HISTORICAL FIGURES UNDER THE NEW REGIMES: ‘MONUMENTAL PROPAGANDA’ IN SOVIET RUSSIA AND IN THE SOVIET REPUBLIC OF HUNGARY IN 1917-1919

. The article examines the details of ‘Monumental Propaganda’ in Soviet Russia and the Soviet Republic of Hungary in 1917–19. It gives an overview of the Bolshevik leadership activi-ties aimed at the visual concealment of monuments, the removal of which under the new regime was considered undesirable, and at the erection of new monuments to historical personalities particularly appreciated by the Bolshevik leadership. It shows how the Hungarian Communists who lived in Soviet Russia took part in the process of honouring of historical personalities, and describes in detail how, under the Soviet Republic of Hungary, a visual concealment of the old and the erection of new monuments were carried out according to the Bolshevik model in Budapest on 1 st May 1919. All this gives us an opportunity to conclude that the ideologists of the new powers sought to legitimize both dictatorships in the eyes of the masses by creating traditions associated with the monuments to historical figures, presenting both regimes as the realizers of the revolutionary endeavours of outstanding personalities of the past. There are many common features between the ‘Monumental Propaganda’ in Soviet Russia and in Budapest, such as, for example, certain devotion to conventional pre-revolutionary models.


Main body
"In times of revolution nothing is more powerful than the fall of symbols", wrote Eric Hobsbawm (1917Hobsbawm ( -2012 about the storming of the Bastille during the French Revolution 1 . Thus, demolition of the monuments to historical figures famous during the Tsarist period began in 1917 in Russia long before the Bolsheviks came to power. Immediately after the February Revolution, reports appeared in the press that on 18 th March, the monument to Stolypin had been demolished in Kiev, and in the same month in Kansk-Eniseisk, the local townspeople came to exiled revolutionaries with a proposal to replace the monument erected in the city to Emperor Alexander II with a monument to one of the fighters for freedom. However, the Provisional Government, even if it had somehow dealt with that issue, did not adopt any national decree on the demolition of any monuments to monarchs, grand dukes and generals, and therefore, such monuments mostly remained in their places 2 .
In the article, a comparative analysis is made with regards to the policy conducted in relation to 'Monumental Propaganda' in 'young' Soviet Russia and in the shortlived state of Soviet Republic of Hungary.
The Hungarian historical science started to engage itself in comparing practices of visual concealment (symbolic removal from public spaces) of the old and installation of new monuments in Soviet Russia and Hungary shortly after the year of 1919. József Balogh (1893Balogh ( -1944, a Hungarian publicist, philologist-classicist and one of the authors of the collective work 'Bolshevism in Hungary' (1921), reviewed in his works the propaganda of the period under the Soviet dictatorship. "All events copied those in Russia. A year before, the prisoners of war had witnessed the First of May ('Pervomay') in Moscow, however the impressions from the celebration of the anni- versary of the proclamation of the Soviet Republic were also fresh in their memory, as the anniversary of the Soviet Republic was celebrated in the capital in a special way, shortly before their return to Hungary. That 'red week' gave them many bizarre ideas for future Budapest decorations, such as the idea to hide the monuments of national past under improvised statues. One can only wonder how these new Bolshevik state organisations followed Moscow models even in the most grotesque ways", Balogh wrote about 1 st May 1919. He also drew attention to legitimating function to portray historical figures. "Bolshevik propaganda tirelessly expropriated the history, and 'bolshevized' the great minds of mankind: the Soviet state was a fragile hackwork, strengthening itself by artificial 'traditions'", he also wrote in his work 3 . The question of 'Monumental Propaganda' in Soviet Russia is covered in several works from the end of the 1910s. One of particularly interesting books is the book by Hans-Jürgen Drengenberg, an art historian from Germany. "The Soviet policy in the sphere of fine arts from 1917 to 1934" was written in 1972 and features all the most important documents of that era, published in German 4 . Important conclusions on this matter were also formulated by the American historian Richard Stites 5 .
Even though the festivities in Budapest that took place on 1 st May 1919 were widely covered in the periodical press, photos and newsreels, the Hungarian researchers did not really study these topic in detail for many years. Likely, the reasons for this fact are hidden in the circumstances described in 1981 by Nóra Aradi who wrote a few works on the art of the Soviet Republic. "The monuments created from temporary materials collapsed or were destroyed. The surviving photographic documents or sketches give so little idea of the compositions, and from the point of view of art history can only be considered as indirect evidence", she wrote 6 . Since the 1990s, the author of this article, being a historian, used in several of his works various sources that survived to the present day for detailed reconstruction of the practice of concealment of the old and erection of new monuments during that period 7 . This circle of questions, as well as the example of Soviet Russia, was thoroughly studied by the historian Árpád von Klimó 8 . Another historian, János Pótó 9 , wrote about the festive May Day decorations in Budapest in 1919; the same did the art historian Katalin Sinkó -although in fewer details 10 . The historian András Gerő 11 was engaged in the transformation of the monument to the Millennium Memorial commemorating the thousandth anniversary of the arrival in the Carpathian basin of the seven Magyars tribes (the same millennium that was widely celebrated at the end of the 19 th century) and the decoration near the parliament building. In his thesis on Soviet propaganda during the existence of the Soviet Republic of Hungary, Viktor Szabó turned his attention to the festive May Day decorations in Budapest 12 , whilst Gergely Bödők dealt in a separate article with the monuments in the context of the First of May celebrations 13 .

Main body
Shortly after the Bolsheviks came to power, on 12 th April 1918, a decree "On the removal of monuments erected in honour of Tsars and their servants and the creation of projects for monuments to the Russian Socialist Revolution" was issued by the Council of People's Commissars. In this decree, it was said that "Monuments erected in honour of Tsars and their servants" and being of no interest either from historical or artistic point of view, are subject to demolition from squares and streets and partly to be transferred to warehouses, partly to be used for the works of utilitarian character. The latter, in all probability, meant melting down. Further, the decree gave orders to the commission dealing with monuments, the tasks of which included mobilization of artistic forces and organization of a broad competition for devising projects of monuments that "should mark the great days of the Russian socialist revolution". The Council of People's Commissars expressed a desire that by 1 st May, "some of the ug-liest idols would be removed, and the first models of new monuments would be erected to be seen and judged by the masses" 14 . According to Lenin, this decree was equally important "both in the context of propaganda and in relation to employment of those currently unemployed" 15 .
In 1933, Lunacharsky recalled how, soon after the Bolsheviks came to power, Lenin shared the plans for his 'Monumental Propaganda' with him. The leader of the Soviet state proceeded from the description of the City of the Sun by Tommaso Campanella (1568Campanella ( -1639. Thus, the walls of this city were decorated with frescoes that gave young people visual lessons on natural sciences and history, awakened civil consciousness in them, so participated in the education and upbringing of new generations. Lenin believed that this idea -with the required changes -could also be implemented in the early days of Soviet Russia. Talking about the details, he, among other things, said that the climate in the country was not favourable for frescoes, which Campanella discussed, and proposed as alternatives to place propagandistic inscriptions and erect monuments (busts or whole figures, bas-reliefs and groups). Lenin formulated the task of compiling a list of predecessors of socialism or its theoreticians and fighters, as well as those serving as beacons of philosophical thought, science, art (although not directly related to socialism), were genuine heroes of culture. The idea was that at least temporary monuments and busts from gypsum or concrete should be created as per that list. It was important to make them easily intelligible to the masses. On pedestals, one could make explanatory inscriptions about those persons. Finally, the chairman of the Council of People's Commissars drew attention to the importance of unveiling of those monuments. Let every such unveiling be an act of propaganda and a small holiday; and then, on the jubilee dates, one can repeat the commemoration of this great men, always, of course, clearly associating it with our revolution and its tasks, he proposed 16 .
In order to fulfil the April decree by the Council of People's Commissars, before 1 st May 1918, the workers of 'Serp and Molot' factory (Russian for 'Sickle and Hammer') overthrew the equestrian monument to General Skobelev (the pedestal on the occasion of Labour Day was decorated with red cloth and used as a tribune for speeches). Then, in the summer of 1918, the planned demolition of undesirable monuments commenced. In Moscow, the monuments to Alexander II and Alexander III were demolished, the monument to the murdered Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich of Russia was destroyed, and two sculptures of Catherine II were brought to the museum collections. In August, as some kind of a final point, the pedestal of the monument to Skobelev was also demolished. In Petrograd, the monument to Grand Duke Nikolai Nikolayevich of Russia and two small statues of Peter the Great were removed. At the same time, among others, the famous Bronze Horseman by Étienne Maurice Falconet, the sculptures of Catherine II and Nicholas I were spared and the equestrian statue of Alexander III remained in place for another 19 years. However, a mocking epigram by the poet Demyan Bedny was inscribed on the pedestal 17 . (It is also interesting to note that, according to 'Izvestiya' ('Delivered Messages') newspaper, the monuments to the tsars in Petrograd on the occasion of the May Day celebrations of 1918 were covered with red ribbons) 18 .
The first among the monuments erected in the country was a temporary monument to Karl Marx unveiled on the occasion of the traditional holiday of workers' movement and, probably, to mark the centenary of the birth of the theorist celebrated on 1 st May 1918 in Penza. The upcoming event was treated in the newspaper 'Pravda' ('Truth') on 28 th April 19 . In the article by Béla Kun (1886Kun ( -1938 20 , a chairman of the Hungarian group formed in March 1918 within the framework of the All-Russian Communist Party (Bolsheviks), or RCP(b), the author pointed out that the monuments to revolutionaries served not only and not primarily for the immortalization of a specific person. "For the proletariat as the ruling class, the monument to Karl Marx is a monument to his struggle, his ultimate victory", he wrote. The article shows an attempt to avert firmly any accusations of 'a personality cult', stating that "The revolutionary class can never fall into sin of a personality cult" 21 . And further, "Nevertheless, the truth is the idea that was expressed by one of the greatest Marxist economists: "Names are the factors" 22 . The same thing can be said about the monuments. If the victorious Russian proletariat erected monuments to its militant forerunners in all squares, it would not be a personality cult, but only respect for their own revolution. The position of the newspaper 'Pravda' was that these monuments, in the first place, serve to perpetuate the revolution, and are its political symbols. On the pages of the newspaper of the Hungarian group of RCP(b) 'Szociális Forradalom' ('Social Revolution'), Kun, on the occasion of the centenary of Karl Marx's birth, praised the theorist and philosopher, calling him the 'greatest forerunner', 'greatest revolutionary' and 'greatest scientist' of the working class 23 . Later, the newspaper also published reports on the events that took place on the occasion of the centenary of Karl Marx's birth 24 .
Meanwhile, a campaign for the erection of monuments was on in the country. The work moved slowly, which was repeatedly criticised by Lenin himself 25 . On 30 th July 1918, the Council of People's Commissars declared "to make the erection of monuments to the greatest figures of the revolution, Marx and Engels, the number one priority" 26 . Finally, on 2 nd August 1918, under the order of Lenin, the official 'List of persons whose monuments are proposed to be erected in Moscow and other cities of the RSFSR' was published. The list consisted of 66 names, grouped into six groups as follows. In the first group were 'revolutionaries and public figures', a total of 31 persons, including Spartacus, Marat, Robespierre, Saint-Simon, Owen, Fourier, Herzen, Bakunin, Marx, Engels, Lassalle, Plekhanov and Jaurès. The second group included 20 writers and poets, among others Radishchev, Pushkin, Gogol, Shevchenko, Dostoevskiy, Chernyshevskiy and Tolstoy. In the third group were 3 philosophers and scientists: Lomonosov, Skovoroda and Mendeleev. In the fourth group were seven artists, including Andrei Rublev. The fifth group consisted of three composers, including Chopin; the sixth group consisted of two actors 27 . If one begins to analyse the list, the prevalence of 'inland' figures over the 'foreign' ones was conspicuous: 47 persons (45 Russians and two Ukrainians) against 19 'foreigners', which is 71.2 % against 28.8 %, or with the ratio of 2.47 to 1. But in the first, the largest group, this proportion was different: 13 'inland' persons against 18 'foreign' ones, which was  Lunacharsky, 18 IX 1918", in Ibid, 182; "To the Presidium of the Moscow Soviet of Workers 'and Peasants' Deputies, 12 X 1918", in Ibid, 191. 26  41.9 % against 58.1 %, or with the ratio 1.38 to 1. The remaining groups consisted only of Russians (and two Ukrainians), except Chopin.
The group of writers and poets contained the most outstanding figures of Russian literature, and, as in the continuation of the first group, critics of the Tsarist regime. Having included the actors into a separate category, the official authorities paid tribute to the branch of art that traditionally enjoyed love of the Russian public 28 . Taking all this into account, one can agree with Richard Stites, who remarked on the selection of candidates, saying that Lenin firmly sought to historically legitimize the revolution and in the shortest possible time to establish communication with the urban population 29 , creating its own set of traditions for the dictatorship 30 . At the same time, Lenin tried to attract intellectuals, or the so-called 'intelligentsia', and, at least partially, the petty-bourgeois 'elements' to the side of the regime and believed that "The petty bourgeoisie, in their economic position, are more patriotic than both bourgeoisie and proletariat" 31 . The desire to establish such a connection, very likely, is reflected in the ratio of 'inland' / 'foreign' figures. In the list of 66 names, 'foreigners' were almost all of them in the first group constituted nearly the half of the series, but practically no foreigners belong to the other groups that consist almost only of Russians. It seems that Lenin, while by erecting monuments to these foreign revolutionaries, wanted to inculcate international revolutionary traditions among the general population and thus, the Bolshevik revolution itself, for this purpose he carefully tried to balance (and to make it more acceptable) this internationalism by idolising the Russian revolutionaries and titans of Russian culture.
During this campaign aimed at the erection of new monuments in Moscow in October 1918, a bust to Radishchev was installed, and on 3 rd November, four more monuments, including those to Robespierre and Shevchenko were presented to the 28 Ibid, 207-15. 29 R. Stites, Festival andRevolution, 21. The contemporary Alphonse Paquet (1881-1944) remarked that honouring the predecessor revolutionaries, the Communists, in whom many mistakenly saw people without any 'intellectual past', were firmly proud of the 'ancestors'. See: A. Paquet, "Die russische Revolution als tragisches Ereignis", in A. Paquet, Der Geist der russischen Revolution (Leipzig, 1919), 71. Trotsky would later write, that "He [Lenin] wanted to put in all cities, and if possible, in villages as many revolutionary monuments, as possible, even if just the simplest busts or memorial plaques, in order to fix in the imagination of the masses what had happened, to leave in the memory of the people a furrow as deep as possible". Cit public. By the anniversary of the arrival of the Bolsheviks to power, among other things, the authorities also erected a paired monument to Max and Engels, which was unveiled by Vladimir Lenin himself on 7 th November, and monuments to Jaurès, Dostoevsky, Heine and Plekhanov 32 . Reporting on the celebrations in Moscow, the newspaper 'Szociális Forradalom' wrote, "Everywhere there were pictures, decorations, statues and monuments" 33 . In September 1918, in Petrograd, a bust to Radishchev was unveiled, in October was erected a bust to Lassalle. On the anniversary of Bolsheviks's seizure of power in Russia, the full-figural statue of Marx was ready. In the following months new monuments were erected. However, it became obvious that, at least for most sculptural images, the revolutionary character of these by the immortalized persons was emphasized in very traditional ways 34 . This is the fact that did not stay unnoticed for a contemporary who wrote that there was "an impotent repeating of the comfortable traditions of the old monumental art" 35 . A special problem was hidden in the obvious fact that a significant part of all these works was made from various short-lived materials and therefore did not last long 36 .
The group of Hungarian Communists also compiled their own list, though not in such a large way, to include those whom they considered to be the most important revolutionaries into a planned collection of biographies to be issued. According to the message published in 'Szociális Forradalom' on 18 th September 1918, they intended to write about "the life and character of the following great revolutionaries": Karl Marx, Vladimir Lenin, Friedrich Engels, György Dózsa 37 , Leó Frankel 38 and Jean-Paul Marat 39 . It is not surprising at all that Karl Marx topped the list, particularly respected by Soviet propaganda and Hungarian Communists 40 . He was followed by Vladimir Lenin who left behind even Friedrich Engels. In the preface to the selected works of Vladimir Lenin, Béla Kun explained the relationship between the figures and the aspirations of two revolutionaries. "If one could believe in the Hindu myths about the transmigration of souls, one might say that the spirit of the greatest teacher of all workers, Karl Marx, found in him [Lenin] a new physical shell, to continue his life in a new body to put into practice everything that he taught and for what he fought", he wrote 41 . During 1918, the Hungarian Communists in many ways participated in the process of spreading the cult of Lenin that was at the same time thriving in Soviet Russia 42 .
The complete list of historical figures published in the newspaper 'Szociális Forradalom' characterized consistent internationalism. This fact also is very likely the outcome of the influence of ideas of the Social Democracy of Hungary. Therefore, in comparison with the official Soviet list, the overwhelming majority (four to two) in this list were 'foreigners' 43 .
Several events like the erection of new monuments in Soviet Russia were also held in 1919 in the Soviet Republic of Hungary when decorating Budapest for the holiday of 1 st May. In early April, the Revolutionary Governing Council ordered to start preparation for the event. The supervision was entrusted to Tibor Szamuely , who stayed in Soviet Russia until December 1918, and, most likely, was familiar with the local festivities and the process of the historical figures' commemoration 44 , whilst individual elements of the decorations were created by a group of artists 45 . The decree of the Revolutionary Governing Council LXXX/1919 was dated on 30 th April and published by 1 st May. According to this decree, "The Soviet Republic of Hungary proclaims 1 st May, the anniversary day of international unity of revolutionary proletariat of the world, a holiday of the proletarian state" 46 . On account of such an important holiday in the capital, the statues of numerous historical figures were covered and hidden, whilst other monuments were erected to commemorate persons particularly honoured by the ideologists of the proletarian dictatorship. These monuments were made, however, from short-lived materials, such as gypsum 47 .
In Vérmező Park (literally 'blood field') in Buda, a huge, two-level red sarcophagus was erected. On this sarcophagus, in memory of Ignác Martinović (1755-1795), a Hungarian philosopher, revolutionary and leader of the Hungarian Jacobin movement, who was executed on the very spot, they wrote 'Martinovics' (Figure 1). At the edge of the field towards Széna Square, a bust of Lenin on a red column was installed. At the same time, on Gellért Hill, named in honour of the bishop who was killed during the revolt of the heathens in Hungary and later canonized 48 , the monument to St Gellért was hidden in a yellow and red column, and the colonnade behind it was draped with red fabric (Figure 2). At the foot of the hill, in front of the waterfall, an allegorical picture was installed with an inscription, saying "Work, and paradise will be yours". It portrayed a worker in a Phrygian cap 49 and with hammer in his hand, as well as a woman and children heading for the idyllic plain where a bearded man was sitting under a large tree reading a book. On the left, there was a figure of a naked man with a fiery sword; on the right there was another naked man with a fiery sword struck at the bourgeois, fleeing with money bag. The hidden sculpture of St Gellért together with this picture clearly tried to tell those looking at it: do not expect any bliss, a paradise from heaven or from saints, but get it yourself through work, study and, if necessary, through an armed struggle -as during the days of foreign intervention against the Soviet Republic of Hungary, just as the figures of men with fiery swords reminded from the picture 50 . 47 To analyze the festive decorations, reports and illustrations were used from the newspapers of that time, the materials of the photo archive of the Hungarian National Museum, the photo archive of the Budapest History Museum, Kiscelli Museum, the photo archive of the Budapest collection of the Metropolitan Ervin Szabó Library, photo archives of the Military History Museum, the Hungarian news agency (MTI). The newsreel of the celebrations is stored in the National Széchényi Library (Sine loco, 1974): 113-14. 50 It is noteworthy that on the picture created in the spirit of atheistic propaganda, there are elements of Christian religiosity: the word 'paradise' in the title, a paradisiac landscape, with the tree and men with fiery swords. Perhaps, it wants to make stronger the call through stressing of earthliness of these elements. In Pest, in Lajos Kossuth Street and in Kígyó Square, six new sculptures were installed, including the busts of Karl Liebknecht and Vladimir Lenin (Figure 3). At the same time, at the very same Kígyó Square, the giant triumphal arches decorated with red balls were erected. These arches were used to hide the monument to the medieval 51 All illustrations used in the article are stored in the historical photo archive of the Hungarian National Museum in Budapest. The editorial board of the journal 'Historia Provinciae -The Journal of Regional History' express their gratitude to the museum's management for their permission to publish them. lawyer and politician István Werbőczy (1458-1541) and the monument to Péter Pázmány (1570-1637), an ideological mastermind of the Counter-Reformation in Hungary and Archbishop of Esztergom. Around the monument to Sándor Petőfi (1823-1849), a poet and revolutionary of the 19 th century, erected in 1882 in the square that at that time was bearing his name, poles were stuck into the ground in some kind of a semicircle, crowned with fivepointed stars, with drapes pulled between the poles and with decorations for the pedestal ( Figure 4). Considering all the traditions associated with the monument, which were formed in the workers' movement (it was where the Social Democrats of Hungary held their rallies and laid wreaths 52 ), and the decorations of the holiday, one thing should not go unmentioned. With decorations for the previously erected monument portraying a historical figure considered outstanding also by representatives of social and political forces that by that moment had already quitted the scene, as well as by the ideologists of the dictatorship, the Soviet Republic symbolically moved Sándor Petőfi from the pantheons that were created before 21 st March 1919, into their own one. In Franz Joseph Square, opposite the Pest end of the Széchenyi Chain Bridge, right on the spot, where in 1867, on the occasion of the coronation of the Austrian emperor, the Hungarian king erected the Coronation Hill 53 , and where later it was planned to install the statue of the monarch 54 , right between the two columns in Egyptian style, a full-figural sculpture of Karl Marx was erected on a pedestal draped with red fabric, with the inscription that simply read 'Marx'; by the very choice of the place emphasizing its significance: if the figure of Emperor Franz Joseph  was associated with the fallen regime, Marx symbolized the Soviet Republic.
In Országház Square (Országház -Parliament), right near the parliament building, the equestrian monument to Gyula Andrássy (1823-1890), a revolutionary who later became Foreign Minister of Austria-Hungary, was hidden under the construction in the ancient style, the so-called 'House of Labour', with statues of soldiers erected on both sides of it. At the main entrance to the parliament, reliefs of György Dózsa and Sándor Petőfi were placed so that they looked at each other. The busts of Vladimir Lenin and Karl Liebknecht were placed in front of the building. In Deák Square 55 , the 'Statue of National Generosity'' erected during the world war years was hidden under a giant tribune, on which flames symbolized the revolution, and on the sides were placed the busts of Vladimir Ervin Szabó (1877-1918) wing Hungarian thinker who died in 1918 ( Figure 5) 56 . As a result, the whole composition instead of a 'war for national purposes' proclaimed an international, anti-war (or rather developed from the war) proletarian revolution. The fact that the choice fell precisely on Lenin and Ervin Szabó, can apparently be explained by the anti-war position of both. At the same place, in Deák Square, another bust to Lenin was installed, in front of a building covered with red fabric. At the crossing of Fürdő Street and Váci Boulevard, a giant triumphal arch was installed. On the left, there was a bust of Karl Liebknecht, on the right -that of Friedrich Engels. In Körönd Square, built in the shape of a circle, the monument to Miklós Zrínyi (about 1508-66), a politician and a commander; the monuments to Gábor Bethlen (1580-1629) and István Bocskai (1557-1606), Transylvanian princes fighting against the Habsburg Monarchy; and the monument to János Pálffy (1663-1751), a Hungarian commander and a politician, were hidden under the big red globes. This symbolic act made it clear: the internationalism of the proletarian revolution was replacing the traditional national ideas, which were expressed through the monuments of princes and commanders, praised by the ideologists of the overthrown social order.
It also led to the transformation of the monument to Millennium (Figure 6) 57 . Located in the centre of the sculptural composition is the statue of Árpád, under whose leadership the ancient Hungarians in the 9 th century found their new homeland, as well as the column with a figure of the archangel Gabriel on top. The whole ensemble was hidden under a red tribune and a red obelisk behind it. Then, a semi-circular colonnade with several sculptures portraying Hungarian kings standing in the apertures, was draped with red fabric. On the podium, hiding the sculpture of Árpád and functioning as a pedestal, stood a full-figural statue of Karl Marx. Besides, on one side from him stood a miner, on the other -a metallurgist. On the red fabric covering the colonnade ran as follows: "Proletarians of the world, unite!" On the drapery of the left quarter-circular the picture of the industrial proletariat with the inscription 'Urban proletariat' was placed. On the right, the image of the poor peasantry with the subscription 'Agrarian poor' was on view. The fact that the statue of Karl Marx was installed in the centre of the main monument of the overthrown regimes and over Árpád's sculpture, tells us about a special respect for Marx. The interpretation can be said that Árpád created the basis of the overthrown regimes, but Marx and the proletariat laid the foundation of the new social system, of a better world order. The closing call of the Communist Manifesto on the decorations draping both parts of the semi-circular colonnade was also connected with Marx. The composition had to portray the world proletariat, united into 'an organic whole' by the Marxist doctrines, too. This is exactly what the sculpture of Marx, the two figures of workers beside him, two symmetrically arranged pictures showing industrial labour and agrarian poor, both same size, as well as the call, were meant to represent.
In the City Park (Városliget) in Budapest, the busts of Vladimir Lenin and Friedrich Engels were installed in front of the Hall of Industry, where exhibitions were held (according to some source, the busts of Karl Liebknecht and Ervin Szabó were also placed there). The inscription on the facade of the hall correlated to the sculpture of Lenin standing there, saying "Long live Lenin, the leader of the world revolutionary proletariat!" In front of Budapest Keleti Railway Station, the monument to Gábor Baross Transport, was hidden inside a huge red column with an inscription "Proletarians of the world, unite!" On the top of the column was a five-pointed star, facing the city centre.

Conclusion
Perhaps, it will never be possible to learn about all cases of such concealment of the monuments from previous epochs using temporary constructions and about building of new monuments to historical figures particularly appreciated by revolutionaries. Nevertheless, based on some examples given above, we might understand several rules applied in such situations. The sculptures portraying high-ranking non-clerics and clerics were proclaimed undesirable and draped. Among those were the monuments to Gellért, Werbőczy, Pázmány, Andrássy, Zrínyi, Bocskai, Bethlen, Pálffy, the figures of the Millennium monument, and Baross. I could find only one case, the monument erected under the previous regime was, figuratively speaking, 'appropriated' by the Soviet Republic of Hungary, which, having given a new entourage to it, ranked Sándor Petőfi among those 'of their kind'. The ideologists of the proletarian dictatorship, erecting the new monuments, paid tribute to those who fought against social injustice in Hungary and other countries: Martinović, Lenin, Marx, Engels, Liebknecht, Szabó, Dózsa and Petőfi. Among them, Karl Marx, who was valued as the great theoretician of the new world order, and Vladimir Lenin, the leader of the international revolution, were particularly respected. Thus, two full-figural monuments were devoted to Marx in such places of supreme importance as the Coronation Hill (on the site where the monument to Franz Joseph was planned to be erected) and the centre the Millennium Memorial. Lenin, in his turn, got six busts placed in different parts of the capital. It is remarkable that, out of sight in public spaces, the monuments hidden under the stands and behind the draperies, were erected to commemorate the outstanding figures of national history, whilst the newly erected monuments in the overwhelming majority portrayed foreigners. This principle fully corresponded to the position, according to which on 1 st May, it was necessary to celebrate the international unity of the revolutionary proletariat, as it was stated in decree LXXX/1919 of the Revolutionary Governing Council.
During the analysis of the official decrees of Soviet Russia, the list of historical figures compiled by Hungarian Communists in 1918, as well as the monuments in the festive decorations established in Budapest for the May Day celebrations of 1919, it becomes clear that Hungarian ideologists to a much less extent than the leadership of Soviet Russia used the national traditions in their propaganda. The common in all three series is the special honoring of Karl Marx as one of the most significant personalities in the world history. Next to him the Bolsheviks put Engels, whilst Hungarian ideologists put Lenin into that place. In all three cases, the so-called 'invention of tradition' (although very typical for Europe in 1870-1914) 58 was in common, which fully confirms Hobsbawm's theories about 'invention' of tradition, when history serves "as a legitimator of action and cement of group cohesion", and frequentlysuch as in the course of using monuments to historical figures -"becomes the actual symbol of struggle [...] Even revolutionary movements backed their innovations by reference [...] to traditions of revolution [...] and to its own heroes and martyrs" 59 . "The German people also have their own revolutionary tradition" 60 , Engels stated in the first words of his book 'The Peasant War in Germany'. On the other hand, the practices mentioned in this article had not only the inward-directed function of forming a sense of group affiliation or participation. They also had the outward-directed function, aimed at creating demarcation from the national cults of heroes and cults of saints of the churches of the previous eras 61 . Therefore, traditions created by the help of representations of historical personalities both by the Bolsheviks of Soviet Russia and by the ideologists of the Soviet Republic of Hungary, were aimed at legitimizing the new regimes in the eyes of the broad masses, presenting both dictatorships as the realizers of the revolutionary endeavours of outstanding figures of the past.
Symbolic actions for occupying of town spaces through representations of historical personalities praised by the ideologists of the dictatorships also intended to create spiritual disruption with the overthrown regimes, to help the victory of new ideas. These celebrations of historical figures occurred there, where former authorities once erected monuments that spoke of their own ideas, which were in most important places of cities, by destroying or hiding imageries representing the overthrown regimes 62 . Realizing the importance of such actions, one of the leaders of the Soviet Republic of Hungary József Pogány (1886Pogány ( -1938 in his proposal to arrange celebration of May Day in the capital wrote to Tibor Szamuely: Let the artistic decorations firstly be located at the junctions (such as Oktogon Square or Körönd Square) 63 .
The symbolic 'occupying' became more emphatic when the commemoration of a historical figure highly valued by the Soviet Republic took place at the exact same spot where the former regime represented directly opposite ideas and values using various means, which is particularly evident in the case of transformation of the Millennium monument. As per the method of creating memorials, a certain similarity can be observed between the two dictatorships. As an example, it would be the use of short-lived materials or the convention rendering, because most of the sculptors that were brought to work in Budapest, worked in a heroic, monumental manner, and transferred this tradition to the revolutionary figures portrayed by them 64 . In connection with what has been said above, it's worth quoting the words of André Chastel (1912-90). Those words referred to the Great French Revolution, but also make sense in a broader context. "Everything that was spectacular, theatrical and premediated in the revolution, except for the mass demonstrations and the use of violence, streamed into the moulds created by the Age of Enlightenment", said Chastel 65 . So, not only the commemorations of historical figures by the Bolsheviks in Russia or by the regime ideologists in the Soviet Republic of Hungary were linked with the similar activities of earlier times, and their comparative analysis helps us understand better the connections of the revolutions and traditions of different countries and eras.