure, concerning the life of Ovid, a great Roman poet who was standing on the border of two epochs, – which is a particularly suitable argument to illustrate our thesis [Se esiste un filo che, malgrado tutto, colleghi i popoli momentaneamente isolati l’uno dall’altro, questo filo è indubbiamente quello degli studi, quello dei compiti e dei problemi che attendono di esser risolti nell’interesse dell’umanità. È per questo che, quale modesto cultore degli studi classici che oggi ha la fortuna e il piacere di poter parlare qui, a Roma, quasi come presso la sorgente, e davanti ad amici comprensivi; è per questo, dunque, che ho scelto un argomento, un problema tuttora un po’ oscuro riguardante la vita di Ovidio, grande poeta romano sul confine tra due epoche, – argomento particolarmente adatto a illustrare la nostra tesi]”. 92 Károly Marót, “Varsó a békeharc egyik döntő állomása. Marót Károly történettudós nyilatkozata,” Népszava. A magyar szakszervezetek központi lapja, May 25, 1955: 1: «A tudománynak szüksége van a békére, mert a különböző országok tudósai csak így küzdhetnek igazán az emberiségért, a tudomány színvonalának emeléséért». The appeal to the world peace is not a rhetorical neither a theoretical instance, but it originates in Marót’s repugnance for war and his personal experience in Hungary. In his correspondence, we can find some documentary pieces of his impressions during the aerial bombing of Budapest in 1944: the description of the broken glasses of the windows; the sound of the air raid siren every day (June 4th, July 5th and September 15th 1944); along with the description of the lack of food, wood, and coal (October 18th 1945); the closure of the University of Szeged

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

39

His statement supported a science for diplomacy, rather than an Eastern politics for science. On the spur of the moment, he did not contest the Warsaw Pact, which could not be openly questioned, but he did not join science and the Communist Bloc, in a prudent but mismatching way with respect to the political new season at the time. The interview for the Népszava newspaper is an evidence which, among others, supports my thesis that the Hungarian affiliation to the International Association for the History of Religions, at least in the case of MTA and Marót’s commitment, is not a result of the new Foreign Soviet policy toward the UNESCO, which, instead  – as said above  – affected the IAHR opening to the Eastern bloc for memberships and delegations. On the contrary, it is the result of the new course of Socialism in Hungary in the middle of the Fifties and the process it pursued of de-satelization, in spite of the Warsaw Pact, inasmuch as Marót supported an East-West exchange-program within the IAHR, with reference to the treaty between People’s Democracies in Central and Eastern Europe. 9

The “Real Internationalism [Internacionalizmus]”

The thesis of the engagement of Marót in the Hungarian process of desatelization and un(b)locking faces the question of the political compliance displayed by him toward the Soviet Union, although infrequently. In his public report to the Hungarian Academy on the Congress in Rome in 1955, and again in a minute to the MTA on the first meeting of the Hungarian group for the IAHR (July 1956), Marót pointed out the effort of Pettazzoni to support a “real internationalism”: in the first report, he wrote that Pettazzoni “made any effort to ensure for the future the participation of the People’s Democracies in the International Congress of History of Religions, demonstrating in this way that his plans sought a real internationalism [valódi internacionalizmusra irányuló törekvéseit]”.93 In the above-mentioned minute, unpublished, he repeated the because of the cold weather (November 22nd 1945); the lack of sheets of paper to write on (October 10th 1946). Late, July 1st 1950, Marót stated that he resumed his scientific work. Here, I referred to the letters of Marót to Béla Zolnai (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms. 4125), composed of 8 envelopes of letters from the Twenties to the Sixties. In June 20th 1939, he worked on the concept of Amicitia (letter, Marót to Zolnai, Ibid., Ms. 4125/296) finally published: see K. Marót, “Amicitia,” Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: sectio philologica 13 (1939): 3–73. 93 Marót, “Beszámoló a VIII,” 190. An English translation, by Ágnes Bencze, of a more extended passage, is available in Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 37–38.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

40

chapter 2

same formula: “the president of the Congress, Raff. Pettazzoni expressed his sorrow on more occasions, in public and also in private discussions, over the absence of Peoples Democracies, and asked him [Marót] to urge their entrance into the International Congress of the History of Religions, so that the aspirations of the Congress toward a real internationalism [valódi internacionalizmusra irányuló törekvéseit] should be supported”.94 It is significant that instead of using the Hungarian word “nemzet-közi” (international) he uses a loan word “internacionalizmus”, as a rhetoric tool with soviet allusion, as if to allude to a sovietization of the IAHR.95 That said, despite this quick ideological appreciation, I did not find documents concerning any attempt of Marót to give rise to a polarization of Eastern bloc’s countries within the UNESCO association for the History of Religions, even after the Warsaw Pact. In March 1956, Pettazzoni wrote to Marót that “the Hungarian group” of scholars linked to the IAHR “will be the first People’s Democracy to realize this project” of membership.96 But only in the letters of Pettazzoni, I found evidences of a “large scale” of this Eastern project,97 to be extended, and expected to reach a “domino effect” in the People’s Republics, while in Marót’s letters the project is limited to Hungary and its opening toward the UNESCO framework. Besides this, the correspondence of Marót with scholars of Religious Studies, considering the collection at the MTA archives, is oriented to countries of Western Europe, for the most.98 94

Minute, 11th July 1956, Constituent meeting of the Hungarian Group of the International Congress of History of Religion signed by K. Marót and Tibor Bodrogi, 11.07.1956, Jegyzőkönyv felvétetett 1956 julius hó 11-én Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszus magyar csoportjának alakuló ülésén (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 95 This assumption concerning the “project of ‘internationalization’ (prospectively a ‘sovietisation’) of the IAHR”, related to Marót’s report, is expressed and, in my view, exacerbated by Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 39. Casadio did not take into account the linguistic issue of the vocabulary employed by Marót, which would have provided his assumption with a relevant argument. But even considering it, this argument looks to me rhetorical, and clashing with the general position of Marót and the context. 96 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 05.03.1956; original text: French: « j’attache une très grande importance à la formation d’un groupe Hongrois adhérant à la IAHR. L’Hongrie sera donc le premier Pays de démocratie populaire qui réalisera ce projet ; et je suis persuadé que son exemple ne tardera pas à être suivi par d’autres Pays. Vous savez que je suis personnellement tout-à-fait favorable aux échanges culturelles sur une échelle la plus grande » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/621a). 97 Ibid. 98 A selection of examples taken from the overall collection of the letters written to K. Marót preserved at the MTAK helps to trace the Western trajectory of his correspondence. E.g.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

The First IA ( S ) HR Congress at the Dawn of the Warsaw Pact

10

41

Negotiating Secularism and Religion

As far as Marót’s statements put forward, the opening of the Iron Curtain for a debate on religion concerns non-confessional studies. According to his suggestion, the tasks of the MTA and the IAHR would have converged in 1955 in holding a non-confessional congress on religions “in the ‘clerical’ Rome”.99 In the public report of the congress, in his quality of Hungarian delegate, he emphasized this common area of interest: “all should understand the scholarly and political meaning of this very fact” and of the “pivotal congress”.100 This topic is used once more in 1960, in the journal Antik Tanulmányok issued by the publishing house of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. The “8th international (I quote the name of the correspondent, the place from which the letters are sent and the respective period): Lucien Lévy-Bruhl (Paris, 1924–1925); Aristide Calderini (Milano, 1927); Carl Clemen (Bonn, 1929–1937); Franz Cumont (Salerno, 1933); Franz Altheim (Berlin, 1934–1960); Gerardus van der Leeuw (Groningen, 1935–1938); Gilbert Murray (Champéry Valais, 1936); Victor Larock (undated, but around 1936); Alfred Bertholet (Berlin, 1937); the folklorist Paul. G. Brewster (University of Missouri, Columbia, 1939); Hendrik Wagenvoort (Utrecht, 1941–1960); the folklorist André Varagnac (Château de Saint-Germain-en-Laye, 1948); Charles Picard (Paris, 1955); Antonio Mazzarino (no letters are preserved, but their relationship is mentioned in the correspondence of Marót with a near-graduated of Mazzarino at the University of Messina in 1956); Adolf E. Jensen (Frankfurt am Main, 1955–1958); John Armstrong Davison (University of Leeds, Dept. of Greek, 1954–1957); Roland Crahay (Liège, Belgium 1957–1962); Emmett L. Bennett, Jr (Institute for Research in the Humanities, University of Wisconsin, 1962), etc. In France, he had special contacts with Jacqueline Duchemin of the University of Poitiers, starting from the IA(S)HR Conference of Rome in 1955, who committed herself to the dissemination of the works of Marót in France by publishing reviews of his books (e.g. Marót, “A görög irodalom kezdetei [Budapest 1956],” Revue archéologiques 49, no. 1 [1957]: 112–113; and in Revue des Études Grecques 70, no. 1 [1957]: 256–258). The archive of Marót at the MTAK holds the letters from Poitiers to Budapest 1956–1961 and one draft of a letter of Marót (Ms 5209/548-558). A further French and international channel for the dissemination of his studies was the Année Philologique to which Marót sent copies of his books (e.g. A görög irodalom kezdetei; Un nouveau livre sur Pindare) establishing a contact with Juliette Ernst (Paris, 3 Avril 1956, 6 October 1957). The correspondence with scholars of the People’s Republics is scant but interesting: e.g. the letters to Dionisie Mihail Pippidi, at the time employed at the National Museum of Antiquity of Bucharest, arranging an exchange of texts between the two Academies of Sciences, Romanian and Hungarian (Bucharest, 1956–1958). 99 Marót, “Beszámoló a VIII,” 190: «E mellé a megnyilatkozás mellé állítva a már érintett megnyitó és záró beszédei hangját, mindenkinek észre kell vennie, mit jelentett tudományos és politikai vonatkozásban maga az a tény, hogy ez a nagy-vonalú és nagyarányú kongresszus 1955-ben, éppen a “klerikális” Rómában és éppen Pettazzoni elnöklete alatt ült össze». I refer to the translation provided by Á. Bencze in Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni,” 38. 100 Ibid.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

42

chapter 2

congress on the history of religions” is remembered by Marót in order to make the shared interest in conducting it “undisturbed in the clerical Rome”101 clear. The argument on the theological segregation, i.e. differentiation and separation of academic Religious Studies from the (Catholic) Church, corresponded at the time with the political views of the State Office of Church Affairs (Állami Egyházügyi Hivatal), established in Hungary in 1951, to such an extent that the IAHR congress in Rome is shown to be able to reduce the sphere of influence of the Church in Rome. The argument is publicly presented to and/or through the MTA and, therefore, could be considered as strategical in order to reach and reinforce a joint agreement of the Academy with the IAHR. But the same concern is expressed privately as well, and neither does seem specious nor counterfeit. In a letter of 1950, Marót confides to a friend of his (Béla Zolnai) that “it was not the first day today that I have protested against that some individuals who study theology should call themselves historians of religions”.102 101 Károly Marót, “Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959),” Antik Tanulmányok 7, no. 1–2 (1960): 84. 102 Letter, Károly Marót to Béla Zolnai, Budapest, 01.07.1950; original language: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4125/466).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 3

The Affiliation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences to the IAHR in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising After the IAHR congress held in Rome in April 1955, Károly Marót took on new responsibilities in Budapest, and set about to establish a group of historians of religions – the so-called Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság (MVT) – within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, in order to affiliate this group, as a permanent national representative, to the International Association for the History of Religions. In this chapter, I give an overview of the membership process and, for the first time, I provide more detailed analyses largely based on pieces of evidence I discovered in the archives of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. I examine the records I collected, by selecting and transcribing unpublished passages, translating them in English, filling data gaps (e.g. thanks to the “Pettazzoni archive”), and reconstructing the setting within which the question of the Hungarian membership to the UNESCO/CIPSH organization on the study of religion was settled, i.e. the political circumstances. These documents supply valuable insights for all who wish to examine experiences of the Iron Curtain in Hungary in the second half of the Fifties. 1

The Departments and Ministries Involved (19 November 1955– 10 October 1956): The Overload of the Opening Process

A few months after K. Marót had come back from Rome, and reported on his activities as a delegate of the MTA in the congress on the History of Religions, the endeavor to assemble a team of experts within the Hungarian Academy was initiated. The request for authorization to establish a group of the MTA for the International Congresses of History of Religions, in order to propose participation in the congresses as members, i.e. regular membership, was addressed at first in November 19, 1955, by the Secretary of the Hungarian Academy, Lajos Jánossy, to Erzsébet Andics who, apart from being an academician, was the head of the Cultural Department of the Hungarian Working People’s Party (Magyar Dolgozók Pártja, MDP KV Kulturális Osztálya).1 1 Erzsébet Andics (1902–1986) was the head of the Hungarian Historical Association (Magyar Történelmi Társulat) between 1949–1958. She worked at the College of the Party (MDP © Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_005

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

44

chapter 3

[…] in course of the VIIIth International Congress of the History of Religions held in April of the current year in Rome, the President of the Congress, professor Pettazzoni, turned to Károly Marót, corresponding member, the representative of the MTA, asking him to make efforts in order that Hungary should enter among the countries that participate in the International Congresses of the History of Religions as permanent members (állandó tag).2 The letter reports that the General Committee of Classical Philology, based on the referatum of Károly Marót, discussed the issue and univocally found it right and desirable that Hungarian scholarship should gain permanent representation at these congresses that are characterized by: 1) a “large-scale international public”; 2) a “purely scientific” nature; and 3) an “a-confessional” approach.3 The very same request had previously been formulated on 11th November 1955, by the secretary of the Ist department of the MTA, László Bóka. He had addressed an almost identical text to the President of the Academy. In a few days, the request reached the Secretariat. There is a signo dated 19th November which reads in the following way: “to be forwarded to comrade Andics in order to receive her resolution. Taking political points of view into consideration, we also approve of the membership”.4 During the conference in Rome, Marót gave assurance to the President of the IAHR, R. Pettazzoni, that “at the earliest opportunity” he would report the question of the membership officially to the President of the Academy, István Rusznyák, and then informed Pettazzoni that Rusznyák supported this Pártfőiskola), and came to be the deputy of the Minister of Public Instruction between 1954– 1956. See: Ignác Romsics, Clio bűvöletében. Magyar történetírás a 19–20. században – nemzetközi kitekintéssel (Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2011), 372–375; and 417–420. 2 Memorandum, Lajos Jánossy to “Comrade” Erzsébet Andics, Budapest, 19.11.1955, doc. n. 63503/1955; original language: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). At the end of the letter, hand-written additions by Éva Baik can be read that refer to further arrangements for a personal meeting between the Secretary, Jánossy and Andics, where the question is to be discussed. The two notes date 21.11.1955, and consequently 29.11.1955. 3 Ibid.: «nemzetközi nyilvánosságnak örvendő, tisztán tudományos, akonfesszionális jellegű». 4 Memorandum, László Bóka to [Comrade] Rusznyák [István], Budapest, 11.11.1955, doc. n. 11965/1955; original language: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). There is a signo by “comrade [Géza] Bognár [a representative of the General Secretary of the Academy]” dated “15th November”; there is also an addition by another hand that says: “to be shown to Comrade Jánossy!”, with the date of 16th November. An attached sheet contains two notes by two different hands. One of them is by Éva Baik, saying “discussion in person”, another one contains a question concerning a possible appointment with Jánossy.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

45

project, among other activities set up (mises en course) during the previous year in order “to resume the past relationships par interim neglected”.5 At a later time, in January 1956, Rusznyák told Marót that the “only missing authorization was from the Presidency of the Council (Présidence du Conseil)”, which should approve of the new “projects of the Academy”.6 At this point, the membership process stopped for several months, while the dialogue continued with Pettazzoni, who pushed Marót for a decision. On 27th January 1956: Pettazzoni asks Marót if it “would be possible to establish a Hungarian group of scholars for the “History of Religions” studies, affiliated to the ‘International Association’ and to ‘take care of this matter’”.7 As we can read in the above-mentioned documents of the MTA from November ’55,8 and in the following answer of Marót as well, when he received this letter, Marót was already working on it, and therefore replied to him: “Immediately after my return from Rome [April 1955], in my report on my journey, I proposed to the Academy as we agreed [comme nous en sommes tombés d’accord], the adherence of a Hungarian group to the international Association”.9 The report was published at the end of February 1956,10 but had been submitted earlier, 5 Letter, Károly Marót to Raffaele Pettazzoni, Budapest, 19.02.1956; original text: French: « Aussitôt après mon retour de Rome j’ai proposé dans mon rapport sur mon voyage à l’Académie, comme nous en sommes tombés d’accord, l’adhésion d’un groupe hongrois à l’Association Internationale et en dehors de cela j’ai porté la question, à la première occasion, officiellement devant le Président de l’Académie, le Prof. Etienne [István] Rusznyák, un médecin de grande culture générale, qui m’a promis de soutenir notre demande entre les autres nombreuses actions qui étaient chez nous, l’année passée, mises en course pour reprendre nos anciennes relations par intérim négligées. C’est maintenant un mois peut-être que j’ai reparlé à M. Rusznyák et il me donna assurance que votre demande y figure dans la note officielle et les projets de l’Académie et qu’il manque seulement l’approbation de la Présidence du Conseil (les affaires trainent chez nous dans la situation donnée un peu en longueur, hélas) » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). In this letter, Marót does not specify the exact moment when he reported the question to the President of the MTA, but states that at the moment in which he was writing to Pettazzoni, i.e. in February, a month went by since he had talked to Rusznyák again. 6 Ibid. 7 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 27.01.1956; original text: Italian (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5210/620). 8 Memorandum, Jánossy to Andics, 19.11.1955, mentioned above. 9 Letter, Marót to Pettazzoni, 19.02.1956, see above the transcription of the French original text of the letter. 10 As far as it concerns the month (February) of the publication, I refer to the letter (mentioned above) of Marót to Pettazzoni, 19.02.1956: « […]  la parution de mon compterendu sur le Congrès à la fin du mois dans les Communications de la I° Classe de notre Académie […] » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). I quote the passage of the report published; the original text is in Hungarian: “I forward this request of the President

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

46

chapter 3

and it referred to an issue – the Hungarian membership – discussed in Rome during the congress.11 This clarification is relevant in order to understand the geopolitical context in which the membership project was launched, that is before the signature of the Warsaw Pact. On 24th April, 1956, Marót received a telephone call from the Academy saying that in order to complete the membership of an MTA group to the IAHR, which was in principle accepted, it would be necessary to address a last notification to the Council of Ministers.12 The following step in the MTA acceptation process dates to June. Belatedly, in June 27th, the Secretary of the IAHR, C. J. Bleeker is informed about the efforts of Marót: “It seems that Mr. Marot is engaged in establishing an Hungarian group of the IAHR; I [Pettazzoni] provided him with some indications, encouraged him, and I asked him to write to you as soon as the situation gets more mature («la chose sera assez mature»)”.13 A reunion took place at the Academy on 11th July. Marót informed those who were present of his proposal concerning the composition of the IAHR group, adding that the number is not closed, it can be changed and broadened. [of the IAHR] asking that it may be taken in consideration and – on this basis – I call the attention of the competent institutions to the opportunity – to say the less – of our admission” (Károly Marót, “Beszámoló a VIII Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról,” A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának Közleményei 8, no. 1–4 [1956]: 190). He made sure that Pettazzoni received the copy of the Hungarian public report (Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, 25.04.1956; original text: French: « J’espère en attendant que vous avez reçu mon compte-rendu du Congrès » [Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence]). Pettazzoni was late in replying: “In the same way, I thank you infinitely for your report on the Congress of Rome. Mr. Brelich provided me with a summary of it and translated the passages of the text that concern me personally. I am indebted to you” (Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 11.06.1956; original language: French, MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5210/622). 11 I did not find a copy of the report by Marót handed in to the MTA of his visit in Rome for the IA(S)HR congress, in the archives of the Hungarian Academy. Nevertheless, the similar reports related to the following IAHR congresses (for more details concerning these reports, see the next chapters) were always submitted right after the return of the delegates. It is to be noted that many parts of the published version of the reports are different from the confidential versions of the texts submitted to the Academy earlier. 12 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 25.04.1956; original text: French: « Enfin, je peux vous donner l’avertissement heureux que l’adhésion du groupe hongrois à l’IAHR est en principe décidée. J’ai reçu hier un coup de téléphone de la part de notre Académie qu’il faudrait encore – pour perfectionner cette décision – libeller une note dernière au Conseil Ministériel pour la faire approuver et on m’a demandé quant aux conditions formelles, notamment la somme de la cotisation » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 13 Copy of the letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Rome, 27.06.1956; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

47

The meeting ended with the specification of the following 17 members of the group: József Aistleitner, Ödön Beke, Tibor Bodrogi (Secretary), István Borzsák, Károly Czeglédy, Vilmos Diószegi, Aladár Dobrovits, János Harmatta, Lajos Ligeti, Károly Marót (President), Gyula Németh, Gyula Ortutay, Zsigmond Ritoók, János Sarkady, János György Szilágyi, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, László Vajda.14 Marót proposed that the President should be I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, but the group elected him as such instead, while T. Bodrogi became the Secretary. An Executive Committee consisting of Ortutay, Trencsényi and Harmatta is also nominated for negotiations with the Presidency of the MTA («az ülés háromtagu bizottságot […] küld ki a kérdésnek az MTA elnökségével történő elintézése végett»).15 The minute reports on two key events: one of them is the International Congress of 17th–23rd April, 1955 at Rome, where Pettazzoni urged the entrance of People’s Democracies, and the second one is the closed session held by the Department of Linguistics and Literature of the MTA on 25th June 1956 that – after a “higher ratification” («fenső jóváhagyás után»)  – approved of the project of formulating a Hungarian group in the framework of the Department, and entrusted Marót with the convoking of the inaugural meeting.16 The group had no statute, and did not specify any methodological orientation, but at most adopted for its denomination the name vallástudomány, i.e. “science/knowledge of religion”.17 I can remark that the denomination of the group Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság matched the name of the Academy MTA (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia). The group was established but not yet formally authorized, due to some delay and obstacles related e.g. to the question if the group should be the representative of the Academy, and to the slow coordination of the different offices and Ministries involved: Public Education, Foreign Affairs, Finance, and the University of ELTE. It is to be noticed that the constituent reunion was held in a period of unprecedented political change, a few days before the removal of 14 Minute, 11th July 1956, Constituent meeting of the Hungarian Group of the International Congress of History of Religions signed by K. Marót and Tibor Bodrogi, 11.07.1956, Felvétetett 1956 julius hó 11-én a Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszus magyar csoportjának alakuló ülésén (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). Marót informed Pettazzoni about the reunion of the group one month later: « […] qu’à la mi-juillet […] nous avons constitué notre groupe d’histoire des religions dans l’encadrement de la 1° Classe de l’Académie hongroise (sous ma présidence avec 16 membres pour le moment) » (Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 12.08.56; original text: French [Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence]). 15 Minute, 11th July 1956. 16 Ibid. 17 The key-word Vallástudomány was chosen over further Hungarian academic available names, e.g. vallástörténet (“history of religion”).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

48

chapter 3

the pro-Soviet Mátyás Rákosi from the post of Secretary-General in the Magyar Dolgozók Pártja (18th July). 10th October: Marót wrote to Pettazzoni that the difficulties and the delay in establishing a IAHR membership at this point were met not because of the blocking attitude of the institution, i.e. the MTA; but because of the increase in the number of the foreign delegations of the Academy to such an extent that the office monitoring these operations failed to handle the amount of bureaucratic work. I solicited the Academy repeatedly to perfect the initiative, but finally the Department of International Relations admitted to me in all sincerity: the number of delegations to abroad increases to such a degree this year that the employee of these affairs succumbs and leaves a heap of similar, less urgent matters neglected. It is only this week that the office has a new official in charge appointed only for these affairs and who, I was given the assurance, will finally dispel this mystery.18 It is ironic but an accurate fact, described by Marót in this letter, that the political un(b)locking of Hungary, and not its locking in the Soviet Bloc, led to a slowing down, better said, an overload of the Iron Curtain opening process. 2

Dissimulating Political Opposition in Religious Studies: The “Polemical Speech” of Károly Czeglédy

The above-mentioned letter, bearing the date 10th October, 1956, is written a few days before the Hungarian Uprising. This document does not clearly discuss any political issue, but refers to some controversial position of the 18 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 10.10.1956; original text: French. Here I quote a further passage of the letter containing other details concerning the bureaucratic problems which occurred: « À savoir, les difficultés ou plutôt les obstacles administratifs concernant la constitution du Groupe Hongrois de la IAHR ne sont pas définitivement surmontés, mais j’espère enfin de voir clairement la situation. […] après l’approbation difficile, le service du contentieux a établi que conformément à vos Statuts les membres du Congrès doivent être ou des personnalités ou des instituts et que la I° Classe de l’Académie qui a constitué ce groupe n’étant ni l’un ni l’autre, elle doit auparavant charger l’un de ses instituts comme domicile qui en pourrait par la suite demander l’adhésion du groupe formé. Étant donné que [sic. = En raison de] mon institut universitaire (Histoire ancienne), l’Académie devait demander le consentement du Recteur de l’Université Eötvös Loránd qui a été donné par celui-ci dès le 20 septembre par la voie du ministère (assez compliqué). C’est tout ce que je vois jusqu’ici » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

49

Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság. Marót announced to Pettazzoni a lecture of a “young member” of the Hungarian group at Budapest, on the topic of “The Sacral Kingship of the Khazars”, and emphasized the “polemical” intent of this speech (fr. conférence polémique), which “in my [Marót’s] opinion won’t betray our most excited expectations”.19 The lecture was intended as a preview of the activities of the group, waiting for the approval of the IAHR membership, which met “our needs for a long time latent and felt here at home [i.e. in Hungary]”.20 The name of the “young member” is not indicated, but can be recognized, since the topic of the speech corresponds to the themes generally examined by Károly Czeglédy,21 who at the time was a member and 41 years old. After the Hungarian Uprising, in the first phase of the political era of Kádár, Marót intended to submit a lecture of Czeglédy to the MTA for authorization, having a similar title and topic. He wrote to the Department of International Relations, around April 1958: “As for the scientific cooperation, our committee has an initiative for its promotion, i.e. at the departments concerned of the Academy, we have already tried to organize a debut lecture that is anticipated with great interest – [to be held] if possible, in April. This lecture of great importance would be held by Károly Czeglédy C. Sc. with the title of ‘Sacral kingdom and the pre-Conquest Hungarian kingdom (A szakrális királyság és a honfoglalás előtti magyar királyság)’”.22 At this stage of my research, I could not find the text of the “conference”, i.e. lecture, scheduled in 1956, but I detected a speech which, in my view, is a version of the missing text. This speech has a similar title – in German “Das Sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern”, dedicated to the Khazars – and critical content, and is placed in the same IAHR context, too, in which the text was originally addressed. I refer to the speech held by Czeglédy at the IAHR special conference at Strasbourg on 19th September 1964, which was subsequently 19 Letter, Marót to Pettazzoni, 10.10.1956 (mentioned above): « […] je vous suis très reconnaissant de votre idée excellente et humanitaire concernant la formation de ce groupe qui répondra chez nous à des exigences déjà longtemps latentes et senties. Nous-mêmes [the mta group of scholars to be affiliated to the iahr] nous attendons avec impatience l’approbation définitive avec une conférence sur la royauté sacrée des Khazars de la part d’un de nos jeunes membres, une conférence polémique qui à mon avis ne trahira point nos espérances les plus excitées ». To be noticed here: Marót defines the membership program of Pettazzoni as a “humanitarian idea”. 20 Ibid. 21 Edmund Schütz, “Bibliography of Károly Czeglédy,” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49, no. 1–2 (1996): 9–12. 22 Letter, Marót Károly to the Department of International Relations [A MTA Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya], undated but 1958, doc. num.: 60367/58; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

50

chapter 3

published in 1966 in the flag-journal of the IAHR, Numen.23 The examination of this later version can provide us with data on the earlier one. In the essay published in 1966, Czeglédy provided a sociological explanation of the sacred kingship, in the forms detected in the Khazars and “old Hungarians”, considered as a result of the layering of societies («gesellschaftlichen Überlagerung»). According to the following definition of the sacred king as: 1) chief not only of his own tribal union, but of others as well; 2) upon which he imposes his rule by means of conquest and force; 3) and whom he treats not as tributaries, but as servants («Leibeigene»), Czeglédy concludes that the “super-human stature” of the king arises as an effect of the distance of the king from his subjects, which is social / hierarchical and is set up by the imperial administration.24 But the true thesis of Czeglédy is a more challenging one, and confirms the impression of Marót i.e. that of a polemic nature implicit in his lecture in the context of 1956 events. The double form of the sacred kingship is of concern, as we can find it both in Khazar and – later – Magyar history, which established an “executive” king, i.e. the “supreme military leader” and “highest authority”,25 beside a “sacred” king, who, surrounded by taboo-prohibitions, was killed in the event of famine, misfortune in war and failure.26 In order to secure emphasis to this aspect, Czeglédy repeated that the old Hungarian institution of the sacred kings, as we find it in its double-form, “does not belong” to the Hungarian 23

Report of the conference at Strasbourg by L. J. R. Ort, “Bullettin. Study Conference of the IAHR Strasbourg (France) September 1964,” Numen 12, no. 1 (1965): 78: “Prof. Dr. K. Czeglédy (Hungary) spoke about ‘Das sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern’”; Károly Czeglédy, “Das sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern,” Numen 13, no. 1 (1966): 14–26. To be considered too Károly Czeglédy, “A szakrális királyság a steppei népeknél (a kazároknál és a magyaroknál),” Magyar Nyelv 70 (1974): 15–21. 24 Czeglédy, “Das sakrale Königtum,” 26 and 15: «Sierksmas These, wonach das sakrale Königtum immer infolge einer gesellschaftlichen Überlagerung zustande kommt, bewährt sich auch in diesem Falle. Der türkische und altmagyarische sakrale König ist nicht nur Oberherr seines eigenen Stammesverbandes, sondern seine Macht erstreckt sich über eine Vielheit von Stämmen und Völkern, die ihm nicht nur zinspflichtig sind, sondern von ihm sogar als Leibeigene betrachtet werden. Der Abstand zwischen dem König und den Untertanen ist unendlich gross: die Gestalt des Königs ragt ins Übermenschliche hinüber»; and: «das sakrale Königtum in allen bisher bekannten Fällen bei den Primitiven nur dort entwickeln konnte, wo eine gesellschaftliche Überlagerung stattgefunden hatte, wo also ein Volk durch Eroberung und Gewalt seine Herrschaft einem anderen Volk aufzwang». 25 Ibid., 17: «Es gab den sakralen König und es gab einen zweiten König, […], und der eigentlich als Geschäftsführender König fungierte. Dieser König war der oberste Feldherr, er entschied über Krieg und Frieden und er stellte die höchste Instanz in allen Angelegenheiten seines Volkes dar». 26 Ibid., 18.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

51

tradition and neither to their language.27 The “Magyars took it when […] they came under the rule of the Khazars”28 and it was eventually rejected by them, in the Christian era. The critical issue rises in one short but remarkable sentence: “[…] converted to Christianity under Saint Stephen […] the Hungarians were no longer subject to sacred kings, but rather to Christian kings ‘by the grace of God’”.29 A kingship of a different kind is distinguished, by a unique and not of a double form, and giving rise to the Kingdom of Hungary as a unitary state. I wonder in what measure this lecture was considered provocative, and if it aimed to make indirect reference to the history of Russian domination by examining the Khazar kingdom, the center of which later become the southern part of Russia, and which – I quote from the text of Czeglédy – dominated tribal unions of “Caucasian, Bulgarian, Finno-Ugrian, and Slavic peoples”.30 In this essay, Czeglédy contrasted the Khazar “sacred king” who is such by imperial domination over other peoples and the layering of societies, to the Hungarian “Christian king” who rules his own people. 3

The Hungarian Uprising in the Middle of the Process of Affiliation

22nd October 1956: The Minister of Public Education approved of the Hungarian IAHR group, which, in the end, came to be represented not by the Academy, but the University of ELTE. The Vice-rector wrote to the MTA General Secretary the following: I have forwarded the transcript you had sent regarding the foundation of a Hungarian group for the International Association for the History of Religions to the Ministry of Education, asking for [their] programmatic consent (elvi hozzájárulás) to the founding of the Hungarian group and its entrance [into the Association]. In his answer, the Deputy of the Minister of Education has consented to the entrance of the Department of Ancient History of ELTE as the representative of the Hungarian group into the International Association. The Deputy of the Minister has drawn my attention to the necessity that the formal consent to the entrance 27 Ibid., 24, and 21: see for the linguistic analysis. 28 Ibid., 24. 29 Ibid., 26: «Nach ungefähr einem Jahrhundert jedoch, um 1030 u.Z., unter Stephan dem Heiligen, wurden sie zum Christentum bekehrt. Von nun an waren sie nicht mehr sakralen Königen, sondern christlichen Königen “von Gottes Gnaden” untertan». English translation by W. L. North. 30 Ibid., 24.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

52

chapter 3

should be gained also on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs as well as of the Ministry of Finance.31 23rd October: the Hungarian Uprising started, after which the Soviet repression followed. The administrative operation of Marót’s group resumed as soon as possible, in the middle of December. On 18th December, the Italian-Hungarian Angelo Brelich, a pupil of K. Kerényi and A. Alföldi, assistant of R. Pettazzoni at the University of Rome, informed Marót that Pettazzoni was waiting for a letter from him, and added: “Hungary became even further than had ever been before, as far as [the possibility of] normal contact is concerned – but, I hope – only temporarily”.32 The bureaucratic process for the Hungarian membership to the IAHR is resumed in December on behalf of the MTA, referring to the interruption of the exchange of letters with the University of ELTE on 12th September 1956.33 On 27th December: the Secretariat of the Academy emphasized the “strictly scientific [tisztán tudományos jellegű]” nature of the Hungarian project in the History of Religions.34 In February 1957, the Ministry of Finance raised the “political side” of the affiliation along with the economic one, saying that in both aspects, the decision belongs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs.35 31 Letter, Béla Lengyel to Lajos Jánossy, 22.10.1956, doc. num.: 64891/56; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 32 Letter, Angelo Brelich to Károly Marót, 18.12.1956; original text: Hungarian: “To your letter dated 20th October, and received on the 25th/26th, unfortunately, it would have been in vain to answer immediately: by that time I lived days of profound anxiety for all of you in Hungary, who are dear to me” (MTAK Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5209/256). 33 Letter, Lajos Jánossy (Secretary of the MTA) to Miklós Világhy (Rector of the ELTE), 12.12.1956. Jánossy refers to a letter sent previously (dated to 12.09.1956), repeating his request, namely that the rector should give his support (literally: “consent of principle [elvi hozzájárulás]”) for the membership to the IAHR of the Department of Ancient History, led by K. Marót. This letter demonstrates that the MTA received no answer to the first request. 34 Letter, Géza Bognár (Vice-General Secretary of the MTA) to István Kossa (Minister of Finance), 27.12.1956, subject: “Entrance to the International Association of the History of Religions”, original text: Hungarian: “The Association mentioned above has an activity of strictly scientific nature. The membership of the Department mentioned above [Department of Ancient History of ELTE] would greatly facilitate the development of international relations for Hungarian scholarship, and that our results in the fields of the history of religions and ancient history become known in an international public” (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 35 Letter, István Kossa (Minister of Finance) to Géza Bognár (Vice Secretary General of the MTA); 14.02.1957, original text: Hungarian: “Responding to your letter dated to 27th December with the Subject ‘Entrance to the International Association of the History of Religions’, I inform the comrade Vice Secretary General that the evaluation of the issue

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

53

On his side, Marót sought to provide documentary evidence to the Academy that the Soviet Union approved of the IAHR, by indicating that the Soviet government sent official greetings to the Congress in Rome in 1955,36 and did not mention neither the fact that no representatives of the Russian Academy of Sciences attended, nor the diplomatic incident of the Polish delegacy which did not obtain the visa in time.37 Yet, in his official report of the travel to the congress, he provided a press review, and then mentioned only one article published in the newspaper of the Italian Communist party, the one in which L’Unità “warmly welcomed the participation of the German Academy of Sciences, located in East Berlin, the Polish Academy of Sciences at Warsaw, and the Academy of Sciences of Budapest”,38 and not the second one, written right after the congress, with an opposite information on the “delegations of the Socialist countries and People’s democracies” which were considered “totally inadequate”.39 At the end of March 1957, Marót resumed the correspondence with R. Pettazzoni which was interrupted a few days before the Hungarian Uprising: It is difficult for me to write to you now, but I think that it would be unjustifiable to leave you any longer in this state of uncertainty, even if I am not in a position to announce you good and definitive news. You are certainly informed of the disruption that, in the past autumn, shook the belongs to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs from both the political and the financial aspect” (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 36 IAHR, Atti dell’VIII Congresso internazionale di storia delle religioni (Roma, 17–23 aprile 1955) (Firenze: Sansoni, 1956), 48: « Un télégramme d’adhésion a été envoyé par l’Académie des Sciences de l’URSS à Moscou; elle s’excuse de ne pas être en état d’envoyer une délégation et demande d’ être tenue au courant des travaux du Congrès ». 37 See chapter 2. 38 Marót, “Beszámoló,” 182: «Ahogy azután ezt pl. a ĽUnitä április 17-i száma is ugyanilyen szellemben, mint az elnöki megnyitó, részletezve is aláhúzta» with regard to the statement of Pettazzoni too: «[…]  le religioni possono e devono essere oggetto di pensiero storico [religions can and must be the subject of / subjected to historical thinking]». The article mentioned is [No Author] “Il Congresso mondiale di storia delle religioni. Il Patrocinio di Einaudi – Partecipazione di studiosi cechi, polacchi e della RDT,” L’Unità, April 17, 1955: 3 on the “participation of Czech, Polish and GDR scholars”. Curiously, the Hungarian delegation was mentioned not in the title of the article, but in the text only. Marót made reference to two other articles of the Italian press, i.e. [No Author] “Trentanove relazioni discusse al Congresso di Storia delle religioni,” Il Giornale d’Italia, April 19, 1955: 3; and [No Author] “Il prof. Pettazzoni confermato presidente dell’Associazione di storia delle religioni,” Il Messaggero, April 24, 1955: 3. 39 Ernesto de Martino, “In margine a un congresso internazionale. La storia delle religioni,” L’Unità, April 27, 1955: 3. De Martino was a Marxist historian of religions who worked in the network of Pettazzoni at the University of Rome.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

54

chapter 3

balance of my country, quite labile already before. I went through this crisis and, by chance, I am safe and sound. I continued to make the necessary steps toward the membership of our group, which, as you know, had already been established and consists of 17 members, to the International Congresses for the History of Religions.40 He informed his Italian colleague that the Academy had communicated the regulation according to which the procedures of “foreign affiliations” were officially “all suspended” in Hungary.41 Pettazzoni replied to Marót, and asked him to “wait” (Il faut attendre) because it was an “unfavourable time” (« le moment n’est pas favorable »).42 This position reveals an attempt to shrink from controversy and responsibilities, but at the same time made the “relaxation of tension [atmosphère de distension]” the immediate goal of the CIPSH/UNESCO member association.43 As far as the documentary evidences I examined make it clear, the International association took no public position on the issue of the Soviet repression concerning the Hungarian intelligentsia involved in the revolt. Privately, Pettazzoni wrote to Marót: “With the deepest and anxious attention I monitored the recent events of your country that I sincerely like”44 and – probably referring to the Manifesto of the Italian intellectuals Per la libertà dell’Ungheria [For the Freedom of Hungary] promoted in the middle of November 1956, which bears the signature of Pettazzoni as well45 – added a 40 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, 31.03.1957; original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 41 Ibid.: « On m’a dit alors qu’il s’agit maintenant d’une question de compétence du Conseil Présidentiel ou du ministère des Affaires Étrangères qui est encore pendante, mais il y a quelques jours l’Académie a reçu un message officiel qu’en raison de la situation financière de notre pays, vraiment désolée, toutes les adhésions étrangères sont en bloc suspendues ». 42 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 12.04.1957; original text: French: “I am glad to have received news from you. I am perfectly aware of the fact that the time is not favorable for your efforts to succeed. It is necessary to wait. My deepest hope is to see an atmosphere of relaxation established once again, which is necessary both for peace and civilization [Je me rends parfaitement compte que le moment n’est pas favorable au succès de vos efforts. Il faut attendre. Mon plus vif espoir c’est de voir se rétablir cette atmosphère de distension, qui est nécessaire pour la paix et pour la civilisation]” (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/624). 43 Ibid. 44 Ibid.: « J’ai suivi avec la plus vive et anxieuse attention les événements de votre Pays, que j’aime sincèrement. Aux moments les plus tragiques j’ai exprimé ouvertement ma déploration ». 45 [Multiple signatories] “Per la libertà dell’Ungheria,” Il Mondo, November 13, 1956: 2; original text: Italian: “Considering the brutality of the military intervention, the imminent new dangers of war, the speculations and the threats of Fascist reactions, the Italian

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

55

quick comment: “Even during the most tragic moments, I overtly expressed my deploration”.46 Nevertheless, it has to be stressed that the Manifesto had only a local, national circulation, and Pettazzoni signed it not as representative of the IAHR, and neither had he put effort into informing and leading the opinion of the IAHR members on the issue of the affiliation of the Hungarian group in the political framework at the time. An example that illustrates the position assumed by the IAHR on the issue of the 1956 event can be found in the correspondence of the Secretary and President of the association. In 1957, Bleeker was contacted by the “International Federation of Free Journalists” (IFFJ) asking the IAHR to join its protest against the “Hungarian tragedy”. In a private and unpublished letter, Bleeker expressed “sympathy” toward such a protest, but adviced Pettazzoni to “abstain from” participation for many reasons, including the fact that the IAHR “did not belong to the Conference of Consultative Non-Governmental Organizations of the UN”.47 The IFFJ was founded in 1948, and in 1951 it joined the UNESCO, with its special status of “exile group” of journalist syndicates from the ‘Eastern Bloc’, among which the Association of Hungarian Journalists in Exile was also included as a national umbrella organization of members shattered in the USA, Great Britain, France, Italy and Germany.48 In the middle of May, Marót repeatedly went to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, where they promised him a “definitive decision” in one week, while they intellectuals urge all the freemen and all the democratic forces to raise a solemn protest and an appeal so that the Hungarian people be given back the right to choose, in full freedom, those institutions that better meet the democratic ideals and the needs of the country, without denying its positive democratic conquests”. 46 Letter, Pettazzoni to Marót, 12.04.1957 (mentioned above). 47 Letter, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 03.03.1957; original text: French: « Pour votre information quelques lettres de l’International Federation of Free Journalists concernant la tragédie hongroise. Quoiqu’on se sent en sympathie avec la protestation comme telle, il y a, à mon avis, plusieurs raisons de s’abstenir d’action, entre autres le fait que le IAHR ne fait pas part du ‘Conference of Consultative Non-Governmental Organizations of the UN’ » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 48 International Federation of Free Journalists of Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic and Balkan Countries, International Federation of Free Journalists (London: N. MacNeill & Co., Press Ltd., 1952); Martin Nekola, “International Federation of Free Journalists: Opposing Communist Propaganda during the Cold War,” Media and Communication 5, no. 3 (2017): 103–106. Probably Bleeker alluded to the fact that the President of the IFFJ Bolesław Wierzbiański, who signed the documents of protest, at the same time had a leading position within the World Conference of Non-Governmental Organizations. A collection of digital copies of the IFFJ documents of 1958 are preserved at the OSA archive at Budapest (UN Special Committee on the Problems of Hungary established on January 10, 1957 by the United Nations General Assembly for the purpose of investigating the 1956 Hungarian Uprising).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

56

chapter 3

continued to raise problems of an economical nature (« raisons d’économie »).49 In June: “promises again”, but the “definitive decision” was “postponed under various pretexts week after week”.50 In July, Pettazzoni considered the possibility to submit an outline of the Hungarian affiliation during the meeting of the Executive Board of the IAHR in October at Amsterdam.51 4

The Three Versions of the Official Membership Request of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (2nd, 7th and 30th August 1957): The Information Available to the IAHR Presidency

The archives of the MTA preserved the copies of three different versions of the official request of affiliation to the IAHR, all signed close in time to one another in 1957, i.e. 2nd, 7th and 30th August. For the purpose of understanding what these variations meant, and the stages of the authorization process, I shall examine these documents in chronological order, and formulate two different questions. Both questions are of concern to the membership of the Vallástudományi Társaság, with regard to the IAHR Presidency and Secretary on the one hand, on the other hand to the Hungarian Academy and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Only two texts of the three mentioned above bear a date, that is 7th and 30th August, and are signed: the first one by a representative of the General Secretary, namely Géza Bognár, the second one by the General Secretary himself, Tibor Erdey-Gruz.52 The change of signature suggests that the statement of membership was asked to be reviewed and received higher-level attention. 49 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 24.05.1957; original text: French: « Quant à l’adhésion d’un groupe hongrois à l’IAHR, j’ai fait des courses réitérées il y a quelques jours au Ministère des Affaires Étrangères et on m’a promis une décision définitive pour la semaine prochaine. Pour toute éventualité, il me serait utile de savoir votre prise d’attitude si – posons le cas – on persiste de me citer des raisons d’économie » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 50 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 30.06.1957; original language: French: « Quant à l’adhésion ambitionnée de notre groupe on m’assure encore par des promesses, en dilatant la décision définitive sous des prétextes variés par semaines, […] je suis déjà frustré de grands espoirs » (Pettazzoni Archive Correspondence). 51 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 14.07.1957; original language: French (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/625 a). 52 Letter / statement, Géza Bognár « pour le Secrétaire Général » to C. J. Bleeker « Secrétaire Général de l’Association Internationale de l’Histoire des Religions », letterhead « Magyar Tudományos Akadémia », doc. num. 62481/57, Budapest, 07.08.1957; original text: French. And letter / statement, Tibor Erdey-Gruz « Secrétaire Général de l’Académie des Sciences de l’Hongrie » to C. J. Bleeker « Secrétaire Général de l’Association Interna­ tionale de l’Histoire des Religions », letterhead « Magyar Tudományos Akadémia », doc. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

57

The document of 7th August was sent by the Academy of Sciences to the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs which, as a final step in the procedure, was asked to forward it to the IAHR secretariat.53 The Pettazzoni Archive, i.e. the correspondence collection, provides further pieces of evidence. On 10th August 1957, Marót wrote to Pettazzoni a letter and attached to it “the copy of the official demand of our [Hungarian] Academy concerning the aggregation of our group to the IAHR that our Ministry of Foreign Affairs must now send to Prof. C. J. Bleeker”, that is the text dated to 7th August; and remarked: “it is the maximum that I could get”.54 Thereby this demand was received by Pettazzoni,55 but was not sent by the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to the General Secretary of the IAHR, Bleeker. The Ministry did not forward it to the IAHR, as it was expected, but sent a revised version of the entry statement to the Academy, on 26th August, i.e. a “text suggested by us [általunk javasolt szöveg]”, adding that “due to the lack [lit: “brevity”] of time, we suggest that the ready and signed text should be sent directly [i.e. without re-sending it to the Ministry for supervision and forwarding] to the General Secretary of the organization [IAHR]”; and asked to “be informed on the sending of the document and the arrival of a response”.56 At the beginning of September,

53

54

55 56

num. 62760/57, Budapest, 30.08.1957; original text: French (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). Copy of letter, Tivadar Siklós “Head of Department [MTA]” to “Comrade Edit Konrád, Ministry of Foreign Affairs”, subject: “Entering the International Association of the History of Religions”, doc. n. 62481/57, 07.08.1957, original text: Hungarian: “With reference to the information requested by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs concerning the question if our participation in the association mentioned above is still a current issue, we ask that our entrance be arranged by forwarding the attached entry statement which is addressed to the General Secretary of the Association. As the question of our entrance has been prolonged for more than two years, we ask that the entry statement be urgently forwarded, so that the October session of the Bureau Exécutif should be able to discuss our application after so much delay” (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest 10.08.1957, and attached copy of the above mentioned letter / statement, Géza Bognár « pour le Secrétaire Général » to C. J. Bleeker « Secrétaire Général de l’Association Internationale de l’Histoire des Religions », letterhead « Magyar Tudományos Akadémia », doc. num. 62481/57, Budapest, 07.08.1957; both original text: French (Archive Pettazzoni, Ms 34–34bis / 230301–230302) which is identical to the above mentioned copy preserved at the MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3. Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 30.08.1957; original text: French: « j’ai bien reçu la copie de la lettre officielle. J’espère qu’elle soit déjà parvenue à M. le Secrétaire Général » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/626). Letter, Edit Konrád to the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Tivadar Siklós (Head of the Department), letterhead «Külügyminisztérium [Ministry of Foreign Affairs]», subject: “Entering the International Association of the History of Religions”, doc. n. 62726/57, Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

58

chapter 3

Marót announced to Pettazzoni that only the day “30th August” the “official statement”, i.e. the request for membership, was “eventually mailed directly to the General Secretary [Bleeker]”, by specifying that this attachment was “a text identical in merito to the one [already] in your [of Pettazzoni] possession although formally divided in two parts (I don’t know why)”.57 He did not explain the reasons why the text changed, but asked Pettazzoni “to suppress the previous one and to consider, for your meeting [i.e. that of the IAHR Executive Board] in October, the enclosed copy”, that is the second version of the text dated 30th August. In the letter, Marót repeated the remark already made in the previous letter: “It was, alas, the maximum that I could get”.58 Pettazzoni carefully crossed off the first text of 7th August – as I can see in the copy preserved in the Pettazzoni Archive – in order to avoid confusion between the two versions. In my view, this erasure mark means also that he did not intend to share the document with the Executive Board. The two texts of the MTA for the membership are similar, but not identical. The most significant modification is the removal of the sentence: “The constitutive assembly of 11th July 1956 nominated […]”, referring to a list of selected scholars, that is the president K. Marót, the Secretary T. Bodrogi, in addition to 13 members, which follows.59 In the second version of the text, 30th August, this list of 2+13 members moved in another page and is kept unchanged, but is not related any more to the above-mentioned assembly of July 1956, which is not mentioned.60 The removal of the reference to the first assembly of the Budapest, 26.08.1957; original text: Hungarian: with handwritten notes referred to «Szilkáné [probably Zsilka Sándorné]» for the corrections of the document (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). In my view, the suggestion made by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to not send back to them the document implies that the Ministry was not available to reconsider it again for any eventual new change and objection to the text provided to the MTA. 57 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 07.09.1957, and attached copy Letter / statement, Tibor Erdey-Gruz « Secrétaire Général de l’Académie des Sciences de l’Hongrie » to C. J. Bleeker « Secrétaire Général de l’Association Internationale de l’Histoire des Religions », letterhead « Magyar Tudományos Akadémia », Budapest, 30.08.1957; both original texts: French (Pettazzoni Archive, Ms 35/ 230303-230305) which is identical to the above-mentioned copy preserved at the MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3. 58 Letter, Marót to Pettazzoni, 07.09.1957 (mentioned above). 59 I refer to the 2 copies of the letter / statement, Géza Bognár to C. J. Bleeker 07.08.1957 mentioned above (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3 and Pettazzoni Archive, Ms 34–34bis / 230301–230302). 60 I refer to the 2 copies of the letter / statement, Tibor Erdey-Gruz to C. J. Bleeker, 30.08.1957 mentioned above (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3 and Pettazzoni Archive, Ms 35/230305).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

59

Hungarian group can be partly explained as a matter of decency. It might seem inappropriate to highlight the 1-year-long delayed authorization of the MTA. As a matter of fact, another reason could be that the list of scholars nominated in the constitutive assembly in July 1956 and the list drawn up in August 1957 are different. Let us discuss now the list of the scholars of the Hungarian group in detail. Pettazzoni did not know the very first list of the MVT members. In his correspondence, he did not receive any copy of the minute of the constitutive assembly of July 1956 as far as the archivist of Pettazzoni’s papers, Mario Gandini, noticed. Despite this, in his letters, Marót has informed him of the number – although not the names – of the members designated in this occasion, that is: “our group already assembled with 17 members” (letter of March 1957),61 and “[…] our group of history of religions [established “in mid-July (1956)”] in the framing of the 1° section of the Hungarian Academy (under my presidency with 16 members as for now)” (letter of August 1956).62 It follows that a reduction occurred in the Hungarian group which in August 1957 no longer consisted of 17 members, but 15; and that the reference to the reunion held in 1956 had to be removed because it was then obsolete. The records collected here lead to a first conclusion, that information has been available to the IAHR Presidency concerning a reduction of the Hungarian group after the Hungarian Uprising. This information was not specific to a degree sufficient to set out a clear picture of any restrictive measures taken by and through the MTA, and to evaluate the situation, but the letters and the two statements made it clear to the President of the IAHR, i.e. R. Pettazzoni, that he did not have all the facts. No clarification was asked for, to the MTA and/or Marót. I believe that the IAHR presidency did not consider an investigation in this matter consistent with the task of a scientific community, or considered it impracticable, or/and probably reflected on the risk to come into collision with the MTA and compromise the goals reached. The only opinion shared by 61 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, 31.03.1957; original text: French (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). 62 Letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 12.08.56; original text: French (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). The number of members of the Hungarian group established in 1956, that is 17, was already noted by M. Gandini and G. Casadio during their studies on the letters of Marót at the Pettazzoni Archive, see Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1956–1957,” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 64, no. 1 (2008): 35; and Giovanni Casadio, “Raffaele Pettazzoni and Károly Marót, Companions in Arms in the Field of the History of Religions,” in New Trends and Recurring Issues in the Study of Religion, eds. Ábrahám Kovács and James L. Cox (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2014), 39.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

60

chapter 3

Pettazzoni with Marót in July 1957 is: “I fully realize the difficulties opposing your [of Marót] efforts”.63 At the beginning of this paragraph, I mentioned a third version of the membership statement (Belépési nyilatkozat) released by the MTA, which is actually the earlier one. I shall examine this text in the next section in detail, since it is relevant more specifically to the issue of the MTA framework. 5

The Purge of the Vallástudományi Group (August 1957) and the Reform Committee of the Faculty of Arts at ELTE

The earlier version of the membership request of the MTA to the IAHR is unsigned, but gives indication of the signatory, i.e. “President of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences [MTA Elnöke]”, and the addressee, i.e. “Prof. Bleeker General Secretary of the IAHR”;64 and it is undated, but attached to a letter of August 2nd 1957. The letter of 2nd August, to which the text of the membership request is linked, is a note of the First Department (Language and Literature) of the MTA, signed by the Secretary assistant.65 The note supplies information to the Department of International Relations of the Academy, namely that the “[First] Department has examined the draft of the entry statement for the Hungarian IAHR group, and has effectuated the personal changes that were found necessary in the composition [of the members] of the group. The relative corrections were directly indicated on the original draft of the entry statement by László Bóka, Secretary of the Department”.66 Therefore the Secretary assistant sent “the original draft of the entry-statement attached, as well as the new draft that already features the […] problematic loci mentioned above in a rephrased manner”.67 63 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Rome, 14.07.1957; original text: French: « Vous savez que je me rends parfaitement compte des difficultés qui s’opposent à vos efforts » (MTAK Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/625 a). 64 Belépési nyilatkozat tervezete [Draft of the membership request/statement], letter undated and unsigned, «MTA Elnöke» to «Bleeker professzor úrnak az IAHR főtitkárának» (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 65 Letter/Note, «Garamvölgyi József szaktitkár» to «Feljegyzés. Külügyi Osztály részére Zsilkáne részére [Note. Foreign Affairs Department. For Mrs. Zsilka]», letterhead «MTA I. Osztálya [First Department]», Budapest, 02.08.1957, doc. n. 10480/1957-I-M/OM (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 66 Ibid. 67 Ibid.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

61

In the dossier of the Vallástudományi Társaság in the MTA archive, I found both the draft and the new version mentioned in the note, along with a third copy of the text – all three typewritten – which bears the handwritten amendments requested. In the second paragraph of the version on which modifications and cancellations are indicated in L. Bóka’s hand, in correspondence with the list of 17 members of the group related to the constitutive assembly of 11th July 1956, which is mentioned,68 we can see three names crossed out. The same paragraph in the final version presents the list of names without these. On 12th September 1956, the list of members of the MTA group to be affiliated to the IAHR was still the same, as we can see in a document of the Academy in which the 17 names indicated in the earlier list drawn up on 11th July 1956 are once again mentioned.69 At the beginning of August 1957, in the “new draft of the membership request/statement”, the 3 members of the Vallástudományi group cancelled, then removed, are István Borzsák, János Sarkady, György János Szilágyi. A new member is included in the new list of August, i.e. Gyula Germanus.70 The events of the period between October 1956 and July 1957, concerning the involvement of the Hungarian academic intelligentsia in the Hungarian Uprising, are already known in Hungary. Some of the results can nevertheless be mentioned here. In our framework, we will restrict our attention to the situation in Budapest and the public University of ELTE, since this University – as mentioned above – was closely related to the Vallástudományi group. ELTE actively participated in the uprising, e.g. by committing itself to the rehabilitation of the lecturers removed for political reasons during the era of Rákosi. To this purpose a Council of Lecturers of the Faculty of Arts was established on 30th October as a reform committee. Borzsák, at the time Head of the

68

Ibid.: Both the first draft, as well as the final version introduce the process of the formation of the Hungarian national group in the first paragraph. According to this document, the decision for the foundation of the group was made by the First Department of the MTA, in a session held on 25.06.1956. In this session, Marót Károly was entrusted with the task of summoning the constitutive assembly. In the following, the outcome of this meeting (date: 11.07.1956) is reported. 69 Copy of the letter, Lajos Jánossy (Secretary of the Academy) to Miklós Világhy (Rector of the Eötvös Loránd University), doc. n. 64057/56, 12.09.1956 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 70 Letter/note, mentioned above: 3 copies of the same text: «Belépési nyilatkozat tervezete [Draft of the membership request/statement]», original text and copy bearing handwritten corrections, and «Belépési nyilatkozat uj tervezete [New draft of the membership request/statement]» (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

62

chapter 3

Department of Ancient history, was elected a member.71 Sarkady, who was the assistant of Borzsák, followed his steps.72 After the Soviet repression, and in the wake of the purge-process set up by the new Hungarian Government formed with an anti-Nagy position, on 15th June 1957, Borzsák was dismissed from ELTE by a formal decision of the deputy Minister of culture József Szigeti.73 After the break-down of the regime, in 1992, Borzsák never overemphasized his role in the revolutionary committee, defining himself “not […] a central figure, only an ordinary member”.74 Nonetheless, the examination conducted at the Archives of the Hungarian State Security – e.g. by István Papp – revealed 46 reports of different periods which mention Borzsák, and made it clear to what extent he was monitored by the political police, although no subversive activities were detected after 1957.75 When, in March 1963, the Kádár Government granted a general amnesty to most of those who were involved in the 1956 uprising, Borzsák, along with Sarkady, were reinstated to the university, however, transferred not to the ELTE, but the University of Debrecen.76 With regard to Sarkady, a well-known examination undertaken at the Historical Archives of the Hungarian State Security  – on both the reports related to his “counter-revolutionary activities” and the written testimony 71 István Papp, “István Borzsák’s Missing Dossier: What Can the Political Police Do with a Classicist?,” in Pietas non sola Romana. Studia memoriae Stephani Borzsák dedicata, ed. Anita Czeglédy et al. (Budapest: Typotex Kiadó  – Eötvös Collegium, 2010), 697–698: referring to the dossier related to Borzsák which is not in the possession of the Historical Archives of the Hungarian State Security. Further documents considered for the reconstruction of the events are collected in: Tibor Beck and Pál Germuska, Forradalom a bölcsészkaron [Revolution at the Faculty of Arts] (Budapest: 1956-os Intézet, 1997); and István Borzsák, “Visszaemlékezés 1956-ra [Remembering 1956],” in Id., Dragma. 5 Válogatott tanulmányok [Selected Essays] (Budapest: Telosz Kiadó, 2000), 479–485. 72 György Karsai, “Egy klasszikus-filológus az Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok hálójában. Sarkady János, 1927–2006,” Holmi 24, no. 6 (2012): 774. An English version of this essay Id., “A Classical Philologist Trapped in the Web of the State Security: The Case of János Sarkady,” in Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain, ed. György Karsai, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska (Ljubljana, Budapest and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales”, 2013), 71–106. For further consideration and archival data on the involvement of Sarkady and Borzsák, see: Krisztián Ungváry, “Konszolidáció és megtorlás az ELTE bölcsészkarán [Consolidation and retaliation at the Faculty of Arts of ELTE]” Valóság. Tudományos Ismeretterjesztő Társulat havi folyóirata 37, no. 1 (1994): 80. 73 Beck and Germuska, Forradalom, 159 (document n. 5): according to the reasons adduced, Borzsák’s “behavior did not show any sign of either admission or repentance during the investigation”. 74 Papp, “István Borzsák,” 700. 75 Ibid., 711: “the state security organs did not ever get close to it [i.e. a new procedure] after 1957”. 76 Ibid., 700.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

63

given during the police investigations – provided details on the surveillance he experienced, the monitoring of his close friendship, a pre-trial detention, the control by the State security authorities exercised over the academic system and, in the long term, from the late 1950s until 1986, by imposing dismissal or making procedure – e.g. promotions – inadvisable.77 The disciplinary measures taken against György János Szilágyi after the 1956 events referred to the National Museum of Fine Arts at Budapest (Szépművészeti Múzeum) where Szilágyi was employed, in the Department of Antiquity, and specifically to a meeting of colleagues of the Museum held in the autumn of 1956. Following the Soviet repression and a contrast with the new “political authorities”,78 as a consequence, in July 1957 Szilágyi was transferred to the Déri Múzeum of Debrecen “as a prisoner” («mint elítélt mégiscsak»: quoting an interview of Szilágyi granted in 2003).79 I could not find evidence on a direct order to remove Borzsák, Sarkady and Szilágyi from the MVT. As already said, the exclusion of the 3 members was implemented by the way of the Department of International Relations and the First Department of the MTA and without stating the reasons. Nevertheless, the understanding of those reasons can be reconstructed – at least fragmentally – by considering both the political context and other sources of concern. What is clear is that the removal of the 3 members during the process of the affiliation of the MTA group to the IAHR was prescribed around 2nd August, 1957, that is shortly after their removal from the University and Museum in the aftermath of the Soviet repression: Borzsák on 15th June 1957; and Szilágyi in July. 77 78

Karsai, “Egy klasszikus-filológus,” 771–788. According to Vincenzo Bellelli, “János György Szilágyi. Un profilo,” Studi Etruschi [Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi ed Italici. Firenze]  78 (2015): XXI, the removal from the Museum of Fine Arts of Budapest in 1957 occurred “because of his dissidence with the political authorities [per dissensi con le autorità politiche] following the repression of the 1956 Revolution”. Bellelli mentioned the incident but did not acknowledge any source. It should be pointed out that Bellelli was informed on this matter by the Department of Classical Antiquities of the Szépművészeti Múzeum, where Szilágyi had once worked, specifically by his pupils Árpád M. Nagy (new Head of the Department) and Ágnes Bencze who, in October 2018, drew my attention to Bellelli’s source of information and made me aware of this obituary. Reference can be now made to the impressive collection of the letters and interviews of Szilágyi, recently available in János György Szilágyi, Örvények fölé épülő harmónia. Interjúk, dokumentumok, levelek I–II, ed. Géza Komoróczy (Budapest: Gondolat, and Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2018). 79 György Szilágyi, Egzisztenciális Tudomány. Interjú Szilágyi Györggyel, 2. rész [Existential Science. Interview with György Szilágyi, Part 2], granted to the Oral History Archive of the 1956 Institute, March 11–April 8, 2003, at the Museum of Fine Arts, eds. György Litván and Adrienne Molnár, Enigma. Művészetelméleti folyóirat 88 (2016): 36. Other data concerning his forced relocation at Debrecen are provided in this interview Ibid., 45.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

64

chapter 3

My essay does not aim to describe the post-1956 Uprising events. I restrict my work to an attempt to make a specific remark on the ability of the state security organs to exercise influence over the academic institutions, and to extend it not only over the work environments of the university or the museum, which were local, but at all national and international levels. These restrictive measures represent a key-case for the evaluation of the impact of the pro-Soviet communism on the shaping of programs and academic settings of the IAHR under the umbrella organization of the CISPH/UNESCO. 6

László Vajda: A Political Refugee in West Germany

The case of László Vajda, included in the earliest list of members of the Vallástudományi Társaság, and then deleted, though later than Szilágyi, Borzsák and Sarkady, i.e. not in August 1957, but in February 1960, shows the complexity of the purge of “dissidents” from public academic life. Already in 1955, Vajda expressed to Marót his desire to go abroad (to “wriggle out of this cage”), having the opportunity to reach Berlin for a conference organized by the Institute of German Folklore of the Deutsche Akademie der Wissenschaften linked to the German Democratic Republic.80 Vajda succeeded in leaving Hungary definitely, and moved to Frankfurt am Main in January 1957 hosted by the Frobenius Institute for anthropological studies. As far as I know from the letters exchanged with the Director of the Institute, Adolf Ellegard Jensen – the correspondence preserved is now available at the archives of the Institute – the two developed a working relationship starting from February 1956.81 Vajda took this opportunity to approach Jensen 80

81

Letter, László Vajda to Károly Marót, Értény, 20.08.1955, original text: Hungarian: “I may have told you that the Berliners have invited me for a congress that is to be organized in the end of September [1955]. Thanks to the efforts [literally: “circles run, szaladgálás”] of Gyula [probably: Ortutay], the Academy might let me out [to go and participate]. Even if I cannot go, I will still send my lecture. The theme is rather new to me, being of an ergological background. The congress is titled Tagung für Agrarethnographie, so a theme that has something to do with agriculture needed to be found. The title of my lecture is Kulturtypen in Ostafrika und die Frage des Hackbaus. Its essence is that the lifestyle called ‘hoe agriculture’ is not a unique type but represents [several and] varying types. I tried to introduce this diversity that has not been emphasized so far, first of all in a religious and second, in an economic context. The theme itself would not really stimulate me, but if I think that – even if for just a few days – I can wriggle out of this cage, then I am immediately excited” (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/13). Copy of letter, A. E. Jensen to L. Vajda [Budapest, Ethnographisches Museum], 15.02.1956: wondering if Vajda received his book Adolf E. Jensen, Im Lande des Gada: Wanderungen

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

65

more closely. He described his own working plan dedicated to the types of morphology recognizable in East Africa, and introduced himself as a “member of the young ethnographic generation [he was 33 years old]” in Hungary, by stating the limits of his environment, i.e. the fact that “Ethnography [in Hungary] was exclusively Hungarian folklore/ethnology/ethnography (Volkskunde)”, and his “difficulties: lack of masters, lack of books and journals, lack of travel opportunities and – last but not least – lack of a scientific atmosphere [wissenschaftlicher Atmosphäre]”.82 In a letter of April 1956 to Jensen, Vajda mentioned K. Marót as his Hungarian mentor (väterlicher Freund) by referring to his studies on Homer of concern to the “mental/spiritual culture [geistige Kultur] especially poetry and religion”, thinking that this reference would impress Jensen favorably.83 It is to be noticed that, at the time, Marxist Ethnology considered Frobenius’ work and heritage as opposing to historical materialism, and as such – according to Marxist interpretation – representatives of the so-called “irrationalism”.84 A zwischen Volkstrümmern Südabessieniens (Stuttgart: Strecker & Schröder, 1936): FrobeniusInstitut für kulturanthropologische Forschung an der Goethe-Universität Frankfurt, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1193-03. 82 Letter, L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Budapest, 29.02.1956; original text: German (FrobeniusInstitut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1193-02), then Jensen wrote back to Vajda: copy of letter, 13.03.1956: «Wenn es uns möglich ist, werden wir sehr gerne helfen» (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1192-10). 83 Letter, L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Budapest, 11.04.1956; original text: German, FrobeniusInstitut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1192-09. A further reference to the work of Marót, concerning a review of his “pre-Homeric book” on the journal Paideuma, is in the letter: L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Budapest, 08.08.1956 (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 119202). The archive of Marót’s papers at the MTAK contains 2 letters of Jensen (21.11.55 and 30.10.1958) which show the direct contact between the 2 scholars and that Marót used to send to him his own essays (e.g. on the Sirens) (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/1059–1060). 84 An example of this Marxist interpretation can be found in Italy, in two scholars closed to R. Pettazzoni: Vittorio Lanternari, La grande festa: vita rituale e sistemi di produzione nelle società tradizionali (Bari: Dedalo, 2004 [first edition 1959]), 36: “The irrationalism of Frobenius led the way: Adolf Jensen’s concepts are equally compromised, imbued with turbid mysticism, clearly originated from post-romanticism, and extremely dangerous” (original text: Italian); and Ernesto de Martino who considered Frobenius a representative of the “irrationalist threat” and his main thesis, on the origin of the cultural creation based on the concept of Ergriffenheit [emotion/to be seized/deeply moved], as “not approachable by the Historical Reason [Ragione Storica]” (Ernesto de Martino, Furore Simbolo Valore [Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1962]; and Id., “Storicismo e irrazionalismo nella storia delle religioni,” [Historicism and Irrationalism in the History of Religions] Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 28, no. 2 [1957]: 95). In Hungary, Gyula Ortutay (I quote from a collection of essays in English translation): Id., Hungarian Folklore: Essays (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972): “Frobenius emerged as the father of a new romantic concept of

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

66

chapter 3

letter written in August 1956 by Vajda to Marót lets us catch a glimpse of Vajda’s ideological attitude. It shows Vajda being ironic about “Stalinists” and sharing with him the hilarious side he saw in their concept of “objective difficulties” as a residual of the bourgeoisie. At this point, Vajda felt it appropriate to express to him his worries about the incoming new director of the Ethnographical Museum in Budapest, in which Vajda was employed, namely László Kardos, which “does not only mean a general intellectual-political aggravation, but also  – I fear  – it will cause serious problems to me [i.e. Vajda]”.85 Kardos  – member of the Communist Party in the Hungarian Parliament in 1947–48 and former member of the Ministry of Religion and Public Education – became the director of the Ethnographic Museum on 5th October 1956. The specific meaning of the reference to the “political aggravation” remains unclear. Probably Vajda was worried by the political engagement of Kardos’ ethnography.86 During the Hungarian Uprising, Kardos joined the Revolutionary Committee of Hungarian Intellectuals set up on 28th October at the ELTE University in Budapest. After the Soviet Repression, he was imprisoned, in 1958, receiving a life sentence, and freed in 1963 as a result of the general amnesty.87 ethnology which directed attention again to the vitality and high standards of the different primitive cultures and their particular religious saturation”; and Id., “The Science of Folklore in Hungary between the Two World-Wars and during the Period Subsequent to the Liberation,” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1-4 (1955): 56: “All the more was I attracted by the alluring and brilliant exaggerations of the Frobenius-type of theories, irrespective of their mistakes and falsifications”; and referring to the “‘esoteric’ and peculiar results of Western science [i.e. Frobenius]” (Ibid., 54–55). 85 Letter, L. Vajda to K. Marót, 28.08.1956, original text: Hungarian: “Dear Uncle Károly [Károly bácsi – bácsi in Hungarian being a form of address for an elder man, especially used by children, or, used in case of a great difference in age], at the end, the Stalinists will prove to be right with their magic spell [saying] that referring to objective difficulties is a damnable bourgeois residue – at least my conscience really tells me that they are right [he excuses himself for not having contacted Marót because of ‘objective circumstances’ – having to organize an African exposition at the Museum]. In the meantime, I also had to confront frequently the stupid ones from the Ministry concerning the ‘line’ of the exposition [a minisztériumi marhákkal való szapora viták a kiállítás “vonalát” illetőleg …]. It is difficult to earn a living at museums. Now, making a living in the museum has turned to be even more bitter: László Kardos has become our chief director” (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/14). 86 A reference to Kardos as an example of the tendency of the Hungarian intelligentsia, in the middle of the Fifties, to praise Stalin for his insistence concerning the need for new cultural contents in national persisting forms, is made by Mihály Sárkány, “Hungarian Anthropology in the Socialist Era: Theories, Methodologies and Undercurrents,” in Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies, eds. Chris Hann, Mihály Sárkány, and Peter Skalník (Münster: LIT, 2005), 89. 87 I refer to Kardos László börtönírásai: 1957–1963 [K. L.’s writings on/during imprisonment], ed. Mária Pogány (Budapest: Gondolat, 1992) with records concerning his indictment, interrogation, statement, and the prison correspondence. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

67

The correspondence with Jensen was resumed in December 1956, after the failure of the Hungarian Uprising, with a letter sent from Berlin: Because of the recent political events in Hungary, I am forced to leave my home country for a while. Given the circumstances, therefore I would take the liberty to turn to you, admired Professor, and request your help. You can understand that I would not like to give up my previous ethnological-archaeological activity. At the moment, I do not have a secure perspective before me. I would be glad to work anywhere in the free world, especially with you, Professor. So I would like to ask for your kind help, on the basis of your connections, i.e. getting me a job either in Germany or in another country.88 According to Vajda’s statements – released in 2006 and 2008 – when the revolution broke out, he participated in it (“to the best of my ability [sondern nahm nach meinen besten Kräften an der Revolution teil]”), having an idea of the Revolution not as a “national but a reform Communist event”. After the arrival of the Soviet troops, in December 1956 – being provided with a visa before the Revolution in order to attend a lecture in Leipzig – he moved to Leipzig, then to East Berlin and West Berlin.89 Jensen received the letter from Berlin and answered back: 88 Letter, L. Vajda to Ad. E. Jensen [Frankfurt Frobenius Institut], West Berlin, 10.12.1956; original text: German: «Infolge der letzten politischen Ereignisse in Ungarn bin ich gezwungen, meine Heimat für eine Zeitlang zu verlassen. Unter den gegeben Umständen möchte ich mir daher erlauben, mich an Sie, verehrter Herr Professor, zu wenden und Ihre Hilfe zu erbitten. Sie werden es verstehen, dass ich meine bisherige völker-kundlich-archäologische Tätigkeit nicht gern aufgeben möchte. Zurzeit habe ich keine sichere Perspektive vor mir. Ich wäre glücklich, irgendwo in der freien Welt, ganz besonders bei Ihnen, Herr Professor, arbeiten zu können. Ich möchte Sie also höflichst bitten, mir auf Grund Ihrer Verbindungen behilflich sein zu wollen, d. h. mir eine Arbeitsmöglichkeit entweder in Deutschland oder in einen anderen Lande zu beschaffen. Wenn Sie nichts für mich tun können, bitte, schreiben Sie es mir kurz. Auch in dem Falle werde ich für Ihr Wohlwollen dankbar sein» (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1192-06). 89 László Vajda, “«Én tulajdonképpen történésznek tartom magam». Interjú Vajda Lászlóval,” [“As a matter of fact I consider myself a historian”. Interview with László Vajda] by Zoltán Fejős, Tabula 9, no. 1 (2006): 29 (here appears to be some confusions concerning his departure-date to Leipzig from Budapest: the “20 December [1956]” [«December 20-án végül fölültem a vonatra, és legálisan kimentem Lipcsébe»] as Vajda said in the interview, while the above mentioned letter to Jensen shows him already in Berlin the day 10 December). And “Interview László Vajda (1923–2010). 04.07.2008,” in Interviews with German Anthropologists. Video Portal for the History of German Anthropology post 1945, ed. Vincenz Kokot, 2 (accessed May 1, 2019: www.germananthropology.de). In the 2 interviews, Vajda made small conflicting statements about the issue of the passport too. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

68

chapter 3

I received your letter of 10th December, and have to acknowledge that you belong to the group of refugees from Hungary, too. You can imagine how we all have felt for your homeland in the past few weeks, and we still feel the same today. I immediately got in touch with Dr. Treue in the German Research Foundation to talk about the possibilities in this regard […] However, I still need some information to see more clearly, and I ask pardon if they sound somewhat inquisitorial. I would like to ask you whether there is currently an immediate danger to you, i.e. if you have no subsistence allowance for your living at the moment […]. I would like you to answer these questions, because I probably have the opportunity to help you straight away from the first period of your refugee life.90 By return, Vajda described the help received and the situation. He mentioned the “American [Marienfelde] Refugee Center [transit camp]” operating in West Berlin. The Center – opened in 1953 – dealt with the immigration from East Germany by supporting refugees with the procedure of residency permits. It assisted Vajda, who came to the Center with the letter of Jensen, and let him fly to Frankfurt.91 In the letters to Jensen, in January 1957, Vajda described the 90 Copy of letter, A. E. Jensen to L. Vajda [Berlin], 12.12.1956; original text: German: «Ich habe Ihren Brief vom 10. Dezember erhalten und muss danach feststellen, dass Sie auch zu dem Heer der aus Ungarn Geflüchteten gehören. Sie können sich denken, wie wir alle für Ihr Vaterland in diesen letzten Wochen empfunden haben, und wir empfinden heute nicht anders. Ich habe mich sogleich nach Erhalt Ihres Briefes mit Herrn Dr. Treue in der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft über die Möglichkeiten unterhalten, die von dieser Stelle aus bestehen. Er hat mir zugesagt, dass er diese Frage sogleich grundsätzlich bei einer Hauptausschuss-Sitzung, die am Samstag dieser Woche stattfindet, zu klären beabsichtigt. Er fugte von sich aus hinzu, dass er zwar nicht befugt sei, dem Hauptausschuss vorzugreifen, dass er sich aber denken könne, dass solche Fälle wie der Ihre mit Beschleunigung von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft geprüft werden würden. Zu meiner Orientierung benötige ich aber noch einige Angaben, und ich bitte Sie, es mir nicht zu verübeln, dass sie etwas inquisitorisch klingen. Ich wüsste gerne von Ihnen, ob z. Zt. eine unmittelbare Gefahr für Sie besteht, d.h. ob Sie im Augenblick keinerlei Subsidien für Ihren Lebensunterhalt haben. Sodann wüsste ich noch gerne, ob Sie allein aus Ihrem Vaterland geflohen sind, oder ob Sie Weib und Kinder - sofern sie über-haupt existieren - mit sich gebracht haben. Und als Drittes wüsste ich gerne, wie Sie in Berlin untergebracht sind, ob es eine Unterbringung bei Freunden ist oder ob Sie bei wildfremden Menschen leben. Diese Fragen hätte ich gerne von Ihnen beantwortet, weil ich wohl die Möglichkeit habe, Ihnen ganz unmittelbar über die erste Zeit Ihres Flüchtlings-Daseins hinwegzuhelfen» (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1192-05). I translated only a part of this passage of the letter. 91 Letter, L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Berlin-Friedenau, 18.12.1956; original text: German: Vajda mentioned the Scharnhorst family who accepted to host him for “purely philanthropic reasons”, and the money supplied to him by the Swedish Africanist [Harald von] Sicard, 100 Swedish kroner along with a written message: “for a Christmas candle”

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

69

difficulties which have arisen with the “German authorities” in recognizing him as a “political refugee”, and his displacement from West Berlin to the refugees’ center of Nuremberg.92 A telegram dated 17th January 1957 shows the direct contact with Jensen in order to arrange his arrival at Frankfurt.93 In March, Vajda wrote to Marót and declared himself to be an “illegal disciple”.94 The German language he used in the letter confers a foreign flavor to his words. Their correspondence will continue (in Hungarian) and, significantly, supplies details on the perceived security risk of communication with a political refugee from abroad. It was not a mere formula of courtesy on my behalf to ask whether it is inconvenient if I write letters to you. On the one hand, from here, I cannot judge if I eventually cause unpleasant moments [kellemetlen perceket] for those to whom I write, on the other hand, I had the news that Gyula [probably: Ortutay] found it absolutely necessary to deliver (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1992-04). The flight was initially scheduled for the 21st December and then postponed “due to a lack of available seats” to 29th December: Letter, L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Berlin, 22.12.1956; original text: German (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1992-03). 92 Letter, L. Vajda to A. E. Jensen, Nuremberg, 07.01.1957; original text: German (FrobeniusInstitut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1192-08): «von Piding (in Oberbayern) musste ich nach Nürnberg fahren. Jetzt entdecke ich die bisher mir unbekannt gebliebenen Triefen der deutschen Gründlichkeit: etwa 17 Dien stellen soll ich der Reihe nach besuchen. Inzwischen wohne ich in einer romantischen hölzernen Baracke, in der an Dostojewskij-Romane erinnernden Gesellschaft von verschiedenen Flüchtlingen (Baronen und Hochstapler, Offiziere und Verbrecher), sowie von freundlichen Mäusen, die lustig in der Baracke spielen. Die Behörden haben furchtbar viel Zeit; sie arbeiten bequem und - ich muss wiederholt mit großer Anerkennung betonen- sehr gründlich. Es gibt hier Menschen, sogar Familien, die seit mehreren Jahren im Lager leben und als politische Flüchtlinge noch immer nicht anerkannt sind. Mein Fall ist viel einfacher; ich hoffe, am Ende der Woche oder spätestens am Anfang der nächsten Woche meine Anerkennung erhalten zu können. Das ist das wichtigste Dokument eines Flüchtlings; man erzählt, ‘schwarz’ könne man mehrere Tausend Mark für ein solches Dokument erhalten. Wenn ich hier fertig bin (mit anderen Worten: wenn mich die deutschen Behörden als politischen Flüchtling anerkannt und dadurch legalisiert haben), fahre ich sofort nach Frankfurt. Das Frobenius-Institut ist für mich der fixe Punkt im Universum». Vajda sent to Jensen a second letter from Nuremberg, 15.01.1957 (Ibid., VA 1192-07). 93 Telegram, L. Vajda to “Prof. Jensen”, 17.01.1957; original text: German (Frobenius-Institut, Verwaltungsarchiv, VA 1191-10). 94 Letter, L. Vajda to K. Marót, Frankfurt am Main, 14.03.1957: original text: German: «Mit großer Dankbarkeit und Freundschaft denke ich an Sie und mochte hoffe, das Sie Ihren illegalen Schuler nicht vergessen haben. Wäre es möglich (und für Sie nicht unangenehm oder unerwünscht), mit Ihnen in stetem Kontakt bleiben zu dürfen? Und in welcher Form mochte ich manchmal an Sie schreiben?» (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/15).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

70

chapter 3

philippics against me in public [mulhatatlanul szükségesnek látta széles nyilvánosság előtt filippikázni ellenem], which – to say it in a light form – surprised me, and due to which I fell into doubts concerning those that I had believed to think of me with friendship.95 Vajda informs Marót on the fact that, in the end of August, a congress of Oriental Studies was going to be held in Munich, and encourages him to participate, offering to make arrangements so that Marót could receive an official invitation.96 Concerning his work plan in West Germany, Vajda pointed out his collaboration with Hermann Baumann at the Institute for Ethnology and African Studies in Munich, to which in 1957 he became affiliated as an assistant, and therefore his distance from Frobenius’ heritage, sharing with Baumann the Kulturhistorie methodology.97 Vajda implied to Marót the reputation of Baumann as a pro-Nazi and, more vaguely, as an anti-Semitic/racist.98 He informed Marót that in the Introduction of the monograph, which he was 95 Letter, L. Vajda to K. Marót, Frankfurt am Main, 05.04.1957; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/16). 96 Ibid.: referring to the 24th International Congress of Orientalists – Munich, 1957. 97 Ibid.: “We formulate a kind of work group of two [with Baumann] for the revolutionizing of African Studies (so far, the activity of working groups has mainly been constituted by chewing that little flesh from the bones of Frobenius, W. Schmidt and Malinowski that had been left there by the earlier critics)”. The letter also contains some anecdotes on Frobenius that were in circulation in the Frobenius Institute in Vajda’s time. A curious example is an indication of Frobenius’ political views, saying “in the era of Hitler, he entered everywhere with the following greeting: ‘Heil Hitler and Grüß Gott den Andersgläubigen’” (Ibid.). 98 A balanced judgement on the German Ethnology during the Nazi Period and its complex scenarios of collaboration, persecution and competition, is reached by Andre Gingrich, “The German- Speaking Countries,” in One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology, ed. Chris Hann (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005), 119–127: the paragraph Main Directions of Anthropology in Nazi Germany which made use of the biography: Jürgen Braun, Eine Deutsche Karriere: Die Biographie des Ethnologen Hermann Baumann 1902-1972 (München: Akademischer Verlag, 1995). No links have been detected between Vajda and Baumann’s background. In 1997, Vajda’s defense of K. Kerényi as being suspected of complicity with Nazi environment, seems to me to have an autobiographical intent, i.e. that he mirrored his escape from Hungary in the exile of Kerényi. This reference probably contains a double meaning, referring to Kerényi’s history and to his own, when he points out the distance that Kerényi kept toward the “desolation of intellectual life in Nazi Germany, whose racial doctrine he rejected anyway [Er vermochte zwar seine früheren Verbindungen mit deutschen Wissenschaftlern aufrechtzuerhalten, aber die gedankenfeindliche Öde des geistigen Lebens in Nazi- Deutschland, dessen Rassenlehre er ohnehin ablehnte, bot ihm keine intellektuelle Nestwärme]”: L. Vajda, “Zu Kerényis ‘Wesen des Festes’,” [Vortrag am Kerényi-Symposium, 25.10.1997 in Mailand], in

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

71

preparing in view of his habilitation, he intended to mention him, and even cited a version of the planned acknowledgements, where, apart from Marót, he also expresses gratitude to Bauman.99 After the citation of the draft of this section of acknowledgements,100 he asks Marót if he accepts being mentioned in this way, saying: “Can there be any harm in my mentioning you with a German of a well-known brown past [közismerten barna múltú német]? I remember that some idiot [literally “donkey”: szamár] has criticized you as a representative of racial theory and racism at home [Here, there is a question mark in Marót’s hand on the margin]. […] So I ask you to think about it a little, or, eventually ask Gyula [probably: Ortutay] or any friend of yours more familiar with divination [béljóslás], and then write your opinion to me. It is a stupid request, but in this crazy world one cannot be careful enough”.101 In the answer, Marót informs Vajda that he has not had the occasion to talk about the issue of the acknowledgements with Ortutay. However, he expresses his personal opinion that no “disadvantage” may result from his being mentioned beside Baumann. He claims that he does “not know the person[ality] of Baumann, neither his past, nor his present, but none of these concerns” him.102 He concludes the letter by leaving the decision in this matter to Vajda, i.e. to do as he finds it – as he formulates it – necessary or best fitting the situation. Id., Ethnologica: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, eds. Xaver Götzfried, Thomas O. Höllmann, and Claudius C. Müller (Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999), 487. 99 Letter, L. Vajda to K. Marót, München, 15.04.1960, original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/19). 100 Ibid.: «Schließlich möchte ich in tiefer Dankbarkeit meiner beiden geliebten Meister gedenken, die mir bei meinen tastenden Versuchen, Grundfragen der Ethnologie nachzugehen, entscheidende Impulse gegeben haben. Prof. K. Marót (Budpaset) verdanke ich unzählige Anregungen und Kenntnisse über die Feinstruktur der Kultur und die philosophischanthropologische Begründung eines adäquaten historischen Denkens. Prof. H. Baumann (München) hat mir den Weg zur Neubewertung naturvölkischer Kulturen gezeigt und in zahllosen Gesprächen immer neuen Anstoß zur Forschung geben. Möge diese Arbeit den Beiden, voneinander menschlich und wissenschaftlich so verschiedenen Meistern und Gelehrten, mit denen verbunden zu sein das höchste Glück meines wissenschaftlichen Lebens ist, ein bescheidenes Zeugnis über das fruchtbare Weiterwirken ihrer Ideen geben!». Vajda intended to publish this acknowledgments in the work he was preparing for his habilitation on the “pastoral cultures” (Ibid.). The published version of this text is probably: László Vajda, Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Hirtenkulturen (Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1968), where the above-quoted acknowledgement is not included. 101 Ibid. 102 Draft of the letter: K. Marót to L. Vajda, München, 15.07.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5211/19.c): «Baumann […] személyét sem múltját sem jelenét nem ismerem és nem is tartozik rám».

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

72

chapter 3

The information “Vajda has left our country and thus was cancelled from the list of nominees” of MVT appears in the MTA documents in February 1960: a letter sent by Marót to the Department of International Relations, concerning two reunions of the Hungarian group (a session on 11th February 1960, and a second session that discussed the admittance of new members on 25th February),103 asks for an approval for the membership of István Hahn who was presented as one who could take the place of the cancelled Vajda. 7

A Comparison between the Affiliation of the MTA to the IAHR and Its Affiliation to the International Federation of Associations of Classical Studies (December 1957–January 1958): Data and Reflections on the Different Hungarian Membership Processes within the CIPSH

On August 22nd, 1957, R. Pettazzoni asked C. J. Bleeker to submit the official application for membership of the Hungarian group at the meeting of the IAHR planned in October.104 It is one of the last steps in the affiliation process. On 3rd November, Pettazzoni announced the acceptance, and on this, he sent a short message to K. Marót from Bologna in a postcard depicting the Unterlinden Museum at Colmar in France.105 He had visited Colmar, on the way back home,106 after the meeting of the Executive Committee held in Amsterdam on 18th October when the Hungarian group was accepted.107

103 Letter, K. Marót to “Nemzetközi kapcsolatok Osztályának”, Budapest, 29.02.1960; original text: Hungarian: «a közben hazánk területéről távozott Vajda László helyébe, vagyis nevezett tagjaink sorából törölve» (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 104 Copy of letter, R. Pettazzoni to C. J. Bleeker, Bologna, 22.08.1957; original text: French: « Je viens de recevoir une copie de la documentation d’agrégation d’un groupe hongrois à la IAHR. Il s’agira de la soumettre au Bureau lors de notre réunion d’octobre » (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). 105 Postcard, R. Pettazzoni to K. Marót, Bologna, 03.11.1957; original text: French. Postcard caption: « H. 615 Le vieux Colmar. Le Cloître d’Unterlinden (Musée) », bearing a handwritten text on the back: « Mon cher collègue, je suis heureux de vous informer que la demande du groupe hongrois a été accueillie avec la plus vive sympathie à notre récente réunion » (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5210/627). The Unterlinden Museum at Colmar in France is a Dominican convent abandoned following the French Revolution and used as Exhibition hall from the middle of the 19th century. 106 C.f. Gandini “Pettazzoni 1956–1957,” 220 for more details about the visit at Colmar of Pettazzoni in October 20th 1957. 107 Ibid., 218.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

73

A few months after the beginning of the official membership of the Vallástudományi group of the MTA, another international association similar to the IAHR, namely the International Federation of Associations of Classical Studies / Fédération internationale des associations d’études classiques (FIEC), contacted the Hungarian Academy of Sciences in order to ask for their membership. The FIEC and the IAHR were created close in time to one another, respectively in 1948–49108 and 1950, both under the aegis of the CIPSH and by developing a previous network, respectively “L’Année philologique” (1926 on) and the international congresses on the history of religions’ studies started in 1900 in France. On 6th December 1957, the General Secretary of the FIEC, Juliette Ernst, wrote to the Presidency of the MTA an official letter of invitation. Ernst introduced the Federation as an international group gathering, at the time, associations from 17 nations in Europe and America, and pointed out that “unfortunately, from Eastern Europe (Europe Orientale), only the Polish Society of Classical Philology had been included in the list of our members”.109 Therefore, she asked the MTA to take steps so that Hungarian scholars working in the field of Classical studies can be represented in the Federation, then to establish a group “gathering freely (groupant librement)” Hungarian scholars in this field.110 The above-mentioned letter of 6th December bears a handwritten note referring to the name of the Hungarian classicist “Moravcsik Gyula” to whom, in the MTA, the request of the FIEC was expected to be forwarded. Actually, the letter of Ernst reached Marót, who kept it among his papers, where I found it, in the MTAK collection of his private correspondence. It might be presumed that the experience gained by Marót during the affiliation of a MTA group to the CIPSH, by succeeding in the Hungarian IAHR project, made him the best candidate among the classicists of the Academy to manage this new membership. 108 The FIEC was created under the aegis of the UNESCO in 1948 and became a member of the CIPSH right at the time of its establishment in 1949. 109 Letter, Juliette Ernst to « Monsieur le Président de l’Académie des Sciences de Hongrie, Section des Sciences Humaines, Budapest », 06.12.1957; original text: French. Heading-letter: « Fédération Internationale des Associations d’Études Classiques » (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Marót’s correspondence). In the Eighties, Ernst highlighted the engagement of L’Année Philologique in the process of de-Stalinization: « Plus tard, après la mort de Staline, je m’employai à nouer des relations avec les membres des Sociétés de l’Europe de l’Est, en Yougoslavie, en Pologne, notamment avec K. Kumaniecki, dont la perte a été profondément ressentie par nous tous, en Tchécoslovaquie, en Roumanie, en Hongrie, à Berlin-Est » (Juliette Ernst, “L’Année Philologique, notre aventure,” L’Année Philologique 50 [1981]: xxiv). 110 Letter, Ernst to « Président de l’Académie des Sciences de Hongrie », 06.12.1957, mentioned above.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

74

chapter 3

On 17th December, within the celebration of the Ovidius 2000 anniversary at the MTA, the project of forming a society for Classical Studies, namely the Ókortudományi Társaság, was announced by encouraging the participants to support the new society “planned for the spring”.111 At the same time with the opening of the FIEC toward Hungary, the Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences was promoting a similar action of networking, namely the International Classical Philological Commission of the Academies of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies, the “Eiréné-Comité”, established in 1957 in order to stimulate the organization of societies for Classical Studies for congresses, and cooperation with Western scholars as well.112 On 8th April 1958,113 Marót announced to Ernst the foundation of the association (its name is indicated in the letter according to the French translation: « Société d’Études Classiques »), and officially submitted the membership application. In May, a letter sent out by Ernst on behalf of the Executive Board of the FIEC informed Marót about the result and trusted him with confidential information.114 The submission was rejected. The document deserves a lengthy quotation because of its relevance to our study on diplomacy and CIPSH organizations in the Fifties. I provide below a translation of the original French text that I found in the Marót archive of the MTA: 111 József Marticskó, “Emlékülés Ovidius születésének 2000. Évfordulója alkalmából (1957, December 17),” Antik Tanulmányok 6 (1959): 163–164: the report mentioned K. Marót, János Harmatta and Gyula Moravcsik, but not the FIEC membership project probably due to the fact that it was still in draft form. 112 János Harmatta, “Nemzetközi ókortudományi találkozók 1962-ben,” Magyar Tudomány. A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Értesítője 70, no. 4 (1963): 283. In 1962, the report referred to the prestige of the People’s Democracies within the FIEC organization too. The Hungarian Academy chaired the presidency of the EIRÉNÉ-Comité in 1964–1965 (András Róna-Tas, “Az osztály életéből,” [Activities of the Department], A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának Közleményei 23, no. 1–4 [1966]: 309). 113 According to a Hungarian official report of the MTA on the activities of the Hungarian society of Classical Studies, the first meeting occurred on 27th March, 1958: József Marticskó, “Beszámoló az Ókortudományi Társaság megalakulásáról (1958, Március 27),” Antik Tanulmányok 6 (1959): 164–165; János Harmatta, “Hírek. Az Ókortudományi Társasag 1961, és 1962. évi közgyűlése,” [News. The Society of Classical Studies 1961 and 1962 Annual General Assembly] Antik Tanulmányok  / Studia Antiqua 9, no. 1–2 (1962): 255. In April 1958, the Ókortudományi Társaság became the successor of the Hungarian Society for Philology, the Budapesti Philologiai Társaság which had been founded in 1874 and then disbanded in 1948. See: Károly Marót, “Moravcsik Gyula hetven éves,” Antik Tanulmányok / Studia Antiqua 9, 1–2 (1962): 112. 114 Letter, Juliette Ernst to « Monsieur le Président K. Marót Président de la Société d’Études Classiques, Académie des Sciences de Hongrie », Paris, 09.05.1958; original text: French (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Marót’s correspondence).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

75

The Bureau examined the Statute of your Society very carefully, and must direct your attention on some terms that, unfortunately, are not in agreement with the traditions and practices of the Association-members of the Federation, and that are of concern to strict political impartiality and independence from any official body of the respective country. We highlight particularly, in the paragraph “The Members of the Society”, the article 10a: “… The foreign nationals can be elected plain members only with the authorization of the Minister of the Interior”; art. 12: “… The members that became unworthy of this quality [of “plain members”] because of their political or moral attitude  … must be excluded of the list of the members by a decision of the committee”; finally, in the paragraph “Various Arrangements”, the articles 21–24, which imply the control of the First Section of the Academy of Sciences of Hungary over the Society. Consequently, it is with great regret that the Bureau didn’t feel to be able to recommend the application of your Society to the General Assembly, which met in Madrid on 19th and 20th April, 1958. In agreement with the conclusions of the Bureau, the General Assembly, very anxious to be able to welcome your Society in the Federation, suggests your Committee to consider undertaking a new version of the Statute that is closer to the spirit in which the Federation pursues its activities. The application of the Society of Classic Studies of Hungary would be evaluated again by the General Assembly in London in 1959. We really hope that it will be possible for us to admit your Society, and that this delay won’t alter the good relations that we want to keep with you.115 To the best of my knowledge, the news of this rejection was conveyed only to a limited number of people, as it could be prejudicial to the affiliation-process of Hungary and further countries of the Eastern bloc. The reports on the meeting

115 Ibid. From the original French text of the letter, I quote the most crucial passage: « Le Bureau a examiné avec le plus grand soin les Statuts de votre Société, et se doit d’attirer votre attention sur certaines clauses qui, malheureusement, ne sont pas en accord avec les traditions et le pratiques des Associations membres de la Fédération, qui sont de stricte impartialité politique et d’indépendance à l’égard de tout organe officiel de leurs pays respectifs. Nous signalons notamment, sous la rubrique Les membres de la société, article 10a : “… Les ressortissants étrangers ne peuvent être élus membres ordinaires qu’avec l’autorisation du ministre de l’Intérieur”. Art. 12 : “… Les membres qui sont devenus indignes de cette qualité par leur attitude politique ou morale … doivent être exclus de la liste des membres par décision du comité” ; enfin, sous la rubrique Dispositions diverses, les art. 21–24, qui impliquent le contrôle de la Société par la première section de l’Académie des Sciences de Hongrie ».

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

76

chapter 3

in Madrid, that I examined, both the Hungarian sources and documents provided by the FIEC, did not mention the rejected application.116 Further data should be considered in order to understand the scenario. The General Assembly at Madrid in 1958, to which the letter quoted above referred to, was attended by a representative of the countries of the “Eastern Europe” for the first time, i.e. by Kazimierz F. Kumaniecki from Warsaw. Although the Polish association had been among the associations-founders of the Federation since 1948, it had never been able to take part in the activities of the Federation.117 In Ernst’s point of view, as she stated in a lecture released in the late Sixties to which I turn to for information, the Polish participation finally gave an impetus (“impulsion”) for changing and a model to be followed by the associations for Classical Studies in the Eastern bloc.118 As it might be expected, due to the interest in supporting a policy of an East-West dialogue in Europe, Ernst avoided any mention of the rejected membership of the Hungarian group in 1958, in this statement on the history of the FIEC. During the meeting of the FIEC General Assembly in London (28– 29th August, 1959, College Hall), chaired by M. Latte and J. Ernst, two other associations of People’s Democracies were admitted (Bulgaria and Czechoslovakia; the Romanian one had already joined the association in 1958), but not yet the Hungarian one. In this connection, a French reporter at the Assembly stated that “negotiations (pourparlers) are under way”.119 The Hungarian association would join the FIEC only in 1961, when the General Assembly met in Warsaw hosted by the Polish Society of Classical Philology.120 The meeting in Poland was held while K. Kumaniecki, as representative of the Polish Academy of 116 As far as I am aware the official histories of the FIEC and the Ókortudományi Társaság do not refer to this episode. 117 Julliete Ernst, “Przemówienie dr Julliete Ernst sekretarki gen Fiec i przewodniczącej Société des Études Latines we Francji,” Meander: miesięcznik poświęcony kulturze świata starożytnego 23, no. 4 (1968): 169–170. 118 Ibid.: « C’est en 1958 que, pour la première fois, votre Société [polonaise de Philologie Classique] nous annonça l’envoi d’un Délégué [Kumaniecki] à notre Assemblée générale. […] La réunion avait lieu à Madrid et, par suite de difficultés d’ordre diplomatique, la réalisation de votre [Kumaniecki] voyage connut quelque “suspense” … Mais enfin vous fûtes là, et non seulement vous nous apportiez le salut de la Pologne, mais encore […] vous étiez le premier à nous venir de tous ces pays amis de l’Europe de l’Est, dont la collaboration avait si fâcheusement manqué jusque là à notre jeune Fédération. En effet, l’impulsion était donnée et, comme si votre exemple ne pouvait qu’être suivi, tour à tour les Associations classiques de cette partie de notre continent se sont agrégées à la FIEC ». 119 Jules Marouzeau and Marcel Durry, “Chroniques des études latines. 1 Congrès, Assemblées, Colloques,” Revue des Études Latines 37 (1959): 84. 120 Ernst, “Przemówienie,” 160.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

in the Context of the October 1956 Uprising

77

Sciences, was about to begin his activity in the CIPSH Board in his quality of vice-president (1961–1965). The comparison between different cases of affiliation of the Hungarian Academy to CIPSH-organizations in the early Kádár era is useful in revealing that, beside the IAHR and its choice not to interfere with the internal affairs of the Vallástudományi Társaság in order not to undermine the scholarly exchange which the organization had sought to achieve, a membership policy which aimed instead at negotiation and mutual adjustment was successfully pursued, according to a different evaluation of opportunities and threats in cooperation. Both the IAHR and FIEC membership-programs illustrate the role played by CIPSH-organizations in improving international relations with Hungary through humanities, in the aftermath of the Soviet repression, and different models of science diplomacy. This examination of similarities and dissimilarities between the IAHR and FIEC is appropriate, not only because the processes of affiliation of both the Ókortudományi Társaság and the Vallástudományi Társaság involved the same key players, e.g. K. Marót, but also because in the two MTA groups the same scholars became involved, e.g. Imre Trencsényi Waldapfel and János Harmatta, members of the MVT and respectively Deputy President and General Secretary of the Ókortudományi Társaság. Moreover, the activities of the Ókortudományi Társaság and the Vallástudományi Társaság overlapped, as far as we can see it in a report of the reading sessions of the former related to the period 1958–1962.121 121 Harmatta, “Hírek,” 255–257: Dobrovits Aladár, Czeglédy Károly, Szilágyi János György, Hahn István, Ritoók Zsigmond.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 4

Remarks on the UN Blocs at the End of the Fifties 1

The IAHR Congress in Tokyo 1958: New Documents Concerning the MTA Attempt at Attending

The IAHR Congress held in Tokyo and Kyoto in 1958 (27th August– 9th September) represents a milestone in the process of the deconstruction of the Eurocentric character of the CIPSH association for the “History of Religions”-studies. In 1955, in the UNESCO framework, the preceding congress in Rome had represented a European meeting point, following the previous international congresses on the history of religions (fr. histoire des religions)  – from which the association originated from  – that is the congresses in Paris, 1900; then Basel, 1904; Oxford, 1908; Leiden, 1912; Paris, 1923; Lund, 1929; Brussels, 1935; Amsterdam, 1950, when the IA(S)HR was founded. Considerable research has been done on the globalization of the IAHR.1 Here, I intend to focus on the de-NATOization process and the new scenarios of the diplomacy in the United Nations at the end of the Fifties, i.e. the changing of the balance of the blocs, which represents a more specific issue of the shaping of the International Association. In the IAHR congress in Japan, “26 […] countries” were represented by participants from “Australia, Austria, Belgium, Burma, Canada, Ceylon, France, Germany, Hong Kong, India, Indonesia, Israel, Italy, Korea, Laos, the Netherlands, Norway, Pakistan, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Thailand, the United Arab Republic, the United Kingdom, the United States of America, and Vietnam”.2 According to the proceedings of the congress, no scientists from the Eastern European Bloc attended, although the Hungarian member-group had been established recently and the name of Károly Marót was indicated among

1 Tim Jensen and Armin W. Geertz, eds., Nvmen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015). Within the IAHR, a project of globalization was launched by Michael Pye in a strategic way, which is what earned him the epithet “Globalization in action” (Donald Wiebe, “Memory, Text, and Interpretation: A Critical Appreciation of IAHR International Congresses – 1975 to 2010,” in Jensen and Geertz, Nvmen, 271). A collection of his essays related to “methods and positions” is available in Michael Pye, Strategies in the Study of Religions, 2 volumes (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2013). 2 IAHR, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress for the History of Religions, Tokyo and Kyoto, 1958: August 27–September 9 (Tokyo: Maruzen, 1960), 796.

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_006

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Remarks on the UN Blocs at the End of the Fifties

79

the members of the International Committee of the congress.3 Right after the affiliation, Marót sought to participate in the new IAHR program. During my research at the archives of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, I found unpublished documents which attest to the attempt made by Marót to ensure a delegation of the Hungarian MTA group. This attempt was unknown. In March 1958, Marót announced to the General Secretary, Claas Jouco Bleeker, that “the Hungarian Group will be represented at the Tokyo congress by Mr. Julius Major”.4 In a document concerning the Hungarian participation – now at the Archive of the MTA – Marót refers to problems in funding. As a solution, he mentions to have sought somebody who could afford self-financing. He adds a note saying that this participant is “Major Gyula, researcher, lector of Japanese at the university [of ELTE, in Budapest]”.5 The scheduled participation did not work out and left few evidences in the documentation.6 After the conference, the chairman of the Japanese Organizing Committee, Teruji Ishizu, informed Marót about the publication and distribution of the proceedings.7 He made no reference to Gyula Major. 2

The Afro-Asian Group and the IAHR: A Comparative Approach to the Issue of the Blocs

As already said in the previous chapters, no projects to establish a body of scholars representing the so-called People’s Democracies in the CIPSH organization for the “History of Religions”-studies had been launched by the first Hungarian program of affiliation supervised by K. Marót, introduced before 3 Ibid., 788. 4 Letter, Claas Jouco Bleeker to Károly Marót, Amsterdam, 18.03.1958; original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/200) in which Bleeker acknowledged receipt of the letter of Marót of March 10th and transcribed a short passage of it. 5 Letter, K. Marót to the Department of International Relations («A MTA Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya»), undated but certainly from 1958, as the doc. num. 60367/58 indicates; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 6 Gyula Major was Vice-Director of the Museum of Applied Arts who had had an interest in Japanese culture and a knowledge of the Japanese language. In the end of the 50s, due to a renewal in Hungarian-Japanese diplomatic relations, Japanese courses were offered at the University of ELTE, which were first held by Gyula Major (Anna Székács, “Japán vendég – magyaros vendéglátás: Mit tehet a japánnyelv-oktatás a japán beutazó turizmus fejlesztéséért?,” in Híd kelet és nyugat között, ed. Pál Majoros [Budapest: Budapesti Gazdasági Főiskola / Tudományos Évkönyv, 2003], 274). 7 Circular letters, Teruji Ishizu to K. Marót, Tokyo, 12.03.1960 and 15.02.1961 (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/1055–1056).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

80

chapter 4

the Warsaw Pact and set in motion in the middle of the Hungarian Revolution. Such a program of forming a unit with common interests and purposes was planned at a later time, but never efficiently promoted, as I will discuss it in detail in the following chapters dedicated to the Sixties. In this chapter, I intend to reconsider the issue of the “blocs”, which is a major focus in my investigation, by adopting a comparative approach. In this matter, my remarks on the Tokyo congress is of concern to the effective diplomacy of blocs undertaken in the second half of the Fifties within the IAHR. The results of this examination show that a bloc-strategy was possible and was indeed pursued in this period, but with regard to an Afro-Asian area. Starting from the second half of the Fifties, the Japanese group was active in stimulating the birth of national associations of academic nature in a so called “Afro-Asian Group”. This international bloc, as I have just mentioned, was established in Tokyo on the occasion of the IAHR Congress in 1958. Its Secretariat promoted the development of “History of Religions”-studies, and particularly supported the organization of academic groups in the region to be affiliated with the IAHR. In 1960, at the IAHR Congress in Marburg, the Executive Board acknowledged that this leadership “has been active in stimulating the birth of national groups in the East”, remembering the foundation of e.g. a new group in “South Korea in November 1959”.8 In 1962, the representative of the Secretariat made a one-month survey trip to South East Asia in order to establish direct contact with “scholars in the field of religious studies”.9 The Hungarian group was not as much effective in Central and Eastern Europe so that it could have created a People’s Republics’ bloc in the IAHR, by imitating the joint action undertaken within the UNESCO following the international Soviet policy in the middle of the Fifties. The Afro-Asian group within the IAHR created a unit of countries which was similar to that established in the United Nations’ framework and with the same name. The members of the UN Afro-Asian group were heterogeneous in composition, but linked by common factors among which the desire to achieve independence in the international forum, and to contrast the world-wide bipolarization based on Western power and Soviet bloc. Most of the members were non-aligned. One of the first large-scale meeting of the group dated back to 1955 (Bandung Conference). At the beginning of the Sixties, the group occupied a large number of seats in the General Assembly of the United Nations 8 IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress für Religionsgeschichte: 11–17. September 1960 in Marburg/ Lahn (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1961), 18: discussion at the meeting of the IAHR Executive Board, September 9th 1960. 9 IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions Held at Claremont, California, September 6–11, 1965. Vol. 1: The Impact of Modern Culture on Traditional Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 158. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Remarks on the UN Blocs at the End of the Fifties

81

and, by voting as a bloc, aimed to assert a distinct view and coalition, which appeared to be of crucial importance in the Cold War geopolitical balance.10 In the activities of the UNESCO as well, as it is in the IAHR’s ones, the UN group constituted a model of cooperation, and found a further arena to combined diplomatic and scholarly interests. Japan joined the UN in December 1956, after the Hungarian and Suez crisis, as a key player and a mediator between the Afro-Asian Group and Western countries in the new world-wide scenario. In the same way, the chairmanship of the IAHR Afro-Asian secretariat was held in Japan by Hideo Kishimoto, first in 1958, and still after his death, in 1964, by Teruji Ishizu.11 The Afro-Asian bloc represented in the IAHR is an example of imitation of the UN diplomacy in a CIPSH’s member association. This representation leads to the reflection on the value of supporting the UN by imitating its international coalitions in the educational, scientific and cultural framework. With regard to this Afro-Asian bloc, the question remains: in what measure the UN organizations should regulate the activities of their members, i.e. whether and in what degree its diplomatic programs can blend in with scientific programs. In 1960, the argument was taken a step further by those who argued for unlinking the « raison d’être » of the UN and the IAHR, in response to the creation of the Afro-Asian Group within the international Association.12 The official stand expressed by the successor of Raffaele Pettazzoni at the University of Rome and the Italian IAHR group, Angelo Brelich, is to be mentioned in this connection. I quote a passage of his statement: The scientific programs should not be confused with the political programs; it is an indisputable fact that in the United Nations every country must be represented in order to defend its political interests, inasmuch as there is hardly a country lacking in political interests; but it does not imply that countries lacking in interest in historical studies of religions should be represented in an international association of history of religions.13 10 D. N. Sharma Afro-Asian Group in the U.N. (Allahabad: Chaitanya Publishing House, 1969): related to the history of the UN group in the years 1955–1963; Samaan Boutros Farajallah, Le groupe afro-asiatique dans le cadre des Nations Unies (Genève: Droz, 1963). 11 IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress: Marburg, 18 (the paragraph dedicated to the issue of the extension of the IAHR); and IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress: Claremont, vol. 1, 158–159 (The IAHR Afro-Asian Group Secretariat). 12 Angelo Brelich, “Ai margini del 10° Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Marburgo, 11 e 17-9-1960),” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 31 (1960): 125. 13 Ibid. Original text: «Non confondiamo i programmi scientifici con i programmi politici; è sacrosanto che in un organismo come le Nazioni Unite ogni paese debba esser rappresentato per poter difendere i propri interessi politici, in quanto non esiste paese che non abbia Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

82

chapter 4

The dispute engaged in arguments about the claim to establish a bloc which, in the aftermath of the World War II, existed in fact in the geopolitical dynamics, and the UN framework, but in the IAHR and the comparative history of religions, on the contrary, highlighted its dissimilarities. Further related aspects should be recalled: the well-known Major Project of the UNESCO, launched in 1957 and running until the end of 1966, on the “Mutual Appreciation of [Far] Eastern and Western Cultural Values” strongly fostered both the IAHR Congress in Tokyo (1958) and new national groups of scholars in the Asian region.14 As the correspondence between the President, R. Pettazzoni, and the Secretary, J. C. Bleeker, lets us know, the IAHR was interested in this UNESCO project from its very start. The decision to support definitely the organization of the Tokyo congress was in course in May 1956, by considering the imminent UNESCO General Conference in which the “[Far] East-West Major Project” was expected to be submitted, and the “good hope” that it would be adopted.15 In November, Bleeker informed a colleague, member of the Executive Board of the UNESCO – “before his departure” and travel to join the UNESCO meeting at New-Delhi, where the decision of the Major Project would be made – about the IAHR “plan of organizing a Symposium in Tokyo”.16 In the first years of the Sixties, H. Kishimoto, chairman of the IAHR Afro-Asian secretariat, is included in the “staff of the General Secretariat” of the International Association in his quality of “Secretary for the Extension of the IAHR in the East”.17 The launch of the “[Far] East-West Major Project” is closely related both to the relevance of the Afro-Asian Group in the context of the UN General Assembly in the Fifties, and the effort of the UNESCO in this framework in

14 15 16 17

interessi politici; ma non è detto che in un’associazione internazionale di storia delle religioni debbano per forza esser rappresentate anche le nazioni che non hanno interessi storicoreligiosi». Brelich wonders if it is required to welcome in the IAHR “national groups of those countries in which a scientific conscience (coscienza scientifica) does not exist yet, at least in so far as is of concern to our field [history of religions]” (Ibid.). IAHR, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress: Tokyo, 800: “The topic of the symposium was ‘Religion and Thought in the Orient and the Occident – a Century of Cultural Exchange,’ which constituted a contribution to one of UNESCO’s major projects”. Letter, J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, G. Widengren, and H. Ch. Puech, Amsterdam, 07.05.1956; original text: English (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). Letter, J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 19.11.1956; original text: English (Pettazzoni Archive): the above-mentioned colleague was “Dr. Bender, the chancellor of the Amsterdam University”. IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress: Claremont, vol. 1, 157.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Remarks on the UN Blocs at the End of the Fifties

83

ensuring to give priority to Eastern cultural value and Japanese leadership.18 After this project, a new program on the Mutual Appreciation of Cultures was foreseen in order to integrate the African and Latin American cultures as well.19 Yet in 1955, Jean d’Ormesson, in his quality of Secretary of the CIPSH, stimulated the IAHR, along with other member organizations, to “make an effort to send [to the General Assembly held in Paris] a delegate who does not belong to a Western country”, and helped the IAHR to do it thanks to extrafunding destined to support the participation of a “non-European person”. Bleeker acknowledged the CIPSH resolution to increase the non-European participants.20 18 Laura Elizabeth Wong, “Relocating East and West: UNESCO’s Major Project on the Mutual Appreciation of Eastern and Western Cultural Values,” Journal of World History 19, no. 3 (2008): 349 and 273. 19 Ibid., 272. 20 Letter, J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 07.07.1955, original text: French (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence) quoting a passage of a letter sent to him by d’Ormesson: « Dans la lettre de M. d’Ormesson que je citais, le vœu a été exprimé que chaque organisation fasse des efforts pour envoyer un délégué n’appartenant pas à un pays occidental ».

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 5

Early Activities of the MVT 1

The Belated Opening Reunion (1958) and the Slow Extension of the MVT

The first reunion of the Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság (MVT), after its IAHR membership, was scheduled three months after the official acceptance (ratified 18th October 1957),1 for January 1958. The justification of the delay given by Károly Marót is that the majority of the members stayed abroad, both in NATO and Soviet countries.2 For instance, months after writing to Pettazzoni, Marót received a letter of the MVT member János Harmatta who was traveling in Germany (with details on the ruins and the reconstruction of Berlin).3 The correspondence at the time includes several letters of Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel from Russia, as well.4 The orientalist József Aistleitner, member of the MVT, informed Marót that he could not participate in the meeting of the group scheduled for 24th September 1959, due to his illness.5 I found no other records in the archives of the Academy of Sciences concerning this planned meeting. The earliest assembly is held on 11th February 1960, according to the minute signed by Marót and the MVT Secretary, Tibor Bodrogi.6 The reunion was attended by six members only, and only two were absent with a justification previously 1 See chapter 3. 2 Letter, Károly Marót to Raffaele Pettazzoni, Budapest, 31.12.1957; original text: French: « Les circonstances, surtout le voyage d’études prolongé du secrétaire de notre groupe et le séjour à l’étranger d’une majorité de nos membres, me permettent seulement en janvier de convoquer une séance de constitution définitive » (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 3 Letter, János Harmatta to K. Marót, 16.11.1958, original text: Hungarian (a few letters of their correspondence are available in MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/819–822). 4 Letters and postcards from Russia (Odessa, Moscow) sent by Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel 1954–1956 and 1957–1958. I refer here to the postcard, I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel to K. Marót, Moscow, 27.12.1958 for the New Year 1959’s greetings (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/1154). 5 Letter, József Aistleitner to K. Marót, Budapest, undated (date of the postmark: “59.IX.24”); original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/4). 6 Károly Marót and Tibor Bodrogi, Jegyzőkönyv. Felvétetett a Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszus Magyar Nemzeti Bizottságának [Minutes of the meeting] 1960, február 11-én d.u. 6-tól tartott üléséről, 12.02.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_007

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Early Activities of the MVT

85

given.7 In another document, a meeting of 25th February is referred to, which was held with the aim of discussing a new membership, which was accepted, namely that of István Hahn.8 In 1962, the list of the members of the MVT – provided to the Secretary of the IAHR – is unchanged.9 Only in 1965, were new members accepted.10 The late opening reunion of the Vallástudományi group, its sporadic meetings, the slow and limited process for enlarging this group with further memberships, took place within an IAHR framework with no new affiliations of People’s Republics. By contrast, since December 1956, steps have been made to reorganize the American branch (already, in the early Fifties, having appointed the “Committee on the History of Religion of the American Council of Learned Societies” as member-group of the IAHR),11 and the Israeli 7

Ibid. Further details in: Letter, J. Aistleitner to K. Marót, Budapest, 10.02.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/5) in which Aistleitner informed him that he was ill, and was not able to participate in the meeting of 11 February. 8 With reference to the reunions of the MVT held in 11 and 25 February 1960, the issue of a new membership, i.e. István Hahn, is discussed in the letter, K. Marót to Department of International Relations of the MTA (Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztályának), Budapest, 29.02.1960 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 9 Letter, I. Szabó to L. J. R. Ort (Assistant of the General Secretary of the IAHR), 23.08.1962: Károly Marót (President), Tibor Bodrogi (Secretary), Odön Beke, Károly Czeglédy, Vilmos Diószegi, Aladár Dobrovits, Germanus Gyula, János Harmatta, Lajos Ligeti, Gyula Németh, Gyula Ortutay, Zsigmond Ritoók, István Hahn, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel. Only the name of Aistleitner, who died in September 1960, is not included (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 10 Feljegyzés. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya Vezetőjének [Note, to the Head of International Relations Department], signed by Lajos Tamás, Budapest, 03.05.1965, n. doc. 10323/1965 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3), see below for further details. 11 A “Committee on the History of Religions” has been appointed by the American Council of Learned Societies (ACLS) in 1937 (Bulletin  – American Council of Learned Societies 26–28 [1937]: 39, 172). The membership of this “Committee” to the IAHR, as representatives of the USA, was at stake in the early Fifties, as we can read in a letter of C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 18.02.1951; original text: French: “I do not know whether you have heard that the Committee on the History of Religions of the ACLS will be the American group of our Association. I think this decision is very important. You may have guessed from the letter of prof. [Herbert W.] Schneider that the Americans take a keen interest in our work” (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). Information on the reorganization of the American member-group of the IAHR can be found in a passage of a letter of Schneider to Bleeker, reported by the latter in a letter to Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 05.12.1956 (the language switches here from French to English): «Il m’écrit: “It is definitely decided to proceed at once in organizing an American branch of IAHR to be known as The American Council of the History of Religion”» (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). The

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

86

chapter 5

group since April 1957,12 respectively supported by Herbert W. Schneider and R. J. Zwi Werblowsky. The IAHR made efforts to involve the MVT more. Between May 1958 and the first months of 1959, a list of names to be designated as correspondents of “Numen”, the flagship journal of the IAHR, included “Charles [Károly] Czeglédy” as representative of the Hungarian group.13 In a document directed to the Department of International Relations of the MTA, undated but written before April 1958, Marót informs the Department that the first call addressed to the Hungarian group (as contrasted to previous notifications and invitations addressed to individuals having relations with the IAHR) was for the sake of the nomination of a Hungarian scholar for the editorial board of “Numen”. Marót reports that the “group answered this call by selecting Károly Czeglédy”.14

new American group of the IAHR was called “The American Society for the Study of Religion”, eventually founded as such during the conference of the ACLS in 18–19 April 1959 (C. J. Bleeker, “Communication from the Secretariat of the IAHR,” Numen 6, 1 [1959]: 74). 12 Letter, R. Pettazzoni to J. C. Bleeker, Rome, 09.04.1957: « Je me réjouis de la constitution du groupe israélien de la IAHR », and the previous letter: J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, no date, with a summary of a report by Werblowsky to Bleeker who announced the creation of a “national group” in Israel. Although it was necessary to wait for the official acceptance, i.e. the positive response of the Executive Committee of the IAHR, Bleeker asked Pettazzoni to welcome the new group already. The Israeli and the Hungarian group were affiliated officially at the same time at the meeting of the Executive Committee of the IAHR 18 October 1957 (Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1956–1957,” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 64, no. 1 [2008]: 219, with reference to the minutes of the meeting). 13 I refer to a handwritten note of Pettazzoni dated “Amsterdam, 9.5.958” including the name of “C. Czeglédy” (Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1958–1959,” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” 65, no. 2 [2008]: 30) and a further and similar list in the note “From Bleeker, February–March 1959” (Ibid., 140). I consider also the letter J. C. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam 12.02.1959; original text: English: “as for the correspondents, you will remember that I have already given you the names of Professor H. Ludin Jansen for Norway, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky for Israel, Charles Czeglédy for Hungary, H. W. Schneider for USA, Rev. D. W. Gundry for England”, and the letter of 06.03.1959, original text: English, in which Bleeker remembered the first list of 1958: “In May 1958 during your stay in Amsterdam I was only able to present to you a list of four names (Ludin Jansen, Werblowsky, Czeglédy and Schneider)” (Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence). 14 Letter, K. Marót to the Department of International Relations (A MTA Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya), undated but before April 1958, doc. num.: 60367/58 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

87

Early Activities of the MVT

2

A Cross-Bloc Editorial Event through the Channels of the Italian Communist Intelligentsia (Ambrogio Donini, 1959–1961)

After the membership to the IAHR, the MVT planned various types of activities for international dissemination, among them the translation of one foreign book on the history of religions into Hungarian, as outlined in the agenda set in a reunion in February 1960. It is to be noted that, since the beginning of 1957, K. Marót had promoted the Hungarian edition of a book of R. Pettazzoni. This project of book-translation, at first accepted by the Gondolat publisher, was eventually rejected in August 1958.15 In 1960, after the death of Pettazzoni, the MVT did not resume this editorial project, but submitted a new one, still supported by the Gondolat, by involving another Italian author, Ambrogio Donini, belonging to the IAHR Italian Society for the History of Religions. In this respect, I quote a passage from the minute of the MVT meeting: 4. Further on [the President, i.e. K. Marót] announces that he already drew the attention of our Academy and the M. M.16 this summer to the synthetical work of A[mbrogio] Donini, an old member and an excellent one of the International Congresses [Nemzetközi Kongresszus], professor at the University of Rome, which was written in Marxist spirit [marxista szellemi [összefoglalás]] and was published last May [with the title of] “Lineamenti di Storia delle Religioni” [Fundamentals of History of Religions].17 [The President announces that] he now received the approval of the First Department with the date of 27th January. In the meanwhile, professor Trencsényi, who had been asked to assess/evaluate [elbirálás] it, negotiated it with the publisher Gondolat, and the process is at a promising state.18 15 Related to the project of the Hungarian translation of Raffaele Pettazzoni, L’Essere Supremo nelle religioni primitive (Torino: Einaudi, 1957), editio minor of Id., L’onniscienza di Dio (Torino: Einaudi, 1955). I refer to the letter, K. Marót to R. Pettazzoni, Budapest, 27.08.1958, original text: French (Ms 37 230307, Pettazzoni archive, Correspondence): the publisher [Gondolat] “warned me that there is a set-back” concerning the decision to publish it, because of the merger of the publishing house with another one. In spite of Marót’s complaints, “the general director Mr. Havas [Ernő] […] maintained an inflexible position keeping to himself the hidden reasons” of the rejection. 16 “M.M.” probably “Művelődésügyi Minisztérium” (Ministry of Culture). 17 Ambrogio Donini, Lineamenti di storia delle religioni: dalle prime forme di culto alle origini del cristianesimo (Roma: Editori Riuniti, 1959). 18 Marót and Bodrogi, Jegyzőkönyv. 12.02.1960, above mentioned.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

88

chapter 5

When the Lineamenti were about to be published in Italy, Donini contacted Marót and Trencsényi-Waldapfel at the same time (30th April 1959), but separately, and planned to use them as channels to reach the Hungarian network through the MTA. To this purpose, he checked if the Italian publisher Editori Riuniti kept regular exchanges with the Department of History at the Academy in order to send a copy of the book.19 In October, Marót asked the Italian publisher for the acquisition of the right to publish Donini’s book in Hungary.20 In January 1960, Trencsényi was asked to review the book by the Gondolat. A formal document of the agreement for the lektorálás is in a dossier containing records on his relationships with this publisher.21 The Hungarian edition of Lineamenti, finally published in 1961 – with a different title Korok, vallások, istenek: a kezdetleges vallási kultuszoktól a kereszténység eredetéig [Ages, Religions, Gods: From Rudimentary Religious Cults to the Origin of Christianity]  – was officially reviewed (szakmailag ellenőrizte) by István Hahn,22 scholar of Ancient History, rabbi, at the time professor of Semitic 19 Letter, A. Donini to K. Marót, Rome, 30.4.1959, original text: French: « je suis très honoré par Votre décision de faire connaitre mon travail aux spécialistes de problèmes d’histoire ancienne de Votre noble Pays. Dans quelques jours va enfin paraitre mon volume sur une vision d’ensemble de l’histoire des religions, sous le titre de Lineamenti di storia delle religioni (Editori Riuniti, Rome, 1959), dont je Vous ai fait mention dans une de me lettres précédentes. Je serai naturellement très heureux de Vous en faire parvenir un exemplaire dès sa parution » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/468); and letter, A. Donini to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Rome 30.04.1959, original text: French: « J’ai le plaisir de Vous communiquer, à cette occasion, que dans quelques semaines va paraitre à Rome, chez les Editori Riuniti, un volume à moi sur une vision d’ensemble de l’histoire des religions (Lineamenti di storia delle religioni) […]. Si cette publication Vous intéresse, je serai heureux de Vous en faire parvenir un exemplaire dans l’espoir que mes Editeurs cultivent régulièrement leurs rapports avec la Section d’Histoire de l’Académie des Sciences d’Hongrie » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4502/156). 20 Letter, Michela Bucci [Literary property Office] to “Charles Marot”, letterhead “Editori Riuniti”, 23.12.1959; original text: French: with reference to a letter of Marót sent to Donini on 04.10.1959 and by Donini forwarded to the publisher Editori Riuniti, who responds positively to the Hungarian request: « Quant à nous, les droits de l’œuvre de M. Donini pour votre pays étant libres, nous sommes d’accord pour la parution en Hongrie ». The Literary property Office finally sent a copy of the second edition of the book, since the publisher quickly ran through the stock of the first edition: letter, Michela Bucci [Literary property Office] to “Charles Marot”, letterhead “Editori Riuniti”, 08.01.1960; original text: French (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/308–309). 21 Typewritten document, Donini, Lineamenti di Storia delle religioni, 06.01.1960: «lektorálását, Trencsényi Imre [végzi]» (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4330/215). 22 Ambrogio Donini, Korok, vallások, istenek: a kezdetleges vallási kultuszoktól a kereszténység eredetéig, trans. Éva Nyilas (Budapest: Gondolat, 1961).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Early Activities of the MVT

89

Literature at the Eötvös Loránd University in Budapest, who had joined the Vallástudományi Társaság.23 The correspondence shows further phases of this East-West European network i.e. Donini who, in November 1960, asked the Italian Marxist archaeologist Ranuccio Bianchi Bandinelli to support Hahn along with “F. Marticsko” during their stay in Italy, by appealing to their ideological position (“they are two comrades”). Both came to Donini with a letter of presentation by K. Marót.24 The book Lineamenti was released in Italy by Editori Riuniti, a publisher linked to the Italian Communist Party. Its project to address a Marxist audience with a guideline for studies on religions ideologically oriented was quickly extended over several countries belonging to the “Eastern bloc”. It revealed itself to be a cross-bloc editorial event. In 1961, Lineamenti was published in Prague by the “Státní nakladatelství politické literatury [State publisher of Political Literature]”.25 It had two Russian editions in 1962 and 1966, Люди, идолы и боги [People, idols and gods], by the State Publishing House of Political Literature of Moscow linked to the CPSU26 and in the context of the Italy-USSR association for cultural relations (Associazione italiana per i rapporti culturali con l’Unione Sovietica “Italia-URSS”) of which Donini was General Secretary. The Polish “National Scientific Publishers” (Państwowe Wydawnictwo

23 See above. 24 Copy of the letter, A. Donini to R. Bianchi Bandinelli, Rome, 14.11.1960, original text: Italian: «Sono venuti da me nei giorni scorsi, con una lettera di presentazione del Prof. Karl Marot, vecchio direttore dell’Istituto di Storia antica dell’Università di Budapest, e a te ben noto (ho ricevuto da poco la traduzione tedesca del suo ultimo lavoro “Die Anfänge der griechischen Literatur”, edito dall’Accademia ungherese delle Scienze) due studiosi ungheresi: il dott. Stefan Hahn, docente di letteratura semitica, già abbastanza conosciuto, e il giovane dott. F. Marticsko, che desidera compiere delle ricerche nel campo della filosofia, dell’archeologia e della storia della religione greca. Tutti e due si fermeranno qui un paio di mesi. Per il prof. Hahn, che si occupa soprattutto dei Manoscritti del Qumran, mi sono rivolto a Sabatino Moscati: per il Marticsko invece che tra l’altro parla soltanto il tedesco, mi sono permesso di suggerirgli di prendere contatto con te, oltre che con [Angelo] Brelich e penso che ti telefonerà uno di questi giorni. Si tratta inoltre di due compagni, che per la prima volta si recano in Italia e si trovano leggermente spaesati» (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, 1° versamento, file “B”). Donini’s papers at the Istituto Gramsci do not include the above-mentioned letter of Marót. 25 Ambrogio Donini, Studie z dějin náboženství [Study on the History of Religion] (Prague: SNPL, 1961). 26 A. Donini, Люди, идолы и боги: Очерк истории религии [People, Idols and Gods: An Outline of the History of Religion], trans. I. Kravčenko (Moscow: Госполитиздат [State Publishing House], 1962).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

90

chapter 5

Naukowe) printed it in Warsaw in 1966.27 A Romanian translation După chipul și asemănarea omului was edited in 1968.28 The Croatian edition, in 196429, and the editorial agreement signed right before the new federal order of the SFRJ and the Socialist Republic of Croatia deserve special mention. In March 1962, the Naprijed Publisher asked the Italian East-West Literary and Artistic Agency (Agenzia letteraria e artistica italiana Est-Ovest) to mediate. In a letter, they informed that a verbal agreement was already made with the author, Donini, and, in addition, suggested the publication in Italy of a book of a Croatian scholar, Miroslav Brandt, on the heresy of the English theologian John Wyclif and the social movements.30 As Brandt was involved in this editorial exchange, and his research topic fits with the interest of Donini toward the history of Christianity and his background,31 he served as an intermediary. In June, he arranged a lecture for Donini at the University of Zagreb, who attended and, on that occasion, brought the copies of the contract personally from Rome to the Naprijed publisher in order to finalize the agreement for the Croatian edition of Lineamenti.32 A letter by Donini reports on an accident in which he was involved during the lecture held in Zagreb, i.e. a violent reaction of the audience to some of his statements on

27 A. Donini, Zarys historii religii: od kultów pierwotnych do początków chrześcijaństwa [Outline of the History of Religion: From the Primitive Cults to the Origins of Christianity], trans. Barbara Sieroszewska (Warsaw: PWN, 1966). 28 A. Donini, După chipul și asemănarea omului [In the image and likeness of man], trans. Eugen Costescu and Foreword by Octavian Cheţan (Bucharest: Editura Politică, 1968). 29 A. Donini, Pregled povijesti religija: od prvih oblika kulta do početaka kršćanstva [Overview on the History of Religion: From the First Forms of Worships to the Beginning of Christianity] (Zagreb: Naprijed, 1964). 30 Letter, Kurelec Vida of the editorial board of Naprijed to «Spett. Agenzia letteraria e artistica italiana Roma via dei Taurini 27», 01.03.1962, with reference to the book of Miroslav Brandt, Wyclifova hereza i socijalni pokreti u Splitu krajem 14. st. (Zagreb: Kultura, 1955): Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, 1° versamento, file “B”, included in the correspondence Donini – M. Brandt. 31 To some extent, the conflict of J. Wyclif with the Roman Catholic Church of the Fourteenth century, on which Brandt’s studies focused at the time by investigating this case of heresy, recalls a conflict which was not unrelated to Donini but close at hand, i.e. the excommunications of the catholic priest Ernesto Buonaiuti, professor of History of Christianity at the University of Rome, of whom Donini had been a pupil. One of the most fascinating tributes payed by Donini to him is the edition of Ernesto Buonaiuti and Remo Missir, La vita allo sbaraglio: lettere a Missir, 1926–1946, ed. A. Donini (Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1980). 32 Copy of letter, A. Donini to Miroslav Brandt, 12.04.1962, original text: Italian: related to the editorial arrangement and the idea to bring the copies of the contract to Zagreb (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, 1° versamento, file “B”).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Early Activities of the MVT

91

Christianity.33 This is an evidence of the religious tensions provoked / endured by the Croatian academic network actively participating in the translation of Lineamenti. On the basis of the above data, I conclude that the Hungarian edition Korok, vallások, istenek promoted for the exchange with the Communist Italian intelligentsia, to which Donini belonged, was not an isolated action of the MVT, but a part of a broader framework. The Hungarian edition, along with the Czechoslovakian, Russian, Croatian, Polish, and Romanian ones, opened all together 6 channels across the Iron Curtain in an interval of 8 years in the Sixties. This is an example of an Eastern bloc network, in which the engaged institutions, as the MVT, did not interact like a whole, but separately, linked to a point-source located in a NATO country, i.e. in Italy. Finally, further archival findings can be used to reconstruct some of the interests surrounding the book of Donini in Hungary, exploited for propagandistic means. In an advertisement that invites the audience for the socalled “forum of the Propagandists” – to be held on 15th April 1970 in the city of Hatvan – on the topic Current issues of our Church policy, at the end there is a list of books, i.e. a small bibliography under the heading “Handbooks that help the work of the Propagandist”. Among these books, that of Donini is indicated by the side of a work by Trencsényi-Waldapfel.34 The initiative was sponsored by the library and the local (i.e. that of Hatvan) Committee of MSZMP jointly, and related to a lecture held by Zoltán Rácz, author of the book Családi és társadalmi ünnepek [Family and social celebrations].35 Rácz 33

Copy of letter, A. Donini to M. Brandt, 10.07.1962, original text: Italian: “Please find attached a newspaper clipping from the Vatican journal, ‘L’Osservatore Romano’, May 20th, that deals with my lecture at the University of Zagabria. You can see how the clericals write the history [ fanno la storia]! The accident of that excited (and ugly) woman, that attacked you at the end of the lesson to affirm that ‘Christ really existed and was the child of God’ turns to be a drama […]. I take this opportunity to thank you once again for the perfect translation in Serbo-Croatian language you provided of my speech. From this incident, you can also learn how difficult it is to teach in Italy, where crazy people like that who came to the lecture are encouraged by the academic authorities and politics, unfortunately” (Fondazione Istituto Gramsci, Corrispondenza Donini, 1° versamento, file “B”). 34 Brochure, A propagandisták Fóruma (Heves megyei aprónyomtatványok 2/C, doc. 2959 [collection of small prints from Heves county]) (Library “Bródy Sándor Könyvtar” of Eger, Collection of brochures). The forum organized a lecture-series at the Ady Endre Library. 35 Zoltán Rácz, Családi és társadalmi ünnepek (Budapest: Kossuth, 1964), following Id., Családi ünnepek és szertartások [Family celebrations and ceremonies] (Budapest: Népmüvelési Intézet, 1960), to be considered with regard to the text-project for the introduction and dissemination of family and social celebrations and rituals elaborated within the “Népmüvelési Intézet” ( Javaslat a családi és társadalmi ünnepek, szertartások

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

92

chapter 5

was Head of Department at the Hungarian Institute of Folk Culture / Public Education (Népművelési Intézet) and activist in the campaign to introduce and disseminate socialist ritual culture  – i.e. atheistic  / humanistic ceremonies (secular/civic wedding, name-giving, youth consecration, and funeral) as an alternative to the Christian churches’ sacraments – by examining and comparing its development in the Eastern bloc.36 Interestingly, as a bibliographical reference, the book of Donini is included in the presentation of the activities of Rácz dedicated to the secularization of religion. It shows a specific link between “History of Religions”-studies and civic rites in Hungary promoted in the Sixties. 3

Hungarian Atheist Framework: The Intertwining of Scholars of MVT and Világosság (1960)

In the period following the affiliation of the MTA group to the IAHR, Trencsényi-Waldapfel published a collection of his “essays on the History of Religions” (Vallástörténeti tanulmányok) composed over a span of more than 25 years, between 1933 and 1959.37 Even though the book was linked to the MTA – e.g. its publishing house was the Akadémiai Kiadó; much of the essays appeared in Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae (Trencsényi editor) – it did not show itself representative of the IAHR Hungarian association. The setting in which the book placed itself affected a different Hungarian network of Religious Studies, which is necessary to be described here. For Trencsényi’s Essays, the «lektor» – i.e. the official reviewer designated by the publishing house for the critical evaluation of texts, and sponsoring the publication by assuming responsibility for its quality and leanings – was László

bevezetésére és elterjesztésére), supervised by Rácz, and dated December 1958. This text was an instruction manual to serve as a guide for socialist rituals, by providing repertories of the experiments implemented and monitored. 36 For more details on the involvement of Z. Rácz in the program launched by the “Népmüvelési Intézet” for the secular rites in Hungary, with reference to the reports stored at the Archives of the Institute for People’s Education (Today: “Magyar Művelődési Intézet és Képzőművészeti Lektorátus”), see the following well-documented publication: Heléna Tóth, “Writing Rituals: The Sources of Socialist Rites of Passage in Hungary, 1958–1970,” in Science, Religion and Communism in Cold War Europe, ed. Paul Betts and Stephen A. Smith (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016), 179–203. 37 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Vallástörténeti tanulmányok (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Early Activities of the MVT

93

Mátrai,38 member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences at the Philosophical Institute. At the time, Mátrai was launching a journal in Hungary for practicing, among other academic commitments, the “History of Religions”-studies, titled Világosság. Materialista világnézeti folyóirat [Lightness/Clearness. Materialistic world-view journal].39 The first issue was published in November 1960. According to the table of contents of Világosság related to the Sixties, i.e. the vocabulary and the criteria of arrangement of the articles (items, subjects and topics, treated in the publication), the journal supported works on “criticism of religion [valláskritika története]” and the “history of religion and church (vallás- és egyháztörténet)”.40 The program of Világosság envisaged the “measuring” of ideas, and contrasting them with social reality: […] the historical value of ideas should not be judged according to the opinions of their proponents, but their actual verity should be weighed on the scales of values of objective historical reality. The value and historical significance of irrationalism and anti-humanism, as well as the not insignificant movements of religious mysticism can not be judged otherwise, either. […] We do not merely consider religion an enemy of reason and a product of ignorance, nor do we see in it only error and deceit, but – with the word of Marx – “the sigh of the creature in constraint”, the shadow of actual social relations and of the social order based on exploit, as well as an outcome of the residues of Capitalism.41 Világosság was not representative of the Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság. It was not its organ, never acted through delegated authority and gave no notice of its activities. In the period between 1960–1969, it published essays of no more than 4 members of the IAHR Hungarian group: I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, V. Diószegi, A. Dobrovits, I. Hahn. The former only showed effort marked by 38 Ibid., 4. 39 András Máté-Tóth and Csaba Máté Sarnyai, “The History and Recent Trends of Religionswissenschaft in Hungary,” in Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, eds. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 128 considered Világosság, along with the Philosophical Institute of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, the “most significant venues for practicing Religious Studies in this period”. 40 I refer to the A Világosság első 10 éve 1960–1969. Repertorium (Budapest: Fővárosi Szabó Ervin Könyvtár, 1971), that is the official index of the journal related to the period 1960–1969. 41 «Az irracionalizmus és antihumanizmus, a vallási miszticizmus nem jelentéktelen befolyással rendelkező áramlatainak értéke és történelmi jelentősége sem ítélhető meg másként» (László Mátrai, “Világosság,” Világosság. Materialista világnézeti folyóirat 1, no. 1 [1960], 2–3).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

94

chapter 5

persistent participation. The MVT used to broadcast its public reports elsewhere, e.g. in the “Communications of the Department of Language and Literature of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences” (A MTA Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának közleményei), and its members participated on a regular basis, as authors and members of the editorial board, to e.g. Antik Tanulmányok / Studia Antiqua, Acta Antiqua, Acta Ethnographica, i.e. journals of/linked to the MTA and founded in the early 1950s. While Vallástörténeti tanulmányok (1959) and Világosság (1960, first issue) were published, Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Mátrai teamed up once again, both attending the lectures-program on the “History of Religion and Atheism [ateizmus]42” launched at the Faculty of Humanities of the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest.43 Along with Trencsényi (lecture: “The essence of religion and the tasks of the History of Religion”),44 3 other members of MVT (A. Dobrovits, K. Czeglédi, I. Hahn) joined the program, although the MVT was not involved as such. Not only the editor-in-chief of Világosság, Mátrai, joined the program (lecture on the history of the criticism of religion),45 but also its managing editor, the philosopher József Lukács, responsible for the edition (kiadásert felelős). The lecture of Trencsényi-Waldapfel on the “tasks of the History of Religion”, i.e. the “Marxist position on/definition of religion”, summarized all the major subjects: the “fantastic reflection of social forces”, “religion as a superstructure”, “death/cessation (elhalása) of religion”.46 I quote a passage below, in order to make clear the degree of ideological commitment reached by Trencsényi in the field of “History of Religions”-studies, which gets stronger in the Hungarian framework, and – as we will see in the next chapter – decreases in his international papers: 42

A general view of Atheism in Hungary is recently provided by Margit Balogh and András Fejérdy, “Freethought, Atheism and Anticlericalism in Twentieth-Century Hungary,” in Freethought and Atheism in Central and Eastern Europe: The Development of Secularity and Non-Religion, eds. Tomáš Bubík, Atko Remmel, and David Václavík (New York: Routledge, 2020). 43 Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar [Eötvös Loránd University. Faculty of Humanities], Előadások a vallás és az ateizmus történetéről, 3 volumes, ed. Jószef Lukács (Budapest: Felsőoktatási Jegyzetellátó Vállalat, 1960–1961, and second edition: Budapest: Tankönyvkiadó, 1963). 44 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “A vallás lényege és a vallástörténet feladatai,” in Előadások a vallás, vol. 1, 3–38. 45 László Mátrai, “A Renaissance, a németalföldi és az angol forradalom valláskritikája,” in Előadások a vallás, vol. 2, 3–17. 46 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “A vallás lényege” 35–36 (A marxizmus álláspontja a vallás kérdésében); and 13–14 (A vallás marxista definiciója); 16–19 (A társadalmi erők fantasztikus visszatükrözése); 27–28 (A vallás mint felepitmény); 33–35 (A vallás elhalása). Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

95

Early Activities of the MVT

The cessation of religion in the age of Communism is a logical outcome […]. After the overthrowing of Capitalism and the building of Socialism, religion lives on temporarily as a residue because of its specific conservativism, as consciousness follows existence always with a certain delay […]. Religion corrects the irreconcilable conflicts inherent in class societies in an illusionary fashion, by the belief in justice in the hereafter – thus it loses its appeal in the eyes of crowds as soon as the classless society resolves these conflicts in reality, favoring the working masses. The Socialist Revolution is then the act that represents the condition of the cessation/termination of religion […]. Not only is there still religion in Hungary, where the laying of the foundations of Socialism has not yet been completed, but there is still religion in the Soviet Union where Communism is already being built.47 4

Tracing the Diffusion of Trencsényi-Waldapfel’s Works after the Affiliation to the IAHR

The “Introduction” of the essays of Trencsényi on the history of religions, examined in the previous paragraph with regard to the Hungarian context, i.e. the Vallástörténeti tanulmányok (1959), proved to be the most politicized of all chapters included. In a passage of the text, Trencsényi recalled the period of Miklós Horthy and his regency of Hungary intended as “Fascist” and supported by the Catholic Church, referring to the rite of the blessing of tanks.48 In this frame, Trencsényi’s book aimed at a national audience. Nevertheless, measures were taken in order to reach a broader range of readers than the Hungarian target, e.g. by supplying in the above-mentioned Acta Antiqua MTA journal in 1961 a detailed review in English language, and providing a German edition too, in 1966, in which the reference to Horthy is removed. The author of the review is János György Szilágyi, former member of MVT, cancelled from the list of its fellows after the Hungarian Revolution, in 1957.49 Szilágyi will be reinstated to his post of member of the MVT only in 1965,50 but yet in 1961, as we can see, he is involved in its activities. The review of the book is a balanced attempt at reducing its ideological impact and enhancing 47 48 49 50

Ibid., 33–34. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Vallástörténeti tanulmányok. See above for more details. Feljegyzés, Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya Vezetőjének [Note, to the Head of International Relations Department], signed by Tamás Lajos, 03.05.1965, mentioned above (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

96

chapter 5

the issue of Marxism, at the same time. In this connection, he referred to the double path of Trencsényi’s research method, not only his Dialectic materialism (“religion is a social phenomenon” developed from “historically defined […] conditions”), but also the challenge to avoid “vulgar materialism”.51 As an example, the reviewer highlighted a passage of the text of Trencsényi, providing an English translation, according to which religion is to be intended as “‘the only form of consciousness which helped man to become a human being’”.52 The thesis is that “‘religion, art, poetry, science, etc.’ [quoting again the text of Trencsényi from Szilágyi’s review]” were not yet separated at the stage of the early human societies but belonged to a “‘yet undifferentiated form of mind’”, eventually concluding that the “History of religions”-studies are a “science about humanity”.53 As such, the book applied a comparative and interdisciplinary method, then mixed studies on Classical Philology and mythology, investigated the connection between Greek and ancient Near Eastern cultures, Christianity and Biblical Science, folklore and the survival of antiquity in Medieval and Modern times, with a special focus on Humanism from Classical Antiquity to the Renaissance (Cicero, Erasmus, etc.). In order to reach non-Hungarian scholars, the volume was reissued in a German translation in 1966, published in Amsterdam.54 Reginald Eldred Witt (Queen Mary University of London) gave a critical evaluation of the Trencsényi’s Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte in the journal of the British Classical 51 János György Szilágyi, “Trencsényi-Waldapfel: Studies in the History of religion,” review in English of Vallástörténeti tanulmányok, by Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Acta Antiqua 9, no. 1–2 (1961): 260. 52 Ibid. 53 Ibid.: “Into the center of his research pursued in the field of the history of religion, he places the conviction that religion is not the self-expression or recognition of an eternally existing idea, nor the purposeful invention of some clerical-body. It is a type of human consciousness which ‘developed consequently from certain historically defined social conditions’. Because of this trait, the history of religion becomes to him above all a science about humanity. This induces him to always try to reconstruct society behind the re-cognized facts and relations, the profound knowledge of which only throws a full light on these facts and connections. In his research in the field of the history of religion, this prompts him to direct his main attention on the process of the more complete humanization of man. That’s why the greatest representatives of ancient and modern theories of humanism, the Sophists, Cicero, Lucianus and Erasmus became his favorites. In this way the history of religion becomes the science of history in a noble sense in his work: the science about and cultivated for man which understands and makes understood the man of the past in his historical and social reality, and shapes the man of the future” (original text: English). 54 Imre Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte (Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Early Activities of the MVT

97

Association.55 He expressed a negative opinion about the impact of the ideologies of the Twentieth century on the shaping of programs and academic settings of Religious Studies, then contested that “Soviet revolution” was “an event which, we are repeatedly told [in Trencsényi’s book], has transformed the study of Religionsgeschichte”.56 In another review of the book, supplied by the journal of Classical Studies Gnomon, which had its center in Frankfurt am Main, Walter Burkert hopes “that a real dialogue would be possible” and does not consider the author as “personally responsible” («Auch hierfür ist der Verf. nicht persönlich verantwortlich»), given that “the impulse originated from Marx turned into a shackle for [all] the Marxists”.57 Burkert, after a scholarship at the Center for Hellenic Studies at Washington DC, has moved to the Technical University (Technische Universität) of West Berlin, in 1966, i.e. the year in which his review was published, where a seminar library was established as an alternative to the Humanities at the Freie Universität increasingly dominated by Left ideologues.58 The Essays of Trecsényi were not reviewed in the flag-journal of the IAHR, Numen, nor was the publication received, either in the Hungarian or the German edition.59 By contrast, his efforts to address his works on the history of religion (vallástörténet) to the “Eastern area” look more substantial. His previous monograph Mitológia, published at Budapest in 1956, with a chapter on “Religion and Mythology in the Light of Marxism-Leninism”, circulated as well in a Russian translation, printed in Moscow in 1959; and was translated and published in Prague and Warsaw in 1967.60

55 Reginald Eldred Witt, review of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte (1966), by Imre Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, The Classical Review 19, no. 1 (1969): 112–113. 56 Ibid., 112. 57 Walter Burkert, review from “Berlin” of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte (1966), by Imre Trencsenyi-Waldapfel, Gnomon 41, no. 2 (1969): 117: «Es bleibt zu hoffen, dass mit der weiteren Entwicklung der ‘gesellschaftlichen’ Zustände schließlich einmal ein wirklicher Dialog möglich wird». 58 Thomas Alexander Szlezák, “Biographical memoirs. Walter Burkert, 2 February 1931– 11 March 2015,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 162, no. 1 (2018): 117. 59 The only publication of Trencsényi-Waldapfel received by “Numen” is “The PandoraMyth,” Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955). See: “Publications Received,” Numen 3, no. 1 (1956): 80. 60 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Mitológia (Budapest: Müvelt Nép, 1956); Id., Мифология (Moscow: иностранной литературы [Foreign Literature Publishing House], 1959), with a foreword of the orientalist Vsevolod Igorevich Avdiev, and member of the Russian Academy of Sciences; Id., Mytologie, trans. Ladislav Hradský (Prague: Odeon, 1967); Id., Mitologia, trans. Jan Ślaski (Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe [State Publishing House], 1967).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 6

The Report of Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Czeglédy on the IAHR Congress at Marburg (September 1960): A Document on the Cold War Escalation 1

The Hungarian Delegation: Details on Its Reduction in Size

The IAHR congress at Marburg in September 1960 is the first one attended by a delegation of the Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság after its official affiliation. In January 1959, Károly Marót was the only Hungarian included in the preliminary list of scholars invited by the Executive Board of the International Association,1 as a reference point. At the end of this year, the Secretary of the IAHR, J. C. Bleeker, is informed that Marót, along with “Professor Kadar”,2 seeks to attend the congress and give a talk, and asks him for the name of 2 representatives which the Hungarian group, as each national group, was entitled to nominate for the meeting of the IAHR International Committee.3 In February 1960, the Hungarian group nominated two delegates, namely Marót, in his quality as President of the national group, and Imre TrencsényiWaldapfel. Marót reported that responding to the call on behalf of Bleeker, he had announced the delegation of 5 presenters, but the Academy – referring to limitations of currency (devizakeret)  – made different arrangements. The First Department would have delegated Trencsényi and Károly Czeglédy, while they asked that the Second Department (Philosophy and History) delegated 1 Circular Letter, Claas Jouco Bleeker to the members of the Executive Board of the IAHR, undated, enclosed to the letter, C. J. Bleeker to Raffaele Pettazzoni, Amsterdam 27.01.1959 (Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). 2 Probably: Zoltán Kádár, classicist. 3 Letter, C. J. Bleeker to « professor Dr. Marót Károly “Groupe Hongrois de l’Association Internationale de l’histoire des religions” », Amsterdam, 22.10.1959; original text: French: « 1) Comme vous savez le groupe hongrois de l’IAHR a le droit de nommer deux représentants qui prendront part aux discussions du Comité International, qui siègera pendant le prochain congrès à Marburg. Je vous prie de me faire savoir de bonne heure qui seront vos représentants. 2) Nous avons vu que vous-même et Monsieur le Professeur Kadar ont l’intention de prendre part au congrès de Marburg. Est-ce que vous deux êtes préparés à donner une conférence au congrès ? Le thème général est : origine et eschatologie, mais on pourrait choisir un sujet de sa prédilection » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/202).

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_008

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

99

Aladár Dobrovits.4 This document illustrates the growing issue within the Vallástudományi Társaság of a large Hungarian participation in the program of the IAHR, and that this participation at Marburg was limited in its extent by the MTA and, according to the arguments used by the First Department and that of International Relations, due to the regulation of funding consistent with the Hungarian currency system which restrained travels abroad. In the end, the Hungarian Academy delegated only Trencsényi and Czeglédy. Due to health issues, Marót did not attend. The correspondence of Marót with Angelo Brelich, who attended the Congress as representative of the Italian group5 and looked forward to meeting Marót in this circumstance, provides us with some details. Brelich informed him from Marburg about his re-nomination in the Executive Board on the same day of the meeting of the Committee (9th September). He noticed that no representatives from Hungary were there, and assumed that the delegation was only late.6 The delegation missed the meeting of the International Committee too, according to the minutes published in the proceedings (the Hungarian delegation was “absent” on the 10th September).7 The IAHR General Secretary informed Marót on the decision of the Executive Board: “to re-nominate [him] as the representative of the Hungarian Group of the Association so that you [Marót] continue to be a member of the Executive Board […]”.8 4 Károly Marót and Tibor Bodrogi, Jegyzőkönyv. Felvétetett a Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszus Magyar Nemzeti Bizottságának 1960, február 11-én d.u. 6-tól tartott üléséről, 12.02.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 5 Letter, Angelo Brelich to Károly Marót, Rome, 11.02.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5209/267): “At the Congress of Marburg, I will have to give one of the eight lectures – instead of Pettazzoni! – which are not part of the specified sections, but will be held in presence of all participants [i.e. a plenary talk]. It is somewhat too great a responsibility. Too early, too suddenly do I have to ‘substitute’ Pettazzoni”. Pettazzoni died in December 1959. 6 Postal card «Marburg/Lahn  – Universität mit Universitätskirche», A. Brelich to K. Marót, Marburg, 09.09.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5209/268). And the proceedings: IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress für Religionsgeschichte: 11–17. September 1960 in Marburg/Lahn (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1961), 17–22: the § Meeting of the Executive Board of the International Association for the History of Religions on September 9th 1960. 7 Ibid., 23: § Meeting of the International Committee on September 10th 1960 in the University of Marburg. 8 Letter, L. J. R. Ort [IAHR General Secretary assistant] to Károly Marót, 04.10.1960; original text: English: “Its members [of the Executive Board of the IAHR] were sorry that you [Marót] were not able to come” (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 5210/456).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

100 2

chapter 6

“Could Hardly Be [Considered] Apolitical”: The Deferral of the Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze Membership and the Representatives of the GDR

The MTA dossier related to the IAHR group and the MTA Department of International Relations does not include documents concerning the authorization to attend the congress in Marburg, but only the confidential report to the Academy signed by I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel and K. Czeglédy. Every delegate had to present a report after their foreign visit in written form, concerning specific issues on which academics were expected to inform. The reports of such a type are relevant documents to perceive the ideological control exercised programmatically through the Academy, and the ways in which academics subjected their work to this obligation. This report adds a new document in the long-standing debate on the congress in Marburg.9 Through its analysis we get facts and insight about internal processes of the IAHR, too. The Trencsényi-Czeglédy report made the IAHR leadership responsible for obstructionism and delaying the course of affiliation of further representatives of People’s Democracies, namely the Polish Group. According to the Executive Board of the International Association, and the minutes of its meeting during the congress in Marburg (9th September 1960), the “Polish group sent its statutes”, but cannot be accepted until “after an official [Polish] request for affiliation”. The General Secretary justified the choice to postpone the membership by considering also that “no official delegates from this country” attended the congress, since the 2 Polish participants were not representatives.10 Some passages of the restricted unpublished report provide us with more details of a confidential kind. They deserve to be quoted in their entireness, in order to make them available for the first time:

9

As for the debate at the time, see for instance: Angelo Brelich, “Ai margini del 10° Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Marburgo, 11 e 17-9-1960),” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 31 (1960): 121–128; Ugo Bianchi, “Après Marbourg (petit discours sur la méthode),” Numen 8, no. 1 (1961): 64–79; Marcel Simon, “Réflexions sur un Congrès,” Revue de l’Histoire des religions 163, no. 1 (1963): 1–10; Raphael J. Zwi Werblowsky, “Marburg – and After?,” Numen 7, no. 2–3 (1960): 215–220; Annemarie Schimmel, “Summary of the Discussion,” Numen 7, no. 2–3 (1960): 235–239, and long after: Eric J. Sharpe, Comparative Religion: a History (London: Duckworth, 1986), 276–278; Michael Stausberg, “The Study of Religion(s) in Western Europe (II): Institutional Developments after World War II,” Religion 38, no. 4 (2008): 305–318; Tim Jensen and Armin W. Geertz, eds., Numen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2016). 10 IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress: Marburg, 18.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

101

When it came to the few representatives from People’s Democracies, they [i.e. the organizers of the congress] were not sparing attentions and acts of kindness in order to maintain the appearance of the “apolitical nature” (“politikamentesség”) of the congress. Thus, e.g. the chairing of the opening panel of the Greco-Roman session was entrusted to Trencsényi-Waldapfel, and the lectures of both of us [Trencsényi and Czeglédy] received plenty of apprehensive comments. However, the circumstance that the discussion of the membership of Poland was postponed  – with reference to formal reasons  – could hardly be [considered] apolitical (politika-mentes). So far, on behalf of Poland, only individual members were accepted, such as [Ananiasz] Zajączkowski, an excellent and progressive Turkologist professor from Warsaw, and also the dissident and loosely prepared [Simon] Szyszman [resident in Paris], the lecture of whom Czeglédy Károly criticized – with the approval of every expert, but most of all, Zajączkowski. Apart from him and the two of us, People’s Democracies were scarcely represented; only the German Democratic Republic sent a relatively numerous delegation, among them three Marxists, who, however, did not give a lecture of their own, but merely participated in the debates – [representing] the same orientation/direction as ours (velünk egyező irányban).11 The initiative of a Polish society for the study of religions (Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze PTR) started in June 1957, in Warsaw, in the framework of a meeting of University staff members. Its statute was approved in June 1958 and in January 1963 the group was affiliated to the Polish Academy of Sciences.12 In 1960, the PTR transformed the journal Euhemer – Przegląd Religioznawczy 11 Imre Trencsényi Waldapfel and Károly Czeglédy, Jelentés a X. Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról [Report on the 10th international congress for the History of Religions] / Marburg, undated, doc. num. 60104/7/60, 2, typewritten text and handwritten signature, 2–3 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 12 Henryk Hoffmann, “The Development of Religious Studies in Poland: History and the Present State,” in Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, eds. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 107; Zbigniew Stachowski, “Religious Studies in Poland. The Present State of Research and Prospects,” in Anglojęzyczny Suplement Przeglądu Religioznawczego 247 (2013): 118; Id., “Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze (1958–2011),” in Religie i religijność w świecie współczesnym: III Międzynarodowy Kongres Religioznawczy: Toruń 12–15 Września 2011, ed. Marek Szulakiewicz (Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2011), 18; Witold Tyloch, “Polish Society for the Science of Religion,” in Euhemer 23, no. 3 (1979): 3–8; E. K.[Eugeniusz Kriegelewicz], “Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze,” in Euhemer 2 (1958): 3–4.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

102

chapter 6

into its organ, which had been founded in 1957 by the Polish Association of Atheists and Freethinkers (Stowarzyszenie Ateistów i Wolnomyślicieli), whence a large part of the members of the PTR were recruited. Only in 1965, the journal Euhemer was included in the International Bibliography of the History of Religions edited by the IAHR under the supervision of C. J. Bleeker.13 And only from 1970 – as we are going to see with more details later – will the IAHR accept the PTR as a member.14 The report does not mention the absence of the Hungarian delegation from the meetings either of the Executive Board or the International Committee (9–10th September) when the issue of the extension of the IAHR and the “Polish group which has sent its statute” rose.15 It covers up the lack of coordination of the Hungarian group with the Polish application. The following teamwork, e.g. the contribution of Trencsényi to the official journal of the Polish group, Euhemer, started short in time after the IAHR congress,16 but did not last long. 3

The Issue of the “Dissidents”

The report indicates the “dissident and loosely prepared [Szymon/Simon] Szyszman” (see above the quotation of the document from the MTA archives).17 It does not name any detail in this regard. As specified by biographic studies, Szyszman was accused of collaborating with the Racial Hygiene of Waffen-SS from 1941, and the German authorities of the occupied Crimea. In 1944, before the Red Army advance, he left his country, Crimea, and eventually in 1949 set up house in France as a Polish refugee. In 1947–48, he worked at the American University of Beirut.18 The allusion to his lack of preparation referred probably to the fact that Szyszman was a professional chemist, although devoted to Karaite studies. The source of information of Trencsényi 13 14 15 16 17 18

Remark of Mario Gandini, “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1956–1957,” in Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 64, no. 1 (2008): 239. IAHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions (Stockholm August 16–22, 1970) (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 325. IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress: Marburg, 18. Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “О religii,” in Euhemer 5, no. 2 (1961): 3–17; Id., “О stosunku Hezjoda do Muz i mitow,” Euhemer 5, no. 6 (1961): 3–10. Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Czeglédy, Jelentés a X. Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról/ Marburg. Mikhail Kiziloz, The Sons of Scripture: The Karaites in Poland and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2015), 416–434: “‘A Scholar not connected to the Karaites’: Szymon Szyszman (1909–1993),” and specifically 419–420, based on previous biographical works dedicated to Szyszman. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

103

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

in the matter of the dissidence could be Ananiasz Zajączkowski, mentioned above, who attended the congress in Marburg, as well, and personally knew Szyszman since the Thirties.19 The Hungarian report to the MTA shows itself to be a document of an informant in which political and scientific levels converged by exposing the activities of expatriate Polish scholars deemed as politically compromised. It brings allegations on dissidents to the surface and thus draws the attention of the Hungarian Academy to them. It is our responsibility today to address the ethical issue of this convergence and consider the tasks of a scientific congress, in this case, degraded by such an approach and activity. At the same time, the framework of the report-discourse and the codes of communication employed shall be highlighted, therefore the “order of discourse”, according to Foucault’s well-known definition. Agreeing with the reflections of the post-structuralists i.e. R. Barthes and J. Derrida, the text is always an inter-text and challenges the notion of the responsibility of the author, as a personal responsibility, to such an extent to take into account the thought-provoking thesis of the “death of the author”. This book is not the forum to examine this reflection, but at least to mention the background – namely the “deconstructive reading” – to which I refer, in order to give rise to the obligation, which I share, not to oppose the threat of a highly politicized framework by imitating its practice of denigration, in any case and of any kind, and therefore not to trivialize the role of historian in politics and ideology. More specifically, I wonder in what degree we should see in the report, rather than a statement only, also the dialogue with the MTA Presidency as the context within which the meaning of the discourse is to be understood. A language-game-based approach is required. For instance, we shall reflect whether and in what measure the report was supposed to push away any political suspicion of influence of the intellectual emigrants from countries of the Eastern Bloc over the Hungarian group of the IAHR, and therefore was intended to avoid putting the support of the MTA for the participation of the Hungarian group in congresses abroad at risk. This hypothesis is to be considered as well. 4

“Not to Abandon the Organization”: Marxist Polarization in the IAHR and Alliance-Program

In this paragraph, I intend to provide details which may assist in clarifying the question if the Trencsényi/Czeglédy’s report supported a strategy of tension, 19

Ibid., 419: Szyszman and Zajączkowski both participated in the activities of the Tmhilk, i.e the Society of the Supporters of Karaite History and Literature. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

104

chapter 6

or not. On the one hand, the document reported on a world-wide polarization of scholars at the congress in Marburg opposed to the “materialistic worldview”, by informing and alerting on the slogan “religious people of the world, unite” – which would turn the Marxist slogan upside down – that was used to express an official message of the IAHR. On the other hand, it suggested an alliance strategy between members of the International Association with a “Marxist position”: The congress as a whole provided ample room for the reactionary directions of the bourgeois history of religions (a polgári vallástörténet reakciós irányainak); the overall picture was not much modified either by our lectures, or by our critical comments, nor by Trencsényi-Waldapfel’s sessionopening [speech]. It was overall dominated by that inter-confessional, but extremely idealistic (interkonfesszionális, de szélsőségesen idealista) tendency, which does not [seek to] verify one religion or another, but religion in general, and, especially its mystical directions, and which was expressed by [Friedrich] Heiler already in the opening plenary session. It is a tendency that wants to unite all believers/all the religious (valamennyi hívő) against the materialist worldview under the signal “una Sancta,” even if they tried to avoid politically open wordings.20 Shortly after the IAHR congress in Marburg, the rise of the Berlin Wall displayed a new milestone related to the Cold War history. I already tested the thesis of the impact of the Iron Curtain on the academic programs on the study of religions in 1961, in Italy. The Trencsényi report provides me with a further document which illustrates this thesis, in the same global context of the escalating tensions.21 In its conclusions, the report suggested the MTA “not 20 Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Czeglédy, Jelentés a X. Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról / Marburg, 2. The topic of Heiler was introduced by him already during the previous IAHR congress, held in Tokyo, in his special lecture: Friedrich Heiler, “The History of Religions as a Way to Unity of Religions,” in IAHR, Proceedings of the 9th International Congress for the History of Religions, Tokyo and Kyoto, 1958: August 27–September 9 (Tokyo: Maruzen, 1960), 7–22. Forty years after, in the IAHR archives at the Library of the University of Marburg, a document was found, namely the text of the programme of an “ecumenical service”, conceived by Heiler, to be performed on the occasion of the opening of the congress (Michael Pye, Strategies in the Study of Religions, vol. 1 Exploring Methods and Positions [Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2013], 215). 21 Valerio Severino, “Le mur de la laïcité (1961). Histoire des religions et sécularisation de l’histoire en Italie,” [The Wall of laïcité (1961). History of Religions and Secularization of History in Italy], Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77, no. 1 (2011): 100–118, with regard to the critical edition of the last notes of R. Pettazzoni edited by Angelo Brelich in 1961, who – in the Introduction – set up an Italian manifesto on the methodological and Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

105

to abandon the [IAHR] organization”.22 No matter how appeasing, this suggestion reveals the raising of the alert level. At the same time, it gives indication on an ongoing negotiation in the ideological/methodological conflict within the IAHR. The report drew up a list of potential alliances with historians of religions belonging to NATO countries and planned to extend the Hungarian collaboration with non-Marxist scholars: There is, however, a chance for us to strengthen this orientation,23 if Marxists collaborate with those bourgeois scholars, who have a progressive mindset and work only with philological-historical methodologies – especially since some aversion against the tendencies of the History of Religions that bend toward mysticism has already appeared among the [members of the] latter group. From this approach, a collaboration with Eastern-German colleagues is particularly important, given that there are theologians among them, who are faithful to the order/system of German Democratic Republic, as e.g. Professor [Erich] Fascher from Berlin, who had congenial/supportive  – even if not always unequivocal  – articulations also in course of the congress. This chance is a point in favor of not leaving the international organization, as is also the fact that we were given the opportunity to know such [new] approaches in the [study of] the history of religions, without the knowledge and criticism of which we could not be able to carry out our tasks in the field of the Marxist [study of the] history of religions (marxista vallástörténet).24 The above-mentioned collaboration program has not proved effectual. The Hungarian delegation at Marburg failed to join a group of participants who signed a paper outlined to react to the methodological problems raised during the congress, which were similar to those ones highlighted to the MTA in the Hungarian report. The well-known paper, submitted by the President of the IAHR Israeli group, R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, was intended to establish the ‘basic minimum’ presupposition for the pursuit of the studies on the history of religions, i.e. the examination of human culture, empirical facts of human ideological boundary dividing the academic studies of religions into two separate areas, historicism (storicismo) and “irrationalism”. 22 Trencsényi-Waldapfel and Czeglédy, Jelentés a X. Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról / Marburg. 23 C.f. the citation above from the same report, of which this one is the continuation: “only the German Democratic Republic sent a relatively numerous delegation, among them three Marxists, who, […] participated in the debates – [representing] the same orientation/direction as ours (velünk egyező irányban)”. 24 Ibid. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

106

chapter 6

existence, historical truth, and the exclusion of theologians’ matters. Moreover, it implemented an across-the-board solution, as far as it did not intend to “represent an ideological block but rather a general tendency”.25 Signatories were scholars from NATO and non-aligned countries. Further investigations should help in providing more information about the criteria on which the alleged alliances of the Hungarian delegation with scholars from non-Eastern-bloc countries were based. Some data of this concern can be found e.g. in a letter to K. Marót sent by A. Brelich – University of Rome La Sapienza – who signed the Werblowsky document, and in turn complained of the “new theological-mystical tendency” of the congress.26 At the same time, he informed Marót that he did not have contact with the Hungarian delegation during the congress at Marburg27 illustrating, in this case, that Trencsényi missed the target of his collaboration-program, i.e. though he referred to the utility of Hungarian participation in international conferences explicitly due to the opportunity they offer for networking, a quite obvious one, namely contacting an Italian and Hungarian scholar, A. Brelich, from the University of Rome, who had Marxist views in these years,28 was not grasped. With regard to the relationship between Brelich and Trencsényi, it is relevant to notice that I found no letters in either of the collections of the correspondences, i.e. neither in that of Trencsényi at the MTAK Department 25 Schimmel, “Summary of the Discussion,” 236. 26 Letter, A. Brelich to K. Marót, Rome, 08.10.1960; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/269): “Not only was the Congress in Marburg of low quality, but, from a certain point of view, also dangerous for the [study of the] history of religions: there is a new theological-mystical tendency beginning to take over the leadership in the IAHR, ‘thanks to’ Bleeker’s phenomenologyzing on the one hand, and, on the other, to the activity of oriental groups (Hindu, Japanese, and Southern Korean)”. Similar remarks were published by Brelich, “Ai margini,”. 27 Letter, A. Brelich to K. Marót, Rome, 08.10.1960 cit.: “I probably should have made great friendship with the Hungarian delegates at Marburg – but I am incapable to let my liking be influenced by interest”. At the time, Brelich was planning to visit Budapest and in this respect, in this passage of the letter, he mentioned the interest for him to extend his Hungarian network in order to succeed in getting an invitation. 28 In February 1956, Brelich started to elaborate on his evaluation of Károly Kerényi, Umgang mit Göttlichen (Göttingen: Vandenhoeck&Ruprecht, 1955) by applying against him the Lukácsian Marxist concept of “irrationalism” (A. Brelich, “Appunti su una metodologia,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 27 [1956]: 1–30). In 1958, in a private letter, Kerényi accused Brelich of “barking in the pack of [Palmiro] Togliatti [the leader of the Italian Communist Party]” (Kerényi Károly and Angelo Brelich, Tra gli Asfodeli dell’Elisio. Carteggio 1935–1959, ed. Andrea Alessandri [Roma: Editori Riuniti University Press, 2011]), 287; and the original text in the Hungarian edition of the letters: Az elysioni aszfodéloszok közt. Levelezés 1935–1959, eds. Valerio Severino, Andrea Nagy, and Orsolya Varsányi (Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2020).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

107

of manuscripts, nor in the “archive of Brelich” at Rome.29 Brelich wrote to Marót about a chance encounter with Trencsényi in Rome in 1959: “I have seen Trencsényi Waldapfel here, but we could only meet once, even then by chance”.30 5

The Context of the Second Vatican Council: Comparing Ostpastoral and IAHR Diplomacy

The framework of this paragraph does not allow a discussion of the complex issue of the Second Vatican Council, neither an analysis nor a summary of it; neither its progress – starting with its announcement in 1959, up to its opening and then its closure (1962–1965) – nor the situation, i.e. the degree of involvement and the transformation of the Hungarian Catholic Church. But as this essay aims to understand the issue of religion and the Cold War, and more specifically the mutual influence and interaction of diplomacy and religion, the picture could be not complete if we left out of consideration the extent of this influence in Europe, and if I did not commend the Vatican II to the attention of the historians of the IAHR in considering the role played by Hungary at the time. This essay has no intention of confusing the Eastern policy of the Vatican II with the IAHR diplomacy toward the Eastern bloc for academic, non-confessional studies on religion in the UNESCO framework. I do not deny the divergences of the two Eastern policies, which are obvious, but I do ask to re-examine them and to heed the nature of the Cold War, and the context of the opening of the Iron Curtain for negotiation on the religious issue. In both the Roman Catholic and the UNESCO cases, the role played by Hungary to serve as a prime and leading example of East-West dialogue for all the People’s Democracies should be considered. The commitment of the Secretariat of the Vatican State, and specifically Agostino Casaroli, in the so called “step-by-step diplomacy” (“politica dei piccoli passi”) and the negotiation held in Budapest, starting already during the pontificate of Pope John XXIII (from May 1963 onwards), and finally the 29 The “Brelich Archive” i.e. part of the papers of A. Brelich coming from the house of Brelich’s widow and, after her death, preserved by the “Associazione Internazionale Ernesto de Martino” in Rome. I would like to thank Marcello Massenzio e Petra Brelich who allowed me to consult the archive and the inventory of the papers edited by Adelina Talamonti. 30 Letter, A. Brelich to K. Marót, Rome, 27.04.1959; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5209/262).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

108

chapter 6

“Partial agreement/gentlemen’s agreement” reached in 1964 between Hungary and the Catholic Church are well known.31 The first attempt of Pope Roncalli to resume a contact with the Hungarian bishops origins in the Second Vatican Council project, which is correctly considered as a starting point of the socalled Catholic “Ostpolitik”/“Ostpastoral”, in 1959.32 In this respect, the affiliation of Hungary to the IAHR in 1957, through the Academy of Sciences, displays a parallel with the Hungarian-Vatican negotiation, close in time, the former oriented to science, while the latter to politics, but both referring to types of activities designated to address cross-border interests in the religious issue. Another feature of this parallelism, between the Vatican II and the IAHR congresses at the time, can be found in the partial failure of the Hungarian role, in both cases, after that Hungary had been considered in the Fifties, at the beginning of the negotiations, the first tool of a planned domino-effect in the Eastern-Soviet bloc. In the Sixties, the Hungarian model of dialogue gradually reached a critical stage. On the one hand, the negligible involvement of the Hungarian delegation in the Vatican II, the unfavorable compromise reached in the agreement of 1964 for the Catholic Church in Hungary (e.g. the role of the Hungarian State in the appointment of bishops, etc.),33 let this dialoguemodel fail, which was first replaced by the Yugoslav model (Accord of 1966), and then, in the Seventies, by the Polish one, until its peak in the John Paul II era. On the other hand, the slow three-year-long (1955–1957) process of affiliation of Hungary to the IAHR, the purge of the vallástudományi group after the 31

I mention here, as general references, only some of the books published on the Eastern diplomacy of Agostino Casaroli: Alceste Santini, Agostino Casaroli: l’uomo del dialogo (Cinisello Balsamo: Edizioni San Paolo, 1993); Id., Il martirio della pazienza: la Santa Sede e i paesi comunisti, 1963–1989, ed. Carlo Felice Casula and Giovanni Maria Vian (Torino: Einaudi, 2000); Alberto Melloni, ed., Il filo sottile: l’Ostpolitik vaticana di Agostino Casaroli (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006); Giovanni Barberini, ed., La politica del dialogo: le carte Casaroli sull’Ostpolitik vaticana (Bologna: Il Mulino, 2008); Achille Silvestrini, ed., L’ Ostpolitik di Agostino Casaroli 1963–1989 (Bologna: EDB, 2009); Marco Lavopa, La diplomazia dei piccoli passi: l’Ostpolitik vaticana di Mons. Agostino Casaroli (Roma: GBE  / Ginevra Bentivoglio Editoria, 2013); Roberto Morozzo della Rocca, ed., Tra Est e Ovest: Agostino Casaroli diplomatico vaticano (Cinisello Balsamo: San Paolo, 2014); Antonio G. Chizzoniti, ed., Agostino Casaroli: lo sguardo lungo della Chiesa (Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2015). 32 András Fejérdy, “Aux origines de la nouvelle ‘Ostpolitik’ du Saint-Siège. La première tentative de Jean XXIII pour reprendre le contact avec les éveques hongrois en 1959,” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 46 (2008): 389–411, and his monography Id., ed., Rapporti diplomatici tra la Santa Sede e l’Ungheria (1920–2015) (Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2016). 33 Árpád von Klimó, “Vatican II and Hungary,” in Vatican II behind the Iron Curtain, ed. Piotr H. Kosicki (Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 2016), 52–53; Fejérdy András, “L’intesa semplice del 1964 tra la Santa Sede e l’Ungheria,” Rivista di studi ungheresi 11 (2012): 110.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

109

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

1956 Uprising, the late opening reunion after the affiliation, the reducing of the size of the delegation in the congresses, the limited role in promoting activities of the IAHR in Hungary and other countries of the Eastern bloc, are among the reasons why the MVT model was at this point considered more experimental than effectual, while the Polish model started to assume a special role in the Seventies. In 1970, the Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze was officially accepted by the IAHR as a member group34 and succeed in organizing two special IAHR conferences in Warsaw in the framework of the Polish Academy of Sciences: in 1979 (11–14th September), one year after the beginning of the Papacy of John Paul II; and in 1989 (Warsaw – Jabłonna, 5–9th September),35 two months before the initial crack of the Berlin Wall. I shall return to this subject – i.e. the changing of the frame of reference from the Hungarian to the Polish model  – in more details later, but at this point the coincidence between the Vatican Ostpolitik and the IAHR Eastern policy – which went on till the Seventies – is to be stressed. So far, the coincidence between the announcement of the Vatican II in 1959 and the Congress at Marburg in 1960 has been detected in the documents of the time, e.g. in the remarks of A. Brelich on the “collapse of the frontiers between a congress of History of religions and an ecumenical council [concilio ecumenico]”.36 6

Strasbourg, September 1964: The Re-Creation of Contacts after Marburg

At the beginning of the year 1962, the correspondence between K. Marót and the assistant of the IAHR General Secretary, L. J. R. Ort, illustrates the efforts made by the Hungarian group to co-operate. In January, Marót promised “some 34 IAHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Stockholm, Sweden August 16–22, 1970 (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 325. 35 Witold Tyloch, ed., Current Progress in the Methodology of the Science of Religions (Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1984); Id., ed., Studies on Religions in the Context of Social Sciences: Methodological and Theoretical Relations [Studia religioznawcze w kontekście nauk społecznych] (Warsaw: Polish Society for the Science of Religions, 1990). 36 Brelich, “Ai margini,” 126: «[…] il cedimento delle frontiere tra congresso di storia delle religioni e concilio ecumenico». Concerning the issue of the unclear distinction made by some members of the IAHR at Marburg in 1960 between a “scientific work” and an “Ecumenical movement or World Congress of Faiths”, see Schimmel, “Summary of the Discussion,” 239, with a different interpretation of this confusion, intended as a resurgence of tendencies originated from the Parliament of World Religions (1893).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

110

chapter 6

contributions by various authors for Numen” to Ort, who indicated the willingness of the IAHR to “receive […] articles as soon as possible”.37 In July 1962, Marót received in Budapest a circular letter of Ort, sent to all the national groups, which requested the nomination of scholars who could be invited to deliver a lecture at the IAHR study conference planned at the University of Strasbourg on the topic of the rites of initiations. It “advised to take into careful consideration the composition of your [of every national group] delegation”, by paying attention to the aim of the organizers i.e. the “strictly scientific character” of the conference.38 Another circular letter related to this conference, preserved in Marót’s correspondence, argued that “there have been regrets that, from certain angles, the IAHR Congresses are not in certain aspects of a high scientific standing”.39 In consequence “at Strasbourg, only scholars, who have been invited by the secretariat after consultation with national groups, will give a paper”.40 The Study conference was held in September 1964. According to the list of participants, Hungary was still the only People’s Democracy represented by a delegation,41 the member of the MVT, Károly Czeglédy.42 After the conference, Ort gave an account of the activities of the IAHR, and honored K. Marót who died on 28th October 1963 (“This distinguished scholar represented Hungary in the Executive Board of the IAHR”),43 without discussing the issue of the limited opening of the Iron Curtain. Czeglédy published an official report on the conference, as well, in a journal of the Hungarian Academy, Antik Tanulmányok, 37 Letter, L. J. R. Ort [IAHR General Secretary assistant] to Károly Marót, Amsterdam, 12.02.1962, original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/457). Ort makes reference to the letter of Marót sent to him in January 12th 1962. 38 Circular letter, L. J. R. Ort [IAHR General Secretary assistant] to the National groups of the IAHR [Károly Marót], Amsterdam, 22.07.1962; original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/459 a). 39 L. J. R. Ort [IAHR General Secretary assistant], Preliminary Information on the Study Conference of the IAHR which Is to Be Held in Strasbourg in 1964, undated; document sent to Károly Marót; original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/461a). 40 Ibid. 41 L. J. R. Ort, “Study Conference of the IAHR Strasbourg (France) September 1964,” Numen 12, no. 1 (1965): 76. 42 The paper of Czeglédy («Das sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern») is not included in the proceedings: IAHR, Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the Study-conference of the International Association for the History of Religions Held at Strasbourg, September 17th to 22nd 1964, ed. Claas Jouco Bleeker (Leiden: Brill, 1965), 78, but was published in the official journal of the IAHR, i.e. Károly Czeglédy, “Das sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern,” Numen 13, 1 (1966): 14–26. For more details concerning this essay, see in this book chapter 3, § 2. 43 Ort, “Study Conference Strasbourg 1964,” 80.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress at Marburg ( 1960 )

111

and mentioned that he was delegated by the MTA («az MTA kiküldötteként») and the Hungarian Indo-Europeanist Csaba Töttössy participated, too, due to the invitation and financial support of the IAHR.44 The archive of the Hungarian Academy retains the administrative and scholarly report submitted by Czeglédy to the Academy, which was not public – as the Marburg report mentioned above  – but confidential, unpublished, and with extra-scientific contents. The delegates of the Academy were usually asked to fill a “report form”, i.e. a paper questionnaire used to collect data after a conference abroad. I do not intend to describe the document in detail, but only focus on issues of concern. A point of Czeglédy’s document, according to the questions of the form, considers “international relations” – which is the main topic of my study – in three subsections: the first requests a description of already existing, or previous contacts; the second asks about newly created ones. For the first section, Czeglédy mentions the participation in the congress itself, which provided the recreation of contacts with the leaders of the International Association.45 As for the third subsection, it invited suggestions for the development of relations in the future, to which Czeglédy responded by writing that it would be reasonable to invite C. J. Bleeker, the General Secretary of the IAHR for a short period, on the behalf of the Hungarian national group.46 The document of Czeglédy used a style of reporting different from the report of the Hungarian delegation at the Congress in Marburg in 1960 (see above) signed by Czeglédy and Trencsényi, and presumably instructed by the latter.47 Differently, the report from Strasbourg does not support a strategy of tension. On the contrary, it planned an academic exchange program with the IAHR, and it refrained from harming the reputation of emigrant intellectuals coming from People’s Democracies. With regard to Károly Kerényi,

44

Károly Czeglédy, “A nemzetközi vallástörténeti társaság Strasbourgi konferenciája (1964, Szept. 17–22),” and Csaba Töttössy, “A ‘L’Association Internationale d’Histoire des Religions’ strasbourgi kollokviuma (1964. Szept. 17–22.),” Antik Tanulmanyok 12 (1965): 311–313, and 313–316. In the text, I refer to page 311: «az IAHR meghívása és anyagi támogatása alapján». 45 Travel report by: Czeglédy Károly kandidátus, Töttössy Csaba kandidátus, ELTE (Franciaország 1964, Szept. 15–22), signed by Czeglédy, Budapest, 26.09.1964: «A magyar vallástörténeti csoport e kiküldetése révén ujra felvette a kapcsolatot a nemzetközi szervezet vezetőségével» (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 46 Ibid. 47 See, in this book, next chapter, for the examination of another report of TrencsényiWaldapfel related to the IAHR 1965 Conference in Claremont, in order to detect similarities of language and phraseology with the report of IAHR 1960 Conference in Marburg.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

112

chapter 6

a representative of the Hungarian/People’s Democracies emigration,48 who chaired one of the panels and gave a paper in a plenary section in Strasbourg,49 Czeglédy restricts himself to mentioning his name, and refers to him as a representative of Switzerland, as was officially stated during the conference, too. A further remark can be done in this matter. The conference gave room to different methodological approaches, that is phenomenological, sociological, and psychological which were under discussion.50 In the report, Czeglédy supported the sociological approach. I quote a passage of the document: In this colloquium, the critical-comparative study of the history of religions represented itself with several lectures based on a sociological methodology. According to us, these lectures were very interesting and instructive also with respect to the ideological and methodological characteristics of our national studies [hazai kutatásaink ideológiai és módszerbeli sajátosságai], and will be utilizable in future research. Lectures have shown in general, that the best of the international researchers made great steps forward the recognition that it is a must that religion should be righteously judged/evaluated/considered as a socially constructed phenomenon.51 At the end, under the heading of general comments, Czeglédy provided the Academy with data concerning visa-mechanisms, which is an issue discussed in the MTA reports on a regular basis.52 48

As for the role of Kerényi in the IAHR as a representative of the scholars behind the Iron Curtain in the first half of the Fifties, see chapter 1. § 1 and 3 in this book. 49 L. J. R. Ort, “Study Conference Strasbourg 1964,” 79, and 77 (“This section was presided by Professor Dr. K. Kerényi [Switzerland]”), and Károly Kerényi, “Voraussetzungen der Einweihung in Eleusis,” in IAHR, Initiation: Study-conference Strasbourg, 59–64. 50 L. J. R. Ort, “Study Conference Strasbourg 1964,” 79–80. 51 Travel report by Czeglédy, Töttössy, 26.09.1964. 52 Ibid. Czeglédy draws attention to the fact that those who arrive in France from People’s Republics, need to enter and leave at the same point of the border: organization of research trips should consider this rule.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 7

The Report of Trencsényi-Waldapfel on the IAHR Congress in the USA (September 1965): Reflections on the Détente 1

The Vacancy of the MVT President Office (27 October 1963–8 June 1965)

In 1965, the IAHR held its 4th Congress at Claremont, in California. The “congress in America” was officially announced in September 1960,1 and finally attended in the aftermath of the escalating geopolitical tensions, at the end of the Kennedy-Khrushchev era. The MTA approved the Hungarian participation in the USA, and the Claremont Religious Studies network supported the participation of Imre Trencsényi Waldapfel, in his capacity as new president of the Vallástudományi group. He was elected and authorized to assume this leadership by the Department of International Relations of the MTA, between March– June 1965,2 a few months before the departure to Claremont. A document related to the election of Trencsényi reveals that the office of Chairman of the MVT remained vacant almost for a year and a half after the death of Károly Marót (27th October 1963), despite the fact that the MVT was participating in 1 IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress für Religionsgeschichte: 11–17. September 1960 in Marburg/ Lahn (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1961), 27–28: paragraph Congress in America: “Mr. Ort gives a survey of the Business about the congress in 1965 in USA in September 1960. The congress will be organized in America by a local committee. Place and date will be fixed later on” (Meeting of the Executive Board on September 17th 1960 in the University of Marburg). 2 Feljegyzés, Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya Vezetőjének [Note, to the Head of the International Relations Department], signed by Lajos Tamás, Budapest, 03.05.1965, n. doc. 10323/1965; original text: Hungarian: “The Academician Károly Marót was a member of the Executive Committee of the International Association of the History of Religions. After his death, the Association proposed the academician Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel for this office. The Directorate of the Department discussed this personnel change and approved of it at the session held on 1st March of this year. I ask for the kind acknowledgement of this” (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). Concerning the official acknowledgment and final authorization of the new leadership of the MVT, I refer to the note: Feljegyzés, Payi Sándor elvtársnak az I.Osztály szaktitkára [Note, for Comrade Sándor Payi, Secretary of Department I], signed by Tibor Szemerédy of the MTA Department for International Relations, Budapest, 08.06.1965 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_009

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

114

chapter 7

activities e.g. in the regional / special IAHR conference held at Strasbourg in 1964.3 Significantly, the decision to arrange the new direction of the Hungarian IAHR group, and make it eventually official within the MTA, was taken in view of the congress in Claremont. This demonstrates the relevance of the USA meeting for the Hungarian group which for this occasion sought to be fully operational. At this point, new members joined the group, namely the Egyptologist László Kákosy, the classical archaeologist and art historian László Castiglione, the folklorist Tekla Dömötör (the first female member of the MVT, first wife of the member Aladár Dobrovits), the sinologist Ferenc Tőkei, and János György Szilágyi,4 the latter had been expelled during the purge process of dissidents in 19575 and was now readmitted, probably due to the General Amnesty of 1963. Inasmuch as the expulsion of Szilágyi was not publicly stated at the time, his admission was declared without mentioning that it was a reinstatement. In this chapter, my aim is to evaluate in what measure the effort in reactivating the Hungarian IAHR group was made by the MVT in order to seize the challenge of a world-scale gathering of People’s Democracies scholars in the USA and establishing direct contacts with USA academic institutions. On the basis of so far unpublished documents which are preserved at the archives of the MTA at Budapest, I seek to understand the role of the “History of religions”-studies organization of the CIPSH in the middle of the Sixties in the relaxation of tensions between the Eastern and Western blocs. 2

The FIEC Congress in Philadelphia and the Polish Delegation (August 1964): A Comparison of the Freedom of Scholars

The opening of the MTA to the USA, as it occurred for the IAHR congress in Claremont, was not an isolated case, and neither was the involvement of Trencsényi. In August 1964, Trencsényi attended the 4th congress of the International Federation of Societies of Classical Studies  / Fédération Internationale des Études Classiques (FIEC) hosted in the University of Philadelphia. The American Philological Association, which organized the 3 See chapter 6, §6. 4 Feljegyzés, Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya, Tamás, 03.05.1965 mentioned above. The minute gave notice of the death of two members: József Aistleitner (9th September 1960), and Ödön Beke (10th April 1964), and the resignation of the orientalist Lajos Ligeti. 5 See chapter 3, § 5.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

115

event, supported the contribution of Trencsényi and even invited him to chair a session (“Rhetoric and Philosophy in the Works of Cicero”).6 In a previous chapter of this book, I already examined and compared the FIEC and IAHR affiliation-processes within the CIPSH. Now, I intend to consider the two organizations again, as both scheduled their congresses in the USA close in time (1964 and 1965) and both promoted scholarly relations between the Eastern and Western blocs. The participation of the classical philologist Kazimierz Kumaniecki, from the Polish Academy of Sciences, in Trencsényi’s session in the FIEC congress in Pennsylvania is to be noted. A few months before, in March 1964, Kumaniecki – who had played an important part in the membership of the People’s Democracies associations for Classical Studies in the FIEC7  – had been involved in the protest of the so called Letter 34 signed by him and a group of the Polish intelligentsia, in order to claim the right to criticism, free discussion and reliable information, by asking for a change in the Polish cultural policy. The letter was broadcasted by Radio Free Europe and quickly provoked a campaign in Western countries to support the signatories who denounced the Polish censorship. In April, Kumaniecki signed a counter-letter published in the Western press to blame the “false information” in this campaign, and to express formally that he was not “deprived of the right to hold lectures”.8 In my view, this international debate on the freedom of information helps to explain the meaning of a passage of the public report of Trencsényi, released in Hungary, on the congress in Philadelphia, in which, as a conclusion, a similar question is raised. In this report, besides the museum of the University of Pennsylvania, Trencsényi mentioned a separate exhibition hosting various private collections of Classical Art, mostly unpublished. In this regard, he pointed out problems concerning the availability of this collection (“open only in the days of the congress”, “preserving the incognito of the owners”), so that the collections remained “inaccessible for scientific research”.9 The issue of freedom 6 FIEC, “Program of the Fourth International Congress of Classical Studies, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 24–29, 1964,” in Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 95 (1964): XLVI: “August 25 […] ‘Rhetoric and Philosophy in the Works of Cicero’, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel presiding: Kazimierz Kumaniecki, Cicero’s Ligariana, Alain Michel, La philosophie de Cicéron avant 55”. 7 See chapter 3, § 7. 8 Aleksandra Ziolkowska-Boehm, Melchior Wańkowicz: Poland’s Master of the Written Word (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2013), 31, 33: with reference to the role played by Kumaniecki. 9 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “A IV nemzetközi klasszika-filológiai kongresszus (Philadelphia, 1964, Augusztus 24–29),” Antik Tanulmányok. Studia Antiqua 12, no. 2 (1965): 309–311, 311: “It is a great pity that the catalogue of this hardly available exposition which was open only during

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

116

chapter 7

of research raised by Trencsényi can be properly considered if related to the background of the Polish delegation, i.e. Kumaniecki, and the relationships between scholars across the Iron Curtain in 1964. 3

Invitation and Support by the American Program Committee

Various documents preserved at the MTA archives demonstrate that the American branch of the IAHR supported the participation of the Hungarian delegation to the congress held in California in September 1965. Here, I will bring attention to some records of this concern. In November 1964, Kenneth Morgan, on behalf of the American Program Committee of the IAHR congress, addressed an invitation to the Hungarian Academy “to send a representative scholar [one or more representatives]” to the IAHR congress, “engaged in the scholarly study of the history and theory of religions”.10 The first reaction is a note written by the Secretary of the First Department of the MTA, Lajos Tamás, to the head of the Department of International Relations of the Hungarian Academy. A problem of financial nature is raised, indicating that it was not possible to send a delegation to the expense of the department (literally: the budget, i.e. the quota of foreign currency, “devizakeret”11). In February 1965, the Secretary General of the MTA wrote back to Morgan, and pointed out that “financial problems resulting from the great distance make the prospect of this participation rather uncertain”.12 In a letter sent in May by Morgan to Trencsényi-Waldapfel, we learn about the funding intended to cover his attendance at the IAHR congress, made available by the chairman of the American Program Committee, who provided

the days of the Congress in this form was published without any illustration, and, which is more, in some cases preserving the incognito of the owners, so that these largely unknown items remain inaccessible for scientific research” (original text: Hungarian). 10 Letter, Kenneth W. Morgan to the Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary, 18.11.1964; original text: English. This circular letter of invitation addressed to all IAHR membergroups stressed out that the congress on the History of Religions which “has been meeting regularly since 1900 […] will be held for the first time in America” (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 11 Memorandum, Lajos Tamás to the Department of International Relations [Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya], Budapest, 11.01.1965; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 12 Copy of the letter, T. Erdey-Gruz to Kenneth W. Morgan, Colgate University, Hamilton NY; Budapest, 17.02.1965; original text: English (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

117

Trencsényi with the help of a travel agent as well.13 This document illustrates that the American committee at Claremont did not limit itself to formal invitation, but committed to ensuring the participation of a representative of the Hungarian group. As far as we can see in the correspondence of Trencsényi, he had a contact with Herbert Wallace Schneider, Secretary of the local organizing committee at Claremont, too, in order to manage his arrival at Los Angeles.14 Further details are provided by the confidential report related to the travel to the Claremont congress, addressed by Trencsényi to the MTA. This document is specific about the financial resource granted by the UNESCO,15 but distinguished the USA and IAHR diplomacies, and finally submitted arguments in order to demonstrate how the latter affected the former. b, Experiences concerning contact with official institutions of the country of destination: Even before my travel, it had been noted that the Embassy of the USA at Budapest issued my visa with several days of a delay and for a period shorter than what I had requested, and even this was [effectuated] when the president of the congress, Kenneth Morgan, professor of the University [in] Hamilton, took steps personally in the Ministry of Foreign 13 Letter, Kenneth Morgan to Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, letterhead “XIth International Congress  – International Association for the History of Religions, September 6–11, 1965 Claremont, California”, 12.05.1965; original text: English (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 4502/638). The amount of the check received is $ 200. 14 Letter, Kenneth W. Morgan to Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, August 13 [probably 1965]; original text: English (MTAK, Department of Manuscripts, Ms 4502/639): “If you have responded to Claremont, to Dr. Schneider there, they have a record of when you are coming and will take care of you. Be sure that you send word to Dr. Schneider telling him when you will arrive at Los Angeles”. The selected papers of Herbert W. Schneider are available at the Special Collections Research Center of the Southern Illinois University Carbondale, and are of concern for the IAHR and the American Society for the Study of Religions as well. They are made up of manuscripts, material relating to the organizations in which he was active, and his correspondence (1924–1976) particularly extensive for the period when Schneider was working for the UNESCO. 15 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], Mely országban járt: Északamerikai Egyesült Államok, Mettől-meddig: 1965.Szept. 5–15, Budapest, 12.10.1965, document of 5 pages, typewritten, handwritten signature of Trencsényi-Waldapfel; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). A Copy of the same report is included in the papers of Trencsényi held by the MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4503/557. The passage quoted above is related to the paragraph: “Experience concerning administration: a) how was your accommodation, provision organized / financial circumstances: the organizing committee – from the support of the UNESCO – has bought my airplane tickets in both destinations and organized my provision […] satisfactorily”.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

118

chapter 7

Affairs in Washington, after having received our letter that cancelled my participation in the congress due to the lack of visa – and he sent the permit of the visa through cable in 24 hours. However, the colleagues, [i.e. the members of] the presidency of the International Association and the local Organizing Committee openly disapproved of this process and did everything they could to make it up to me.16 In examining these records, we enter an ongoing debate on the negotiation of East-West scholarly relations across the Iron Curtain,17 by illustrating the case of the UNESCO/CIPSH organization for the “History of Religions”-studies in the Sixties. From the point of view of the history of the IAHR, Trencsényi’s confidential report to the MTA and his correspondence provide us with littleknown and unpublished data related to the 11th International Congress which are not included in the proceedings. 4

The IAHR as a “Shared Platform of Diverse Scientific Tendencies” (Trencsényi-Waldapfel)

Trencsényi’s confidential report to the MTA illustrates some trade-marks of the European Marxist intelligentsia. Trencsényi adopted the Lukácsian rhetorical style to interpret the IAHR as a forum split into two factions: the reactionary/ idealistic/irrational against the progressive/historical/scientific, namely the bourgeois contrasting the Marxist views. Below, I quote a passage of the report on the Claremont congress, related to this issue: a, Scientific and professional assessment of the event: The more than 60 lectures dedicated to the subject of “crime and purifying rites” were usually of a high scholarly standard, and given that data was brought from a most wide range of religions of the world, from the point of view of a comparative study of the history of religions, these afternoon sessions definitely provided us with new knowledge. We cannot say the same concerning the morning plenary sessions, and even less so concerning the evening symposia. In these, on repeated occasions, the 16 Ibid. 17 This issue was examined for instance in the framework of the research project of György Karsai, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska, eds., Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain (Ljubljana, Budapest, and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales”, 2013).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

119

present role of religion was treated with a reactionary approach [reakciós szempontok], against which it was necessary to formulate a resolution [határozat] [stating that] the goal of the International Association is exclusively a historical study of religion or religions, and the raising of any confessional question or [issue of] current religious policy must be avoided. Concerning the method of the [study of the] history of religions, it was not possible, neither necessary, to make a [similar] decree, but, of course, there were idealistic-irrational tendencies [idealisztikusirracionalista törekvések] also in the treatment of issues of a historical nature. Oppositions were sharply visible in these fields and, in one of the theoretical debates, my speech against the irrationalism present in the [study of the] history of religions was received with great attention and approval in the circles of a significant proportion of the audience. However, it is undeniable that even those lectures that treated current issues of religious policy (valláspolitikai) – especially concerning the present-day religious circumstances of Asia  – brought certain insights, but this does not contradict to the correctness of the resolution that states that such topics are to be avoided in the future, because the shared platform of diverse scientific tendencies [tudományos irányok] united by the Association could be dissolved due to a sharpening of political, religious or ideological confrontations.18 The report probably refers to the paper on the impact of Communism on religions in China by Richard Bush who attended the congress.19 Among all the 18 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965, mentioned above. 19 Richard C. Bush, “The Impact of Communism on Religion in China,” in IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions: Claremont, California, September 6–11, 1965, vol. 3 The Role of Historical Scholarship in Changing the Relations among Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 57–72. A comparable but opposite situation to that of the congress at Claremont, related to the same sensitive issue, occurred in 1956 in the editorial framework of Numen. An essay dealing with the status of religions in China at the time (Eduard Erkes, “Die heutige Stellung der Religionen in China,” Numen 3, no. 1 [1956]: 28–35) led to a reaction of the General Secretary C. J. Bleeker. In a letter to Pettazzoni, he complained: “[…] I, who have known a totalitarian regime, distrust freedom granted to Chinese religions by the Communists, which is not very much. The biased tone used by Erkes against Christianity unpleasantly touches me. This is not an objective and a scientific information, but propaganda. And this is the reason why I wonder if we should observe the famous rule: audi alteram partem. We may succeed by asking to [Hendrik] Kraemer to write an essay related to the religious situation in the Far East” (Letter, C. J. Bleeker to R. Pettazzoni, Amsterdam, 24.06.1956; original text: French, Pettazzoni Archive, Correspondence). Kraemer was a

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

120

chapter 7

contributions, this was the lecture that most explicitly addressed the interrelations between politics and religion. The ideological-Marxist engagement of Trencsényi’s document is evident, but puzzling. At the same time, it claims to enhance a position which is expected to be objective, unbiased, related to a “scholarly/academic” (tudományos) approach which – according to the report – aims to avoid politically sensitive subjects in the international congresses, ideological as well as faithoriented. With regard to the scientific approach, the report adds further data to the debate on the Academic Study of Religion in the Eastern bloc, for instance to the insightful remarks of Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann on the complexity of the ideological approach and the issue of “objectivity/neutrality” in scientific studies during the so-called Communist period.20 As far as my essay is concerned, I restrict myself to one major aspect of this document related both to the Cold War and science diplomacy. By presenting the IAHR as a “shared platform of diverse scientific tendencies united”, the report unveils an alliance-program across the Iron Curtain. This program is clarified in a following passage of the report in which Trencsényi draws up a list of potential coalitions with historians of religions belonging to NATO countries, and points out the agreement with the USA organizers concerning the refusal of the so-called “irrational methodology”. Concerning the issue: “What foreign scholars were consulted, in what questions, and what responses were given”, i.e. the following question in the formula, he reported: “With H. W. Schneider [member of the American Program Committee, director of the Blaisdell Institute in Claremont for Advanced Study in World Cultures and Religions]

20

Dutch Reformed lay theologian, director of the Ecumenical Institute of the World Council of Churches (1947–1955), engaged in the academic study of religions. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann, Preface to Id., eds., Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened. The Academic Study of Religions in Eastern Europe (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), XII: “In the Communist era, a neutral attitude toward religion became branded as undesirable, and the Academic Study of Religions in the sense of Religionswissenschaft was, in many Communist countries, condemned and banned as a non-Marxist, bourgeois science”. And the following debate: Tomáš Bubík, “Is the Study of Religions in the Eastern Europe still behind the Iron Curtain? Response to Gregory Alles, Barbara Krawcowicz and Stefan Ragaz,” in Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 191–199; Valerio Severino, “Behind and across the Iron Curtain. Reflections Following the Discussion in ‘Method & Theory in the Study of Religion’ on T. Bubík’s and H. Hoffmann’s The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe,” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 84, no. 1 (2018): 345–349.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

121

on the irrationalist and rational (irracionalista és “racionális”) methods of the [study of the] history of religions – he agreed with my standpoint in essence”.21 It is clear that the report employed a somewhat limited vocabulary. A recurring expression is “progressive knowledge/thought” (haladó gondolkodású) of religions. It is applied to the President of the International Association, Geo Widengren at first, appreciating him in this respect, and declaring that he is an advocate of purely scholarly research free from any confessional point of view (konfesszionális szemponttól szabad). In this respect, Trencsényi then turns his attention to C. J. Bleeker, admitting that he is a representative of Protestantism, but quickly adding that of that line of Dutch Protestantism which permits the critical study of the Bible and the research in the field of the history of religions.22 Trencsényi reported that the IAHR was divided in interest and methodology, and resumed the issue of a division conceptually interpreted in terms of “idealistic-irrational tendencies” opposed to “progressive knowledge”, which had already been reported on after the IAHR congress in Marburg in 1960. But this time, in 1965, in California, he sets out the opportunities provided by the IAHR in greater detail, by describing it to the MTA as an organization of a scientific nature to rely on in situations when there would be “obstacles” in diplomacy (e.g. obstructionism by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs in NATO countries for the visa processes), and which stimulated public objections and protest against the USA Government abroad. It is remarkable, that the local newspaper, the Claremont Courier – citing information given by Kenneth Morgan himself  – has given special attention to my participation at the Congress, emphasizing that my travel was hindered by obstacles, and it was the fault of the American government, […] “although his [i.e. Trencsényi’s] specialized knowledge of bucolic poetry [the topic of his speech at the Congress] would hardly seem subversive”.23 The same article blamed the absence of representatives from the GDR on the governments of both the USA and the GDR. Apart from that, also A. Brelich, professor of the University of Rome has faced similar difficulties. He could receive the visa due to the personal intervention of Kenneth Morgan, but with a delay, too, and for a 21 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965, mentioned above. 22 Ibid. 23 In the report, Trencsényi quoted this sentence from the Claremont Courier in English, and provided a Hungarian translation: «speciális ismereteim a bukolikus költészet terén aligha számitanak felforgató jellegünek».

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

122

chapter 7

period shorter than the requested one: [which was] accorded with the time span of the congress. The embassy of the USA in Rome justified it with the fact that he is a member of the Association of Italian-Hungarian Friendship [Olasz-Magyar Baráti Társaság]. I was informed on this not only by A. Brelich, but also the president and the secretary of the organizing committee, professors Kenneth Morgan and Schneider, expressing their disapproval of the process.24 5

“His Specialized Knowledge of Bucolic Poetry Would Hardly Seem Subversive”: An Intertextual Analysis

Trencsényi communicated to the Organizing Committee of Claremont the topic of his paper The Religious Background of the Bucolic Poetry one month before the beginning of the congress, and that he intended to present it at the “session on Guilt, Pollution and Rites of Purification, in German”.25 The paper applied a comparative approach to mythology for the understanding of the relationship between human and nature, by referring to Classical Antiquity (Daphne, Adonis, Tammuz), Virgil’s eclogues and Theocritus’ idylls, biblical myths (the Original Sin) and Hungarian Christian ethnic rites (e.g. the use of animal masks), in order to reveal a bucolic device which conveys concepts of harmony, danger and salvation.26 No references to any ideologicalpolitical legacy are made. The ideological-political insight of the studies of Trencsényi on the bucolic genre is hidden in the framework of the IAHR, but was stated in his previous essays e.g. on the Hungarian poet Miklós Radnóti (1909–1944), made available in French language. In my view, the relationship of this essay with the paper for the Claremont IAHR congress is basic to the interpretation of the latter. In the French essay published in 1961, which is closely related to the topic of the paper for the congress at Claremont held in 1965, Trencsényi had analyzed connections relevant to Radnóti, who wrote his own Eclogues while he was 24 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965. 25 Copy of letter, Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel to Kenneth W. Morgan, Budapest, 04.08.1965; original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4503/600). 26 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Bukolischen Poesie,” in IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress: Claremont. Vol. 2: Guilt or Pollution and Rites of Purification (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 203–211. Trencsényi’s papers at the MTAK preserve 2 typewritten pre-versions of this essay of 4 pages and 13 pages, with handwritten corrections and erasure marks, and 2 pages of handwritten notes (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Trencsényi archive).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

123

translating the IX Eclogue of the Latin poet Virgil at the end of the Thirties, in the period – as Trencsényi defined it – of the “Fascism of [Miklós] Horthy”.27 Radnóti’s new idyllic poetry is compared to the ancient pastoral and Virgilian myth of a Golden Age to come. Both poets lived in a context of suffering and expropriations, respectively during the German military expansion in Europe, and the Post-Caesar civil war.28 Furthermore, the essay on Radnóti linked the bucolic device to the labor Communist movements in which his poetry was involved. Trencsényi considered the mixing and overturning of mythic and biblical items in his poetry, and eclogues, as being helpful to the realization of Socialism,29 inasmuch as – according to Trencsényi – the eclogues of Radnóti show “the range of his poetry which talks about politics with the discreet means of poetry, and from the point of view of the antifascist struggle”.30 My thesis is that the paper of Claremont concealed such Resistance connections related to the bucolic device but kept available in previous essays, like the one published in 1961. A passage of the report – quoted above, in the previous paragraph – exploited an argument used by a local newspaper in California, the Claremont Courier, and the related information provided by the American team of the IAHR, according to which the topic “would hardly seem subversive”.31 Trencsényi 27 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “Les églogues de Miklós Radnóti,” in Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1961): 196, and 192–193: “At the time of the publication of the bilingual [Hungarian] edition of Virgil’s Eclogues [1938], for which Radnóti had translated the ninth eclogue, German fascism had reached, after the occupation of Austria, the Western frontiers of our country [i.e. Hungary]. This increased the danger of an imminent war, and all the more from the point of view of the Hungarian people, for the traitorous dominant class of Hungary soon took all the steps necessary both in domestic and foreign policies, which proved that Horthy’s fascism was the deliberate ally of Hitler’s fascism” (original text: French). 28 Ibid., 189–190. 29 Ibid., 184: « rencontre précoce avec le mouvement ouvrier »; and 203: « la perspective certaine de la réalisation du socialisme ». 30 Ibid., 200: « Malgré ses doutes répétés, Miklós Radnóti avait confiance – à juste titre – dans l’intelligibilité des choses tues, la force suggestive des associations, la portée de sa poésie parlant politique avec les moyens discrets de la poésie, du point de vue de la lutte antifasciste ». 31 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965. The statement of the Claremont Courier proved itself to be atypical as compared to other American newspapers, for instance: Los Angeles Times Service, “Scholars of Religion Open Conference,” The Arizona Republic, September 7, 1965: 14, including an interview with Kenneth W. Morgan, who mentioned the “delegates from more than 35 countries” without making any list, but specifying only the religious commitment of the scholars: “Roman Catholics, most Protestant faiths, Jews, Hindus, Sikhs, Jain Specialists, Buddhists, Confucionists and others”, and not the presence of scholars with materialistic points of view. No reference to Hungary, and no list of the countries – with the exception of Japan, India and Thailand – was made in

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

124

chapter 7

mentioned this argument to prove to the MTA to have reaped a positive impact on the American public opinion which welcomed the Hungarian delegation and did not consider it a threat to national security. In Hungary, Trencsényi went beyond the Marxist-Lukácsian rhetoric of irrationalism versus progress, by turning the bucolic imagery (sentimental rural aesthetic, idealization of peasant life, the metaphysic idyll, etc.) into a positive outcome for the Socialist revolution and the poetry of Radnóti.32 This change is not expected to undermine the rhetoric of the “Destruction of Reason” by working from within. Trencsényi made efforts in balancing the benefits of Socialism and both bucolic poetry and  – applying a comparative method  – its device in classic myths of the Golden Age or biblical prophecies of salvation. On the one hand, he mentioned the undesirable features of this device (“never is […] the idyllic refuge of an individual isolated from the destiny of people […]”; “not the consolation of religion […]”).33 On the other hand, he elaborated on the “legitimacy” of the idyll as a symbol of the basic human reaction against the non-human, the awareness of a “simple and peaceful humanity threatened, finally lost but never forgotten”,34 i.e. the “chassis of human value “IAHR Group scheduled at Claremont,” Santa Cruz Sentinel, August 20, 1965: (“A world congress of scholars, meeting for the first time in the Western Hemisphere […]”). I refer also to: “Religious History Scholars Will Meet in Claremont,” The Valley News and Valley Green Sheet, August 20, 1965; “World Congress. History of Religions Assn. to Convene in Claremont,” The San Bernardino County Sun, August 21, 1965; “Religious Congress Slated,” The Press Courier, August 21, 1965. In all these cases the main question remains that the congress was conducted in a non-European intellectual center. 32 Similar examples of the so-called “bucolic socialism”, e.g. in the British context, are William Morris’ poetry or Walter Crane’s engravings (pastoral women floral garlands, peasant laborers) “redolent with the aroma of English Romanticism, […] totally anathema to the aesthetic precepts of the Comintern of 1928–34” (Michelle Weinroth, Reclaiming William Morris: Englishness, Sublimity, and the Rhetoric of Dissent [Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014], 115). In this respect, M. Weinroth wrote: “Bucolic niceties were too reminiscent of a conservative and ethical-socialist sensitivity which Communists were denouncing in their campaign against Social Democrats and reformists” (Ibid.). 33 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “Les églogues,” 187: « Car le paysage n’est jamais, dans la poésie de Radnóti, la cachette idyllique d’un individu isolé du sort du peuple, au contraire, c’est lorsqu’il se colore des nuances les plus tendres de l’idylle qu’il représente avec le plus de vigueur tout le danger menaçant le genre humain »; and 203: « Le symbolisme biblique ne nous trompe pas plus que les symboles bucoliques: il s’agit non pas de la consolation apportée par la religion mais de la perspective certaine de la réalisation du socialisme; dès sa première jeunesse Radnóti comptait le Jésus [marxiste] de [Henri] Barbusse parmi ses compagnons de route permanents ». 34 Ibid., 203: « Mais la lutte, “la fumée du courroux”, la passion apparentée à la fureur des prophètes n’exige pas le renoncement à l’idylle, au contraire, son sens et sa légitimité existent jusqu’à ce que se réalise tout ce que symbolisait l’idylle, l’humanité simple et paisible,

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

125

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

in peril”.35 This result illustrates the degree of flexibility of the rhetoric of the irrationalism within Hungarian Marxism and studies on religion. It is not an isolated case. Similar concerns were raised, in the same period, by the Marxist ethnographer Gyula Ortutay on the “political significance” of the Radnóti idyll which “means to contrast the […] barbaric fascism”.36 In order to understand how the explicatory model of the “Dethronement of Reason” was enforced less effectively in the case of Trencsényi’s and Ortutay’s interpretation of Radnóti, further reasons should be examined which combine intellectual matters and private affairs. Partially, the close relationship of Trencséyi and Ortutay with Radnóti can explain if they overlooked his eccentricity in the Marxist framework.37 Finally, to get back to the IAHR congress at Claremont, it is to be noticed that, as far as the report is concerned, Trencséyi informed the MTA about his “speech against the irrationalism present in the [study of the] history of religions” (see above the whole quotation),38 i.e. he pointed out that he applied the Marxist-Lukácsian explicatory model in public, in California, although this issue is not mentioned in the proceedings. 6

The Ideological Corrections within the Hungarian Academic System: “On the Level of Terminology”

The politically unbiased style adopted by Trencsényi in his paper for the IAHR conference in Claremont contrasts with the fact that he was involved in the ideological control of scientific production within the academic system, in Hungary. The MTA archives provide pieces of evidence on the bias of Trencsényi and Marxist commitment of scholars engaged in humanities. The correspondence of K. Marót includes confidential information on Trencsényi who e.g., in August 1955, suggested that the byzantinist Gyula menacée puis perdue, mais jamais oubliée. Les plus beaux espoirs de l’humanité ont été réunis par le symbole de l’âge d’or dans l’antiquité classique, et par celui de l’avènement du Messie dans la Bible ». 35 Ibid., 189: « […] dans la poésie de Radnóti […] l’idylle est dès le début le châssis des valeurs humaines en danger ». 36 Gyula Ortutay, Írók, népek, századok (Budapest: Magvetö, 1960), 154. 37 A documentary evidence of this relationship is preserved in a touching letter of Ortutay to Marót: “[…] I am infinitely sad: Radnóti Miklós was innocently sent to a penal camp […] and cannot come home, though we had all waited him badly”: Letter, G. Ortutay to K. Marót, 11.12.1940; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/477). 38 Trencsényi-Waldapfel Imre, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

126

chapter 7

Moravcsik effectuated some “ideological corrections” of a text submitted for publication to the MTA. Moravcsik referred to this case in a letter written during his holidays with the following words: Concerning my article written for the Acta [Antiqua, MTA publisher], which I have mentioned to you [Marót], Imre [i.e. Trencsényi, editor-inchief] suggested certain ideological corrections [bizonyos ideológiai javítások] in the last morning, but I left them to be judged by H. János39 (A Magyar klasszika-filológia tíz éve40), and thus, I am now having a rest calmly here.41 My examination does not intend to defend the cliché of a MTA intelligentsia which, as a whole, was expected to conform to the propagandistic rhetoric and provide ideological benefits. The post-Communist historiography has correctly admitted the different degree of the constraint which forced or stimulated scholars in the humanities to make reference to Marxism and Soviet political leaders. In support of this, in the scientific production, e.g. in their essays, references have been noted in many cases only in the preliminary or final passages, which look independent from the main text and do not follow the whole discussion. Therefore, they should be interpreted as nothing but a sign of public deference. From this point of view, Péter Hajdu, András Maté-Tóth, Csaba Máté Sarnyai already examined both the “Marxist flavour” of the formal ideological mentions made by Trencsényi, and his “genuine Marxist insight”42 as well. For further information about the ideological corrections, we can refer to the activities conducted by Trencsényi with the Gondolat publisher, and specifically a document of Trencsényi written in 1963 related to his edition of a Hungarian history of world literature. This edition pertains to our 39

Probably János Harmatta, included in the editorial board of the Acta Antiqua (“adiuvantibus: A. Dobrovits, J. Harmatta, Gy. Moravcsik”). 40 The essay was published in a French translation Gy.[ula] Moravcsik, “Dix années de philologie classique hongroise, 1945–1954,” Acta Antiqua. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, no. 3 (1955): 191–209. 41 Letter, Gyula Moravcsik to Károly Marót, Balatonvilágos, 04.08.1955; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 5210/374). 42 Péter Hajdu, “Classics in Hungary and the Party Line: The Case of Imre TrencsényiWaldapfel,” in Classics and Communism, 63; András Máté-Tóth and Csaba Máté Sarnyai, “The History and Recent Trends of Religionswissenschaft in Hungary,” in Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, eds. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 157.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

127

research topic, because it involved scholars of the MVT, e.g. János Harmatta, Aladár Dobrovits. Below, I quote two passages of the guidelines addressed by Trencsényi to the authors, as an outline of ideological conduct. The rule of instruction relating to the policy to follow makes the issue of the Marxist vocabulary and the editorial monitoring clear. Point 2. The work gives a picture about universal movements and significant momentums of world literature in the spirit of Marxist literary studies. […] Point 8. It follows from the scientific fundamentals of the work that each of its chapters needs to be pervaded by Marxist spirit [i.e. ideology “szellem”] […]. However, the text mustn’t be overloaded  – as it is done by vulgar Marxists [vulgáris marxisták módjára] – with words like “society”, “reality” “reflex” “exploitation”, “progress” etc. [“társadalom”, “valóság” “tükrözés” “kizsákmányolás”, “haladás”]. Our Marxism should be essential [marxizmusunk lényegi legyen], and it should not show off itself on the level of terminology [terminológia síkja]. Which does not mean at all that we should avoid Marxist terminology with nervous obsession [ideges kényszeresség].43 This rule of instruction provides us with background information on the overload-level of ideological terminology set by Trencsényi. As a matter of interest, the issue of an “essential Marxism” which “should not show itself off” in order to succeed, but mitigate communication barriers, pertains to a writing-strategy adopted for improving his paper at Claremont as well. This means that such a linguistic adaptation of Marxist vocabulary found itself in need of being implemented both inwardly and outwardly, within Hungarian Marxism and toward the IAHR framework in the United States. Among others, Trencsényi is a case-study of a Cold War waged on many fronts, which highlights the explicatory limits of the two-blocs theory of the Iron Curtain, and its oversimplification.

43 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “A Világirodalom története” Munka-Elvei, undated, but related to other documents on this subject dated June–July 1963, typewritten (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms. 4330/224 included in the dossier containing the correspondence and contracts with the Gondolat publisher: Trencsényi-Waldapfel Imre Levelezése és szerződései a Gondolat szövegkiadóval 1957–1970).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

128 7

chapter 7

The Public Report

In 1966, a public report from the pen of Trencsényi was published in the journal Antik Tanulmányok – a version completely different from the confidential one. In the following, one of the main points related to methodological issues can be read: Those ambiguities that also in Marburg [1960 IAHR congress], five years ago, had caused serious problems for the experts who keep in mind the strictly scientific goals of the History of Religions, undeniably left their mark on a part of the meetings. This urged the International Committee to take the righteous decision – after having discussed the experiences – to require the restrain from raising any issue of apologetic nature or pertaining to religious policy [valláspolitikai] in the agenda of the Congress. Of course, a similar requirement had already been raised in Marburg [Werblowsky document], but it is questionable up to what degree the decree may be applied as long as the theoretical limits of the History of Religions – which is a historical discipline based on philology, examining religion in its progress, as well as its development in the overall framework of social progress – are not delineated in opposition to theology.44 8

The MVT Agenda for International Cooperation after the 1965 IAHR Congress: Data and Considerations on Security Measures

After the IAHR congress at Claremont, the Hungarian delegation set up a visiting-scholars program proposed as an exchange-action. Trencsényi’s report included a list of selected names of scholars which the Hungarian Academy might rely on. Only one scholar is recommended as being fit for invitation, Paul Oskar Kristeller of the Columbia University in New York.45 This paragraph aims at understanding the criteria on which the decision may have been based. Kristeller was an expert in Renaissance humanism and early Italian culture. Neither did his profile meet the needs of the IAHR, nor was he even involved in the association and – as far as I can see in the Proceedings – nor

44 Imre, Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “A xi. Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszus,” Antik Tanulmányok 13, no. 1 (1966): 156. 45 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

129

did he attend the congress with a paper.46 It seems clear to me that the involvement of Kristeller was not appropriate to ensure that objectives of the IAHR would be reached, despite of his interest in the religious/Christian issue, e.g. his investigation on the Medieval legacy of Renaissance learning in Europe.47 Nevertheless, his skills fitted the area of expertise in which Trencsényi located his studies both on Marxism  – as he did in his book Humanizmus és marxizmus published in 194848  – and Religious Studies, since his Vallástörténeti tanulmányok [Essays on the History of Religions],49 published in 1959, included the issue of Renaissance humanism (e.g. the role of Erasmus in modern biblical science, etc.).50 The letters between Trencsényi and Kristeller – now at the Department of manuscripts of MTAK – prove that their contact dates back before the congress at Claremont (1965) and therefore did not origin from the connections engendered within the IAHR there and then. Yet in 1962, Kristeller wrote to him that he was planning a research visit at the libraries and archives of Budapest, and asked Trencsényi to “approve” his “project on behalf of the Academy” i.e. to support authorizations to give him access to catalogues and manuscripts at Budapest that are of interest for the Renaissance period.51 The novelty of the invitation of Kristeller in 1965 is reduced due to the fact that Kristeller already implemented a Hungarian network. The letters show that this first contact 46 IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th international congress: Claremont. Vol. 1 and 2. 47 Paul Oskar Kristeller, “The Contribution of Religious Orders to Renaissance Thought and Learning,” The American Benedictine Review 21 (1970): 1–55. In this field of research, and concerning the role played by Kristeller and his project of reinterpreting Renaissance humanism, see James Hankins, “Religion and the Modernity of Renaissance Humanism,” in Interpretations of Renaissance Humanism, ed. Angelo Mazzocco (Leiden: Brill, 2006), 137–153. 48 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Humanizmus és marxizmus: tanulmány (Budapest: Hungária, 1948). 49 See chapter 5, § 3–4. 50 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Vallástörténeti tanulmányok (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959). Theories of humanists were particularly at stake. In 1962, Trencsényi defined the tasks of the history of religious criticism (valláskritika) by elaborating on Protagora’s theory of the homo-mensura, in an essay titled “Man is the measure of all things”, published by the Hungarian journal Világosság [Light] and listed in an index, organized by topic area of concern to materialistic world-view, as related to “vallástörténet [history of religion]” (Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “Mindennek mértéke az ember: Két fejezet a valláskritika történetéből,” [‘Man is the measure of all things’. Two chapters on the history of religious criticism], Világosság. Materialista Világnézeti Folyóirat 3, no. 1 [1962], 8). 51 Letter, Paul Oskar Kristeller to Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York [Columbia University], 24.01.1962; original text: English (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/517). Kristeller had “seen here [in New York] the printed catalogues of the earlier Latin mss of the Széchenyi Library and of the University Library” (Ibid.).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

130

chapter 7

was not limited to the episode of “hospitality” of 1962,52 but allowed further cooperation. In 1965, with a view to attending the IAHR congress at Claremont, Trencsényi addressed him for the purpose of arranging a visit to the Columbia University.53 As far as these documents reveal, they did not meet in Claremont but in New York, where Kristeller probably hosted Trencsényi.54 In short, the Trencsényi-MTA agenda for visiting scholars after the IAHR congress did not result from the UNESCO/CIPSH project on the “History of Religions”-studies in Claremont, but from previous and parallel connections. Kristeller did not have the opportunity to visit Budapest for a second time,55 but kept a long-distance scholarly relationship with Trencsényi, until his death in 1970,56 as evidenced by the correspondence. In 1967, a copy of the German edition of Trencsényi’s studies on the history of religions reached the Columbia University of New York through the channel opened with Kristeller.57 For the understanding of the political stance of Kristeller, it may be useful to refer to some sentences of the letters to Trencsényi. As it was a common ground of agreement, he made reference to the Columbia University protests of 1968, i.e. the demonstrations against racial discrimination in America and 52 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York, 23.09.1962; original text: German: «Ich bin vor etwa einem Monat von meiner langen Reise zurückgekommen, und möchte Ihnen noch einmal für Ihre Gastfreundschaft und für all Ihre Aufmerksamkeiten während meines Besuchs in Budapest sehr herzlich danken» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/518). 53 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York, 30.08.1965; original text: German: «Ich werde mich sehr freuen, Sie in September hier begrüßen zu können und Ihnen unsere Universität [i.e. Columbia University] zu zeigen» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/520). 54 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York, 24.10.1965; original text: German: «Meine Frau und ich denken noch gern an Ihren Besuch zurück und hoffen, dass Sie Ihren Besuch in New York und Amerika in angenehmer Erinnerung haben» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/521). And a further letter: Kristeller to Trencsényi, 25.01.1967: «Wir denken noch gern an Ihren Besuch in New York zurück» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/522). 55 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York, postal stamp “July 21, 1969”; original text: German: «Zu einem nochmaligen Besuch in Budapest habe ich leider keine Gelegenheit, obwohl mir der erste noch in angenehmer Erinnerung ist» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/527). 56 I refer to the last letter included in the MTAK collection sent by Kristeller, in which he is aware of the fact that Trencsényi had a heart attack, and wished him a speedy recovery (Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, 09.10.1969, MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/528). Trencsényi died in June 1970. 57 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, New York, 25.01.1967; original text: German: «Vielen Dank für die freundliche Zusendung Ihres wertvollen Bandes, “Unter­ suchungen zur Religionsgeschichte” über den ich mich sehr gefreut habe» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/522.). The German edition is: Imre TrencsényiWaldapfel, Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1966). Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

On the IAHR Congress in the USA ( 1965 )

131

the Vietnam War. Kristeller remembered the “ghastly scenes in our [Columbia] university like in April and May 1968”, the removal of protesters by the Police force, and considered that violence as the renewal of Nazism. He wrote: the scenes of 1968 “reminded me of the Nazi time, even if the political situation was the opposite”.58 In the Thirties, Kristeller was forced to move from Germany first, then from Italy to the USA, due to the Racial Laws.59 Trencsényi’s report on the congress of the IAHR in California gives an account of the Hungarian emigrants and their status: Angelo Brelich from Italy, by referring to him as someone who was educated at “our university” (a mi egyetemünk neveltje), and “Dormand, Margit [Margaret Dorman], living in America since 1920, Hungarian artist and pedagogue, a collector, scientific analyzer and exhibitor of children’s drawings”.60 Trencsényi suggested the MTA to support her work in California, in her capacity as executive director of “The Children’s International Art Gallery” of Claremont.61 As far as we know, these two proposals for collaboration, with Kristeller and Dorman, are the only ones submitted by Trencsényi, and neither of the two is related to the IAHR or the “History of Religions”-studies. The only link between the two seems to be the connection with Hungary, Dorman as a native who migrated to the USA in the Twenties, and Kristeller, as already mentioned, in his quality as research fellow in Budapest at the beginning of the Sixties. Judging from this data, we may say that Trencsényi intended more to establish or improve Hungarian contacts in the USA than to open USA contacts in Hungary, and this was to the detriment of the exchange-program settled within the IAHR in the context of the Cold War. However the issue of a risk of infiltration is nowhere mentioned in the report, Trencsényi agenda for international East-West activities in the MTA looks to take into account security measures. Trencsényi met Dorman when he was delegate to the International Conference in Claremont.62 Their correspondence  – as far as we can see in 58 Letter, P. O. Kristeller to I. Trencsényi, 09.10.1969; original text: German: «Ich habe soeben nach einem Urlaubsjahr meine Vorlesungen wieder aufgenommen und bin mit den Studenten ganz gut zufrieden. Hoffentlich erlebe ich nicht wieder so grässliche Szenen in unserer Universität wie im April und Mai 1968. Sie erinnerten mich an die Nazizeit, wenn auch das politische Vorzeichen anders war» (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 5402/528). 59 John Monfasani, “Paul Oskar Kristeller,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 145, no. 2 (2001), 208–209. 60 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965. 61 Ibid.: “[…] It would be desirable to provide Dormand, Margit with Hungarian children’s drawings through the Institute of Cultural Relations and the OPI”. 62 According to the newspaper article “Miss Dorman Showing Art of Hungary,” ProgressBulletin [Pomona, Calif.], December 11, 1966: 6: “Miss Dorman, a native of Hungary, met him [Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel] when he was a delegate to the International conference Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

132

chapter 7

Trencsényi’s collection of letters at the Department of manuscripts of the MTAK – began right after the end of the Conference in 1965 (6–11 September)63 and stopped in March 1968. Trencsényi asked the MTA to support the activities started by Dorman in Claremont to achieve an exposition of Hungarian art, paintings, books, and folk costumes. The collection of material was sent “after the investigation of Imre Trencsényi” by the way of the Hungarian Institute of Cultural Affairs, while Dorman was seeking to establish a permanent site for the collection.64 Dorman’s exhibitions program used to involve the “McAlister Religious Center” for interfaith/non-sectarian activities.65 It dedicated other activities also to the so-called “international art”, e.g. the exposition of Japanese and Columbian art and, its main project, the “international children’s art gallery”.66 In 1967, the McAlister Center of Claremont Colleges hosted another exhibition of Hungarian Art edited by Dorman who was still collaborating with Trencsényi.67 In 1965, Dorman did not attend the IAHR conference with a paper, as we can notice in the proceedings, nor did Kristeller.68 But judging from her interest in the recognition of religious diversity in America, i.e. in the activities of the McAlister Center, we can assume that she nourished the same kind of interest toward the IAHR as well. on the History of Religion in Claremont a few years ago”. I found a clipping of the article attached to the letter, M. Dorman to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, 25.01.1966; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/159), sent in order to inform him about the results of the collaboration. 63 Letter, Margaret Dorman [signed “Margit”] to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, header: “The Children’s International Art Gallery. Claremont, California. Executive Director Margaret Dorman”, 14.09.1965; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms. 4502/158). 64 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés [report], 12.10.1965, and “Miss Dorman Showing Art of Hungary,” mentioned above. 65 The “McAlister Center for Religious Activities” of the Claremont Colleges hosted an interfaith framework of “chaplains”, Protestant, Catholic, Rabbi (William Webb Clary, The Claremont Colleges: A History of the Development of the Claremont Group Plan [Claremont: Claremont University Center, 1970], 146–147). 66 [No author], “Art Show Scheduled,” clipping of a newspaper article with no bibliographical references (probably of a local newspaper published in California, presumably the Progress-Bulletin) attached to the letter, M. Dorman to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, 28.03.1966 (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/160). I quote the text of the caption under a picture of Dorman: “International art: Miss Margaret Dorman poses with paintings to be displayed at a program Thursday in the McAlister Religious Center in Claremont”. 67 [No author], “Hungarian Exhibit,” [23–25 January 1967], Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1967: 2. I quote from the clipping of the newspaper article attached to one of the letters of Dorman to Trencsényi-Waldapfel (MTAK, Department of Manuscript, Ms 4502/159). 68 IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress: Claremont. Vol. 1–3.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 8

Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties This chapter concludes the examination of the first phase of the Hungarian IAHR membership, by focusing on the last period of the presidency of Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, i.e. the second half of the Sixties. It is meant to reflect on the impact of the Cold War on the IAHR in the aftermath of the escalation of tensions from a Hungarian stance, and to add new pieces of evidence from the MTA archives which might shed new light on the process of the closing and opening of the Iron Curtain. In that stage, the two main activities undertaken by the IAHR to be considered here, namely the special study-conferences held in 1966 (13th–18th April) in Messina (Italy), and in 1968 (14th–19th July) in Jerusalem, have been concerned with the participation of delegations from the Eastern Bloc. The two meetings were as different in character as the two lines of congresses originating respectively in Rome-1955 and Tokyo-1958. The former involved the Italian academic studies once again, while the second line affects the IAHR Afro-Asian Group1 and its activities after the failure of the planned congress in India. I will pass on to consider the minor activities of the IAHR between the two events. 1

A New Document on the Special IAHR Conference at Messina (1966)

Soon after the 1965 IAHR congress in California, examined in the previous chapter, in 1966, Trencsényi-Waldapfel attended the regional  / special IAHR conference organized in Italy by the University of Messina and the Società Italiana di Storia delle Religioni, the Italian IAHR member group. His paper, titled Mythologie und Gnosis, was related to the thematic strand “the origin of Gnosticism”.2 I am not going to write the history of the conference, which 1 See chapter 4, § 2. 2 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, “Mythologie und Gnosis,” in Studi di storia religiosa della tarda antichità, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Messina: Università di Messina, 1968), 53–62; Ugo Bianchi, “Le Colloque international sur les origines du gnosticisme (Messine, Avril 1966),” Numen 13, no. 2 (1966): 153; IAHR, Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966. Texts and Discussions, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Leiden: Brill, 1967), XVIII, 387, 446, 570, and 574: references to Trencsényi-Waldapfel.

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_010

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

134

chapter 8

would require, for any adequate treatment, an extensive examination of the role played by the main organizer Ugo Bianchi, the pupil of Raffaele Pettazzoni, both at the Messina University and the Italian IAHR group, and, in the background, within the IAHR Executive committee. Studies on the involvement of Bianchi in the IAHR are available, and the reader can refer to e.g. Peter Antes, Giovanni Casadio.3 What I am interested in, and discussing here, is the role of “History of Religions”-studies in the disclosure of Eastern and Western blocs, the interaction between scholars of the Warsaw-Pact and NATO member states for the flow of information, circulation of knowledge, and mutual understanding in the Cold War period, for a debate on secularism and religious topics. My source of information is limited as well. It is confined to the limits of the MTAK archives. The following study on the participation of Trencsényi to the meeting in Messina relies mainly on one source, i.e. the unpublished written report on the visit, submitted by Trencsényi in order to inform the Hungarian Academy, and formulate recommendations.4 The report, likewise the reports of the MVT-delegations examined previously, is a pre-printed form to be filled by providing answers to specific questions propounded by the Academy. Trencsényi’s report, by describing the University of Messina that he has visited for the Congress, mentions two points with emphasis. One of them is that the University has a department for Religious Studies that he describes as “secular” (“profán”), and the other one is the fact that this University published the journal of Tradition and Classical Culture Helikon, which, as he noted, had the specific aim of developing contacts with Socialist countries in the field of Classical Philology.5 The journal was co-edited by Johannes Irmscher, head of the Institut für griechisch-römische Altertumskunde at the German Academy of Sciences at Berlin GDR.6 In the point of the report that requires the enumeration of new contacts, along with a short introduction or a reference to their significance, Trencsényi

3 Peter Antes, “Ugo Bianchi e la IAHR,” in Ugo Bianchi: una vita per la storia delle religioni, ed. Giovanni Casadio (Roma: Il Calamo, 2002), 75–83. 4 Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés, Olaszország, 1966. ápr. 11–22, original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 5 Helikon. Rivista di Tradizione e Cultura Classica dell’Università di Messina published since 1961, edited by Antonio Mazzarino and Johannes Irmscher. 6 Pieces of evidence to ascertain the secret cooperation of Johannes Irmscher with the Stasi in the GDR have been found by: Isolde Stark, “Die inoffizielle Tätigkeit von Johannes Irmscher für die Staatssicherheit der DDR,” in Hallische Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte 5 (1998): 46–71.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties

135

mentions Roland Crahay,7 whom he describes as a Belgian who shows a certain “susceptibility for Marxism” even in his lectures.8 The report illustrates the establishing of a contact between the two scholars in the IAHR conference. In 1968, Crahay reviewed the German edition of Trencsényi’s Vallástörténeti tanulmányok, and praised its application of a Marxist approach revolving around the formula of Engels on the religion as “fantastic reflection”, because in the book it “took a nuanced and flexible approach [fr. souple et nuancée]”.9 In the following, under the point of the report that asks for a description of new scientific experiences or methodologies so far unknown in Hungary, but of which he might have gained familiarity, Trencsényi only mentions the Nag Hammadi finds, saying that these are partially published, but the participants gained an overall view on them. The point also requires suggestions on how these experiences or methodologies might be used in Hungary – to which Trencsényi responds by requiring the acquisition of all concerning publications for the MTA, justifying his suggestion by claiming that it would be a must for the Marxist procession of the history of Early Christianity.10 2

“As Agreed”: The Relationship between U. Bianchi and I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel

One of the ambitions to cooperate across borders, in the framework of the IAHR-Messina Congress in 1966, lies in the setup of an exchange-program to be promoted by the Hungarian Academy of Sciences. In the above-mentioned report on the congress, Trencsényi suggested that the Academy invite Ugo Bianchi, who was the organizer of the conference in Messina. The challenge 7 Roland Crahay, “Éléments d’une mythopée gnostique dans la Grèce Classique,” in Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Leiden: Brill, 1967), 323–338; for a biographical overview, see the obituary written by Marie-Thérèse Isaac, “In Memoriam Roland Crahay,” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 55, 1 (1993): 137–142. 8 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés, 1966, mentioned above: «(a marxizmus iránt előadásaiban is fogékonyságot mutató belga)». 9 Roland Crahay, review of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte (1966), by Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, in Latomus 27, no. 4 (1968): 960–961. Crahay sought to ensure a balanced view of the Marxist debate, by stating that Engels’ formula depicts an “indisputable feature” of religion, but does not represent a “definition”: « L’aporie se révèle déjà dans la polémique de Marx contre Feuerbach et la formule d’Engels, si elle décrit un caractère incontestable de toute religion, ne peut passer pour une définition » (Ibid., 961). 10 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés, 1966: «A korai kereszténység történetének marxista feldolgozásához nélkülözhetetlenek».

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

136

chapter 8

of this invitation is remarkable. In 1963, Angelo Brelich had come to define Bianchi as the historian of religions of the Catholics in Italy, and broadcasted this remark through the channel of the foremost national journal in the field.11 The insinuation on the part of Brelich, that “the Catholics have their own historian of religions”, referring to Bianchi, and his studies as theologically biased, was thrown out specifically with reference to the involvement of Bianchi in the new edition of the prominent 3 books Storia delle religioni [History of Religions] edited by the Jesuits of La Civiltà Cattolica in the Thirties, and edited again in 1962 by Giuseppe Castellani SI.12 The relationship of Bianchi with Catholicism in the Sixties (e.g. the Vatican Secretariat for the Non-Christians, the Catholic University of Milan Sacro Cuore, in which he was involved, etc.) should be further examined, drawing from previous studies as a starting point for a wider analysis of these connections, in the context of the Vatican II experience.13 Interestingly, in his report, Trencsényi considered the department of Messina chaired by Bianchi “secular”, and initiated efforts to tighten relations between the Academy and Bianchi. Both in the meeting and in the correspondence, in 1966, the two scholars attempted a dialogue which was unknown until now. The unpublished letters prove that it was not limited to the invitation and the participation in the meeting in Messina, as far as we can see e.g. in a fragment of the letter sent in 1966 – concerning some scientific issues, e.g. the comparison of Prometheus with the character of the “Trickster-demiurge” – in which Bianchi wrote to Trencsényi: “It is indeed a pity that we could not discuss these 11

Angelo Brelich, review of Storia delle Religioni, founded by Pietro Tacchi Venturi S. I. and edited by Giuseppe Castellani S. I., 1962 [fifth edition], Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 34 (1963): 274. 12 Ibid. 13 Giovanni Casadio, “Comparative Religion Scholars in Debate: Theology vs. History in Letters Addressed to U. Bianchi,” in Chasing Down Religion: In the Sights of History and the Cognitive Sciences. Essays in Honor of Luther H. Martin, eds. Panayotis Pachis and Donald Wiebe (Thessaloniki: Barbounakis, 2010), 59–80, and in Ugo Bianchi e la Storia delle religioni, ed. Mariangela Monaca (Ariccia: Aracne Editrice, 2012), 137–143, including other essays on this subject to be considered, along with Ugo Bianchi: una vita per la storia delle religioni, ed. Giovanni Casadio (Roma: Il Calamo, 2002), with reference to the involvement of Bianchi in the Vatican framework, e.g. in the department of the Roman Curia for the relations with the followers of “other religions”, the “Secretariat for the Non-Christians” established in 1964 (Secretariatus pro non-christianis. Bulletin 3, 2 / 8 [1968]: 63–67: list of the consultants including the name of Ugo Bianchi, previously appointed, and reconfirmed in March 1st 1968); and, in the Seventies, in the Catholic University of Milan Sacro Cuore (first contact in 1964: Ugo Bianchi, “Lo studio delle religioni non cristiane,” in Le missioni e le religioni non cristiane: atti della quinta settimana di studi missionari, ed. Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore [Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1965], 121–137) and the Pontifical Urbaniana – de Propaganda Fide of Rome.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties

137

things in Messina: but let’s do it by letter, as agreed”.14 This “agreement” represents only a short moment of a weak dialogue across the Iron Curtin that I do not intend to magnify in order to make it impressive. To the best of my knowledge, the exchange-program suggested by Trencsényi failed. Nevertheless, it is a mosaic piece of the history of the IAHR. 3

The Forced Absence of Delegates from the GDR and the IAHR Telegraph Univocally Voted

A final item of the Trencsényi’s report on the congress in Messina held in 1966 illustrates, from another standpoint, the degree of the dialogue established between the Hungarian MTA delegation and the IAHR, by raising the question of the visa travel. In the report-questionnaire, under the heading that asks for the behavior he has experienced on behalf of the official organizations of the receiving state, Trencsényi answers in general terms. Then he adds the following: I may mention it here that colleagues invited from the German Democratic Republic have not received the Italian visa, and thus, though their lectures had been published in the program, they could not participate in the colloquium. Upon the suggestion of the presidency, which was univocally voted for by the participants, we greeted them via telegraph, expressing our pity over their forced absence. This is a remarkable fact if we take into consideration the heterogeneity of the congress in certain respects  – there were several American, Western-German experts, and Italian, French, etc. theologians present, as well.15 This passage illustrates the establishment of partnerships, within the IAHR, for improving relations between ideologically and politically divergent countries. 14

Letter, Ugo Bianchi to Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel, 01.07.1966; original text: French: « Cher Collègue, voici le texte de la discussion. Veuillez le contrôler, et me le renvoyer avec votre texte définitif (dont je vous ai envoyé une copie avant-hier), avant le 1er septembre, à Rome. J’aurai voulu parler avec vous au sujet de Prométhée. Qu’est-ce que vous pensez de la comparaison de Prométhée avec le démiurge-trickster de l’ethnologie? […] C’est vraiment dommage que nous n’ayons pu discuter ces choses à Messine: mais nous le faisons par lettre, comme nous l’avions décidé » (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4327/124). I would like to thank Giovanni Casadio who in March 2018 tried, though unsuccessfully, to recover the letters of Trencsényi-Waldapfel in the “Bianchi Archive”, i.e. the dossier concerning the IAHR Messina meeting 1966. 15 Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Útijelentés, 1966.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

138

chapter 8

Representatives of national academic institutions cooperated, when diplomatic connections were stalled. I commend the issue of this cooperation established in Messina, in 1966, to the attention of historians of the IAHR and the Cold War, as an example of science diplomacy. Specific studies in this matter shall consider not only this instance, but also its limits, i.e. the telegram, which did not address high-level government officials. Furthermore, the question to answer is whether and in what degree the report enhanced the value of a scientific cooperation, i.e. if it directed the efforts of the MTA to cross-border interests, or if the aim would have been to report that the IAHR provided a ground for protest in favor of People’s Democracies. In order to answer this question, further studies are necessary and they should discuss also the way the information reported by Trencsényi was, in this passage, influenced by his addressee, the MTA. 4

The IAHR Conference at Jerusalem in the Context of the Six-Day War (1967): A Participation “Not Advised”

In October 1967, the Deputy Secretary of the IAHR, L. J. R. Ort drew the attention of Trencsényi, in his quality as President of the Hungarian member-group, to the Study conference of the International Association scheduled in July 1968 at Jerusalem. He sent to him a “parcel of circular letters which should be distributed to the members of the” Vallástudományi Társaság so that “they can send their answer to Professor [R. J. Zwi] Werblowsky” who chaired the local organizing committee.16 The circular letter, attached to the letter of Ort, informs about the theme i.e. “Types of Redemption”, and its aim to be in keeping with the character of a “genuine study conference” by planning “only 20–25 papers in plenary session” with “no sectional meetings”.17 The proposal for a congress in Israel was sent by the Israeli group to the Executive Board of the IAHR during its meeting in Marburg in 1960, at the time “without mentioning a certain year”,18 and discussed again in 1965 at the congress in Claremont. On this occasion, after the failure of the conference 16 Letter, L. J. R. Ort to I. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Alblasserdam, October 1967; original text: English (MTAK, Department of manuscripts, Ms 4503/39). 17 Copy of circular letter, R. J. Z. Werblowsky to “all members of the IAHR”, Jerusalem, undated but related to the above-mentioned letter by Ort to Trencsényi-Waldapfel, October 1967 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 18 Minute of the meeting of the Executive Board of the IAHR on 9th September 1960, in IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress für Religionsgeschichte: 11–17. September 1960 in Marburg/Lahn (Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1961), 19.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties

139

planned to be held in India in 1963, the colloquium in Israel was supported in order to continue the “line of congresses in the East”.19 During the IAHR general assembly, the issue concerning the difficulties “for scholars from the Arab countries to attend the Study conference of Jerusalem” was discussed, as we can read in the official transcription of the minutes in the proceedings.20 The remark formulated by Ali Hassan Abdel-Kader of the “Islamic Center” at Washington DC, affiliated to the Sunni Islamic Al-Azhar University in Cairo, alluded to, but does not mention, the Arab-Israeli conflict. On 24th November 1967, Gyula Ortutay, member of the MVT, turns to the MTA Department of International Relations, informing them on the invitation, and sending the copy of the letter that Trencsényi has received as an attachment. He refers to the call as one addressed to all members of the group (literally the “Hungarian National Committee” for the congresses of the IAHR). He asks for an official (literally: “as a matter of principal [elvi]”) statement or feedback (“állásfoglalás”) given that the “participation under the present circumstances is not a question of [merely] professional nature”.21 A shortened version of the same letter is sent by the head of the Depart­ ment of International Relations of the MTA, Lajos Nagy, to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, asking for the view of the Ministry concerning the Hungarian participation.22 A few days later, on 4th December, the official answer of the Ministry is sent to Nagy, which declares that considering the “tense international situation in the Middle-East, the participation of Hungarian scholars in the conference is not advised [nem javasoljuk]”.23 19 Minute of the meeting of the Executive Board of the IAHR on 8th September 1965, in IAHR, Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions Held at Claremont, California, September 6–11, 1965, vol. 1: The Impact of Modern Culture on Traditional Religions (Leiden: Brill, 1968), 146. 20 Ibid., 154 (General Assembly of the IAHR September 11th 1965). 21 Letter, Gyula Ortutay to the MTA Department of International Relations, Budapest, 24.11.1967; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 22 Letter, Lajos Nagy to István Beck [head of Department at the Hungarian Ministry of Foreign Affairs], 27.11.[6]7; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 23 Letter, János Zagyi [Ministry of Foreign Affairs] to Lajos Nagy MTA, Budapest, 04.12.1967; original text: Hungarian (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). János Zagyi was Secretary of the Sixth Regional Department and was appointed to examine and provide summary of the Hungarian-Israeli relations related to 1967. On 19th March 1968, in a confidential report, he informs that the Hungarian Ministry, “with reference to Israel’s pro-imperialist and anti-Arab policies”, had “evaded” all the attempts of Israel at reaching an “upgrading in the exchange of legates, the development of economic and cultural relations” with Hungary (the document is published

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

140

chapter 8

These documents illustrate on the one hand the external control exercised by the Government over the activities of the Academy of Sciences and the IAHR Vallástudományi group, the role played by some members of the group in political matters, in this instance by Ortutay, in close cooperation with Trencsényi-Waldapfel, i.e. the part he took in monitoring and ensuring that the requests for authorization which would enable the Hungarian group to pursue its activities were submitted, and the requirements of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs were met; on the other hand, the diplomatic context within the IAHR and UNESCO framework. The conference was attended by a limited number of participants (almost 100).24 The presence of scholars from the East and from Africa gave rise to a meeting of the Afro-Asian delegates, which was expected to “show its results in the future extension of the IAHR”.25 In his public report, Ort made no mention of the absence of the countries of the Eastern Bloc, neither to the political context of the Arab-Israeli War. 5

The IAHR Congress at Stockholm and the Membership of the Polish National Group (August 1970)

The IAHR congress in 1970 in Sweden achieved a further step in the negotiations for the enlargement of the CIPSH International Association for the “History of Religions”-studies to the Eastern bloc. The membership of the Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze  – the Société Polonaise de Science des Religions, according to its official French nomenclature adopted in the congress – was still pending, since it sent its statute to the IAHR meeting in 1960. At the time, the affiliation was postponed by the General Secretary due to the fact that “no official delegates” attended and no “official request for affiliation” considered as such was delivered.26 In 1970, the application for membership was submitted again. This time the Executive Committee of the IAHR, “although no Polish delegate could be present at the congress”, as it was in 1960, decided to accept

in András Kovács, ed., Communism’s Jewish Question: Jewish Issues in Communist Archives [Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2017], 69). 24 L. J. R. Ort, “International Association for the History of Religions: Study-Conference Jerusalem July 1968,” Numen 16, no. 1 (1969): 78. The list of the scholars who attended mentions names from Ceylon, Great Britain, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Hong Kong, India, Israel, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, Uganda, USA and Vietnam. 25 Ibid. 26 IAHR, 10. Internationaler Kongress: Marburg, 18.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Openings and Closures in the Second Half of the Sixties

141

it, by considering that the Polish group “had been in contact with the IAHR for a period of seven years”.27 Trencsényi-Waldapfel died prematurely in June 1970,28 a few months before the congress in Stockholm and the beginning of the Polish membership. The Hungarian chair of the IAHR turns out to be vacant at that point,29 but the congress was attended by László Kákosy and László Castiglione,30 who both had joined the MVT in 1965.31 The death of Trencsényi is mentioned by the Executive Committee of the IAHR at the opening meeting in Sweden.32 The dossier of the MTA Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3, which contains records on the Magyar Vallástudományi Társaság from its establishment, does not preserve documents related to the IAHR congress held in August, in Stockholm, and the following period.33 27 IAHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Stockholm, Sweden August 16–22, 1970, eds. Eric J. Sharpe, Claas J. Bleeker and Geo Widengren (Leiden: Brill, 1975), 325, 340, 26. 28 István Hahn, “A ‘halottak könyve’”, Egyetemi Lapok – Az Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem lapja 12, no. 10 (1970): 1–2. 29 Magyar Tudományos Akadémia [Hungarian Academy of Sciences], ed., “Nemzetközi tudományos szervezetek Magyar nemzeti bizottságai. ill. Magyar tagegyesületei,” [Hungarian national committees of international scientific organizations. Hungarian membership], A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Almanachja 1970: 248: the reference to the “International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) magyar nemzeti bizottsaga”. The official almanac of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, related to the year 1970, includes the Hungarian national committee of the IAHR in the list, but leaves the name of the chairman unmentioned. 30 IAHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress: Stockholm, 5, 45–46 (the abstract of L. Kákosy “Die weltanschauliche Krise des Neuen Reiches,”) and 344 (with regard to L. Castiglione). 31 Feljegyzés, Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya Vezetőjének [Note, to the Head of the International Relations Department], signed by Lajos Tamás, Budapest, 03.05.1965, n. doc. 10323/1965 (MTAK, Archives of the Academy, 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya 313/3). 32 IAHR, Proceedings of the 12th International Congress: Stockholm, 320. 33 As for the further history of the MVT in the institutional frame of the MTA as well as outside of it, see the “Epilogue.”, 146–147 and 151–152.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

chapter 9

Epilogue This book provides information on the Hungarian application for membership submitted to the IAHR between 1956 and 1957. Such a process on the one hand determined the establishing and the changing of the MVT group, and, on the other hand, helps to illuminate the history of the CIPSH’s organization as far as its scientific program of international exchange of knowledge is concerned in the field of the “History of Religions”-studies. In this respect, a reconstruction of both the preliminary context, and the steps through which a Vallástudományi working group, created and located within the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, passed in its early phase, was required. This research is based on the unpublished documents related to the beginning of the MVT that I found in the archives of the MTA, i.e. the dossier 40. Nemzetközi Kapcsolatok Osztálya [Department of International Relations] 313/3, opened in 1955 and closed in 1967. Since no further documents have been included to this collection before and after this (except for a few documents issued in 1954, stored in a subfolder), I argue that, by reference to these records, we can circumscribe a historical period of the activities of the MVT and the IAHR, which covers the two presidencies of Károly Marót and Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel. It is to this period that my essay is dedicated, and this is the criteria with which I established the chronological limits of the inquiry. Additional examinations are warmly welcomed, hopefully stimulated – at least in part – by the results of this study, in order to get a full and extensive look-back over the past of the MVT. For an appropriate understanding of the gray zone between attendance and non-attendance of the IAHR conferences, and the contradictions in the reports to the MTA, and many other issues, it will be necessary to conduct further investigations in the historical archives of the Hungarian State Security. Furthermore, this research project shall be extended to the study of other IAHR groups in Central and Eastern Europe, which have followed and eventually enlarged the cooperation of the academic framework in this field and in this region, by joining the program of the IAHR, i.e. for the “not apologetical” and “not confessional” studies on religion, in the aftermath of the 1989 event and throughout the EU expansion in 2004–2007.1 1 I refer to the panel, that I chaired, Re-unifying Europe: from the Establishment of the IAHR to the EASR, in the EASR 2019 Conference held at the University of Tartu, Estonia, including 8 papers dedicated to the history of the national groups from Central and Eastern Europe,

© Valerio Severino, 2021 | doi:10.1163/9789004459274_011

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Epilogue

143

While this book looks only for an up-close examination of the subject of study, i.e. the IAHR and the Cold War, limited to the Hungarian case and its early phase, this epilogue intends now to catch a glimpse of the big picture. In doing so, I indicate some of the directions to which new research might proceed, and then what questions it ought to address in a large-scale investigation. To achieve this aim, it is worthwhile to study the part played by the Central and Eastern European national groups in the IAHR, and to test the ability of the IAHR program in restoring and enhancing a common platform in Europe. Here, I give some coordinates of such a research. 1

“New Perspective of the Open Intellectual Association” in Poland: 1979–1989

A conference of the IAHR  – on “Methodology”  – took place in Warsaw, in 1979, 11–14th September, organized in conjunction with the Polish IAHR member-group linked to the Institute of Philosophy and Sociology of the Polish Academy of Sciences.2 R. J. Zwi Werblowsky, at the time General Secretary of the Association, considered it the “first international meeting of this kind in Eastern Europe [i.e. in a “socialist country”], providing the opportunity for Eastern [from Poland and USSR] and Western scholars to meet and exchange ideas”.3 He focused on the issue of the “ideological presuppositions” in the academic study of religions, both theological in the West and Marxist-atheist “on the other side”, and stated that the opening of the Iron Curtain “helped both sides” and scholars “to broaden their awareness”.4 members of the IAHR/EASR. Scholars from Hungary, Poland, Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, attended the panel. A book on this topic is being prepared. 2 Witold Tyloch, ed., Current Progress in the Methodology of the Science of Religions (Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1984). 3 Raphael Judah Zwi Werblowsky, “Chronicle,” Numen 27, no. 1 (1980): 190. Similar remarks: Ursula King, “Historical and Phenomenological Approaches,” in Theory and Method in Religious Studies: Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, ed. Frank Whaling (Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1995), 67: “[…] first official gathering of History of Religions scholars in a socialist country”. 4 Werblowsky, “Chronicle,” 191: “In the West, History of Religions and Comparative Religion have long been (and to a great extent still are [i.e. in 1979]) anchored, academically, in Divinity Schools and Faculties of Theology. The other side of the coin is the study of religions in institutions whose orientation and ideological dogma are Marxist (e.g., in “institutes for scientific atheism”). In this respect the encounter of Western scholars with colleagues from Poland and the USSR at the Warsaw conference helped both sides to broaden their awareness”.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

144

chapter 9

In 1989, a new special conference of the IAHR was sponsored by the Polish Society group-member PTR, in order to discuss matters concerning the study of religions within the social sciences.5 The meeting at Warsaw and Jabłonna, between 5–9th September, that is close in time to the opening of the Berlin Wall, was “intended to continue the dialogue between East European and Western Scholars in this field”, as it is stated in the official IAHR report on the conference.6 The conference provided a context for a gathering of the Executive Committee of the International Association. Participants included scholars from “Poland, Lithuania (USSR), Denmark, Western Germany, United Kingdom, USA, Canada, South Korea, Czechoslovakia”.7 The concluding statement pointed out the “general agreement” that the study of religion “would understand ‘religion’ as a reality which interconnects social activities”.8 No Hungarian scholars attended the meeting and no statement on the behalf of the Vallástudományi Társaság was released. With reference to the conference in Poland in 1989, the Secretary General in office at the time, Michael Pye, recalled the “new perspective of open intellectual association between countries of Eastern and Western Europe”, and the impression that it would “take […] far beyond anything which could be achieved under Cold War conditions”.9 The meeting took place just days after the appointment of the Polish prime-minister Tadeusz Mazowiecki of the Solidarność movement, in the background of the Perestroika, and was considered a result of the “efforts” made “over many years when conditions were less favourable”, particularly in the previous conference at Warsaw, in 1979, which “brought together […] specialists from the non-communist and communist world in a significant way”.10

5 Tyloch, ed., Current Progress. 6 Hans G. Kippenberg and Donald Wiebe, “Report on the Warsaw Conference on ‘The Studies of Religions in the Context of Social Sciences. Methodological and Theoretical Relations, Warsaw and Jabłonna 5–7 September 1989’,” Numen 36, no. 2 (1989): 260–262; and Michael Pye, “Warsaw Conference 1989: Report,” IAHR Bullettin 12 (1989): 4–6. 7 Ibid. 8 Pye, “Warsaw Conference 1989,” 6. 9 Michael Pye, Strategies in the Study of Religions. Vol. 1 Exploring Methods and Positions (Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2013), 179–180 (the essay which I refer to [“Studies of Religion in Europe: Structures and Desiderata,”] was first presented at the conference of the Department of Religion of the University of Manitoba, Canada, in September 1989). 10 Ibid., 180.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Epilogue

2

145

1990–91: The Soviet Experiment in the Last Years of the Perestroika

In 1990, the affiliation of a Soviet association of historians of religions, namely the Ассоциация советских историков религии, to the IAHR, was in process. The issue of the establishment of such a group for membership was examined during the regional conference of the IAHR in Helsinki, in May 1990, organized in cooperation with the Hungarian Academy of Sciences (by the intermediary of Mihály Hoppál),11 which gathered numerous Soviet participants.12 The proposal  – made through Jurij B. Pishtshik  – was discussed in Moscow in the summer of 1990 by the General Secretary, M. Pye, and discussed again in the IAHR conference in Rome, in September 1990, by encouraging a IAHR regional conference in a major Soviet center13 (i.e. the failed conference planned in Leningrad/ St. Petersburg for 1994),14 and recommending it to the General Assembly for membership.15 Three representatives of the Soviet association attended the special conference in Burlington (Vermont, USA), on 9th August 1991,16 a few days before the August Coup in Moscow. According to the report on the second IAHR delegation and visit in Moscow in January 1991, the election of the President of the Soviet group, Alexei I. Klibanov, “who has spent several years in prison for his views”, was considered “symbolic of the times”.17 The association intended to “attract former dissidents […] to 11 IAHR, Northern Religions and Shamanism. The Regional Conference of the International Association of the History of Religions, eds. Mihály Hoppál and Juha Pentikäinen (Budapest and Helsinki: Akadémiai Kiadó, and Finnish Literature Society, 1992). M. Hoppál was appointed member of the scientific committee of the congress. 12 Michael Pye, “Report by Secretary-General,” IAHR Bullettin [Special Congress Issue]  15 (1990): 4–5; also in IAHR, The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research: Selected Proceedings of the 16th Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Rome, 3rd–8th September, 1990, ed. Ugo Bianchi (Roma: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1994), XVI. 13 Ibid. 14 I refer also to Michael Pye, “Minutes of a Meeting of the Executive Committee. Burlington, Vermont, USA, August 9th 1991,” IAHR Bulletin 18 (1991): 4 (Point 10). As for the issue of the special conference resumed in June 1993, unsuccessfully: Michael Pye, “Letter from the Secretary-General,” IAHR Bulletin 25 (1993): 1: “What of St. Petersburg in 1994, which was devised some years ago (for Leningrad) to be a regional conference?” 15 Michael Pye, “International Committee of the IAHR. Minutes of the Meeting Held in Rome on 5.9.1990,” IAHR Bulletin 17 (1991): 4 (“point 7 New affiliations”). 16 Pye, “Minutes Executive Committee: Burlington, 1991,”: 4 (Point 10): “The further development of the recently affiliated association in the Soviet Union and the presence of three representatives at the Burlington conference” were “welcomed”. 17 Armin W. Geertz and Peter Antes, “A Visit to the Soviet Association for the Science of Religion [January 1991],” IAHR Bulletin 17 (1991): 11.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

146

chapter 9

join them”, and to re-evaluate the ideological stance of the pre-existing organizations, i.e. the Institute of Scientific Atheism, by changing the name and goals “in order to participate in growing democratization”.18 3

The Nineties: The Reorganization of Central and Eastern Europe

Following the contacts established already during the Warsaw conference of 1989, a Czechoslovak Association for the Study of Religion [Společnost pro studium náboženství] was founded in April 1990 in Brno, only a few months after the political change,19 by asking for “integration into the IAHR” as a “great assistance […] because of the time lost under the previous totalitarian régime” (affiliation speech).20 Jan Heller of the Protestant Theological Faculty of the Charles University in Prague was elected President. It was affiliated to the IAHR in September 1990 at the congress in Rome,21 one year before the termination of the Warsaw Pact. In May 1990, during the above-mentioned regional IAHR conference in Helsinki, Michael Pye, the General Secretary of the IAHR, asked Mihály Hoppál and Irén Lovász, to “revitalize the Hungarian Association”: the reforming meeting was held in September 1990.22 At the time, since the death of Trencsényi, the MVT had been transformed in a national committee within the MTA, namely the International Association for the History of Religions (IAHR) magyar nemzeti bizottsága, led in the Seventies and Eighties by János Harmatta, László Kákosy and István Borzsák.23 In January 1990, the IAHR stated that the Hungarian 18

Ibid., 12: “The growing interest in, and freedom of religion in the Soviet Union has also led to a great deal of interest in initiating dialogue between Church and State. The problem is to reconcile Communist atheism with dialogue, and here it seems that the Soviets consider the History of Religions to be a legitimate way of entering into such a dialogue”. 19 Tomáš Bubík, “The Czech Journey to the Academic Study of Religions: From the Critique of Religion to its Study,” in Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, eds. Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann (Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015), 47. Bubík is the current president of the Czech IAHR group. 20 Dalibor Papoušek (Secretary of the SSN), “Affiliation Speech for SSN (Czechoslovakia),” IAHR Bulletin 19 (1992): 4. 21 Pye, “Report by Secretary-General, in IAHR, The Notion of ‘Religion’, XVII. 22 Irén Lovász, “The 25th Anniversary of Revitalizing the Hungarian Association of IAHR and Foundation of the Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions. Facts, Documents and Memories of a Secretary,” Vallástudományi Szemle 12, no. 5 (2016): 134–135. 23 In the Seventies, the Executive Committee was made of two members, i.e. the President János Harmatta, and the Secretary László Kákosy (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Almanach [1973]: 325; [1976]: 340; [1980]: 354). In the middle of the Eighties, István

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Epilogue

147

member association was “currently not organized”.24 “As a result of the Helsinki [IAHR] conference [May 1990], the Hungarian association has been revitalised under new leadership [László Kákosy as President, and Irén Lovász as Secretary, and the relevant role played by Mihály Hoppál]25” – as the General Secretary of the IAHR at the Congress in Rome (3rd–8th September 1990) acknowledged, and then added that it did not “require a new affiliation procedure”.26 In August 1991, the association resumed its original name, and turned into an independent and “public organization”, i.e. no longer limited to the members of the Hungarian Academy or appointed by the Academy.27 The restarted society introduced the yearly national conference, which, since October 1992 (Alternative Religiosity: Past and Present), has been open to all scholars of religion in Hungary,28 promoting a process of democratization of the MVT. After the dissolution of the Soviet Union, and the declaration of independence of Ukraine, the Ukrainian Association for the Study of Religions [Українська асоціація релігієзнавців] was founded in 1993. In March 1993, the IAHR reported that “the intention has been signaled to apply for affiliation”, according to a communication received from Kiev (Anatoly Kolodny).29 The Ukrainian membership was recommended to the General Assembly in September 1993 in Paris by the IAHR International Committee, and accepted in Borzsák became the President, while Harmatta was the Deputy President, and Kákosy remained the Secretary (Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, Almanach [1985]: 350). 24 Michael Pye, “Member Associations of the IAHR [list],” IAHR Bulletin 13 (1990): 11. 25 Michael Pye, [List of the Member associations of the IAHR], IAHR Bulletin 16 (1991): 6–7: the Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions, with a list of the members. 26 Michael Pye, “Report by the Secretary-General,” IAHR Bulletin 15 (1990): 6. 27 Interview with László Kákosy, “A túlélés művészete,” Magyar Nemzet, October 12, 1992: 10: “The Association had a national committee that kept the contact of Hungarian researchers with the above-mentioned international organization. For a while, I was the secretary of this committee, thus I stand for continuity. No independent Association for the Academic Study of Religions had been founded as an organization up to recent times. However, the topic had been approached from other academic fields. – [Question of the interviewer:] When were you [i.e. the Association] formulated? – [Answer of Kákosy:] We decided two years ago to transform the above-mentioned committee which had not been a public organization into the Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions and to seek to coordinate the scattered researchers, or at least get to know their research carried out in the most different fields” (original language of the interview: Hungarian). 28 Lovász, “The 25th Anniversary,” 138. 29 Michael Pye, “Reorganisation in Eastern Europe,” IAHR Bulletin 24 (1993): 3: “Ukraine”; Michael Pye, “Ukraine,” IAHR Bulletin 26 (1993): 43, related to the meeting of the International Committee in Paris September 1993, when the issue of the “proposals for new affiliates”, i.e. the Ukrainian Association, was discussed (Michael Pye, “Draft Agenda for the International Committee Meeting in Paris on 19th September 1993,” IAHR Bulletin 25 [1993]: 4 [Point 6 c]).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

148

chapter 9

1995.30 In view of the meeting in Paris (1993), requests for affiliation of concern to Central and Eastern Europe were received from the new Czech association, the Russian Association for the Study of Religions, reorganized after the fall of the Soviet Union (see below), and a “request was made for more correspondence with respect to an Estonian Association for the Study of Religions”.31 Due to the split of Czechoslovakia, in January 1993, the pan-Czechoslovak member-group of the IAHR was dissolved, and two independent associations were established in this region, i.e. the Czech, by keeping the same Executive Board of the former Czechoslovak association (meeting for the change of name, March 1993), and the Slovak [Slovenská spoločnosť pre štúdium náboženstiev] in Bratislava (founded on November 5th, 1992).32 The Czech association was recommended by the IAHR International Committee in 1993 (Paris), as already said, and accepted by the IAHR General Assembly in August 1995.33 Ján Komorovský, the spokesman of the later Slovak association, who “in 1991” had joined the Czechoslovak society’s committee “as a representative of religionists in Slovakia”, reported to the IAHR that “during the period of 1948–1989, during the rule of the Communist Party, an official materialist, atheist ideology and anti-ecclesiastical as well as anti-religious policy was dominant” and “no serious research on the religions of the world could be carried out”.34 It was recommended by the IAHR International Committee in 1998 and accepted in 2000 by the General Assembly.35 30 Referring to the IAHR congress in Mexico City, see: Armin W. Geertz, “International Committee, Minutes of the Meeting August 9, 1995,” and Armin W. Geertz, “General Assembly, Minutes of the Meeting. August 12, 1995 [approved on June 5, 1996 by the Executive Committee],” IAHR Bulletin 34 (1996), respectively: 36 (referred to the IAHR special congress in Paris September 1993), and 41 (“Point 7 New affiliations […] accepted by unanimous vote”). 31 Michael Pye, “International Committee of the IAHR. Minutes of the Meeting Held in Paris 19.9.1993,” IAHR Bulletin 27 (1993): 6 (“Point 7 Proposal for new affiliates”). 32 Michael Pye, “Reorganization in Eastern Europe,” IAHR Bulletin 24 (1993): 3 (“Note: Czechoslovakia  / Czech and Slovak Republics”) and Michael Pye, “Czechoslovakia  / Czech and Slovak Republics,” in IAHR Bulletin 26 (1993): 43, related to the meeting of the International Committee in Paris September 1993. And Armin W. Geertz, “News from the National Associations,” IAHR Bulletin 35 (1998): 66–67 (§  Slovenská spolocnost’ pre stúdium nábozenstiev pri SAV Bratislava). 33 Pye, “International Committee, Minutes Paris 19.9.1993,” 6 (“Point 7 Proposal for new affiliates”). And Geertz, “General Assembly, Minutes, August 12, 1995,” 41. 34 Geertz, “News from the National Associations [1998],” 66–67: “[…] after the fall of Communism in November 1989, Prof. Ján Komorovský (born in 1924) took measures leading to an introduction and official acceptance of the research and study subject of the science of religion” (Komorovský report). 35 Armin W. Geertz, “International Committee Meeting of the IAHR. Hildesheim, Germany, May 24, 1998. Minutes of the Meeting,” in IAHR Bulletin 36 (2000): 47. And Armin W. Geertz,

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

149

Epilogue

In the Nineties, two special IAHR conferences were organized in the Czech Republic at Brno by the Czech Society for the Study of Religions, in 1994, as an alternative to the above-mentioned conference planned in Leningrad/ St. Petersburg,36 and in 1999, which addressed the issue of the academic study of religion during the Cold War.37 As an outcome of a series of conferences organized since 1991, the ISORECEA (International Study of Religion in Eastern and Central Europe Association) was established in 1995, including scholars from 16 countries of the CEE area, for the “exchange of scientific information concerning religion and churches in Eastern and Central Europe”.38 It joined the IAHR in 2010.39 4

In the Framework of the European Association for the Study of Religion: 2000–

With regard to the recommendation for affiliation in the meeting of the IAHR General Assembly in September 1993, the Russian Association for the History of Religions was “constituted as a successor to the IAHR-affiliated Soviet association formed shortly before the major political changes”.40 In May 1998, the

36

37

38

39

40

“General Assembly of the IAHR. Durban, South Africa, Saturday August 12, 2000. Minutes of the Meeting,” IAHR Bulletin 37 (2002): 42. Pye, “International Committee: Paris 19.9.1993,” 7 (“Point 11 Futures conferences”): “It was noted with some concern that arrangements for the 1994 conference originally planned for Leningrad, now St. Petersburg, seemed not to be advancing. It was agreed therefore that the Executive Committee should consider meeting at Brno, Czech Republic, instead, should it be necessary to make a change”. IAHR, Religions in Contact: Selected Proceedings of the Special IAHR Conference Held in Brno, August 23.26.1994, eds. Iva Doležalová, Bretislav Horyna, and Dalibor Papoušek (Brno: Czech Society for the Study of Religions, and Masaryk University, 1996); Iva Doleñalová, Luther H. Martin, and Dalibor Papoušek, eds., The Academic Study of Religion during the Cold War. East and West (New York: Peter Lang, 2001). Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann, Preface, in Id., eds., Studying Religions, XVI: the 16 countries participants are Belarus, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Great Britain, Hungary, Lithuania, Poland, Russia, Slovenia, Ukraine, and the USA. Tim Jensen, “IAHR 2005–2010 General Secretary’s Report. Toronto August 15.21. 2010,” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 46 (“Point 5 Membership Development”): “application for affiliation”. And Tim Jensen, “General Assembly of the IAHR Toronto, Canada. August 21, 2010. Minutes of the Meeting,” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 44 (“Point 5 Adoption of new members and affiliates”). Geertz, “News from the National Associations [1998],” 66 (§ Russian Association for the History of Religions).

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

150

chapter 9

IAHR stated that “recent information”, at the time, was “not available”.41 In March 2005, the IAHR General Secretary, Armin W. Geertz, reported that “a few years” after its establishment “communications from the association ceased”.42 At this point, the association was reorganized, and considered by the IAHR as “dormant”, then to be reactivated without new application for membership.43 On 21st September 2006, the association was finally established in Moscow, titled Russian Association for the History of World Religions.44 Since then, in July 2010, the new General Secretary, Tim Jensen, who supported the reorganization process, informed that the “efforts” made to “revitalize, restructure or reorganize a dormant Russian association” have “run into problems”.45 Only in June 2011, is the association restructured and renamed again as the Association of Russian Centers for the Study of Religions [Ассоциация российских религиоведческих центров], having a “Governing Council, comprising representatives of the most influential centers of Religious Studies of the country”.46 The Romanian Association for the History of Religions [Asociaţia română de istorie a religiilor], established in 1997, was recommended in 2003 by the General Secretary, Armin W. Geertz and the International Committee, and accepted by the General Assembly in 2005 in Tokyo.47 A European Association 41 Ibid. 42 Armin W. Geertz, “Report by the General Secretary [March 7, 2005],” IAHR Bulletin 38 (2005): 38. 43 Ibid: “[Marianna] Shakhnovich […] has formed an initiative group consisting of scholars from St. Petersburg, Moscow and the Far Eastern part of the country […]. She reported that in January at the annual meeting of the editorial board of Religiovedenie (“Religious Studies”), the idea of establishing an IAHR affiliate was unanimously supported and, furthermore, the journal would be the organ of the future organization”. 44 Tim Jensen, “Report by the IAHR General Secretary. IAHR International Committee Meeting. September 10, 2008, Brno [August 24, 2008],” IAHR e-Bulletin Supplement (August 2008): 18: based on the fax of M. Shakhnovich to T. Jensen, 21 September 2006 (President of the association: Alexander Oganovich Chubarian, and M. Shakhnovich as General Secretary), and the email Shakhnovich to Jensen, 28 September 2006. 45 Tim Jensen, “IAHR 2005–2010: Toronto August 15–21, 2010,” 46. 46 E-mails, Marianna Shakhnovich to the IAHR President and the General Secretary, June 4 and 6, 2011, quoted in Tim Jensen, “Membership Developments,” IAHR e‐Bulletin Supplement (August 2011): 42–43 (§ Russia – a restructuring and renaming of the Russian association). 47 Armin W. Geertz, “Minutes of the International Committee Meeting. Bergen, Norway. May 10, 2003,” and Armin W. Geertz, “Report by the General Secretary [March 7, 2005],” in IAHR Bulletin 38 (2005), respectively: 20 (“Point 8 Recommendation of New Affiliations”), and 38. Armin W. Geertz, “General Assembly of the IAHR Tokyo, Japan. Wednesday March 30, 2005. Minutes of the meeting,” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 32.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Epilogue

151

for the Study of Religions (EASR) [established in 2000 in Cracow] / IAHR special conference was held in Bucharest in 2006.48 The IAHR membership process of the Estonian Society for the Study of Religions [Eesti Akadeemiline Usundiloo Selts], established and adopted as a member of the EASR in 2006 – following a previous attempt to establish “more correspondence” with an “Estonian association for the Study of Religions” in 199349  – took place according to the recommendation of the Executive Committee of the International Association, which had actively supported the establishment of such a national group since 2005. The International Committee in turn recommended its adoption in the special congress in Brno in 2008, which was finalized in 2010 at the IAHR congress in Toronto.50 In Toronto 2010, the IAHR General Assembly adopted the Latvian Society for the Study of Religions [Latvijas Reliģiju pētniecības biedrība] as member association, too, since it had been recommended in 2009, shortly after its establishment.51 The General Secretary, T. Jensen, stated that “developing the membership in former East and Central Europe thus has continued, partly in cooperation with the EASR”.52 In 2011, the European Association for the Study of Religions, affiliated to the IAHR, held its 10th conference in Budapest, organized by the MVT / Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions (HAASR) as a special IAHR conference.53 The members of the Organizing committee and Secretary were Mihály Hoppál (new President of the MVT, and since 2010, Honorary Life 48 Eugen Ciurtin, ed., Proceedings of the 6th EASR  / IAHR Special Conference “Religious History of Europe and Asia”, Bucharest 20–23 September, 2006, in Archaeus 11–12 (2007– 2008), 13 (2009), 14 (2010), other parts of the proceedings appeared in Studia Asiatica 11, no. 1–2 (2010) and Études Classiques 75, no. 1–2 (2007), and 76, no. 1 (2008). 49 Pye, “International Committee: Paris 19.9.1993,” 6 (“Point 7 Proposal for new affiliates”). 50 Tim Jensen, “IAHR International Committee, Meeting. Brno, Czech Republic. September 10, 2008. Minutes of the Meeting [July 14, 2010],” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 23, and Jensen, “IAHR 2005–2010: Toronto August 15–21, 2010,” 46. Also: Tim Jensen, “General Assembly of the IAHR Toronto, Canada. August 21, 2010. Minutes of the Meeting,” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 44. 51 Jensen, “IAHR 2005–2010: Toronto August 15–21, 2010,” 46 (“we encouraged the recently founded Latvian association to also seek membership to the IAHR”). And Jensen, “Minutes, General Assembly Toronto, August 21, 2010,” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 44. 52 Jensen, “IAHR 2005–2010. Toronto August 15–21, 2010,” 46. 53 Tim Jensen, “Report International Committee: Brno 2008 [August 24, 2008],” 20: “August 2007, a visit to Budapest was arranged in order to meet with the President of the Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions, Prof. Mihály Hoppál. We discussed, inter alia, possible ways of engaging the Hungarian association and its younger members more actively in the IAHR, e.g. by way of an IAHR Special Conference hosted by the Hungarian association”.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

152

chapter 9

member of the IAHR), Vilmos Voigt, Ábrahám Kovács (Secretary), Zsolt Szilágyi, and Bulcsú K. Hoppál. The Lithuanian Society for the Study of Religions [Lietuvos religijotyrininkų draugija], founded in 2001, which renewed its activities in 2011, started its affiliation process to the IAHR in 2012 (Executive Committee 2012 Copenhagen) and, after the recommendation of the International Committee in 2013 in Liverpool, officially joined the International Association as a member-group at the General Assembly 2015 in Erfurt.54 If we look at the big picture, besides the most impactful moment of 1989, we see that the number of memberships increased in the period when applications for entering the European Union were made  – finally, have accelerated especially since 2004. The creation of the EASR in 2000 improved Central and Eastern European involvement in the IAHR, by establishing, within the European Association, memberships with the same national-group members of the IAHR, and by operating within the International Association in its capacity as regional association.55 54

Tim Jensen, “IAHR International Committee Meeting Liverpool, UK, September 4, 2013. Minutes,” and Id., “IAHR 2010–2015 General Secretary’s Report. Erfurt August 23.29.2015 [Copenhagen July 7, 2015],” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 28 and 60. 55 Some results presented in this chapter are published: Valerio Severino, “The Process of Affiliation  – Memberships in Central and Eastern Europe of CIPSH/UNESCO and European Organizations for the Academic Study of Religions,” in A Political or a Cultural Project? Contemporary Discourses on Central European Identity [Proceedings of the Symposium of the Research Institute of Art Theory and Methodology, “Central European Identity” 2019], ed. Ákos Windhager (Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Arts 2020), 35–46. Only pages 39–41 are included in this chapter, formulated differently.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography Alles, Gregory D. “Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 185–90. Andics, Erzsébet, “Développement et problèmes principaux de la science historique hongroise au cours des dix dernières années.” In Études des délégués Hongrois au X congrès international des Sciences historiques, edited by Erzsébet Andics, Acta Historica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–3 (1955): 1–44. Antes, Peter. “Ugo Bianchi e la IAHR.” In Ugo Bianchi: una vita per la storia delle religioni, edited by Giovanni Casadio, 75–83. Rome: Il Calamo, 2002. Balogh, Margit, and András Fejérdy. “Freethought, Atheism and Anticlericalism in Twentieth-Century Hungary.” In Freethought and Atheism in Central and Eastern Europe: The Development of Secularity and Non-Religion, edited by Tomáš Bubík, Atko Remmel, and David Václavík, 111–36. New York: Routledge, 2020. Barberini, Giovanni, ed. La politica del dialogo: le carte Casaroli sull’Ostpolitik vaticana. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2008. Beck, Tibor, and Pál Germuska. Forradalom a bölcsészkaron. Budapest: 1956-os Intézet, 1997. Bellelli, Vincenzo. “János György Szilágyi. Un profilo.” Studi Etruschi [Istituto Nazionale di Studi Etruschi ed Italici. Firenze] 78 (2015): XVIII−XXXII. Bianchi, Ugo. “Après Marbourg (petit discours sur la méthode).” Numen 8, no. 1 (1961): 64–79. Bianchi, Ugo. “Lo studio delle religioni non cristiane.” In Le missioni e le religioni non cristiane: atti della quinta settimana di studi missionari, edited by Università cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 121–37. Milano: Vita e pensiero, 1965. Bianchi, Ugo. “Le Colloque international sur les origines du gnosticisme (Messine, Avril 1966).” Numen 13, no. 2 (1966): 151–60. Bianchi Bandinelli, Ranuccio. “Lettera aperta a Carlo Antoni.” L’Unità, December 13, 1951: 3. Bič, Miloš. Poklad v Judské poušti (kumránské nálezy). Prague: Komenského evangelická bohoslovecká fakulta, Ústřední církevní nakladatelství, 1960. Bleeker, Claas Jouco. “Bulletin. The International Association for the Study of History of Religions (IASHR).” Numen 1, no. 1 (1954): 86–90. Bleeker, Claas Jouco. “Communication from the Secretariat of the IAHR.” Numen 6, no. 1 (1959): 74–75. Borzsák, István. “Visszaemlékezés 1956-ra.” In Id., Dragma. 5 Válogatott tanulmányok, 479–85. Budapest: Telosz Kiadó, 2000. Brandt, Miroslav. Wyclifova hereza i socijalni pokreti u Splitu krajem 14. st. Zagreb: Kultura, 1955.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

154

Bibliography

Braun, Jürgen. Eine Deutsche Karriere: Die Biographie des Ethnologen Hermann Baumann 1902–1972. München: Akademischer Verlag, 1995. Brelich, Angelo. “Ai margini del 10° Congresso Internazionale di Storia delle Religioni (Marburgo, 11 e 17.09.1960).” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 31 (1960): 121–28. Brelich, Angelo. Review of Storia delle Religioni edited by Pietro Tacchi Venturi  / Giuseppe Castellani. Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 34 (1963): 266–274. B. T. “Külföldi utazások 1955-ben.” Ethnographia. A Magyar Néprajzi Társaság folyóirata 67, no. 1–2 (1956): 169–71. Bubík, Tomáš, and Henryk Hoffmann, eds. Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened: The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Bubík, Tomáš. “The Czech Journey to the Academic Study of Religions: From the Critique of Religion to its Study.” In Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, edited by Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann, 1–54. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Bubík, Tomáš. “Is the Study of Religions in the Eastern Europe still behind the Iron Curtain? Response to Gregory Alles, Barbara Krawcowicz and Stefan Ragaz.” Method and Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 191–99. Burkert, Walter. Review of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte, by Imre Trencsenyi-Waldapfel. Gnomon 41, no. 2 (1969): 113–17. Bush, Richard C., “The Impact of Communism on Religion in China.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions. Vol. 3 The Role of Historical Scholarship in Changing the Relations among Religions, edited by IAHR, 57–72. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Casadio, Giovanni. “Comparative Religion Scholars in Debate: Theology vs. History in Letters Addressed to U. Bianchi.” In Chasing Down Religion: In the Sights of History and the Cognitive Sciences. Essays in Honor of Luther H. Martin, edited by Panayotis Pachis and Donald Wiebe, 59–80. Thessaloniki: Barbounakis, 2010; and in Ugo Bianchi e la Storia delle religioni, edited by Monaca Mariangela, 137–43. Ariccia: Aracne Editrice, 2012. Casadio, Giovanni. “Raffaele Pettazzoni and Károly Marót, Companions in Arms in the Field of the History of Religions.” In New Trends and Recurring Issues in the Study of Religion, edited by Ábrahám Kovács and James L. Cox, 33–51. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2014. Casadio, Giovanni. “Numen, Brill and the IAHR in their Early Years: Glimpses at Three Parallel Stories from an Italian Stance.” In Numen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects, edited by Tim Jensen and Armin W. Geertz, 301–48. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2016. Casaroli, Agostino. Il martirio della pazienza: la Santa Sede e i paesi comunisti, 1963–89, edited by Carlo Felice Casula and Giovanni Maria Vian. Torino: Einaudi, 2000.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

155

Chizzoniti, Antonio G., ed. Agostino Casaroli: lo sguardo lungo della Chiesa. Milano: Vita e Pensiero, 2015. Ciurtin, Eugen, ed. Proceedings of the 6th EASR / IAHR Special Conference “Religious History of Europe and Asia”, Bucharest 20–23 September 2006, Archaeus 11–12 (2007–2008), 13 (2009), 14 (2010). Comité International des Sciences Historiques, ed. La Pologne au Xe Congrès International des Sciences Historiques à Rome. Warsaw: Académie polonaise des sciences, Institut d’Histoire, 1955. Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions, ed. Actes du V e Congrès International d’Histoire des Religions à Lund, 27–29 Août 1929. Lund: Gleerup, 1930. Crahay, Roland. “Éléments d’une mythopée gnostique dans la Grèce Classique.” In Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966. Texts and Discussions, edited by Ugo Bianchi, 323–38. Leiden: Brill, 1967. Crahay, Roland. Review of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte, by Imre TrencsényiWaldapfel. Latomus 27, no. 4 (1968): 960–61. Cristofol, Jean. [speech] “2° Séance du Mardi 6 Février 1951.” Journal Officiel de la République Française. Débats parlementaires. Assemblée Nationale 17 (7 February 1951.): 764–804. Csanak, Dóra. Fülep Lajos levelezése. Vol. 5 (1945–1950). Budapest: Argumentum Kiadó, 2001. Czeglédy, Károly. “A nemzetközi vallástörténeti társaság Strasbourgi konferenciája (1964, Szept. 17–22).” Antik Tanulmanyok 12 (1965): 311–13. Czeglédy, Károly. “Das sakrale Königtum bei den Steppenvölkern.” Numen 13, no. 1 (1966): 14–26. Czeglédy, Károly. “A szakrális királyság a steppei népeknél (a kazároknál és a magyaroknál).” Magyar Nyelv 70 (1974): 15–21. D. M. [de Martino, Ernesto]. “Città moderna o città metafisica? La ‘missione’ di Roma.” L’Unità, May 24, 1952: 3. De Martino, Ernesto. “Coscienza religiosa e coscienza storica: in margine a un congresso.” Nuovi Argomenti 14 (1955): 86–94. De Martino, Ernesto. “In margine a un congresso internazionale. La storia delle religioni.” L’Unità, April 27, 1955: 3. De Martino, Ernesto. “Storicismo e irrazionalismo nella Storia delle religioni.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 28, no. 2 (1957): 89–107. De Martino, Ernesto. Furore Simbolo Valore. Milano: Il Saggiatore, 1962. Dénes, Iván Zoltán, ed. “Magántörténelem: Marót Károly és a Bibó család levelezése.” Holmi 9, no. 4 (1997): 531–544. Doležalová, Iva, Luther H. Martin, and Dalibor Papoušek, eds. The Academic Study of Religion during the Cold War. East and West. New York, Bern, et al.: Peter Lang Publishers, 2001.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

156

Bibliography

Donini, Ambrogio. Lineamenti di storia delle religioni. Rome: Editori Riuniti, 1959. Donini, Ambrogio. Korok, vallások, istenek: a kezdetleges vallási kultuszoktól a kereszténység eredetéig, translation by Éva Nyilas. Budapest: Gondolat, 1961. Donini, Ambrogio. Studie z dějin náboženství. Prague: snpl, 1961. Donini, Ambrogio. Люди, идолы и боги: Очерк истории религии, translation by I. I. Kravčenko. Moscow: Госполитиздат, 1962. Donini, Ambrogio. Pregled povijesti religija: od prvih oblika kulta do početaka kršćanstva. Zagreb: Naprijed, 1964. Donini, Ambrogio. Zarys historii religii: od kultów pierwotnych do początków chrześcijaństwa, translation by Barbara Sieroszewska, pwn, Warsaw 1966. Donini, Ambrogio. După chipul și asemănarea omului, translation by Eugen Costescu and Foreword by Octavian Cheţan. Bucharest: Editura Politică, 1968. Donini, Ambrogio, ed. Ernesto Buonaiuti and Remo Missir, La vita allo sbaraglio: lettere a Missir, 1926–1946. Firenze: La Nuova Italia, 1980. Erdmann, Karl Dietrich. Toward a Global Community of Historians. The International Congresses and the International Committee of Historical Sciences 1898–2000. New York: Berghahn Books, 2005. Erkes, Eduard. “Die heutige Stellung der Religionen in China.” Numen 3, no. 1 (1956): 28–35. Ernst, Juliette. “Przemówienie dr Julliete Ernst sekretarki gen Fiec i przewodniczącej Société des Études Latines we Francji.” Meander: miesięcznik poświęcony kulturze świata starożytnego 23, no. 4 (1968): 169–171. Ernst, Juliette. “L’Année Philologique, notre aventure.” L’Année Philologique 50 (1981): XXI–XXXII. Farajallah, Samaan Boutros. Le groupe afro-asiatique dans le cadre des Nations Unies. Genève: Droz, 1963. Fejérdy, András. “Aux origines de la nouvelle ‘Ostpolitik’ du Saint-Siège. La première tentative de Jean XXIII pour reprendre le contact avec les éveques hongrois en 1959.” Archivum Historiae Pontificiae 46 (2008): 389–411. Fejérdy, András. “L’intesa semplice del 1964 tra la Santa Sede e l’Ungheria.” Rivista di studi ungheresi 11 (2012): 96–111. Fejérdy, András. Rapporti diplomatici tra la Santa Sede e l’Ungheria (1920–2015). Rome: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2016. Forisek, Péter. “A Scholar’s Fate in Hungary after 1945. Reflections on the Emigration of András Alföldi.” In Kalendae. Studia Sollemnia in memoriam Johannis Sarkady, edited by György Németh, 117–39. Debrecen: University of Debrecen, Dept. of Ancient History Publisher, 2008. Gandini, Mario. “Il Fondo Pettazzoni della Biblioteca comunale «G. C. Croce» di San Giovanni in Persiceto (Bologna).” Archaeus. Études d’Histoire des religions 7, no. 3–4 (2003): 293–98.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

157

Gandini, Mario. “Raffaele Pettazzoni intorno al 1951. Materiali per una biografia.” Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 61, no. 2 (2006): 56–246. Gandini, Mario. “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1952–1953. Materiali per una biografia.” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 62, no. 1 (2007): 1–191. Gandini, Mario. “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1954–1955. Materiali per una biografia.” Strada maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 63, no. 2 (2007): 1–282. Gandini, Mario. “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1956–1957. Materiali per una biografia.” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C. Croce” di San Giovanni in Persiceto 64, no. 1 (2008): 1–247. Gandini, Mario. “Raffaele Pettazzoni negli anni 1958–1959. Materiali per una biografia.” Strada Maestra. Quaderni della Biblioteca comunale “G. C.Croce” 65, no. 2 (2008): 1–292. Geertz, Armin W., and Peter Antes, “A Visit to the Soviet Association for the Science of Religion.” IAHR Bulletin 17 (1991): 11–13. Geertz, Armin W. “General Assembly, Minutes of the Meeting. August 12, 1995.” IAHR Bulletin 34 (1996): 39–42. Geertz, Armin W. “International Committee, Minutes of the meeting August 9, 1995.” IAHR Bulletin 34 (1996): 30–37. Geertz, Armin W. “News from the National Associations.” IAHR Bulletin 35 (1998): 53–73. Geertz, Armin W. “International Committee Meeting of the IAHR, Hildesheim, Germany, May 24, 1998. Minutes of the Meeting.” IAHR Bulletin 36 (2000): 44–48. Geertz, Armin W. “General Assembly of the IAHR, Durban, South Africa, Saturday August 12, 2000. Minutes of the Meeting.” IAHR Bulletin 37 (2002): 41–49. Geertz, Armin W. “Minutes of the International Committee Meeting. Bergen, Norway, May 10, 2003.” IAHR Bulletin 38 (2005): 16–23. Geertz, Armin W. “Report by the General Secretary [March 7, 2005].” IAHR Bulletin 38 (2005): 34–48. Geertz, Armin W. “General Assembly of the IAHR, Tokyo, Japan, Wednesday March 30, 2005. Minutes of the Meeting.” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 30–37. Gingrich, Andre. “The German-Speaking Countries.” In One Discipline, Four Ways: British, German, French, and American Anthropology, edited by Chris Hann, 119–27. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2005. Hahn, István. “A ‘Halottak Könyve’.” Egyetemi Lapok  – Az Eötvös Loránd Tudomán­ yegyetem lapja 12, no. 10 (May 13, 1970): 1–2. Hajdu, Péter. “Classics in Hungary and the Party Line: The Case of Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel.” In Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

158

Bibliography

Iron Curtain, edited by Karsai György, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska, 55–70. Ljubljana, Budapest and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales”, 2013. Halecki, Oscar. “Poland at the Tenth International Congress of Historical Sciences.” The Polish Review [University of Illinois Press on behalf of the Polish Institute of Arts & Sciences of America] 1, no. 1 (1956): 5–22. Halecki, Oscar. Review of Antemurale, I and Antemurale, II, edited by Institutum Historicum Polonicum Romae, Societas Polonica Scientiarum et Litterarum in Exteris. Speculum 31, no. 1 (1956): 128–130. Halecki, Oscar. Review of Obiektywny charakter praw historii, edited by Adam Schaff, and La Pologne au X Congrès International des Sciences Historiques à Rome, edited by Polska Akademia Nauk. Instytut Historii. The American Historical Review 61, 4 (1956): 972–973. Hankins, James. “Religion and the Modernity of Renaissance Humanism.” In Interpretations of Renaissance Humanism, edited by Angelo Mazzocco, 137–53. Leiden: Brill, 2006. Harmatta, János. “Hírek. Az Ókortudományi Társasag 1961, és 1962, évi Közgyűlése.” Antik Tanulmányok 9, no. 1–2 (1962): 255–58. Harmatta, János. “Nemzetközi ókortudományi találkozók 1962-ben.” Magyar Tudomány. A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Értesítője 70, no. 4 (1963): 283–85. Havasréti, József. “A ‘poétikai közvetítés’ eszméjének kontextusai és változatai Thienemann Tivadar és Marót Károly írásaiban.” Helikon Irodalom- és Kultúratudományi Szemle 54, no. 2–3 (2008): 141–89. Hengel, Martin. “Laudatio Kurt Aland.” In Kurt Aland. In memoriam, edited by Hermann Kunst-Stiftung zur Förderung der neutestamentlichen Textforschung, 17–34. Münster: hksfnt Publisher, 1995. Hoffmann, Henryk. “The Development of Religious Studies in Poland: History and the Present State.” In Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, edited by Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann, 87–121. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Hoppál, Mihály, and Juha Pentikäinen, eds. Northern Religions and Shamanism. The Regional Conference of the International Association of the History of Religions. Budapest and Helsinki: Akadémiai Kiadó and Finnish Literature Society, 1992. iahr = International Association for the History of Religions. Atti dell’VIII congresso internazionale di Storia delle religioni (Roma, 17–23 aprile 1955). Firenze: Sansoni, 1956. International Association for the History of Religions. Proceedings of the 9th International Congress for the History of Religions, Tokyo and Kyoto, 1958: August 27– September 9. Tokyo: Maruzen, 1960.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

159

International Association for the History of Religions. 10. Internationaler Kongress fur Religionsgeschichte: 11–17. September 1960 in Marburg/Lahn. Marburg: N. G. Elwert Verlag, 1961. International Association for the History of Religions. Initiation: Contributions to the Theme of the Study-conference of the International Association for the History of Religions Held at Strasbourg, September 17th to 22nd 1964, edited by Claas Jouco Bleeker. Leiden: Brill, 1965. International Association for the History of Religions. Colloquium of Messina 13–18 April 1966. Texts and Discussions, edited by Ugo Bianchi. Leiden: Brill, 1967. International Association for the History of Religions. Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions Held at Claremont, California, September 6–11, 1965. Vol. 1: The Impact of Modern Culture on Traditional Religions; Vol. 2: Guilt or Pollution and Rites of Purification. Leiden: Brill, 1968. International Association for the History of Religions. Proceedings of the 12th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions (Stockholm, August 16–22, 1970). Leiden: Brill, 1975. International Association for the History of Religions. The Notion of “Religion” in Comparative Research: Selected Proceedings of the XVIth Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions, Rome, 3rd–8th September, 1990, edited by Ugo Bianchi. Rome: “L’Erma” di Bretschneider, 1994. International Association for the History of Religions. Religions in Contact: Selected Proceedings of the Special IAHR Conference Held in Brno, August 23–26, 1994, edited by Doležalová Iva, Bretislav Horyna, and Dalibor Papoušek. Brno: Czech Society for the Study of Religions, and Masaryk University, 1996. International Federation of Associations of Classical Studies, “Program of the Fourth International Congress of Classical Studies, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, August 24–29, 1964.” Transactions and Proceedings of the American Philological Association 95 (1964): XLIV–XLIX. International Federation of Free Journalists of Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic and Balkan Countries, International Federation of Free Journalists. London: N. MacNeill & Co., Press Ltd, 1952. Isaac, Marie-Thérèse. “In Memoriam Roland Crahay.” Bibliothèque d’Humanisme et Renaissance 55, no. 1 (1993): 137–42. Isler-Kerényi, Cornelia. “Károly Kerényi. An Unwilling Emigrant into European Classical Scholarship.” In Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain, edited by György Karsai, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska, 45–54. Ljubljana, Budapest, and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales” Publishers, 2013.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

160

Bibliography

Jensen, Tim. “Report by the IAHR General Secretary. IAHR International Committee Meeting, September 10, 2008 [August 24, 2008].” IAHR e-Bulletin [Supplement] August 2008: 15–35. Jensen, Tim. “IAHR International Committee, Meeting. Brno, Czech Republic. September 10, 2008. Minutes of the Meeting [July 14, 2010].” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 16–29. Jensen, Tim. “IAHR 2005–2010 General Secretary’s Report. Toronto, August 15–21, 2010.” IAHR Bulletin 39 (2010): 38–54. Jensen, Tim. “Membership Developments.” IAHR e‐Bulletin Supplement August 2011: 42–43. Jensen, Tim. “General Assembly of the IAHR Toronto, Canada. August 21, 2010. Minutes of the Meeting.” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 37–48. Jensen, Tim. “IAHR International Committee Meeting Liverpool, UK, September 4, 2013. Minutes.” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 17–36. Jensen, Tim. “IAHR 2010–2015 General Secretary’s Report. Erfurt, August 23–29, 2015 [Copenhagen, July 7, 2015].” IAHR Bulletin 40 (2015): 49–77. Jensen, Tim. “The EASR within (the World Scenario of) the IAHR: Observations and Reflections.” In Numen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects, edited by Tim Jensen, and Armin W. Geertz, 163–217. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2016. Junginger, Horst, ed. The Study of Religion under the Impact of Fascism. Leiden and Boston: Brill. 2008. Kákosy, László. “Beszámoló az ‘Idő és történelem’ konferenciáról.” Antik Tanulmanyok 20 (1973): 271–72. Kákosy, László. “A túlélés művészete.” Magyar Nemzet, October 12, 1992: 10. Kákosy, László and Ernő Gaál, eds. Idő é́s történelem: a Marót Károly emlékkonferencia előadásai [Budapest, June 6–8, 1973]. Budapest: Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem, 1974. Karsai, György. “Egy klasszikus-filológus az Állambiztonsági Szolgálatok hálójában. Sarkady János, 1927–2006.” Holmi 24, no. 6 (2012): 771–88. Karsai, György, “A Classical Philologist Trapped in the Web of the State Security: The Case of János Sarkady.” In Classics and Communism: Greek and Latin behind the Iron Curtain, edited by Karsai György, Gábor Klaniczay, David Movrin, and Elżbieta Olechowska, 71–106. Ljubljana, Budapest, and Warsaw: Ljubljana University Press, Collegium Budapest Institute for Advanced Study, and Faculty of “Artes Liberales”, 2013. Kerényi, Karl. Tage- und Wanderbücher 1953–1960. München: Langen Müller, 1969. Kerényi, Károly and Angelo Brelich, Tra gli Asfodeli dell’Elisio. Carteggio 1935–1959, edited by Andrea Alessandri, translated by Andrea Nagy. Roma: Editori Riuniti UP, 2011.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

161

Kerényi, Károly and Angelo Brelich, Az elysioni aszfodéloszok közt. Levelezés 1935– 1959, edited by Valerio Severino, Andrea Nagy, and Orsolya Varsányi. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2020. King, Ursula. “Historical and Phenomenological Approaches.” In Theory and Method in Religious Studies: Contemporary Approaches to the Study of Religion, edited by Frank Whaling, 41–176. Berlin and New York: De Gruyter, 1995. Kippenberg, Hans G., and Donald Wiebe, “Report on the Warsaw Conference on ‘The Studies of Religions in the Context of Social Sciences.’ Methodological and Theoretical Relations Warsaw  – Jabłonna 5–7 September 1989.” Numen 36, no. 2 (1989): 260–262. Kiziloz, Mikhail, The Sons of Scripture: The Karaites in Poland and Lithuania in the Twentieth Century. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2015. Klimó, Árpád von. “Vatican II and Hungary.” In Vatican II behind the Iron Curtain, edited by Piotr H. Kosicki, 50–74. Washington D.C.: CUA Press, 2016. Kołodziejska, Marta. Review of Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, by Tomáš Bubík, and Henryk Hoffmann. eds. Religion 47, no. 2 (2017): 293–95. Kovács, András, ed. Communism’s Jewish Question: Jewish Issues in Communist Archives. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2017. Krawcowicz, Barbara. “Religious Studies, Theology and the Sociopolitical.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 30, 2 (2018): 173–77. Kriegelewicz, Eugeniusz. “Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze.” Euhemer 2 (1958): 3–4. Kristeller, Paul Oskar. “The Contribution of Religious Orders to Renaissance Thought and Learning.” The American Benedictine Review 21 (1970): 1–55. Lanternari, Vittorio. La grande festa: vita rituale e sistemi di produzione nelle società tradizionali. Bari: Dedalo, 2004. Lavopa, Marco. La diplomazia dei piccoli passi: l’Ostpolitik vaticana di Mons. Agostino Casaroli. Rome: GBE / Ginevra Bentivoglio Editoria, 2013. Leeuw, Gerardus van der. Review of Refrigerium. Sermone nativo et germanico, by Károly Marót. Gnomon 14, no. 10 (1938): 573–74. Lőrinc, Gábor. “Irracionalizmus és fasizmus. Hogyan került az SS pénze egy demokratikus vallástörténészhez.” Köztársaság: politikai hetilap, September 4, 1946. Lovász, Irén. “The 25th Anniversary of Revitalizing the Hungarian Association of IAHR and Foundation of the Hungarian Association for the Academic Study of Religions. Facts, Documents and Memories of a Secretary.” Vallástudományi Szemle 12, 5 (2016): 134–39. Lukács, György. “Kerényi Károly: Napleányok. Elmélkedések Heliosról és görög istennőkről.” Társadalmi Szemle 6–7 (1948): 491–95. Lukács, György. Az ész trónfosztása. Az irracionalista filozófia kritikája. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1954.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

162

Bibliography

Lukács, Jószef, ed. Előadások a vallás és az ateizmus történetéről. Budapest: Felsőoktatási Jegyzetellátó Vállalat, and Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar, 1960–1961. Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, ed. “Nemzetközi tudományos szervezetek Magyar nemzeti bizottságai. ill. Magyar tagegyesületei.” A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Almanachja 1970: 245–50. Mandrou, Robert. “Les Historiens soviétiques au Congrès de Rome.” Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales 13, 3 (1958): 526–32. Mann, Thomas. The Story of a Novel: The Genesis of Doctor Faustus, translated by Richard Winston, and Clara Winston. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1961. Marót, Károly. “Der primitive Hochgott, ein Problem der Gestaltpsychologie.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 5 (1929): 173–85. Marót, Károly. “Kronos und Titanen.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 8, no. 1 and 2 (1932): 48–82, and 189–214. Marót, Károly. “Langue et Religion. Une esquisse.” L’antiquité classique 5, no. 2 (1936): 249–61. Marót, Károly. “Amicitia.” Acta Universitatis Szegediensis: sectio philologica 13 (1939): 3–73. Marót, Károly. “L’esilio di Ovidio.” Acta Antiqua. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, no. 3 (1955): 223–32. Marót, Károly. “Varsó a békeharc egyik döntő állomása. Marót Károly történettudós nyilatkozata.” Népszava. A magyar szakszervezetek központi lapja, May 25, 1955: 1. Marót, Károly. “Beszámoló a VIII Nemzetközi Vallástörténeti Kongresszusról.” A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának Közleményei 8, no. 1–4 (1956): 181–90. Marót, Károly. “Musen, Sirenen und Chariten.” in iahr, Atti dell’8. Congresso internazionale di storia delle religioni (Roma, 17–23 aprile 1955). Firenze: Sansoni, 1956, 303–04. Marót, Károly. “Musen, Sirenen und Chariten.” Filológiai Közlöny 4, no. 3–4 (1958): 657–62. Marót, Károly. “The Sirens.” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 7, no. 1–2 (1958): 1–60. Marót, Károly. “Homerus expurgans.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 30, no. 1 (1959): 3–13. Marót, Károly. “Raffaele Pettazzoni (1883–1959).” Antik Tanulmányok 7, no. 1–2 (1960): 83–84. Marót, Károly. “Magie-magisch.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 33, no. 2 (1962): 203–26. Marót, Károly. “Moravcsik Gyula hetven éves.” Antik Tanulmányok 9, no. 1–2 (1962): 109–112. Marouzeau, Jules, and Marcel Durry. “Chroniques des études latines. 1 Congrès, Assemblées, Colloques.” Revue des Études Latines 37 (1959): 84–88. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

163

Marticskó, József. “Beszámoló az Ókortudományi Társaság megalakulásáról (1958, Március 27).” Antik Tanulmányok 6 (1959): 164–65. Marticskó, József. “Emlékülés Ovidius születésének 2000. Évfordulója alkalmából (1957, December 17).” Antik Tanulmányok 6 (1959): 163–64. Máté-Tóth, András, and Csaba Máté Sarnyai, eds. Szemelvények a magyar vallástudomány történetéből II. Jeles szerzők 1921–1945. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2013. Máté-Tóth, András, and Csaba Máté Sarnyai. “The History and Recent Trends of Religionswissenschaft in Hungary.” In Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, edited by Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann, 122–65. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Mátrai, László. “A Renaissance, a németalföldi és az angol forradalom valláskritikája.” In Id, ed., Előadások a vallás és az ateizmus történetéről. Vol. 2, edited by Jószef Lukács, 3–17. Budapest: Felsőoktatási Jegyzetellátó Vállalat, and Eötvös Loránd Tudományegyetem. Bölcsészettudományi Kar, 1960. Mátrai, László. “Világosság.” Világosság. Materialista világnézeti folyóirat 1, no. 1 (1960): 1–7. Melloni, Alberto, ed. Il filo sottile: l’Ostpolitik vaticana di Agostino Casaroli. Bologna: Il Mulino, 2006. Monfasani John. “Paul Oskar Kristeller.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 145, no. 2 (2001): 208–11. Moravcsik, Gyula, ed. Carolo Marót Septuagenario de studiis antiquis optime merito collegae amici discipuli hoc volumen grato animo D. D., in Antik Tanulmányok 2 (1955). Moravcsik, Gyula. “Dix années de philologie classique hongroise, 1945–1954.” Acta Antiqua. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 3, no. 3 (1955): 191–209. Moravcsik, Gyula. “Károly Marót 1885–1963.” Antik Tanulmányok 11 (1964): 1–4. Morozzo della Rocca, Roberto, ed. Tra Est e Ovest: Agostino Casaroli diplomatico vaticano. Cinisello Balsamo: Edizioni San Paolo, 2014. Nekola, Martin. “International Federation of Free Journalists: Opposing Communist Propaganda during the Cold War.” Media and Communication 5, no. 3 (2017): 103–06. Ort, L. J. R. “Bullettin. Study Conference of the IAHR Strasbourg (France) September 1964.” Numen 12, no. 1 (1965): 76–80. Ort, L. J. R. “International Association for the History of Religions: Study-Conference Jerusalem July 1968.” Numen 16, no. 1 (1969): 77–79. Ortutay, Gyula, ed. Professоri Carolo Marót septuagenario sacrum 1955, in Acta Ethnographica Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955). Ortutay, Gyula. “The Science of Folklore in Hungary between the Two World-Wars and during the Period Subsequent to the Liberation.” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955): 5–89. Ortutay, Gyula. Írók, népek, századok. Budapest: Magvetö, 1960. Ortutay, Gyula. “Marót Károly temetésén 1963.10.31.” Ethnographia 75, no. 1 (1964): 160–61. Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

164

Bibliography

Ortutay, Gyula. Hungarian Folklore: Essays. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1972. Paden, William E. “Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Open: The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe, written by Tomáš Bubík and Henryk Hoffmann.” Numen 64, no. 2–3 (2017): 323–26. Papoušek, Dalibor. “Affiliation Speech for SSN (Czechoslovakia).” IAHR Bulletin 19 (1992): 3–4. Papp, István. “István Borzsák’s Missing Dossier: What Can the Political Police Do with a Classicist?” In Pietas non sola Romana. Studia memoriae Stephani Borzsák dedicata, edited by Anita Czeglédy et al., 697–711. Budapest: Typotex Kiadó  – Eötvös Collegium, 2010. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. “Un congresso ‘non opportuno’.” Il Mondo. Settimanale di politica e letteratura, January 19, 1952: 4. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. Italia religiosa. Bari: Laterza, 1952. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. L’onniscienza di Dio. Torino: Einaudi, 1955. Pettazzoni, Raffaele. L’essere supremo nelle religioni primitive. Torino: Einaudi, 1957. Pogány, Mária, ed. Kardos László börtönírásai: 1957–1963. Budapest: Gondolat, 1992. Pye, Michael. “Warsaw Conference 1989: Report.” IAHR, Bullettin 12 (1989): 4–6. Pye, Michael. “Member Associations of the IAHR.” IAHR Bulletin 13 (1990): 9–16. Pye, Michael. “Report by Secretary-General.” IAHR Bullettin 15 (1990): 3–7. Pye, Michael. “[List of the Member-associations of the IAHR].” IAHR Bulletin 16 (1991): 4–7. Pye, Michael. “International Committee of the IAHR, Minutes of the Meeting Held in Rome on 5.9.1990.” IAHR Bulletin 17 (1991): 3–7. Pye, Michael. “Minutes of a Meeting of the Executive Committee. Burlington, Vermont, USA, August 9th 1991.” IAHR Bulletin 18 (1991): 2–6. Pye, Michael. “Reorganisation in Eastern Europe.” IAHR Bulletin 24 (1993): 3. Pye, Michael. “Letter from the Secretary-General.” IAHR Bulletin 25 (1993): 1. Pye, Michael. “Draft Agenda for the International Committee Meeting in Paris on 19th September 1993.” IAHR Bulletin 25 (1993): 4. Pye, Michael. “Ukraine.” IAHR Bulletin 26 (1993): 43. Pye, Michael. “International Committee of the IAHR, Minutes of the Meeting Held in Paris 19.9.1993.” IAHR Bulletin 27 (1993): 2–7. Pye, Michael. Strategies in the Study of Religions. Vol. 1 Exploring Methods and Positions. Berlin and Boston: De Gruyter, 2013. Rácz, Zoltán. Családi ünnepek és szertartások. Budapest: Népmüvelési Intézet, 1960. Rácz, Zoltán. Családi és társadalmi ünnepek. Budapest: Kossuth, 1964. Ragaz, Stefan. “Reading Scientific Atheism against the Grain.” Method & Theory in the Study of Religion 30, no. 2 (2018): 178–84. Richardson, James H., and Federico Santangelo, eds. Andreas Alföldi in the Twenty-First Century. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag, 2015.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

165

Ritoók, Zsigmond. “The contribution of Hungary to International Classical Scholarship.” Hungarian Studies 12, no. 1–2 (1997): 5–15. Ritoók, Zsigmond. “Marót Károly (1885–1963) [September 17, 2001].” In Emlékbeszédek az MTA elhunyt tagjai felett 2001, 1–25. Budapest: Magyar Tudományos Akadémia, 2002. Romsics, Ignác. Clio bűvöletében. Magyar történetírás a 19–20. században – nemzetközi kitekintéssel. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó, 2011. Róna-Tas, András, “Az osztály életéből.” A Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Irodalomtudományok Osztályának Közleményei 23, no. 1–4 (1966): 295–334. Salvatorelli, Luigi. “Il congresso romano di Storia delle Religioni.” La Nuova Stampa, Avril 23, 1955: 5. Santini, Alceste. Agostino Casaroli: l’uomo del dialogo. Cinisello Balsamo: Edizioni San Paolo, 1993. Sárkány, Mihály. “Hungarian Anthropology in the Socialist Era: Theories, Methodologies and Undercurrents.” In Studying Peoples in the People’s Democracies, edited by Chris Hann, Mihály Sárkány, and Peter Skalník, 87–108. Münster: LIT, 2005. Sarnyai, Csaba Máté. “Vallás, mágia és áldozat Marót Károly és Domján Elek nézeteinek tükrében.” In Tanulmányok a Magyar vallástudomány történetéről, edited by Mihály Hoppál, and Ábrahám Kovács, 181–87. Budapest: L’Harmattan, 2009. Schimmel, Annemarie. “Summary of the Discussion.” Numen 7, no. 2–3 (1960): 235–39. Schütz, Edmund. “Bibliography of Károly Czeglédy.” Acta Orientalia Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 49, no. 1–2 (1996): 9–12. Sekulić, Branko. Review of Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Opened, by Tomáš Bubík, and Henryk Hoffmann, eds. Occasional Papers on Religion in Eastern Europe 36, no. 3 (2016): 50–63. Severino, Valerio S. “Le mur de la laïcité (1961). Histoire des religions et sécularisation de l’histoire en Italie.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 77, no. 1 (2011): 100–18. Severino, Valerio S. “Behind and across the Iron Curtain. Reflections Following the Discussion in Method & Theory in the Study of Religion on T. Bubík’s and H. Hoffmann’s The Academic Study of Religion in Eastern Europe.” Studi e Materiali di Storia delle Religioni 84, no. 1 (2018): 345–49. Severino, Valerio S. “The Process of Affiliation – Memberships in Central and Eastern Europe of CIPSH/UNESCO and European Organizations for the Academic Study of Religions.” In A Political or a Cultural Project? Contemporary Discourses on Central European Identity, edited by Ákos Windhager, 35–46. Budapest: Hungarian Academy of Arts Publisher, 2020. Sharma, D. N. Afro-Asian Group in the U.N. Allahabad: Chaitanya Publishing House, 1969. Sharpe, Eric J. Comparative Religion: A History. London: Duckworth, 1986.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

166

Bibliography

Silvestrini, Achille, ed. L’ Ostpolitik di Agostino Casaroli 1963–1989. Bologna: EDB, 2009. Simon, Attila. “Recepció és médium. Marót Károly irodalomszemléletéről.” In Id., Dionysos színrevitele. A közvetítés kulturális technikái az antik irodalomban és filozófiában, 243–275. Budapest: Ráció, 2009. Simon, Attila. “Forschungen zur Medien- und Kommunikationsgeschichte in der ungarischen Altertumswissenschaft im 20. Jahrhundert.” In Wissen – Vermittlung – Moderne. Studien zu den ungarischen Geistes- und Kulturwissenschaften um 1900, edited by Lőrincz Csongor, 263–85. Köln, Weimar, and Wien: Böhlau, 2016. Simon, Marcel. “Réflexions sur un Congrès.” Revue de l’Histoire des religions 163, no. 1 (1963): 1–10. Societatis Historicae Polonorum in Exteris. “Dissertationes in X Internationali Congressu Scientiarum listoriarum Romae A. MCMLV a Sociis Societatis Historicae Polonorum in Exteris Praesentatae.” In Antemurale 2 (1955). Spineto, Natale. “Kerényi Károly és a vallástörténeti tanulmányok Olaszországban.” In Mitológia és humanitás, edited by János G. Szilágyi, 52–84. Budapest: Osiris Kiadó. 1999. Spineto, Natale. Storia e storici delle religioni in Italia. Alessandria: Edizioni dell’Orso, 2012. Stachowski, Zbigniew. “Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze (1958–2011).” In Religie i religijność w ś́wiecie współczesnym: III Międzynarodowy kongres religioznawczy: Toruń 12–15 Września 2011, edited by Marek Szulakiewicz, 18–21. Toruń: Wydawnictwo Naukowe Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, 2011. Stachowski, Zbigniew. “Religious Studies in Poland. The Present State of Research and Prospects.” Anglojęzyczny Suplement Przeglądu Religioznawczego 247 (2013): 117–23. Stark, Isolde. “Die inoffizielle Tätigkeit von Johannes Irmscher für die Staatssicherheit der DDR.” Hallische Beiträge zur Zeitgeschichte 5 (1998): 46–71. Stausberg, Michael. “The Study of Religion(s) in Western Europe (II): Institutional Developments after World War II.” Religion 38, no. 4 (2008): 305–18. Stökl, Günther. “Die Geschichte Osteuropas auf dem X. Internationalen Kongreß für Geschichtswissenschaft in Rom (4.11. September 1955).” in Jahrbücher für Geschichte Osteuropas 3, no. 3 (1955): 357–68. Strelcyn, Stefan. Prières magiques Éthiopiennes pour délier les charmes. Warsaw: Panstwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1955. Strelcyn, Stefan. “Dix ans d’études orientales en Pologne Populaire.” In Proceedings of the Twenty-third International Congress of Orientalists, Cambridge, 21st–28th August, 1954, edited by Denis Sinor, 43–60. London: The Royal Asiatic Society, 1956. Strelcyn, Stefan. “Obituaries. Marcel Cohen.” Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies [University of London] 38, no. 3 (1975): 615–22. Supruniuk, Mirosław A. “Fr. Prof. Walerian Meysztowicz and the Polish Historical Institute in Rome.” In East and Central European History Writing in Exile 1939–1989,

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

167

edited by Maria Zadencka, Andrejs Plakans, and Andreas Lawaty, 131–155. Brill: Leiden and Boston, 2015. Székács, Anna. “Japán vendég – magyaros vendéglátás: Mit tehet a japánnyelv-oktatás a japán beutazó turizmus fejlesztéséért?” In Híd kelet és nyugat között, edited by Pál Majoros, 274–88. Budapest: Budapesti Gazdasági Főiskola / Tudományos Évkönyv, 2003. Szilágyi, János György. “Trencsényi-Waldapfel: Studies in the History of religion.” Review of Vallástörténeti tanulmányok, by Imre Trencsényi-Waldapfel. Acta Antiqua 9, no. 1–2 (1961): 257–60. Szilágyi, János György. “Egy halálhír  – Kerényi Károly (1897–1973). Levelek Kerényi Károly archívumából.” Beszélő 3, no. 4 (1998): 94–104. Szilágyi, János György. “Egzisztenciális Tudomány. Interjú Szilágyi Györggyel, 2. Rész.” Interview by Litván, György and Adrienne Molnár, March 11–April 8, 2003, Museum of Fine Arts. Enigma. Művészetelméleti folyóirat 88 (2016): 17–90. Szilágyi, János György. Örvények fölé épülő harmónia. Interjúk, dokumentumok, levelek I–II, edited by Géza Komoróczy. Budapest: Gondolat, and Szépművészeti Múzeum, 2018. Szlezák, Thomas Alexander. “Biographical memoirs. Walter Burkert, 2 February 1931– 11 March 2015.” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society 162, no. 1 (2018): 116–19. Tóth, Heléna. “Writing Rituals: The Sources of Socialist Rites of Passage in Hungary, 1958–1970.” In Science, Religion and Communism in Cold War Europe, edited by Paul Betts, and Stephen A. Smith, 179–203. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016. Töttössy, Csaba. “A L’Association Internationale d’Histoire des Religions strasbourgi kollokviuma (1964. szept. 17–22.).” Antik Tanulmanyok 12 (1965): 313–16. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “The Pandora-Myth.” Acta Ethnographica. Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4, no. 1–4 (1955): 99–128. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Mitológia. Budapest: Müvelt Nép, 1956. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Мифология. Moscow: иностранной литературы, 1959. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Vallástörténeti tanulmányok. Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1959. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “A vallás lényege és a vallástörténet feladatai.” In Előadások a vallás és az ateizmus történetéről. Vol. 1, edited by Jószef Lukács, 3–38. Budapest: Felsőoktatási Jegyzetellátó Vállalat, 1960. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “Les églogues de Miklós Radnóti.” Acta Litteraria Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 4 (1961): 183–205. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “О religii.” Euhemer 5, no. 2 (1961): 3–17. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “О stosunku Hezjoda do Muz i mitow.” Euhemer 5, no. 6 (1961): 3–10.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

168

Bibliography

Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “Mindennek mértéke az ember: Két fejezet a valláskritika történetéből.” Világosság. Materialista Világnézeti Folyóirat 3, no. 1 (1962): 6–14. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “A IV nemzetközi klasszika-filológiai kongresszus (Philadelphia, 1964, Augusztus 24–29).” Antik Tanulmányok 12, no. 2 (1965): 309–11. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “In Memoriam of Károly Marót 1885–1963.” Numen 12, no. 1 (1965): 74–75. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “A xi. Nemzetközi vallástörténeti kongresszus.” Antik Tanulmányok 13, no. 1 (1966): 156–158. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte. Amsterdam: Hakkert, 1966. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Mitologia. Translated by Jan Ślaski. Warsaw: Państwowe Wydawnictwo Naukowe, 1967. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. Mytologie. Translated by Ladislav Hradský. Prague: Odeon, 1967. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “Der religionsgeschichtliche Hintergrund der Bukolischen Poesie.” In Proceedings of the 11th International Congress of the International Association for the History of Religions: Claremont, California, September 6–11, 1965. Vol. 2: Guilt or Pollution and Rites of Purification, edited by iahr, 203–11. Leiden: Brill, 1968. Trencsényi-Waldapfel, Imre. “Mythologie und Gnosis.” Studi di storia religiosa della tarda antichità, edited by Ugo Bianchi, 53–62. Messina: Università di Messina, 1968. Tubiana, Joseph. “Stefan Strelcyn FBA 1918–1981.” Journal of Semitic Studies 27, 1 (1982): 1–15. Tyloch, Witold. “Polish Society for the Science of Religion.” Euhemer 23, no. 3  / 113 (1979): 3–8. Tyloch, Witold, ed. Current Progress in the Methodology of the Science of Religions. Warsaw: Polish Scientific Publishers, 1984. Tyloch, Witold, ed. Studies on Religions in the Context of Social Sciences: Methodological and Theoretical Relations  / Studia religioznawcze w kontekście nauk społecznych. Warsaw: Polish Society for the Science of Religions, 1990. Ubertazzi, Giulio. “L’ottavo Congresso di storia delle religioni.” Mondo operaio 8, no. 10 (1955): 12–14. Ullendorff, Edward. “Stefan Strelcyn 1918–1981.” Proceedings of the British Academy 67 (1981): 479–90. Ungváry, Krisztián. “Konszolidáció és megtorlás az ELTE bölcsészkarán.” Valóság. Tudományos Ismeretterjesztő Társulat havi folyóirata 37, no. 1 (1994): 72–94. Vajda, László. Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der Hirtenkulturen. Wiesbaden: O. Harrassowitz, 1968. Vajda, László. “Zu Kerényis ‘Wesen des Festes’ [Vortrag am Kerényi-Symposium, 25.10.1997 in Mailand].” In Id., Ethnologica: Ausgewählte Aufsätze, edited by Xaver

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Bibliography

169

Götzfried, Thomas O. Höllmann, and Claudius C. Müller, 485–94. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag, 1999. Vajda, László. “‘Én tulajdonképpen történésznek tartom magam’. Interjú Vajda Lászlóval.” Interview by Fejős Zoltán. Tabula 9, no. 1 (2006): 15–39. Vittoria, Albertina. “Pci, le riviste e l’amicizia. La corrispondenza fra Gastone Manacorda e Delio Cantimori.” Studi Storici 44, no. 3–4 (2003): 745–888. Voigt, Vilmos. “Marót Károly és a Magyar néprajztudomány.” Antik Tanulmányok 34, no. 2 (1989–1990): 154–62. Voigt, Vilmos. “Anekdotikus érvelés egy ügy érdekében (Lektori jelentés Marót Károly tanulmányairól).” Holmi 19, no. 10 (2007): 1328–34. Voigt, Vilmos. “Marót Károly. A csurunga népéről.” Vallástudományi szemle 7, no. 2 (2011): 71–92. Webb Clary, William. The Claremont Colleges: A History of the Development of the Claremont Group Plan. Claremont: Claremont University Center, 1970. Weinroth, Michelle. Reclaiming William Morris: Englishness, Sublimity, and the Rhetoric of Dissent. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 2014. Werblowsky, Zwi Raphael J. “Marburg – and After?” Numen 7, no. 2–3 (1960): 215–20. Werblowsky, Zwi Raphael J., “Chronicle.” Numen 27, no. 1 (1980): 190–192. Wiebe, Donald. “Memory, Text, and Interpretation: A Critical Appreciation of IAHR International Congresses  – 1975 to 2010.” In Numen, the Academic Study of Religion, and the IAHR: Past, Present and Prospects, edited by Tim Jensen, and Armin W. Geertz, 253–282. Leiden and Boston: Brill 2015. Wiebe, Donald. Review of Studying Religions with the Iron Curtain Closed and Open, by Tomáš Bubík, and Henryk Hoffmann, eds. Temenos. Nordic Journal of Comparative Religion 52, no. 2 (2016): 333–35. Witt, Reginald Eldred. Review of Untersuchungen zur Religionsgeschichte, by Imre Trencsenyi-Waldapfel. The Classical Review 19, no. 1 (1969): 112–13. Wołk-Sore, Ewa. “Among Manuscripts and Men of Ethiopia. Stefan Strelcyn’s Quest for African Studies.” In African Studies. Forging New Perspectives and Directions, edited by Nina Pawlak, Hanna Rubinkowska-Anioł, and Izabela Will, 83–107. Warsaw: Elipsa, 2016. Wong, Laura Elizabeth. “Relocating East and West: UNESCO’s Major Project on the Mutual Appreciation of Eastern and Western Cultural Values.” Journal of World History 19, no. 3 (2008): 349–74. Zadencka, Maria. “Polish Exile Historians at the International Historical Congresses.” In East and Central European History Writing in Exile 1939–1989, edited by Maria Zadencka, Andrejs Plakans, and Andreas Lawaty, 156–189. Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2015. Ziolkowska-Boehm, Aleksandra. Melchior Wańkowicz: Poland’s Master of the Written Word. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2013.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

170

Bibliography

No Identified Author (in Chronological Order)

− “Il Congresso mondiale di storia delle religioni. Il Patrocinio di Einaudi  – Partecipazione di studiosi cechi, polacchi e della RDT.” L’Unità, April 17, 1955: 3. − “Trentanove relazioni discusse al Congresso di Storia delle religioni.” Il Giornale d’Italia, April 19, 1955: 3. − “Il prof. Pettazzoni confermato presidente dell’Associazione di storia delle religioni.” Il Messaggero, April 24, 1955: 3. − “Il discorso del Papa ai partecipanti al congresso di studi storici: ‘Fra il Cristianesimo e la storia non si rivela alcuna opposizione.’” Il Giornale d’Italia, September 8, 1955: 5. − [Multiple Signatures] “Per la libertà dell’Ungheria.” Il Mondo, November 13, 1956: 2. − “Religious History Scholars Will Meet in Claremont.” The Valley News and Valley Green Sheet, August 20, 1965. − “World Congress. History of Religions Assn. to Convene in Claremont.” The San Bernardino County Sun, August 21, 1965. − “Religious Congress Slated.” The Press Courier, August 21, 1965. − “Miss Dorman Showing Art of Hungary.” Progress-bulletin [Pomona, California], December 11, 1966: 6. − “Hungarian Exhibit.” Los Angeles Times, January 22, 1967: 2.

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

Index The following Index does not include names of translators and editors, as well as names that occur occasionally in some of the citations, but are not relevant for the scope of the examination conducted in this book. The names mentioned in the Acknowledgements are also excluded from the list below. The names of the two organizations, IAHR and MVT, are also not included, as they are treated continuously in the whole of the text. Abdel-Kader, Ali Hassan 139 Aistleitner, József 47, 84‒85n, 114n Aland, Kurt 17 Alföldi, András 6‒9, 11‒13, 16, 29, 52 Alles, Gregory D. 3n, 120n Altheim, Franz 41n American Association ‒ iahr group  85‒86n Andics, Erzsébet 24n‒25, 43‒45n Andreotti, Giulio 20‒22 Antes, Peter 134, 145n Arcamone, Guido 23n Baik, Éva 44n Balogh, Margit 94n Baumann, Hermann 70‒71 Beck, István 139n Beck, Tibor 62n Beke, Ödön 47, 85n, 114n Bellelli, Vincenzo 63n Bender, Frans 82n Benke, Valéria 36n Bennett, Emmett L. Jr 41n Bertholet, Alfred 41n Bianchi, Ugo 100n, 133‒137 Bianchi Bandinelli, Ranuccio 21n, 89 Bibó, István 32n Bič, Miloš 17 Bleeker, Claas Jouco 6‒11, 16, 24‒26, 46, 55‒60, 72, 79, 82‒83, 85n‒86n, 98, 102, 111, 119n, 121 Bognár, Géza 44n, 52n, 56‒58n Bodrogi, Tibor 40n, 47, 58, 84n, 85n, 87n, 99n Bóka, László 44, 60 Borzsák, István 47, 61‒64, 146‒147n Brandt, Miroslav 90‒91n Braun, Jürgen 70n

Brelich, Angelo 29, 36n, 46n, 52, 81‒82n, 89n, 99‒100n, 104n, 106‒107, 109, 121‒122, 131, 136 Brewster, Paul. G. 41n Bubík, Tomáš 1n, 3, 120, 146n, 149n Bucci, Michela 88n Burkert, Walter 97 Bush, Richard C. 119 Calderini, Aristide 41n Campbell, Sheila 12n Casadio, Giovanni 9n, 29‒32, 33n, 39n, 40n, 59n, 134, 136n, 137n Casaroli, Agostino 107, 108n  Castiglione, László 32n, 114, 141 Chubarian, Alexander Oganovich 150n Ciurtin, Eugen 151n Clemen, Carl 41n Cohen, Marcel 19 Crahay, Roland 41n, 135 Cristofol, Jean 19n Cumont, Franz 41n Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences 74 Czechoslovak / Czech and Slovakian Associations ‒ iahr groups 146, 148‒149 Czeglédy, Károly / Charles 32n, 47‒51, 77n, 85n, 86, 98‒107, 110‒112 Davison, John Armstrong 41n De Martino, Ernesto 18n, 21n, 22n, 53n, 65n Dénes, Iván Zoltán 32 Diószegi, Vilmos 47, 85n, 93  Dobrovits, Aladár 47, 77n, 85n, 93‒94, 99, 114, 126n, 127 Doležalová, Iva 3, 149 Dömötör, Tekla 114  Donini, Ambrogio 10‒11, 21, 34‒36, 87‒92 D’Ormesson, Jean 83

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

172 Duchemin, Jacqueline 41n Durry, Marcel 76n Editori Riuniti 88‒89 Eiréné-Comité / International Classical Philological Commission of the Academies of the Soviet Union and the People’s Democracies 74 Eissfeldt, Otto 17 Eliade, Mircea 7, 16 Erdey-Gruz, Tibor 56, 58n, 116n Erdmann, Karl Dietrich 23n, 25 Erkes, Eduard 119n Ernst, Juliette 41n, 73‒76 Estonian Association – IAHR group 148, 151 European Association for the Study of Religions 149‒152 Farajallah, Samaan Boutros 81n Fascher, Erich 105 Fejérdy, András 94n, 108n Forisek, Péter 6n, 12n Frobenius, Leo 65, 66n, 70 Frobenius-Institut, Frankfurt am Main 64, 69n Fülep, Lajos 13n Gandini, Mario 9n, 13n, 16, 18, 20n, 21‒23, 30n, 59, 72n, 86n, 102n Geertz, Armin W. 145‒146, 148n‒150 Germanus, Gyula 61, 85n Germuska, Pál 62n Gingrich, Andre 70n Gondolat (publisher) 87‒88, 126‒127 Gundry, Dudley William 86n Hahn, István 32n, 72, 77n, 85, 88‒89, 93‒94, 141n Hajdu, Péter 126 Halecki, Oscar 14n‒15, 24n‒25 Hankins, James 129n Harmatta, János 32n, 47, 74n, 77, 84, 85n, 126‒127, 146‒147n Havas, Ernő 87n Havasréti, József 32n Heller, Jan 146 Hengel, Martin 17n Hoffmann, Henryk 3, 101n, 120, 149n

Index Hoppál, Bulcsú 152 Hoppál, Mihály 145‒147, 151 Horthy, Miklós 95, 123 Hungarian Society for Classical Studies / Magyar Ókortudományi Társaság 73‒77 Huszti, József 13n Institute for Advanced Study (ias), Princeton nj 11‒12 International Committee of Historical Sciences / Comité International des Sciences Historiques = cish 10‒11, 14‒15, 23‒26 International Federation of Associations of Classical Studies / Fédération internationale des associations d’études = fiec 72‒77, 114‒116 International Federation of Free Journalists of Central and Eastern Europe and Baltic and Balkan Countries = iffj 55 International Study of Religion in Eastern and Central Europe Association (isorecea) 149 Irmscher, Johannes 134 Isaac, Marie-Thérèse 135n Ishizu, Teruji 79, 81 Isler-Kerényi, Cornelia 6n Israeli Association ‒ IAHR group 85‒86, 138‒140 Jánossy, Lajos 43‒45, 52, 61 James, Edwin Oliver 7 Jensen, Adolf Ellegard 41n, 64‒65, 67‒69 Jensen, Tim 7, 149‒152 Junginger, Horst 3n Kádár [Zoltán] 32, 98 Kákosy, László 32, 35, 114, 141, 146‒147 Kardos, László 66 Karsai, György 62‒63, 118 Kazarov, Gavril 16 Kerényi, Károly 6, 12‒15, 16, 29, 52, 70n, 106n, 111‒112 King, Ursula 143n Kippenberg, Hans G. 144n Kishimoto, Hideo 81‒82 Kiziloz, Mikhail 102n Klibanov, Alexei I. 145

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

173

Index Klimó, Árpád von 108n Kolodny, Anatoly 147 Kołodziejska, Marta 3n Komorovský, Ján 3, 148 Konrád, Edit 57 Kónya, Albert 27 Kovács, Ábrahám 152 Kossa, István 52 Kraemer, Hendrik 119n Krawcowicz, Barbara 3n Kriegelewicz, Eugeniusz 101n  Kristeller, Paul Oskar 128‒132 Kumaniecki, Kazimierz F. 73n, 76‒77, 115‒116 Kurelec, Vida 90n Lanternari, Vittorio 65n Larock, Victor 41n Latvian Association – iahr group 151 Lavopa, Marco 108n  Leeuw, Gerardus van der 6n, 28, 41n Lengyel, Béla 51‒52 Lévy-Bruhl, Lucien 35, 41n Ligeti, Lajos 47, 85n, 114n Lithuanian Association – iahr group 152 Lőrinc, Gábor 14n Lovász, Irén 146‒147 Ludin Jansen, Herman 86n Lukács, György 14n, 31 Lukács, Jószef 94 Majewski, Kazimierz 18 Major, Gyula / Julius 79 Mandrou, Robert 24n Mann, Thomas 13 Marienfelde Refugee Center [American transit camp], West Berlin / Notaufnahmelager Marienfelde 68‒69 Marót, Károly / Charles 6n, 13‒14n, 18n, 26‒61n, 64‒66, 69‒79, 84‒89, 98‒99, 106‒107, 109‒110, 113, 125‒126, 142 Marouzeau, Jules 76n Marticskó, F. 89 Marticskó, József 74n Martin, Luther H. 3n, 149n  Máté-Tóth, András 1n, 32n, 33n, 93n, 126 Mátrai, László 92‒94 Mazzarino, Antonio 41n, 134n 

McAlister Religious Center 132 Monfasani, John 131n Moravcsik, Gyula 32, 73, 74n, 125‒126 Morgan, Kenneth 116‒117, 121‒122, 123n Morris, William 124n Moscati, Sabatino 89n Murray, Gilbert 41n Nagy, Lajos 139 Nekola, Martin 55n Németh, Gyula 47, 85n Nilsson, Martin 12n Oppenheimer, Robert 12n Ort, L. J. R. 50n, 85, 99, 109‒110, 112n, 113n, 138, 140 Ortutay, Gyula 13‒14, 33‒35, 47, 64n, 65‒66n, 69, 71, 85n, 125, 139‒140 Osztrovszki, György 27 Ovid /Ovidio 36‒39, 74 Paden, William E. 3n Pankratova, Anna Mikhaïlovna 10‒11n Papoušek, Dalibor 3n, 146, 149n Papp, István 62 Payi, Sándor 113n Pertold, Otakar 16 Pettazzoni, Raffaele 7‒12, 16, 18, 20‒26, 28‒29, 30n, 38‒41n, 44‒49, 52‒60, 65n, 72, 81‒84, 85n, 86‒87, 99n, 104n, 119n, 134 Picard, Charles 41n Pippidi, Dionisie Mihail 16, 41n Pishtshik, Jurij B. 145 Pius XII 25 Polish Academy of Sciences 14, 17‒18, 53, 76‒77, 101, 109, 115, 143 Polish Historical Society Abroad / Societatis Historicae Polonorum in Exteris 14‒15 Polish Society for the Study of Religions / Polskie Towarzystwo Religioznawcze = ptr 100‒102, 109, 140‒141, 143‒144 Puech, Henri-Charles 7, 82n Pye, Michael 78n, 104n, 144‒149, 151n Rácz, Zoltán 91‒92 Radnóti, Miklós 122‒125 Ragaz, Stefan 3n

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access

174 Ranovitch, A. B. 19 Ritoók, Zsigmond 32, 47, 77n, 85n Romanian Association – iahr group  150‒151 Romsics, Ignác 44n Róna-Tas, András 74n Russian Academy of Sciences 10, 53 Russian Associations – iahr group  149‒150 Rusznyák, István 44‒45 Salvatorelli, Luigi 9‒10n Santangelo, Federico 12n Santini, Alceste 108n Sarkady, János 47, 61‒64 Sárkány, Mihály 66n Sarnyai, Csaba Máté 32, 33n, 93n, 126 Schaff, Adam 14n, 25 Scharnhorst [family] 68n Schimmel, Annemarie 100n, 106n, 109n Schneider, Herbert W. 85n, 86, 117, 120‒122 Schütz, Edmund 49n Segni, Antonio 22‒23n Sekulić, Branko 3n Severino, Valerio S. 104n, 120n Shakhnovich, Marianna 150n Sharma, D. N.  81n Sharpe, Eric J. 100n Sicard, Harald von 68n Siklós, Tivadar 57n Simon, Attila 32 Simon, Marcel 100n Soviet Association of historians of religions (iahr group) 145‒146 Spineto, Natale 12 Stachowski, Zbigniew 101n Stark, Isolde 134n Stausberg, Michael 100n Stökl, Günther 24n Strelcyn, Stefan 18‒20 Supruniuk, Mirosław A. 14n Szabó, I. 85n Szabolcsi, Bence 26n, 27n Székács, Anna 79n Szemerédy, Tibor 113n Szigeti, József 62

Index Szilágyi, János György 13n, 32n, 47, 61, 63‒64, 77n, 95‒96, 114 Szilágyi, Zsolt 152 Szlezák, Thomas Alexander 97n Szyszman, Szymon/Simon 101‒103 Tamás, Lajos 85n, 95n, 113n, 114n, 116, 141n Tőkei, Ferenc 114 Tóth, Heléna 92n Töttössy, Csaba 111‒112n Trencsényi-Waldapfel Imre 32, 47, 77, 84‒85n, 87‒88, 91‒107, 111, 113‒142, 146 Tubiana, Joseph 20n Tyloch, Witold 101n, 109n, 143n, 144n Ubertazzi, Giulio 21n Ukrainian Association – iahr group 147‒148 Ullendorff, Edward 19n, 20n Ungváry, Krisztián 62n Vajda, László 47, 64‒72 Varagnac, André 41n Világhy, Miklós 52n, 61n Virgil 122‒123 Vittoria, Albertina 11n Voigt, Vilmos 32, 35, 152 Wagenvoort, Hendrik 41n Webb Clary, William 132n Weinroth, Michelle 124n Werblowsky, Zwi Raphael J. 86, 100n, 105‒106, 128, 138, 143 Widengren, Geo 11, 82n, 121 Wiebe, Donald 3n, 78n, 144n Wierzbiański, Bolesław 55n Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, Ulrich von 35 Witt, Reginald Eldred 96‒97 Wołk-Sore, Ewa 19n, 20n Wong, Laura Elizabeth 1n, 83n Wyclif, John 90 Zadencka, Maria 14n Zagyi, János 139 Zajączkowski, Ananiasz 101, 103 Ziolkowska-Boehm, Aleksandra 115n Zolnai, Béla 13n‒14n, 39n, 42

Valerio Severino - 978-90-04-45927-4 Downloaded from Brill.com06/23/2021 01:56:37PM via free access