Hungarian folk-poetry is not a thing of the past. Almost day by day, new and ever new “nóták” or songs are rising from the fields and forests—nobody knows who composed them—and as if carried by the winds of east and west, they quickly find their way into the heart of the whole nation. There is thus an inexhaustible fountain of poetry and poetic suggestiveness in the very nation of the Magyars. Great as some of the Hungarian lyrical poets have been, it is fair to assume, that with such an undercurrent of perennial folk-poetry to draw upon, there are, for this reason alone, still many more great poets in store for us.
CHAPTER XXXIV.
In conclusion, a few words on the Hungarian literary productions outside belles-lettres proper. From the pre-eminently political character of the Magyars, it may be inferred almost a priori that questions bearing on legal and constitutional matters have at all times been a favourite subject with the writers and statesmen of Hungary. Previous to 1830, in round numbers, these questions were treated mostly in Latin works. Since then, however, a very considerable number of politico-legal and politico-historical writers in Magyar has arisen. The most important amongst them, both for the authority they commanded in practical politics, and for the weight and power of their arguments, are Count Stephen Széchenyi; Baron Nicolas Wesselényi; Count Aurelius Dessewffy; Baron Joseph Eötvös ([see pp. 142, etc.]); the famous Lewis Kossúth, probably the greatest political orator of the century; and Francis Deák. They were all practical statesmen, and not mere scholars. Yet most of their works on the constitution of Hungary, and especially on the constitutional relation of Hungary to Austria, are also valuable as sources of solid and scholarly information. Thus Deák showed the extensiveness of his legal and politico-historical erudition in his famous controversy with the Austrian professor Lustkandl, in no lesser degree than his tact and wisdom in the conclusion of the final treaty between Austria and Hungary in 1867. Eötvös enriched Magyar political literature with an elaborate and thoughtful work on “The Influence of the Dominant Ideas of the Nineteenth Century on the State” (“A xix. század uralkodó eszméinek befolyása az álladalomra,” 1851-1854). In more recent times a very great number of politico-legal monographs has been published in Hungary. The student will find lists of them in the works of Stephen Kiss and E. Nagy, both entitled “Constitutional Law of Hungary” (“Magyarország közjoga,” the former in 1888, the latter, third edition, 1896). Of older works on the constitutional law of Hungary, the most useful are those of count Cziráky (1851, in Latin), and of Professor Virozsil (also in Hungarian and German, 1865). Amongst the numerous Magyar writers on Jurisprudence, Professor Augustus Pulszky is well-known in England through his able work, written in English, on “The Theory of Law and Civil Society” (1888).
In the department of History, and especially the history of Hungary, the activity of the Magyars has been one of astounding intensity. In the well-known annual bibliography of history, edited by Jastrow, in Berlin (Jahresberichte, etc.), the annual report on the historical literature published in Hungary, occupies a conspicuous space. The older historians of Hungary, such as G. Pray (1774, 3 vols. fol.), Katona (1779-1817, 42 vols.), who wrote in Latin; and Engel (1814), Fessler (1825, 10 vols.), count John Majláth (1853, 5 vols.), who wrote in German, can now be used only for occasional reference. Of Magyar writers on the history of Hungary, Bishop Michael Horváth (1809-1878), and Ladislas Szalay (1813-1864), have had the greatest influence on the reading public and Magyar historiography up to the end of the seventies. The bishop treats history in the style of fine and dignified ecclesiastical allocutions. Szalay’s is a talent for the political and legal aspects of history rather than for the personal and military element thereof. In both historians there is a noble patriotism, and their works, even if discarded as wanting in systematic research, will always claim a high rank as literary productions. Hungary is still waiting for the true historian of the whole of her history; but what other country is not? Writers of historic monographs there are many, and they have done excellent work. Some of the most prominent are Count Joseph Teleki (1790-1855); Francis Salomon (born 1825); Anton Csengery (1822-1880); Charles Szabó (1824-1890); Alexander Szilágyi (born 1830), the historian of Transylvania; William Fraknói (born 1843, died recently), on Pázmány and King Matthew; Julius Pauler (born 1841), whose great work on the history of Hungary under the Árpáds (till 1301) is characterised by a most careful study of all the original sources; Coloman Thaly (born 1839), whose “speciality” is the age of Francis Rákóczy II.; Emericus Krajner (very valuable works on constitutional history); Lewis Thallóczy (on relation to Balkan nations); Ignatius Acsády (on civilization and finance of xvi. and xvii. cent.); Henry Marczali (on the age of Emperor Joseph II.); Lewis Kropf, whose domicile is in London, and who, in a long series of accurate and scholarly monographs has elucidated many an important point of Hungarian history; G. Ladányi (constitutional history); Sigismond Ormós (institutional history of the Árpádian period); K. Lányi (ecclesiastical history); Alex. Nagy (institutional history); F. Kubinyi (institutional history); S. Kolosváry and K. Óváry (charters); L. Fejérpataky (charters); Árpád Kerékgyártó (history of Magyar civilization); F. Balássy (institutional history); Professor Julius Lánczy (institutional and Italian history); Baron Béla Radvánszky (Magyar civilization); Emericus Hajnik (constitutional history); Frederick Pesty (constitutional history); Wertner (most valuable works on Hungarian genealogy), etc. Great also is the number of periodicals systematically embracing all the aspects of Hungarian history; and local societies effectively aid in the marshalling of facts, and in the publication of ancient monuments. When the history of Austria, Poland, and the Danubian countries has been written in a manner superior to what we now possess in that respect, the history of Hungary too, will, we have no doubt, find its adequate master among Magyar historians. The progress in Magyar historiography has, in late years, been little short of that made in any other country.
In the department of literary history we notice the same lack of a satisfactory general history of Hungarian Literature, and the same abundance of meritorious monographs on single points. Francis Toldy (formerly Schedel, 1805-1875), started a comprehensive history of Hungarian Literature, which, however, he never completed. In numerous essays and minor works he worked hard at various sections of such a history, and his relative value as an initiator in that branch cannot be disputed. The laborious works of K. M. Kertbény are purely bibliographical, and as such, useful. His attempts were quite thrown into the shade by the great works on Hungarian bibliography of Charles Szabó, G. Petrik, and J. Szinnyei. The handiest and bibliographically richest history of Hungarian Literature is that by Zsolt Beöthy (sixth edition, 1892). Under Beöthy’s editorship a richly-illustrated history of Hungarian Literature was published, in two volumes, in the year and in honour of the Hungarian Millennium, 1896. Among the better writers of monographs on literary history are Julius Zolnai (philology); J. Szinnyei (biography); Sigism Simonyi (philologist); L. Négyessy (prosody); Alex. Imre (popular humour and mediæval style); R. Radnai (history of Magyar æsthetics); M. Csillagh (on Balassi); Sigism Bodnár (history of Hungarian Literature); H. Lenkei (studies in Petőfi); K. Greska (on the epic of Zrinyi); T. Szana (history of literature), etc.
The study of æsthetics has always been one of the favourite pursuits of Magyar writers during the present century. The most conspicuous of Hungarian students of æsthetics are Augustus Greguss and Paul Gyulai, whose works have advanced not only Magyar views, but the study of æsthetics in general.
The best known students of Hungarian philology are John Fogarasi; Joseph Lugossy; the late Sam. Brassai, who in his multifarious studies reminds us of the great scholars of the seventeenth century; Paul Hunfalvy, Joseph Budenz, Ferdinand Barna (Finnish philology); Gabriel Szarvas and Sigismund Simonyi; and the well-known Arminius Vámbéry.
In the departments of Science proper there has been very considerable progress in Hungary during the last thirty years. Reports of the general results of scientific researches made by Hungarians are also published, for the greater convenience of the western nations, in special periodicals written in German.