Fraternity-Testvériség, 1952 (30. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)

1952-11-01 / 11. szám

14

TESTVÉRISÉG

SÁNDOR PETŐFI, Hungarian poet

(1823-1849)

By JOSEPH REMÉNYI Professor of Comparative Literature Western Reserve University

“Freedom is the abilitiy to preserve ones integrity against power.”

I.

As there is unequal distribution of economic wealth and political power in the world, there is disproportion in the linguistic horizon and influence of a nation. Consequently, when a poet shows a measure of talent in English or French, he may gain reputation by a casual reading of his work; but if a poet writes in an isolated, albeit supple and forceful language, such as the Magyar language, he must have exceptional qualities in order to reach the public outside his national boundaries. Sándor Petőfi, who is acclaimed as the first Hungarian lyrist of world wide fame,1 and who knew the true bent of his creative ability, is apt to be judged abroad as a minor Shelley o.r Burns, which is unjust to the English or Scotch poet, as well as to the Hungarian poet. Petőfi’s poems, as a rule, written with unerring sense of composition and with freshness, require congenial translators; and even if the translations should not be technically faulty or if the occasionally loose meters of the Hungarian poet (loose, but not slovenly, and without detriment to rhythmical vitality) should reveal corresponding characteristics in translation, one misses the real Petőfi.

If the value of art lies “in its uniqueness”,2 Petőfi’s poetry, charged with feeling and imagination, is a splendid example of such uniqueness. The crux of the matter seems that the understanding of Petőfi’s originality, which is really the individualization of the typical with a Hungarian rhythm, necessitates a thorough knowledge of the Magyar language. His simplicity, which seems unexcelled, or it has few equals, except in folk1 Der Grosse Brockhaus. “Petőfi ist der genialste and eigenartigste Ungarischer Dichter, der zu Weltruhm gelangte.” Leipzig, Vol. XIV, 1933. pp. 401.

2 Raymond Bayer. “Method in Aesthetics.” Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism. Vol. VII, Number 4, 1949. pp. 321.

3 Quarterly of Literature. Vol. IV. Number 4, 1948, pp. 392.

4 Benedetto Croce “The Condition of Criticism in Italy.” Lectures in Criticism, Bollingen Series. XVI. 1949. pp. 174.

songs, is bound to hinder translators and non- Hungarian readers who are disoriented in the “exotic realm” of this Hungarian poet’s directness and spontaneity.

There are, however, translations in which Petofi’s voice is not entirely lost, although it would be difficult to discover a foreigner’s reaction to his poetry with the intensity with which Flaubert reacted to Shakespeare when he said: “When I read Shakespeare I become greater, more intelligent and pure.”3 There is no intention of comparing the Hungarian poet with the English bard. The point I try to make is that despite the enthusiasm of foreign men of letters, such as Heine, Uhland, Béranger, Coppée, and despite their admission that Petőfi’s influence had been marked ever since his appearance on the Hungarian literary scene, the very fact that he wrote in Hungarian barred a complete sharing of his work with foreign readers. In Hungary his books do not gather dust in libraries. Petőfi presents a vivid contrast not merely to most of his Hungarian contemporaries, but to the lyrical and epic poets of western Europe. As a pure lyrist he surpassed his Hungarian predecessors and as an epic poet, with Mihály Vörösmarty and János Arany, he must be considered superb in this field of creativeness. Western European lyric poets, such as Wordsworth Shelley, Burns, Byron, Lamartine, Béranger, Hugo, Matthisson, Lenau, Heine, Körner, who had very little or no regard for outward conformity, whose writings were prompted by an inner urge, and who represented what Francesco de Sanctis, the Italian critic and literary historian, defined as “living form”,4 that is to say, form not separable from content, possess traits similar to those of Petőfi and indicate a kindred spirit; for example, their poetry suggests a released force of emotions, a romantic temperament, and at times a realistic reverence for human dignity. Petőfi lacked the somnambulism of some of these poets, their worldweariness or their orgy of self-pity. But metrical and topical similiarities do not say that the unsparing criticism with which he assailed and castigated vested interests, the mobility and vigor of his spirit, the simplicity of his feelings, were externally imposed features of his creative person-