I. Georg Lukács und David Kettler Briefwechsel und Dokumente1

David KettlerIntroduction

My two Budapest meetings with Georg Lukács in July 1962 and July 1963, as well as the brief correspondence arising out of them, came about at the beginning of my research into the Hungarian years of Karl Mannheim. They were not only of great intrinsic interest to me, as a young assistant professor with Marxist inclinations who was just resuming scholarly research after belatedly completing my doctoral dissertation, but also essential starting points in the process that permitted me to execute a small but useful piece of work, despite a decisive disability that should have made it impossible—my ignorance of the Hungarian language. Because the story uncovered at the end of my first talk with Lukács referred to a time he did not generally care to recall, especially since it involved politically ambiguous matters when he was already under political pressure in the aftermath of 1956, his generosity to an unknown young American still strikes me as exceptional. Above all, Lukács opened the door for me to a number of his contemporaries whose information proved inestimable in value. In our actual conversations, then, he spoke mostly about his then current work, preferring to live in the present; but he served as my patron and he monitored and corrected the information I gained from others.

The documents below track my initial visit to Lukács and a number of the interviews that followed from it during the ensuing years, ending with a correspondence with Ilona Duczynska - the wife of the great economic historian, Karl Polanyi, who is best known as a writer under her original name - in 1972, whom I consulted about an English translation of my 1967 monograph on “Lukács and Mannheim in the Hungarian Revolutions of 1918/19.” To provide a context, I will report briefly on my way to my Mannheim project.

1 Die folgenden Materialien warden unverändert wiedergegeben. David Kettler hat dankenswerterweise erläuternde Anmerkungen hinzugefügt und eine Einführung geschrieben, die das Verständnis erleichtert. Anmerkungen des Herausgebers sind gekennzeichnet (R.D.).

The idea of turning to Mannheim from the Scottish Enlightenmentfigure, Adam Ferguson, who had been the subject of my dissertation, arose out of three questions posed by that earlier work. There was my initial question about the intellectually valid uses of socio-historical periodization in the structure of social theory, prompted by my ambition to confute Karl Popper’s anti-Marxist critique of “historicism”; there was the desire to pursue the intimation that the kind of thinking that I was uncovering in exploring the moral philosophy of the Eighteenth Century had to do with the contrast between academic philosophy and the modes of thought characteristic of the “intellectual,” as a newly emerging kind of “man of knowledge”; and there was finally a curiosity about the genealogy of “enlightenments,” as distinctive kinds of cultural-political convergences. Earlier in my studies, before I began the work on Ferguson at the suggestion of my supervising professor, Franz L. Neumann, I had expected to workout a strategy for the first and most important of these challenges through my conjoint encounters with Herbert Marcuse and Georg Lukács, the two icons of the self-assured “methodological manifesto” prefacing my 1953 Master’s Essay on “Plato and the Problem of Social Change.” As I struggled with Ferguson and his better known contemporaries, however, I found myself increasingly drawn to a mode of analysis that owed more to Karl Mannheim, whose Ideology and Utopia was then a standard and familiar text in undergraduate education. So it was quite natural that I would turn next to a direct encounter with Mannheim’s project, as an unexpected stop on my own continuing way to the Marx I still hoped to find.

By virtue of a chance meeting and brief conversation with Max Horkheimer during a visit he paid to my university, I secured an invitation to the Institut für Sozialforschung, and this in turn enabled me to gain two fellowships, which allowed me to spend 1961-1962 in Frankfurt. In my discussion with Horkheimer I had quite innocently focused on my larger question, picking up the threads of the Frankfurt School discussions as they had been introduced to me by Neumann and Marcuse; but I quickly realized that no one at the Institut had much understanding formy detour to Mannheim, so that I was left very much to my own devices and only nominally associated with the famous research center. My prime consultants as I began to read my way into theliterature were Kurt H. Wolff, a student of Mannheim and a

former colleague, and Morris Watnick, a recently retired government employee who was a renowned specialist in Eastern European Communist ideology and Marxist thought and who had been my office mate during his short passage through the university where I taught. My extensive correspondence with Watnick is especially important in the present context, since he was my expert (and interested) guide as I pursued the increasing signs that the encounter with Lukács was of special importance to Mannheim. Watnick was a perfectionist who preferred the role of adviser and confidante to authorship, buthe had published a path-breaking three-part series on Lukács’ early writings. And he clearly hoped to expand this into a bookif he could ever satisfy his unlimited craving for details and documentation. I am sure that his eagerness added to the other considerations leading me to keep Lukács high on my Mannheim agenda.

As it happened, it was a good time to be in Germany and curiousabout Georg Lukács. Frank Benseler, a young editor at Luchterhand Verlag, had managed to secure Lukács’ permission topublish his complete works, including books that he had disavowed, notably Geschichte und Klassenbewusstsein; and Peter Ludz in Berlin had immersed himself in Lukács’ writings as he prepared a preliminary volume for Benseler’s series. Closer tothe Institut, there was Kurt Lenk, who had just published a work on “Ideology” that addressed itself to theoretical differences between Lukács and Mannheim, among other topics. Asan adventurous young academic with a plausible opening gambit, as someone returning to Germany twenty years after my flight from persecution, it was not difficult for me to become acquainted with these colleagues, and to speed my initiation into a conversation I had known only from a great distance.

None of this sufficed, however, to satisfy the curiosity that Ihad cultivated in the course of my Ferguson work and that Mannheim’s approach itself fostered. I wanted to know more about the cultural and political roles Mannheim played and the social setting of his work, and especially about his beginnings. Theoretical comparisons between Mannheim and those with whom he engaged in the most intense intellectual negotiations were of course essential; but they were not enough. I frankly cannot remember when I decided that I would have to discover more about Mannheim’s years in Budapest than

was known at the time, and that an interview with Lukács would be the appropriate starting point. Mannheim himself left few clues in the public record about his years as student and youngacademic, apart from the title of his dissertation, although his extended and enthusiastic review of Lukács’ Theory of the Novel, published in Logos in 1920 without any reference to Lukács’ turn to Communism, at the very time that petitions werecirculating to safeguard Lukács from deportation to Hungary, was a striking beginning to his German career. I wanted to findout more.

Thanks to my friendly contact with Benseler, I felt I could approach Lukács as long as I said nothing to worry him—or the authorities who had only recently permitted his return from exile in Bucharest and who were doubtless watching his mail. I delayed sending my anodyne letter until I reached Vienna, whereI had to wait some ten days for a visa. The policy of the Federal Republic precluded a Hungarian diplomatic presence in Germany. I rented a cheap cold-water room near the vegetable market and lived on 24s. per day, while immersed in the depositories of German-language Budapest newspapers from the years I needed: the Pester Lloyd as the quality paper of the Jewish upper middle class and the Volksstimme as the newspaper of the Social Democracy. When I finally arrived in Budapest, I simply telephoned Lukács and received an instant invitation to visit, although, as I realized in the course of our conversation, he did not connect me with the author of the letter he had so cordially answered. The documents below, one set designed for Lukács and another a report to Watnick, recordboth the contents and the atmosphere of that encounter, which left me unable to sleep all night. Lukács’ casual reference to Mannheim’s collaboration in a “Free School of the Humanities” organized by a group close to Lukács made it clear that I was on an important track. The subsequent meeting with Zoltan Horvath2, to whom Lukács had introduced me by telephone, staked out the territory I would have to explore, as best I could, notably the “Sunday Circle,” of which there had been no mentionin any literature outside of Hungary—and perhaps not even 2 „Zoltan Horvath was perhaps twenty years younger than Lukacs and had been a Social Democratic journalist in postwar Budapest until his seven-year imprisonment. Lukács trusted him, although he did not share his opinion about the importance of the cultural activities around Lukács during the years of the First World War, much of which was centered in a weekly meeting of Lukács and his friends, informally called the Sunday Circle.“

there. Zoltan Horvath was perhaps twenty years younger than Lukacs and had been a Social Democratic journalist in postwar Budapest until his seven-year imprisonment. Lukács trusted him,although he did not share his opinion about the importance of the cultural activities around Lukács during the years of the First World War, much of which was centered in a weekly meetingof Lukács and his friends, informally called the Sunday Circle.Lukács’ name then opened the way to a number of other informants in Budapest, and especially to several key individuals who had left Hungary. And his generous replies to my eager letters reassured me that my research had gained his approval, although my main subject was a writer he had denounced in very harsh terms in some publications of his Moscow exile. Much had changed in the world and in Lukács since, in the immediate aftermath of Hitler’s seizure of power in 1933 and in the midst of the Communist campaign against sociologists as well as Social Democrats as passive accomplicesof Nazism, he had excoriated Mannheim’s „relationism“ and „frei-schwebendede Intelligenz“ as code words for surrender.3

My intermittent contacts with Lukács and Horváth continued by mail during the following academic year, which also saw meetings with a number of the informants living in North America whom they had suggested, notably Anna Lesznai and TiborGergerly as well as Karl Polanyi and Ilona Duczynska. Lesznai had been one of Lukács closest confidantes during the time of the “Sunday Circle,” and Gergerly had been one of the “bambini”permitted to attend (his prime contribution was a set of brilliant caricatures of the main figures in the circle). I visited them in their small New York apartment and relished theoccasion. Neither Karl Polanyi nor Ilona Duczynska were intimates of Lukács or Mannheim, but they were at the center respectively of the liberal Christian and revolutionary groupings of that time and exceptionally valuable for their distinct perspectives and their determined eagerness to have meget the story right. We spent some fine hours together in Pickering outside of Toronto, and they were exceptionally conscientious in attempting my education in the details of thatcomplex situation. A summer fellowship then enabled me to spendthe summer of 1963 in London, where I had numerous visits with Arnold Hauser, whom Lukács had especially recommended. The

3 Georg Lukács, Wie ist die faschistische Philosophie in Deutschland entstanden? [1933] Budapest: Akadémiai Kiado, 1982: 203-206.

grant also permitted me to make a return visit to Budapest, where I gained additional valuable information from Horvath andothers, but where my visit to Lukács had more the character of a courtesy call. Letters to Lesznai and Duczynzka give an account of that meeting, for which there was no interview memorandum. The visit to Budapest also led to my securing the text of “Soul and Culture,” the programmatic lecture that Mannheim presented to the “Free School of Humanistic Studies” in 1918, and this clarified and confirmed the accounts I had accumulated through my interviews and provided a key element inthe first publications arising from this work.

One article published in English focused on what I earlier called the first question, which concerned the mode of thinkingdedicated to using historical understanding to overcome a complex of antinomies in moral and social thought. That article focused on Mannheim’s encounter with Lukács’ History and Class-Consciousness during his first years in Germany, but it made little use of the contextualizing information I acquired through my interviews. This was reserved for a historical monograph published through Frank Benseler at Luchterhand, Marxismus und Kultur. Beginning with a characterization of the place of intellectuals in Budapest, thestudy examined the interests and activities of the Lukács groupand the various ways in which they engaged the revolutions thatbroke out in 1918 and 1919. The dominant ambition of this cohort was found to be some revolutionary spiritual breakthrough in the “crisis of culture” that was also the themeof many German writers of the time, most prominently Georg Simmel. In the context of the revolutionary events in the political sphere, they divided between those who —like Lukács—found that force in the Communist political movement and those who—like Mannheim—redirected their attention more cautiously tothe varieties of political thinking and their complex relationsto practice in that realm. That I went on to study Mannheim for many years more rather than Lukács is a clear sign of my own choice between those options, insofar as they applied at all to my own very different times, but that the inquiry brought me so close to a thinker as daring as Georg Lukács madeit unlikely that I could ever peacefully settle for comfort or mere elegance.

Nr. 1

Professor Dr. David KettlerDepartment of Political ScienceThe Ohio State UniversityColumbus 10, OhioU. S. A.

z. Zt. Königstein/TaunusWiesbadenerstr. 23 Bundesrepublik Deutschland Am 19. Juni 1962

HerrnProfessor Dr. Georg LukácsBudapest V.Belgrad Rkp. 2. V. Em. 5.Ungarn

Sehr geehrter Herr Professor Doktor Lukács!

Ich schreibe Ihnen auf Anregung von Herrn Dr. Frank Benseler.

Während der nächsten zwei Monate habe ich die Absicht, eine Reise durch Österreich, Jugoslawien und Ungarn zu machen, und ich würde es außerordentlich schätzen, wenn ich bei dieser Gelegenheit Ihre werte Bekanntschaft machen könnte.Ich habe meine Habilitationsschrift über Adam Ferguson und die Beziehungen der bürgerlichen „moral philosophy“ zu einer wissenschaftlichen Deutung der Gesellschaft geschrieben, und ich arbeite jetzt an einem größeren Werk über die Krise dieser Verhältnisse, wie sie z. B. in den Arbeiten von Karl Mannheim zum Ausdruck kommt. Ich bin besonders interessiert an Ihren jüngsten Arbeiten4 über die Integration von Ethik und Sozialwissenschaft, und hätte sehr gern mich mit Ihnen über einige damit zusammenhängende Fragenkomplexe unterhalten.

Meine Reisepläne sind im Moment noch ungewiß genug, daß ich mich nach ihren Dispositionen für die kommenden Wochen richten kann. Ich würde mich wirklich freuen, wenn wir uns kennenlernenkönnten.

Mit vorzüglicher Hochachtung

David Kettler

Nr. 2

GEORG LUKÁCS Budapest, 26. 6. 1962BUDAPEST V.BELGRÁD RKP. 2. V. EM. 5.TELEFON: 185 - 366

Sehr geehrter Herr Kollege,4 In fact, „jüngste Arbeiten“ was a misleading translation of „current work,“ which referred to the preoccupations that Benseler had told me about. Perhaps Von Nietzsche zu Hitler was the outcome, although it is more closely tied to the unpublished Moscow writings than to the Aristotelian ethical speculations he shared with me. I do not think that he dared to publish what was on his mind, and my interview may be one of the traces.

herzlichen Dank für Ihren liebenswürdigen Brief vom 19. Juni. Ich bin zwischen 4. August und 4. September auf Urlaub und nicht in Budapest. Vorher oder nachher würde ich mich sehr freuen, Sie zu sehen.

Mit herzlichen Grüssen

Ihr ergebener

Georg Lukács

Nr. 3

MEMORANDUM ON CONVERSATION WITHPROFESSQR AND MRS. GEORG LUKÁCS.

Budapest. July 17, 1962.

After a preliminary attempt on my part to sketch the general characteristics of my present research, the discussion turned to its major theme: the range and scope of Professor Lukács’ present work on ethics. (Questions relating primarily to the aesthetics were only mentioned in passing; a distinct, historical topic was touched on at the very conclusion of the conversation, as will be noted; recent or current political issues were not under discussion.)Professor Lukács’ basic demand is that Marxism be considered asmethod, and not as dogma, and that accordingly the contemporarysituation in society desparately requires a new analysis, applying Marxist method, and not to be discussed in terms of the old categories. In 1916, L. pointed out, Lenin considered it necessary to prepare an interpretation of the then-prevailing situation which departed considerably (in content, if not in mode of analysis) from that which Engels had developed only 22 years before, in 1894; now, according to L., no similarly creative application of Marxist method has been undertaken since Lenin’s work – – for 47 years!How does this need to develop a new analysis of contemporary society relate to problems of ethics? In that “ethics” must be understood as a pattern of criteria suitable for guiding man towards a truly human solution of the problems which are actually set for them by the concrete society in which they live. This means that “ethics” cannot consist of a set of universal principles, valid at all times and places; but ratherof principles suited to truly human conduct in some historically defined time and place. According to L,, this characteristic of ethics is already described in Aristotle’s works; and Aristotle can – – it turns out – – provide other valuable guide lines to a contemporary philosopher concerned with ethics.

This applicability derives from certain crucial aspects of the new society which L. believes to be emerging in our time. Just as Aristotle could culminate his discussion of ethics with a discussion of the proper utilization of leisure, the realm in which men are most thoroughly free to be fully human, so the contemporary ethical philosopher – – L. believes – – must focushis attention on the problem of the human use of leisure time. This parallel between Aristotle’s problem and the contemporary one must not be permitted to obscure numerous crucial distinctions, of course. The first of these is that Aristotle concerned himself with the leisure of a small privileged class whose position rested on the exploitation of slave labor, but that the present discussion applies to the emerging society everywhere in the world where work will be reduced to its placeas a “first necessity” in the life of every man without devouring his time and his manness. This new period is being ushered in by the practical men of action, who do not as a ruleunderstand (or even concern themselves with) the significance of what they do. The task of the philosopher is simply, first, to attempt to discern the meaningful pattern, and, second, to provide some guide lines which can at least initially shape thepractice when the development has gone so far that the demands of the new situation are actually felt.L. raised the possible objection that a catastrophic war might disrupt the development; but dismissed the objection, contending that – – even if the political leaders do not yet see it altogether clearly – war has in fact been made altogether impossible by the developments of technology.We are living, in short, at a time when the ground is being cleared and the basis being erected for an altogether new era. That our thinking should limp behind the developments, cannot be surprising; in a sense, we find ourselves in a position analogous to any philosophically-minded who might have been present in the ranks of the Vandals in Rome.And the distinction between our tasks, as L. sees them, and those of Aristotle derives not only from the crucial differencebetween his situation and ours, but also from the vitally important differences between his philosophical standpoint and our own. In the course of a brief conversation L. pointed out, he could not develop this matter to any length. What he did want to point out, however, is that Aristotle’s metaphysics – –with their teleological natures, etc. – – have been displaced by a “historical ontology”, first suggested by Hegel and then

developed by Marx. The new ethics, then, has nothing “unwordly”or “otherworldly” about it; it deals with the world of human practice on the ground of practicing humanity. It can never move far from the concrete analysis of man’s condition in a given historical situation.In this connection, then, Lukács finds highly interesting – – among recent American work – – the studies of C. Wright Mills5 (specifically White Collar and Power Elite – – L. not having read Sociological Imagination or Marxism yet), as well as William Whyte’s The Organization Man (1), which he was just reading admiringly, while noting that the analysis fails to probe sufficiently deeply.Ultimately, then, the ethical problem becomes – – most clearly in the era where the struggle for necessities has been won – – that of giving a genuine meaning to life. Sharing with Epicurusand Lucretius the view that “where life is, death is not; wheredeath is, life is not,” L. argues that there can be no such thing as a meaningful death, as such. What is usually discussedunder that topic should really be seen as the problem of meaningful life. And in this connection, it is necessary to give men a genuine sense of purpose in their work and to enablethem to guide purposefully the ever-increasing time-span duringwhich they are liberated from work. Ethical speculations and teachings – – and the pedagogical dimension is very important here – – must operate within this sphere, in L.’s view. The major opponents to such an ethical view, L. sees in those thinkers (and he mentioned specifically American social scientists) who see man as an object to be manipulated, and whovalue the new leisure as a new opportunity to subject men to manipulation.There was no time to pursue the many questions raised by this line of analysis: the most persistent problem raised by DK being that of distinguishing clearly between the approach beingsketched by L. and much that has been common property of moral

5 C. Wright Mills was an „outsider“ among American sociologists, a precursorof the more empirical side of the American „New Left“ who had worked closely with Karl Mannheim’s student, Hans Gerth, to produce the long-standard American collection of Max Weber extracts and articles. One of the books that Lukács was reading was an expose of the American „military-industrial“ complex and its structural ideology, while the other, like the more popular book by Whyte, dealt with the powerlessness of the population employed to serve that power in its organizational tasks. At the time, I was somewhat shocked that he was not interested in reading Marcuse, above all; but I saw later that he really wanted factually rich materials.

philosophers avowing many different philosophical starting points and political conclusions – – the problem, in other words, of identifying the distinctly Marxist components of thismethod. Perhaps a related issue was that of developing a philosophical definition of and a philosophical justification for that concept of the “human” which appears to provide the direction for the ”historical ontology”. But this phase of the discussion had to be simply broken off. All three (and it should be noted that Mme. L. played an active part throughout in advancing the argument) agreed that the discussion is one which could reach no end, even if there were two weeks rather than a few hours available. L. placed particular emphasis on the impossibilty of providing a final answer to questions (jokingly accusing DK of wanting L. to provide him with solutions for all problems), and on the extent to which the work needing to be done at present must assist in the clearing away of existing sources of confusion – – on its preparatory character (derived from the transitional character of our time).

------------------------------------------

Some short time was then devoted to questions generated by DK’sinterest in certain historical questions, particularly questions about the intellectual life in Budapest at the end ofthe first World War and during the revolutions of that time. Ofparticular importance to DK were matters relating to Karl Mannheim. L. pointed out that Mannheim was a member of a younger generation, whose relationship to L. was primarily thatof a student to a teacher. Yet they were together in the group which, in 1918, joined together to form the Freie Schule für Geisteswissenschaften. Among members of the group were Fogorasi, Révai, and others – – almost all of whom became active Communists and participants in the Béla Kun Soviet regime. This school arose out of the Jászi-led “Sozialwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft”6 and distinguished 6 The reference here is to two overlapping groupings among the Budapest intellectuals. Oscar Jászi led the first of these to promote the Hungarian reception of social science writings from Germany, France, and England. Thecircle around Lukács formed the kernel of the later group. While the Jászi group sought as wide an audience as possible to promote its „progressive“ message, the Lukács-inspired program aimed at a narrower audience of individuals immersed in cultural study and production. The young Karl

itself from the main body, according to L., through its hostility to positivism. At this point in the discussion, both Professor and Mme. Lukács called to mind the fact that this development is discussed at some length in the recent work of their friend, Zóltan Horváth (and arranged for me to meet with him in order to pursue further historical questions. In reply to a question about Mannheim’s political activities during the exciting revolutionary time, L. noted that Mannheim – – unlike the others in the group – – showed no active involvement in politics. The explanation for this, L. suggested, lies probablyin the realm of the purely accidental: it is true that M. was afflicted with a sickly heart, but Révai was equally sick and yet played a vigorous political role til his death in 1959. L. did not recall more than a casual acquaintance with M. during the time when both were in Germany – – L. as politically activecontroversialist and theoretician, and M. as entrant on the normal German academic Laufbahn.

Nr .4

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION WITH ZÓLTAN HORVÁTH

Mannheim delivered its program lecture under the heading of „Soul and Culture.“ In fact, Mannheim, like many of the others, attended the events of both „schools“.

Budapest, July 19, 1962David Kettler

The primary topic of the conversation was the intellectual lifeof Budapest during the period of the first World War and of therevolutionary period. This subject has just been treated in a long historical study by ZH; my interest was, as explained at the outset of the conference, most particularly focused on KarlMannheim but also very strongly concerned with the milieu and background.To begin the conversation ZH translated into German the bulk ofthe two pages where his book treats the Freie Schule der Geisteswissenschaft[en]. The group which contained such men as Georg Lukács, Josef Révai, Béla Fogarasi, Béla Bartók, et al. can best be understood, according to ZH as right-wing fraction,breaking away from the bourgeois radical reform-and-science organization (Die Sozialwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft) headed by Jászi. This characterisation rests on the program of the group, contained in a book entitled Lélek és kultura or Seele und Kultur7 by Karl Mannheim (who, according to ZH, must – – despite his youth – – be considered as the head of the group). In 1917, then, the group set out to offer a program of free lectures intended to depart from similar programs already in existence (most notably that of the Jászi-group) in that “Volkstümlichkeit” would be systematically avoided. Popularization, according to Mannheim’s manifesto, robs Wissenschaft of its true essence; the language must be true to the materials being discussed and not to some mass audience. Through these lectures, Mannheim continued, there will be spread a new Spiritualismus and idealism; the foundation of a new culture will be laid through the creation of a “neuer Typ geistiger Mensch”. The dominant philosophical trends of the time (including presumably those expressed in the Sozialwissenschaftliche Gesellschaft) are denounced as

7 „Soul and Culture“ was not in fact a book, but a 23-page brochure containing information about the series, as well as Mannheim’s opening lecture. Showing clear marks of his semester with the German cultural philosopher, Georg Simmel, Mannheim purports to lay down the common ground uniting such diverse speakers as the composers, Béla Bartok and Zoltán Kodály,the art critics, Fryges Antal, Arnold Hauser, and Lajos Fülep, as well as György Lukács and his closest associate, Béla Balász, and several other writers. They share a view of cultural crisis due to the overpowering of soul by technical knowledge, he maintains, as well as a common vision of an incipient spontaneous eruption of something altogether new.

“decadent materialism” and “anarchic modernism”. In their place, it is proposed to build an idealism which will proclaim the importance of the transcendent and the pathos of the ethical. But, the program goes on, the idealism will not strivefor system; the objective is “Normativismus”, not “Akademismus”. Metaphysics is seen as the object of striving; but the positive religions are rejected. Finally, Mannheim considers as a “lebendige Frage” the questions raised by Marx about the structural connections between social life and the life of the spirit; but he categorially rejects the Marxist analysis in the language of base and super-structure. ZH justifies characterising the group as “right-wing” by pointing to its elitist orientation and its estrangement from the reformist democratic program of the SozwissGes. With very few exeptions, and the exceptions do include Mannheim, the members of this Freie Schule group joined Bolshevik party late in 19188. The “students” – – who never numbered more than 50 – – followed suit, and the overwhelming majority died in the USSR during the 30’s. The question of why precisely this group became Bolsheviks was canvassed again later in the conversation. A major factor, ZH believes, is the tremendously deep conviction, that the Revolution was invitably in the process of happening. Some, like Révai, became Communists fairly early, others, however, joined the party as late as February, 1919. Lukács exemplifies this late group. How it actually came about, ZH believes, Lukács himself could not tell. There were, according to ZH, no negotiations of any sort between Lukács and Kun; L., in fact, never met Kun until March,when the proclamation of the Soviet regime secures Kun’s release from prison.9 ) At most, Révai might have served as communicating link between the FreSchuGeis group and the party;but ZH does not ascribe particular importance to this fact.Mannheim himself never became politically active. Yet he did not, like the bourgeois radicals who had played major roles in the Károlyi regime, leave Bolshevik Hungary in May, 1919; he received a call as Professor Ordinarius at the University (Kunfi 10 was cultural commissar, and Lukács his deputy), and 8 Lukács challenged this characterization in his comments on the memo [see below].9 Compare Lukács’ correction of this report. (See below).10 Szgismund Kunfi was a Social Democratic political figure whose position as cultural commissar was rather nominal because he had other functions as well. All the positions in the Soviet regime were shared by Social Democrats and Communists.

served as director of the Kulturphilosophischen Seminar until the regular end of the semester, later that summer. In attempting to account for Mannheim’s failure to join his closest associates, ZH described Mannheim’s appearance throughout the period of the Räterepublik: although, like everyone else, he was pitifully poor, and although everything was in a state of confusion bordering on chaos, Mannheim appeared at the university every day thoroughly “gebügelt”, in dark suit with thin gold chain neatly hanging from lapel and ingleaming white collar and gloves. ZH points to that picture as sign of Mannheim’s profoundly bourgeois self-image – – a role incompatible with Bolshevist activism. (Unlike L., M. came froma respectable rather than wealthy Jewish family.)But to understand the period, ZH urged, it is necessary to discuss the general background. Two major factors are decisive:the sharp division between the country and Budapest, and the tremendous importance of nationalism as political force.In the period between 1867 and 1914, Jews created a highly developed (mercantile) capitalist city in Budapest. Virtually the entire urban culture – – economic as well as spiritual – – was a product of Jews. Political power, on the other hand, was altogether monopolized by a feudal aristocracy who had not the slightest conception of how a capitalist civilisation “works”. (ZH told an illustrative anecdote about the aristocrat who, in an attempt to make his peace with the new age, sends his son into a bank; that night he encounters a friend at his club, andin tones of genuine horror confides, “Do you know what they do at the bank all day? They sit around and they make Geschäfte.”)At that, however, this high aristocracy worked out a modus vivendi with the Jewish capitalists. The decisive hostility to the Jews and to their urban civilisation came from the gentry families who staffed the officer-corps, the Beamtentum, etc, – – as well as from the peasantry in the country. Geschäftmacher-Wucherer-Jew. (ZH noted that there were in Budapest three “casinos”: 1) that for the high aristocracy, 2) that for the gentry, and 3) the Jewish one. In the first, there could be found a few Jewish members; but no Jew would dare to approach the second.) Jewish capital had its direct ties to Vienna, and enjoyed the protection of the relatively cosmopolition aristocracy. The anti-aristocratic opposition, then, combined anti-capitalism, anti-semitism, and Nationalsm. The tie betweenNationalsm and hostility to progress had already been established in the time of Joseph II, when his rationalization

measures were violently opposed in the name of the Hungarian national identity. In the person of such a figure as Count Tisza11, then, there was represented the reactionary, anti-urban countryside, covering a situation where, say, the Church possessed over one million yokes of land, with a fervent nationalist appeal.But this nationalism was by no means confined to the reactionary groups. Perhaps in self-defense or whatever reason,the urban groups vied with the reactionaries in the appeal to Hungarian nationalism – – and this was no mere political maneuver. Such groups as the SoziWissGesell was permeated by very strong genuine devotion to what was called the Hungarian national integrity. This is true despite the fact that these groups agitated in behalf of a “European” Hungary should not obscure their nationalism. [Note, for example, that Havatny wasat one and the same time editor of Nyugat12 and associate editor of Jung Ungarn (a probably subsidized journal appearing in Germany and combining cultural contributions with defenses of Hungarian policy against “pan-slavic” and “pan-germanist” calumnies between 1911 and 1912), and that Josef Veszi (8), whowas brought in as editor of the Pester Lloyd at the time of theKárolyi regime13, had been editor of Jung Ungarn.]According to ZH, there was no “Károlyi-revolution”. Károlyi andhis group had throughout the war proclaimed that the greatest security for Hungarian “national integrity” would result from apolicy of friendship to the Entente. When the fronts collapsed,ZH maintains, the power was turned over to Károlyi in the hope that he, as uncompromised by the war, could prevent the loss ofgreat chunks of Hungarian territory. When it became clear that the Entente (and notably the French) had already made irrevocable commitments to the Czechs and to the South Slavs, the Entente program of the “Radicals” failed and their positionbecame untenable. Throughout this, in ZH’s view, there was no genuinely democratic spirit within the bourgeois radical camp (even Jászi’s famous proposal for a Hungarian Switzerland was, according to ZH, a last-minute maneuver), and they would not hold elections within the area under Hungarian control, lest it11 Long-time pre-war prime minister, who was conservative but urbane in his politics.12 The title of this cultural journal, „The West“ embodies its rather cosmopolitan program.13 The Pester Lloyd was the high quality German-language newspaper of the prosperous commercial bourgeoisie, heavily Jewish. Its editorial policies in the postwar crisis was reformist.

appear as though they were giving de jure recognition to the losses. They then turned power over to the Socialdemocrats, whowere the only organized group in Hungary. But the Socialdemocrats refused to take the responsibility of fighting,at one and the same time, against the invading armies of the little Entente and against the Communists. ZH sees in this situation the decisive basis of the decision to abdicate to theinherently weak Räterepublik. There was no real revolution eventhen: ZH remembers sitting in a lecture room, listening to Lukács, when someone came in to say that the “Räterepublik” hadbeen declared14. Insofar as there was a revolution, it was against the “Westmächte”. Nationalism was still decisive – – even if not for Kun himself and a few other genuine internationalists embued with belief in the imminence of the world revolution [note that the Pester Lloyd (which was laid out with headings, something like Time magazine) came to reportitems no longer under the heading “the aftermath of the war” but under the heading “the European Revolution” – – and this in1918, when Veszi was editor and a statement by Jászi saying that he did not believe that private property was sacred sufficed to have him solemnly drummed out of the bourgeoisie onthe pages of the Lloyd]. ZH remembers a poster of the time: a red fist smashing on a table around which sit the Paris diplomats, with the slogan, “This is our answer!”Whatever strength the Kun regime may have had rested on the temporary thought, “well, if we get no help from the West; maybe we’ll get it from the East.” With the collapse of that; illusion – – and with the logical working-out of the cleavage between city and land, the Soviet regime was doomed. The Jászi group, then, must be seen as parallel to the Naumann group15 in Germany – – with as little real base except insofar as theycould temporarily muster national sentiment (or a last hope) behind them; and even the Bolshevik revolutionaries derived thebulk of their vital energies from nationalist sentiment.

14 A Soviet regime patterned on the Russian model, as understood by the Communist leader Béla Kun after his release from prisoner of war camp in Russia, was formed when the Social Democrats in the liberal postwar Karolyiregime chose to ally with the Communists rather than to support their suppression. The experiment was moot from the outset because the Western powers allied with the beneficiaries of the Trianon settlement ending the war, notably Romania, would not accept such an outcome.15 Friedrich Naumann was a liberal writer and political figure in pre-1914 Germany, who combined progressive social policies with nationalist aims.

Nr. 5

Königstein / Taunus

Wiesbadenerstraße 23

July 23, 1962

Dear Dr. Lukacs,

As you see, I am taking advantage of your kind invitation to write in English. It does go much more easily for me, and it eliminates one possible source of misunderstanding. My major regret is, however, that I cannot then address Mme. Lukacs at the same time. Please extend to her my sincere apologies and myvery warmest regards. The afternoon I spent in your apartment Icount among the very important times of my life; and I shall never forget the cordial courtesy and helpfulness with which you both received the strange American.I have prepared a brief memorandum, in which I have attempted to state in summary form the main themes of ur discussion. Naturally, I should be extremely grateful if you would read it over, to see wether I understood you correctly. Any commentary (or even.expansion of the argument) would be inordinately welcome. In sending you these notes, I have fulfilled one-half of my promise to you, fulfillment of the other half, however, will have to wait a while. I mean by this, the statement of my own thesis, the considerations underlying my study of Mannheim16. Within the next few months, I hope to prepare a careful statement of that sort – – and at that time I shall submit it to you, hoping that the matter will interest you enough to elicit your criticism.Speaking of matters calculated to stimulate criticism reminds me that I did not clearly understand your response to my suggestion that I might send you a copy of a three-part essay (perhaps you will consider it an “eight-legged” one) dealing with your own work, and written by my acquaintance, Morris Watnick, presently Professor of Politics at Brandeis

16 This is an ambiguous expression. „Study“ in this context refers to my ongoing inquiry. I had not published on Mannheim at that time. The first publication(s) arose a few years later out of the research I was conductingin Germany and Hungary.

University, Waltham, Massachusetts. Mr. Watnick, you will find,is not a Marxist and studies your work from a critical standpoint; but I assure you that he is both a completely honest and erudite scholar, and that his criticisms are not dictated by any consideration other than his own search for truth. Please let me know if you would like to see these materials.My conversations with Mr. Zoltan Horváth – – for which I am particularly indebted to your wife – – proved very enlightening- and pleasant. In all, I cannot recall two days more filled with intellectual stimulation and human warmth.I hope that your work progresses well, and that you enioy your forthcoming holidays. Incidentally, I have mailed the Mills book17 and hope that it reaches you soon. My wife and I shall remain here in Königstein, West Germany, until August 14th,. After that, mail should be addressed to: Professor David Kettler, Department of Political Science, 216 North Oval Drive,The Ohio State University, Columbus 10, Ohio, USA. I do hope that you will find the time to remain in contact.

Very truly yours,

Nr. 6

Königstein/TaunusWiesbadenerstraße 23July 24, 1962

Dear Morris,

Now that I’ve put everything together, it really doesn’t come out to so much – – particularly if I can’t get translations of the key Hungarian things. Whether any of this is any help to you, I just cannot say. As you will see from the Lukacs memorandum, I pretty much gave him his head – – and he wasn’t about to go reminiscing. He is personally really a remarkable figure. I really did wake up the night after our discussion with the sudden thought that his wife would write us the notes

17 The book was Sociological Imagination. It was a sort of methodological manifesto against the dominant sociological schools of the time, notably the structural functionalism of Talcott Parsons, and a brief for a realistic and historical sociology moved by humanistic concerns.

needed for a decent biography; I was sure she was absolutely nomore than 55; the next day Horváth told me she was over 8o. Theonly thing I can add to the Lukacs note is a passing comment hemade when I tried to press him to distinguish himself from evensomeone like Weber: he said, oh Weber – – he was always so uncertain. When I mentioned Marcuse’s name in some connection, his response was quite disparaging. My guess is that his responses towards the older people are old conditioned responses, while his judgment of newer people is not nearly as sharp as it should be: cf. quite strong excitement about Organization Man and Wright Mills. Should we tell Leo Strauss18 about the Aristotle admirer? Seriously, Lukacs reminded me quite a bit of Kahler 19; except that I found him less verschwommen. I hope that you do not take it amiss that I unilaterally offered him your article (and even flattered him alittle); it can’t possibly do you any harm. If you go to Budapest, he’ll talk to you all the livelong day even if he never hears your name (he didn’t know who I was until five minutes before I left, due to the fact that the letter I’d written him from Vienna hadn’t arrived and the fact that I couldn’t make myself properly understood over the telephone). When you and I meet, you may be able to pump other useful information out of me; my “memorandum” is based on very few notes. Naturally, if he should offer any corrections or additions I shall bring them along.Re: Horváth. I know nothing about him except what I saw, what he told me, and the one-line mention in Váli’s book. As a person, I found him enormously sympatisch; and – – although youmay not want to buy his “nationalism” thesis all the way – – I found the things he told me persuasive. He has an authentic ring. His description of his years in prison I’ll save for a nother time. In addition to the discussion summarized in the “memorandum” we did spend some time about the problem of writing a Lukacs study (and he agreed vehemently about its

18 This is a rather heavy-handed academic joke, referring to the noted émigré political theorist, who founded a school of conservative thinkers inthe United States around slogans of loyalty to the „natural right“ of the classical thinkers, notably Aristotle.19 The reference here is to Erich Kahler, another émigré writer, whose affecting style was formed very much by his own much more progressive readings of the humanistic cultural traditions. He had been a year-long visitor at Ohio State University when both Watnick and I were teaching there, and I had become quite close to him as a member of the faculty seminar on „crisis“ that he conducted.

importance) – – that’s the source of the reference in my letterto him about “documents”. He was perfectly certain that Lukacs would never write his memoirs, or even leave a memoir anywhere.He explained this – – and my personal impression of the man lends this some support – – above all by the fact that L. is too occupied with the things he still wants to do: he has enormous vitality and work planned for the next fifteen years (at 78). But in part at least, and Horváth emphasized this himself, there are simply things that he does not want to remember. I took out your list of questions (something I simplycould not bring myself to do with Lukacs) and started down the list. Horváth is seventeen years younger than Lukacs and could tell me nothing about the German experiences. He did say that Ishould have talked to Lukacs about Weber and Simmel: only last week, he said, L. had spoken to him at great length about Weber. But like a damned fool, I didn’t follow up at that point. But an opportunity may still arise, if our correspondence develops. Horváth says that they surely must censor his mail, but that he doesn’t give a damn about what they find. They won’t touch him now, he’s sure, and he gives the impression of being prepared to take what comes (although there’s nothing world-weary about it; he’s turned out two long monographs since 195620, and likes the work). Both he and Lukacs get all the Western books they.want, apparently (in fact, they both receive all kinds of things under some kind of project sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson Foundation). They and their friends form a small tolerated group – – and apparently can even get things published in small editions. But to return to the questionnaire (although I really haven’t much to tell you): I think that the material about the Freie Schule helps a little in regard to Lukacs’ ties to the younger people. The discrepancy between Lukacs’ account – – according to which Mannheim was never anything but the younger student – – and Horváth’s claim that Mannheim was, in effect, the leader of thegroup, must of course be cleared up. But for all I know, the whole business about the Freie Schule is already old hat to you. It isn’t to me; it is I think very important because it establishes a crucial continuity between the “young” and the “old” Mannheim – – a continuity I had hypothesized but am now on the way to demonstrating. Particularly important for me is the whole pedagogical dimension, supporting my hunch about the

20 Vgl. v.a.Zoltán Horvath, Die Jahrhundertwende in Ungarn. Geschichte der zweiten Reformgeneration 1896-1914. Neuwied und Berlin 1966 R.D.).

central importance of „Politics as a Science“ within Ideology and Utopia. As indicated in my notes, Horváth appeared quite certain that there was no negotiation between Kun and the intellectuals before Lukacs came into the party. The whole thing doesn’t seem so hard to understand: and why the elitist new cultural men should go to the Bolsheviks rather than to thedreary old socialists or Settembrini-like Radicals is no mystery. When I came to questions about the history of the Hungarian communist party, he said gently but firmly (to coin aphrase): don’t ask about it. This will simply never be known.I had, incidentally, asked Lukacs whether he thought that there would be any possibility at all of bringing an American withoutany political past or present, but trained as historian and Hungarian language under some sort of cultural exchange nonsense to write a history of 1918-19. He was too polite to laugh at me. He said, “but there are histories; it’s just that they don’t contain a word of truth.” And that ended the discussion. When I asked Horváth your question about Lukacs’ return to Moscow in 1933, he said that at that time things werestill allright for the party people, “Stalin was then merely murdering millions of peasants”.I feel that the whole trip was so worth while for me because now, for the first time, I’m beginning to get some “feel” for the material; and it turns out that Hungary is a lot more important for Mannheim than I had thought. Reading the Pester Lloyd for 1918 helped a lot – – just a matter of getting the tone. Unfortunately, the library in Vienna has a Lücke from 1919-1924, and I don’t know where to go next. What about Weidener21? While I still have room, let me answer your questions. The “Ungarn” pamphlet, written by Guttmann is mentioned in Elemer Malyusz’s polemic (have you used the English or the German text? does the English text have translations in an appendix as has the German one?) and also mentioned by Kun in his reply to critics in an early issue of Kommunist. What follows is all I have on the Aufruf (whose major theme I had twisted a little, but which actually serves to strengthen Horváth’s interpretation of events): Pester LloydMorgenblatt, Sonntag 3. Nov. 1918. “Ein Aufruf an die Ungarische Intelligenz zur Gründung des freien Staatenbundes.“ “Unser alter Wunsch ist zur Wirklichkeit geworden. Das Ungartumorganisiert sich als Nation.... Auch wir betrachten uns als eine wiedergeborene Nation, als eine freigewordene Kraft, 21 Reference is to the Harvard University library.

gleich den Brüdern, die aus den Ruinen der Monarchie freudig zuneuem Leben sich emporschwingen…. Ungarn! Wir müssen uns mit unseren Schwesternationen zu einem Bunde zusammenschließen….“ We can do this on basis of full equality; none of us will have more than 10-12 million inhabitants, and none can threaten. “Und in Freiheit soll dieser freie Bund entstehen. Der Volkswille und das Wilsonsche Prinzip der Selbstbestimmung sollen ihn gestalten.“ “Der Bund soll auf Grundlage vollkommener Unabhängigkeit der einzelnen Staaten zustande kommen.“ No trade barriers “Ein solcher Staatenbund verwirklicht in seinem Rahmen die Gesellschaft der Nationen: eine Gemeinschaft, wo keine Partei die Gültigkeit der moralischen Gesetze leugnen kann.“ best guarantee for free democratic development of each ... we demand action from the Nationalrat, and pledge our aid. “Es ist eine patristische Pflicht; doch zugleich mehr noch als das: es ist eine menschliche Pflicht. Denn heilig ist das Vaterland, aber noch heiliger ist die Menschheit.“Among signers (names I recognized, other than university names): Andreas Ady, Michael Babits, Bela Bartok, Ernst Dohnany, Bela Fogarasi, Andor Gabor, Zoltan Kodaly, Georg Lukacs, Josef Pogany.All university names: Dozenten:: Tibor Peterfi, Adolf Scücs,Nikolaus Berend, Julius Czebe, Ludwig David, Ladislaus Detre, Ludwig Dienes, Paul Dienes, Dionys König, Josef Madysar.

Professoren: Ludwig Török, Rustem Vambery, Julius Földessy, Leo Lieberman.

I took all these names in the hope that, as I learn something about the university situation, some pattern would emerge. Perhaps it will yet. After all, I do have a bunch of new contacts to contact. Let me know if about anything of this “diretwas einfällt”.

Now I shall go to bed, where my wife has been waiting for some time. The end of the year is crashing down upon me. In two dayswe get a visit from a cousin whom I haven’t seen since in 1937 she and her sister went off to the Kibbutz. Then the year is just about over. As usual, I didn’t do nearly enough, and I didn’t exploit all the opportunities available here. But to hell with it! Next summer we shall definitely go to England, where some of the people Horváth mentions are, and where I shall almost certainly find whatever documentary Nachlass exists (Israel, as I think I told you, proving a “bust”.). By

the way, I finally had a fifteen minute conversation with Horkheimer yesterday. I finally went during the students’ Sprechstunde, under conditions worthy of another chortle or two, and heard his apologies for ten minutes – – after his spending the first five making it clear that he hadn’t the foggiest notion of who I was or what I might be doing there. Rather than being really angry, I came to feel rather sorry forhim. He struck me as pretty well “out of it”. I regret that I did sit down this morning and make a few modest suggestions about improving their treatment of visiting scholars, but I’m not sorry that I did it.We are well. Vienna was kind to my stomach, because I had no money. Budapest killed me; but there are worse ways to die. I am making my penance now.Incidentally, if you think that all this useless research assistance from me is free, you are mistaken. We are going to come to Waltham in September (I can’t say exactly when yet) andyou are going to buy us the biggest ulcer-saving steak in Boston. Amen.

Yours,

David

Nr. 722

Budapest, den4.8.62

Lieber Doktor Kettler!

Vielen Dank für Ihren Brief und für die Sendung des Buches von Milles. Ich habe Ihren Brief23 (1) über unser Gespräch mit

22 Der für Lukács` typische Briefkopf fehlt (R.D.).23 Handschriftlich verbessert “Bericht”. Vgl. Nr. 5 der Dokumentation (R.D.).

Interesse gelesen. Bemerkungen kann ich dazu kaum machen. Die Materie ist so gross und befindet sich noch in einem derart fliessenden Zustand, dass ganz genaue Formulierungen und ihre ganz genaue Aufnahme zur Zeit noch unmöglich sind.In Ihrem Brief erwähnen sie eine Studie von Professor Watnick. Ich werde sie natürlich mit Interesse lesen.Auch Zoltán Horváth lässt sich durch mich für Ihren Brief bedanken. Er erlitt kurz nach Ihrer Abfahrt eine schwere Herzattacke, liegt jetzt im Spital und wird Ihnen erst nach seiner Genesung antworten können.Er hat mir Ihren Bericht über Ihr Gespräch zugeschickt. Dazu hätte ich einige Bemerkungen zu machen, da mich Horváth um diese Zeit persönlich nicht gekannt hat / wir sind erst nach 1945 bekannt geworden und unsere Freundschaft datiert erst wenige Jahre./ Darum war es möglich, dass in seinen Bericht (sich) einige Missverständnisse eingeschlichen hatten. Es ist nicht richtig, dass ich mit Béla Kun erst zur Zeit der Proklamation der Sowjetrepublik bekannt wurde. Unsere erste Begegnung fand Ende November oder Anfang Dezember 1918 statt. Mitte Dezember trat ich in die Kommunistische Partei ein, wurdeRedaktionsmitglied des wissenschaftlichen Organs der Partei; imJanuar hielt ich im Laufe des Vortragszyklus der Partei einen Vortrag; im Februar wurde ich nach der Verhaftung Béla Kuns insZentralkomitee kooptiert. Dieses andere Bild über meine Beziehungen zur Kommunistischen Partei erklärt sich dadurch, dass ich schon früher als Schriftsteller immer meine Sympathie zum Sozialismus offen ausgesprochen habe / natürlich beruhte diese Sympathie auf einem romantischen Antikapitalismus, der wesentlich von Sorel (2) beeinflusst war/.

Soweit ich mich an die Schule für Geisteswissenschaften erinnern kann, so war die Grundstimmung in ihr nicht einheitlich konservativ. Das wesentlich Verbindende der Vortragenden war eine Opposition gegen den Kapitalismus im Namen der idealistischen Philosophie. Das Zusammenhaltende war dieses Neinsagen zum Positivismus. Es ist darum sicher kein Zufall, dass die Schule nach dem Ausbruch der Revolution 1918 nicht mehr funktioniert hat. Es ist auch nicht ganz exakt zu sagen, dass die führenden Vortragenden mit Ausnahme Mannheims Kommunisten geworden sind.24 Nicht nur Mannheim, sondern auch sein Altersgenosse Arnold Hauser, der in den letzten Jahren eine Soziologie der Kunst herausgegeben hat, Louis Fülep (3) / 24 Lukács hat diesen Satz durchgestrichen (R.D.)

Budapest X. Széher-utca 22-24./, der Kunsthistoriker L. von Tolnai (4) wurden nie Kommunisten. Varjas war ein alter Sozialdemokrat und trat erst bei der Vereinigung der beiden Parteien in die Kommunistische Partei ein. Ich möchte nur noch bemerken, dass Révai nie zu dieser Gruppe gehört hat. Ich selbst habe ihn Dezember 1918 in der Kommunistischen Partei kennengelernt.

Das wären die wenigen Bemerkungen, die ich zu diesem Bericht zugeben habe.

Mit herzlichem Gruss auch von meiner Frau Ihr

Georg Lukács

Nr. 8

October 1, 1962

Dear Dr. Lukacs,

Thank you for your friendly and helpful letter of the 4th August. I apologize for the fact that this reply.was so long delayed; but I am sure that you can imagine how complicated a matter it is to return after a year’s absence. In addition to the purely physical arrangements that have to be made and the readjustment of returning to work with students, there is the jolt of returning from the social role of spectator (which one invariably assumes when visiting a foreign country – – isn’t that one of the forbidden charms, after all?) to that of participant sharing in responsibility – – if not in control – –for happenings. And so I have been occupied with the reestablishment of political contacts here, and matters of thatsort.But I must not presume on our short acquaintance to intrude these personal matters. You note in your letter that it would be premature for you to comment with any precision on my

attempt to recall the tenor of our conversation. I certainly recognize this and, in my own mind, consider that memorandum asnothing more than the vaguest sketch, serving to remind me of the things which appeared to be on your mind. Perhaps I may draw from your reply the conclusion that I have not grossly misrepresented your views. I am particularly grateful for your clarification and correction of items appearing in the memorandum of my conversation with Zoltán Horváth. Yet before speaking more of this, I do want to convey to him through you my distress at his illness, my relief at the progress he appears to be making, and my best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. I shall also address a note to him, but I fear that it will not reach him until his return from the sanitorium. It is difficult to express, without becoming sentimental, the profound impression which my conversations in Budapest – – both those with you and your wife and those with Horváth – – have made on me. In any case, I should be grateful if you would convey my respects.With regard to the substance of the remarks, let me say that those which interest me most deeply are those relating to the “Freie Schule für Geisteswissenschaften.” As you may recall, I explained to you that my study of Mannheim is intended to serve, above all, as a type-study of a certain kind of middle-class intellectual: Mannheim’s intellectual career appears to me paradigmatic of a generation, and an understanding of this generation can, I believe, go far towards making those of my generation more critically self-conscious. In this context, then, it is particularly fascinating to gain as much understanding as possible of the behavior of these intellectuals in a situation of acute political crisis – – and to understand the difference between those who sought to break out of the limitations of that role and those who could and would not do so. Naturally it is extremely difficult to secure such information after so long a time; but I do think that it is essential to make the attempt. If I could know a good deal about the inner life of the “Freie Schule...” I could know an awful lot about the differentiating principles which come into play – – to what extent psychological and idiosyncratic, to what extent expressions, of more fundamental social tendencies.For this reason, Horváth’s comments about Mannheim’s pamphlet, Lélèk es Kultura, excited me so much, and it would be so important to find out all I could about the circumstances of that work and the reception accorded it (if it was noticed at

all) within the group and out. Incidentally, I have not been able to secure a copy of the work as yet; it seems to be altogether unknown and unavailable here. Luckily I did meet in Washington Dr. J. Szigeti25 while he was attending the International Sociological Congress, and he did say that he would try to send me a photostatic copy of the document, which he believed he had in his possession. He also said that the only other copy extant in Budapest belonged to that very Louis Fülep whose name you mention in your letter. I do intend to address myself to him in any case, and I shall make free to useyour name as an introduction, if I may, because I seem to recall that both you and your wife (as well as Mr. Horváth) suggested that I might try to contact him if I had the time. All these matters cannot possibly interest you very much, and Iapologize for taking your time. I guess that my broad objectiveis to solicit whatever information and help you might be inclined to give to the general project sketched out in our talk and above.I am glad that the Mills book reached you in good condition. I shall have my bookstore send you a copy of his other recent work, on the Sociological Imagination26. Please feel free to ask my help in securing anything else you might need. If the number of items becomes so large that the financial aspect assumes some weight, then I am sure that we can work out some reciprocal arrangement, whereby you have sent to me some Germanor English works relevant to my interests and available there.Once again, then, accept my thanks for your cooperation, and myfriendly greetings to both you and to your wife. Many of us areeagerly awaiting the appearance of your recent work, and I am particularly anxious to see your ethical speculations. I hope that we shall remain in touch.

Cordially yours,

David Kettler

25 A Hungarian sociologist whom I interviewed in Budapest.26 This information corrects an earlier note. It is possible that I first sent Lukács The Marxists, which would have been a curious choice.

Nr. 9

Budapest, den 22.10.1962

Lieber Herr Kettler!

Vielen Dank für Ihren liebenswürdigen Brief vom 1. Oktober. Ichhabe Ihre Grüsse und Wünsche Zoltán Horváth übermittelt. Leidererholt er sich ziemlich langsam und es wird noch eine Weile dauern, bevor er wirklich arbeitsfähig ist.Was Ihre Studien über Mannheim betrifft, ist mir inzwischen einiges eingefallen. Sie können sicher an Professor L. Fülep / Budapest, XII. Széher-u. 22-24. / schreiben. Er hat Mannheim inder Übergangszeit gut gekannt und ist, soviel ich weiss, auch nach 1919 mit ihm in Verbindung geblieben. Dann ist noch der Soziologe Arnold Hauser, Autor des Buches über Soziologie der Kunst da. Er ist Alters- und Studiengenosse von Mannheim. Wie Ihre Beziehung später war, weiss ich nicht, da ich ihn seit

1919 nicht gesehen habe. Soviel ich weiss, lebt er in London. Auch der Kunsthistoriker Karl von Tolnai27, der so viel ich weiss, Professor in der USA ist, stand lange Zeit in guten Beziehungen zu Mannheim. Endlich sei die ungarische Dichterin, Anna Lesznai / jetzt Frau Gergely28 / erwähnt, die ebenfalls mit Mannheim gut befreundet war. Ich werde versuchen, entweder Ihre Adresse, oder die ihres Sohnes, des Ökonomen Prof.Georg Jászi / Washington / für Sie zu besorgen. Alle diese Persönlichkeiten können für Sie von Wichtigkeit werden, da keine von Ihnen Kommunist wurde und so mit Mannheim ideologischauf einem verwandten Boden standen. Ich muss gestehen, dass ichdie Broschüre „Lélek és kultura“ entweder nie gelesen oder total vergessen habe. Es ist überhaupt gut, wenn Sie in Ihrer Konzeption über die freie Schule für Geisteswissenschaften Ihren die kommunistische Ideologie vorbereitenden Einfluss etwas abdämpfen. Die Tatsache, dass einige prominente Mitglieder prominente kommunistische Ideologen wurden, gehört natürlich zur Charakteristik der Zeit, darf aber die Auffassungüber das Phänomen nicht einseitig beeinflussen.Es ist sehr liebenswürdig von Ihnen, dass Sie mir das Buch überSociological Imagination zukommen lassen werden. Wenn ich etwasbrauche, werde ich mich an Sie wenden.

Mit herzlichen Grüssen, auch von meiner Frau

Ihr

Georg Lukács

Nr. 10

MEMORANDUM OF CONVERSATION WITH ANNA LEZNAI AND TIBOR GERGERLY27 Here is his full name, as listed in the Dictionary of Art Historians: Tolnay, Charles de née Karoly Vagujhely Tolnai (Hungarian), Karl Edler von Tolnay (German)28 Anna Lesznai was an important writer and poet and one of Lukács’ closest friends. She had been married to Oskar Jászi, but later married Tibor Gergerly, the youngest person allowed to attend the Sunday Circle. His caricatures of the group are brilliant, and his numerous children’s books made him famous in American exile.

New York City, June 20, 1963

Both Mr. and Mrs. Gergerly knew Mannheim quite well during 1917-19, when they were all members of the circle around GeorgeLukacs. This circle took organizational form in two ways: first, there was the semi-public “Freie Schule”, offering lectures during 1917 and 1918; then, beginning earlier and restricted to an intimate group, there was a Sunday morning (?)discussion group, which met weekly at the home of the poet BélaBalász. This group, which first began to meet some time in 1915, after Lukacs returned from Germany, had as its core, the intimate friends Lukacs, Balasz, Fülep, and Anna Leznai. Added to it were Fogarasi, Mannheim, and Hauser, and, later, Gergerlyand Revai. Mannheim was at that time very much under the influence of Lukacs; he was familiarly known as “der Klärer” (in the Yiddish sense)29. These Sunday morning discussions were, in general organized and dominated by Lukacs: some topic would be thrown out for discussion by him and pursued in detailby the group. Typically the subject would be a moral and/or literary problem, with much attention paid to Dostoevsky and toGerman mystics like Ekkehart. In a vague sense, one could say that the group was “left” in its political sympathies; but it is more accurate to emphasize how unpolitical they all were. Infact, the group had more in common with a religious meeting than with a political club: there was a ceremonial, quasi-religious tone to the meetings, and everyone was under obligation to tell the complete truth about everything.Lukacs’ emergence as a Communist came as a complete surprise tohis friends, and AL recalls a conversation with GL during whichshe asked him about the fate of those fairy-tales which had originally brought them together. AL reports that GL’s conversion took place in the interval between two Sundays: fromSaul became Paul (or really only Psaul?). She wonders whether this abrupt transformation might not have had something to do with Lukacs sense of guilt about his family’s wealth, a sense which he expressed in other ways earlier and which now led him to this sacrifice – – but she would not want this speculation to be made public or known to GL. Mainnheim’s family was comfortably middle-class, but by no means wealthy in the way that Lukacs’ family was; his father was a textile wholesaler.

29 A „Klärer,“ as the term is used here, is someone who engages in endless complex speculations about the meaning of things, mostly texts.

And Mannheim worked as a “Mittelschullehrer” before the Soviet regime.A survey of the most vital intellectual groups shows:1) The Sociological group around Jaszi – – This group was more or less affected with Marxist ideas. It was political and reformist. From about 1900 on, it concerned itself extensively with the problems of the peasantry and the nationalities. Its publication was ”Twentieth Century”2) the literary group close to the poet Ady30 and the periodical Nyugat3) The philosophical group around Lukacs which can be defined as, in an import sense, an anti-group to Jaszi’s, objecting to the “materialism” in the name of “idealism”, Moralism, and Dostoevsky. Lélek, the soul, is a characteristic concept.4) a group of non-Jewish intellectuals, predominantly jurists reasonably close in outlook to Jaszi, involved in politics and close to the Journal Szabad Gondolat31.But it must be remembered that all of these together made up only a small group, many of whose members knew one another. Furthermore, the camps were not sharply divided. The leading figures may have disputed quite sharply, but the followers moved freely from one to the other and attended lectures offered by all.TG described his own intellectual career. He was interested in philosophy as a young man in Gymnasium. Like many in his generation, he had a strong sense of the need for radical change and fresh thinking. There was almost a Messianistic air among the youth. First attracted by the Social Democrats and brought into contact with Marxism of a sort through its pamphlets, he was after a while repelled by its materialism; hefelt a need for a more spiritual approach. He read Marxist pamphlets, then Kant and Hegel. In the meeting rooms of the Sociological Society he saw the announcement of the Freie Schule für Geisteswissenschaften lectures. At those lectures, there were question and discussion periods, and when he had shown interest at a few of these sessions, he was invited to a Sunday morning and came to be accepted (as one of the “bambinos”) to the inner circle.30 Endre Ady was the best known lyric poet of this generation. He died in January 1919.31 Szabad Gondolat was a journal of the younger intellectuals. It was editedby Karl Polanyi, who was also the founder of the politically reformist chapter of Freemasons, whose inner leadership became quite radical in the course of the war.

Nr. 11

Memorandum of Conversation with Arnold HauserLondon; 11 August 1963

Hauser and Mannheim close friends from boyhood; they served together as professors in Budapest during 1919. To characterizeM. most generally, H. would say that he was a man of compromise. He made too many concessions and had something of the arriviste about him. He was, and saw himself as representative of European intellectuals. The foundation of allhis work was the problem of the intellectuals, and he devoted himself to constructing his own portrait, with all of its limitations. In H’s opinion, Ideology and Utopia was M’s best work, his only good book. There he dealt with a problem which is still alive; after that, M’s work consists of a progressive rationalization of compromises.Mannheim had a prosaic father, reminiscent of Kafka’s, and M spent considerable energy distancing himself from that background. Still, he learned much from it, as for example, an excessive caution and even a certain measure of meanness in money matters which he learned from his mother. But his outstanding personal quality was a rationalism suppressing his emotions. The only exception to this H can recall, took place when M’s most intimate friend was killed in World War I. M was at his best in conversations. This is the real clue to his success and influence. Nothing he ever wrote came up to the level of brilliance displayed in talk. In that setting, he had an unsurpassed analytical mind. He was also a brilliant lecturer.Mannheim was quite well-known in 1933, and was brought here by Laski and Ginsberg32. But soon, according to M’s report, G. grew jealous of his success and large classes at LSE and made life hell for him. He tried to control the contents of his lecturers and denied him the right to examine. In H’s view, M. paid a moral and intellectual price in order to secure the professorship of education at the University of London. In the same connection M never told friends like Hauser about his friendship with Elliot and Temple33. These contacts and this

32 Harold Laski was a noted political scientist and legal thinker and MorrisGinsberg was perhaps the foremost sociologist in England. Both were at the London School of Economics. Hauser’s version of events is not strictly accurate, although there is no doubt that both men respected Mannheim, although both also broke with him after a few years. 33 The reference is to the poet T.S. Eliot and Bishop William Temple. Mannheim knew Eliot in the context of a discussion group called „The Moot,“which was conducted by a group of Christian laymen close to Temple. If there were direct contacts between Mannheim and Temple, there are no records of them; and Hauser may have been using a shorthand for the group.

behaviour too were part of the price.Mannheim’s interest in psychoanalysis stemmed in large measure from the attempt to build the career of his wife, who was trying to get established as a psychoanalyst.In H’s view, M tended to overcompensate for his weaknesses. He was not a prolific reader, but published huge bibliographies. He had very little political sense, but often insisted that thelong-range aim of sociology was precisely to make politics.In 1917, M was uninterested in politics, as they all were in that group. The main responsibility for this rested with Lukacs. L was tied to Lask, Weber, and Jaspers, and was interested in philosophy and religion, having come back from Heidelberg in 1914 a kind of mystic. If he had read Marx at that time, it was not with any political interest in mind. Sympathy for communism was roused in that group by police attacks on Bela Kun. When L. announced his conversion to communism, no one knew what that was – least of all, Mannheim. H accounts for L’s action, at least in part, by citing L’s tension about his father’s wealth.The Sunday circle met weekly at the home of Bela Balacz from about 1915 to 1918. They met from 3PM to 3AM, and Lukacs spoke ten hours out of the twelve. They never talked about politics, but about literature, philosophy, and religion. Lukacs planned a book on Dostoyevsky. Nobody was interested in sociology yet. L became interested in sociology out of partisanship; Mannheim chose it as his way out of philosophy. The guardian saints of the group in those early times, however, were Kierkegaard and Dostoyevsky. Mannheim translated selection from Meister Eckhardt for Szellem34, as well as some Hegel. (L. had a ms. ofan aesthetics from his Heidelberg days, and gave a part to Hauser and to others for safekeeping in 1919; it has now been reassembled by Meszaros35.) Early romantic mysticism was only later dropped by Mannheim for rationalism. H would say that he had himself been influenced by M’s rationalism, although his primary debt is to Lukacs. But L has a basis tendency to dogmatism, while M had a hatred, an instinctive aversion to anything dogmatic and questioned everything. From 1914 to 1918,Mannheim was more inclined to Lukacs than to anybody else. As he grew more self-reliant, he became more independent. Although34 The correct title is A Szellem or „Mind.“ It was a short-lived philosophical journal35 Istvan Meszaros was one of Lukács’ last and most faithful students. He emigrated to the United Kingdom shortly after the 1956 Hungarian Revolutionand spent some time in Canada as well.

M never liked to commit himself to anything he was reasonably close to the Galilei circle36 which, politically, stood for moderate socialism and bourgeois reform.The crux remains Mannheim’s consciousness of himself as an intellectual, and his insistence that the primary task is to beclear about oneself. In this connection, there were important aspects in Mannheim’s thinking which point towards some sort ofconception of rule by intellectuals.Returning to the biographical setting, H remarked that the Jewish students of that time had no chance to secure positions at the university. Their only hopes lay abroad. In the early intellectual development of both Hauser and Mannheim, the dominant influence was that of the Kantian professor of philosophy, Bernát Alexander, who was also a liberal reformer. Another important early influence on Mannheim was Simmel, whom he had heard when he spent the year 1913-1914 in Berlin. M returned imbued with Simmelian doctrine, and also strongly impressed by Simmel’s personal impact underlined by Simmel’s position as outsider and Jew. When Mannheim visited Hauser in Paris in the winter of 1913, he was all involved with the problem of “geltung” which Simmel had raised for him. One of M’s very first publications was a critique of Simmel’s Tragödieder Kultur. This appeared either in Szellem or in Twentieth Century.

36 Another name for the Masonic Lodge founded by Karl Polanyi.

Nr. 1237

Karl PolanyiR.R 3, Pickering, Ont.,CanadaAT. 2-5988 (Toronto)

Aug 14, ‘63

Dear Professor Kettler,

Many thanks for your impressions of Budapest in the summer of 1963. We were glad, to learn of the prospect of Lukács’ complete rehabilitation.My wife’s introduction to “The Plough and the Pen”38, London, 1963 may prove useful to you as a sequel to “your” period (Mannheim).The lack of historical appreciation distorts grave the atmospheries. The Hungary (e.g. of the Galilei movement) before1917 and after that belong to entirely different contexts.An analysis of the Weberian influence on the Lukács-Mannheim group including Fogarasi over your period might bear rich fruit. And do not miss Béla Halasz if he is still available andintellectually active. His wife Anna might also be of helps. You probably know that R. Merton was asked to undertake the care of his (Mannheim’s) legacy. We didn’t have occasion to touch on these points during your brief stay. A visit in 1963 (or even in 1923!) in Russia would have been but been but scantly informative on the KADETS 39 philosophy of 1908. But a third visit might now pay off, I feel.

With best regards to you from both K & I

37 Handschriftlich verfasster Brief von Karl Polanyi an David Kettler.(R.D.)38

The plough and the pen Writing From Hungary, 1930-1956.Edited by Ilona Duczyńska and Karl Polanyi. With a foreword by W.H. Auden. Published 1963 by McClelland and Stewart in Toronto.39 For present purposes, we do not need additional political history. Polanyi is referring to a liberal aristorcratic group that briefly inherited the reform agenda after the revolution of 1905.

(Anhang:40)

SZABÓ was Librarian of the “Library of the capital city of Budapest”. Don’t refer to him as “Syndicalist Director of the University Library”, indeed he kept his syndicalist convictionsexcept for rare scholarly occasions very much to himself.JASZI’s was very much of a political personality (i.a. Ministerin the Karolyi Cabinet) and intellectually a strong influence (cf. Th. Masaryk) in the country.J. was NOT a socialist rather a Benthamité, Spencerian liberal.You might add French influences E. Durkheim, Le Bon, Anatole France.

Nr. 13 Ilona Polanyi c/o Prof. Levitt 1377 Lajoic Ave., Montréal, Que. 6th Jan. 197241

Dear David Kettler,

Your letter and enclosures reached me with great delay, due to some misunderstanding in the handling of my mail, which is no simple matter, as I am away a great deal in Austria and/or Hungary, or Montréal. I expect to be back in Pickering, by nextsummer and will be glad to see you there. Welcome to Canada.

40 Dem Brief folgt auf S. 3 der im Folgenden abgedruckte Anhang. (R.D.)41 Briefkopf handschriftlich, der Name der Verf. ergänzt R.D.).

I read straight through your MS.42, moved by the great measure of “Einfühlung” and the pure-in-heart approach to “revolutionary culturism”. Surely such “Einfühlung” is possibleand meaningful only with an eye on one’s own time; this is discernible in your work. I think it was the English Geschichtsphilosoph Collingwood43 who wrote, that history is a dialogue between past and future. It is twice true for the history of ideas.I should like to comment on many things, but it might be best to confine myself to the question you ask, about the role of Kassák44. Broadly speaking, Tőkés45 is right there.The main thing to keep in mind about the Hungarian Commune, theSocialist-Kommunist Party, and even the pre-Commune '”Kommunistak Magyarországi Pártja” is that there was no mannerof monolithism in them. There were wildly disparate trends, as you know best yourself. The fact that Lukács and Kassák were collegues in the People’s Commissariat for Education does not mean in the slightest that they were in any way d’accord. Theirbasic approach was worlds apart, as Tőkés put it very clearly. Kassák was avant-garde in literature, Lukács cannot by any stretch of the imagination be regarded as having sympathies (oreven understanding) for modernism in literature. (With him literature to speak of came to a stop with Thomas Mann – and the Hungarian Mann-imitator Tibor Déry; in poetry he accepted Ady, but not Attila József and not the new outcrop of genius either. When I told him, – that must have been in ‘63, – that Iam engaged in English renderings of Ferenc Juhász46, he looked blandly at me and said: “But – why Juhász?!”). Further: Kassák had his roots in the masses, in the working class and his appeal to them was very strong; Lukács had hardly any appeal tothe workers, they didn’t know what to make of him. Further: 42 Reference is to the English-language version of my earlier monograph, nowprepared for publication in a spezial Lukács issue of the American periodical Telos.43 R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History.44 The avant garde artist Lajos Kassák for whom Lukács had little sympathy, although he had some part in the work of the Commissariat of Culture under Lukács.45 Bela Kun and the Hungarian Soviet Republic : The origins and role of the Communist Party of Hungary in the revolutions of 1918-1919 / Rudolf L. Tokes by Tokes, Rudolf L., 1935, New York: F.A. Praeger for the Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, Stanford University, 1967 (hier doppelt sich Einiges??)46 A highly-regarded Hungarian poet who worked in a peasant idiom and popular style during the Communist period.

Kassák was a socialist and remained a socialist, a radical social democrat to the end of his days; Lukács was not a socialist to begin with. Kassák was the most uncompromising andmost stubborn person imaginable; Lukács submitted over and overto party discipline throughout his life. They were poles apart.I think it would be worth your while to turn to Lengyel47 and ask him any questions you have in your mind about Kassák. The answers will be fair and broad-minded. If you can write in German, so much the better. He reads English but there is always a possibility that he may misread a meaning. Please refer to me if you should write to him. The address is József Lengyel, Budapest I, Tóth Árpád sétány 30.Now, may I be allowed to point to a howler or two I found. Two,in fact. Jászi was not a non-Jewish intellectual. He was of Jewish extraction, the name of the family prior to Magyarization was Jakubovics. Somewhere you say p.75 that he “skirts very close” to anti-semitism. I emphatically diasagree.Precisely as a Jew this man of the highest ethnical standards had the right and the duty to point to the less positive traitsof Budapest Jewry. I did not put him alongside the racists.On p. 27: “... committee formed to set up a memorial for the poet Endre Ady ..... who had died a few years before ...” Now, to the very best of my recollection Ady died in January 1919; the memorial service, this I remember clearly, took place on 6th February 1919 and was marked by two orations: one by Lukácsand one by Karl Polanyi. (Altogether Ady is too well known to write about him in such cursory manner as the whole half-page shows.)As I am leafing again through the manuscript I see that there are very many pencil-marks. If you are interested and if I can find the time I shall be glad to give you all that comment. Just now, only in the broadest line:The spelling of Hungarian names in the correct way is an ABSOLUTE MUST. As I was looking first into the pages I was immensely puzzled by a personage of whom I never heard, one48 Balacs. He turned out to be Bela Balázs, far from unnown.The text reads at many points un-English, even un-American – – just plain German. This taste of “translation” should be eliminated – your study is well worth the trouble. There are

47 Realist Hungarian writer, who died in 1975. Proponent of a kind of realism opposed to that of Lukács and author of a narrative of the 1919 period that was critical of Lukács’ cultural and political standpoint.48 No mystery: Duczynska is mocking my ignorant mistake.

words like “jurisprudence”, “statist doctrine” (Staatslehre!), “auditors” v(Hörer!) and very many more. The contrary instance is the rendering of “Szellemi tudományok Szabad Iskolája” as “Free school for Studies of the Human Spirit” – “szellemi tudományok” is the exact word-for-word Hungarian for, “Geisteswissenschaften”, as against Sozialwissenschaften. In English we would say Humanities as against Social Sciences. The“Human Spirit” really overdoes things a bit.Where I think you may be in error, is to call the Hungarian Social Democratic Party just before the War “small” (p. 16). Not at all small by then. Building up entirely together with the Unions. Forming itself on the pattern of the Austrian S. D.Party, but lacking the ethical appeal of a Victor Adler49.I think, you are mistaken on a point, which should not be debated, because it obviously touches on the core of your study– – on p. 3. “... a relatively minor shift in basic orientationat the time. Lukács and his associates were cultural critics ofbourgeois civilization; they became revolutionary culturists.” Consider (and correct!) the dates of the happening. Not in Novmber (p. 57), but in the December issue (it appeared, as faras I remember about one week after the 1st Dec.). Lukács writesa scathing article against bolshevism in Szabadgondolat “A bolsevizmus mint erkolcsi problema” – “Bolshevism as a moral problem”. On the 15th December, one week after he joins the Communist Party – – for life. Surely, this is much more like the Road to Damascus, than like a relatively minor shift. The hangers-on just followed – it was after all, the trend of the times. But I should not have gone into this, really.One more word about Tőkes. I have not read the book. Just saw it in Vienna. Looked up references to myself, to test reliability on something I should know for sure. Found one halfof references (3) quite correct; of the other half 2 were inventions, one a blatant lie. But he may be much better on more important things.50

For me personally the most interesting part of your study is the extensive dealing with Mannheim and the pamphlet. It was quite new to me.I expect to be at the above address til Jan. 31, after that: Wien XIX Rodlergasse 25/20 Austria.

49 The influential and original Austrian Social Democratic leader. 50 Bei den folgenden Zeilen handelt es sich um einen handschriftlichen Zusatz von Frau Polanyi (R.D.).

Sincerely yours,Ilona Polanyi

Nr. 14

May 12,1972

Dear Ilona Polanyi,

Please forgive the long delay. I deeply appreciate your thoughtful letter and only regret that I could not write thestudy which the materials require. You could; but that is presumably another story.The manuscript had gone off to be set before your letter came, but I was able to correct several of the “howlers” youfound in proof and to append a note incorporating some of your remarks about Kassák (but excluding some of the comparisons between him and Lukács that you might want to word differently if you were preparing them for publication). I held firm on the “Human Spirit” business because I am not happy about conventional translations of Geisteswissenschaften as Humanities. Both words have symbolic weight, but they are symbols in different controversies, and it appears necessary to me to keep the express reference to idealist language in the English rendering, even where this involves some awkwardness (as do all such references).All this is secondary, however. What your letter raises for me, as did the letter from Vajda51, is a basic question about my working on these materials at all, lacking the mostfundamental tools. I am satisfied that others will have to carry the work forward and anticipate their work with pleasure. As you will recall, I found myself compelled to make what sense I could of the Budapest context when I discovered that it was important to an understanding of Mannheim’s development, the main object of my studies, and when I found that there was literally nothing available in English and German at that time (1964). My major concern in republishing the slightly revised form is to put at the disposal of younger English-speaking scholars the materials

51 Mihaly Vajda was a Lukács student and remains a philosopher in Hungary. He was the only member of the group to remain in the country when they weresubjected to pressure in the early 1970s.

I was able to collect. It will be up to Arato52 and Vajda etal. to do the balanced and detailed inquiry which will correct the more basic errors in my views (if we can persuade them not to absorb themselves wholly in the most abstruse theorizing). You will note that I do not include Tökes in this: your remarks disturb but do not surprise me.I had oblique regards from you through Kim Cameron53, a young political economist who made quite a favorable impression during a brief conversation here. If you are returning to Pickering for the summer, we shall miss one another in transit, because I am leaving for Franconia, New Hampshire on Tuesday, hopefully for a productive summer. Is there any chance of our having lunch or dinner together at some place of your choice on Monday, June 5 in Montreal? I shall be speaking at a panel for the Canadian Political Science Association that afternoon from 3 to 5, but will notbe staying in Montreal. My mailing address is simply c/o Postmaster, Franconia, New Hampshire 03580.It seems strange to write such ordinary and private letters into the midst of the complex political situation in which you are now situated and out of the embittering world context. But I have nothing interesting to say about either,and find myself responding more out of Kantian precepts thatin terms of praxis. I utter moral judgements, but understandlittle in the way of strategy. Best regards.

Sincerely,

David Kettler

52 Andrew Arato is a political scientist of Hungarian origins, located at the New School. He was one of the contributors to the special Lukács edition of Telos.53 I know nothing about this person, except what is written here. The young economist must have been a student or friend of the Polanyi’s daughter, whowas a well-known Canadian economist.