“For Chekhov, work is a kind of resigned escape, where one flees after a hopeless struggle with life,” – wrote László Ablonczy in 1966 in his theatre review, the first to be published in print. He was twenty years old when the Hajdú-Bihar megyei Napló published his essay Még egyszer a Sirályról (lit. Once More on The Seagull). Now at the age of 70, journalist, critic, theatre historian, and theatre manager László Ablonczy is writing his twentieth independent volume. He lives to work.
His first theatre experiences were linked to the great era of the Csokonai National Theatre Debrecen in the 1950s. At that time, director Árpád Téri was staging nationally renowned performances in Debrecen. He also invited Imre Soós, Erzsi Simor, László Mensáros, László Márkus, and Zoltán Latinovits, who started his career in the “cívis” city of Debrecen in 1956. The audience was treated to excellent opera performances by the young director László Vámos. In his book Templom, parlament, kínpad: megannyi színpad (lit. Church, Parliament, and Rack: so Many Stages) [1], László Ablonczy recalls with astonishment the performance of Ferenc Bessenyei, Gyula Gózon, Ági Mészáros, and Margit Lukács at the National Theatre in Budapest, and Chekhov’s Uncle Vanya directed by Endre Gellért in 1960. At the beginning of the 1960s, the Csokonai National Theatre Debrecen was strengthened by young graduates (István Dégi, Judit Tóth, György Kézdi, László Sinkó, Anna Nagy, Péter Haumann, Árpád Kóti, etc.), and György Lengyel was appointed principal director (at the age of 27). This brought change, a new approach, and fresh air to the theatre’s life. In 2015, László Ablonczy wrote the following about the Csokonai National Theatre Debrecen in the 1960s:
“I struggled a great deal with the dilemma of The Seagull, because I was troubled by the way theatre was made, the possibility of renewal, and the collapsing fates of actors in the sclerotic public life of the time. How can an experimental podium be a labour of truth? Are the best ambitions bound to collapse, Nina-style? The Trepljov brought to life by Pista Dégi represents something else, better, and the turmoil of the age; the crack of his pistol echoed in the fates of Gizi Bajor, Artúr Somlay, Imre Soós, and Zoltán Latinovits. How can we dream of theatre in this Central–Eastern European landscape, with how much sweat, tears and renewed hope in the risk? I have been asking myself ever since [2].” He also began researching the history of theatre during his university years. He was preoccupied with Horváth Árpád álmai és harcai (lit. Dreams and Struggles of Árpád Horváth) [3], the principal director of the National Theatre in Budapest, who later became theatre manager at the Csokonai National Theatre Debrecen between 1936 and 1939. His life ended in 1944 under tragic circumstances that are still unclear. To write his thesis, he visited Árpád Horváth’s widow, Lili Neményi, in Budapest and met theatre historian Mihály Cenner. With the help of his patron, he also had access to the documents at the Hungarian Theatre Museum and Institute, and researched the history of the National Theatre at the National Széchényi Library, with special emphasis on the collaboration between Sándor Hevesi and Árpád Horváth. At the same time, he began to explore the stories and reminiscences from László Mensáros’ years in Debrecen, which were published decades later and in 2004, compiled and arranged into a volume titled „Szélfútta levél…” – Évek Mensáros Lászlóval (lit. Windswept Leave… – Years with László Mensáros). During his university years, he often travelled to Budapest to see performances at the capital’s theatres, including guest performances by foreign companies. His first and last memory of the National Theatre’s old building in Blaha Lujza Square was Shakespeare’s King Lear on 28 June 1964. This fateful event also inspired him, more than 30 years later – now as theatre manager of the National Theatre – to record the story of the condemnation and demolition of the Blaha Lujza Square theatre building, using documents and personal recollections of contemporary actors, in a volume entitled Nemzeti a magasban (lit. The National in the Air) [4].
Journalism
In the year of his first article, the literary magazine Alföld published his analysis of the opening night of Molière’s The Imposture of Scapin – The Forced Marriage in Debrecen, and of the Comédie Française’s guest performance of Molière’s The School for Wives in Budapest. The Hajdú-Bihar megyei Napló regularly published his writings, and as a fifth-year university student, he was already a journalism trainee at the Napló; he developed closer contacts with the actors. He enjoyed spending time with Árpád Kóti, Ottó Simor, István Fonyó, Gyöngyi Bűrös, and István Berczelly. He was a correspondent at the First Mother Tongue Conference, held in Debrecen in 1970, which marked a historic turning point in relations with Hungarians beyond the border and in the West. It was here that he met Adrienne Jancsó, Mihály Czine, Dezső Keresztury, and Lajos Vass, whose belief in the Hungarian nation, commitment, and opinions on the fate of Hungarians living in minorities shaped his thinking for life. In 1971, his essay A magyar dráma új vonulatáról (lit. On the New Trend in Hungarian Drama) [5] was published in Együtt, an anthology of Debrecen’s youth. In his analysis of the dramas of Miklós Mészöly, Imre Sarkadi, István Csurka, István Örkény, and Károly Szakonyi, he identifies a common feature: the starting point of historical-social determination, the depiction of the personality-destroying nature of power, the inner movement in a closed, suffocated space, and the absence that “often gives birth to a new myth, the myth of the meaning of hopeless action, the myth of the power and force that cannot be named, that controls and determines our lives”. His work met with opposition from the party censorship (Dezső Tóth). The fate of Hungarian drama and its patronising support were of decisive importance in the later stages of his life. Twenty years later, on the occasion of his appointment as theatre manager of the National Theatre [6], he said:
“I realised that theatre is a force that unites communities; it can bring thoughts and feelings to life, both within and beyond borders. And if the creation of responsible people, i.e. artists, can be brought to life, then a mysterious and sovereign relationship might be created between the stage and the audience that can triumph over any dictatorship in those three hours of the evening. That is why György Aczél showed such hysterical and discriminatory attention to the theatre, and iced the plays of István Csurka, Miklós Mészöly, Sándor Weöres, and others, and was the premiere of Gyula Illyés’s Kegyenc (lit. The Minion) in Paris – to the eternal shame of Hungarian theatre.”
In September 1972, he met András Sütő at the Áron Tamási Memorial Celebration in Farkaslaka (Lupeni). The memorial was unveiled that day, “and on the way home, in the pouring rain, ‘hitchhiker’s luck’ made the writer, the keynote speaker, stop and give them a ride. [Over time] this encounter led him to care for András Sütő’s works. The occasional traveller became the selector, editor, editorial director, and finally, the writer’s monographer for the series published by Szépirodalmi Publishing House. He was also a regular traveller, perhaps the best expert on the Hungarian minority’s theatre life, and the most regular visitor to theatres beyond our borders, until he was banned from Romania.” – wrote Béla Márkus about him in his essay Mintha mindig ugyanabban a dologban járna (lit. As if he were always up to the same thing) [7]. His writings on his Transylvanian travels, theatre performances, and literary events were published in Forrás, Tiszatáj, and Alföld. He brought Áron Tamási’s belatedly discovered play Ősvigasztalás (lit. Primal Consolation) to the editorial office in Szeged. Analyses and reports on the play, the writer, numerous events in Transylvania, and fateful encounters appear in the volume A szivárvány alatt (lit. Under the Rainbow) [8]. His guiding idea: solidarity among the peoples of the Danube Basin, inspired by Béla Bartók and László Németh. Around this time, he met Miklós Tompa, theatre manager of the former Székely Theatre, and György Harag, whose productions in Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureș), Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca), Hungary, and Vojvodina he regarded as significant chapters in 20th-century Hungarian theatre. He captured Harag’s artistic ideas and insights into human nature in a series of conversations, which he published as a separate chapter in his book Megélt színház (lit. Theatre as Experienced). In autumn 1970, he left the Debrecen-based Napló and moved to Budapest, where he joined the weekly newspaper Csepel on a scholarship. From 1971 to 1975, he worked for Magyar Hírlap. In autumn 1974, his controversial article Magyar dráma – magyar színház (lit. Hungarian Drama – Hungarian Theatre) [9] was published in Alföld. The controversy surrounding the essay reached all the way to the party centre and György Aczél’s circle. Representatives of the official position within the inner theatre circles attacked it in the most widely read national newspapers, Népszabadság, Élet és Irodalom, and Színház, and critics, including Zoltán Várkonyi, Imre Kerényi, and Erzsébet Berkes, expressed their dissent, sometimes to the point of defamation. For Ablonczy, the letter of appreciation and encouragement from Gyula Illyés, dated 28 February 1975, was a source of satisfaction: “What can one say to the champion of a good cause, even if he is being beaten now and again? Go on! If only because – is there any other way? In the colours of honour?”
From the summer of 1975, he served as deputy head of the Press and Propaganda Department of MOKÉP. Zoltán Huszárik, Ferenc Kósa, and Éva Ruttkai became acquaintances and friends during this period. He edited the series A Színész Arca (lit. The Face of the Actor), published by MOKÉP. The fourth volume, a booklet on Zoltán Latinovits, was banned for ten years (including diary notes, letters, and poems by László Nagy, Gyula Illyés, János Pilinszky, András Sütő, Zoltán Fábri, and Zoltán Huszárik). From January 1978 until 1990, when he left for Strasbourg, he contributed to Film Színház Muzsika. He wrote numerous reports, interviews, reviews, and notes. He met writers, directors, and actors. Some of the interviews published in Film Színház Muzsika (Géza Páskándi, Miklós Gyárfás, József Ruszt, Géza Pártos, Ferenc Sík, Miklós Gábor, Ferenc Bessenyei, and Imre Sinkovits) were also included in the book of his selected works Nemzeti lélekharang (lit. National Knell). As a second publication, the book Megélt színház (lit. Theatre Experienced) [10] also featured pieces on György Harag, Imre Soós, Zoltán Latinovits, Lajos Őze, Margit Dajka, Éva Ruttkai, and Gyula Illyés. In the summer of 1986, a heated theatre debate erupted over his article in Alföld – Védekező magatartásban – Színházi jelek ‘86 (lit. Defensive Behaviour – Theatre Signs ‘86) [11]. The essay’s title refers to J. L. Barrault’s observation that theatre “has always been a kind of defensive behaviour, not an immoral and self-serving entertainment”. He then lists the signs of Hungarian theatre in the 1980s, coupled with behavioural confusion stemming from the crisis of intellectual and moral stability. For example, the incompetence of theatre managers, the ‘staircase wisdom’ of directors in delivering sordid political messages of the day, the lack of a real set of values, and the current trends in world theatre as the standard, etc. Finally, he states that “The need for an ethical and professional purification of our public theatre life is missing in the management.” This was an open attack on the theatre policy of the recently departed György Aczél, a month after banning the journal Tiszatáj, at the beginning of the fierce struggle for a change of regime. The findings of his essay in Alföld, which appeared in 3,000 copies, were attacked by Népszabadság, which had a circulation of 800,000, and then, in Élet és Irodalom (5 September 1986), by Miklós Szinetár in the article Vigyázat! Tartuffe! (lit. Warning! Tartuffe!), in which he wrote about the defilement of the values of the past decades, emphasising the party’s political position in a lecturing tone. Szinetár warns readers: “We must act if we do not want our artistic public life to become a kind of intellectual Lebanon, where who knows what groups make life impossible with their explosives.” In response to the article’s style in Élet és Irodalom, Endre Fejes responded with an essay Hogyan vitázzunk? (lit. How to debate?), in sarcastic humour (Alföld, 1987/1), and the editorial board than summarised the debate (Utószó – de mihez is? [lit. Afterword – but to what?]). Meanwhile, the author of the keynote article, László Ablonczy, has been trying to uncover details of the life of the “king of acting” at the urgent request of the severely ill Éva Ruttkai. In his essay Latinovits Zoltán nem ereszt el (lit. Zoltán Latinovits won’t let me go) [12], he recalls:
“The phone rang, and I heard the question in a hushed voice: ‘Are you OK? How are you?’ It was Éva Ruttkai calling from the hospital; she had heard about the whirlwind around me and called with friendly concern, even though she was severely ill. She knew exactly what forces were involved in my thesis and the story of the Alföld scandal in 1974, which was also encouraged by the Ködszurkáló (lit. Skywriter)... But August 1986 also brought a major heat wave in intellectual life: Tiszatáj was banned, and its leadership was dismissed, even though I had collected signatures in protest. Therefore, another of my more extensive theatre reports had gone: an interview with Imre Pozsgay was put on ice and could only be published in August 1989. From the extensive interview, I was able to salvage enough material for the theatre magazine series that concerned Zoltán Latinovits. In the last chapter, I quoted the former Minister of Culture, who spoke with remorse, saying he could not help Latinovits’ dream of creating theatre.”
In the spring of 1986, the Film Színház Muzsika published his fourteen-part series Debrecentől Debrecenig (lit. From Debrecen to Debrecen) in weekly instalments, accompanied by pictures, summarising the life and struggles of Zoltán Latinovits. The last chapter was delivered to newsagents on the Saturday before Éva Ruttkai’s death, and she read it and thanked him. A collection of stories by actors, directors, and colleagues, supplemented by personal experiences and documents, was published in book form in autumn 1987 under the title Latinovits Zoltán tekintete (lit. Zoltán Latinovits’ Gaze) [13]. “The author’s method is not overly complicated... he relies on chronology and facts, and his comments and statements are documented. [...] He is writing a biography, as the subtitle suggests, a career portrait with excellent role analyses, and he juxtaposes, one might say ruthlessly, moments of disownment, humiliation, pushing aside, and upheaval. He traces the stages of the path to death. Names are seldom ciphered, even more seldom silenced – they should never be – and events and references are relentlessly quoted and recalled, like Latinovits’ Ködszurkáló (lit. Skywriter) of the time, this book spares no one’s sensibilities.” (Ibolya Cs. Nagy) [14]. The Zoltán Latinovits’ Gaze has been reissued in an album-like format as Chapter I of the volume Latinovits Zoltán élete, halála és feltámadásai (lit. Life, Death, and Resurrections of Zoltán Latinovits). Chapter II of the latter Latinovits book was shaped by the ‘genius of a dangerous fate’ [15] thanks to his mother, after he had seen new photographs and letters and answered new questions.
Editorial work
In 1972, he met Zoltán Jékely, who gave him a manuscript of one of his plays. After the writer’s death, he offered to Magvető Publishing House to compile a collection of Jékely’s previously unknown or little-known plays, including those in verse. In 1984, Zoltán Jékely’s collection of plays, Oroszlánok Aquincumban (lit. Lions in Aquincum), was published, with an afterword by Ablonczy. It was also in 1972 that he came into direct contact with Áron Tamási’s intellectual legacy, after Tamási’s widow allowed him to study the writer’s manuscripts and letters, to get to know Tamási’s friends, and to obtain permission to publish his writings in Alföld and Film Színház Muzsika. The drama collection was edited in collaboration with Sándor Z. Szalai, who also contributed the notes and annexes, as well as the appendix designed to aid understanding of the oeuvre. In 1982, for the first time, he compiled a book of András Sütő’s writings, entitled Gyermekkorom tükörcserepei (lit. Mirror Shards of my Childhood), which was published by Móra Publishing House. In the same year, Szépirodalmi Publishing House asked him to edit a collection of András Sütő’s essays. The book, entitled Az idő markában (lit. In the Grip of Time), was published in the first days of March 1984. In the spring of 1985, András Sütő was summoned to Bucharest, severely prosecuted, and his editor in Budapest was banned from entering Romania. László Ablonczy’s name was at the top of the Securitate border guards’ list, and he was not allowed to cross the border again until the dictator fell. These events confirmed his close friendship with András Sütő. He played a significant role in the political and theatrical struggles surrounding the banning of the drama Advent a Hargitán (Advent in the Hargita Mountains), as recounted on pages 377–417 of the National Knell. Following the highly successful stage premiere, he edited a collection of András Sütő’s folk plays, published by Szépirodalmi Publishing House in 1987, titled Advent in the Hargita Mountains. In the same year, to celebrate the writer’s 60th birthday, he edited a collection of selected articles and diary entries by András Sütő, published by Ifjúsági Lapkiadó under the title Sikaszói fenyőforgácsok (lit. Pine Wood Chips from Sikaszó). In 1988, the editing of András Sütő’s oeuvre series began. At the writer’s request, László Ablonczy selected and edited the writings in the volumes. During the changes at the end of the 1980s, he took a risky political role among intellectuals demanding the creation of a democratic Hungary. He took part in and spoke at the Lakitelek meeting (28 September 1987) and at the regime-change opposition meetings in the Jurta Theatre in the spring of 1988.
Strasbourg
He lived with his family in Strasbourg from February 1990 to April 1991. From there, he wrote articles for Népszava, drawing on commentaries in French newspapers and news reports on French television, about the Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureș) pogrom and the ordeal of András Sütő (March–April 1990). Later, he sent reports, interviews, and notes to Magyar Fórum, which were published in the newspaper’s Strasbourgi látó (lit. Strasbourg Viewer) column (e.g. Strasbourgi beszélgetés Sütő Andrással [lit. Conversation with András Sütő in Strasbourg]; Petre Roman mosolya [lit. Petre Roman’s Smile], etc.). These can be read in the volume Under the Rainbow. From August 1989 until 1995, he was a member of the editorial board of Tiszatáj, which was relaunched with the help of former colleagues. He wrote essays and discussions for the magazine. “As a journalist, publicist, critic, and essayist with an excellent pen and a captivatingly individual style, he wrote numerous report-like and analytical studies, a readable chronicle of the developments and achievements of minority Hungarian literature, and discussed its most outstanding authors, from Sándor Kányádi to Árpád Farkas. His editorial work, which became a concept, was also missionary—for example, he won the opportunity to publish works banned in Transylvania or elsewhere in Hungary in many cases, despite the obstacles on the mainland at the time. For decades, his main field of expertise was Hungarian drama and theatre history, and he covered the broadest horizons of theatrical endeavours in the Carpathian Basin. After the regime change, he was appointed the most worthy personality to head the National Theatre, and as its Theatre Manager for a decade, he worked to promote the cause of classical and contemporary Hungarian drama, and of a professionally ennobled and fulfilled national theatre.” (Zoltán Bertha) [16]
Theatre Manager of the National Theatre
He returned from Strasbourg in the spring of 1991 and was appointed Theatre Manager of the National Theatre on 18 April. He asked director Ferenc Sík to serve as his artistic director. Writer Géza Páskándi assisted him in developing the National Theatre’s programme. He aimed to build the National Theatre spiritually, quoting Áron Tamási: “Theatre is not a matter of style, but a place of national education worthy of respect.” He considered it an important task to restore and rebuild the spiritual unity of Hungarian theatre art, which had been mutilated by Trianon and the communist dictatorship. After the fateful social changes, “theatre-making is a sacred place for teaching people to live and think democratically” [17]. László Ablonczy’s name is associated with the period after the fall of communism, the 1990s, an era marked by the names of Gábor Agárdy, József Bessenyei, Ferenc Kállai, Imre Sinkovits, Ilona Béres, Gellért Raksányi, and István Iglódi. His company-building took place in the context of generational renewal with fresh graduates (Áron Őze, Judit Juhász, Sándor Tóth, Szabolcs Bede Fazekas), but it was to his credit that the last great era of László Mensáros and Klári Tolnay was linked to the National Theatre. He shaped the theatre’s programme according to the practice developed by Sándor Hevesi, meaning that most of the plays in the repertoire were tried and tested: in addition to domestic and foreign classics, he encouraged the presentation of new Hungarian dramas and ensured the inclusion of contemporary foreign authors (from Târgu Mureș to America) in the repertoire. After Imre Madách, József Katona, and Mihály Vörösmarty, the plays of Sándor Bródy, Menyhért Lengyel, Dezső Szomory, Ferenc Molnár, and the rarely performed plays of Zsigmond Móricz, Kálmán Mikszáth, Ernő Szép, and Ferenc Herczeg were also staged. In the fourth year of his administration, in response to a journalist’s question about the National Theatre’s programme, he said:
“What is the common ideal that unites us in diversity? If you look at the repertoire of our theatre today, you can see an almost complete picture of our national history, social changes, and destiny. In different locations, in more or less powerful or more or less vague formulations, Bánk bán (lit. Bánk the Palatine), Az ugató madár (lit. The Barking Bird), Az ember tragédiája (The Tragedy of Man), Különc (lit. The Odd Man), A Noszty fiú esete Tóth Marival (Young Noszty and Mary Toth), Úri muri (lit. Very Merry), Tündöklő Jeromos (lit. Jerome the Shining), Tóték (The Toth Family), Oszlopos Simeon (Simon of the Desert), in a variety of perspectives and styles, they all depict past centuries and our bloody, failing, self-destructive nature [18].”
History, as a nation-shaping force, is ever-present in the theatre’s choice of plays. In addition to Károly Szakonyi, András Sütő, Tibor Gyurkovics, Ferenc Dunai, Árpád Göncz, he has also staged a series of plays, including the historical musical Kiátkozott (lit. Excommunicated) by Péter Szentmihályi Szabó, Levente Szörényi, and János Bródy. In the summer of 1994, the theatre announced an invitation-only drama competition. The first prize was shared by Géza Páskándi, Miklós Hubay, and András Sütő. In March 1995, while the very existence of the National Theatre was questioned in other forums, the results were announced at the Writers’ Union results ceremony: “Seventeen Hungarian dramas in a single month’s programme, with at least sixteen masterpieces among the seventeen! And alongside them, three plays by William Shakespeare, one by Romain Rolland, two by Bernard Shaw, and one by Elmer Rice. Add to this the guest performance by the Serbian National Theatre in Novi Sad – all of which shows that the National is up to the standard of today’s world literature and can do its job in Central Europe [19].” The National Theatre has promoted openness and developed successful collaborations with artistic ensembles, guest companies, and guest directors. It has invited ensembles and individuals from the Hungarian art scene, representing a wide variety of artistic trends, in line with the needs of a particular performance or task.
In addition to traditional theatre artists, well-known figures from the alternative theatre world were also invited to present their work at the National Theatre. Foreign and Hungarian directors came from Paris (Frigyes Funtek), Barcelona (R. Salvat), Tel Aviv (Géza Pártos), London (János Bruck), Cluj-Napoca (Victor Frunză), and Hungarian theatre directors from the Danube Basin (Elemér Kincses) and Újvidék (Novi Sad, Gábor Pintér). The world-famous director Andrzej Wajda staged the Hungarian premiere of the Polish classic The Wedding at the National Theatre (1994). After the dismantling of the barbed wire between the borders, international relations were organised in the spirit of a European perspective. Continuous cooperation with Hungarian theatres beyond the borders was established. In May 1992, the company of the National Theatre made the biggest tour in its history: 22 performances were given in Transylvania in 9 days (Csíksomlyói passió [lit. The Passion of Csíksomlyó], Advent in the Hargita Mountains, Kő a kövön [lit. Stone on the Stone]). The company made several guest appearances in Partium, Felvidék, and Vojvodina, established good relations with Hungarian Institutes in the West, and performed in Paris, Strasbourg, Stuttgart, and Vienna. There was a season when sixteen thousand Hungarian spectators saw guest performances abroad at the National Theatre in Budapest. Foreign companies have also come to the National Theatre. Romanian and Hungarian companies from Cluj-Napoca, Târgu Mureș, Pozsony (Bratislava), Kassa (Košice), Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfântu Gheorghe), and Beregszász (Berehovo) made their debuts. In May 1993, in the spirit of Béla Bartók’s idea of uniting the peoples of the Danube basin, a meeting of the heads of the national theatres of Central and Eastern Europe took place in Budapest. Despite their different positions, they agreed that national theatres are needed to preserve values and national specificities and to strengthen international relations. In April 1993, during the preparation for the international conference, the national theatres of the national minorities were presented as part of the Minority Theatre Days. The resolution adopted at the meeting of the theatre leaders of the German, Serbian, Croatian, and Gypsy minorities was submitted to the cultural government. According to the theatre manager, the National Theatre, precisely because of its national character, should also undertake cultural activities which other theatres do not undertake for financial or other reasons (invitations, support for theatres outside the borders and minority theatres, events representing the unity of the dispersed Hungarian community). Live contact with schools (series on theatre history from antiquity to the present day); wreath-laying ceremonies; commemorative performances of great actors; birthday gala or traditional commemorations in honour of writers (Farkaslaka, Tass, Csanádpalota).
In the spring of 1995, in response to attacks questioning the National Theatre’s otherness, the Friends of the National Theatre were organised (chaired by writer Anna Jókai and theatre historian Mihály Cenner). The members organised monthly meetings at the Várszínház (Castle Theatre), where they performed 20th-century modern Hungarian works by János Pilinszky, Imre Sarkadi, György Spiró, and Miklós Hubay. In the Refectory, a series of “Poetry in the Castle” and—thanks to Dénes Gulyás—“Song in the Castle” programmes was launched, featuring renowned performers, enriching the cultural and artistic experience. 4-5 exhibitions were organised in the Castle Gallery every year. The work of the theatre and the writers, artists, and creators associated with it were often presented on the occasion of anniversaries.
The theatre programme was promoted through publications. Szín-Világ, the magazine of the National Theatre, published between 1992 and 1999 – initially monthly, then bi-monthly – published articles by renowned writers, e.g. Károly Szakonyi, András Sütő, and Géza Páskándi. Gellért Raksányi’s column was popular, and Imre Sinkovits was also frequently featured. The newspaper reported extensively on the theatre’s events and upcoming performances and regularly published interviews with the theatre’s artists. The theatre’s dramaturgs edited a series of publications related to the theatre’s programme under the title Nemzeti-Téka (lit. National Repository). 19 booklets for teachers were produced. The booklet was reproduced in-house and included background material on the creation of a drama, essays by writers, directors, and critics, and background material to help the reader understand the staging. Eight volumes were published in the Nemzeti Könyvtár (lit. National Library) series. The series started with portrait books of outstanding artists. A collection of Géza Páskándi’s theatre writings, Sándor Szakácsi’s testimony and a volume summing up András Sütő’s 70 years in the theatre were published. The final piece in the series, entitled A csillagok felé… Fiatalok a Nemzeti Színházban 1991–1998 (lit. Towards the Stars... Young People in the National Theatre 1991–1998), presented young artists at the beginning of their careers, with a dedication by Imre Sinkovits.
In 1991, an educational institution was formally established within the theatre: the Theatre Academy. In 1997, the school was transformed into a secondary school of art under the direction of Gábor Dénes Kovács, with a teaching staff of almost 20. The students received three years of studio training—practical training with the help of National Theatre artists, evening performances in the theatre and a certificate of completion. Nearly a hundred graduates are working in theatres across the country as actors, assistants, or in other theatrical fields. László Ablonczy was Theatre Manager of the National Theatre from 1991 until 1999.
His eight-year-long management period actually consisted of two phases. In January 1994, at the end of the first period (1991–1993), the Ministry announced a tender for the post of the theatre manager of the National Theatre, which the jury declared invalid, and then Prime Minister Péter Boross, after interviewing the artists of the National Theatre, invited László Ablonczy to apply. The application was the intellectual plan of the National Theatre (the full text of the application is on page 146 of the book The National in the Air), according to point 1 of which the National Theatre is “one of the fundamental intellectual institutions of the nation, which is intended to serve the linguistic, historical, spiritual, and moral edification of the Hungarian nation and the world. In its programmes and work, it may not represent any party or daily political aims.” The jury unanimously accepted this intellectual plan and appointed László Ablonczy as the National Theatre’s Theatre Manager for five years. A few months later, the leaders of cultural policy launched a concerted attack on the National Theatre, claiming that the National required a different concept. In the direct context of the crackdown launched by Minister Gábor Fodor, the principal director, Ferenc Sík, became ill and died on 18 January 1995. In February, at the Ministry’s initiative, a conference on the National was held at the Merlin Theatre, where the speakers, revolving around the Alliance of Free Democrats, rejected tradition and the obligations of historical heritage. László Ablonczy did not attend. His letter A tanácskozáshoz (lit. To the Consultation) [20] was read by Ilona Béres. Prime Minister Gyula Horn replaced the person responsible for the institutional attacks on the National for Bálint Magyar. After long wrangling, István Iglódi was appointed Theatre Manager of the National. In June 1996, when the results of the design competition for the new National Theatre were announced, Minister of Culture Bálint Magyar unveiled a new concept plan. The revelation of the possible alternatives left writers and artists bewildered. László Kolozsvári Papp [21] reacted ironically to the changes in cultural life in the November 1996 issue of Kortárs:
“Didn’t the semi-voluntary penmen of culture champion Bálint Magyar reheat the theory of the National Theatre as a host theatre to be built?! Not that even my dog is afraid of it (not because I don’t have one), every feather stroke can be changed with another feather stroke, even the lowest feather stroke of the son of the National Theatre historian. But there’s the re-emerging question again: who needs a host National and who doesn’t need a good permanent Hungarian National? Why is the Comédie Française good for the French? For the English, the Globe, Shakespeare’s theatre in the making? And why don’t we, who truly deserve it based on our geopolitical position, population size, and per capita battle losses, need a National? And why, and by whose authority, do some people decide what we do and do not need? A post-communist party voted into power? A post-Kadar nation staring at their work with cold eyes and pouting faces? Does it not give a fleeting (and far more talented than his predecessor) Minister of Culture the right to decide—as the egg of a coalition never approved by the people—what kind of theatre the nation should have?”
Minister of Culture Bálint Magyar also announced that the current company will not be allowed to move into the new building. This was a threat –a threat to the livelihoods of the nearly three hundred people working in Hevesi Sándor Square. In addition to the stressful work of running the theatre, the Theatre Manager took up the defence of his staff and voiced his opposition to the decision-makers in every forum – press, radio, television, and parliament. For two years, there was open warfare between the representatives of the official position and the National Theatre staff. László Ablonczy took his service seriously, helping his staff through the most difficult moments of crisis. Before the parliamentary elections in May 1998, Bálint Magyar sent the founding charter of the Hungarian Theatre by courier, as a reassurance, indicating that the company would remain intact, but would not be called the National Theatre. As it turned out, the minister’s decision was illegal. But the parliamentary elections swept the minister and his party away, although Bálint Magyar’s plan was implemented before the inauguration of the new building (September 2000), after the end of László Ablonczy’s term as Theatre Manager. The company of the National Theatre, marked in the names of Imre Sinkovits, Ferenc Bessenyei, and Ilona Béres, was stripped of its rank. László Ablonczy’s successor, István Iglódi, in a letter dated 22 June 1999, said farewell to the theatre manager:
“Dear Laci! Thank you for the eight years I have spent under your administration! As a principal director, I had the honour of working with you, my almost ideal boss. You gave me a free hand, sometimes with a direction that seemed like an idea (e.g. The Tragedy, Lumpáciusz, Gerle, etc.), all of which were good ideas. The “almost” in the above means that you sometimes got into fights (articles, letters, etc.) that I would not have done. Of course, I don’t understand “large-scale politics”. But it was fantastic to work under a theatre manager whose word I never had to doubt. You don’t know what a huge thing that is. (I do, because I’ve worked for other theatre managers, too.) It’s fantastic not to have to look over your shoulder all the time. Laci! You are the most honourable person I know! That’s why you deserve what (thank God) you got, which—as far as I know—is unprecedented in the history of Hungarian theatre. For years, you have been reviled and mocked, but you leave here as no theatre manager has ever left (at least to my recollection) with thanks and a bouquet. People used to leave this position humiliated and spat on. You left to thunderous applause. May this serve as a cure for the wounds you received during your administration. I wish you a happy, meaningful, and valuable working life, and once again, I thank you respectfully for everything! Pista”
During his time as Theatre Manager of the National Theatre, he published four independent volumes. In his book Külön sors – külön irodalom (lit. Different destinies – different literature), Béla Márkus, literary historian and Széchenyi Prize winner, wrote an essay on László Ablonczy’s four volumes titled As if he were always up to the same thing. We quote from it. A szivárvány alatt (Utak Erdélybe) (lit. A szivárvány alatt]): “The volume, launched in Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfântu Gheorghe) in the Kaláka books series with a dedication by Árpád Farkas, is a collection of several genres, but in addition to the conversations, it also contains reports and memoirs, obituaries and diary entries, reviews and studies, letters and reports... ‘as if he were always up to the same thing’. [...] He believes that performing arts have a mission, and that this mission is as much about purifying public thought as it is about awakening collective self-awareness. For, as other writings have suggested, it is morality that we need more than anything else in the 20th century. Without moral content, there is no aesthetic, he argues.” Nehéz álom – Sütő András 70 éve (lit. Heavy Dream – 70 years of András Sütő) (monograph): “Heavy Dream is a richly illustrated account of the evolution of András Sütő’s behavioural variations, illuminating them from many angles and explaining them in many ways. First and foremost, of course, he takes sociological and social psychological perspectives. The question is how closely he was bound to his social environment – his immediate family as a primary social group and his wider environment, his home village, Pusztakamarás (Cămărașu), and his homeland – and whether his growing up process was determined by the strength of his bonds, his desire and will to travel and identify, or by a strong desire to separate, to be different, even to deny. [...] The 20th-century ‘chapter’ would also make a useful political and cultural calendar, and for more recent times, a disturbingly meticulous chronology, a personally inspired and useful guide.” Jelentés a völgyből (lit. Report from the Valley): “László Ablonczy, who regularly reports from month to month, from January to December, finds and points out many events in Hungarian history, many figures of national cultural development and cultivation, as if encouraging himself that ‘Seen from above, the country might still exist…’ László Ablonczy is drawn to everyday politics more than the earthly force of gravity, and as a weekend wanderer who longs for solitude, it is very difficult for him to escape this attraction. For the time being, it seems impossible that he will succeed in the desired feat, not that of the tightrope walker, not that of the summoned Zoltán Jékely, but that of the one imagined by Endre Ady: ‘Let my eyes look beyond/The abominations of the short present.’ Theatre Experienced: “His volume Theatre Experienced only emphasises what was evident from his previous major works, The Gaze of Zoltán Latinovits (1987), National in the Air (1996), and his monograph on András Sütő, Heavy Dream: the author had long since turned himself into a task... Whether as a critic reporting on performances, a historian researching old theatrical events, or an organiser and accompanist of artists’ performances, the task was and is bound to the theatre in all three branches. The task, then, is to serve Hungarian theatre.”
1999–2005 Paris
After the end of his mandate at the National Theatre, he moved to Paris to join his wife. His wife, Magda A. Szabó, worked as deputy artistic director at the Hungarian Institute in Paris, and through his family connections, he found himself at the cultural centre of the Hungarian diaspora. He met and made friends with prominent representatives of the Hungarian community in France and with artists from all over the world. He recorded his meetings and reflections, and sent reports on literary and theatrical events and public affairs to Néplap in Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureș), Háromszék in Sepsiszentgyörgy (Sfântu Gheorghe), Reformátusok Lapja in Budapest, and the weekly Debrecen. He recounts his experiences during his stay in Paris in his book Múló levelek (lit. Passing letters) [22], which begins with a confession to his wife, Magdó:
“I have often ached for you in my daily life. While waiting for you, I had time to think and write letters, thinking of home. Biased, because Endre Ady’s impulse haunted me. I cannot bear the lies, the deluders of the nation, the gobbledygook of knights incapable of justification. In the shadow of the Eiffel Tower, I was also looking for ways to get back on our feet. More precisely, we searched because so many moments in Paris and the most important questions of my life could only be clarified with you. Thank you for all the time. Falling leaves—passing letters... We were happy in Paris…”
László Ablonczy and Magda A. Szabó’s joint work, anthology „Állj fel” torony árnyékában (lit. In the Shadow of the “Állj fel” tower) [23] also captures a joyful moment, quoting Béla Bartók. During his first trip to Paris (19 August 1905), Béla Bartók, in a joking mood, wrote the following doggerel to his sister: “Által mentem én a Szajna-hidacskán, hida-, hida- hidacskán / Felmentem az »Állj fel« torony csucsára, felmentem a csucsára / Liften mentem én oda / Onnan néztem Párisra / Hej, de szép az élet itten Párizsban, szép az élet csuhajja!” (lit. “I walked across the little bridge over the Seine, bridge, bridge, little bridge / I climbed to the top of the ‘Állj fel’ tower, I climbed to the top / I took the elevator there / From there I looked out over Paris / Hey, life is so beautiful here in Paris, life is beautiful!”) The anthology, which is also valuable from a cultural history perspective, was written in the spirit of the idea of 20th-century Hungarian destiny on French soil. In its introductory dedication, he reports on the memories of Ferenc Mádl’s political career in France, while in the epilogue, László Ablonczy’s Sors és ihlet (lit. Fate and Inspiration) provides a summary and encourages young researchers to “process the facts and events that have become historical fate in the interaction between Hungarian emigration, official representation in Paris and Hungarian politics.” The collection of texts includes more than 200 works by 180 authors. Poets, writers, painters, students, politicians, etc. tell of their experiences and memories of Paris, of the fateful events of the 20th century. A television movie entitled Hunok a (háztetőkön) Párizsban (lit. Huns (on the Rooftops) in Paris) (Duna Television—directed by László Cselényi) was also made using the compilation, with the collaboration of the anthology’s editors. A series of lectures by Hungarians from Eastern Europe was central to the Hungarian Institute in Paris’ programme. Happy was the man who was invited, because in the dreams of Hungarian artists, Paris has always been the centre of the world. András Sütő wrote in his essay Párizs poharai (lit. Glasses of Paris) [24], including a letter to the Ablonczy couple: “Who can blame every Hungarian for leaving for Paris and returning from there with the notorious syndrome never leaving their heart. We could almost say that it has become our genetic heritage. The bitter cup of Paris must also be drunk. [...] The luck of the Dead Sea Hungarian living in the diaspora was my luck. That my stammering confessions about our Transylvanian destiny were dressed in French by such a great representative of Hungarian cultural diplomacy as Magda Szabó. But this is also how the word and the thought resonated with Laci Ablonczy. For our old friendship is like salt: it neither deteriorates nor decays... I bless my fate and thank you for the opportunity to visit the Heart of the World.” During his years in France, he wrote articles, interviews, and studies for Reformátusok Lapja about protestant works and authors of Hungarian literature (János Kodolányi, László Németh, László Cs. Szabó, Gyula Illyés, András Sütő, Pál Gulyás, Samu Benkő from Transylvania, László Koncsol from Upper Hungary, etc.). Most of these writings were published in the volume Bartók Béla kertjében: Marosszentimrétől Párizsig (lit. In Béla Bartók’s Garden: from Sântimbru to Paris) (Studies, Conversations, and Notes) by Püski Publishing House in 2003.
Since 2005 in Budapest
Since 2005, he has written his studies and books in Budapest, based on source documents of Hungarian theatre history and imbued with historical and public thoughts surrounding the National Theatre. According to Lajos Szakolczay’s [25] book review, in his two portrait books, Árvai Réka csodái – Kubik Anna könyve (lit. Miracles of Réka Árvai – Anna Kubik’s Book) (Budapest, 2010, Kairosz) and Sinkovits Imre a Hargitán – Fél évszázad töredékei a Nemzeti Színház 175 esztendejéből (lit. Imre Sinkovits on the Hargita – Fragments of Half a Century from 175 Years of the National Theatre) (Budapest, 2013, Kairosz), he paints a sensitive portrait by describing conversations that never stray from the profession and the theatre. “The Miracles of Réka Árvai is not simply a biography focused on roles, stations, and career turns – although it is plenty of those – but a double portrait imbued with personal traits, personal traits of the actor and the writer, and with profound confession.” The volume on Imre Sinkovits is a tribute to the inimitable artist who was first in line and last to go, whose passing marked the passing of the greatest of the National Theatre. His writings on theatre history over the last decade are characterised by a historian’s thoroughness and philological meticulousness. His studies testify to his wide-ranging knowledge of Hungarian theatre’s past and present. His writings are well documented (the work of Endre Gellért, Gábor Földes, and others) and are based on confidential and secret documents. Old-fashioned theatre history with State Protection Authority (ÁVH) documents... – and his books Raksányi Kutyával (lit. With Kutya Raksányi) (Budapest, 2012, Kairosz Publishing House), and “Templom, parlament, kínpad: megannyi színpad” ÁVH-s(be)súgókkal – Új évezredi tűnődések, jegyzetek, beszélgetések (lit. “Church, Parliament, and Rack: so Many Stages” – With AVH informants – New millennium–reflections, notes, and conversations) (Budapest, 2014, Kairosz Publishing House), based on the study of archive documents of the Ministry of Interior, reveal many new facts and hitherto unknown political and personal connections. His writings on public life in the last decade have been published in Hitel and Magyar Szemle. Márton Falusi writes in his collection of essays [26]: “Issue 2006/2 of Hitel contains several essays with remarkable individual approaches and tone. The most outstanding of them is that of László Ablonczy (Alvilágosodás kora [lit. Age of Underworld Spillover]), who has compiled his own fascinating view of the regime change from his diary-like notes.” Endre Papp, the editor in charge of Hitel, has saluted László Ablonczy, 70 years old (Hitel, 2015/10): “He is one of the youngest of the founders of Hitel. He was sitting there in 1982, in the ‘soul-stirring’ company of Gyula Illyés, to make a statement of faith about independence and national unity. [...] He seeks protection against self-interested, Hungarian-speaking national destroyers, internationalists-globalists, uniformizers, exclusivists, political, intellectual and taste tyrants in history, culture, literature, theatre, and human community. The latter two are united in him. For him, theatre is a place of reverence, celebration, love, a place of inner mystery, and a place of ‘mysterious suggestions’. If it is not – and often it is not – then it is selfish games, malicious intent, pettiness, evil, incompetence, manipulation of power, and political oppression. And in its wake, human suffering, and destruction... László Ablonczy’s ideal – as I see it – is that of ‘redemptive action’, a refuge of family, friendship, ecclesiastical, esoteric, and national belonging. His hope is the triumph of love over adversity, a possible purification and reconciliation. The natural motive for its attachment to the national community is the constant sense of lack that surrounds us. What our continent lacks most is spiritual harmony, he believes, ‘we are citizens of an ideologically fragmented Europe’. ‘It is time to yearn for a happy life’, he told us all in his grand essay for the quarter-century anniversary of Hitel. But he is not just longing, he is doing. The last decade and a half as a writer, he has brought to fruition a multitude of books. Only an outsider can say: the (life) work is almost finished. I hope that the author does not rest after all [27].” A former publicist and author of hastily written articles, he has now, with a contemplative and restrained temperament, turned to the essay – a genre that is hopefully still popular and cultivable today. Although the world is hardly interested in personalism anymore. And so, we are left with encouragement and self-assurance: writing as a message in a bottle for the future. His life and destiny were inspired by the theatre in Debrecen, and in autumn 2015, on the occasion of the 150th anniversary of the Csokonai Theatre, he conducted an extensive, in-depth interview with György Lengyel, who launched his career (Hitel, 2015/8). Recalling the performance of The Seagull, and reviewing the work of László Ablonczy, he was perhaps haunted by the thought of Chekhov’s character Shamrayev: “The stage is not what it was in his time. There were sturdy oaks growing on it then, where now but stumps remain.” The former theatre manager of the National Theatre still tends the oaks in his daily work.
[2016]
[1] László Ablonczy: „Templom, parlament, kínpad: megannyi színpad” ÁVH-s (be)súgókkal (lit. “Church, Parliament, and Rack: so Many Stages” with ÁVH (in)whisperers). Bp., 1914, Kairosz Kiadó, 170–174.
[2] Hitel journal XXVIII. volume 2015/August, 44.
[3] His essay “Vágyunk és veszünk egy parányi fényt” (lit. “We long for and take a little light”), an abridged version of the thesis, was published in László Ablonczy’s Nemzeti lélekharang (lit. National Knell). Bp., 2007. Codex Print Kiadó, 52.
[4] László Ablonczy: Nemzeti a magasban, Krónika dokumentumokban 1963–1996 (lit. The National in the Air, Chronicle in the Documents 1963–1996). Bp., 1996, CP Studio
[5] The full text of the study can be found in László Ablonczy: Megélt színház (lit. Theatre as Experienced). Bp., 1998, Püski.
[6] Hajdú-Bihari Napló Az oroszlán bőrében – egykor és most, Beszélgetés Ablonczy Lászlóval, a Nemzeti Színház igazgatójával (lit. In the skin of a lion – then and now, Conversation with László Ablonczy, director of the National Theatre). 12 November 1991.
[7] Béla Márkus: Külön sors – külön irodalom (lit. Different destinies – different literature). Bp., 2002, Nap Kiadó
[8] László Ablonczy: A szivárvány alatt, Utak Erdélybe – Kaláka könyvek sorozat (lit. Under the Rainbow, Journeys to Transylvania – Kaláka books series, Sfântu Gheorghe, 1997, Háromszék Lap- és Könyvkiadó
[9] László Ablonczy: Nemzeti lélekharang Jászai Maritól Bubik Istvánig (lit. National Knell from Jászai Mari to István Bubik). Bp., 2007, Codex Print Kiadó. Full text of the paper, with postscript: 269–282.
[10] László Ablonczy: Megélt színház (lit. Theatre as Experienced) Bp., 1998, Püski Kiadó
[11] Also available in László Ablonczy: Nemzeti Lélekharang (lit. National Knell) (Bp., 2007, Codex Print Kiadó) with commentary and postscript 423–447.
[12] László Ablonczy: Latinovits Zoltán élete, halála és feltámadásai (lit. Life, Death, and Resurrections of Zoltán Latinovits). Bp., 2011, Kairosz Kiadó, 251–252.
[13] László Ablonczy: Latinovits Zoltán tekintete (lit. Zoltán Latinovits’ Gaze). Bp., 1987, Minerva Kiadó
[14] Ibolya Cs. Nagy: Kérdez az idő – tanulmányok, kritikák, cikkek. (lit. Time Asks Questions – Studies, Reviews, Articles.) Miskolc, 2002, Felsőmagyarország Kiadó, 58.
[15] The cover of the 2011 edition is identical to that of the Latinovits booklet published in 1977. On the back cover, it bears the handwriting of Gyula Illyés: “It is a pity that, like the other geniuses of dangerous fate, / we could not keep him.”
[16] Zoltán Bertha, literary historian, professor at the Károlyi University, member of the theoretical section of the MMA – laudation 2015.
[17] Másságunkról – A színház nem stílus kérdése, hanem nemzeti ügy. (lit. On Our Otherness – Theatre is Not a Matter of Style, it is a National Issue.) Magyar Nemzet, 10 June 1995.
[18] ibid.
[19] Miklós Hubay: “Ércek és bércek” (lit. “Ores and Mountains”) Szín-Világ 1995/May
[20] Levél a tanácskozáshoz. (lit. Letter to the deliberation). Published in László Ablonczy: Szín-vallás, avagy az Őrnagy úr feldarabolásának szükséges voltáról. (lit. Act-confession, or on the Necessity of Dismembering the Major). Bp., 2008, Kairosz Kiadó, 164–166.
[21] László Kolozsvári Papp (1940–2005) József Attila Prize-winning writer. His essay, published in Kortárs (No. 11, 1996), is entitled Az író, ha magyar (lit. The Writer, if Hungarian).
[22] László Ablonczy: Múló levelek – Párizsból 2002–2004. Jegyzetek, tűnődések, találkozások (lit. Ephemeral Letters – From Paris 2002–2004. Notes, Musings, Encounters). Bp., 2005, Kairosz Kiadó
[23] „Állj fel” torony árnyékában – Magyarok francia földön – Egy század tükörcserepei (lit. In the Shadow of the “Állj fel” tower – Hungarians on French soil – Reflections of a century). Veszprém, 2003, Új Horizont Kiadó
[24] András Sütő: Létvégi hajrá (lit. Final sprint). Debrecen, 2006. Kossuth University Press, 227–236. p.
[25] Lajos Szakolczay (1941–) Széchenyi Prize-winning literary historian. Kubik Anna könyve (lit. Anna Kubik’s Book) – László Ablonczy: Árvai Réka csodái (lit. Réka Árvai’s miracles) was published in issue 7/2011 of Hitel magazine.
[26] Márton Falusi (1983–) Attila József Prize-winning poet and editor. His work entitled Virágvasárárnapi zsákbanfutás (lit. Palm Sunday Sack Run) can be read in the volume – essay, study, critique – published in 2012 by Hitel Könyvműhely.
[27] Endre Papp: Ablonczy László 70 éves (lit. László Ablonczy 70 years old). Hitel 2015/10.