The number of _lyrical poets_ is very great in modern Hungary. It may
be stated that, as a rule, a Magyar poet has more chances of attracting
public attention by a good lyrical poem than by a good novel. Perhaps
the female portion of Hungary are not as anxious for novel-reading, as
are their sisters in more western countries; and thus the balance of
attention to poetic works is spent on the drama and on lyrics. This fact
is on a line with the predilection of the Hungarian public for songs and
airs, as against native musical works of a more extensive description.
The great Hungarian lyrical poets of modern times may properly be divided
into several groups, of which the first is the school of poets with
whom the beauty and purity of Form is the principal concern of their
art. Considering the innate Magyar tendency to rhapsodic and shapeless
exuberance, the relative value of the works of that group is very great.
The Hungarian language, just on account of its large share of musical
elements, has somewhat of that indistinctness and vague emotionality
which, like that of music, must be strictly kept within the bounds of
Form. Even in the more advanced poetry of the Teutonic nations, whether
German or English, the significance of poets cultivating pre-eminently
the chaste beauty of Form, is still very considerable. Fortunately for
Hungary, both Paul Gyulai (born in 1826) and Charles Szász (born in
1829) have, especially the latter, untiringly worked at providing their
countrymen with works of poetry, original or otherwise, in which the
law and beauty of Form predominate over emotionalism. Szász has thus
deserved very highly of Hungarian Literature. His delicate sense of
metre, rhythm and architectonics, in his original epics and lyrics, as
well as in his exceedingly numerous translations from the works of great
western poets, is on a par with the wealth of his linguistic resources;
and while English poetry may perhaps afford to be less encouraging to the
adepts of Form, Magyar literature is to be congratulated upon having at
once recognized and thereby not missed the numerous works of her Richard
Garnett.
To this group belongs also Joseph Lévay (born in 1825), whose popular
works move in the sphere of elevated serenity.
Another group of lyrical poets is formed by the nationalists, who vied
with one another in sounding exclusively the note of Magyar sentiments
and ideas proper. Local colour seemed to be everything, and in language
and subject nothing was used outside the purely Magyar elements. The most
gifted of that class was Coloman Tóth (1831-1881); next to him ranks
perhaps Andrew Tóth (1824-1885); nor must Coloman Lisznyay (1823-1863),
Joseph Zalár (born in 1827), and Joseph Székely (born in 1825) be omitted.
Quite by himself stands John Vajda (born in 1827). He is to Hungarian
poetry proper, what Kemény (see pp. 153, etc.) is to Hungarian novelistic
literature. His is the gloom and power of pessimism; and in his fight
with Destiny he conjures up all the furies of scorn, despair, rage and
hatred: see especially his “_Szerelem átka_” and “_Gina emléke_.”
The lyrical poets of the sixties and seventies of this century tried to
avoid excessive nationalism, true to the spirit of the time when Hungary
through the final regulation of her constitution as an autonomous state,
assumed a European attitude herself. The more prominent names are Béla
Szász; Victor Dalmady; Joseph Komócsy; Lewis Tolnai; Ladislas Arany,
Alexander Endrődi, Julius Reviczky, etc. In Joseph Kiss there is much of
that power of discovering poetic riches in subjects hitherto ignored by
poets, which goes to make the really great poet. The emotional conflicts
between orthodox Jews and Christian peasants living in the same village,
conflicts of love and hatred alike, have been worked into powerful
ballads by Kiss.