Mansions of the aristocracy – squandered patrimony?

A strong polarisation in terms of social structure characterises Hungary’s past in a large part of the country’s history. The majority of the population was represented by the peasantry, which increasingly became heterogeneous and was entirely excluded from the advantages offered by land ownership for a long time, while the nobility representing the other pole owned most of the land. Until the 19th century there was hardly any bourgeoisie, which as a middle class could have balanced the inequalities of a system which gave little to many and much to a few. Another feature was that attempts to transform the social structure, which mainly achieved only partial results (for example the emancipation of serfs), were not realised independently but as part of the struggle for national independence. They did not occur through upheavals such as those witnessed during the English or French revolutions. Another feature in Hungary, almost as important, was that the above outlined system – especially concerning land ownership – existed by and large until the middle of the last century. As a result, a rather archaic society full of internal tensions had to face the challenges of modernity.

What was disadvantageous for masses of the population favoured the undisturbed maintenance of an aristocratic lifestyle. The plebeian anger that ransacked French aristocratic mansions and palaces after 1789 avoided the homes of the Hungarian aristocracy for a long time. However, Soviet troops reached Hungary in August-September 1944 and the country turned into a military theatre for more than half a year. The protection of the state, which had an interest in preserving the system of large estates, quickly disappeared and as a result the panic-stricken middle and high nobility fled, leaving behind most of their belongings and their places of residence. The change, which was similar to a flood in its impact, was not an internal development or a result of organic processes, but occurred as a consequence of the military activity of an alien army.

What took place between 1944 and the nationalisation process following World War II resulted in the greatest rupture in Hungarian social history: the disappearance of the nobility. The sudden break presented by the complete loss of power and ownership on the part of the aristocracy, which had played a leading role for nine centuries, is not properly dealt with either by historians or sociologists. This can be largely explained by the fact that the privileged position of the nobility was indeed anachronistic in the 20th century, which Hungarian progressive forces interested in raising the lower social strata had observed with hostility and thus did not shed tears following its downfall. Yet it must be noted that the privileged position had not only retrograde features. It also ensured the existence of high culture in Hungary in certain periods. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that leading figures of “Hungarian progress” before the era of modernity were mostly represented in the circles of nobility and especially the aristocracy. Here I offer an overview of what happened to the most precious treasures, mansions, after the disappearance of the aristocracy, with special respect to the recent past. Although the Red Army is generally thought to have been responsible for plundering the aristocratic residences, it is far from being so simple. Internal collapse had already begun with the Arrow Cross takeover soon after the Soviet incursion. For example, the Bezerédj Mansion in Szentivánfa with its highly valuable picture gallery, furniture and art collection was set on fire by the Arrow Cross, last but not least in order to obliterate the traces of the court martial operated there. Contrary to the legends about their gallant behaviour, the occupying German forces fighting alongside the Arrow Cross took their considerable share of looting. Moreover, in many cases they did not even wait for the landlords to leave. That happened in Nádasdladány where, according to the recollections of FerencNádasdy (1937–2013) who experienced the events as a child, they took methodically and in large quantities the extremely valuable furnishings and other treasures (paintings, books, weapons, etc.) They could not rob the portraits, from the ancient aristocratic family’s gallery of ancestors, which was designed by AlajosHauszmann and considered one of the nicest Hungarian interiors of Historicism, because the paintings had been “walled in”.

The advancing Soviet troops passed through the country in several waves. Of those it was not the leading, fighting units who presented the biggest danger for Hungary’s mansions but those following them. As compared to the systematic and planned robbing of the bourgeois collections in the capital’s banks, far more barbaric looting took place in the countryside. For example, the priceless archival records of the Batthyánys’ residence in Körmend were utilised in a rather ‘practical’ manner by the Soviet soldiers: the seals of medieval charters were often used for waxing boots, while parchment and paper also found their function in the latrines. Of course, besides destruction there was looting, partly by ordinary soldiers who could send some of their acquisitions home by rail, and partly in a centrally organised manner, as if it were the counterpart for damages caused to the Soviet Union. Some of the art treasures can still be found in storerooms of different Russian public collections. Several attempts have been made to find them, yet even their partial return seems rather doubtful. In any case, the occupiers had mostly left Hungary’s mansions by the end of 1946.

Yet the most painful loss was not caused by the withdrawing Germans or the Soviets who replaced them, but by the local population. Although this issue is still not properly discussed fully, the fact must be accepted that the Hungarian people played a shameful role in ruining the most valuable mansions of local material culture. The case of the Nagycenk Mansion, which was completely ransacked, is one such example. The splendid volumes of IstvánSzéchenyi’s library with his handwritten notes were thrown out of the windows to the courtyard where they were put on a bonfire recalling the darkest periods of history. Although the police later searched the village residents and their homes, they did not find much trace of the relics. The causes reach back to several factors, but of those the social and intellectual gap between the two poles of Hungarian society is most prominent. The aristocracy’s seclusion from the lower classes and their rightly offending privileged lifestyle resulted in revenge. Similarly, the painful absence of a sufficiently large and significant middle class was evident here, since this stratum could have effectively mediated the ideal of respecting the nation’s common intellectual property. Just as the bourgeois concept of nation with its abstract nature of bridging over classes is able to point out folk culture to the traditional elite, so it can also present the properties of the aristocracy as a common treasure to the lower social groups. The extent of the loss is almost incalculable, despite the fact that several committees were set up to record the damage and secure the still rescuable treasures. Nevertheless, we can find some solace in that there were relatively few prominent mansions which themselves were ruined, unlike their furnishings and other valuables.

What Hungary’s sparse middle classes were unable to do in terms of socialising the private properties of the nobility in an intellectual sense, socialism implemented, both in a physical and legal respect, when aristocratic mansions were nationalised. The destiny of mansions after nationalisation can be described as inappropriate utilisation, which was simultaneously harmful for the building and dysfunctional for the institution that moved in. The mansions which were deprived of their land and held together with, at most, a fraction of their gardens lost the economic background which had earlier provided for their maintenance. Thus their future depended on what they were used for. The least damaging functions, such as education or social care, offered far better opportunities for keeping the interior features than an agricultural machine station, a cooperative’s chemicals storehouse or a barracks. For example, the most valuable interior parts (the main staircase, the ceremonial hall and the Maria Theresa Room) of the Grassalkovich Palace in Gödöllő functioned as an old people’s home, hence those spaces remained in a surprisingly good condition, unlike the side wings which were converted to Soviet barracks, revealing a disheartening view after the withdrawal of the occupying forces in 1991. It is important to note how much depended on the educational level and attitude of the head of the institute that was moved in. Mansions perhaps in the best condition remained among those which were operated with a social function, such as the Baroque Rimanóczy Mansion in Zsira and the Eclectic Károlyi Mansion in Nagymágocs, which have been used for the same purpose since after the war and have kept all their interior features. Naturally the overall picture is far from being so idyllic since, due to their inappropriate utilisation, most mansions lost the treasures which had perhaps been spared during the war. Apart from the frescos in a worse than desperate condition in the large hall and a single fireplace, everything in the Cziráky Mansion in Lovasberény has been lost as a result of utilisation by a cooperative.

A decision was only made in 1981 about having to save Hungary’s extremely run-down mansions based on a unified concept. During the renovation process known as the Mansion Project, significant work was performed for purposes of partly cultural, partly touristic (hotel) and partly social and health care uses. There was already a demand for the mansions to promote their former rank and past via their restored interior.

At the time of the 1989–90 political changes many experts were hopeful about the future of Hungary’s mansions. The opportunity to involve private capital seemed particularly encouraging. In contrast with a number of post-socialist neighbouring countries, restitution did not take place, i.e. Hungarian mansions were not returned to their original owners. Moreover, several aristocratic residences were included in the list of properties to be kept in state ownership, which may seem to have prolonged party state ownership, yet still proved basically a right decision from a heritage protection perspective. Those who placed trust in privatisation unfortunately had to be disappointed in most cases, since private investors often wanted to achieve unrealistic goals with the acquired mansions without the necessary financial background, and later when their intentions came to nought they abandoned the buildings without meeting the basic requirements of maintenance. In many cases the purchase presumably happened in order to later obtain a mortgage or credit, i.e. there was no intention to renovate. Unfortunately, the exasperating examples are countless. Mention must be made of the sad case of the Mikos Mansion in Mikosszéplak, which was still in rather good condition in the 1990s. The building in Romantic style with early Gothic features is a principal work of its period in Hungary, in which many beautiful carved wooden ceilings, wall coverings and even original furnishings survived baleful times. Despite its small size, the triple staircase had a monumental effect. Spectacular plans were drawn up to turn the mansion into a hotel, which was privatised in the early 2000s and then changed owners several times. However, the outlined concepts of extension and conversion would have insensibly changed the historically authentic image of the building. Of course, nothing came of it and because of the demolition of the roof structure of a wing, leakage and frost damage occurred, starting irreversible decay in the structure of the building. Dry rot and mould appeared. The remaining part of the roof structure, the interior and especially the underpinned staircase, are in a critical condition and the fine details have mostly been lost. The wrangling between the owners and the heritage protection authorities experienced in Mikosszéplak can be regarded as typical. The tasteless conversion of privatised aristocratic residences, which began to increase at the beginning of the 2000s, represents a separate group of cases.

Yet successful renovations have also occurred with privatised mansions, although their number is not considerable. However, it must be noted that the hotel function, which emerges as Pavlov’s reflex in connection with the utilisation of mansions, can be considered as undeserving in the cases of prominent edifices. The concept of top-quality hotels, the need to match today’s comfort requirements and the accompanying excessive modernisation are incompatible with maintaining the authenticity of a mansion rich in artistic detail.

Concerning the most valuable buildings which have mainly remained in state ownership, their utilisation for cultural purposes and museums is a basic requirement. Despite all the possible stumbles, the rebirth of the Royal Palace in Gödöllő can be considered a success story.

Hungary can apply for EU funds only for developing tourism, which results in several enforced compromises. Inserting lifts, sometimes at the price of breaking through original vaulting, is as problematic as the presence of smoke detectors, cameras, air-conditioners or the signs indicating emergency routes disturbing the milieu of interior spaces. The fashion for creating visitors’ centres, which is most often absolutely unnecessary and disturbs the effectiveness of the listed building, and which involve didactic film screenings using terribly expensive yet unbelievably quickly becoming obsolete technical equipment and other visual effects deprive the historical edifice of itself revealing its secrets and offering the joy of spontaneous cognition for visitors.

The immensely promising National Mansion Project under preparation is also intended to be financed basically from EU funds. Yet the above phenomena should make us cautious so that our descendants would not think of today’s renovations as monuments of a subsidy system kept within bounds, but regard them as lasting, high-standard and value-centred works.

Since a considerable part of the Hungarian nation’s cultural heritage can be found outside the country’s present borders, the situation of mansions in the neighbouring territories must also be mentioned. However, due to the huge volume of edifices, examples will be shown only in one of Hungary’s neighbours, Slovakia. A rich built heritage of aristocratic patronage existed in the counties of historic Upper Hungary, which was not devastated by the Ottomans as much as elsewhere. However, the vicissitudes of the 20th century rather decimated those treasures, causing irreparable damage to our joint heritage. Nevertheless, present day Slovakia fortunately happens to have at least one intact, high-standard example of all the stylistic periods of the Modern Age, which is unfortunately not the case in Hungary. For example, the halls of the early Baroque Pálffy Castle Palace in ČervenýKameň are as full of original items of furniture and other artworks as the Koháry-Coburg Manor House in Svätý Anton, which can boast of mainly intact rooms of late Baroque interior art.