The paper approaches to Mikszáth's novel as a dialogic structure, a kind of double plot novel. The plots of the first and second chapter with different setting and personage meet in the third chapter and start coalescing. But these different plots represent two different worlds where also the workings of time is different and the human activity has different dynamics. The paper discusses in some detail the possibility of the analysis of time in fiction, since the scholarly discourse on the topic seems to deny the possibility that time can work in different ways in fictional worlds and describes the specialities of fictional time as anomalies of narration. The encounter of the worlds in Mikszáth's novel is represented as a fight with no real winner, which can be regarded as a sort of dialogue.
In a world of globalization it is the task of literary historians to reassess their national legacy from the new perspective. The past can never be taken for granted and never be forgotten; it is the result of interpretation. Poetic traditions are inseparable from linguistic structures, language as collective memory, and so they cannot be easily transferred into another culture. If historiography cannot do without teleology, we have to think in terms of different teleologies. It is undeniably difficult to fulfill contradictory demands, but a literary historian cannot stop making arguments and counterarguments.
As a contribution to a larger theoretical discussion of the relationships between literature and political context, this paper offers an examination of the reception of the works of Hungarian poet and novelist Dezső Kosztolányi during the communist period, drawing particular emphasis to the origins of several misunderstandings. Over the past several decades Hungarian Marxist literary theorists, influenced by the philosophical and aesthetical heritage of György Lukács, have thought of artists as having a revolutionary role in society and literature as having an important role as a means through which to educate the nation. Kosztolányi’s concept of art for art’s sake did not minister to this ideological and political system, and as a consequence his reception and reputation suffered. Not only were critical evaluations of his writings, both literary and theoretical, distorted and crafted with the intention of creating a misleading image of the author, but the editions of his texts were also censored. It is not mere accident or circumstance that the critical edition series of his works could not be edited and research groups and projects dealing with an edition of his life’s work were not financed under the communist regime. Hungarian intellectuals have yet to raise the question as to why open discussion of the beginning of the 20th century (when events took place that continue to exert an influence on conceptions of culture today) remains a taboo. Why are there no (or few) critical editions and anthologies or studies dealing with the period? Twenty years have passed since the political transition and the situation remains essentially the same. Hungarian philologists who deal with Kosztolányi’s oeuvre must address these questions and challenge the Marxist axioms and stereotypes if they hope to further the development of Kosztolányi’s reception. Relying on postmodern theories is not sufficient if there is little fundamental research.
Digital storage and retrieval of texts has been in the focus of an entire branch of contemporary literary studies. Literary texts online meant a new step, allowing readers to access (and editors to build and modify) the corpus in a radically new way, via the Internet. A recent development, however, the era of the network (with its “community sites” and all the different interactive communications between users) raises quite new issues. In addition to problems of archiving, accessibility and connectibility, the issues of literature produced and received on the Internet came to the fore, and deserve interest and theoretical reflection in their own right. In this study, some cases from the Hungarian internet scene concerning the temporality, authorial position, collective production, etc. are described, in order to call for a more systematic and thorough survey of these phenomena in general.
, as well as on revisions of museum collections and the previous Hungarianliterature, occurrences of 29 species are documented herein from the Hungarian part of the Pannonian Basin. Acknowledgements We thank Attila Ősi (Eötvös University, Budapest
In this essay, I interpret two Hungarian novels from the field of Holocaust literature concentrating upon the problems of representation. I argue that neither Kertész nor Márton can avoid facing the question whether the challenges of remembering and representation can be bound and reflected in a literary form. Past events are repeatedly narrated in present tense in both novels. For Márton, the fragments of narration do not constitute a story, and the invasion of imaginative elements provokes the conventional frames of depicting historical facts in an epistemological horizon. On the other hand, in Fateless storytelling emphasises the inconceivable character of the Holocaust, and Kertész's work sheds light on philosophical paradoxes beyond epistemology. In this sense these two novels prove to be different but connected forms of Holocaust literature.
It might be tempting to conclude, giving the prominence of male writers in the Hungarian canon, that until the late 20th century the question of women writers was rarely raised, if it all, and the contributions of women writers were peripheral. This conclusion, however, would be unfounded. Women writers have been significant in the Hungarian literary tradition for several centuries, as notable examples clearly illustrate.
Füredi, Mihály — József Kelemen 1989. A mai magyar nyelv szépprózai gyakorisági szótára: 1965–1977 [Dictionary of Hungarianliterature language: 1965–1977]. Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest.
Galton, Francis 1883. Inquiries
Summary Anecdotes play some role in the self-image or self-representation of Hungarians. This paper will analyse the history of Hungarian discourse on anecdotes. In the nineteenth century some theoreticians thought that not only do Hungarian anecdotes aptly characterise the nation, but the Hungarians' national fervour for anecdotes also forms an important trait of the national character. Some representatives of a “modernist' movement in Hungarian literature regarded the anecdotal character of Hungarian literature as its decisive shortcoming.
Not least because Hungarian-Jewish writers in particular were at the forefront of processes of constantly ongoing creative regeneration in Hungarianliterature, both in their innovative uses of the Hungarian