Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical surveyReich, Emil
History
Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical survey
Reich, Emil
Hungarian literature -- History and criticism
special mention.
Omitting the names of some learned precursors, whose works have not much
advanced the philological study of the Hungarian language, it may be
stated, that the first to subject that idiom to a careful and systematic
study based on researches into its historical development, was Nicolas
Révai. In his _Elaboratior Grammatica Hungarica_ (1806, 2 vols.), he
summed up his previous essays, and placed Hungarian philology on a
tolerably sure basis, after the manner subsequently adopted by Jacob
Grimm for Germanic philology. Although he still hankered after the
purely imaginary affinity between Magyar and the Semitic languages, he
yet succeeded in clearing up many a vital point in Hungarian historic
grammar. With regard to the then wanted reform of the language, he taught
that that reform ought to proceed on the lines of the laws of language
as discovered by a close study of the ancient remains of Hungarian
Literature. He was vehemently opposed by Verseghy (see page 85), who
taught that the reform ought to be guided, not by the bygone forms of
Hungarian, but by those actually in force. It is now pretty clear, that
while the science of language is sure to be enriched by methods of study
such as that of Révai, the art of language is more likely to gain by the
advice of Verseghy. Kazinczy, who possessed neither Révai’s philologic
erudition, nor Verseghy’s powers of philologic analysis, but who adopted
principles of reform from both, Kazinczy became the centre of the
passionate warfare that now arose for the golden fleece of “Pure Magyar.”
The Conservative party, whose headquarters were at Debreczen, Somogy,
Szeged, and Veszprém, were called orthologues; the adherents of Kazinczy,
neologues. Satyric writings were published by both; by the orthologues:
“_Búsongó Amor_,” 1806, and the still more famous “_Mondolat_,” 1813; by
the neologues: “_Felelet_,” 1816, written by Kölcsey and Szemere; and
chiefly, the prize-essay of Count Joseph Teleki, in 1817. In the end most
of the work of the neologues has been accepted by the nation.
CHAPTER XVI.
1772-1825.
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