There is no "Chinese wall" between life and theatre - Interview with György Csepeli / 2016
"I racked my brains over whether I should even dare to send the play to Zoli Balázs..." – Premiere of György Csepeli's play at Maladype Theatre.
On Thursday, December 15, at 7 p.m., Maladype Theatre will present György Csepeli's drama fragment Charles IV: An Unfinished Story as a readers theatre performance. We talked to the author about the cunning of reason, playful risk-taking, and the relationship between imagination and reality.
You are a social psychologist; one of the most respected representatives of your profession, with decades of professional experience behind you. What inspired you to write a drama fragment?
Social psychology is nothing more than a theoretical examination of human life, which gives us an X-ray image of social relationships. Theatre can also be understood as a mirror of life viewed through an individual lens. The interactive situations and conflicts that occur in life can also be found in theatre; in this sense, there is no "Chinese wall" between life and theatre. To give a more specific answer, as a social psychologist, I have never broken down human life into laboratory formulas, nor have I examined one person or another in their abstractness. I did not start from the premise that real social psychology heroes have no gender or age, which is why they "float" in the world in their abstract form. Instead, I wanted to create a "Hungarianized" or "Eastern Europeanized" social psychology, bringing in different categories of life that are usually examined separately: who is Jewish and who is not, who is Hungarian and who is not, who is Romanian, who is Ukrainian, who is Roma... I did this because I saw that social psychology becomes rather empty without history. That is why I examined society in an interdisciplinary way, giving prominence to the past. Here, where we live, it is not so easy to get rid of the past. Just when we thought we had gotten rid of it, like in the movie "Alien", it suddenly returns. I came to Charles IV because I was able to grasp in his person the moment of tragic derailment when, after the First World War, Hungary turned back from a path that could have led to Western Europe, democracy, and freedom. It is another question that the other Central and Eastern European countries did not really strive to move forward on this path either, but I think the Hungarians fell further behind than they should have, and they fell behind because they fell into the trap—which was, of course, a tragic trap—of linking love for their own nation with hatred for other groups. Love for one's own kind became inexpressible without hatred. The object of hatred became all those who, according to the ideas of the time, had torn apart pre-Trianon Hungary. Charles IV could have represented the best tradition of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which would have freed the Hungarians from the terrible shackles of their national identity, compounded by hatred: I am only Hungarian if I am not Jewish, I can only be a true patriot if I hate the Romanians. Charles was above this mentality, which is why he was so appealing to me. I wanted to focus on his actions, his conflict with Horthy, and the intrigues against him by those around him, which I know quite well from my political experience.
Many agree that throughout history there have been rulers, statesmen, and leaders whose visions for the development and welfare of society, and the practical implementation of those visions, had the opposite effect to their original intentions. Is it inevitable that a political elite will fall victim to its own intentions to improve society?
This is one of the fundamental questions of human history. Charles's situation is different in that his environment did not give him the opportunity to realize his ideas. Throughout history, many have had the opportunity to implement their ideas, but unfortunately, these were ideas that could not be realized without violence, and this violence backfired on them and destroyed their original good intentions. A more concrete explanation can be found in Hegel, who said that history is "the cunning of reason." Everyone wants something, whether good or bad, and these usually result in events that no one wanted. No one can escape the power of this vicious mechanism, especially if they are not aware of this law. My hero is not characterized by this sophistication; rather, I see in him a tragic, lost opportunity that had a fateful impact on us Hungarians....
...there were no customs borders, the flow of labour was free, and the currency was common......
...of course! From Lemberg to Trieste, it was a completely unified economic community! This is what Charles's grandson talked about, pointing out that the Monarchy could have served as a model, a kind of prototype for the European Union, whose crisis can be traced back to the fact that while the Monarchy created a balance by taking into account the interests of the peoples living in the empire, the EU's mode of operation does not allow for this political, social, and economic balance. With Charles, the opportunity for the EU's predecessor was lost. Charles wanted to federalize the Monarchy, but with the death of Franz Ferdinand, this was taken off the agenda, and after the war, it became completely impossible.
Which circle had the greatest influence on Charles? The royal family, his wife Queen Zita and her relatives, the international political community, or the Hungarian political elite?
Essentially, István Tisza realized that if Charles modernized the Monarchy, the privileged position of the Kingdom of Hungary would be undermined. This is why Tisza pushed for the coronation to take place as soon as possible. The ruling Hungarian political elite wasn't grown up enough to this idea, and the opposition led by Károlyi formulated another totally destructive concept. These conflicting ideas led to the worst possible situation: a truncated Hungary. They did not really think that this could happen when the war ended. But in the meantime, it was already clear that the victorious powers would carve up the country. Due to their hysterical blindness, the members of the elite did not see that the borders of the Monarchy had long been redrawn.
Since we have talked so much about history and society, how much does your professional background influence your writing? Does it hinder or help you? After all, historical accuracy is not necessarily a criterion for a literary work. To what extent do historical facts and imagination play a role in your play, "Charles IV"?
I have to say that I don't usually get nervous, but I did now...
...You mentioned earlier that in your dreams you stand in the middle of the large hall of the Maladype Base in Mikszáth Square, clutching a copy of your play, waiting for the audience to arrive...
The only thing worse than that would be if they were in there and laughed at me! I don't think that what I wrote is literature; they are simply the thoughts I formulated, and I couldn't express them any other way. As for the professional background, regarding the fateful conversation between Horthy and Charles, which forms the basis of the conflict, I adhered strictly to the words originally spoken in the Royal Palace in Buda on Easter 1920. I also based my portrayal of Czernin on the facts. I consider him a villain because he exposed Charles's private truce initiative, thereby discrediting the monarch. The personal storylines are made up by me.
Do you also mean that if Charles had succeeded in carrying out his plans, he could have been a "European" ruler?
You are looking for the answer in the right direction, because it is not possible to free the Hungarian people from this trap without freeing the others as well. Trianon was not only a tragedy for the Hungarians, it did not do the surrounding peoples any good either. Charles and the Habsburg Empire would have been an opportunity for everyone, in which every nation could have found its own place without prevailing at the expense of others. We are currently marking the 100th anniversary of the death of Franz Joseph, which naturally coincides with the centenary of Charles's accession to the throne. To mark this occasion, a large-scale conference was held at the Várkert Bazár, where one of Charles's grandchildren also spoke. He gave an extremely exciting speech and said that his grandfather had actually anticipated the European Union with his ideas, as he wanted to operate a state organization in which military affairs and foreign affairs were shared...
However, your excitement comes with a small stake and a playful risk...
No, it's not small, it's big! You take a leap and don't know if you'll make it to the other side! I racked my brains over whether I should even dare to send the piece to Zoli Balázs, because there was no one else in the world I could show it to... I thought: what if he says, go to hell with this... but that might have been more reassuring.
Were you afraid that he would find it so bad that he wouldn't want to present it?
Yes, but this playful risk is part of what I've seen with Maladype in recent years, and my participation in the Kravchenko project has given me serious confirmation. The way Zoli is able to show different realities and translate them into fiction is unique. If Thursday night brings a similar experience, I'll sleep peacefully.
Zsolt Oláh, szinhaz.org, 2016
Translated by Lena Megyeri
On Thursday, December 15, at 7 p.m., Maladype Theatre will present György Csepeli's drama fragment Charles IV: An Unfinished Story as a readers theatre performance. We talked to the author about the cunning of reason, playful risk-taking, and the relationship between imagination and reality.
You are a social psychologist; one of the most respected representatives of your profession, with decades of professional experience behind you. What inspired you to write a drama fragment?
Social psychology is nothing more than a theoretical examination of human life, which gives us an X-ray image of social relationships. Theatre can also be understood as a mirror of life viewed through an individual lens. The interactive situations and conflicts that occur in life can also be found in theatre; in this sense, there is no "Chinese wall" between life and theatre. To give a more specific answer, as a social psychologist, I have never broken down human life into laboratory formulas, nor have I examined one person or another in their abstractness. I did not start from the premise that real social psychology heroes have no gender or age, which is why they "float" in the world in their abstract form. Instead, I wanted to create a "Hungarianized" or "Eastern Europeanized" social psychology, bringing in different categories of life that are usually examined separately: who is Jewish and who is not, who is Hungarian and who is not, who is Romanian, who is Ukrainian, who is Roma... I did this because I saw that social psychology becomes rather empty without history. That is why I examined society in an interdisciplinary way, giving prominence to the past. Here, where we live, it is not so easy to get rid of the past. Just when we thought we had gotten rid of it, like in the movie "Alien", it suddenly returns. I came to Charles IV because I was able to grasp in his person the moment of tragic derailment when, after the First World War, Hungary turned back from a path that could have led to Western Europe, democracy, and freedom. It is another question that the other Central and Eastern European countries did not really strive to move forward on this path either, but I think the Hungarians fell further behind than they should have, and they fell behind because they fell into the trap—which was, of course, a tragic trap—of linking love for their own nation with hatred for other groups. Love for one's own kind became inexpressible without hatred. The object of hatred became all those who, according to the ideas of the time, had torn apart pre-Trianon Hungary. Charles IV could have represented the best tradition of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, which would have freed the Hungarians from the terrible shackles of their national identity, compounded by hatred: I am only Hungarian if I am not Jewish, I can only be a true patriot if I hate the Romanians. Charles was above this mentality, which is why he was so appealing to me. I wanted to focus on his actions, his conflict with Horthy, and the intrigues against him by those around him, which I know quite well from my political experience.
Many agree that throughout history there have been rulers, statesmen, and leaders whose visions for the development and welfare of society, and the practical implementation of those visions, had the opposite effect to their original intentions. Is it inevitable that a political elite will fall victim to its own intentions to improve society?
This is one of the fundamental questions of human history. Charles's situation is different in that his environment did not give him the opportunity to realize his ideas. Throughout history, many have had the opportunity to implement their ideas, but unfortunately, these were ideas that could not be realized without violence, and this violence backfired on them and destroyed their original good intentions. A more concrete explanation can be found in Hegel, who said that history is "the cunning of reason." Everyone wants something, whether good or bad, and these usually result in events that no one wanted. No one can escape the power of this vicious mechanism, especially if they are not aware of this law. My hero is not characterized by this sophistication; rather, I see in him a tragic, lost opportunity that had a fateful impact on us Hungarians....
...there were no customs borders, the flow of labour was free, and the currency was common......
...of course! From Lemberg to Trieste, it was a completely unified economic community! This is what Charles's grandson talked about, pointing out that the Monarchy could have served as a model, a kind of prototype for the European Union, whose crisis can be traced back to the fact that while the Monarchy created a balance by taking into account the interests of the peoples living in the empire, the EU's mode of operation does not allow for this political, social, and economic balance. With Charles, the opportunity for the EU's predecessor was lost. Charles wanted to federalize the Monarchy, but with the death of Franz Ferdinand, this was taken off the agenda, and after the war, it became completely impossible.
Which circle had the greatest influence on Charles? The royal family, his wife Queen Zita and her relatives, the international political community, or the Hungarian political elite?
Essentially, István Tisza realized that if Charles modernized the Monarchy, the privileged position of the Kingdom of Hungary would be undermined. This is why Tisza pushed for the coronation to take place as soon as possible. The ruling Hungarian political elite wasn't grown up enough to this idea, and the opposition led by Károlyi formulated another totally destructive concept. These conflicting ideas led to the worst possible situation: a truncated Hungary. They did not really think that this could happen when the war ended. But in the meantime, it was already clear that the victorious powers would carve up the country. Due to their hysterical blindness, the members of the elite did not see that the borders of the Monarchy had long been redrawn.
Since we have talked so much about history and society, how much does your professional background influence your writing? Does it hinder or help you? After all, historical accuracy is not necessarily a criterion for a literary work. To what extent do historical facts and imagination play a role in your play, "Charles IV"?
I have to say that I don't usually get nervous, but I did now...
...You mentioned earlier that in your dreams you stand in the middle of the large hall of the Maladype Base in Mikszáth Square, clutching a copy of your play, waiting for the audience to arrive...
The only thing worse than that would be if they were in there and laughed at me! I don't think that what I wrote is literature; they are simply the thoughts I formulated, and I couldn't express them any other way. As for the professional background, regarding the fateful conversation between Horthy and Charles, which forms the basis of the conflict, I adhered strictly to the words originally spoken in the Royal Palace in Buda on Easter 1920. I also based my portrayal of Czernin on the facts. I consider him a villain because he exposed Charles's private truce initiative, thereby discrediting the monarch. The personal storylines are made up by me.
Do you also mean that if Charles had succeeded in carrying out his plans, he could have been a "European" ruler?
You are looking for the answer in the right direction, because it is not possible to free the Hungarian people from this trap without freeing the others as well. Trianon was not only a tragedy for the Hungarians, it did not do the surrounding peoples any good either. Charles and the Habsburg Empire would have been an opportunity for everyone, in which every nation could have found its own place without prevailing at the expense of others. We are currently marking the 100th anniversary of the death of Franz Joseph, which naturally coincides with the centenary of Charles's accession to the throne. To mark this occasion, a large-scale conference was held at the Várkert Bazár, where one of Charles's grandchildren also spoke. He gave an extremely exciting speech and said that his grandfather had actually anticipated the European Union with his ideas, as he wanted to operate a state organization in which military affairs and foreign affairs were shared...
However, your excitement comes with a small stake and a playful risk...
No, it's not small, it's big! You take a leap and don't know if you'll make it to the other side! I racked my brains over whether I should even dare to send the piece to Zoli Balázs, because there was no one else in the world I could show it to... I thought: what if he says, go to hell with this... but that might have been more reassuring.
Were you afraid that he would find it so bad that he wouldn't want to present it?
Yes, but this playful risk is part of what I've seen with Maladype in recent years, and my participation in the Kravchenko project has given me serious confirmation. The way Zoli is able to show different realities and translate them into fiction is unique. If Thursday night brings a similar experience, I'll sleep peacefully.
Zsolt Oláh, szinhaz.org, 2016
Translated by Lena Megyeri