Communities in European history : representations, jurisdictions, conflicts / edited by

Juan Pan-Montojo and Frederik Pedersen

(States, legislation and institutions : thematic work group 1 ; 2)

940 (21.)
1. Europa Storia sociale I. Pan-Montojo, Juan II. Pedersen, Frederik

CIP a cura del Sistema bibliotecario dellUniversit di Pisa

This volume is published thanks to the support of the Directorate General for Research of the European Commission,
by the Sixth Framework Network of Excellence CLIOHRES.net under the contract CIT3-CT-2005-00164. The
volume is solely the responsibility of the Network and the authors; the European Community cannot be held
responsible for its contents or for any use which may be made of it.

Cover: Albrecht Drer (1471-1528), View of Arco, 1495, watercolour, Louvre, Cabinet des Dessins, detail.
Photo Scala Archives, Florence.

Copyright 2007 by Edizioni Plus Pisa University Press

Lungarno Pacinotti, 43
56126 Pisa
Tel. 050 2212056 Fax 050 2212945
info.plus@adm.unipi.it
www.edizioniplus.it - Section Biblioteca

Member of

ISBN 978-88-8492-462-9

Manager
Claudia Napolitano

Editing
Francesca Petrucci, Eleonora Lollini, Francesca Verdiani

Informatic assistance
Massimo Arcidiacono, Michele Gasparello
Karaore among the Hungarians.
Hungarian and Serb Theatre
Collaboration in the Early 19th Century
Zoltn Gyre
University of Novi Sad

ABSTRACT
This chapter examines the collaboration between Hungarians and Serbs in theatre per-
formance and production. It focuses on these cultural interactions as an example of
positive relations between the two ethnic communities during a period marked by the
growth of nationalist politics and ideologies. A key concern is to explore the contrast
between these creative collaborations and the field of politics, which clearly expressed
the opposition of Hungarian and Serbian interests and also mobilised different cul-
tural activities as important elements of nation-building. Thus this description of the
relationships and cooperation between Serbs and Hungarians in the field of theatre is
framed within a discussion of contemporany social and political circumstances.

lanak se bavi pitanjem najranijeg primera saradnje Maara i Srba na polju pozorine
umetnosti. Poseban naglasak stavljen je na injenicu da je do saradnje dolo u vreme poetka
nacionalnih preporoda dva naroda kada su dotadanje istorijske, politike, verske i etnike
suprotnosti postale naroito zaotrene usled sve vee uloge nacionalizma kod oba naroda.
tovie, usled poleta nacionalnog preporoda iroko polje kulturnog stvaralatva i kolstva
postalo je poprite sukoba dva nacionalizma.
Na poetku rada su skicirane opte drutvene i politike okolnosti u kojima je dolo do te
saradnje, kao i sami koreni nastanka modernog pozorita kod Maara i Srba. Kod Maara
poeci pozorita se mogu pratiti od kraja srednjeg veka, od delatnosti Petera Bornemise i
Balinta Balaija, preko nekoliko hiljada kolskih predstava i rada putujuih druina (prva
koja je posedaovala kraljevsku dozvolu poticala je iz 1696. godine), do zaetaka moderng
pozorita poslednjih godina 18. veka. Kod Srba su zaeci moderne pozorine umetnosti neto
kasniji, javljaju se u 18. veku, u Ugarskoj. Usled zajednikih optih drutvenih i politikih
okolnosti poetaka razvoja srpskog i maarskog pozorita, njihov razvoj je u odreenim
elementima bio slian, to je ujedno predtavljao pogodan okvir eventualnoj saradnji.
Znaajan podsticaj razvoju modernog pozrita Maara i Srba dale su prosvetiteljske ideje,
ali i odreene mere Josifa II, pre svega uredba o slubenoj upotrebi nemakog jezika, koja
je podtsakla nacionalne preporode nenemakih naroda Habzburke monarhije. Pozorite
je u nacionalnom preporodu Maara i Srba imala istaknutu ulogu iritelja liberalnih i

Representations
66 Zoltn Gyre

nacionalnih ideja meu najire slojeve stanovnitva.

Nastanak srpsko-maarske saradnje bio je podstican i izrastanjem Budima i Pete u
kulturni i ekonomski centar Maarske u kojem se okupljala elita inteligencije oba naroda,
kao i izrazito poveano interesovanje maarske javnosti za Srbe i Srbije izazvano srpskim
ustancima i delatnou Vuka Karadia. Na tim osnovama nastala je veoma uspena
drama Cerni uro ili osloboenje Beograda, autora Itvana Baloga. Cerni uro je postao
temelj dalje pozorine saradnje, koja se manifestovala u zajednikom pripremanju prve
moderne srpske pozorine predstave Kretalice (prevod i reija Joakim Vuji); prevoenju
Balogljevog rada na srpski jezik, kao i inkorporisanjem srpkih pesama, junaka i korienjem
srpskih tema i motiva u nekim maarskim dramama. Paralelno sa tim, kod srpske publike
u Maarskoj uz pomenuto delo i druge maarske drame su uivale ugled i popularnost.
Znaaj maarsko-srpske pozorine saradnje je u njenoj vieslojnosti. Sama saradnja
dokazuje mogunost saradnje pripadnika razliitih nacija i u onim vremenima i okolnos-
tima koje naizgled ne pogoduju pozitivnim interetnikim kontaktima. Lina zainteres-
ovanost, ar umetnikog izazova i stvaranja prevazili su barijere nacionalnog kulturnog
stvaralatva i obogatile su kulturu obe nacije. Saradnja je znaajna, jer je dala podsticaj i
srpskom i maarskom pozoritu, tovie, nesumnjivo je podsticajno delovao na srpski na-
cionalni preporod. S druge strane kod Maara je podstaknuo interesovanje za Srbe, srpsku
revolucije i njihovu kulturu.

Serbs and Hungarians, as two neighbouring ethnic communities in southeast Europe,

share a history dating back more than one thousand years. The complexity of their
cultural, economic, and political relationships offers considerable challenges to both
Serbian and Hungarian historians. Unfortunately, the overwhelming influence of na-
tionalist ideology on the historiography of Serbian and Hungarian culture has meant
that since the mid-19th century topics related to inter-ethnic relations and coopera-
tion between these communities have received less attention than they deserve (except
during the socialist era in Hungary and Yugoslavia). As a result there are many poorly
researched themes. Nonetheless the works of Endre Arat, Emil Niederhauser, Istvn
Fried, Istvn Pt, Lszl Hadrovics, Pl Sndor, gnes zer, Boidar Kovaek, Slavko
Gavrilovi, Dejan Medakovi, Duan J.Popovi have begun laying valuable foundations
for research in this field1.
The aim of this chapter is to examine a significant case of collaboration between Serbs
and Hungarians in the production and performance of plays during the early 19th
century. This collaboration took place despite the existence of conflict between the
political elites of both ethnic groups and despite the deep memory of past conflicts
between Serbs and Hungarians. This study also shows that this collaboration took
the form of cultural products that were devoted specifically to the construction of the
Serbian and Hungarian national communities.
The Habsburg Monarchy of the late 18th century could be seen as a conglomerate of
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 67

different types of communities. These communities organized themselves according

to a number of factors, such as common political, professional, or social concerns,
and shared cultural, geographical, religious, ethnic and class backgrounds. As these
different communities developed a wide array of structures and functions, they pro-
duced a variety of community identities, representing diverse interests. The following
study comments on this variety and diversity, and illustrates the way in which pub-
lic cultural activity brought together two national communities at a crucial stage in
their formation.

THE HABSBURG MONARCHY AND THE ORIGINS OF HUNGARIAN AND SERBIAN

NATIONALISM
The Habsburg Monarchy of the late 18th century formed a heterogeneous universe
of corporations, defined by a number of criteria, including reference to estate, socio-
professional groupings, religion and territory. The Empires subjects belonged to a wide
range of different corporations, and shared in collective identities of diverse historical
depth.
The Habsburg Monarchy comprised three autonomous states, Hungary, Bohemia and
Croatia; several historical provinces, such as the Austrian, Transylvanian and Slovenian
lands; and numerous autonomous territories under ample Habsburg jurisdiction, me-
diated through royal cities and local communities of noblemen. It moreover housed
Catholic, Protestant (Lutheran and Calvinist), Orthodox, Unitarian (anti-Trinitarian)
and Greek-Catholic churches. Ethnic and cultural division was further complicated by
the dozens of languages spoken and by the existence of ethnic communities with a di-
verse range of social, political, and religious structures. To illustrate this complexity: the
Germans had their own complete social structure and ruling dynasty; the Hungarians,
Croats, and Saxons had their own feudal political and social structure; the Serbs had
their own religious organization and educational system; while other groups such as the
Slovaks, Rumanians, Jews, or Ruthenians based their varying ethnic self-awareness on
specific social relations and religious institutions.
The Enlightenment seemed to offer a number of possibilities for progress and social
reorganization. A new sense of nationhood slowly but increasingly grew in political
and cultural importance and became the principal idea around which ethnic communi-
ties structured themselves. Cultural, artistic, professional, educational, and social and
even some gender-based associations were founded or reorganized on an ethnic basis.
Central to these efforts by ethnic groups to develop their cultures was the view that the
most important element needed to attain their cultural goals and to win self-determina-
tion, was language. In central and southeastern Europe languages were the foundation
for nation-building. Throughout the first half of the 19th century Hungarians, Greeks,

Representations
68 Zoltn Gyre

Poles, Serbs, Rumanians, Slovaks, Bulgarians and the inhabitants of the other regions
mentioned above devoted considerable energy to the development and promotion of
their languages through a variety of cultural media and institutions. By establishing
the first national theatres, publishing houses, nation-wide cultural institutions, associa-
tions of scholars, national newspapers, and school systems they promoted an array of
national symbols and national heroes through literature and national history. In this
way, they set in motion the machinery of nation-building.
From the point of view of an ethnically-based vision of nationhood, existing political
borders were irrelevant. Serbian, Hungarian, Rumanian, Greek or Polish nationalists
were fairly indifferent to the fact that the potential members of their future national
communities lived under different jurisdictions, and often in distant and non-contigu-
ous territories and within differing cultural contexts. For instance, until the end of the
18th century Serbs lived in the Ottoman Empire, the Habsburg Monarchy (mostly in
Hungary and Croatia) and in the Republics of Venice and Dubrovnik. Meanwhile,
Greek nationalists included all Hellenic communities in their future nation, despite the
fact that they were widely dispersed throughout Europe and along the north African
and Mideastern coasts.
The conflicting ideas regarding the nation-state and cultural conceptions of nationhood
had not only serious but also, as is shown below, disastrous implications for the politi-
cal system and the future of the two neighbouring multilingual states, the Habsburg
Monarchy and the Ottoman Empire. In particular, the turbulent events of the French
Revolution and the effects of the domestic reforms of emperor Joseph II strongly en-
couraged the growth of nationalist ideas among the communities encompassed by the
Habsburg Monarchy.
In Hungary, members of both the Hungarian and the Serbian ethnic communities
clearly defined their national policies through extensive political activity in 1789 and
1790. They formulated their political demands through numerous assemblies, news-
papers, brochures, books, and ecclesiastical organizations, among other means. On the
highest political level the Hungarians formulated their political requests at the Hun-
garian Dieta and the Serbs at their national-church congress at Temesvr (Timisoara,
Rumania). Apart from certain proposals for social change along classic middle-class
lines, there was more opposition than similarity between the political proposals of the
two groups. The Hungarians sought to maintain the sovereignty of Hungary and to
conduct limited social and political reforms; while the main concern of Serbs was to
separate from Hungary and establish an autonomous Serbian state, although within
the framework of the Habsburg Monarchy. The clash between these political objectives
would not be resolved until the fall of Austro-Hungry in 1918. During this early phase
of modern Serbian nationalism, the Serbian congress in Temesvr took on special sig-
nificance, as it provided for the Serbs in Hungary a third centre, alongside Montenegro
and Turkey, from which a Serbian state could be built.
Underpinning these political developments were fairly well defined pre-modern Serb
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 69

and Hungarian national ideologies, which provided a foundation for the subsequent
development of modern nationalism during the 19th century. Hungarian pre-modern
national ideology emerged during the nations two centuries of defense of the existence
of the Hungarian state and its effective system of religious tolerance against Habsburgs
and Ottomans alike. The most important elements of this ideological complex were the
doctrine of the Holy Hungarian Crown, the Hungarian language, belief in a common
historical origin in Attilas Huns, loyalty to the Hungarian state and commitment to the
defense of Hungarian liberty and law2. Religious affiliation was not a central element
of Hungarian national ideology because Hungarians belonged to several confessions,
including the Catholic, Lutheran, Calvinist, anti-Trinitarian, and even Greek-Ortho-
dox Churches. In fact, the defense of existing religious tolerance became an important
element of Hungarian nation-building.
For the Serbs, in contrast, allegiance to a specific faith through affiliation with the Ser-
bian Orthodox Church was one of the main elements of nation-building. The Serbian
Orthodox Church was all that remained of the Serbian medieval state which had been
defeated in 1459. For centuries, this religious-social institution consciously worked for
the preservation of Serbian ethnic awareness along with the traditions of the Nemanji
state and of the holy Serbian Kings3. Other surviving elements of Serbian pre-modern
national discourse included the Serbian language, folklore and folk songs, and poetry4.
The latter praised the Nemanji dynasty and the struggle against the Ottomans. Within
the Habsburg Monarchy, the Serbs enjoyed extensive autonomy in regard to ecclesiasti-
cal and educational matters, as well as certain questions of jurisdiction, thanks to the
privileges granted by emperor Leopold I. The same privileges also provided a founda-
tion for the defense of their ethnic and religious identity.
While the Serbian Orthodox Church helped to preserve Serbian ethnic awareness and
traditions of statehood during the 19th century its role was supplemented by the ef-
forts of members of the Serbian intelligentsia and bourgeoisie, who became the creators
of modern nationalist ideology. In particular the merchants played a key role by sup-
porting writers, poets, newspapers, and other media for the expression of nationalist
sentiments. Again a contrast may be noted between the evolution of Serbian and Hun-
garian national ideologies. The Hungarian nobility had led this cause until the 1790s.
During the 19th century lawyers, professors, writers, poets, and newspaper editors as
well as other spokesmen for culture and education took over this role. However, dur-
ing the third decade of the 19th century the nobility returned to play a very significant
role, as nobles such as counts Istvn Szchenyi and Lajos Batthyny and baron Mikls
Wesselnyi distinguished themselves as progressive and liberal representatives.
Unfortunately, from the beginning of the early modern period until the mid-19th
century, when tensions between Hungarians and Serbs in Hungary erupted into civil
war, conflict defined their relations more than cooperation. However, the Middle Ages
had witnessed positive contacts between Serbs and Hungarians, mainly in economic
and political terms, which even extended to marriages between the rpdhzi and
Nemanji dynasties. The Kingdom of Hungary provided a strong and decisive ally for

Representations
70 Zoltn Gyre

the Serbs when the Ottoman conquests of Balkan Peninsula began, and granted them a
safe refuge following the fall of Serbia in 1459. Indeed Serbian emigration to Hungary
between the 14th and the 19th centuries led to far-reaching changes in the ethnic com-
position of Hungary and may be considered as the most formative feature of Hungar-
ian-Serb relations until the present day.
Until the battle of Mohcs in 1526, Serbs in Hungary lived under the jurisdiction of the
Hungarian monarchy and had the same rights as Hungarians. They also enjoyed certain
privileges regarding taxation and, thanks to their membership in the Serbian Orthodox
Church, religious matters5. Then during the process of Hungarys division into three
parts between 1526 and 1541 the Ottoman courts played a decisive role in Hungarian-
Serb relations6. Following this territorial separation the role of the Habsburg court be-
came increasingly important and after the central part of Hungary was liberated from
Ottoman rule in 1699 and the uprising of Rkczi Ferenc II was defeated in 1711 it
became the decisive element in Hungarian history, with significant consequences for
Serbian-Hungarian relations as well. Habsburg dynastic policy concerning Hungarians
and Serbs, combined with the political and demographic structure of the Habsburg
Monarchy, drove the two peoples to political and ethnic confrontation.
From 1711 on the Kingdom of Hungary, a multinational, multireligious and multicul-
tural country, was an autonomous state within the framework of the Habsburg Monar-
chy. From 1526 on the Hungarian nobility waged political disputes and, from time to
time, full-scale wars against the Habsburgs to preserve as much of their state sovereignty
as they could. However, hundreds of thousands of Serbs lived within Hungary. Many of
these had migrated there in the late 17th and early 18th centuries. It was then that these
immigrant Serbs received religious, cultural, and even certain political privileges from
the Habsburg rulers and thus became bound to the Habsburg court.
By the end of the 18th century, most Serbs lived in the Habsburg Monarchy and more
than half of them in Hungary, while others could be found in Croatia and Dalmatia7.
The Serbs in Hungary lived in the southern part of the state, not far from the Serbian
communities in the Ottoman Empire. Serbian leaders on both sides of the Habsburg-
Ottoman border had long been intent on regaining their state. They based their efforts
on their three cultural and political centres. These included during the 18th century
southern Hungary and Montenegro, and then from the beginning of the 19th century
Sanjak of Smederevo [Serbia], or as it is colloquially known Beogradski Paaluk. The
Serbs from both Hungary and the Ottoman Empire were connected by a range of fac-
tors: their history, language, culture, and identitarian discourse as well as trade contacts
and family ties. Thus Serbs from both sides of Austro-Turkish border regarded them-
selves as members of the same nation8. The Serbian political elite contemplated the
possibilities of unifying the Serbs into a single state, under either Habsburg, Russian, or
Ottoman rule or even existing independently. However, all these options were clearly
opposed to the interests of the Hungarian state9.
By the third decade of the 19th century, the Hungarians had developed a completely
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 71

different idea of national unification. Liberal politicians had formulated the doctrine
of rdekegyests [unifying the interests]. Beginning in the 1830s their chief concern be-
came the transformation of feudal society to a civil one. The central aim of Hungarian
nationalist doctrine was political integration of the complex, multi-layered Hungarian
society and the emancipation of the population of Hungary, whatever its social, po-
litical, ethnic or religious affiliations. Emancipation was considered the solution to the
tensions based on ethnic, class, or religious differences. The doctrine of unifying the
interests foresaw the creation of a Hungarian political, albeit not ethnic, nation based
on Hungarian citizenship. Political rights would be extended to individual citizens and
not to religious and ethnic communities. The aim was linkage among citizens in terms
of shared freedom and common interest in building a civil society. Another goal was
the disintegration of the old, feudal socio-political and professional institutions and
communities, as well as the abolition of serfdom and feudal privileges. It was expected
that unifying the interests would be the guiding principle for the reorganization of
all types of communities from guilds and city councils to the nobility, and finally to the
foundation of a community of all citizens10.
As Hungarians were the majority population, the creation of the Hungarian political
nation was marked by Hungarian hegemony as indicated by the plan to alter the of-
ficial state language from Latin to Hungarian11. However, the Serbs living in Hungary
refused to support the concept of general unification. Not only did their political de-
mands depend on the feudal privileges they had received at the end of 17th century,
but they also intended to establish an autonomous Serbian territory in the southern
regions of Hungary.
The difficult relations between the Serbs and Hungarians rested on several historical as
well as current political factors. Firstly, there had been many armed conflicts between
them. In terms of the negative effects these had on their relationships the most serious
was the uprising of Ferenc Rkczi II (1703-1711) when the Serbs fought on the side
of Viennese court. The division caused by their opposing alliances had long been an
issue. Thus during the 16th and 17th centuries Hungarians and Serbs, serving in the
Ottoman army, fought numerous battles along the Habsburg and Hungarian-Turkish
border. Apart from these violent confrontations, a massive Serbian immigration to the
regions of Hungary destroyed by the Ottoman armies also provoked Hungarian dis-
content. As many Serbs remained in Hungary following its liberation from Ottoman
rule in 1699, conflicts arose over their different values and way of life. For instance,
at that time Serbian immigrants in Hungary were mainly stock-breeders and did not
respect the existing system of land ownership. Further reasons for discontent emerged
after the defeat of Rkoczis uprising. The Hungarians were completely disarmed and
the Viennese government organized a so-called military cordon, which in the southern
parts of Hungary and Croatia was maintained thanks a significant deployment of Serbs.
The aim of this cordon was not only to defend the Habsburg Monarchy from possible
Ottoman attack, but also to intervene against any new Hungarian revolts against the
Habsburgs.

Representations
72 Zoltn Gyre

The privileges that the Serbs in Hungary had received between 1690 and 1695 from
emperor Leopold I were in fact issued in the name of the King of Hungary. However,
they were awarded without the agreement of the Hungarian Diet and in opposition
to Hungarian state interests12. The Serbs received preferential treatment in regard to
religious freedom; in the Habsburg state Orthodox Serbs not only were granted eccle-
siastical autonomy, but also suffered fewer restrictions than the Hungarian Calvinists.
Habsburg court policy was moreover deliberately deceptive, and included spreading
rumours among Serbs that the Hungarian nobility intended to convert members of
the Serbian Orthodox Church to Catholicism13. Nonetheless, religion had less impact
on mutual Serbian-Hungarian relations than may be expected, and took a back seat to
political, historical, and cultural issues. The strained relationships between these two
ethnic groups may be understood as the result of the Viennese courts policy of divide
et impera, and this adds a further dimension to our understanding of the bitter and at
times explosive relationships between these two nations. The sudden eruption of civil
war between 1848 and 1849 reveals the fragility of the situation.
Despite the antipathy between these two ethnic groups, positive contacts, mutual in-
fluences, and cooperation survived in everyday life and cultural activities. In regard to
the latter should be pointed out that from the beginning of the renaissance of the
Hungarian and Serbian national cultures, understood in the broadest sense, cultural
institutions became a tool of nationalist ideologies. This gradually converted culture
into an important battlefield. Due to these circumstances the positive, diverse, and
productive contacts between the Serbs and Hungarians, which had evolved during the
Middle Ages, were largely reduced in the 19th century to sporadic events or limited to
the sphere of everyday life.
The bright points of cooperation in the otherwise bleak history of inter-community
conflict resulted from the growing interest of the Hungarian public in the Serbs, Ser-
bia, Serbian culture, and especially the leader of the First Serbian Uprising, Karaore
Petrovi. Instances of Hungarian-Serbian cultural collaborations also attracted atten-
tion14. The most tangible and stimulating episodes were found in the field of literature
and above all in the theatre. The earliest known examples of cooperation in the theatre
date from 1812 and 1813 and are today woven into the origins of both modern Hun-
garian and Serbian theatre. Initiatives that are even more interesting followed these ini-
tial instances of Serbian-Hungarian collaboration.

THE DEVELOPMENT OF MODERN HUNGARIAN AND SERBIAN THEATRE

In the late 18th and early 19th centuries, the theatre was considered one of the most sig-
nificant media for strengthening national self-awareness, in addition to national schol-
arly societies, literature, museums, and libraries. As a rule print was the most important
medium for diffusing the principles of a national renaissance. Liberal and national ideas
thus circulated among educated people in books, poems, studies, brochures and news-
papers. However, as most of the population was illiterate, or were at least judged to
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 73

be so by their educated contemporaries, the theatre took on special importance. Since

literacy was not needed to understand a play, theatre was employed as an effective tool
for conveying the new national liberal and bourgeois ideas to the nations lower classes.
The leaders of both nations prioritised the development of the theatre amongst their
national-cultural tasks. The originator of modern Serbian theatre, Joakim Vuji, looked
on it as a kind of school that everyone had to attend. He emphasized that educated
people in towns had 6 to 8 theatres; according to him they even existed in smaller
towns and villages. His contemporaries the famous Hungarian writers Jzsef Bajza and
Mihly Wrsmarty considered the theatre, after churches and schools, the most im-
portant element for creating an ethical foundation for the Hungarian liberal bourgeois
transformation15. The same view received support in 1840 from the most important
Serbian newspaper , published in Budapest, which declared
that theatres were of the utmost importance for a national renaissance16.
Informed by its new cultural significance, turn-of-the-century theatre freed itself from
its previous religious associations and influences and turned toward secular, education-
al, and national themes. Not only were the works of A. von Kotzebue17, A.Steffani,
Schiller, Molire, Shakespeare, and other authors translated into Hungarian and Ser-
bian, but considerable changes were made to the original texts so that the stories would
resonate more effectively with Hungarian and Serbian theatregoers.
The origins of modern Hungarian theatre may be traced back to the 16th-century
playwrights Pter Bornemisza and Blint Balassi. During the 17th century Hungarian
theatre suffered from the strict control of the Protestant churches, which criticized it
as promoting illicit behaviour. As a result, by the second half of the eighteenth century
Hungarian theatre was restricted mainly to plays performed in schools, by the nobility
at courts, and by a few travelling theatre groups18.
In spite of the restrictions imposed by religious and moral views, school plays proved
very popular. The rehearsal and performance of plays were considered major events in
both Jesuit and Protestant schools. Their organizers dedicated great efforts and mon-
ey to the acquisition of costumes, back drops, and the preparation of program notes.
Indeed, a number of sources testify that in some performances machinery was even
brought in from Italy to move backdrops and create special effects. Initially the plays
were performed in Latin, but with time more plays were performed in Hungarian. The
most popular themes were secular dramas, but biblical and mythological themes were
also frequently performed. In accordance with their purpose of providing moral educa-
tion, events of current interest were often highlighted along with the biographies of
prominent individuals. Of the several thousand school plays that were performed only
the texts of a small number have been preserved. Some of these have even proved in-
teresting to todays theatregoing public, for example, Dniel Borss 1765 comedy The
Marriage of Michael Aspic.
In contrast, Serbian theatre had not been permitted the same freedom of expression. In
the Middle Ages, Byzantine influence relegated it to a minor cultural activity. Thereafter

Representations
74 Zoltn Gyre

the Turkish authorities curbed its development. There is no tradition of theatre among
Orthodox Serbs prior to the eighteenth century save for certain special plays performed
outdoors. While Serbian and Croatian language theatre flourished in Dubrovnik from
the 16th to the 19th centuries, that particular tradition did not exert any significant
influence on the modern theatre of either the Serbian or Hungarian communities19.
The development of modern Serbian theatre may be traced back to 18th-century south-
ern Hungary. It was shaped by Russian, German, and Hungarian traditions and was
informed by educational drama. The first recorded Serbian play was a historical drama
based on Emanuel Kozainskia and called A Tragedy... of Uro the Fifth and The Fall
of the Serbian Empire. The Latin school students of Sremski Karlovci performed it in
June 1736. By the end of the 18th century, school plays were performed from time to
time in Becskerek, Temesvr, and Versecz. This period also witnessed the beginnings
of amateur theatre. Amid new cultural and political conditions this development also
benefited from the influence of Dositej Obradovi, who recommended watching thea-
tre plays and in particular advocated the shrewd and gentle disposition of Molires
comedies. Like the school plays the works of amateur enthusiasts were performed pub-
licly. In the wake of these cultural developments by the first half of the 19th century
Novi Sad became the Serbs theatrical centre.
In 1830, after almost four hundred years of discontinuity, there reemerged an autono-
mous political entity linked to the Serbian dynasty, which was now known as the Prin-
cipality of Serbia. Shortly thereafter, in 1834, Joakim Vuji20 was appointed director of
the Principalitys Serbian theatre. However, it is important to point out that Serbian
theatre developed in Hungary, and that it developed in parallel with Hungarian thea-
tre, both of which were shaped by Hungarys social, political and cultural framework,
that is the Habsburg Monarchy.
The origins and growth of modern Serb and Hungarian theatre took place amid cul-
tural and political trends affecting all of Europe, and which had been spread by the
Enlightenment, the French Revolution, and the Napoleonic wars. In the late 18th cen-
tury German-language theatre and the patronage of Joseph II lent especially impor-
tant stimulus to the development of modern theatre. The emperor took measures to
upgrade German theatre performances and gave priority to the performance of works
by native playwrights. He also founded the Burgtheater and the Vienna Opera House.
Thanks to their quality, these two institutions established stylistic standards for other
theatres in the Habsburg Monarchy21. Despite the positive effects of Joseph IIs promo-
tion of the theatre, his privileging German as the official language of administration
and education provoked a strong political and cultural reaction from the non-German
nations of the Habsburg Monarchy. One noticeable result was the formation of travel-
ling companies and the production of propagandistic plays that promoted nationalist
ideas and culture.
Another part of Josephs cultural legacy in addition to supporting national theatre was
censorship. The censors carefully monitored plays and often prohibited them or or-
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 75

dered changes to their text or cast. It was the strict responsibility of both theatre direc-
tors and managers to ensure their actors performances did not violate the prohibition
of any allusion to contemporary public personalities through appearance, movements,
dress or voice22.
Censorship represented just one, and by no means the greatest, of the difficulties which
Hungarian and Serbian theatre confronted during this period. The most significant
problem they faced was that neither the Serbian nor the Hungarian public had the
economic resources to continuously support the travelling theatre companies. The en-
thusiasm of their members did not suffice to ensure the success of the travelling com-
panies, which also needed the financial support of patrons, district offices, towns, or
other theatrical companies. The first Hungarian modern professional theatre company
was founded in 1790 in Budapest under the leadership of Kelemen Lszl. It received
financial and moral support from several district offices in the surrounding region.
Another challenge that faced theatre companies was the lack of a permanent theatre in
which to rehearse and perform. The provision of performance space was considered a
patriotic act. For example, a theatrical company from Sremska Mitrovica appealed to the
army to solve this problem by giving up a drill shed for the performance of their plays.
The newspaper report emphasizes that the colonel in charge accepted their request be-
cause he was a good Serb23. Contemporary reports testify that organizing theatre was
considered an outstanding gesture of patriotism. During the opening decades of the
19th century Hungarian construction of permanent theatres was also seen as a patriotic
act. In the absence of permanent theatres wandering was necessary for the survival
of Hungarian and Serbian theatre companies24. These companies would travel around
the country performing in towns and villages, which both sustained their existence and
significantly increased the geographical and social scope of their performances.

BUDAPEST AS A CULTURAL CENTRE

The evolution of Serbian and Hungarian theatrical collaboration was connected, firstly,
with the gradual emergence of Buda and Pest as the economic and cultural centre of
Hungary and secondly, with the Hungarian publics increased interest in the culture and
art of other nations, including the Serbs. Throughout the 18th century, Hungarian intel-
lectuals had struggled to turn Budapest into Hungarys literary and cultural centre. As
it became a leading economic centre in the early 19th century, their dream blossomed
into a reality far exceeding their expectations. In the buoyant mood of economic growth,
educational, political, religious, and cultural institutions were established in Budapest.
With a university, theatre, museums, libraries, numerous publishing houses, and news-
papers Budapest attracted businessmen, intellectuals, and politicians of different na-
tional backgrounds. It was a city known for its tolerant atmosphere, where Hungarian
aristocrats and liberal noblemen, intellectuals, merchants, politicians, lawyers, and artists
could meet each other and collaborate in diverse activities. Even under the cautious and
suspicious eyes of Viennas secret police and censors, Budapest was the setting for fruitful

Representations
76 Zoltn Gyre

intellectual and political activity. Leaders of the Slovakian, Czech, Rumanian, and Ser-
bian national renaissances lived and worked there. Petru Maior, Samuel Klein, Frantiek
Palacki, Jan Kollar, Teodor Pavlovi and many others published their first books promot-
ing their national movements. These were accompanied by other important publications
linked to the Bulgarian, Greek, and Ruthenian national revivals25.
From 1777 to 1877, 283 Serbian books were published in Budapest. These included
the literary, historical, scientific and educational works of the most famous Serbian
intellectuals of the time, such as Z. Orfelin, D.Obradovi, J.Raji, J.Vuji, L.Muicki,
Mihajlo Vitkovi, M. Vidakovi, and J.Sterija Popovi. Since the Serbs in the Ottoman
Empire did not found their own publishing house until 1831, Serbian books and news-
papers had to be printed in Budapest. This explains why the first Serbian playwrights
and novelists, as well as the first Serbian liberal politicians emerged from this Hungar-
ian city, which was also the location of the most famous and respected Serbian cultural
institution, the Matica Srbska, founded in 1826. The cultural importance of Budapest
is the reason why in both Serbian and Hungarian historiography it figures as the main
Serbian cultural centre in the Habsburg empire until 1848. The other important Ser-
bian cultural and political centre in Hungary was Novi Sad. While it became the most
prominent Serbian cultural centre during the second half of the 19th century, Budapest
nevertheless maintained a certain degree of importance26.
The French Revolution and Enlightenment ideas were two key cultural factors that
contributed to the Hungarian publics interest in contemporary European political and
cultural events. In addition to this, Hungarian students returning from their studies
in different European universities, along with Hungarian progressive aristocrats also
helped promote the culture and history of the non-Hungarian peoples in Hungary
and their neighbouring nations. After the Croats, with whom the Hungarians had seri-
ous political differences, they show greatest interest in Serbian culture and the Serbs,
including those in the Ottoman Empire. This interest encompassed the geography of
the Serbian lands, as well as its folklore, literature, epic poems, religion, and historical
heroes27. Between 1780 and 1789 more than 2,000 news, reports, travel accounts, and
works of literary criticism and political analysis concerning Serbs or Serbian lands were
published in Hungarian newspapers. This trend merely increased with time. Further-
more, studies appeared on the history of the Serbs, Belgrade, Karaore Petrovi, and
Serbian folk songs. All of these articles and studies were written in the spirit of ethnic
and religious tolerance and out of genuine interest. They were moreover detailed, ana-
lytical and, considering the circumstances, accurate28.
Among the themes which attracted special attention were the Austro-Turkish War
(1788-1791), the First Serbian Uprising (1804-1813)29, and the work of Vuk Stefanovi
Karadi30. The First Serbian Uprising greatly interested the Hungarian public and its
events were closely followed in the newspapers31. Numerous articles dealt with the
famous leader of the Serbian Uprising and the founder of the Karaorevi dynasty,
Karaore Petrovi. They informed the Hungarian public about his life, style of leader-
ship, and successes, along with anecdotes relating to his colourful personality. Thanks
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 77

to this, readers of Hungarian newspapers and magazines were well informed through-
out the course of the uprising. As a result, Karaaroe, as well as the uprising itself, won
the sympathy of Serbs and Hungarians alike.

BLACK GEORGE THE RESTORATION OF BELGRADE FROM THE TURKS

One of the results of the widespread interest in the Serbian Uprising was the authorship
and production of a play based upon Karaore and the liberation of Belgrade. Moved
by current interest in the topic, which promised good ticket sales, as well as the dra-
matic potential of the subject, one of the best actors and playwrights in Hungary, Istvn
Balog, decided to stage a drama based upon Karaore and Belgrades delivery from
the Turks32. His decision continued a recent trend of staging plays representing Serbian
history and the theme of liberation from oppression. In previous years Budapest theatre
repertoires had included plays based upon the 1465 defense of Belgrade, the same citys
liberation in 1790, and the liberation of Szeged and Buda from the Turks, as well as
plays on similar topics in both Hungarian and German33.
The text of the famous drama Black George34 the Restoration of Belgrade from the Turks
was inspired by the aforementioned public interest in the events of the First Serbian
Uprising. Drawing on contemporary news reports of the revolt the play records the
events and heroes of the First Serbian Uprising, while focusing on the personality, hero-
ism, and leadership of Karaore and the liberation of Belgrade from Turkish rule at
the end of 1806. Although it is a dramatic work based on historical documents, these
are freely intertwined with theatrical elements such as the grotesque, folklore, and trag-
edy. Indeed, the plays historical basis was seemingly well concealed; a report from a
Viennese court spy described the play as a comedy!
A key factor making the staging of this play possible was the support of relatively wealthy
Serbian citizens. Some of these pledged their sponsorship prior to the first performance:
thus, for example, Serbian merchants from Pest and Buda helped purchase the costumes35.
The first performance was on 24 August 1812 during the annual fair. It was a huge success
and very well received by both the Hungarian and Serbian theatre publics. An anecdote
that occurred shortly after Black Georges premire testifies to the plays success and Istvn
Balogs popularity among the Serbs at that time. Passing through Taban, the Serbian quar-
ter of Buda, Balog was recognized by one of the Serbian merchants and invited into the
mans store. As a display of nationalist gratitude for Balogs contribution to the play dedi-
cated to Karaore and the Serbs the merchant made him a present of the material for
a suit. Pleasantly surprised, and yet confused, Balog then tried to continue his journey,
however, other Serbs also wanted to show their gratitude and respect so they all presented
him with gifts. Balog returned home late at night and stumbling under a load of presents,
as well as the effects of the food and drink he had been offered36.
Unfortunately, the reaction of the authorities was quite the opposite. Since the upris-
ing, which was still in progress, had already provoked Hungarian sympathies, the Vi-
ennese court concluded that it was not in its interest that a play based upon a war of

Representations
78 Zoltn Gyre

national liberation be staged in Budapest. Therefore, after the second performance it

issued a warrant to the Hungarian Court Office to ban any further performance of
the play. The Hungarian count Erddy interceded immediately on behalf of the play,
emphasizing that its text did not violate censorship rules and that the representation of
the Serbs followed the official line. Despite such arguments, the court stuck to its ban.
A factor that may have influenced its intransigence was that prior to the premire of
Black George the Hungarian Regency Council, expecting the courts negative reaction,
did not inform the Vienna censors about the plays performance.
The reason behind a Christian governments banning a play about the liberation of
the Serbs, a European Christian community, from rule by a non-Christian sovereign
was essentially due to the fact that after the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars
the Habsburg dynasty considered political liberalism and national ideology, based on
language and culture, as two of the greatest threats to the the future of its multi-ethnic
empire. The play not only referred to Karaore and the defeat of Ottoman armies.
It also advocated a national and social revolution fired by patriotic emotions and pro-
claimed the Serbs goal of building an ethnic national state. As mentioned above, less
than half of the Serbs then lived in the Ottoman Empire, while the majority lived
in the Austro-Hungarian empire. Many among the latter considered themselves the
brothers of the Serbs under Ottoman rule and had shown great sympathy for their
uprising. In addition the Austrian Serbs had started two small rebellions near the Aus-
trian-Turkish border during which they expressed their desire to be united with the
Serbs in the Ottoman Empire, which ran counter to the Habsburg Monarchys official
policies.
Despite the ban from Vienna Balogs company staged the play over sixty times outside
Budapest until 1838. It appears to have been one of the most profitable and popular plays
of the 1820s, 30s and 40s in Hungary. Thus, Karaore was both present and popular
among Hungarians during the early decades of the 19th century. Theatre visitors not only
enjoyed the good script. They also sympathised with the heroism of Karaore and the
Serb people in their struggle against the Ottomans. With regard to Hungarian apprecia-
tion of Serbian theatre, it should be noted that this was reciprocal, as a number of Hun-
garian plays proved to be a great success with Serbian theatregoers37.

HUNGARIAN-SERBIAN COOPERATION IN THE FIELD OF THEATRE

Istvn Balog and his play based upon Karaore represent the beginning of Serbian-
Hungarian collaboration in theatre projects. Balogs success made him aware of the Ser-
bian theatre audience, and in subsequent productions he incorporated comic scenes
along with Rascian songs38. The great success of Black George also led to collaboration
between Balogs theatre company and Joakim Vuji who was then the lecturer of a Ser-
bian teacher-training college in Szentendre (Hungary). This cooperation resulted in
two of Vujis undertakings: the founding of a Serbian theatre company and translation
of the Karaore play into the Serbian language.
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 79

Keen to financially support the recently founded Serbian teacher training college in
Szentendre, Serbian students from Pest and Buda planned a performance of a play in
Serbian, following the example of their fellow Hungarian and German students. Un-
fortunately, the Serbian students project failed to materialise, so Joakim Vuji took the
initiative and asked Balog and actors of his theatre company to organize the Serbian
play, with the same purpose in mind, that is, financial support of the Serbian teacher
training college. Regardless of the ban on other ethnic communities use of the Hun-
garian theatre building, the Rondela, the Pest city hall at Vujis request approved the
Serbian plays performance along with the necessary decorative and technical devices.
For this special occasion, Vuji prepared the translation of a play titled Jay by Kotzebue,
one of the most popular Austrian writers.. The performance was given by both Serbian
and Hungarian actors including Joakim Vuji as well as Istvn Balog.
The premire of the Serbian version of Jay took place on 12 August 1813. Two more
performances followed, which confirmed the play as a great success and assured it a
610 forint profit. One third of this profit was donated to the Serbian teachers college
in Szentendre, another third was paid to the Hungarian actors, and the remainder was
divided amongst the poor Serbian pupils and students who had helped prepare and
stage the play. The performance of Vujis translation of Jay is considered to be not only
the first Serbian play to be performed in Hungary, but also the first work of Serbian
modern drama. The Serbian Newspaper, launched just two weeks earlier in Vienna, ex-
pressed the hope that the play would prove the beginning of and a promising omen for
a Serbian theatre that would ...dignify the taste of the Serbian people along with the
emotions of nice relatives of ours....39. In an interview Vuji emphasized that thanks to
the plays success even people abroad had heard of ...the fame of Serbian people40.
Following this success Vuji continued to work with his Hungarian theatre colleagues.
They produced Serbian adaptations of two German dramas. Unfortunately, serious
protest from the German theatre administration constituted a serious obstacle to the
further success and development of Serbian theatre performances in Buda and Pest.
One example of the censorship of Serbian-Hungarian theatre productions was the case
of Vujis Serbian translation of Balogs play Black George and the Liberation of Belgrade,
which continued the Serb-Hungarian theatre collaboration of 1812-181341. While
the Viennese court banned the Serbian performance, it was successfully performed in
Szeged and Novi Sad, among other places. It officially premired on 17 August 1815.
The second performance of Black George took place in Petrovaradin42 on 4 September
1815, during Karaores imprisonment there. As it may be expected, the Novi Sad city
judge banned the play and began an investigation into the matter.

CONCLUSIONS
Serbian-Hungarian collaboration in theatre productions has continued up until the
present. A more general but nonetheless important conclusion is that cultural coopera-
tion between different ethnic communities in the Balkans was not only possible but,

Representations
80 Zoltn Gyre

under certain conditions, one of the important elements in the transition from ethnic
identities to national communities. Collaboration could be more easily achieved at an
individual level or among groups of the intelligentsia, than among institutions or asso-
ciations. As this example has demonstrated, collaboration at this level between persons
and groups a priori ascribed to rival national projects could be both stimulating and
rewarding and at the same time extremely efficient in the nation-building process. The
field of culture was more suitable for cooperation in this early stage of the nationalist
projects than the fields of politics or economy. Through their training and work scien-
tists, scholars, intellectuals, and artists were aware of the role of politics and often tried
to avoid its negative influences on their creative work. Personal interests and the attrac-
tion of artistic challenge and creativity were for Balog and Vuji of greater importance
than the nationalist politics of their leaders, even though they were themselves active
agents of nationalization. It is thanks to this that they crossed inter-ethnic barriers and
thus enriched both Serbian and Hungarian culture. Moreover, Serbian-Hungarian col-
laboration represented an indirect contribution to the process of the Serbian national
renaissance, as proved by the reactions of certain Serbian newspapers. The positive
effects this collaboration had on the field of culture continued in the following decades.
Serbian readers demonstrated a keen interest in the Hungarian poets Sndor Petfi and
Jnos Arany, as well as the novelist Mr Jkai. Serbian theatregoers also appreciated
and enjoyed Hungarian plays, especially those of Jzsef Szigligeti. Furthermore, the im-
portance of Hungarian culture for Serbs is also apparent in that Hungarian educational
and cultural institutions served as models for Serbian intellectuals. In the same way,
Hungarians developed a respect for the beautiful Serbian folk poems and songs and
continued to develop their interest in Serbia and its culture.
An additional conclusion that may be drawn is that shared experiences between ethnic
communities had greater significance in the opening decades of the 19th century, in the
initial steps of the nation-building process, than after the 1830s. The joint history of the
Serbs and Hungarians in the social and political context of the Habsburg Empire com-
bined with similar contemporary cultural influences to foster communication between
them and make mutual tolerance and understanding easier to achieve. The strengthen-
ing of national identities and the development of political institutions founded upon
the new imagined communities created barriers between the until then relatively in-
terrelated intelligentsias and publics.
A final conclusion, is that in the second decade of the 19th century nationalist ideas
did not have the impact they would later achieve. Although the historical, political,
and ideological differences between the Serbs and Hungarians caused tension on the
political level and proved important for their respective leaders and politicians, this
was much less the case for the common people, the audience of plays. For the ordinary
people general moral and human values were more important. These included: friend-
ship and loyalty, the heroism of Karaore and Serbs, the fight for freedom and Chris-
tianity, and mercy. The huge success of the play Black George, during the same decades,
which witnessed an escalation of nationalism and international tensions, proves that
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 81

intercultural and human values could prevail over the nationalist agitation of political
leaders, despite the fact that they contributed to shape certain images of the communi-
ties represented. It also emphasizes the importance of personal, private, professional,
and business contacts among members of different ethnic groups. As was frequently
the case in the history of Serb-Hungarian relations during the 19th and 20th centuries,
these kinds of contacts, combined with positive individual attitudes, could significantly
improve Serb-Hungarian relations and in some cases even avoid violent conflict.

NOTES
1
For instance the following books: E. Arat, A magyarorszgi nemzetisgek nemzeti ideolgija [Nation-
al ideology of non-Hungarian ethnic communities in Hungary], Budapest 1983; Z. cs, Nemzetisgek a
trtnelmi Magyarorszgon [Nationalities in Hungary through the centuries], Budapest, 1996; . o,
. (eds.), - , A szerb-magyar kulturlis kapcsolatok
trtnetbl [Studies from in the History of Serbian-Hungarian relations], jvidk - Budapest 2003; .
, 1792-1849 [Serbians in the Habsburg Monarchy], Novi
Sad 1994; E. Niederhauser, A nemzeti megjhdsi mozgalmak kelet Eurpban [National Renaissance in
Eastern Europe], Budapest 1977; . Pal, Jugoslovenske teme i linosti u maarskim listovima asopisima i
beletristikim knjigama 1780-1825 [Yugoslavian topics and personalities in the newspapers and belleletristic
literature 1780-1825], unpublished doctoral thesis, Novi Sad 1987; . (ed.),
[Ethnic relations of Serbs with other Nations and eth-
nic communities], 1998; I. Pth, Peta i Budim kao srpska kulturna sredita u prvoj polovini 19.
veka, Budapest 1982; .. , [Serbs in Vojvodina], 1-3, Novi Sad 1990.
2
T. Jo, A magyar nemzeteszme, Szeged 1990, p. 72; cs Z., Nemzetisgek a trtnelmi Magyarorszgon,
Budapest 1986, p. 127; I. Csekei, A magyar nemzetfogalom, Budapest 1938, p. 133.
3
The Nemanji family ruled Serbia from 1169 to 1371. The founder of the dynasty was Stefan Nemanja
(1169-1196); his son Stefan Prvovenani (the First-Crowned), became the king of Raka in 1217.
His younger brother, Rastko (later canonized as St. Sava), became in 1219 the first archbishop of an in-
dependent Serbian Orthodox church. The succeeding Nemanji kings expanded the territory of Serbia
and built up the Serbian state. The greatest of the Nemanji kings was Stefan Duan, who conquered
Albania, Macedonia, and Montenegro in addition to Epirus, Aetolia, and Thessaly. He was crowned
emperor in 1346. Under the reign of Stefan Duans weak son and successor, Stefan Uro V (1355-
1371) the Serbian empire dissolved into fragments. The Serbian Orthodox Church later canonized all
the rulers of this dynasty.
4
V. ubrilovi, Istorija politike misli u Srbiji XIX veka, Belgrade 1982, pp. 28-33; D. Jankovi, Srpska
drava i nastajanje srpske nacije, in Postanak i razvoj srpske nacije (Neki metodoloko-teorijski problemi u
izuavanju nastanka i razvitka srpske nacije), Belgrade 1979, pp. 45-49; orovi V., Istorija Jugoslavije,
Belgrade 1989 (1933), pp. 312-313.
5
Corpus Juris Hungarici, vol. 1 (1000-1526), Budapest 1899, pp. 389, 589, 607, 609.
6
As a result of the civil war and the struggles against the Habsburgs and the Ottoman Kingdom, Hun-
gary was divided into three parts. The western regions came under rule of the Habsburg dynasty and
they were colloquially called The Kings Hungary; following the war of 1541-1547 the Ottoman
Empire annexed the middle section of the kingdom; finally, the eastern parts became the Principality
of Transylvania (in Hungarian Erdlyi Fejedelemsg), also under Ottoman rule.
7
According to the data published by C. , 18.
19. , in . (ed.), , 5-2, 1981, pp. 14-15 and
R. Ljuia, Istorija srpske dravnosti, knjiga II, Srbija i Crna Gora, Novi Sad 2001, pp. 27-28, 36-37.

Representations
82 Zoltn Gyre

8
S. Gavrilovi, Vojvodina i Srbija za vreme Prvog srpskog ustanka, Novi Sad 1974, p. 13-16.
9
., ., , I, Novi Sad 2002, pp. 324-331;
I. Romsics, Expanzionizmus s regionalizmus. Integrcis trekvsek kzp- s kelet Eurpban a 19-20.
szzadban Budapest 2000, pp. 10-12. . , , II,
, Novi Sad 2001, pp. 18-24.
10
A. Gergely, A magyar reformellenzk kialakulsa s megszilrdulsa 1830-1840, in M. Gyula (ed.), Mag-
yarorszg trtnete 1790-1848, 2, Budapest 1983, p. 700; I. Z. Dnes, A magyar liberlisok szellemi horizontja
s rtkvilga 1830-1848, in Szabadsg s nemzet, 1993, 130-131; L. Tkczky, (ed.), Magyar liberaliznus
(Maarski liberalizam), Budapest 1993, 515; Z. Fnagy, Wesselnyi Mikls, Budapest 1999, pp. 84-86.
11
Cs. Bdi, Nemzetfelfogs a magyar politikai gondolkodsban, in Trtnelem s nemzet, Budapest 1996, p. 5.
12
A. Hegeds, A kivltsgolt szerb nemzet a 18-19.szzadban Magyarorszgon [The privileged Serbs in
Hungary in 18-19th centuries], in I. Zombori (ed.), A szerbek Magyarorszgon [Serbs in Hungary],
Szeged 1991, p. 127.
13
I. Szts (ed.), Szemere Bertalan miniszterelnk emlkiratai az 1848/49 iki magyar kormnyzat
nemzetisgi politikjrl, Budapest 1941, pp. 76-77.
14
George Petrovic or in Serbian, ore Petrovi (1762-1817), leader of the Serbian people in their stru-
ggle for independence from the Ottomans, and founder of the Karaorevi dynasty. In spring 1804
the Serbs rose up against the tyrannical regime of the Janissaries and chose Karaore to be their leader.
After defeating the Janissaries, whom the Sultan regarded as rebels, the Serbs claimed political auto-
nomy. When Selim refused their demands, Karaore started a war of independence in 1805. After
significant military successes and the declaration of a Serbian constitution, the State Council declared
Karaore the first and supreme Serbian hereditary leader.. After 1809, under military and diploma-
tic pressure from the Ottomans, the revolt lost strength and was finally defeated in 1813. A sick and
broken man, Karaore fled to Austria and later went to Russia. He secretly returned to Serbia hoping
to organize an uprising against the Turks in alliance with Greek patriots, but the the Serb leader, Milo
Obrenovi, had him murdered in his sleep..
15
J. Szentptery (ed.), Magyar Kdex 4, Budapest 2000, p. 284.
16
Serbske Narodne Novine, 15 August 1840, 65, p. 257.
17
August (Friedrich Ferdinand) von Kotzebue, 1761-1819, was a highly influential German playwright.
His works are characterized by melodrama and sentimental philosophy. Because of his murder by a mem-
ber of a radical student organization, Karl Sand, stricter censorship was imposed on German universities.
18
The travelling company leaded by playwright Gyrgy Felvinczy, which received a permit from emperor
Leopold I in 1696, is considered the first Hungarian professional travelling theatre company.
19
S. umarevi, Theatre with Serbs, 1939, p. 68.
20
J. Vuji (1772-1847) was one of the most productive Serbian dramatists and writers. He is known as the
Father of Serbian Theatre.
21
B.S. Stojkovi, Istorija srpskog pozorita od srednjeg veka do modernog doba, Belgrade 1977, p. 31.
22
Magyar Orszgos Levltr, Kancellria, Acta praesidialia, A 45, 278, 1847/105.
23
Serbske Narodne Novine, 17, 5 March, 1842/65.
24
Arat Endre, A magyarorszgi nemzetisgek nemzeti ideolgija, Budapest 1983, p. 70.
25
, (?) , in .o-. ,
- , A szerb-magyar kulturlis kapcsolatok trtnetbl, jvidk - Buda-
pest 2003, pp.189-190.
26
J. Ksa, A nagyar nacionalizmus kialakulsa, Budapest 1937, pp. 23-24.
27
Pal andor, Jugoslovenske teme i linosti u maarskim listovima asopisima i beletristikim knjigama
1780-1825, pp. 401-403.
 Karaore Among the Hungarians 83

28
Z. Gyre, Maarski i srpski nacionalni preporod [Hungarian and Serbian national renaissance 1790-
1849], Novi Sad 2005, unpublished doctoral thesis, pp. 290-295.
29
The First Serbian Uprising of 1804-1813 was the first autonomous revolt against Ottoman rule by
the Serbian people within the territory of former Kingdom of Serbia in modern times. During it, the
Serbian state was temporarily restored. Shortly afterward, in 1815, followed the Second Serbian Upris-
ing, Russian diplomatic pressure aided the definitive re-establishment of Serbian statehood in 1830.
30
Vuk Stefanovi Karadi (1787-1864), Serbian language scholar and folklorist, and participant in the
First Serbian Uprising. He became famous as the founder of modern Serbian literary language, based
on colloquial Serbian language (instead of the mixture of archaic Serbian and Russian Church Slavic
language), as well as the author of a Serbian Grammar (1814) and Dictionary (1818). He also translated
the New Testament.
31
Gyre, Maarski i srpski nacionalni preporod cit., p 296.
32
Istvn Balog (1790-1873), actor, playwright, and director. Founder of the most important Hungarian
itinerant theatre, he was also the most popular playwright and actor of the early 19th century. His first
drama was the Black George.
33
P. andor, Jugoslovrenske teme i linosti u maasrkim listovima, asopisima i beletristici 1780-1825, un-
published doctoral dissertation, Novi Sad 1987, pp. 222-225.
34
The name Karaore in English means Black George. The original Hungarian title of the play was Cerny
Gyur vagy Belgrdnak megvtele a trkktl.
35
andor, Jugoslovrenske teme i linosti u maasrkim listovima, asopisima i beletristici 1780-1825 cit., p. 298.
36
I. Balog, Egy agg magyar szinsz letbl [autobiography of Istvn Balog], Mak 1927, p. 67.
37
, , in: .. o-. (ed.),
- , A szerb-magyar kulturlis kapcsolatok trtnetbl, jvidk - Buda-
pest 2003, p.179.
38
Hungarians usually called Serbs from the Ottoman Empire Rc and their lands as Rcorszg, following
medieval usage when the Serbian state was known as Rascia in Latin or Raka in Serbian. Gradually, the
meaning of the word Rc was extended to Serbs in Hungary. In the 19th century as the Serbian national
revival gained strength, the Serbs insisted on the ethnonym Serb, and rejected Rc as offensive.
39
, , in
, Novi Sad 1961, p. 45.
40
Ibid., p. 45.
41
However, it should be emphasized that the above-mentioned translation was not published until Ale-
ksandar Karaorevi ascended the throne in 1843.
42
Petrovaradin was the suburb by the Danube, which housed the strategically important fortress opposite
Novi Sad. After the end of the First Serbian Uprising, its leader, Karaore, was for a while imprisoned
in this fortress.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
cs Z., Nemzetisgek a trtnelmi Magyarorszgon [Nationalities in the Historic Hungary], Budapest
1986.
Arat E., A feudlis nemzetisgtl a polgri nemzetig [From Feudal Concept of the Nation to Civil Con-
cept], Budapest 1975.
., 1848. 19.
,[European influences upon Serbian Liberalism from 1848 to Eighties of the 19th Century], Novi
Sad 2006.

Representations
84 Zoltn Gyre

., 1792-1849 [Serbs in the Habsburg Monarchy 1792-

1849], Novi Sad 1994.
Kefer I., Veselinovi-ulc M., Junoslovenski narodi u Maarskoj periodici 1780-1800 [South-Slavic Na-
tions in Hungarian Newspapers 1780-1800], Novi Sad 1993.
Ksa L. (ed.), Magyar mveldstrtnet [History of Hungarian Culture], Budapest 2001.
Kosry D., jjpts s polgrosods 1711-1867 [Reconstruction and civil transformation 1711-1867],
Budapest 1990.
.., 19. 20. [Serbs and Hungarians], Toronto 1975.
o ., ., - [Excerpts from the History of
Serbian-Hungarian Cultural Relations], jvidk - Budapest 2003.
Id., [Excerpts From History of Serbian Theatre], Novi Sad
1991.
., . [The History of Serbian Statehood], Novi
Sad 2001.
Niderhauser E., Szsz Z. (eds.), Nemzeti s etnikai kisebbsgek Magyarorszgon [The National and Ethnic
Minorities in Hungary], Budapest 1998.
. (ed.) [Ethnical Rela-
tions of Serbs with other Nations and Ethnic Communities], Belgrade 1998.
Id. ( ed.), - [Ethnic and Ethno-
Cultural Contacts in the Pannonian-Carpathian Region], Belgrade 1997.
., - 19. , [Serbian-Hungarian Cultural
Relations in 19th Century. Studies About Serbs], Gorin Milanovich - Belgrade - Novi Sad 1993.
Vrs K., A magyar np kulturlis lete [Cultural Life of Hungarians], in Mrei G. (ed.), Magyarorszg
trtnete 1790-1848 [The History of Hungary 1790-1848], Budapest 1983, pp. 1055-1148.
., [Serbian National Theatre in Vojvodina], Novi Sad
1953.
1861-1961 [Repertory of Studies Concerning the
History of Yugoslav Theatres 1861-1961], Novi Sad 1961.
Zombori I. (ed.), A szerbek Magyarorszgon [Serbs in Hungary], Szeged 1991.