1711-1772.
In poetry proper, it is for the present period customary, but scarcely
necessary, to mention the Jesuit Francis Faludi (1704-1779), who has
put some wise saws and moral platitudes into light verse; and Baron
Ladislas Amadé (1703-1764), whose not unmelodious lyrics were sufficient
to give the successful courtier a mild reputation as an interesting
poet. In dramatic poetry there is nothing worth mentioning. The Jesuits
occasionally had their pupils play a patriotic or religious drama made
_ad hoc_, and good _pro tunc_. Of prose-writers there is one, and one
only, whose “Letters” written from Turkey, where he was in exile, have
abiding literary value. This was Clement Mikes (1690-1761), who was
brought up by Prince Rákóczy, to whom he proved constant under all
circumstances, and for this reason Mikes still belongs to the generation
of Hungarian nobles who cultivated their language with the pride of
true patriots. The “Letters” are not only full of historic interest,
especially with regard to the interior condition of the then still
mighty Turkish empire, but also as specimens of pure, idiomatic and
well-balanced Hungarian prose.
The remarkable works in History, Theology or Science of that period were,
as noticed, written in Latin. Of learned works written in Hungarian the
two best were by men who had spent their youth in the preceding century,
and were thus less afflicted with the gangrene of the decadence of the
period from 1711 to 1772; Michael Cserei (1668-1756), and Peter Apor
(1676-1752), both of very great nobility. Cserei wrote a “_Transylvanian
History_” (“_Erdélyi Historia_”), in which the events from 1661 to 1711
are told in a lively, naïve and pleasing style. Apor is the author of a
remarkable work on the history of the manners, customs, and institutions
of ancient Transylvania. It is entitled “_Metamorphosis Transylvaniae_,”
and its object is to show, by contrast, how low the country had sunk
from its former glory. His satire is not infrequently both scathing and
well-expressed.
The bent for erudite laboriousness gave rise to several works on the
history of Hungarian Literature. The still-life of the small town of
Bártfa in the county of Sáros must have hung heavily on the hands of
David Czwittinger, one of the lawyers of that town, who published, in
1711, a dry list of Hungarian writers, in alphabetical order. He was
distanced by the indefatigable and patriotic Peter Bod (1712-1769), who
had, like so many Protestants, spent several years at Dutch universities,
where he amassed much polyhistoric knowledge and a good library. There,
no doubt, he also acquired the taste for literary history, and in his
“Hungarian Athenæum” (“_Magyar Athénás_”, 1766) he collected much
material bearing on the lives and works of no less than six hundred
Hungarian authors. In Law or Philosophy there appeared, during this
period, no work in Hungarian claiming our attention.