A Móra Ferenc Múzeum Évkönyve: Studia Historiae Literarum et Artium, 4. (Szeged, 2004)

Králik Ervin: A „Pannónia ének” Dugonics András kiadásaiban;

IRODALOM DUGONICSANDRÁS 1788. Etelka. Pozsony, Kassa, 310-315 DUGONICSANDRÁS 1791. Etelka. Pozsony, Pest, 345-351 DUGONICSANDRÁS 1803. Jólánka. Pozsony, Pest, 49 DUGONICSANDRÁS 1805. Etelka. Pozsony, Pest, 387-392 Kritikai kiadás: SZILÁDYÁRON 1877. RMKT, I, kiad. Bp., 3-8,227-248 HUBERT ILDIKÓ 1995. Dugonics András levele Gruber Antalhoz a Pannóniai énekről. ItK, 95-102 SZÉCH

Y KÁROLY 1892. Л Pannóniai ének. ItK, 273-310, 433^471. The versions of the „Pannónia Song" published by András Dugonics Ervin Králik The „Pannónia Song" was first published by Miklós Révai in 1787. A year later, it was republished in Etelka, a novel by András Dugonics. Although the two publications represent one and the same piece of work, they derive from different sources. Révai published a text discovered in a codex, whereas Dugonics received the manuscript from János Lázár, the count of Gyalakut in Transylvania. The sheet of paper held by Dugonics was rather ragged so he had to supplement the omissions, therefore each of the four texts attributed to him (the three versions of Etelka and the text preserved in a letter) are different. The first two versions are fairly similar, with some obvious clerical errors or orthographic differences. The third version, however, is radically different from the previous two. Essentially, Dugonics added improvements to its rhythm and rhymes. Chronologically, the fourth text is actually the third one as it was produced between the second and third editions of Etelka, representing an intermediary version between the two. A thorough analysis of the texts shows close resemblance to the Révai text. Dugonics faithfully published his version and added pieces to the ragged or illegible portions only. As regards the third version, the author himself acknowledges the corrections deliberately made by him. It appears likely that the original text was recorded several times, and one of these re-written texts may have been included in the codex, while another record was acquired by the Lázár family. This simple reason may provide an explanation as to why the first publications by Révai and Dugonics are so similar (at places even orthographically), yet different in some - albeit insignificant - details. 30