No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 April 2013
On 2 January 2012, a mass demonstration took place in Budapest in front of the Opera House. The rally was the culminating event in a series of street protests that had shaken Hungary during the previous months when many inhabitants of the Hungarian capital, along with their co-nationals elsewhere, felt increasingly uneasy with the symbolic politics initiated by the government of Viktor Orbán and his center-right FIDESZ Party. In particular, the crowd that collected in front of what is still Hungary's most representative institution of culture, on the main boulevard Andrássy út, protested against the inauguration of the new constitution that had come into force the previous day. Despite opposition inside and outside of Hungary, the ruling political elite comprising the prime minister and his political entourage celebrated the new constitution—and themselves—at a gala event in the opera house. A number of other celebratory events in connection with Hungary's new constitution were also staged, among them a controversial exhibition of paintings in the National Gallery, located to date in the Buda Palace, meant to highlight the most important events in recent Hungarian history. Inside the opera house, Orbán and his political supporters listened to a collection of works by, among others, Franz Liszt, Ferenc Erkel, and Béla Bartók, but the composition of the program was a matter of minor importance on that day. Instead, as he and his government representatives congratulated each other that night on their party's achievements in power, the crowd outside the opera house jeered in reference to Hungary's fall in international economic rankings and the methods of rule that they saw as authoritarian, if not dictatorial, and appealed to a wider international community, for example, with slogans such as, “Hey Europe, sorry about my Prime Minister.”
A shorter, abridged version of this article, part of my forthcoming book In the Public Eye: The Budapest Opera: The Audience and the Press, 1884–1918 (Vienna/Cologne/Weimar, 2013), was published in Hungarian in István H. Németh, Erika Szívós, and Árpád Tóth, eds., A város és társadalma. Tanulmányok Bácskai Vera tiszteletére [The city and society: studies in honor of Vera Bácskai], 303–14 (Budapest, 2011). I would like to thank Erika Szívós for all her invaluable comments on my work and especially for bringing my attention to the striking parallels between the history of the opera house at the turn of the century and in the present day.
2 G-ly, “Filharmónia és publikum, [The Philharmonic Society and the public],” Budapesti Napló, 5 May 1903.
3 See Prokopovych, In the Public Eye.
4 It is impossible to summarize this body of literature in a single footnote. For the sake of brevity, it would suffice here to mention that because of the central role played by Ferenc Erkel in the establishment of Hungarian musical institutions and music traditions, his legacy has received a disproportionately large place in this scholarship. Another bulk of this scholarship is centered on several already well-researched areas, usually lives and connections to Hungary of famous musicians, composers, and performers such as Haydn, Liszt, and Bartók. Significantly less has been written about the contribution by great musical directors Gustav Mahler, Arthur Nikisch, and Egisto Tango, the local reception of international “smash hits” of the time, such as the operas by Verdi, Wagner, and Goldmark or the operettas of Offenbach and Strauss, as well as about an array of works that in one way or another depicted or represented modernity, such as Salome. For a good overview of Budapest theater life, see Székely, György and Gajdó, Tamás, eds., Magyar színháztörténet 1873–1920 [Hungarian Theater History, 1873-1920] (Budapest, 2001)Google Scholar. For works specifically on the history of the Opera House, see Staud, Géza, ed., A Budapesti Operaház 100 éve [The 100 years of the Budapest Opera House] (Budapest, 1984)Google Scholar.
5 Jalit Frigyesi, Béla Bartók and Turn-of-the-Century Budapest (Berkeley/Los Angeles/London, 1998)Google Scholar; Freifeld, Alice, Nationalism and the Crowd in Liberal Hungary, 1848–1914 (Washington, DC, 2000)Google Scholar; idem, “Sustaining the Hungarian Myth of Revolution, 1849–1999,” in Staging the Past: The Politics of Commemoration in Habsburg Central Europe, 1848 to the Present, ed. Bucur, Maria and Wingfield, Nancy, 255–85 (West Lafayette, 2001)Google Scholar; Gluck, Mary, “Jewish Humor and Popular Culture in Fin-de-Siecle Budapest,” Austrian History Yearbook 39 (2008): 1–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar; also see Gluck’s The Invisible Jewish Budapest (forthcoming).
6 See, esp., Gyáni, Gábor, Identity and the Urban Experience: Fin-de-Siecle Budapest (Wayne, 2004)Google Scholar; Gerő, András, Heroes’ Square Budapest: Hungary's History in Stone and Bronze (Budapest, 1990)Google Scholar.
7 For more on the history of Budapest press, see, for example, Géza Buzinkay, A magyar sajtó története [The history of Hungarian press] (Budapest, 2005).
8 Gluck, “Jewish Humor and Popular Culture in Fin-de-Siecle Budapest”; Vörös, Kati, “‘Judapest’ Satirized: Visual Images of Jews in Satirical Magazines in Fin-de-Siècle Budapest,” in The Semiotics of Racism: Approaches in Critical Discourse Analysis, ed. Reisigl, Martin and Wodak, Ruth, 363–89 (Vienna, 2000)Google Scholar; Buzinkay, Géza, “The Budapest Jokes and Comic Weeklies as Mirrors of Cultural Assimilation,” in Budapest and New York: Studies in Metropolitan Transformation, 1870–1930, ed. Bender, Thomas and Schorske, Carl L., 224–47 (New York, 1994)Google Scholar.
9 Recent research into the disputes over the German-language theater in the early 1880s and the exhibition of 1885, described in Freifeld's Nationalism and the Crowd, and the anti-Semitic riots in 1883 show that the symbolic politics of 1884 were far from unique. See Kövér, György, A tiszaeszlári dráma—Társadalomtörténeti látószögek [The Tiszaeszlár drama—social historical angles of view] (Budapest, 2011)Google Scholar.
10 For urbanization figures, see, for example, Thirring, Gusztáv, ed. Budapest székesfőváros statisztikai évkönyve [Statistical yearbook of the capital and the royal seat of Budapest] (Budapest, 1894–1946)Google Scholar. For a summary, see, for example, Hanák, Péter, The Garden and the Workshop: Essays on the Cultural History of Vienna and Budapest (Princeton, 1998), 12Google Scholar.
11 Both were granted in 1892.
12 On Heinrich Hentzi, see Miller, Michael Laurence, “A Monumental Debate in Budapest: The Hentzi Statue and the Limits of Austro-Hungarian Reconciliation, 1852–1918,” Austrian History Yearbook 40 (2009): 215–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Instead of the Royal Palace, Francis Joseph preferred to reside in a much more secluded castle in Gödöllő in the vicinity of the Hungarian capital.
13 Siklóssy, László, Hogyan épült Budapest? A Fővárosi Közmunkák Tanácsa története [How was Budapest built? The History of the Metropolitan Council of Public Works] (Budapest, 1931), 42–43, 92–94, 135–38, 143–46Google Scholar, quoted in Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, 12.
14 Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, 14.
15 Budapest's population increased from around 280,000 in 1869 to reach 300,000 in 1870, 400,000 in 1880, over 860,000 in 1900, and over a million in 1910. Hanák, The Garden and the Workshop, 12.
16 See, for example, Wellmann, Nóra, Budapest: The Opera (Budapest, 1996), 3Google Scholar.
17 The design of the Budapest Opera House was explicitly restricted not to match the Viennese State Opera in its grandeur: The requirements of the competition determined an opera house of 2,000 seats. In comparison, the Viennese Burgtheater had a capacity of 2,324, which could be potentially increased to 3,100. See Yates, W. E., Theatre in Vienna: A Critical History, 1776–1995 (Cambridge, 1996), 156–57CrossRefGoogle Scholar. The Viennese Opera House had over 2,200 seats. In fact, at the time when a number of newly constructed theaters in Europe at this time, such as, for example, Dresden's Opera House, Paris's Théâtre Impérial du Châtelet, and Rome's Teatro Costanzi, already possessed a much more “democratic” structure of the auditorium in which rows of seats replaced the old-fashioned boxes and no separate entrances were envisioned for the upper galleries, the Budapest building's architecture followed much more conservative designs and served as much to separate the respectable public from the lower orders in the upper galleries as to enhance safety in case of fire.
18 “Magyar Királyi Opera [Hungarian Royal Opera],” Vasárnapi Újság, 28 September 1884.
19 Ibid.
20 “Magyar Királyi Opera [Hungarian Royal Opera],” Vasárnapi Újság, 28 September 1884.
21 “Az operaház megnyitása [The opening of the Opera House],” Pesti Napló, 28 September 1884.
22 Neues Politisches Volksblatt, for example, also published several celebratory articles on Podmaniczky, Erkel, and the opera house building, and featured their portraits or pictures on its cover pages. See, for example, Neues Politisches Volksblatt, 12, 20, 27, 28, and 30 September 1884.
23 “Im königlichen Opernhause,” Pester Lloyd, 21 September 1884.
24 See Borsszem Jankó, 20 September 1885.
25 See “A prostitúció a sugárúton [Prostitution on the Radial Avenue],” Függetlenség, 20 September 1884.
26 20 August, St. Stephen's Day, is a major holiday in Hungary.
27 “Haj, Rákóczi, Bercsényi [Hey Rákóczi, Bercsényi]” is a traditional kuruc song that dates back to the times of the Rákóczi uprising of the early eighteenth century against the Habsburgs. Briefly on this debate, see Kereszty, István, “A magyar királyi Operaház 1884–1935-ig [Hungarian Royal Opera House 1884–1935],” in A magyar muzsika könyve [The book of Hungarian Music], ed. Molnár, Imre, 42 (Budapest, 1936)Google Scholar.
28 “Az egyetemi ifjúság és Liszt királyhymnusza [University youth and Liszt's royal anthem],” Függetlenség, 22 September 1884.
29 “Az egyetemi ifjúság és Liszt királyhymnusza,” Függetlenség, 22 September 1884.
30 See, for example, “A magyar dalszínház megnyitására [To the opening of the Hungarian Opera House],” Pesti Napló, 27 September 1884. For satire on this correspondence, see Borsszem Jankó 5 October 1884; Sipulusz, “Hova lett Lohengrin mellvértje? (Where is Lohengrin's breast plate?),” Budapesti Hírlap, 27 September 1884.
31 “Fővárosi hírek [Metropolitan news],” Fővárosi lapok, 28 September 1884.
32 “Liszt királydala és a zsidók [Liszt's royal anthem and the Jews],” Függetlenség, 26 September 1884.
33 “A királyi operaház [The Royal Opera House],” Fővárosi lapok, 22 September 1884. Also see, for example, Pester Lloyd, 23, 25, and 26 September 1884; Pesti Napló, 24 September 1884; Budapesti Hírlap, 21, 23, and 25 September 1884; Egyetértés, 23 and 25 September 1884.
34 Pester Lloyd, 26 September 1884.
35 “Die Erweihung des königlischen Opernhauses,” Pester Lloyd, 28 September 1884.
36 “Az operaház főpróbája [The final dress rehearsal at the Opera House],” Pesti Napló, 26 September 1884.
37 “Az opera főpróbája,” Pesti Napló, 26 September 1884.
38 “A királyi operaházban [In the Opera House],” Fővárosi lapok, 24 September 1884.
39 “Az opera főpróbája,” Pesti Napló, 26 September 1884.
40 The boxes on the ground, first, and second floor (19, 20, and 20, respectively) seated 1,200 people, whereas the parterre had 400 seats, and the third gallery had 500 seats.
41 To compare, a yearly subscription for the illustrated journal Vasárnapi Újság was 13 florins. The yearly salary of a member of the fire brigade was a little above 200 florins in 1890.
42 See, for example, Dr. Barth Karádi, “Unsere Oper,” Budapester Journal, 14 January 1887.
43 On the occasion of the opera ball on 9 February 1887, for example, this was the case. See Neues Pester Journal, 13 January 1887.
44 See Pester Lloyd, 27 September 1884.
45 “Die Einweihung des königlichen Opernhauses,” Pester Lloyd, 28 September 1884.
46 “Az operaház megnyitása Szeptember 27-dikén [The opening of the opera house on 27 September],” Fővárosi lapok, 28 September 1884. Also see “Eröffnung der Kön. ung. Oper (Original-Bericht),” Neues Politisches Volksblatt, 28 September 1884; “Az operaház megnyitása [The opening of the opera house],” Pesti Napló, 28 September 1884.
47 “Eröffnung der Kön. ung. Oper,” Neues Politisches Volksblatt, 28 September 1884.
48 “Az operaház megnyitása Szeptember 27-dikén,” Fővárosi lapok, 28 September 1884.
49 “Die Einweihung des königlichen Opernhauses,” Pester Lloyd, 28 September 1884.
50 “A király és az opera közönsége [The King and the opera public],” Függetlenség, 29 September 1884.
51 “Az operaház megnyitása,” Pesti Napló, 28 September 1884.
52 “Eröffnung der Kön. ung. Oper,” Neues Politisches Volksblatt, 28 September 1884.
53 “Az operaház megnyitása Szeptember 27-dikén,” Fővárosi lapok 28 September 1884.
54 “Die Einweihung des königlichen Opernhauses,” Pester Lloyd, 28 September 1884.
55 Ibid.
56 “Az operaház megnyitása,” Pesti Napló, 28 September 1884.
57 “Az operahaz megnyitása,” Budapesti Hírlap, 28 September 1884.
58 András Mihaszna (Andrew Scallywag) was Borsszem Jankó's fictional police character. Elek Thaisz (sometimes spelled Thajsz, 1820–1892) was appointed Pest lifetime chief of police in 1861 in the followup of the October Diploma. See Kenyeres, Ágnes, ed., Magyar Életrajzi Lexikon [Hungarian Bibliographic Lexicon], vol. 2 (Budapest, 1984), 850Google Scholar.
59 “Az operaház megnyitása Szeptember 27-dikén,” Fővárosi lapok, 28 September 1884.
60 Borsszem Jankó, 5 October 1884.
61 “Színházak [Theaters],” Fővárosi lapok, 3 October 1884.
62 Pesti Napló, 29 September 1884.
63 Pester Lloyd, 29 September 1884.
64 The Viennese Asphalea general safety system protected the stage machinery and included a sprinkler system, iron fire curtain, hydraulic “cyclodrama,” and flies instead of movable sets. Apart from Asphaleia, Ybl introduced changes to the interior arrangement: The auditorium was divided into three parts, more emergency exits were provided, and new flights of stairs were provided to each store separately. More on Asphalea, see Borsa, Mikós and Tolnay, Pál, Az ismeretlen operaház [The unknown Opera House] (Budapest, 1984), 63–73Google Scholar; also see Wellmann, Nóra, Budapest: The Opera (Budapest, 1996), 13Google Scholar.
65 “Az operaház ég! [The Opera House is on fire!]” Függetlenség, 1 October 1884.
66 “Az operaházban [In the Opera House],” Fővárosi lapok, 8 October 1884.
67 “A Hajós utcai tűz [The Hajós Street fire],” Fővárosi lapok, 8 October 1884.