The Invention of a Hero: Lajos Kossuth in England (1851)

Introduction

The creation, propagation and mythologization of heroes, or rather, the images of heroes, have recently attracted a good deal of attention from historians. The political use of these heroic images and the way an ‘exemplary life’ evokes admiration on account of the ‘values’ it ‘embodies’ has, for example, been explored in Heroic Reputations and Exemplary Lives (2000). ¹ This article aims to contribute to this discussion through a study of the cult of the Hungarian independence leader Lajos Kossuth and his reception in Britain in 1851. After the Hungarian revolution and war of independence – waged against Habsburg rule – were defeated by the Austrians and Russians in the summer of 1849, Kossuth – one of the revolution’s most prominent leaders – had to flee the country. After spending many months in Turkey and an eventful journey to Britain, he landed at Southampton on 23 October 1851. In the next three weeks of his stay, Kossuth was fêted as a hero. Addresses and invitations were presented to him, his speeches were greeted with a staggering amount of enthusiasm, and huge crowds thronged the streets wherever his journey took him. Why was a Hungarian national hero so widely celebrated in far away England and how was Kossuth’s hero image created?

As Thomas Carlyle’s On Heroes, Hero‐Worship and the Heroic in History pointed out, in the nineteenth century, the age of nationalism, a search for mythical heroes was part of a universal trend. ² Kossuth served as such a mythical hero in England, and what he stood for was in turn tied to the English national past. At the same time, Kossuth’s hero cult evoked the inter‐ and transnational dimension of the politics of the past. Yet when he arrived in England, he was not universally idealized. The official government line remained strongly in favour of propping up the European status quo, signalled by tacit British approval of the Austrian reactionary response. But in this age of Liberal political dominance, governments were judged not only by their success in promoting British interests abroad, but also by the purity, potency and ‘Englishness’ of the political values they represented. As Jonathan P. Parry argues in his The Politics Of patriotism: English Liberalism, National Identity and Europe, 1830–1886 (2006) celebrations of English superiority and peculiarity became integral to the political culture of the 1850s, and contemporary middle‐ and working‐class radicals both acquiesced in this. ³ Furthermore, the radical struggle to harness the energies unleashed on the Continent in 1848 for productive purposes in British politics, alongside universally shared celebrations of British stability and progress and their various manifestations, all provide the background to understanding the Kossuth cult in Britain. Gregory Claeys’s article ‘Mazzini, Kossuth, and British Radicalism, 1848–1854’, ⁴ and Margot Finn’s works on English radicalism, in particular her After Chartism: Class and Nation in English Radical Politics 1848–1874, ⁵ point us in the direction of understanding the role those celebrating the Hungarian hero played in the creation and maintenance of the Kossuth myth. Yet, little attention has been paid to Kossuth’s own part and perhaps even more importantly, that of his representative in England prior to his arrival, Ferenc Pulszky, in these events. In fact, as this article will argue, Kossuth’s image was purposefully manufactured and stage‐managed, not just by British politicians but also by Pulszky and Kossuth themselves.

Pulszky Prepares the Scene

An eminent scholar, archaeologist, and a lawyer by profession, Ferenc Pulszky shared Kossuth’s fervent desire to see Hungary emerge from her struggles victorious. They both adhered to the radical Magyar nationalism that lay at the heart of Hungarian revolutionary endeavours. Even their backgrounds were similar. Both were of untitled Hungarian noble stock and belonged to the Hungarian liberal opposition in the Reform Era (1830s–1848). They were also compatible with regard to their respective personalities: Pulszky readily embraced the role of forming the crucial support in the background to a great man, with Kossuth in the foreground as the charismatic leader. ⁶ Thus they worked together channelling their respective skills and talents into promoting the Hungarian cause abroad. After the failure of the 1849 national fight for independence, they hoped to secure sympathy and obtain the help and support of Britain (and subsequently other countries) for the establishment of an independent Hungarian state.

When Pulszky arrived in London in February 1849 the fight for independence was still raging in Hungary. His first goal was try to smuggle arms into Hungary. Moreover, as his wife, Theresa Pulszky, had aristocratic connections (she was the daughter of a Viennese banker), Pulszky naturally hoped to secure the support of British officialdom. He initially entertained hopes of influencing Lord Palmerston and through him British foreign policy. But he was soon to realize that Palmerston’s sympathy, perhaps genuinely heartfelt, would still not result in meaningful action. Pulszky was thus forced to acknowledge that the British Foreign Secretary did not see an independent Hungary as a viable state and would never alter his government’s policy of propping up the status quo on the Continent, for which he deemed the preservation of a strong and undivided Habsburg Empire essential. ⁷

As a consequence, Pulszky – endowed with a great deal of common sense as well as being a realist by nature – adopted another approach. He now set out to deepen British interest in the Hungarian question, identify it with the personage of Kossuth and prepare the ground for the Hungarian statesman’s arrival. With the aid of the funds supplied from Paris by Count Teleki (the Hungarian plenipotentiary in the French capital) and his own personal talents as a resourceful propagandist, he succeeded in rallying British public opinion to the Hungarian cause. By informing the British population of the nature of Hungary’s struggles and thus winning them over to his cause, Pulszky hoped to obtain support and perhaps tangible help for the Hungarian fight for independence. He sought to implement such goals not in any official capacity, but rather ‘as a man of letters’: through literary works and the press. ⁸

With his wide range of interests and skills, he was welcomed in political circles as well as among intellectuals, writers and journalists. Thus, through his own and his wife’s contacts he was able to gain access to the circles of middle‐class liberal and radical politicians and members of the British intelligentsia, who proved helpful in achieving his goal. The small group of people he gathered around himself engaged in the popularizing of the Hungarian question with gusto. Pulszky had cordial relations with Lord Dudley Stuart, the Whig MP for Marylebone, one of the most influential and important British figures supporting the independence of downtrodden peoples. Stuart then became one of the foremost advocates of the Hungarian cause and played a notable part in the creation of Kossuth’s hero cult. He held Pulszky in extremely high regard and treated him with the utmost respect, often inviting him to his salon, and introducing him to a variety of people, all of whom readily offered help. ⁹

Thus other Englishmen (often helped by their wives) embraced the Hungarian cause. One such illustrious pair was Richard and Kate Cobden. Mrs Cobden’s letter to Mrs Pulszky in August 1849 testified that she was ‘earnestly praying for the success’ of Hungary. Her practical suggestions included referring contacts at the Board of Trade to the Pulszkys, to help them publish articles about the Hungarian question. ¹⁰ John Mitchell Kemble, the English scholar and historian, offered assistance with translating such pieces of journalism, and he also gave suggestions regarding organization. ¹¹ An old friend of Pulszky’s, the traveller and archaeologist D. J. Vipan was another key figure. His correspondence with Pulszky indicates his interest in propagating the Hungarian cause: he pointed Pulszky in the direction of specifically ‘useful’ people, and with his help the Hungarian established a connection with many dailies, including the Examiner and the Globe newspapers. ¹² Professor Francis Newman, a distinguished scholar and writer, was also always ready to proofread and correct articles that Pulszky wished to publish. He even gave practical advice, offering a careful analysis in the wake of the Russian intervention and pinpointing the difficulties to be surmounted before England could embrace Kossuth. He detailed how Englishmen’s ignorance could be dispelled through Kossuth’s speeches, thereby prophesying the astonishing impact they were to have on crowds. But he also stressed how Kossuth should emphasize the wickedness of Austria; the true horror of the Austrian massacres in Galicia should be painstakingly revealed, for instance, as their extent would be quite unbelievable to the majority of Englishmen. Newman also advised that public attention should be directed towards the issue and that financial assistance be devoted to the cause. ¹³

Thus, these English intellectuals displayed a keen interest in the Hungarian question and played a key role in preparing the scene for Kossuth’s arrival and his hero’s welcome. But the instrumental part Pulszky himself played was crucial. Public meetings were organized by him, held in favour of this ‘noble, maligned and betrayed people’, ¹⁴ with impressive turnouts. Pulszky’s new circle of English friends of course helped with organizing such meetings. Lord Dudley Stuart had agreed to preside over a meeting for the working class at the end of July 1849, agitating for the recognition of Kossuth’s de facto government. ¹⁵ Richard Cobden participated in meetings held by middle‐class radicals to demonstrate sympathy with the Hungarians. Such assemblies always set themselves against oppression, and expressly furthered the cause of peace. Russian intervention was often pronounced wholly unjust, as for instance during one protest meeting, which called for free people to have the right to govern themselves. ¹⁶ The Hungarian struggle was thus set in the broader context of British ideals.

At gatherings of this kind, other illustrious Hungarians, such as Teleki (who often travelled from France to Britain) also played a role in gaining adherents for the Hungarian cause. Teleki stressed after a grand banquet at the end of July 1849 that the sympathy he encountered in England for the Hungarians did not in the least surprise him, since the many similarities between these two nations were evidently pointing towards mutual cooperation. His presentation of Hungary as the party on the defensive (remaining moderate and only resorting to arms when there was no other alternative) is another example of the conscious fine‐tuning of the nascent Kossuth cult. ¹⁷ Another instance of Teleki’s activism was the sermon he delivered at Hanover Square, followed by a speech by Pulszky, on 6 October 1850, in order to commemorate the first anniversary of the death of the Martyrs of Arad (on that day in 1849 thirteen ‘rebel’ Hungarian generals were killed at Arad on Austrian orders). ¹⁸

Pulszky himself used similar techniques to gain English adherents to the Hungarian cause. Outlining the many similarities between his own country and England, he lavished praise on the latter, and stated that all proposed Hungarian reforms were modelled on those that had already taken place in Britain. Every Englishman was pronounced firm in character and steadfast in purpose. What is more, Britons and Hungarians were ‘friends and allies in the battle for civilization against barbarism’ he asserted. ¹⁹ Englishmen too acknowledged and embraced such solid argumentation. Pulszky’s emphasis on specific values, such as constitutionalism and decentralization was also crucial in winning over public opinion. This tied in well with English liberals’ fondness for the same ideas. But it was by no means a one‐sided affair: Pulszky and his English ‘sympathizers’ exercised a mutually reinforcing effect on each other. By spending a great deal of time with the barrister and historian Joshua Toulmin Smith, Pulszky not only gained a good knowledge of the English parliamentary system (of which he became a passionate advocate) but also prompted Smith to write a pamphlet, Parallels between the Constitution and Constitutional History of England and Hungary. ²⁰ The pamphlet concluded that ‘the circumstances attending and compelling the recent struggles of the Hungarians run closely parallel with those attending and compelling the last occasion of a national appeal to arms in England on behalf of law and liberty’, ²¹ thus indicating Smith’s appreciation of the lawfulness of Hungarian endeavours. He and Pulszky also shared an appreciation of municipal government. An admirer of Cromwell, Smith considered Pulszky a kindred spirit. ²²

Pulszky also set up organizations furthering the Hungarian cause. One such establishment was the Hungarian Propaganda Committee, which comprised a number of English intellectuals all actively enlisting in the cause of educating the British public about Hungarian affairs. ²³ With the constitutional lawyer W.L. Birkbeck as its chairman and the scholar Kemble as its secretary, this committee stressed the importance of the ‘national character’ of the Hungarian struggle and how newspapers should be briefed accordingly. Lord Dudley Stuart backed Pulszky’s Hungarian Propaganda Committee in 1849 and he also managed the Parliamentary Relief Committee set up in July of that year. He was one of the founding members (alongside Toulmin Smith, Newman and Vipan) of the Hungarian Association in October 1849, whose goal was the promotion of free institutions among European nations. Its stated aim concerning the Hungarian struggle was identical to that of Pulszky: to acquaint Englishmen with the true nature of the Hungarian resistance and help the Hungarians in their struggle for independence. ²⁴

One of the most important channels through which these organizations sought to achieve their goals and indeed the key means through which favourable views of the Hungarians would be expressed before Kossuth’s arrival remained the press. Vipan’s role in facilitating this was fundamentally important, as it was with his help that Pulszky became correspondent for several leading journals in Britain. Fortunately for Pulszky, the expansion of the relevant print media in Britain, resulting from the improvement of technologies and better distribution, had reached sufficiently favourable proportions by the middle of the nineteenth century for information to reach significant segments of British society. ²⁵

Before the revolution broke out, the British press showed scant interest in the affairs of Hungary or the Danube region. After fighting erupted however, the public naturally began to take more notice of the fate of the states along the Danube. But in contrast to French or Italian revolutionary politics, the Hungarian struggle attracted little sympathy from either middle‐ or working‐class reformers in 1848 itself. ²⁶ Since all the information the English press communicated was based on reports by the Viennese press or German newspapers, it was naturally tilted against the Hungarians. It was reported that jealousy prevailing between the Magyar and Slavonic inhabitants of the region might lead to civil war, certainly unpalatable to peace‐loving Britons. Such a potentially negative outcome called for the preservation of the status quo rather than support for Hungarian demands for change. ²⁷ Mirroring the official line, an independent Hungary was perceived to be dangerous and there was a clear call for the maintenance of the Austrian Empire in Central Europe. ²⁸ Pulszky’s role was fundamental in changing such attitudes. Determined to present the Hungarian cause from (to his mind) a less biased and more truthful perspective, he consciously set out to communicate how the Hungarian struggle was constitutional, lawful and parliamentary. Such a revelation was to trump British misgivings.

In order for it to garner more information, Pulszky also put the British press in contact with Hungarian printed sources, such as the Közlöny, the organ of the Hungarian government and Honvéd, the newspaper of the army. ²⁹ And his efforts did indeed mean that the press’s unfavourable stance was altered. Conservative papers such as the Morning Chronicle, the Morning Post and The Times were not amenable: in the wake of the Russian intervention they unequivocally channelled anti‐Hungarian views and were in favour of Austria. ³⁰ Subsequent articles cast aspersions on Kossuth’s character, chiding his ‘presumption and arrogance’ and argued that he lacked temperance and was not sufficiently considerate. ³¹ His inconsistency was also remarked upon. ³² Fortunately for Pulszky, other newspapers adopted a wholly contrasting viewpoint and embraced the Hungarian cause and Kossuth with great eagerness. It was the Daily News which proved to be the foremost voice of protest against The Times, calling it ‘the great organ of absolutist diplomacy’, chiding it for being against the Hungarians in the wake of the Russian intervention, instead of upholding the Hungarians’ noble quest. ³³ Both The Times and the Morning Chronicle were roundly criticized for failing to report the case of the Hungarians truthfully. ³⁴ Prominent Englishmen who were sympathetic to the Hungarian cause criticized such Conservative papers as well. Cobden repeatedly denigrated The Times for unfairly assailing Kossuth and the Hungarians, ³⁵ and Newman too lamented how he wished to see that newspaper’s reporting corrected. ³⁶

In contrast to the Conservative press, sympathetic newspapers, primarily the Radical Examiner and the Daily News (associated with Richard Cobden) greatly praised the efforts of the Magyars. What is more, the Hungarian cause was tied to the name of Kossuth already. In April 1849 The Illustrated London News published an article presenting the Hungarian statesman in a very favourable light ³⁷ and the relatively new satirical weekly Punch published poems reproaching the upper classes for not honouring Kossuth in the way that he deserved. ³⁸ Pulszky’s press campaign proved to be a self‐fuelling process. The more publicity Kossuth and the Hungarian struggle received, including bad publicity, the more interest it naturally stoked. The articles published before and subsequently during Kossuth’s tour through England, even by unsupportive newspapers and those that caricatured the Kossuth fervour and hero cult, ensured that interest in him was maintained. ³⁹

Apart from press contributions, Pulszky, his wife and their new circle of English friends also published literary works. These served to counter‐balance the unfavourable works in print that spoke against the Hungarians. The Austrian government deliberately sought to discredit the Hungarians abroad and Pulszky was no exception. Concrete steps were taken to counter Pulszky’s goals. The book Esquisse de la guerre de Hongrie en 1848–49 ⁴⁰ (translated from an Austrian account) aimed to prove how often the Hungarians had acted unlawfully, this being evidence justifying intervention. Another similarly disparaging book was Kossuth und seine Bannerschaft. ⁴¹ In response, Pulszky wished to publish books depicting the opposite position. Helpfully, he had already had experience, and his writing skills had been honed by his publications while he was still in Hungary. His works included, among others, one treatise on England (in German), ⁴² and an essay titled On the History of Hungary. ⁴³ Now in England, he published a book containing Hungarian folk tales, which he had collected around 1840. ⁴⁴ Mrs Pulszky’s Memoirs of a Hungarian Lady (with the introduction written by her husband) gave a short history of Hungary with the implicit aim of better informing English people of Hungarian travails. ⁴⁵ Another book with a similar goal was their joint effort titled Tales and Traditions of Hungary. ⁴⁶

Englishmen furthered Pulszky’s objectives by writing books about the Hungarian question themselves. These were primarily intended to convince the British public that Hungary was an admirable country of plural values. Charles Henningsen, an East European expert, propagated the message of the country espousing such values as freedom, liberty and revolution (provided the latter did not disregard constitutionalism), all of which stood in stark contrast with Tsarist and Habsburg oppression. ⁴⁷ He also aimed to prove in his book Kossuth and ‘The Times’, by the Author of ‘The Revelations of Russia’ ⁴⁸ the extent to which The Times was making assertions based on incorrect sources, only seeking to discredit the Hungarian cause. Charles Pridham, a correspondent of the newspaper, was also ready to reveal The Times’s deeply flawed editing through books. His work Kossuth and Magyar Land: Personal Adventures during the War in Hungary outlines how that newspaper acted ‘under the inspiration of absolutism, to drag forward and endeavour to steep in the mire of its calumny, the embodiment of Hungarian expression’. ⁴⁹ The British politician Charles Gilpin was similarly eager to report on Hungarian tribulations. He owned a printing house and also published a pamphlet in memory of those executed at Arad, titled The Sixth of October. In Memory of the Defenders of Constitutional Liberty in Hungary. ⁵⁰ The journalist Max Schlesinger’s The War in Hungary 1848–49 (translated by John Edward Taylor and edited by Pulszky) was another book for public consumption presenting the Hungarian struggle in a favourable light. ⁵¹

Thus, numerous Englishmen came to aid Pulszky in his objectives. He was heartily embraced. He was always referred to as a ‘count’ despite protestations on his part that he had no such official title. Englishmen replied that anyone of such venerable noble stock was a ‘count’ and they saw Pulszky as nothing less. ⁵² Just how highly esteemed he was is clear from one specific incident. The Austrian government wanted to publish a pamphlet in England, claiming that the murderer of its foreign minister Latour was Pulszky. The pamphlet was published but the English bookseller had no mind to advertise it and the pamphlet remained unknown as a result. This indicated contemporary Englishmen’s suspicion of Austrian attempts to tar the image of noble Hungarians and their representative, Pulszky. Even more pertinently, after the editor of the Quarterly Review penned an article defaming Pulszky, referring to him as the murderer, Lord Dudley Stuart would not rest until Pulszky was persuaded to sue the editor. Such was the English MP’s insistence that he even asked his personal solicitor to help Pulszky. Then during the trial, the judge clearly articulated the prevailing British sentiment when he stated that the court case was unlikely to last long as it was common knowledge that Pulszky was not a murderer but a great patriot. ⁵³

Pulszky’s positive reception by several members of the English liberal elite, intellectuals and bourgeois radicals was undoubtedly the Hungarian’s own doing. It was rooted in his conscious and calculated disavowal of extremism and his desire to avoid involvement in political chaos. He was careful to tout the Hungarian movement’s moderate credentials. Indeed, when Kossuth was elected governor during the Hungarian fight for independence, Pulszky became slightly worried. England being a monarchy, he was apprehensive about whether English public opinion would be inclined to approve of the idea of a potential Hungarian republic. And when emigrants in Paris wished to protest against Austria’s proposed intention to incorporate Hungary in a future German state, Pulszky declined to give his support to the protests, as he feared that such action might jeopardize the future loyalty of the British statesmen he desired to enlist in the Hungarian cause. ⁵⁴ Furthermore, he distanced himself from Mazzini’s Central Democratic Committee and other European refugee parties, which he thought only wished to use Kossuth for their own ends. ⁵⁵

All in all, Ferenc Pulszky’s extraordinary acumen and cautious prudence played a fundamental role in the creation of Kossuth’s heroic image prior to the Hungarian statesman’s arrival. After having to acknowledge that help from officialdom was not forthcoming, Pulszky set out to win over and deepen the British public’s interest in the Hungarian cause, identify it with the personage of Kossuth and prepare the ground for the Hungarian governor’s arrival. He gathered around himself a small group of intellectuals and liberals, who all eagerly engaged in popularizing the question. Lord Dudley Stuart, Richard Cobden, D.J. Vipan and countless other scholars, historians and writers embraced the Hungarian cause. Together with them, Pulszky organized public meetings, set up organizations, published literary works and communicated his message through the British liberal and Radical press. By the time Kossuth arrived, the ground for his reception had already been thoroughly prepared.

Kossuth Arrives

Unsurprisingly, English cities were already celebrating Kossuth even before his arrival. ⁵⁶ At the beginning of 1851, Pulszky wrote to Kossuth that had he arrived in England at that point he would probably have been greeted like a king. ⁵⁷ And indeed, when Kossuth landed at Southampton on 23 October 1851, he was given a true hero’s welcome. The extraordinary amount of sympathy and admiration that had been building up culminated in a tremendously enthusiastic reception. ⁵⁸ The multitude that turned out was several thousand strong, ⁵⁹ and the motley crowd of left‐wing émigrés, Chartists, representatives of the Whigs and the Radicals, as well as Hungarian refugees all cheered Kossuth to the rafters. ⁶⁰ Certainly, the Englishmen among the crowd that gathered to welcome him were influenced by the assembled Hungarian patriots that greeted the governor as their leader. These Hungarians let their emotions run riot and the unceasing cheering from all corners certainly had an effect on all members of the gathering.

Kossuth looked every bit the hero as well. His general appearance was subsequently described only in positive terms: he had clear and intelligent eyes; he was handsome but not ‘commanding’ and his attire gave him the air of a distinguished Englishman. His wife was described as ladylike and graceful. ⁶¹ And when Kossuth launched into his first speech, ‘the whole expression of his soul’ was ‘concentrated into one single glance’. His words were immensely powerful and enchanting. His first speech was a flawless masterpiece. His command of the English language and his English accent were remarkably good and Englishmen could only marvel at his eloquence, which they saw as especially captivating considering he was a non‐native English speaker. ⁶² Cobden later praised Kossuth’s wonderful eloquence on a number of occasions and described it as ‘the most extraordinary exploit I ever witnessed’. ⁶³

Kossuth’s first speech began by praising England as the land of freedom and a country that was great, glorious and free. He went on to say how nations should ‘look upon England as on the Book of Life’, with the country being best placed to teach the nations of Europe how to live. ⁶⁴ He then went on to praise municipal institutions and the great benefit they brought to the public; without them, freedom was impossible. Thus he clearly set himself against centralization. He also – prudently – emphasized the virtue of America being a republic and England a monarchy, obliterating the difference between the two forms of government. He was stressing the importance of the same fundamental values the countries’ people shared instead. ⁶⁵ The address he was then handed was signed by almost 1100 people, all of whom identified with such principles: England’s liberties, the social order and the prosperity of the country were all notions that English people felt proud of. ⁶⁶

Kossuth without exception always praised the city where he gave his speech. And while the essence of what he said was very similar, he never repeated himself, but employed a slightly different turn of phrase and, as it was reported, marvellous eloquence. His speeches linked the Hungarian cause with Hungarian institutions, whose importance he constantly emphasized. Hungary’s troubled history meant that the country had had to suffer in her past, encroached upon by the Ottoman Empire first, both from the viewpoint of civilization and religion, then by Russia and then by the Habsburgs. Thus, ‘the people in Hungary were unhappily excluded from political rights’. But ‘still, this Magyar race, in such difficulties of circumstance, through eight centuries and more, has conserved… its constitutional liberty and national institutions’. ⁶⁷

He denigrated Habsburg rule, which he called one of continual perjury, as opposed to Hungary’s noble past actions, which he explained had always been based on lawful treaties. Hungary had no greater connection with Austria than Hanover did with England. But it was not the Austrian people who were evil, but the House of Habsburg, which functioned as Russia’s ‘obedient satellite’. Indeed, it was the ‘despotic and encroaching spirit of the Russian power’, ⁶⁸ which threatened to be overly weighty on the continent. Just as he appealed to British Russophobia, so he appealed to British Protestantism. Hungary was the bulwark of Christianity, a Protestant nation that stood for freedom and humanity. ⁶⁹ As a consequence, Hungary’s fate was a serious matter and indeed ‘the freedom and greatness of England’ were ‘in intimate connexion with the destinies and liberty of Europe’. ⁷⁰ It was indispensable for the rebirth of Europe that the free powers aid Hungary.

Kossuth often referred to how peace‐loving Hungary had not been consciously planning a revolution, but had been forced to engage in hostilities. This brave and industrious nation had no debt and had a great capacity for work. He pronounced himself especially inspired by those Hungarian people who sacrificed their life for their nation in the fight for independence. He also referred to the concept of liberty in his speeches very frequently. This ennobling virtue, ‘the safeguard of social order’ ⁷¹ was portrayed by him as the antonym of absolutism. Self‐government and freedom were invoked as values tied to liberty. Liberty of commerce, free trade and political liberty all went hand in hand. Austria did not espouse the values of the free market, whereas Hungary was more than willing to complement England in trade matters. Promoting decentralization, he equated centralization with absolutism, while praising the virtues of municipal government, which opposed centralization. (The corporation of the City of London itself he termed a ‘principle’.) ⁷² All these values, as Kossuth emphasized, already prevailed in England. He applauded the country that in his estimation epitomized progress, and he often alluded to how it was ‘mighty’, ‘great’ and ‘glorious’. He also appeared to display heartfelt affection for it, commending great English historical figures, such as Shakespeare.

Lastly, Kossuth also denounced secrecy, which he said should be transcended ‘by opening the eyes of the people’. ⁷³ He counted on public opinion to exercise the requisite leverage in order to bring about change in British government policy. Governments in general would realize how interfering in other countries’ own affairs was bad; absolute governments should abide by this rule as well. In domestic issues, he thought that governments should strike a balance by satisfying the public necessities of their people without encroaching upon the rights of men, the rights of communities, or of local municipalities, in their own domestic spheres.

And indeed, all this mattered to and resonated with Englishmen who listened to him in awe. English sympathy for the predicament of Poland and Hungary, coupled with Radical opposition to Austrian expansionism and Russian encroachments and a more deeply rooted Russophobia, all contributed to the liberal elite’s readiness to sympathize with the plight of the Hungarians. But another reason for Englishmen embracing Kossuth was the way they conceived of their own country at the time. The notions of civilization and progress and the widespread belief in the capacity of all people for improvement, as well as other concepts Kossuth stressed (outlined above) were all contemporary English beliefs.

How Britons thought of their own country and immigrants in their midst in the wake of the failed European revolutions was summed up by The Times when it reported that: ‘every civilized people on the face of the earth must be fully aware that this country is the asylum of nations… there is no point whatever on which we are prouder and more resolute’. ⁷⁴ It was generally accepted around this time that Englishmen’s lives should be enriched through the presence of foreigners so that they could be ‘practically instructed in… whatever foreign sagacity, ingenuity or experience may have produced in art [and] science which is most perfect’. ⁷⁵ A further indication of how the Kossuth cult in England was also a result of Englishmen’s pride in their own achievements was how they actively sought out parallels between their own celebrated national past and the current Hungarian struggle. They sought out the Hungarian equivalents to their own great historical figures and momentous achievements, such as Cromwell and the Magna Carta. They also stressed the merits of Britain’s constitutionalism and liberty when praising Hungary for the same virtues.

Kossuth generally focused on universal values, but emphasized the importance of those in particular that specifically appealed to middle‐class reformers rather than to more radical agitators. As he underlined at Southampton for instance, he was not a ‘red republican’; instead of a revolution, he advocated the idea of ‘a progressive development’. ⁷⁶ ‘The tone of the addresses and speeches delivered at the meetings has been very discreet and moderate’, ⁷⁷ Richard Cobden said approvingly. But to what extent did Kossuth’s speeches express his own ideas? Those intellectuals who had helped Pulszky wage his war in the name of the Hungarians in the English press were now open to helping Kossuth in person and many actively played the role of advisor to him, counselling him specifically on what his speeches should focus on.

Toulmin Smith suggested to Kossuth that every time he addressed a crowd, he should place particular emphasis on how the fight for Hungarian independence was constitutional. He should underline that it was because the Hungarians’ constitutional freedom had been threatened that they had had to resort to weapons, and thus any accusation by Austria of Hungary being revolutionary did not stand up to scrutiny. Richard Cobden presented suggestions as well. The contents of Kossuth’s Winchester speech for instance were discussed with Cobden beforehand. ⁷⁸ He also advised that Kossuth should recount the true story of the Hungarian revolution and also speak of his plans and hopes to stoke interest and evoke more sympathy. Cobden gave Kossuth more general advice even before Kossuth’s arrival. The Hungarian’s hero cult should be cultivated and propagated, thus ‘the more public addresses he received from corporations and the more the crowds celebrated him, the better’ Cobden thought. ⁷⁹ He further advised that a public gathering or a meeting held by the mayor of a town would be the more prudent option; otherwise certain people might attempt to utilize Kossuth for their own political ends. ⁸⁰

Cobden also made a more direct contribution to the way the Hungarian movement was perceived. He was quick to emphasize that it should not be interpreted as a democratic movement, but rather a noble attempt, where a country sought to defend its right to govern itself through its own national institutions. But Kossuth’s speeches certainly contained similar ideas too. The two undoubtedly idealized the same set of values. They also shared resentment towards secret diplomacy, mystification, innuendo and intrigue. Kossuth’s own views regarding the required reform of international legal relations also coincided with Cobden’s much‐loved world peace programme. ⁸¹ Moreover, they both had a respect for equality. ⁸² Thus, Kossuth’s own aims dovetailed perfectly with the programme and values of enlightened Liberal politicians and middle‐class radicals.

Although he wished to give expression to this in front of the public as well, Cobden asked him not to. Cobden explained that he thought that Kossuth himself and the Hungarian cause would be disadvantaged, were he to try winning over public opinion through solely embracing one party. The Hungarian leader seemed to act in accordance with Cobden’s advice. He was careful not to be officially affiliated with any party, the Liberals, the Chartists or indeed Palmerston. ⁸³ He refused to accept invitations to banquets from individuals, explaining that he would rather speak at gatherings held by non‐political entities, representing the people at large. ⁸⁴ The fact that he supposedly did not want to mix with any political party is also clear in his declining the Chartists’ invitations to speak at their gatherings. ⁸⁵

Still, countless letters, invitations and addresses were presented to him from various corners, not only from mayors, but from refugee committees and representatives of the working classes. Wherever he travelled he was mobbed by enthusiastic supporters. The avenues and roads were filled with people, all wanting to get a glimpse of this distinguished foreigner. ⁸⁶ Public places, churches and schools were adorned with the Hungarian tricolour. ⁸⁷ Demonstrations of labour and international solidarity in favour of Kossuth in 1851 saw shoemakers, tailors, builders, printers and metal workers, in other words trades that formed the main support for the Chartist movement, alongside pearl‐button makers, coopers, carpenters, joiners, the crafts that had earlier established the United Trades Union. ⁸⁸ And while Kossuth himself identified with middle‐class values, he did finally accept the invitation of the London Committee representing the trade unions and gave a speech at Copenhagen House to at least 25,000, but perhaps as many as 100,000 working men. ⁸⁹

Operatives, working men and tradespeople waved banners reading ‘Disobedience to tyrants is a duty to God’ and that ‘There is no obstacle for him that wills’ (Kossuth’s words to the Marseilles workman who swam across the harbour to Kossuth’s ship at night in France and said ‘I desired to touch your hand, I could not find a boat, I took to the water, and here I am. Are there any obstacles to him who wills?’). ⁹⁰ They saw him as personifying ‘persecuted democracy’, and attacks were launched subsequently against those meetings that had seen him as an ‘exiled monarchist’. That there had been no armed intervention against Russia was lamented. ⁹¹ It was emphasized that only the working men could see Kossuth for his real value, not as the mouthpiece of Cobden, but as the same man who had spoken to the people of France at Marseilles.

Their praise for Kossuth was in effect part of a broader eagerness for revolutionary agitation. ⁹² Hungary was seen by working‐class radicals as part of a more general struggle. Kossuth’s patriotism, hugely admired, was tied to Chartist fervour for French revolutionary sentiments. Men bearing banners reading ‘Welcome Kossuth! the Patriot’ also wore badges inscribed with ‘Liberty, equality, fraternity’. ⁹³ Working‐class radicals refused to see him as representing merely municipal institutions, or theoretical greatness, and labelled the turnouts at more middle‐class gatherings ‘pigmy manifestations’ in comparison with their own showing. Working‐class radicals saw Kossuth as being against not just tyranny but also England’s upper and middle classes. In his speeches Kossuth himself praised the importance of constitutionalism and liberal economics, but the speeches at the Chartist banquet that followed his Copenhagen speech were held in a different spirit, enthusing about their own objectives, effectively ignoring what Kossuth had been emphasizing beforehand.

Indeed more generally as well, if we are to survey Kossuth’s speeches and their effect, it was often not what he said but the way he conveyed his message that accounts for his exaltation. There was a melancholy plaintiveness to his voice, he spoke softly, slowly and then his wrath at the oppressors followed, transforming his voice into thunder. His speeches were described as following the strange melody of Hungarian music, enthralling the listener with its variety. ⁹⁴ The eloquence of his English was marvelled at in all circles. ⁹⁵ His oratorical skills were extraordinary and the logical and clear manner in which his speeches were structured helped explain their widespread appeal. His employment of powerful imagery and his use of contrasts, the indisputable passion with which he agitated for the cause of his country, the way he described the Hungarian people’s suffering in vivid detail, his emotional style of speaking and the fact that he sometimes burst into tears during a speech certainly exercised a psychological effect on his audience, triggering its sympathy and heightening Kossuth’s appeal. ⁹⁶ This powerful effect is evidenced by the Sheffield representative’s confession: that when ‘the beautiful eye of the patriot melted into tears, my heart was too full to notice particularly what he said’. ⁹⁷

The characteristics Kossuth appeared to espouse, and either consciously or subconsciously communicated during his speeches also mattered a great deal. His modesty shone through when he stated that he felt himself ‘undeserving’ of such a generous welcome. Moreover, he often mentioned how he thought it was a man’s duty to do good. He also pronounced himself more than ready to devote his life to the grand values of freedom, liberty and the independence of his fatherland. ⁹⁸ As he said in his Manchester speech, he welcomed donations and financial help, but he would never dream of appropriating them for personal benefit; he would divert them towards the Hungarian cause. ⁹⁹

Thus it is not surprising that not long after his arrival and on numerous other occasions afterwards, he was portrayed as a ‘noble’ ‘exile of freedom’, ‘unsullied by dishonourable deed’. ¹⁰⁰ The press praised his splendid courage, his commendable energy, his venerable honour and the remarkable administrative genius he must possess to have been able to attain such high military and governmental office. ¹⁰¹ He could lead an army to victory, even though he was not a general, and it was seen as remarkable that from the nothingness of his position he worked his way up to the ‘zenith of a commander’ and leader of his nation. ¹⁰² His education was described as ordinary, and indeed it was his own personal qualities, such as diligence and assiduity, and his devotion to and capacity for hard work that helped him obtain such admirable achievements. The fact that he was already hugely popular in his own country prodded Englishmen into reverence. He was undoubtedly dearly beloved and a man of the people. When he was editor of the Pesth Gazette, the newspaper’s circulation multiplied twenty times as thousands of illiterate peasants learnt to read just so that they could read his articles, it was said. ¹⁰³

His character appeared flawless as well. He had been against tyranny all his life, and even when he was exposed to dreadful sufferings at the hands of the Viennese government, his energy and nobility never waned. ¹⁰⁴ He was also perceived to be incorruptible: Metternich had attempted to bribe him, but the morally immaculate Hungarian had effortlessly resisted such despicable temptations. He was seen as the epitome of virtue. ¹⁰⁵ Englishmen viewed him as a liberal, virtuous and humane statesman, who symbolized enlightened rule. ¹⁰⁶ He was the voice of his people, who had appointed him dictator of his country. But he was so noble that he had asked to be relieved of this position as soon as the fatherland no longer required such a leader. Kossuth was seen as ‘the soul of the people’, ‘the oracle of the nation’, ¹⁰⁷ uniting ‘all peculiarities, all foibles and attainments, all passions and feelings of a nation’. ¹⁰⁸ As the Engineers’ leader William Newton described him, his image was a timeless phenomenon: ‘in him are blended in one the attributes of the patriot, the hero, and the martyr… this man comes to us, not only as the representative of liberty, but, ennobled by effort, hallowed by sacrifice, and purified by suffering’. ¹⁰⁹

Such media and literary representations of Kossuth were no different from the impressions of those British statesmen who met him in person. They could only speak of him in similarly glowing terms. Upon having met Kossuth, Cobden found him ‘mild, pensive’ and ‘earnest’. ¹¹⁰ He later spoke of him as amiable and disinterested, in great possession of firmness and a curious sense of power with which he had ‘acquired an ascendency over the aristocratic party in his country’, overpowering other no doubt extraordinary Hungarian men. ¹¹¹ He certainly thought of the Hungarian governor as an impeccable character; apart from excellent oratorical skills, he appeared to combine the characteristics of a first‐rate administrator, and possessed high moral qualities and unshakable courage. ‘This is more than can be said of Demosthenes or Cicero’, he thought. ¹¹² Newman also waxed lyrical about Kossuth’s virtue and wisdom. ¹¹³

The Hungarian leader was thus looked upon as ‘the representative of an idea which animates and pervades all nerves, phases and fibres’ of the age. ¹¹⁴ ‘He is the incarnation of a great principle and in him all things are subservient to that’, ¹¹⁵ wrote the Illustrated London News. For the Chartists, the idea of martyrdom was important and using symbols that made sense of the social order was essential. ¹¹⁶ In a sense, they utilized the charismatic Hungarian leader to rally their depleted forces and perhaps gain new momentum for their declining movement. Indeed, it was not only working‐class, but also middle‐class radicals that saw in Kossuth and through him in the Hungarian revolution a chance to advance their own agendas. Their goals were wholly divergent, however. While middle‐class radicals first and foremost perceived Kossuth as standing for constitutionalism and the institution of free trade, the Chartists saw a means of persuading the British government to adopt measures that would lead to true economic justice. All radicals evoked universal values, but the notions of liberalism and democracy, socialism and nationalism were differently defined according to their own respective goals.

But it would be erroneous to put Britons’ receptiveness to the Kossuth myth down to such motivations only. Englishmen, including middle‐ and working‐class radicals celebrated the noble exile of freedom because he merged in one the attributes of the patriot, the hero, and the martyr. He served as a symbol and representative of an idea and Englishmen saw in him the subjugated Hungarian people. As one admiring author explained, the reception he met in all circles showed that British people in general were always ready to sympathize with the oppressed and the persecuted. It was not surprising that everyone whose ‘heart throbs with compassion for the brave Hungarians’ welcomed the man, who was the ‘eloquent advocate of their just cause, and the indefatigable and disinterested defender of their rights, the man who made sure that so long as he lives Hungary was not yet secured for Austria’. ¹¹⁷ Hungary itself at this time was perceived to be the country of heroes. It was not just Lajos Kossuth whom the thousands cheered, but ‘Hungary bound and bleeding but still hopeful, resolute, defying Hungary’. ¹¹⁸ Hungary as a country assumed the characteristics of its countrymen. Thus, the poem Voice of the Exile, published in the magazine Punch:

And like a war‐spent soldier, faint and breathless,

Hungary, prostrate there,

Lay, seeming wounded to death; but deathless

was her defiant stare.

Conclusion

As we have seen, Pulszky, Kossuth’s ‘back‐stage manager’, was crucial to the creation of Kossuth’s hero cult in Britain. His role cannot be overstressed; without him Kossuth might have remained an obscure Central European revolutionary leader. During the two years prior to the Magyar leader’s arrival, the ground was being carefully prepared, so that when Kossuth arrived, all he was required to do was employ his uniquely powerful oratory and continue to equate the Hungarian movement with certain universal values, already propagated by Pulszky. But specific Englishmen were also instrumental in the creation of Kossuth’s hero cult. A small group of liberal intellectuals and middle‐class radicals, including Lord Dudley Stuart and Richard Cobden amongst others, eagerly engaged in first helping Pulszky popularize the Hungarian question and then coaching Kossuth by giving advice on maintaining his heroic appeal. Thus it was a multi‐sided affair, the joint Hungarian duo of Pulszky and Kossuth and their English ‘sympathizers’ were all creators of Kossuth’s hero cult in England. But we must not forget that the adulation of Kossuth in 1851 was also down to more abstract notions: the receptiveness of contemporary English minds to the celebration of heroes and the importance attached to English national identity, with which the Kossuth cult was deeply intertwined in the eyes of all those Englishmen that celebrated him.

Kossuth’s appeal can also be set in the wider context of hero cults more generally, offering insightful parallels. The great Hungarian patriot re‐established his nation on the political map of Europe from where it had vanished after the defeat at Mohacs in 1526 by the Ottomans. His name has become synonymous with the revolution and fight for national independence of 1848–49. His methods of political negotiation, diplomacy and statesmanship, coupled with the more modern means of public relations and political marketing (such as public addresses, lectures and journalism) made him a widely celebrated hero back in his homeland. To this day, many Hungarians see him as one of the nation’s most ardent patriots and greatest orators. Thus Kossuth resembles Bismarck and Garibaldi, whose names are intertwined with national unification. The Prussian Junker and the Italian erstwhile guerrilla fighter may be dissimilar at first glance, but as Lucy Riall and Robert Gerwarth have pointed out, hey both attained enduring iconic status as fathers of their nations and symbolized the quest of oppressed nations to free themselves from the shackles of foreign rule. ¹²⁰ With the emergence of the modern nation state, the need for heroes and a historical past tied to their image (on which national identity rested) was palpable. ¹²¹ This need was the greatest in young nation‐states, such as Italy and Germany, but was also in evidence in struggling, contested nation‐states, such as Ireland and multi‐ethnic empires, where the question of national identities appeared even more problematic. Thus, in a sense, Kossuth himself can be seen as such a ‘national father’, who personified the authentic eternal nation for many Hungarians. Moreover, Kossuth could further be likened to Garibaldi in that his appeal too was fluid and eclectic and earned plaudits not just on the national stage but also internationally. Thus, while Kossuth assumed a mythical status as Hungary’s national hero in England, Garibaldi stood for Italian independence. Furthermore, both men epitomized energy, rebellion, renewal and change; were seen as an emblem of virtue and generally symbolized oppressed nations. ¹²²

Kossuth’s image also corresponds to those of Charles Stuart Parnell and Edward Carson, two Irishmen who both failed in their objectives, but still attained hero status in their own time. ¹²³ Carson failed in his aim to bind Ireland entirely to the United Kingdom by Union as the country was partitioned in 1920–21 and Parnell might have succeeded in incorporating the idea of an autonomous ‘Home Rule’ parliament for Ireland into British political life in 1885–86, but he was subsequently embroiled in a divorce scandal, his party split in 1891 and he was eventually repudiated by Gladstone and many of his own followers. Still, their images emerged untarnished and they can both be seen as emblems of ‘missed chances in Irish history’. ¹²⁴ They symbolize the uncompromising and defiant struggle for independence on behalf of their communities, and it is in this sense that we can detect the most fitting parallel with Kossuth. Both Parnell and Carson are similar to the Hungarian leader with regard to the extent to which all three men were idolized during their own lifetimes. They all also embodied physical courage, closely associated with armed defiance.

Finally, Kossuth may be likened to the military heroes Hindenburg and Pétain, who were both perceived to be the saviours of their nation in 1914. ¹²⁵ As with the Kossuth cult in Britain and America, their cults too were both partly spontaneous but also unquestionably manufactured. Powerful images lodged in the ancient past were utilized, as were transnational links. Hindenburg and Pétain’s reputations rocketed after they had saved their countries in crucial battles (Tannenberg and Verdun respectively). Kossuth gained hero status in the wake of the Hungarian struggles, as the leader of the Hungarian fight for independence. While Pétain and Hindenburg symbolized French and German virtue respectively, Kossuth embodied Hungarian nobleness. They also shared a martyr‐like self‐sacrificial dedication to the duty of serving their countries.