Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical surveyReich, Emil
History
Hungarian literature : $b An historical & critical survey
Reich, Emil
Hungarian literature -- History and criticism
It will easily be understood that his chief model was Shakespeare.
He himself did not live to see the great success of his only masterpiece;
he died broken-spirited in 1830 at Kecskemét, in the thirty-eighth year
of his luckless life.
The first remarkable Hungarian dramatist after Katona is Edward
Szigligeti (his real name was Joseph Szatmáry), 1814-1878. From an early
date he was in constant contact with the theatre and with actors, and so
acquired great practical knowledge of stage-lore. He had deeply studied
the art of stage effect, and all his very numerous dramatic works testify
to an extraordinary stage-craft. It would, however, be unfair to compare
him to writers like Kotzebue in Germany, or Labiche in France. His
routine, no doubt, was pre-eminent in many of his pieces; yet, beside and
beyond the mere cleverness of the playwright, he had real _vis comica_
and a profound knowledge of Hungarian society. During his life-time that
society was slowly but steadily emerging from the semi-civilized state
of the former patriarchalism to the forms and usages of modern life. In
such periods of transition there is ample material for anyone gifted
with a keen sense of humour. The aping of western manners (ridiculed in
“_Marna_,” 1857; “Female Rule” [“_Nőuralom_” 1862], etc.); the humour
of the altered family-life (“Three Matrimonial Commands” [“_Házassági
három parancs_,”] 1850; “Stephen Dalos” [_Dalos Pista_], 1855; etc.);
odd remnants of the former social state, such as tramping actors, the
still-life of small towns; all this Szigligeti knew how to dramatize
with great effect. Like Charles Kisfaludy he drew with great felicity on
the stores of drastic humour pervading a conservative society composed
of many a discrepant element and moving onwards on entirely new lines
of development. He tried his skilful hand at tragedies too, and “The
Shadows of Light” (“_A fény árnyai_,” 1865,) and “The Pretender” (“_A
trónkereső_”, 1868,) are said to be meritorious. His rare stage-craft
and witty dialogue alone, however, could not have raised his name to
the height on which it rests, and where in all probability it will
continue to rest. Szigligeti’s name is justly famous for being the real
founder of what, for lack of a better name in English, must be called
the Hungarian folk-drama. In England there is no such thing, and no such
word. Already in our remarks on Arany (see page 195), we essayed to show
that the continental peasantry is generically different from any class
of small farmers in England. That peasantry is, in reality, a world of
its own. It is as much a world of its own, as is the well-known world
of the “upper ten.” He who has never been in what the knowing call “_le
monde_,” will easily confound the sentiments and thoughts of his own
world with those of the “_monde_.” Yet the two worlds are two worlds
indeed. Their whole tone and rhythm of life is different. They are
written not only in different scales but also for different instruments.
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.
Elsewhere in the archive
Join the Discussion
Join the discussion
Sign in to leave a comment or review.
Sign InorCreate an account