Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical survey — John Shaqi
Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical surveyReich, Emil
History
Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical survey
Reich, Emil
Hungarian literature -- History and criticism
The next in time and merit was the school of the Classicists, or more
properly speaking, Latinists. The first four remarkable members of that
school were all unfrocked priests. Baróti David Szabó (1739-1819), and
Joseph Rajnis (Reinisch) were ex-Jesuits; Nicolas Révai (1750-1807)
was a Piarist, and Benedictus Virág (1752(?)-1830) an ex-Paulist. The
circumstances of their mental development above indicated led them
naturally to an imitation of the Latin poets; and Virág in Hungary,
like Ramler in Germany, or Cowley in England, was held to be one of
the numerous “Horaces,” in whom the nascent literatures of Europe
were happily so rich. In ripe mellowness of formal beauty and musical
ring Virág cannot, we are afraid, be said to have seriously challenged
the laurels of the friend of Augustus. His _Works_ (_Poétai Munkák_,
1799) are, on the other hand, inspired by a noble glow of patriotism,
which might have added some lustre to the poems even of Flaccus. Virág
translated Horace into Hungarian, as Baróti had done with the _Aeneid_.
The poetical works of the other two ex-priests were of an inferior kind.
To the above two schools now was added the third; the national or
genuinely Magyar school. The two former laid special stress on purity and
perfection of form, both external and internal. In fact, the classicists
came near sacrificing everything else to correctness of form. In this
they were partly justified, partly supported by the peculiar adaptability
of the Hungarian language to the most complicated of classic metres.
Hexameters or alcaics are just as natural to Hungarian, as they are to
Greek and Latin; and infinitely more so than to any other Indo-German
language of Europe. The classicists, and especially the greatest of them,
Berzsenyi—see below—were able to handle the most national and intimate
subjects in the most foreign of verse-forms, and with perfect ease too.
This seemed to go far in convincing many writers, that classical forms
were the only ones to adopt, and classical models the only ones to
follow. The prosodic wealth of the Hungarian language is, however, not
exhausted by its classic metres by far. From time immemorial Hungarian
poetry was wedded to Hungarian music, and the latter, with its pointed
rhythms and sudden irruptions of cadences, was quite unfitted for the
stately calm of antique metres. In German classical music, classical
metres, such as the hexameter or the alcaic may be, and have been
employed. In Hungarian music they are out of place altogether. Here,
then, was the inner justification of the “Magyar” school. Its members
strongly and rightly felt, that in the cult of antique prosody the
classicists had overstepped the bounds; that Hungarian poetry needed
forms and moulds other than those of Virgil or Horace; and that the short
cross-rhymed stanza was to Hungarian Literature, what the violin and the
“_czimbalom_” (dulcimer) were to Hungarian music. It is impossible to
play Hungarian music on the organ.
Public-domain text, read in full here on John Shaqi.
Reviews
Reviews
No reviews yet
Be the first to share your thoughts on this work.
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account