POLITICAL ANTI-SEMTISM IN HUNGARY

1875 – 1890

THE EMERGENCE OF POLITICAL ANTI-SEMITISM

The year 1875 was a year of changes and transformation in Hungarian political life. It became clear to many that the middle-nobility party had become unable to implement its programmes or to catch the illusions attached to it. With the dissolution of the Deák party an opportunity arose for the emergence of new parties, and the independence of various political groups. Medium landowners, who had formed the backbone of the party, were looking for a way out, either by accepting the “common cause” system, joining the freethinking Szabadelvű Párt, or by being forced into Opposition, joining the independence party Függetlenségi Párt. But there were some, who were hoping to solve the country’s economic and social problems not by supporting or rejecting the common cause system, but by exploiting the sub-surface tensions, and sought to solve critical problems through anti-Semitism.

Such a person was the Deák party member Győző Istóczy, who became a Szabadelvű Párt MP, and who was an archetypal small landowner. The Istóczy family had estates in Dömöri, in Vas County. The Istóczys of Püspökefő and Kürtös were old gentry families in the county – the title was handed to Lukács Istóczy in 1575 by King Miksa I. Members of the family had always been actively involved in the life of the county. Győző Istóczy’s father was second prosecutor in the county. The family estate, which had shrunk substantially (to about 100 acres), was managed by Győző Istóczy’s mother after his father’s early death. He attended school in Szombathely, and showed artistic tendencies: he studied music, painting, wrote prose and edited a paper during his student years. He attended university in Budapest and Pécs, read law, but did not receive his doctorate until thirty years later, in 1896, because of the unpopularity of the title after the Bach period. In 1867 he became a Justice of the Peace in the Vasvár area. Based in Vasvár, he spared no money or effort to become elected representative of the Rum constituency in the same year. He had thus run the course an “ambitious gentry” could hope to run: county office, public role, then a mandate.

As a JP, in 1870 he organised the auction of the Baltavár estate, where a member of a rich local Jewish family registered in the name of his father, and subsequently Istóczy annulled the results of the auction, arguing that the son had had no authorisation from his father. Prices were much lower at the repeated auction, and creditors of the estate sued Istóczy for 60,000 forints, who in turn sued for fraud the Jewish man who had used his father’s name without authorisation. The lawsuit, which dragged out for years, was ended by the Supreme Court, which exonerated Istóczy. This case, a personal insult for him, was often cited by Istóczy – on several occasions in the House of Representatives – as an excuse for the launch of the anti-Semitic movement. It is characteristic of the proportion of personal injury to the incitement of hatred that was launched that he himself quoted Justice Minister Tivadar Pauler: Kleine Ursachen, grosse Wirkungen (Small reasons, big effects).

Initially he expounded on his anti-Semitic views in his speeches in Parliament. His first such speech was delivered before MPs on 8^th April, 1875. Increasingly noticeable economic and political crises formed a background to his speech, the pretext was the Parliamentary debate on an Israelite school fund. Istóczy submitted his interpellation on the nationalisation act with reference to this issue, the prolonged argument of his speech was already laced with a harsh attack against Jews. He warned that Jews, through steady immigration, proliferation and the economic power they carved out were threatening to outweigh Hungarians. Jews, he said, were a closed social stratum, “bound into a tightly wound whole by blood, traditions passed through the ages, a common interests and religion… This caste is striving to subject the non-Jewish peoples, to rule the world.” He proposed the introduction of a new political notion along with “liberalism, conservatism, the international brotherhood of workers,” that of Judaism, or in a larger scope that of “pan-Judaism”. “Judaism,” he argued, is an extremely dangerous movement, its weapons are misleading. Jews are in fact the most aristocratic race, they have adopted the banners of democracy and liberalism in order to corrupt Christian society, so that it can be all the more successful in establishing “the most hideous form of aristocracy, plutocracy.” The primary weapon of Jews in their fight for power, beside the power of money, was the press. The opposition of Neolog and Orthodox Jews was simply pretended. The two opposing directions, he said, were “the two blades of the scissors, which originate in the same place and have the same goal, the more opposed they appear, the more we feel their blades on our necks.” Fundamentally, Jews represent the principle of social and economic “tyranny.” Using these and similar arguments, not failing to mention Shylock, to misquote and quote out of context alarming passages from the Talmud, the MP, with his twisted logic, called for state intervention against Jews in the name of “freedom of conscience, modern culture and progress.” “The same way as we demanded the state to protect us, in the name of its achievements in economic progress, from the « International », a movement that answers to international orders, …so we demand that the state abandon the policy of « laissez passer, laissez faire » in the face of the internationally commanded Judaism, and to return to the policy it had followed before emancipation.”

In his interpellation he demanded answers for three questions. The first was: is the government prepared to amend the nationalisation act with a passage that could halt the immigration and settling of Galician Jews in Hungary. Furthermore: “what kind of reception could be expected from Government to a «self-defence movement» launched by non-Jews directed … against the Jews”. And finally, he asked defiantly, whether based on its experiences garnered since emancipation, the Government was prepared to abandon the policy of complete neutrality and apathy.²

In his answer delivered on 12^th April, Prime Minister Béla Wenckheim announced that Government felt it necessary to regulate the issue of incolatus (citizenship), but “not specifically or exclusively against the immigration of Jews,” but in general. He said that the Government would furthermore “support all movements with a laudable aim.” But that it would indeed be forced to assume a hostile position in the face of any movement, which disturbed or aimed to disturb in any way the peaceful understanding between, and the mutual respect for the rights of the country’s different Churches and religions or citizens pertaining thereto.”³ The Government’s position was one of rejection.

Istóczy’s first speech itself showed that he was familiar with foreign anti-Semitic literature, and continued to expand the arsenal of his arguments with thoughts adopted from foreign “masters”. This is reflected in his speech delivered on 17^th December, 1875, in which – using a trade treaty signed with Romania as a pretext – he put forward the most common accusation: usury and the destruction of the people through various means, including Pálinka. In this passage, as in the one detailing the situation in Romania, he follows Du Mesnil Marigny’s book,⁴ whose pamphlet “Of the Jews” he had translated and published in the same year.

Lajos Csernátony responded to his speech among much approval from the House, and rejected the accusations.

During the general debate on the amendment of the Usury Act on 23^rd January 1877, Istóczy took the floor and decried liberal economic theories.

Istóczy, who had so far enjoyed no importance either as speaker in Parliament or a public figure, was now noticed by his fellow MPs. Many of them thought his anti-Semitic views a political eccentricity, the sign of a maverick, and often greeted his outraged speeches with “hilarity”, did not take him seriously. His attention-grabbing speeches led to the emergence of hitherto latent anti-Semitic passions in the House, and encouraged concealed anti-Semitic attitudes. One of the goals of his performances in the House was to propagate anti-Semitic propaganda, and thus he paid careful attention to having his speeches published accurately, word-for-word. “Istóczy always gives his speech to the stenographer in writing. He passionately monitors the interjections strangers introduced into his speech, and places even greater emphasis on including all anti-Semitic remarks and exclamations uttered here-and-there during the speeches of others. Woe betide the stenographer if the odd such utterance is left out,” the great Parliamentary chronicler of the age, Kálmán Mikszáth wrote of Istóczy. Mikszáth’s “Honourable House” monographs give a credible impression of Istóczy’s performance in Parliament, and the way it was received: “You could hear a fly buzzing in the utter silence when Győző Istóczy stands to speak. He speaks calmly, it seems, but his staccato delivery betrays his turbulent passion. His pale, peaceful face never flushes, but his voice sometimes falters in excitement. The occasional drop of sweat rolls down his wide, angular forehead, drawn not by the speaker’s passion, but by the loathing that shines brightly in his grey eyes. Representatives, whichever party they may be in, have imperceptibly grown a new nerve, which is teased and tickled by anti-Semitism.”⁵ But Parliament’s vociferous hilarity, Government’s rejection, and the apathy of the press all failed to discourage Istóczy.

He delivered his “Palestinian Speech” on 24^th June, 1878, and submitted a proposal to repatriate Jews refusing to assimilate in Palestine. To support this plan, which showed him ahead of his times, he enlisted the arguments of World History, Biology and Anthropology: “There is a single foreign element in the Christian Europe,” he noted early on in his speech. “And it is the Jews, working on the daring plan to achieve power over the European peoples and to force them into the yoke.” He cited statistics to prove the fast proliferation of Jews, and to prove that “beside a great number of ailments that cruelly destroy us, the Jew is spared even by the Cholera and other epidemics.” In order to support his statement, he quoted a study, “De ha mee juive”, published in Revue de France on 31^st October, 1875. He then posed the question: were the Hungarians, who survived the destruction meted out by the Turks and Tartars, survived the Austrian absolute monarchy, planning to celebrate a thousand years of statehood to write their testament for the next century, in which they make Jews their general heirs?” If the Hungarian nation is protective of its political supremacy, it will all the more refuse to tolerate being completely ruined by the Jews, and thus, and in other ways, make the nation’s very existence a question. And to make sure he was not misunderstood, he openly said that if his repatriation proposal is not approved, and “the nation of the country has nothing left but the ultima ratio: we will not draw the shortest straw… Next to each other, one or the other, in keeping with the natural necessity of things, must be destroyed: this is the alternative.”⁶

The pretext of the speech was the conference of the great powers in Berlin, called to discuss the general state of Europe. Istóczy proposed that the great powers put the idea of repatriation to Palestine on the agenda of the conference, and in order to achieve this, he endeavoured to enlist the help of the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy’s diplomatic corps. Minister for Religion and Education Ágoston Trefort responded in two sentences on behalf of the Government: he expressed regret that doctrines in contract with the House’s humanitarian principles were expounded in the House, and expressed his hope that the entire speech will have been delivered without trace or echo. ⁷ In this, however, Trefort was mistaken. The new “principle” did not disappear without a trace or echo. Although Istóczy retracted his proposal, he switched to a new method.

His experiences in Parliament prompted him to conclude that his ideas must be put before the greater public, in order to attract the support of the discontented medium- and small-holders and small manufacturers most heavily hurt by the great economic depression. The best option seemed to be to create a paper to expound his political views. In spring 1878 he launched the weekly Jövőnk (Our Future). He was, however, forced to wind up the paper in August of the same year, having run out of steam in this risky and costly endeavour in five months.

Because the time was not right for expansion in the press, he started to organise anti-Semitic groups and clubs. The agitation campaign was not entirely without success. Catholic priests from the lower levels of the Church, medium landowners, university students flocked around him in increasing numbers from around the country. He decided it was time to set up the Hungarian association of non-Jews, a group which, he planned, would accommodate everyone, irrespective of social position or party affiliation. On 28^th January 1880, in a speech in Parliament, Istóczy launched an attack against corruption, then announced that he completed a draft of the planned association’s articles of incorporation. MPs did not allow him to read out the draft, but he received much wider publicity than he would have in the House, when the next day the daily Egyetértés (Understanding) published the draft in its “Parliament” section. ⁸

It is worthwhile examining this verbose proposal, because it already includes much of the aims and goals, and their proposed methods of implementation, of the subsequent anti-Semitic party, which emerged from the movement. Here is the first admission of the subsequently often-denied fact that the movement followed and copied the example seen in Germany, and admitted that domestic forces were insufficient to assist the development of the movement, and expressed a reliance on support from foreign anti-Semites. Istóczy had by then often described the terrifying vision of Jews threatening Hungary, even the whole of Europe with complete domination. This also served the purpose of rendering the anti-Semitic movement acceptable and justified. And while the Jewish community – especially in Hungary – had a much greater role in the emergence of the bourgeoisie than its numbers would have indicated, knowing the structure of society, the deliberate distortions aimed to place the blame firmly on the Jews for every socio-economic hardship, while ignoring the role and responsibility of the ruling large landowner class, were obvious.

Anti-Semitic leaders continued to insist on the rule of law, even in the midst of the wildest incitement to hatred. To describe the connection between the leadership demanding the appearance of legality and the organisation of the movement, it suffices to mention the news report from January, which gave account of “suspicious incitements in the lower strata of the people against the Jews” in the capital. “It was also reported that such agitation of a similar aim were also being committed in some villages by people who have departed from the capital.” ⁹

The movement continued to rely heavily on attacks in Parliament and the press, and attempted to develop its network in the countryside. The plan openly admitted a struggle or rivalry, while it assured the movement’s most loyal allies, the small bourgeoisie, of its support. The draft spoken openly of the fight of rivalry, and ensured the most loyal allies of the movement, the petit bourgeoisie of its support. Its attacks and threats against “Jewfriends” were so far limited, and quite lame compared to the vulgar voice later used by some anti-Semitic journalists. The fifth point, which stressed the association’s political neutrality, was entered into the draft in the hope that it would make it easier to earn the Government’s approval. It did not happen that way. As Istóczy noted bitterly in an interview with Egyetértés, there was no opportunity to hand in the draft, and thus he come to the conclusion that “it is therefore necessary that the country influence the capital in this matter, and grab the initiative.”¹⁰

The movement this attempted to reach its goal in the countryside, having failed in the capital. It was not entirely unsuccessful. The situation seemed especially favourable in Pozsony. Here, independent MP Iván Simonyi had long been preparing public opinion – which, as we have seen, had displayed its sympathy for the ideas in the past – for the reception of anti-Semitic ideals. In his paper, the Westungarischer Grenzboie he had initially discussed farming problems, and expressed his views that the cause of general poverty and corruption were not the Jews, but the unfair advantages enjoyed by the moneyed classes over landowners, and as large capital holders were mostly Jewish, the hatred against Jews increased in line with their accumulation of wealth. He believed the solution of the problem lay in Jews becoming landowners. Beside agricultural issues he addressed more and more the problems of manufacturers, and he was one of the first to hail Istóczy’s anti-Semitic stance. As a result of the farming crisis the Függetlenségi Párt focused more firmly on the problems of agriculture in the first halt of the 80’s. As a result anti-Semitic ideals became more widespread within the party.

The anti-Semitic feeling of many members of the Függetlenségi Párt is underlined by the fact that the otherwise liberal paper Egyetértés – as we have seen before – published Istóczy’s anti-Semitic treatises. Soon anti-Semitic ideals found a much greater exponent in the talented young MP Gyula Verhovay, who had shown great promise earlier. Verhovay was born in 1849 in Nátafalva in Zemplén County. He studies law in Budapest, and worked as a junior clerk in the Ministry of Defence. He became a nationally known as a journalist by the age of twenty-six: he published in the Ellenőr (Guardian), then went over to Egyetértés after the Union of 1875, delivering polemic articles against the Union and Lajos Csernátony, a trusted ally of Prime Minister Kálmán Tisza, and journalist with the semi-official Government paper Nemzet (Nation). He achieved great popularity in this time and earned the moniker of “little Kossuth”. During the Russo-Turkish war he led the pro-Turkish demonstrations, and was incarcerated pending investigation between 20^th December 1877 and 2^nd February 1878. This, however, only served to increase his popularity. In 1878 three constituencies nominated him as their representative, and he chose the Cegléd nomination, a mandate of great tradition. During this year he published a series of harsh editorials, which were already rife with pompous pronouncements – against the strengthening Tsarist oppression, and the German emperor’s efforts to crush socialist-democratic stirrings in Germany. He attacked Andrássy’s foreign policy, sarcastically terming his position adopted during the Russo-Turkish war “porcelain policy”. He attacked the Tisza Government’s domestic policies, fought for the abolition of restrictions on freedom of movement/meeting, defended the non-voters’ party Nemválasztók Pártja and the workers’ weekly Munkás Heti Krónika. Already in this period, however, his liberal writings started to show demagogue attitudes, which later came to dominate all his public statements. His fidgetiness led him into conflict with Károly Eötvös, prompting him to leave Egyetértés in 1879. On 14^th December of the same year he published the first issue of his paper the Függetlenség (Independence). The paper was launched with an independent platform, and initially its most fervent supporters were Ottó Hermann and Pál Hoitsy.

Immediately after its appearance, the Függetlenség launched an attack on the national casino Nemzeti Kaszinó, calling its members “brigands in tailcoats”. The articles were penned by Pál Hoitsy and Lajos Hentaller, but upon provocation by Earl Izidor Majthényi, representative and best shot of the insulted Casino, Verhovay was prepared to duel to satisfy his honour. Verhovay was gravely wounded in the duel and lay in bed in a critical condition for weeks. It is characteristic of his popularity that stormy protests were launched against the Nemzeti Kaszinó. The protests were started by the workers, but they were soon outnumbered by university students, shop assistants and apprentices. The protests, which lasted for days and claimed some lives¹¹ were held in the name of Verhovay, although they signalled the eruption of long-harboured dissatisfactions. While Verhovay convalesced Ottó Hermann and Pál Hoitsy edited the paper. After his recovery Verhovay went on a roundtrip of large cities nationwide, where he was hailed as a hero. He resumed his editorial work, but he soon drove Hermann and Hoitsy from the paper with his contentious nature. He joined the anti-Semitic movement with all his passion, and his paper became the main forum for incitement of anti-Jewish sentiment, he put his vitriolic style in the service of the two anti-Semitic leaders Istóczy and Ónódy. His paper continued to attract many readers – and successfully misled many people – because it connected demands for independence with anti-Semitic slogans. He had long ceased to be “little Kossuth”, and turned into an unprincipled demagogue. However, thanks to his paper, he remained a power to be reckoned with.¹²

At the end of the 70’s the two-decade-long farming boom was coming to an end, the first signs of a crisis were becoming apparent. Anti-Semitic sentiments found some sympathy in the circle of discontents, pushed into the background by the emergence of capitalism, but Istóczy failed to develop a large movement, in spite of all his efforts. All he achieved was that fellow MPs who agreed with his principles formed a group of sympathisers around him, which formed the core of the group, which eventually evolved into a party. These were primarily Függetlenségi Párt members Iván Simonyi, Géza Ónody Gézáról and Gyula Verhovay. Others were on-and-off members as their interests dictated. The events of the early 80’s, however, proved a fertile soil for anti-Semitic feeling, and Istóczy and his allies did not fail to avail of the opportunities that presented themselves.

Foreign events gave a great boost to the development of the Hungarian movement. Anti-Jewish organisations proliferated in Germany, writings discussing the Race Question appeared in print, the petition movement was launched, demanding that Government decide on state intervention. With the Tsar’s tacit approval bloody and violent pogroms were held in Russia, and Galicia filled up with people fleeing in panic, some of them travelling on to some northern counties in Hungary. Although the immigration was of a temporary nature – concurrently the number of emigrating Jews was on the rise – it drew public attention to the foreigners, noticeable in their strange clothes, with their unfamiliar behaviour and foreign speech. The immigrants were mostly poor, and initially sought refuge in poor northern villages. It was around this time that rural papers started publishing articles calling for action against the growth of the Jewish community. In the meantime, the anti-Semitic movement was gaining ground in Austria, meetings were frequent, which often turned into vociferous protests necessitating police intervention.

Istóczy followed these events with careful attention and was not inactive himself. In the new session of Parliament he again raised the issue of the Israelite school fund, giving him a pretext to reiterate his anti-Semitic views on 11^th March 1880, leaning heavily on the latest literary output of the German anti-Semitic movement. He had charged his book dealer with acquiring these writings immediately upon their publication in Germany. Not only did he buy all books, he subscribed to all foreign brochures and anti-Semitic magazines and papers, so that he could better follow the development of the movement. In his speech in Parliament he again explained that he regarded the Jewish Question not as a religious issue, but as an economic, political and social problem, in other words, an issue of power, claiming that Jews formed a separate caste, a separate people, or more specifically a separate race. The anti-Semitic arsenal acquired a new weapon, that of the Race Question, which remained a cornerstone of Istóczy’s beliefs to the last. In the rest of his speech he launched a violent attack on the recurring issue of civil marriages, and took an unflinching stance against all forms of assimilation. ¹³

He was no longer satisfied with Parliamentary appearances, he started publishing petitions, held lectures and had another attempt at running a paper, founding the monthly brochure 12 Röpirat (12 Pamphlets) on 15^th October 1880. This pamphlet, which regarded itself as one of scientific standards and an adherent to historical accuracy – the scientific nature of which ended with falsifying Jewish religious texts, its historical accuracy with the invention of events that never happened – had as its primary function the incitement of hatred. The first number, called “Beköszöntő” (An Introduction), featured a writing by Istóczy, in which he said “in 1878 we soon noticed that we were but a lone cry in the desert and we «blew retreat». But we were disappointed again: but this time the disappointment was pleasant... our words found an echo, although not in our country, but in Germany, thereby being heard in the entire educated world… The anti-Semitic movement, which came to life in Germany in 1878/9, and which spread into Russia and elsewhere, could not remain without effect in Hungary.”¹⁴ He created the illusion that he, Istóczy was the creator of the international anti-Semitic movement, or, if you like, the father of political anti-Semitism. He often preened in this role, having been convinced of the importance of his role by foreign anti-Semitic papers’ articles full of praise for him. A proof of intensive connections with the foreign, especially German, anti-Semitic movements is an open letter published in Berlin’s Anti-Semitic League, which expressed its thanks and approval for his “forceful actions against the Semitic intrusions” and offered cooperation. “Let us fight and win arm in arm,” it exclaimed. ¹⁵ This fight, “arm in arm” remained a regular programme for the next half-century.

Speeches delivered to university students bore their fruit in 1881, on 10^th February a group of 25 students approached Istóczy in the House of Representatives and handed to him the greetings of the anti-Semitic youth, signed by 234 university students.¹⁶ The signers included hardly any people from Budapest, the names of people from all around the country was affixed to the document. These included 148 law students, 56 medicine students, 16 pharmacist, 11 humanities and 3 engineering students. They were not satisfied by simply expressing their sympathy for the movement, they adopted as their cause the hindering of Jewish students in their work at the universities. As a preparation, they called a meeting for 17^th February, which was however banned by the Minister of the Interior. Istóczy delivered an interpellation in the matter on 3^rd March, addressed to Kálmán Tisza, who was Minister for the Interior – as well as PM – and did not fail to grab the opportunity to detail the “sins” of the Jews in his lengthy speech, giving much time to analysis of a book entitled “Der Talmudjude”. The author, dr. August Rohling, a seminary teacher from Prague, was respected by anti-Semites as a foremost authority, while the whole scientific world regarded him with contempt. Finally he was forced to resign his chair. Of him, Masaryk later wrote: “Rohling and his companions can hardly read Hebrew text, instead they plagiarise Bisenmenger, an anti-Semite from two hundred years ago, and invent their own Talmud scholars, like “Rabbi Moldavos”¹⁸ At the end of his speech Istóczy argued that the Penal Code did not ban “incitement to racial hatred”, thus anti-Semitism, under our laws, cannot be sanctioned by law, therefore anti-Semitic meetings could be legally held. In his reply Kálmán Tisza condemned anti-Semitic meetings and announced that the prevention of the proliferation of racial hatred “was the duty of the Government, that of the current one and all future Governments alike.”¹⁹

There followed a brief hiatus in Istóczy’s Parliamentary appearances, because, although he spared no effort, he failed to organise the anti-Semitic movement into a party in time for the 1881 Parliamentary Elections. Anti-Semitic propaganda, however, reached an ever wider section of Hungary’s population.

THE EMERGENCE OF POLITICAL ANTI-SEMITISM

¹ Istóczy Győző: A magyar Antiszemita Párt megsemmisítése és ennek következményei (The Destruction of the Hungarian Anti-Semitic Party and Its Consequences). Budapest, 1906. pp 3.

² Képviselőházi Napló (Parliamentary Diary), 1872-1875. vol. XVI. pp 82.

³ Same, pp. 218.

⁴ Mérei Gyula: Magyar politikai pártprogramok (Hungarian Political Party Platforms). Budapest 1934. pp. 148.

⁵ Mikszáth Kálmán Művei (The Works of Kálmán Mikszáth). Vol. 14. Politikai karcolatok (Politicla Monographs). 1881-1908. Budapest 1969. pp. 216., 208-209.

⁶ Képviselőházi Napló (Parliamentary Diary), 1875-1878. vol. XVIII. pp 291., 4.

⁷ Same.

⁸ The draft articles of incorporation consisted of three parts. The first part defined the aim of the association:

“1. § Following the example of the bourgeoning anti-Semitic movement of Germany, a central society will be formed in the country’s capital Budapest under the name of “Central society of the association of Hungarian non-Jews” to comprise members of Parliament and other non-Jews, having set aside all conflicting interests and opposing party affiliations, arm in arm with future branches in the countryside, with the goal of …protecting the country from further economic and moral ruin inflicted upon our country by Jews…

2. § It is self-evident that the society will endeavour to achieve this goal in the strictest legal manner with allowable means only. Therefore, the society will avoid all violence and incitement to violence, which would only hurt the cause anyway.

3. § The society will use the following means to achieve its goals:

a.) it will ensure that the Jewish Question is continuously brought up in the legislative chambers and in the press, until the question is completely resolved…

b.) it will set up branches in both the capital and the countryside, which will be under the commandment and protection of the central society …”

The first part also discussed the society’s emblem, and in a fifth point declared that the society was a non-political organisation. The second part of the draft set down the rules of membership. A point of interest is the seventh point, which rules that alongside public members, “Jews converted to Christianity and other individuals of Semitic origins who, by working to achieve the society’s aims have become worthy,” may become secret members. “Such members, however… have no right to participate in the management of the society.” The third part, dealing with the management of the society, ruled, among others, that “The society will be in contact with, or possibly cooperate with foreign societies of a similar aim. The opponent, which the society battles, being an international, or rather cosmopolitan power, the society believes it can achieve its goals through international, universal organisation.” (Egyetértés, 29^th January 1880.)

⁹ Egyetértés, 17^th January 1880.

¹⁰ Egyetértés 15^th February 1880.

¹¹ The victim of the protests on 14^th January 1880. was Adolf Schwarz, 19, a Jewish law student. (Egyetértés, 15^th January 1880.)

¹² Mór Szatmári: Húsz esztendő parlamenti viharai (Parliamentary Storms of Twenty Years). Budapest 1928. pp. 41.

¹³ Képviselőházi napló (Parliamentary Diary), 1878-1880. vol. XI. pp. 45.

¹⁴ 12 Röpirat (12 Pamphlets), 15^th October 1880. pp. 2.

¹⁵ 12 Röpirat (12 Pamphlets), 15^th November 1880. pp. 34.

¹⁶ 12 Röpirat (12 Pamphlets), 15^th February 1881. pp. 4., 9.

¹⁷ Képviselőházi napló (Parliamentary Diary), 1878-1881. vol. XVII. pp. 268, 273.

¹⁸ T.G. Masaryk: Az antiszemitizmus (Anti-Semitism), Bratislava 1935. pp. Quotes the article “Wesen und Entstcllung der Ritualmord-Anklage” published in Die Zeit on 24^th March 1908.

¹⁹ Képviselőházi napló (Parliamentary Diary), 1878-1881. vol. XVII. pp. 275.

THE TISZAESZLÁR TRIAL

Between 1880 and 1882 the Hungarian champions of anti-Semitism tried many approaches to achieve results. Although they had some successes, they failed to organise the movement into an independent party. The editorial writings published in 12 Röpirat featured several veiled allusions to the use of a more radical method, which was “not yet opportune.” We cannot establish with definite certainty that the deliberately obscure allusions to the “method” was the blood-libel, but the hypothesis is given basis in fact by some of the articles published in 12 Röpirat, from the coy hints in passages of “The Talmud” printed in the first issue, to the most brainless allegations, through lazy malicious hints and open accusations. ²

The leaders of the anti-Semitic movement thus ensured that the concept of the blood-libel does not remain unknown to the readers of the magazine. Soon, an opportunity arose for widespread anti-Semitic incitement.

On 1^st April 1882., Mrs Andárs Huri’s maid Eszter, the 14-year old daughter of the widowed Mrs Solymosi disappeared in Tiszaeszlár. The Jewish Pesach fell on this particular day, and Jewish families were having guests for the celebration, as well as the induction of the circumciser. The Jewish residents of neighbouring villages also flocked to the Tiszaeszlár synagogue.

Small maids had disappeared before, and apart from their immediate family, practically nobody gave a thought to what may have come of them. The news-starved press was only interested in high-society weddings, hunts, balls and theatre gossip, and devoted little or no space to those who wandered off or took their own lives.

This time, it did not happen this way. The day of the anti-Semites had come. The Tiszaeszlár case was dragged through the country like a horrifying burning sheaf³. The blood-libel was renewed, the superstitious, mystical allegation from the middle-ages, which claimed the lives of countless accused. Its effect had not yet worn off, and it resuscitated superstitious ideas about the religious rituals of Jews. The mystery of the rituals, incomprehensible to outsiders, gave fertile soil to fantasy and false interpretations. The instinctive fear, reversion, hostility and superstitious ignorance was exploited by the inciters, many of whom had repeated the allegation of ritual murder until they themselves came to believe it.

How did the allegation emerge, what formed its basis? Eszter Solymosi was sent by her mistress to the village to buy paint for the approaching Spring cleaning. On her way back, she would have passed by the synagogue, and she did meet people on her way back, a witness even put her on the dyke running past the Jewish temple. But the girl never returned to Mrs Huri’s, who called on Mrs Solymosi to check if Eszter had returned home. The mother set off to find her daughter, to return unsuccessful, in tears to the village at night. When she passed by the Synagogue, the Jewish József Scharf stopped her and inquired what had happened. He comforted her, telling Mrs Solymosi “not to grieve, your daughter will be found… A similar case happened in Nánás, there too the Jews were accused and later the child was found in a meadow.” This well-intended but ill-advised consolation later formed a basis for the accusation. At the time Mrs Solymosi gave no great thought to this, but “the next day someone planted a suspicion in her that her daughter had been abducted by the Jews.”⁴. Who was this “someone” cloaked in the veil of anonymity? The investigation sought and found no answer to this question. Yet, it is quite possible that investigating the source of the suspicion, not only the circumstances of the girl’s disappearance, but also the identity of those, whose immediate involvement started the allegation would have been successfully established. By 3^rd April the accusation was spreading fast in the village. The interest of the villagers had long been spiked by the appearance of many foreign Jews. The news of Eszter’s disappearance was easily connected in their sluggish minds with the visit of the strangers.

On 4^th April Mrs Solymosi reported the disappearance of her daughter and her suspicions to the area JP in Vencsellő. The JP found the suspicion unreasonable, and simply took steps to mount a nationwide search for the girl. Later, however, the words of Mr Scharf’s four-year old son – who had been coaxed to say the words by candy and sweet breads from the neighbours – gave new fuel to the suspicions. On 4^th May Május Mrs Solymosi called on the JP again, and expounded on her suspicions, citing claims from other villagers. On 12^th May the public prosecutor ordered an inspection of the crime scene, and after nothing suspicious was uncovered, a general investigation was ordered. The investigation was entrusted to a young, ambitious assistant notary, József Bary.

Bary started hearing witnesses in Tiszaeszlár on 19^th May. The first days brought no results. The elder – 13-year old – son of the Scharf family was heard for the first time on 20^th May. The result was the same as with the other witnesses. Móric Scharf had heard of the disappearance of the girl, but know nothing about murder. Móric was accompanies by a Gendarme to Nagyfalu, and was heard again at night. He then had to sign the records of the hearing. By the next day the charges were ready, its points were based on reliable “data,” such as scenes “recalled” by a young boy when coaxed with candies, and the confession of his elder brother, extracted under duress. Nothing more was brought up during the investigation’s duration of over one year, this was all the “evidence” the charges were based on.

In 1933 – presumably because the issue was topical again – the Bary family published the recollections of the JP, written forty years after the events. In his recollections József Bary protests distortions and rejects the defence’s claims that the prisoners were tortured or threatened.⁵ He rejects claims that he, or his fellow judges had believed the likelihood of a ritual murder, but did believe it possible that some people may commit fanatical criminal acts. He comes into conflict with his own statement on the next page, where he claims: “The national public opinion, like a vast jury… found the answer to the question: Where is Eszter: This large jury’s verdict found Salamon Schwarcz and his accomplices guilty of murder committed in religious fanaticism!”⁶ Not only this outburst, but all his actions refuted his above claim. The investigating organs had from the very first served the interests of anti-Semitism. The JP had accepted the fable of blood-libel as fact from the start, and conducted the investigation with it in mind. All data he came across was weighed and used in order to prove this, providing plenty of fodder for the anti-Semitic press.

The events of 1882 had offered a favourable atmosphere for anti-Semitic incitement. Pogroms were at full blast in Russia. In Germany anti-Semitic candidates were elected into local councils. In Austria Schönerer’s speeches were the rage. In mid-January Bontoux went bankrupt and took thousands of employees into misery with him, which was also attributed to the machinations of the Jews.

News of the Tiszaeszlár case was first picked up in the capital’s press by the clerical Magyar Állam (Hungarian State) on 20^th May, before Móric Scharf’s “confession,” but already presented as proof for the blood-libel. The article cited several instances of blood-libel cases, then posed the rhetorical question: “We shall continue to tolerate, lest we be denied the honourable good fortune of paying our respects to the religious rituals of the Jews with some drops of common Christian blood.” The article then warns the JP not to allow himself to “be lured off course by the Jews.”⁷ The statement reinforcing the suspicion of blood-libel came from the pen of Tiszaeszlár’s catholic priest.

On 23^rd May Géza Ónody was the first to mention the disappearance of Eszter Solymosi in the House of Representatives – in the course of the debate on 1882’s extraordinary military tax – and in his speech of accusation he brought up the blood-libel. ⁸ The Ónody family was an old noble family, but had fallen into debts, and their Tiszaeszlár estate – some 841 acres – had been acquired by Simon and György Pöhm. Ónody was now a leaser and farmer on this very estate.⁹ This could explain his unappeasable hatred for the “sinful foreigners” who auctioned off the estates of noble landowners. Since 1881 Ónody had been a Hajdúnánás MP, first on an independence, then on an anti-Semitic platform.¹⁰ By 24^th May, the start of the investigation, he had noticeable set ideas about the Tiszaeszlár case, while Verhovay decided to take a final stance in knowledge of the outcome.¹¹

Ónody often courted Nyíregyháza jury chairman Ferenc Korniss and investigator József Bary. He turned Verhovay around, who continued to report on events related to the case in this spirit, from the 24^th May issue of the Függetlenség onwards until the end of the trial.

Anti-Semites launched a coordinated attack on all fronts. Also on 24^th May Istóczy addressed Parliament. During his speech, rife with anti-Semitic turns, he read out a letter, which informed him of the case. He then brought up Rohling’s “Der Talmudjude”, which had emerged as the anti-Semite’s bible, and quoted the passage on the Damascus blood-libel. Speaker of the House Tamás Péchy interrupted him and warned him of the potential consequences of his speech. Yet, Istóczy submitted his interpellation in which he presented the murder as fact, and demanded that the Felsődada area JP, who heard Mrs Solymosi’s report and referred her to the Nyiregyhaza Court, be held responsible for failure to carry out his sworn duties. Kálmán Tisza brushed off the interpellation, because the Government had no knowledge of the claim, and expressed his displeasure that there should be polemics in the House of Representatives on an as yet open case, “because the MPs claim is not sufficient proof that they are guilty and have committed errors.”

An Opposition leader Dániel Irányi said “there has been no example for anti-Semitic ideas to be put forward from the rows of the Függetlenségi Párt with such openness, as just done by Géza Ónody” – and he stated that the liberal Opposition did not share the opinions of Ónody. He condemned the persecution of the Jews in Russia: “blood-libel is a tale, woven in the Middle Ages,” he said, adding that “I felt necessary to speak up, and to speak up from these rows, in order to prevent the misconception that we share these views, which have been voiced here today, I felt it necessary on behalf of the party that set not only the independence of this country as its goal, but also freedom, equality and humanism.” In his interpellation he called on Government to ensure the safety of Jews and their property. In his response, Tisza used a harsher tone, condemned Russia’s actions, termed it “a stain of shame on the 19^th century and the face of Europe,” because “incitement must not be launched from where a stance ought to be taken against it in the name of law and constitution.”¹² He then assured Irányi of his agreement.

Those involved in the investigation of the Tiszaeszlár case ensured that the press was not starved of outrageous daily news to keep the fire of hatred stoked. Not only in the capital, but elsewhere in the country several papers and magazines – Pressburger –Grenzbote, Pozsony, Ébredjünk, Szabolcs megyei Közlöny etc. – published the news lacking all material proof. It was not without results: in early July civilian unrest erupted in several places (for instance in Nagyszombat, Pozsony-Szent-György, Szenicze, Pápa). Gyula Verhovay’s Függetlenség, which had given space for anti-Semitic articles two years before, now put itself completely at the disposal of anti-Semitic propaganda. The “brave” Függetlenség thus earned the greatest esteem of Istóczy and his group: Függetlenség, which conducts itself beyond all reproach and deserves all praise for its step-by-step analysis and inspection of the Tiszaeszlár crimes… and for this reason we wholeheartedly recommend this paper to all our supporters, irrespective of their party affiliations.”¹³ Propaganda pamphlets discussing the Tiszaeszlár trial sprung up like weed. This is attested to by Royal General Attorney Sándor Kozma, a consistent opponent of anti-Semitism throughout, in a letter written to Kálmán Tisza.¹⁴

“Since the public has turned its attention to the nationally known and followed Tiszaeszlár case, different publications appear daily, their unequivocal goal being the incitement of hatred – nay active violence – among the country’s Christian population against the Jews. Such a publication is the «Tiszaeszlár’s martyred daughter and the Jews of ancient religion » pamphlet, printed in Eger; the «Black cloud on the horizon», an article printed in the 24^th issue of Esztergom’s Esztergomi Közlöny on 11^th June; and such are all the various sticker of different contents and forms and slogans, which were reported to Your Excellency on 23^rd June of this year by the Budapest Police Captain in his 2280 report..

For my part, I shall do all I can to take the necessary steps to exact punishment for these illegal publications.

As the measures I shall take cannot put an end to the – especially clandestine – distribution of these publications, it is necessary that Your Excellency take steps to ensure that the distribution of said printed matter and all publications of similar content be prevented by the police force and that the copies intended for sale be impounded.”

Finally Tisza decided to take countermeasures, and announced a statutory instrument on 1^st July 1882, in which he ordered the country’s law enforcement organs to take steps “so that the distribution and sale of these inciting publications be prevented, copies intended for sale be impounded, and be sent on to me for use in meting out justice as ordered by law.”¹⁵ The statutory instrument did not infringe the freedom of the press, and temporary papers continued to agitate. It is true that not all law enforcement officials were wholehearted supporters of the measure, as attested to by the Heves County Plea, to be discussed later.

12 Röpirat continued the agitation in the name of freedom of the press. Istóczy’s threat, delivered in the House of Representatives – in which he warned that if the crime had been one of “religious murder”, it would affect the future of the entire Jewish community for centuries to come – was repeated again and again in different forms and guises: “The Hungarian maiden of Tiszaeszlár, Eszter Solymosi’s destruction at the hand of the Jews caused horrified wonder not only here, but in the whole of the educated world, so …, Jews will no longer be tolerated among the civilised nations.”¹⁶ This was the dream of anti-Semites, they needed the grave charge so they can achieve their final goal, the banishment of the Jews. They preened themselves before their foreign comrades, proud of their “success.” They announced: now it was Hungary’s turn to “take the place it deserves in the universal anti-Semitic movement. The eyes of the entire educated world are directed towards our country, and it watches with fevered excitement as it awaits the developments of this potential milestone, the Tiszaeszlár case.”¹⁷ The educated world – although not the one so termed by Istóczy and his sympathisers – did indeed watch in horror as the reanimated spirit of the Middle Ages conquered again, and it was partly due to the international public opinion that this “seminal case” did not bring about the era of anti-Semitism.

Istóczy and his supporters aimed to use the blood-libel to put all Jews on trial “… not all the powers of Hell had been able to stop the rolling boulder, which was threatening Hungary’s Jews, through the Tiszaeszlár case, and because of their espousal of the cause, the world’s Jews, with descending upon them and crushing them.” They declared with satisfaction that they set an example to their teachers: “The cornerstone of Germany’s anti-Semitic movement, as in Hungary, is the Tiszaeszlár case.” The 12 Röpirat attempted to reinforce belief in the blood-libel through allusions and dropped hints. At the same time, the anti-Semitic hate-mongers were put on a pedestal as “selfless patriots”.¹⁸

Of these “patriots,” Géza Ónody was the one to rise to prominence: he became “the expert on cases of ritual murders.” 12 Röpirat called on its readers several times to make a written report to the editorial staff on any case similar to that of Tiszaeszlár they may know of. In the general excitement, there were many who presented old superstitions and fantastic tales of witchcraft as fact, or referred to religious “documents” for the sake of appearing more credible, as did the reverend Mihály Halász. ¹⁹ In any case, Istóczy happily told his readers: “Since the Tiszaeszlár … case has come into the open, the MP Géza Ónody and the editor of these pamphlets have recorded a whole army of letters and documents bearing testament to similar cases. Because the special examination of this crucial aspect of the Jewish Question requires all the time and effort of a particular person, as we have mentioned before, this task has been assumed by Géza Ónody, and the results of his investigations will be put before the public in a book entitled «Tisza-Eszlár», currently under press with Imre Bartalits in Budapest. In the book Ónody will give account of the Tiszaeszlár case as well as other cases that have come to his knowledge, and at the same describe all Jewish mysteries…” At this time Ónody performed the function of the anti-Semites’ “blood-libel specialist”. The attention of the reading public was t hen called to his blood-libel collection, as a “potentially seminal work,” and stated that the book would be published at the same time in German in Berlin.²⁰ The investigation was yet to be concluded, a date had not even been set for the trial, but the anti-Semites were already planning to publish a book on the case. All of Ónody’s efforts with the book – which was eventually published in 1883 – were directed at giving credibility to the blood-libel, partly through the quantity of the accounts, and partly by justifying it with references to the Talmud, to use the Talmud to prove the veracity of his claim.

One episode is worthy of mention. In the summer of 1882 Ónody was host to Lipnitzki, the editor of Prague’s daily Politik, whom he expected to publish articles supporting the anti-Semitic movement. Lipnitzki did indeed publish a series of articles in Krakow’s Czad, but he went so far with the examination of the Tiszaeszlár case, that he accused the anti-Semites of murdering Eszter Solymosi. This failure stoked a boundless rage in Ónody.

The praise from sympathisers at the Dresden anti-Semitic meeting partly compensated for his loss of face. The highlight of the Dresden meeting was the public lecture held by the German reformist club at 8pm on 12^th September, 1882, in a room in the Lincke spa. The Hungarian anti-Semites were well prepared for the congress, they had taken along (as damning evidence or victorious banner?) a portrait of Eszter Solymosi, painted on the basis of accounts from those who knew her and from her relatives. The lecture’s main speaker, Géza Ónody showed off his “special” knowledge acquired during his scholarly examination of blood-libel cases. In his vitriolic speech he often mentioned the “Aryan peoples,” a “humanity that has awoken to consciousness,” and recognised the “threatening danger,” the “wild fanaticism of the Talmud-morals,” and “clutches their hearts upon the glint off the Kosher butcher’s knife,” and he demanded the implementation of “preventive regulation” for the “sake of survival of the whole of humanity.”²¹

Successes among foreign anti-Semites prompted Istóczy’s group to claim the guilt of those arrested, ever louder, with impressive phrases and irresponsibly claiming that “the subjective and objective facts of ritualistic murder have been established.” In several instances they allowed themselves to make predictions about the case, which, they said, can only “end unhappily” for those accused.

The incitement to hatred was well under way, when the Jewish community undertook to organise a defence. The anti-Semites often said that the whole Jewish community had come together to defend those accused in the Tiszaeszlár case, because, they claimed, they all feel guilty. They were outraged that the Jewish community dared to defend themselves, even though they were the ones who put the whole Jewish community on trial, along with the Tiszaeszlár suspects, they were trying to make political capital out of the blood-libel.

The effect of incitement to hatred with the tale of blood-libel elicited base emotions, which were nearly impossible to act against. József Kiss described this in his poem, “Against the Tide.” ²²

Felhőgomoly az éj felett –

Virraszt-e Isten oda fenn?

Ne kérdezd tőlem – nem tudom,

Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Zord századokból éji rém

Jár szerte a föld kerekén

Szemében máglyafény lobog,

Lehet ide is bekopog …

– Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Országról jár országra szét,

Miként a pestis – útja vész!

Meghal nyomán az irgalom

S elveszti ősjogát az ész.

Téboly dühöng fent és alant,

Megszáll boldog – boldogtalant,

S az emberből, kit elragad,

Csupán a puszta név marad …

– Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Meg-megújul a régi vád:

Azt mondják, vért iszik apád,

S ha felnősz, akkor ott, a hol:

Majd te is, te is vért iszol!

Felhőgomoly az éj felett –

Virraszt-e isten oda fenn?

Tagadnom: kín – elhinnem: vád

Oh, mindenképpen súly nekem!

– Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Mi nem szeretjük e hazát

Ránk olvassák oly könnyedén!

Madár fészkét, odvát a vad

Szeretheti – nem te, nem én!

A gályarabnak bélyege,

Mit hóhér homlokára süt,

Nem oly gyalázó, mint e vád,

Mely ólálkodik mindenütt …

– Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Ha védekezel – ingerelsz,

Ha szótlan tűröd – gyávaság!

Feljajdulsz: érzékenykedel

S a néma jaj is vall reád!

Egy törvényre dobog a szív,

Kering a vér, eszmél az agy,

Kivétel nincs – csak egy, csak egy!

És e kivétel az te vagy!

Eredj aludni, gyermekem!

Óh hunyjatok le, hunyjatok!

Ti ragyogó szép csillagok:

Kis fiam édes szemei! –

Minek ily éjben fényleni?

Ó hisz e fény is ellenem

Fordulhat egykor, úgy lehet,

Ha sírva megemlegeted,

Végzetes örökségedet,

Én édes drága gyermekem!

In the artificially inflamed atmosphere of anti-Semitic hatred, it took great moral courage to come to the defence of the Tiszaeszlár suspects. Károly Eötvös proved such fine mettle, who risked not only his popularity, but his career in the public sphere, when he agreed to be counsel for the defence.

Károly Eötvös came from a gentry family with a tradition of fighting against the Turkish and Hapsburg oppression. Like most of the family’s members, he opted for an intellectual career. By 1871 he was the royal prosecutor of the Veszprém court. He started his public work as MP for the Veszprém constituency, he joined the Deák party. He was a follower and friend of Ferenc Deák. He did not accept a mandate for the next Parliamentary session, and worked briefly for the Finance Ministry, then retired to manage his estate. In 1877 he moved to Budapest, where he opened a law practice. In 1878 he again became MP for Veszprém, but in the colours of the Függetlenségi Párt. He was surrounded by ever-increasing respect. His Parliamentary actions, the articles he contributed to his party’s official paper he won a leading role in public life. By 1881 more than twenty constituencies invited him to be their MP, which clearly shows his great popularity. Finally, he was elected MP by two constituencies, Dunavecse and Nagykörös. At the time the Tiszaeszlár case broke into the open, he was at the height of his popularity.

The Tiszaeszlár suspects were very poor people, who could not afford to pay for their own defence. Their trial grew beyond the borders of the county in the matter of a fortnight, the anti-Semitic propaganda had made it a case of national interest. It was under such circumstances that the national office of Israelites Izraeliták Országos Irodája,²³ which customarily did not get involved in criminal cases, to hire an outstanding lawyer to defend the accused. The office’s secretary, József Simon was aware that the step would launch another offensive of allegations, but he put up with the accusations, and ignoring the tales of the boundless power of the “kagal,” and its “heaps of treasures,” he asked Károly Eötvös to travel to Nyíregyháza to talk to Móric Scharf, a junior under custody pending the investigation, whose testimony had formed the basis of the prosecution. Eötvös did not accept the commission, but travelled to Nyíregyháza as a private citizen, and requested the chief royal prosecutor’s permission to meet the detained. He shared his experiences not only with József Simon, but also with the prosecutor. He encountered a terrified child.

In the meantime, the Jewish community had been accused of floating corpses and smuggling stolen corpses. On 18^th June 1882, a rafters found a female body at Tisza-Dada im the csonkafűzés. The corpse was recognised by all as Eszter Solymosi, as long as the corpse was dressed. The JP, however, had the body stripped for identification, and the mother and those participating at the inquest failed to recognise the corpse as that of the disappeared girl. After the failed identification, the JP cooked up the story of corpse smuggling, claiming that the Jews had dressed up the body of an unidentified Jewess in Eszter’s clothes and had floated the corpse down the Tisza with help from the rafters. This resulted in the arrest of another 10-12 people. Chaos grew around the investigation, but one thing became abundantly clear: that the goal of the investigation was to prove the blood-libel.

Now József Simon repeated his request that Eötvös take the case. Eötvös’s friends – Károly Kerkapoly, István Bittó, Dezső Szilágyi – wanted to talk him out of taking the commission. They conceded that “it was counterproductive to allow the proliferation of religious hatred in the management of national affairs, that it could be potentially harmful and dangerous,” but taking a stance against it was “at this time an ungrateful and doomed” task. He was also warned to be careful by Függetlenségi Párt chairman Lajos Mocsáry. Eötvös was aware of the magnitude of the task, and knew that he had to fight against both the bias of the judges and the excited public opinion, he knew that he would face thousands of allegations, hostility and accusations. He still had the courage to take the case, and the talent to succeed. As he wrote in his book on the case: “It could not suffice to take the case so far as to prove that the blood-libel was not proven. After only such a result, suspicion against the Jews would have prevailed. I had to prove that all that the Jews were accused of were untrue from the first word to the last – all incriminating details were false, or suspicions and accounts were untrue, and the accused were merely the victims of the fatal error and wondrous bias of the Court.”²⁴ Eötvös gave proof of his expertise, thorough preparation, knowledge of the tiniest detail of the investigation in his famous memorandum, which was printed and distributed in pamphlet form, in order to convince the public opinion, or at least prompt the people to think in the face of the slanderous anti-Semitic allegations.

We have noted before the effect of the Tiszaeszlár case among foreign anti-Semites, but the enlightened public opinion also paid careful attention to developments in the investigation, and an increasing number of people condemned the anti-Semitic position. In “Christliche Zeugnisse gegen die Blutbeschuldigung der Juden” published in Berlin in 1882, Christian theologians, bishops such as Dr Kopp, bishop of Fulda, Dr. J II Reinkens, bishop of Bonn, Dr Franz Delitzsch, professor of Leipzig proved the unscientific, superstitious and mystical nature of the blood-libel, and condemned its proponents.

After a lengthy investigation, the Tiszaeszlár case went to trial finally on 19^th June, 1883 in Nyíregyháza. The trial was followed closely not only in Hungary, but in the whole of Europe. Enlightened public opinion throughout the world condemned the blood-libel and considered it a tissue of lies. The press, as it befitted a great event, made every preparation for speedy reports on the case. A separate press office was set up in Nyíregyháza, which catered the papers with shorthand transcripts of the trial. Daily memoranda entitled “Tisza-Eszlár” were published, based on the shorthand transcripts. The memoranda were published by the editorial staff of the local Nyírvidék, where Elek Jóba worked as editor-in-chief. All major Budapest papers sent special reporters to the trial, and famed foreign reporters also covered the proceedings.

The trial in Nyíregyháza was full of excitement. A reporter for Nemzet declared on 26^th June that “there has been no real detective work, no real investigation, no real charge. The main trial replaces it all.”²⁵ In fact, the trial lasted more than a month (19^th June to 3^rd August), because everything had to be started all over again. The public prosecutor, assistant general attorney Ede Szeyffert officially represented the prosecution, but did not hide his disapproval, thereby incurring the wrath of the anti-Semites. He was first provoked in a Nyíregyháza theatre on 30^th Jine, then he was attacked by Ónody on 19^th July for suggesting that some witnesses may be heard, and threatened the assistant attorney general with deeply insulting words, as well as his cane. Szeyffert only received verbal satisfaction from Government for the attack against his person, in his official capacity. ²⁶

Szeyffert closed the case of the prosecution on 27^th July with the following words: “I hold the accused to be without guilt, and I propose that they be acquitted on all charges, and spared their consequences.”²⁷ Such a statement from the public prosecutor naturally made the defence’s case easier, but their role remained far from inconsequential. The defence had a great task ahead of them yet. They had to prove, not only to the audience in the courtroom, but to the entire country, in detail, point by point, that the charge was biologically, morally, religiously impossible and untenable. The defence, Eötvös’s colleagues Sándor Funták, Miksa Székely, Ignác Neuman and Bernát Friedmann divided the task among themselves. The last to deliver a speech for the defence was Károly Eötvös, addressing the Court on 30^th July. In his seven-hour speech he examined all contended issues under the microscope with medical precision, in order to convince his audience of the errors of the investigation.

On 3^rd August a “not guilty” verdict was delivered and the suspects set free. The great trial – of the mediaeval superstition, the blood-libel – was, at least officially, over.

The Tiszaeszlár case, as the press bitterly noted several times, compromised Hungary greatly in the eyes of the international community. The foreign press strongly condemned the investigation of the Tiszaeszlár case, and the incitement to anti-Semitic hatred. Immediately after the verdict, the anti-Semitic press ostensibly accepted the verdict, claiming adherence to the law. But the retreat was prompted only by the disappointment of the first moments. Soon they found their old voice, refused to accept defeat and obstinately reiterated their allegations. Later Istóczy painted a picture of himself as someone who had prepared for a potential defeat and had therefore not made the anti-Semitic cause dependent on the outcome of the trial: “although the Tiszaeszlár trial had a colossal effect on the development and growth of anti-Semitism, it was problematic from the onset, with the vast counter-currents and manoeuvres brought to play, not to bring Hungarian anti-Semitism into immediate dependence with its outcome, nor to maintain it intact at the height of principle, irrespective of the results of the trial.” From this “height of principle” they continued to agitate: “the Tiszaeszlár trial,” they claimed, “gave an invaluable feeding ground for anti-Semitism in other aspects. And this result dwarves even the issue of ritualistic murder.” What was the result that overshadowed the question that was so close to their hearts? What did the anti-Semites achieve with the blood-libel? The answer lies in the following words from Istóczy: “Now, it is beyond doubt for everyone that there indeed is a Jewish Question, and in its most acute form. And we needed the Tiszaeszlár case most for the purpose of demonstrating it.”²⁸

This was a confession on the methods of the anti-Semites, who presented themselves as “law abiding” citizens. They continued to propagate the blood-libel, with Istóczy bearing the standard. As late as 21^st November he claimed in his speech in Parliament that Eszter Solymosi had been murdered by the Jews. ²⁹ The irresponsible incitement to hatred soon bore its bitter fruit. Anti-Semitic riots ravaged the country.

THE TISZAESZLÁR CASE

¹ Works discussing the Tiszaeszlár case: Károly Eötvös: A nagy per (The Great Trial).vol. I-III. Budapest 1904.: Károly Eötvös–Nándor Horánszky–Sándor Fanták: Bingabo der drei in der Tiszaeszlarer Angelegenheit. Budapest 1882.; Fr. Olivier: Les juls en Hongrie. I. Allalre de Tisza-Eszlar. Eszlar 1883. (Klny??, from Le Correspondant); Géza Ónody: Tisza-Eszlár a múltban és a jelenben (Tiszaeszlár in the Past and Present). Budapest 1883., Das „Bilbul” von Tisza-Eszlár. Budapest 1883. Democritos: Tisza Eszlár és Tisza Kálmán, (Tisza Eszlár and Kálmán Tisza), Budapest 1883.; Paul Nathon: Der Prozess von Tisza-Eszlar… A tiszaeszlári bűnper (The Tiszaeszlár Criminal Case), Budapest 1911.; Sándor Hegedűs: A tiszaeszlári vérvád (The Tiszaeszlár Blood-Libel). Kossuth Könyvkiadó 1966.

² Pamphlet, 15^th May 1881. pp. 42. “Egy hónappal később” (One Month Later)