Hungarian literature

by Emil Reich

CHAPTER IV.

The Hungarian language is totally different in vocabulary and grammar from the Teutonic, Latin, Slav, or Celtic languages. Between Russian and German, or between Russian and English there is much affinity, both groups of languages belonging to the Aryan, or Indo-German class of idioms. Between Hungarian and German, or Hungarian and Slav, there is no affinity whatever. The Hungarians have indeed inserted some Slav and German mortar into crevices left open by an occasional decay of the Hungarian material; but the structure and functions of the Magyar language are totally alien to either Slav or German idioms. It is an agglutinative language, the root of words being almost invariably formed by their first syllables, unto which all affixes and pronouns are soldered according to a fairly regular process of word and case-formation. In Aryan languages the root is, as it were, subterranean, and frequently hard to lay bare. In Hungarian the root is always transparent. The vowels have a distinct musical value, and do not resemble the musically indeterminable vowels or diphthongs of English or German. Consonants are never unduly accumulated, as in Bohemian; and strong accents on one syllable of a word are unknown. Generally, the first syllable of the word has a heavier stress on it. Hungarian is rich both in its actual vocabulary, especially for outward things and phenomena, more especially still for acoustic phenomena; and in its prospective word-treasury. In few languages can new words, expressing shades and phases of meanings, be coined with greater ease. This facility applies to abstract terms as well as to material ones. It is probably not too much to say, that for purposes of Metaphysics or Psychology few languages offer so ample a repository and laboratory for terms as does the Magyar language. Although far from being as adapted for rhyme as English or German, yet Hungarian has many and sonorous rhymes. On the other hand, it crystallizes with readiness into all the metres of Greek or Latin poetry. A peculiarity of Hungarian (and Finnish) are the diminutives of endearment and affection.

The origin of the Hungarian language has been, and still is, a matter of great discussion between the students of philology. It is certain that Hungarian is not an Aryan, but an Ugor (Ugrian) language, belonging to a vast group of languages spoken in parts of China, in Siberia, Central Asia, Russia, and Turkey. We here adjoin the genealogy of the Hungarian language as given by Professor Simonyi, of Budapest, who is considered one of the greatest living authorities on the history and grammar of the Magyar language. He says that Hungarian, together with Vogul, Ostiak, Siryenian, Votiak, Lapp, Finnish, Mordvin, and Cseremiss (spoken in the north and north-east of Russia) form the Ugrian language-group. This group is closely akin to four other groups, viz., the Samojed; the Turkish or Tartar; the Mongolian; and the Tungusian, or Mandchu groups. These five large groups are called the Altaic languages, and are all derived from an original Altaic idiom. Their mutual relations are shown in the following diagram taken from Professor Simonyi’s work:

It will be seen that Hungarian is in near relation to Finnish and also to Lapp, as had been recognized already by the Jesuit John Sajnovics (1770), and proved by the great traveller, Anton Reguly. It is, however, also related to Turkish; and this explains why the leading neo-philologists of Hungary (Budenz, Paul Hunfalvy, and Arminius Vámbéry) are, the two former in favour of a Finnish, the latter in favour of a Turkish origin and kinship of both the Hungarians and their language. Amongst the numerous students of that vexed question, no one has done more to excite the admiration of his compatriots and foreigners, and the applause of scholars, than Alexander Csoma de Kőrős, who sacrificed his life in the monasteries of Thibet in the noble attempt at discovering, by the laborious acquisition of Central-Asiatic languages, the origin of the Magyars. We confess that we entertain but scant sympathy for the belief in races and racial persistency. Wherever the Hungarians may have come from, and whether or no every one living Hungarian can trace his descent to one of the clans invading Hungary at the close of the ninth century is, in our opinion, immaterial. As a matter of fact, very few Magyar noblemen can trace their family beyond the year of the battle of Mohács (1526). It is quite different with the language of the Hungarians. Its origin and character are, on the whole, pretty clear, and from the knowledge of its relations to kindred idioms, many a valuable conclusion may be drawn regarding the rise and nature of Hungarian Literature in the past and in the present. The greatest patriot of Hungary, Count Stephen Széchenyi, has tersely expressed the immense influence of language on the nation in the words: “Language carries the nation away with it.” Our whole view of Hungarian Literature would be different if for instance the opinion of erudite Matthew Bél (Belius) as to the Hebrew origin of the Hungarian language had proved to be true. It would likewise essentially alter our conception of Magyar literary works if the opinion of Podhorszky as to the close relation between Hungarian and Chinese would not have been found untenable. But the physical origin of the Hungarians themselves is, at best, only an idle inquiry into insufficient records of the past.