Edit Gyömrői and Hermann Broch
Endre Kiss, Budapest
Literary friendships prove themselves only rarely as so detailled, mysterious, even not adventurous, as it happened in case of the intellectual and emotional relations between Edit Gyömrői (1897-1987) and Hermann Broch.
Hermann Broch had met Edit Gyömrői during the turbulent years 1918 and 1919 in Austria (as Gyömrői said it in an interview given in Hungary [Vezér,1971] : on the train between Vienna and Teesdorf and through his lively travel-lecture of a d''Annunzio''s novel). In his Broch''s biography, Paul Michael Lützeler dedicated from the beginning an intense attention to this relation. The literary friendship lasts essentially till 1938, as a Gyömrői with her man of that time, László Ú jvári emigrates to Ceylon.
Today Gyömrői, originally Edit Gelb, then Gyömrői, later after the name of her first man Rényi, then after the second man''s luck and after the third one, is considered today as a very complex representative of a new left engaged class of the intellectuals after the breakdown of the Austrian-Hungarian monarchy. Her life is a classic example of the intellectual possibilities and the social impossibilities of the Central-European area. She was educated by the intellectual-political progression of Hungary''s prewar (in the Galilee''s circle, in the Sunday-circle around Georg Lukács, as well as in the environment of the always innovative Hungarian avant-garde pope Lajos Kassák). At the time of the Hungarian Soviet Republic, she was collaborator to the people''s commissioner''s office for teaching. After the fall of the Commune, she emigrates to Vienna and later to Berlin, where she has been trained to be a psychoanalyst without former medical study. In Berlin, she belongs to the left Intelligenzia in the sphere of influence of the Freudomarxism (under others, in Hanns Eisler''s circle). In 1933.
Edit Gyömrői''s life course corresponds in some of its trains to Hermann Broch''s one, particularly if is taken into consideration, that also Hermann Broch''s intellectual way is beginning with a certain biographic delay. Both become expert intellectuals, at the same time of the going out First World War and the coming unique intellectual and political messianist world. Common points arise in the cultural-critical-historical-philosophical interests, in the avant-garde and later in the literary essays with classic tendency, in the active experience of the Soviet Republic (in both countries), as well as in the unchanged religious thema of the psychoanalysis.
Edit Gyömrői, as far as her personality is concerned, is considered as generally famous, mainly because she has been the practising psychoanalyst of the greatest Hungarian poet of the interwartimes, Attila József, between 1934 and 1936. As such, her personality and her relation with Attila József is permanently analyzed and discussed. On this line, Edit Gyömrői builds however also a true bridge between Hermann Broch and Attila József, in which this relation is not only symbolic, but also can promise fundamental other intellectual conceptions.
Edit Gyömrői belongs to the "family" of the Hungarian psychoanalysis in a very specific and, for her, always very important way. She is István Hollós'' niece, who constituted with Sándor Ferenczi and Imre Hermann the triumvirate leader of the psychoanalytic Hungarian community. Her affiliation to this circle enabled her to always belong to the central core of this movement. So she took part already in 1918 in 5th international congress of the psychoanalysis in Budapest. This fact will just most remarkably be an evidence in the thirties, when she, as a pupil and assistant of Otto Fenichel (and on this line at least as a sympathizer of Wilhelm Reich), could enjoy invariably the confidence of this circle.
Her Berlin decade (1923-1933) isn''t one of lots of stations of her life growing together profoundly with the vibrations of the twentieth century. According to all signs, this time is for her the zenith and the place of the realization of the till there determining aims of her life. That she must also give up this life place has an even more tragical effect (also in her case). From the Hungarian perspective, her following Budapester years, because of Attila József, have the biggest relevance on her life course. The Berlin zenith was a fulfillment, even if she often had to fight against the poverty.
She worked as a designer of clothes in the film industry, obtained there, however, also other roles and functions. She also joined the "Rote Hilfe", certain traces point to the fact that she was not implied (as it is propagated in a part of the Hungarian literature) or not only in the editing of the magazine "Rote Hilfe", but also in its organization, which was totally filled (in peculiar agreement with the film industry) with multiple intellectual contents and relations. Since 1929, her psychoanalytical education followed with Otto Fenichel, which fitted out Gyömrői with a professionnal profile without having obtained any medical certificate (and participating in the Hungarian and international psychoanalytic movement since at least 1918). Through Otto Fenichel, she was however also in relation with Wilhelm Reich''s orgonomic Freudomarxism, which created again an independent temporal and conceptual period of the psychoanalytic movement, which period argued not only Edit Gyömrői''s connection with Attilla József, but also already with Hermann Broch.
The relation Gyömrői-Broch might be also characterized through a multiplicity of intellectual and political trends. The relation was motivated (independently from the age difference) by a common intellectual approach, it is on both sides and from the beginning "interdisciplinary and "polyfunctional", it is also from the beginning surrounded with a magnificent multiplicity (!) of common societies and other social circles, it is from the first moment simultaneously literary (creative even poetic, when the poem writer Hermann Broch, often in the shade, can reach his legitimity), psychoanalytic and political (in this respect also always philosophical, while all these three fields have their own philosophical dimensions). Their relation was marked by the simultaneous apocalyptic and messianistic period of the years 1918 and 1919, which occured together in Vienna and in Budapest with the same historical-philosophical challenges and delivered Broch (as well as Gyömrői) in the same way with the real frames and the true starting point of their whole intellectual career, together with the decisive episode of the Commune rather forgotten more or less for long in Vienna and in Budapest rather for long and for the future or, differently said, of the Soviet Republic with these truly millennial events, which evoke with Broch the really not daily subject of the " decay of values " and the "overlapping of the historical time epochs " and with Gyömrői her active service in one of the commissioner''s offices of the Soviet Republic, the unexpected and completely in a different way presented fulfilment of a tendency also unites, which would have had to join, sooner or later, in any case. In an absurd and paradoxical way, united the modern and more or less young generation of Vienna and Budapest (however, also from other historical regions of the dying Habsburg-monarchy) in Vienna and became aware, here and there, of the incredible nearness and affinity. All tendencies were realized and proved true in Edit Gyömrői''s Viennese relation with Hermann Broch in Vienna.
" In the Viennese cafés, the promiscuity is considered as the most natural thing of the world ", adds Paul Michael Lützeler, while he points out more or less parallel relations to Broch-Gyömrői also with Ea Allesch and Milena Jesenska. He sees in them " an eccentrically blind-life-greedier women''s type, agitated by the panic to miss the men … " (Lützeler, 1985, 71). To this characterization we would add, that this time and these relations constitute a peculiar chapter also in the emancipation history of women. For these women were already the daughters of the century turn, they were considered as themselves at first unintentionally, then, however, as much more consciously emancipatively stylizing women, who had had - as for example also Gyömrői - to lead already at the beginning an intense fight for freedom for their independent life organization with their family and then had to give up this battle for an own business, a new family structure and a creative way of life. For a long time, these women were no longer objects of men''s fantasia, if they also set up for the right to the own and free sexuality. They wanted to become independent actresses of the society and the spirit, who led their permanent fight for freedom for their own personality space development essentially without the male''s help. For them, 1918 and 1919 revealed still more dramatic as they were for the men. For their freedom was still quite new and had not yet enough social anchorage. A permanent continuation of this emancipative life strategy of personal development had to become for them a life objective bordering upon the impossibility, if the decay of values might simultaneously had created for itself also new possibilities.
If we visualize this concrete chapter of the feminine emancipation, an absolutely important and until today not thematized characteristic of the lover and thinker Hermann Broch becomes evident (even with the still self- explaining and interpreting Broch). The lover Broch was namely always in the party of the self-realization and the self-development of his loved women, he has fully understood their situation and behaved towards them as a helper and ally.
This literary friendship began with the publication of two poems of Edit Gyömrői by Hermann Broch. The first of these poems (" Bitter, late prayer ", in Hungarian: " Keserű késői imádság ") appeared in the summer1918. Because Broch couldn''t speak the Hungarian language, he worked on the basis of rough translations of the poetess. Broch was so led, without any doubt, by fellowship and helpfulness, he let publish the poems, however, without any current approval of the authoress, who complained upon, so that he himself apologized.
An analysis of the Broch'' carrying out of the rough translation written by Gyömrői suggests, that Gyömrői''s complaints might have been directed not so much on the missing authorization, but rather on the transformation of the original issues of the poems. The poem is in Hungarian a clearly formulated message of the life endresult, behind which the new constraining experiences of the historical era turn appear clearly. Endre Ady left evidently his mark on the linguistic material of the poem, in which he succeeded to express the intellectual and social modernization of Hungary in a peculiarly dynamic, coherent and symbolic language. Nevertheless, the poem " bitter, late prayer " marks a clear movement in the direction of the vision of the avant-garde. Fully according to the specific historical moment, the poem forms such a sensually formulated bridge between two linguistic worlds, the radical Modern Age unites its forces and creates the passionate crossing in the avant-gardism, while symmetrically an almost seeming steady middle term is constructed in the poem between these worlds. However, Broch''s free adaptation into German immediately starts a third linguistic world, he leads the poem in the world of the German Modern Age already become classical in these years. While Gyömrői''s first line expresses a harmonious summary (" Minden szüret közös hordója az élet", i.e. in German something as : " The common barrel of every vintage is the life. "), this sentence is modified as a prelude by Broch as follows: " Oh man, because the evening comes and I call you … ". In a characteristic way, this idiom "Oh man" appears twice with Broch and that "Oh God" once, while none of both appears with Gyömrői. It still remains to notice, that the radical Modern Age as well as the Avant-garde is in Hungary severely "of earthly existence", so that such idioms like " Oh God "should be interpreted also then as misunderstandings if we also know the purely rhetorical dimensions of these forms. Two calls of Gyömrői become in Broch''s hands the last links of a long complex sentence. While the poetess calls namely in the world : " Erőt, Csodát! " (à peu près " force, miracle ! "), she does not think certainly what is again with Broch : " Oh God, as it is now evening" is repeated (so Broch now repeats this prelude of the poem which does not appear with Gyömrői at all - E.K.) and I call you / and my winepresses are full of the black wine / Hope in the miracle and the big forces". Farther, the poetess condemns her whole previous life which appears in front of the horizon of the big world-historical revolution as unsuccessful, because she saw nothing, heard nothing and understood nothing, now, however, she must be however serene to understand and practise the newness. This poetic thought is in Broch''s poem as follows : "Give to my dead life, in spite of the given sin, the beautiful humility of your true life ". It is not superfluous to point out once more, that Gyömrői''s avant-gardist temporality, if just not revolutionary, is transformed with Broch into a stylized dialogue with an aesthetized transcendency.
Gyömrői''s second poem adapted by Broch (" Painless victims " - in Hungarian: " Vérmaró télből havazik a lelkem ") prepared perhaps still bigger difficulties for the translator. The striking linguistic material through politicized symbolismus in the avant-garde can be hardly translated, and namely, first of all, because of the general principle of the " undefined function of the determinants " formulated by Hugo Friedrich (Friedrich, 1956).
This solid principle able to thematize the fact, that the avant-garde (as a little bit more generally also the Modern Age) applies a great number of grammatically determined elements (substantives), which it does not determine in the preamble semantically, so that thereby a semantic "indefiniteness" of the simultaneously, grammatically, formally determined elements appears. This composition of the text makes the work of translation almost completely optional or directly superfluous. For the foreign-language reader will never be able to decide whether a formal but determined element, semantically left "indefinite", is so already in the original or appeared through the translation (possibly alone (!) because of the different apparatus of the various languages necessary to the determination). In the following sentence in Hungarian " néktek labdatér hullásom mezője " (a rough translation: " for you a (a) ball place is the field of my accident ") no formally determined word is found and here at least two semantically determined elements have to be defined. Therefore, it is in the principle in this field absolutely legitimate, that Broch, as translator, changes the structure and the construction of the poem more radically. However, the orientation of this more radical change goes once more against the avant-garde character (possibly of that time the similar "Oh human''s art of poetry" of Werfel) of the poem and realizes the structures of the classical Modern Age in the German poetry again. With Gyömrői, we find repeatedly "street children" ("street boys"), which at least constitute a clear social category for the representation of that time. Broch confounds resolutely Gyömrői''s "street children" with "boys". With Gyömrői the poem starts with the following line: " Vérmaró télből havazik a lelkem ", with Broch with the following: " In winter my soul is snowing". With Gyömrői it is clear that the bleeding soul of the poet is the one, from where the snow comes, while it seems with Broch rather that the winter is evocated by the snow of the soul of the poet. The orientation of the transsubstantiaton of the most important subjects becomes therefore another. Gyömrői applies to the street children and represents the future of their soul so that it becomes, all that will become worth to "you" (i.e. the street children), the same future of the soul appears with Broch as … " everything that the boys love". The poetess who wants to sacrifice herself for the future, calms down and the repeatedly mentioned street children at the end with the formula according to which "goodness can never hurt", while the same conclusion with Broch insists with the laconic aphorism " Nothing hurts".
Behind these problems, with the resolution of difficult linguistic differences, a general tendency also becomes visible, which complains about Gyömrői rightly and for which Broch apologizes then also repeatedly. The expressive and convincing poetess Edit Rényi is on the way from the politicized and intellectualized Hungarian late symbolism to the European avant-garde, while Hermann Broch, the still young writer and still valid young historical philosopher sticks to a poetic language, which is constructed almost exclusively on the achievements of the German lyric Modern Age (from Rilke to George) and which carries even then every relevant stylistic feature and all characteristic features of the lyric intentions also of the later classic writer Hermann Broch.
No doubt, however, that the global medium of the literary friendship, between Edit Gyömrői and Hermann Broch, was not the literature, but the psychoanalysis, namely just in this concrete sense, how this theory appeared to a new class of intellectuals (Kiss, in 2006) in these decades. The psychoanalye was considered as an atmosphere, that penetrated everything and in which medium could also express literature and politics. Broch as well as Gyömrői were protagonists for whom this function of the psychoanalysis existed totally.
This global frame disintegrates - still generally and abstractly - into other leading dimensions, which for their part have stamped profoundly the other dimensions of an intellectual life .
At first, it concerns at any time the acceptation of the degree of veracity of the psychoanalysis, which on the other side expresses the competence and the legitimization for this theory to function as a whole frame for a theoretical conception of the world and for a life-practical commitment. Secondly, follows from this fundamental vision, that the psychoanalysis is concretized for the own life (as it was the case with Broch up to the end) and - as it is worth with the analysts, for the therapeutic explanation of foreign life. Thirdly, the theory for the twenties and thirties contains already so many methodic alternatives, that the own positioning, under these alternatives within the movement is already equivalent with a clear partisanship for an intellectual group and, at that time, practically also for a political group. Fourthly, in case of creative intellectuals (with Broch, also with Gyömrői, but also with Attila József), there is certainly a point when the therapeutic function of the psychoanalysis gets in conflict with the own creative psychological substance. The poet, the writer, the philosopher does not want to become healthy, cost what it may, the psychoanalysis is also applied for different aims, the brilliant work of art cures perhaps not the neurosis, it applies however as a secret aim of one''s self-knowledge in the psychoanalysis.
In the historical perspective, it is already clear that, just the antagonistic rivalry with the Marxism (become Stalinist) revealed as the most determinant factor, as a universal medium through the education of the "new" class in the interwartimes, from these fundamental perspectives of the psychoanalysis. So alarming it may also appear for our discussion and our intellectual consensus oriented culture, it was an arduous fight of dogmas. The " purely theoretical " problems were, in reality, questions of power. The situation can thereby be made a little bit more complicated through the fact, that one must not necessarily represent the position, according to which these scientific and theoretical discussions transforming in questions of power would have been lacking every scientific and theoretical relevance. However, the contrary of this statement cannot be formulated at all any more. Its scientific and theoretical relevance was at no moment able to constitute again any scientific and theoretical relations from world-political and class-struggling related power interests.
The adversaries of this struggle for power are the stalinism slowly triumphantly growing with its tremendous citatologic rules and the psychoanalytic movement (absolutely not homogeneous, what also delivers an important component of this discussion). The controversy was apparently "only ideological" what also did not mean something arbitrary at this time, an ideological difference was a with equal rights component of the struggle for power. As evident as this function should also be for any expert of the totalitarisms, this totalisation of any intellectual approach appears to current readers as a ghostly phenomenon. The purely "ideological" character was however on its part again as an appearance, because from the psychoanalysis of this time (whether with Marxist attempts related, or not) all the options outgrew for the interpretation of the world history and accordingly for the political practice, so that the intellectual fight for power, between stalinist Marxism and socially or historically oriented psychoanalysis, showed also a primary political content. This was now experienced again, on the psychoanalytic point of view, as a little bit blurred, because the Freudian orthodoxy did not support this controversy on the political field any more.
Even if Hermann Broch did not have himself to do directly with this specific controversy of the stalinist Marxism and the psychoanalysis, he participated very intensively in the wider process of the development of this theory. This was a wide current of arising analytic orientations, which experienced the Freudian orthodoxy as too closely and wanted to form the theory alone already because of the unique and world-historical challenges to be mentioned farther. This Broch''s interest for the intellectual scene determined by these political motives is analogous to the development of his dramaturgical concepts. An also only indirect debate with contemporary left discussions makes namely clear, that Broch wants to set up in his works an equivalent non political alternative to Bertolt Brecht''s anti-aristotelian dramaturgy.
Edit Gyömrői is also in the twenties and thirties an almost ideal-typical form of the new class of politicizing intellectuals, who were forced to argue, in the intense battle between the Stalinism and the psychoanalysis, with Hitler''s seizure of power and its consequences. She was through her analysis of the writer Attila József, intimate to the communist movement, in the heart of this discussion, which went so far that she was denounced by an official opinion vector of this party as the "charlatan" that "exploited" the writer with her psychoanalysis, pushed him " in the madness " and then "abandon him". In this perspective, it is however no longer astonishing, that Attila József''s relation with the communist party up to Gyömrői''s arrival - retrospective- can appear with some glossing over, as "harmonious".
The big debate between stalinist Marxism and psychoanalysis appeared however just in the analytic treatment of Attila József again with multiple philosophic repercussions. Gyömrői (as we will speak again about) was absolutely certainly a left, marxist analyst, on whom the designation "Freudomarxism" only already fully applied because of her education with Otto Fenichel. Attila József was a universal lyric poet, who had argued profoundly with the Marxism. However, Attila József is just in the psychoanalysis no clear Freudomarxist (Kiss, 2006), he takes up the analysis for the solution of his psychological problems, while he holds the Marxism, in his theoretical views, even for a sufficient psychology (with the exception of the psychological explanation of Hitler''s seizure of power). Gyömrői denies however also her true personality in this analysis, she behaves herself as a usual analyst, who develops at the most an ideologically not farther explained nearness to Fenichel''s methodology in her analytic methods. In some statements, Gyömrői expresses, that the psychoanalysis may not give up her own knowledge interest in political or social contexts, what can be stated again, on an abstract level, against her professional identity.
The literary friendship between Edit Gyömrői and Hermann Broch went through the media of the psychoanalysis, also from the reason, that they were connected with hundreds, even thousands (!) of personalities, who also constituted the network of the psychoanalysis. This integration in the virtual institution psychoanalysis makes the work of reconstruction of the literary friendship extremely difficult. Expressed most simply, this situation means that they could learn everything new from each other, even if there were no trace of correspondence or other meetings. In the following, we try to illustrate this peculiar social and communicative situation with some examples.
Edit Gyömrői is, from the years ten, in friendly relation with René Árpád Spitz. Spitz is, according to all probability, the first Hungarian psychoanalyst of this quite young generation, to which also Gyömrői belonged. He studied Freuds writings already as a student and visited also the master in1910 in Vienna. His role, in Gyömrői''s development to become a psychanalist, is decisive. They become later also members of the Galilee''s society, go through a common intellectual development in the late years of the war (during that Spitz also fights on the front), then become members of the Sunday-circle around Georg Lukács, participate in the turbulent political events of the Károlyi revolution and the Hungarian Soviet Republic. Then they start consistently also the way of the emigration, which leads them at first (and then from time to time again) to Vienna. Therefore, it is totally obvious, that Spitz was in close familiar relation with Gyömrői. Now, besides, the peculiar is not that Hermann Broch also knows René Árpád Spitz from Vienna and corresponds with him also regularly. The crucial fact is that Broch also stands within the frame of an almost familiar relation with Daisy and Daniel Brody.
In the late twenties one and the early thirties, they are very closely in relation through the project of the publication of the first German-speaking polyhistorical novel. However, Daisy Brody, also as Daisy Spitz, is René Árpád''s sister, so that by these both, to very much close relations (Gyömrői - Spitz, Broch - married couple Brody) Gyömrői and Broch have a constant communication channel, from which one must suppose, with a striking evidence, that it preserves the relation between them without breaks. So it is not so astonishing, that when Broch dedicates in 1934 a poem to Gyömrői, it allows to presume a permanent intellectual and psychological contact : " … As you see, it''s not the worst".
The relation Gyömrői-Spitz with its chronological length and variety of content is the relation-etalon for the intellectual friendships of this generation, it is however not the only one to be so rich. To link this also with Broch, we now take (in an abbreviated form) the examples of Otto Fenichel (who trained Gyömrői in Berlin and stayed later in contact with her) and from Karl Federn, who was in the USA Broch''s analyst and his interlocutor in the psychoanalysis cases.
Paul Federn participated already in 1918 in the international conference of the psychoanalysis in Budapest (Harmat,1994, 85), so that it must be considered as sure, that he already then met Gyömrői. He attended in 1927 in Budapest a lecture in the psychoanalytic association about depersonalization (Harmat, 1994, 134). He polemicized in 1924 in Vienna about the "active" psychoanalytic technology suggested even then by Ferenczi and emphasized, that such innovations were used in the practice in large circles, but nobody talked about it. Broch''s future American analysts states after Ferenczi''s death that he has been going "too far" in the application of the active technology (Harmat, 1994, 162-163), we can only hope that he does not affect, in this sense in the USA, the psychoanalitical diaries written by Hermann Broch. He wrote in 1933 a necrology about Sándor Ferenczy (IZP, Jg. 19, 305 - 321) and participated personnaly in 1936 in Marienbad with René Árpád Spitz, Federn and Fenichel in a common conference, and in May 1937 in the so-called conference of four countries (in the conference Fenichel presided the last, Federn during the first day and both also hold their lecture).
About Otto Fenichel, a report appears on his activity in Korunk in 1928 (a magazine, in which Gyömrői writes also), he discusses regularly with Mihály Bálint, knows David Rapaport also very well. In October 1935, he goes to Budapest and it is unuseful to think, that the Fenichel, that undertakes all efforts to hold together his scientific group after the flight from Berlin, does not just visit Gyömrői in Budapest.
With Emmy Ferand and Jolanda Jacoby (who had an effect as one of Jung leading pupils on Broch also in this context) starts the endless list of these personalities, that belonged to the Berliner psychoanalytic scene, were in relation with Fenichel and with his orientation and from whom we can certainly suppose, that they knew very well Gyömrői and Broch. Sándor Radó (who did the psychoanalytic education of the later "Freudomarxism", while he trained Wilhelm Reich and Otto Fenichel), Margit Mahler (Schönberger) (also trained by Federn), Barbara Lantos (Borbála Rippner), Therese Benedek, (and René Árpád Spitz) in a very complicated biographic relation with Hungary, Melanie Klein (cooperates intensively with Gyömrői after1945 in England) belong to this list however also Alice Bálint, Nicolas Abraham, Lajos Székely, György Gerő (an empire pupil in Berlin at Gyömrői''s Berlin time), Aranka Böhm (the wife of the famous writer and critic of the psychoanalysis Frigyes Karinthy), also in Vienna trained as analyst. Through René Árpád Spitz another system of contacts is established and maintained, first of all, Géza Róheim belongs here (that treated, according to certain sources, for a short time also Attila József).
As mentioned, Edit Gyömrői was considered from the beginning as a member of the psychoanalytic family in Hungary and enjoyed, therefore, always an individual particular status in this circle. An important consequence of this status is that she was not submitted in the thirties as a left analyst in Hungary to the tension and rivalries with the orthodox and could choose and establish her own position among this huge debate of the decade. While she was left engaged (and excluded from the communist party officially in 1934), she often defended in her publication the authentically orthodox psychoanalytic positions against the Marxist aspirations of dissolution.
We have identified the basic discussion between (stalinist) Marxism and psychoanalysis just now as the most important international intellectual fight. It is still reevalued because of the birt emergency of a new intellectual class, which social reality has produced a brilliant tension not only versus the traditional bourgeois society, but already also versus the party elites, first of all, the left parties of the masses, but also - already because of the permanent imitation effect - versus the National-Socialist-fascist parties. If this new intellectual class, for which almost a certain union of the Marxism (as a theory of the society) and the psychoanalysis (as a theory of the individual or the individuum) was a logical and trivial necessity, that wanted or not the political power, was essentially without interest, because the big parties of the masses inclining to the totalitarism considered this class, in all respects, as a competition and, therefore, as a danger for its monopoly of power.
A still huger reevaluation of the Freudomarxism meets not only the left engaged Gyömrői (also in her analysis of Attila József), but also the apolitic Hermann Broch. A genuin world-historical irony wants that just at the apogee of the debate between (Stalinist) Marxism and psychoanalysis Hitler comes to the power, which fact spreads in this discussion with an incredible force. Since even the most mechanical thinking stalinists must suddenly perceive, that the psychological moments disapproved till there in this seizure of power, have nevertheless played a role.This fact, under others, will give Hermann Broch the possibility to associate his decay theory with the new historical events, but also his psychological history with the psychological history of the epoch.
This increased relevance surrounds Gyömrői even still in her double condemnation, because, nevertheless, Hitler''s seizure of power revealed itself not strong enough to cancel two "symmetrical" exclusions on the part of the communist party and/or on the part of the psychoanalytic movement. In this way Gyömrői was not only a woman of several cultures or the one of two and then of several societies, but also the one in several social roles and businesses. She was, at the apogee of her intellectual life, a damned of two enormous intellectual and political movements.
Edit Gyömrői (Gelb, Rényi, Glück, Ujvári, Ludowyk) (1896-1987) was born as a daughter of a successful entrepreneur of Jewish origin whose destiny can be considered, in big trains, as identical to the same of the first generation of the emancipated Judaism in Hungary (Kiss, in 2005). The youth of Edit brought intense emancipation efforts, which have led to serious conflicts with the mother which however - somehow generally - were typical for the generation problems between the first and second generations of the emancipated Judaism (Kiss, in 2005). After her first marriage (with Arthur Rényi) Edit steps on a unique intellectual and social way. She becomes a member of the radical Galilee''s circle, soon after, however, she comes into contact with Tivadar Raith and Lajos Kassák, distinguishing however herself from both popes of the Hungarian avant-garde poetry. In the going out years of the war, she takes part in the intense discussion activity of the Vasárnap-Társaság grouping round Georg Lukács (Sunday circle). In this astonishing chronology of these few years, Gyömrői by her entry into these intellectual circles and movements, met practically the whole modern engaged Hungarian intelligence, what will have been also of high signification during the later emigration years. After the fall of the Soviet Republic, she emigrates to Vienna and some stopovers in the succession states of Austria-Hungary, in 1923 to Berlin where she stays till 1933, i.e. to Hitler''s seizure of power. She worked in the editorial staff of the Rote Hilfe (as it can be however supposed, not only there, but also in other fields of this organization), with
a high probability, she took part to illegal party tasks also on herself, at this time, her husband was László Glück (Tölgy).
Berlin was for her certainly not only a station in her long rambling life. Berlin should be a summit and an arrival for he, she found her multiple social place in the first lines of a new political intellectual class, through her psychoanalytic training by Otto Fenichel and through her affiliation to the Fenichel group (and thereby also to other circles of the Freudomarxism), she finally also found her legitimate anchorage in this intellectual archipelago. She is really accepted in this society, she becomes friend with Olga Tschechowa (and besides, she has with her a similarity in the face) and Edith Jacobson, as well as with the members of all these intellectual and political circles, which she belonged to since 1910 in Budapest, Vienna and Berlin.
The return to Budapest, because of Hitler''s seizure to power, revealed itself as to be for her a true loss of this general completion. According to general opinion, Anna Lesznai is considered as the person who asked Gyömrői to be the mediator to take over the psychoanalytic work of Attila József. As mediator, István Kulcsár was also possible, while we finally throught as unconceivable, that Judit Szántó, the poet''s partner of that time, who in her mentality of that time stood close to the one of the Gyömrői coming home from Berlin and, due to the crisis of her relation with Attila József already repeatedly asked for the help of the psychoanalysis, had played any role in the establisment of the contact with Gyömrői (because of Németh, 1942). A small specific illustration of the global debate, formerly mentioned, between the (stalinist) Marxism and the psychoanalysis is, that the new message, which become public, of Judit Szántó''s analysis aroused, therefore, a certain surprise because she was a deliberate and engaged communist (Valachi, 2005, 139 and 2,93.294).
Edit Gyömrői''s analysis of the poet Attila József spread itself between the end of 1934 and the end of 1936, the suicide of the poet took place in 1937. The work has worsened the state of health of the poet. The sharp and partly fervent debate about Gyömrői''s role and responsibility is still present in the Hungarian specialized literature up today and separates the researchers on both sides.
Attila József, also as a patient, came to the psychoanalysis already before his close acquaintance with Edit Gyömrői. In this case again, it proves true, however also the general trend of the new intellectual class, for which (at all) a union of Marxism and psychoanalysis has become not only an intellectual demand, but by 1933 also a world-historical imperative.This all means also for Attila József a triple involvement in the subject of the psychoanalysis. He was for certain psychotic, still before the analysis started with Gyömrői. He worked intensively on the problematic of a possible intellectual union of Marxism and psychoanalysis (Kiss, 2006) and the psychoanalysis used intensely, however also partly, the results of his own analysis in his epoch-making poetic work.
On Gyömrői''s suggestion, Attila József began to write a peculiar psychoanalytic diary ("inventory of free ideas in two sessions ", 1936). She denied later directly that she would have been inciting this diary and a little bit later she meant, that she would not have been aware of it and if the writer had written it actually, she would not have known that (Vezér,1971).
On the other hand, we must suppose that the idea of the diary came to Attila József also for other motives than Gyömrői''s suggestion and that he used - as generally said - just as poet this diary in multiple ways to transpose from the materials his unconsciousness also poetic materias for his creation to the surface of the consciousness.
In a work about the literary friendship between Edit Gyömrői and Attila József it is not possible for us at all to judge thoroughly Gyömrői''s role in the analysis of Attila József. It seems to us, that she proceeded correctly and legitimately, as analyst, in her application of the diary method as an active interpretation of the analysis, as we implement(ed) it, far in the main current of the post-freudian psychoanalysis, which forced itself to stand under the shade of the world-historical debate, on the one hand between stalinist Marxism and psychoanalysis and, on the other hand, between national-socialism and communism. However, it has to be reproached at most to Gyömrői, that she identified herself few with this work and did not understand Attila József as a sick person, who is with her at the same level and competent in the biggest questions of the current world problematic. It seems to us, that Attila József would not still have had to make his way through, with this Gyömrői''s attitude, to an own meta-language, which we will analyze with Broch (possibly in his friendly and largely equal relation to Paul Federn) still in detail and enabling Broch to analyze his own destiny with also the help of the psychoanalytic language and also thereby to get far from the neurosis. However, Attila József has not been given this chance.
Gyömrői emigrates in 1938 to Ceylon, with László Ujváry, the son stays in Hungary, cannot later any more get out of the country, does an attempt to escape from a labour camp with other young labour service workers and dies on the way of infection. In Ceylon, László Ujváry dies also. Here Gyömrői devotes herself to different intellectual and practical activities and marries the literature professor and Shakespeare''s expert Ludowyk, after whose death she returns to England to participate there, still very intensely, in the work of the psychoanalytic circles.
To synthetize nevertheless somehow the exceptional world-historical situation, the ruthless fight between (stalinist) Marxism and psychoanalysis, the bureaucratically renewal of the new class to be kept open, psychoanalysis and Marxism, namely just at the moment of Hitler''s seizure to power brought a clear victory of the psychoanalysis as an explanation about the stalinist Marxism as an alternative explanation, those general conditions are the one which determine not only Gyömrői''s relation with Attila József, but also with Hermann Broch. Whether this explicit opposition to Freud be or not explicite, a work is also here carried out on the post-freudian psychoanalysis. This is considered as a general background of these both relations. However, this common fundamental ground is also essentially sufficiant, the motto of this new time is the taking into account of the patient in the analytic process. Gyömrői creates on this way a certain common ground between Hermann Broch and Attila József.
The new tendency seems to have accepted in the Hungarian development in Sándor Ferenczi’s idea of the "language trouble" form, in which we come back to the cause of the misunderstandings between adults and children (Ferenczi, 1971).The involvement of the patient in the analysis is a consequence of the vision of the therapist, whose audacious waiting attitude can paralyse the freedom of associations of the patient.By virtue of this vision, the therapist tries to make possible the ways and instruments allowing the removal of this trouble for the patient, to activate again the constraint of repetition already understood in a more complete way. It seems that Ferenczi in general, and in particular the problematic of the language trouble is one of the most relevant initiatives of the new psychoanalysis, which after-effects strike in Gyömrői''s analysis of Attila József. With this central role of Ferenczi, we must however also remember the fact, that István Hollós (well-knowned as the uncle of Edit Gyömrői) was also famous about that point, because he rejected the " psychoanalytic passivity" as a dominant principle (Harmat, 1994, 149).
Gyömrői’s affiliation to the movement went back to an earlier epoch and possibly to the moment of her revelation in Vienna (1918-1919), she was considered as a member of the family of the Hungarian psychoanalysis. It is important for both, however, also that an unconditional identification with Freud and the psychoanalysis did not expel at all the simultaneous intention to develop the psychoanalysis, to think ahead, to complete and also to work on the results of her own self-determination in the theory always modifying.
Hermann Broch interpretes his life and his work with preferably in an almost maximum community with the language of the psychoanalysis.
It seems to us, that Broch has finally come, through his successful analysis at the end of the twenties, effectively only to the position of being able to write his great trilogy, where we must think, due to the challenge of the big difficulties to face here, not so much to the neuroses, rather to the extremely high intellectuality of the poet, which should be simply overcome through the rich contents of the unconsciousness, in order to be able to open the way to the poetic creation. It might so happen, that finally this analysis did not fulfil exactly the function, which Broch imagined, besides, it should have been question more about the cognitive structures than about the psychic structures.
This fundamental function of the first psychoanalytic treatment changes in fact however nothing, that Broch would also have repeatedly expressed later in the language and coordinates system of the psychoanalysis. His "psychoanalytic autobiographies" written at the beginning of the forties testify it ("autobiography as a working program" 1941 and "psychic autobiography", 1942 written down in Princeton) (S. Broch, 1999). As Attila József''s "inventory of free ideas ", these texts are also written by Broch for specific addressees and have, besides their analytical function, the function of self-explanation, also for themselves.
The text "Autobiography as a working program" is - if one wants to see him under this aspect - no longer a critic of the closest vision of the psychoanalysis, but already a manifestation of this critic. Here appears the existential problematic of the poet in his own language. However, this language is profoundly impregnated with the psychoanalytic vocabulary. Therefore, with all these differences this text can be understood as the psychoanalytical diary of Hermann Broch. As such it is a valuable document of a post-freudian psychoanalysis, because who speaks here, is a(former or present) patient, who unites the language of the psychoanalysis completely freely and independently with his own language.
It is, of course, already another and, actually, already a new question (and, therefore, fits only limited in our thought process) that Broch also brings through this standardized language a uniformity to his life''s work, in which continuously interruptions, fragmentations and a constant creative chaos were the predominant moments.
The uniformity of the psychoanalytical point of view brings the uniformity in a creative career, in which this unity was not really present. Certainly, it is appropriate, that " the history of a problem (of the ethical relativism) " always occupied effectively Broch, one might not say nevertheless, that the multiple facets could be summarized under this only form (only in order to give an example : the multiple problem data of the polyhistorical novel). In this formulation, the problematic of the national socialism, the Second World War and the whole problematic of the responsibility coherent with them also already vibrates. Broch moralizes in and with this language his extremely multilayered discussion with the worth-philosophic and historical-philosophic problematic of his youth years, however, with this moralization, he also gets in the nearness of this political to whom he will devote himself during the exile years with a so big elan. The psychoanalytic language helps Broch, through its uniformity, to fight the king''s way of the stupor to the democracy theory and Bill of Rights.
In this text appears a Hermann Broch, who didn''t want to set to the world the big in German language polyhistoric novel, but always argued in Nietzsche''s sense with the "ecumenical" mankind problems, which in an organic way unfurled in an enormous and global multidisciplinary discourse (even if the contours of such a global multidisciplinary discourse have already become visible with him also earlier).
Broch raises therefore the psychoanalysis involving the patient on a higher step. While Attila József proceeds from the supposed expectations of the analyst (with resistance and reflection, of course, but also with an insatiable poetic curiosity on the evicted contents of the unconsciousness and thereby of own past), Hermann Broch establishes an own and already well clarified language of an intellectual, who moves, already with full freedom, in the medium of the language of the psychoanalysis. He creates a new sort of discourse. He is not oriented, by the first line, towards a development of own unconsciousness, he aims a global representation, in every respect, of own psychological and intellectual lifeway. From it, appears a metalanguage, a perfectly new categorie of expression. The voices of the patient, the analyst and the metaphilosoph unite in it (that carries out a kind of "supervision"). The function of this language is no longer the therapy, but the self-explanation. In this hybridisation of the roles and the languages, sentences appear which would, without these general conditions, act almost ironically or comically (as : " My neurosis seems to prevent every analysis … " and other). The incommensurable new quality of this language (and with it the new coherent quality of the functional change of the psychoanalysis) completely stands without any doubt, even if one must also point out that such psychoanalytically created self-explanations have already occured, in a big quantity, in Hermann Broch''s correspondence. This shows that Hermann Broch''s discourse was already a carnal-growing overcoming of an orthodox vision of the psychoanalysis. This doesn''t however mean, that Broch would not also have consciously had thoughts upon it. In this sense, we come again back to the big and global medium of the Broch- Gyömrői relation. Gyömrői was certainly not the only person who has influenced Broch in this direction, she was however certainly the one whose Broch might be conscious during his whole life of the particularly relevant career and position. As an indirect proof of this, Broch''s letter to René Árpád Spitz (05.10.1939) in which he considered Sigmund Freud''s death as a symbol " not of the decline of an old world to which he has belonged, but of a new one, which would have suit our wishes ". And of course, we must come back at this point still to the already mentioned duality, from which we might already state, it was not characteristic only for Hermann Broch, his "decay" opposite the psychoanalysis and his Freud''s intellectual admiration was (not only with him) no opposition, but a specific phenomenon, which points out a double status, certainly to be taken into consideration, of the Freudian theory.
In a certain sense, one can say, that the psychoanalysis "lives" and develops in the intellectual Hermann Broch (and Edit Gyömrői) and accepts constantly current application possibilities. In a letter (just to his analyst Hedwig Schaxel-Hoffer) he writes about the relation of the Vergil novel with his more personal, problematic to be mentioned psychoanalytically. This is not only very characteristic, because in some places, he also relativizes this close relation, but also because clearly less intense psychoanalytic roots are to be experienced in the Vergil than possibly in the Somnambulist''s Trilogy. Taking into account the variations of the own judgement of the novel, one can also have a rapid view so as how even the semantics of the notion "Psychoanalysis" can change in the time.
In the second text of Broch''s psychoanalytic diaries (" Psychological autobiography ", 1942-1943) the intention of the language also now uniform of the psychoanalytic autointerpretation changes. In this text Apostrophized autobiography in 1942-1943 in the Broch literature, in a striking way as a "dissuasion", the conflict and finally the incompatibility of the working tasks taken on with the " so-called life " and first of all naturally with a fully filled out love relationship is specifically thematized. As unusual or, if we want, even as sensational this confession also is, we also find here the own and already far clarified language of an intellectual, who moves in the language of the psychoanalysis with full freedom. The thematic movement in the relation " to autobiography as a working program " has only in this respect until now an importance, only if the psychoanalytic langage that Broch appropriates to itself, does not express the contents made taboo until now and socially articulateable without visible difficulties. A multiple metalanguage also appears here as a new type of the expression and it unites the roles of the patient, the analyst and the metaphilosoph. Here also the patient of the treatment doesn''t talk, but he is a patient who fully controls the aspects and the language of the analyst. He is, in fact, the doctor of himself, this doctor Hermann Broch explains to both women the situation of the patient Hermann Broch. This text is the victory of Sándor Ferenczi, of every analyst and every analytic school, which (with the diary method or any other) wanted to involve the sick person also into the healing process. This text shows an author who can express his life and neuroses and is thereby liberated from the neurosis.
ü Arendt, Hannah – Broch, Hermann, Correspondence. 1946 till 1951. Editor Paul Michael Lützeler. Frankfurt/Main, 1996. (Jewish Publishing House)
ü Borgos, Anna, Alkotás, gyógyítás, változás. Gyömrői (Gelb, Rényi Glück, Újvári, Ludowyk) Edit életútja. in: Thalassa, 16 (2005) , 2-3. 185-194.
ü Broch, Hermann, Dramas. H.B. Commented edition, Vol. 7. Published by Paul Michael Lützeler. Frankfurt/Main, 1979. (Suhrkamp).
ü Broch, Hermann, Poems. H.B. Commented edition. Published by Paul Michael Lützeler. Vol. 8. Frankfurt/Main, 1980. (Suhrkamp)
ü Broch, Hermann, Letters. H.B. Commented edition, Vol. 13/1-3. Published by Paul Michael Lützeler. Frankfurt/Main, 1981. (Suhrkamp).
ü Broch, Hermann – Ruth, Norden, Transatlantic correspondence. Frankfurt/Main, 2005. (Suhrkamp)
ü Broch, Hermann, Psychic Selfbiography. Published by Paul Michael. Lützeler. Frankfurt/ M. 1999. (Suhrkamp)
ü Erős, Ferenc, Pszichoanalízis, freudizmus, freudomarxizmus. Budapest, 1986. (Gondolat Kiadó)
ü Ferenczi, Sándor, Felnőttek „gyermekanalízise”. in: Gyógyászat, 16.Oktober 1932. 633-637. (Ins Ungarische übersetzt von Endre Almásy)
ü Ferenczi, Sándor, Nyelvzavar a felnőttek és a gyermek között. A gyengédség és a szenvedély nyelve. in: A pszichoanalízis modern irányzatai. Szerkesztette Buda Béla. 1971. 215-266. (Gondolat)
ü Friedrich, Hugo, The structure of the modern Poetry, Hamburg,1956. (Rowohlt) ...
ü Harmat Pál, Freud, Ferenczi és a magyarországi pszichoanalízis története. 1908-1993. Második, átdolgozott és bővített magyar nyelvú kiadás Budapest, 1994. (Bethlen Gábor Könyvkiadó).
ü Hildebrandt Alexandra, My neurosis seems to prevent every analysis. Hermann Brochs ’Psychic Selfbiography” (www.literatirkritik.de/public/rzeension.php?rez_id_271),
ü József Attila, Szabad ötletek jegyzéke. Közzéteszi: Stoll Béla. Atlantisz. Medvetánc. Veszedelmes viszonyok. Budapest, 1990.
ü Kiss, Endre, "A történelem futószalagán", in: Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények, 1980/5-6. 581-590.
ü Kiss, Endre, Fejezetek a pszichoanalizis és a modern klasszikus irodalom kapcsolatának történetéből. in: Helikon ("Irodalom és pszichoanalizis"-különszám), 1990/2-3. 195-205.
ü Kiss, Endre, Jacques Le Rider, Der Fall Otto Weininger. Roots of the antifeminism and antisemitism. (recenzió), in: Helikon ("Irodalom és pszichoanalizis"-különszám), 1990/2-3. 358-359.
ü Kiss, Endre, Hermann Broch and Central Europe. in: Novelstructure and human rights by Hermann Broch. Published by Hartmut Steinecke and Joseph Strelka. Bern-Frankfurt/Main-Paris, 1990. 47-56.
ü Kiss, Endre, Central Europe Intellectuals between Wien and Berlin. in: Wien - Berlin. Two Sites of the Modern Age - Zwei Metropolen der Moderne (1900 - 1930). Kiadta: Maurice Godé, Ingrid Haag és Jacques Le Rider (Special nummer of the REVUE SEMESTRIELLE , Jg. 1993. évfolyam, Nr. 24.).
ü Kiss, Endre, Conversation about Education in the correspondence between Karl Jaspers and Hannah Arendt. in: Yearbook of the Austrian Karl Jaspers - Society. Published by Elisabeth Salamun - Hybasek und Kurt Salamun. 9. kötet, Wien, 1996. 113-124. és www-gewi.uni-graz.at/phil/jasges/vol9.html.kiss
ü Kiss, Endre, Franz Blei als Theorician of the European Modern Age. in: TRANS, Nr. 4. Jg. 1999 (www.adis-at-arlt/institut
ü Kiss, Endre, “Fatesgenerations” und “Generationsfates”. Writer of jewish origin in the modern Hungarian culture. in: Attracted and rejected. Jews in the Hungarian literature. Published by Tamás Lichtmann.Frankfurt/Main - Berlin - Bern - Bruxelles - New York - Wien. 1999. 25-36
ü Kiss, Endre, Philosophy and Literature of the negative Universalism. Intellectual Monography upon Hermann Broch. Cuxhaven-Dartford, 2001. 351.
ü Kiss, Endre, The Stupor situation in philosophical, psychological und romanaesthetical lighting. in: Austriaca, Nr. 55 2003. 155-172.
ü Kiss, Endre, Does Mass Psychology Renaturalize Political Theory ? On the Methodological Originity of “Crowds and Power”. in: The European Legacy. Volume 9, Number 6, December 2004.724-738.
ü Kiss,Endre, Fate-Generations and Generation Fates: Writers of Jewish Origin in Modern Hungarian Culture. in: The European Legacy, Vol.10, No 7, pp. 717-723, 2005.
ü Kiss, Endre, "Poets promote Poets" (Hermann Broch and Elias Canetti). in: Trans. Internet- Magazine for cultural sciences 7. Nr. September 2005
ü Kiss, Endre, Hendrik de Man and Attila József. On Soft and Hard Conditions of Socialism. in: The European Legacy, Vol.11. no 5, August 2006. pp. 515-526. (Routledge. Taylor&Francis Group)
ü Koestler, Arthur, Frühe Empörung. Collection of autobiographic writings. Wien – München – Zürich. Bd 1-2. 1971. (Molden)
ü Lützeler, Paul Michael, Hermann Broch: A Biography. Frankfurt/Main, 1985 (Suhrkamp)
ü Németh, Andor, József Attila. Budapest, 1942. (Cserépfalvi)
ü Tögel, Christfried, Varga Jenő, a pszichoanalízis, a Tanácsköztársaság és a sztálinizmus. in: Thalassa(11), 2000, 2–3.
ü Valachi Anna, „Irgalom, édesanyám…” A lélekelemző József Attila nyomában. Budapest, 2005 (Háttér)
ü Vértes György, József Attila és az illegális kommunista párt. Budapest, 1964. (Magvető)
ü Vezér Erzsébet, Ismeretlen József Attila-kéziratok. (Interjú Gyömrői Edittel.) in: Irodalomtörténet, 1971/3 620-633..
IZP - Internationale Zeischrift für Psychoanalyse.
We have certainly a good reason to interpret the specific relation between Gyömroi and spitz in the Sunday-circle socially as well as qualitatively. This circle united young intellectuals from different generations. The younger were named "knába" and were usually in pairs according to affinity..
A formulation with theoretical conciseness: " … analysis (is) not what is around and in the psychology (…), so little as sociology can be constructed only from Marxism … ". Letter to Hans Sahl, 11th November, 1943. S. (Broch, 1981/2, 360.)
Letter to Hedwig Schaxel-Hoffer, of February 14th 1940. S. Lützeler, 1965. 258. – The letter is not in the corresponding volume of the commented edition.
További információk: http://www.pointernet.pds.hu/kissendre