Opening remarks GYORGY BODN/f,R O P E N I N G R E M A R K S to the Comparative Criticism Colloquium, Veszpr6m June 15-17, 1989 I ' m pleased to welcome the participants o f the fifth confer- ence o f comparative literature. I don't think I need to over- emphasize the importance o f the programme in terms of the spiritual and intellectual opening it represents. Given the historical circumstances under which Hungarians have been compelled to live in the past few decades the implementation and organization o f such a conference is a true achievement. I've always believed in it, and I fully believe in its future, too: let me prove it with something that seems like an administrative affair. I recommended P&er Dfividhfizi, who is twenty years my junior, to represent Hungary in the joint committee o f social sciences in the future. Naturally, the continuity o f Our co-operation hasn't solely depended on our intentions. It's hardly possible to maintain a scientific programme unless it undertakes the task o f clarify- ing real research problems. I think, ours has attempted to do so with precision. American literary scholars, whose thinking is, of course, open, probably find it almost impossible to imagine how difficult it was to create the conditions for choosing topics for our conferences which not only meet the American sugges- tions but at the same time have Hungarian antecedents, similar trends and results. It was quite natural that at the first conference in 1981, we discussed our general principles on comparative literature. We managed to convince our American colleagues that we had had some initiative in comparative theory and research in Central and Eastern Europe. After this first step, the second followed naturally: the examination o f interdisci- Neohelieon XVII]I Akaddmiai Kiad6, Budapest John Benjamins B. V., Amsterdam 10 GYORGY BODNAR plinary questions in literary scholarship. Our periodical, named Hefikon, devoted a special issue to this topic as early as the sixties. The 1985 analysis o f the change in genres was able to rely on phenomena appearing in Hungarian literature in transi- tion. When, last time, we discussed nineteenth century realism, we were faced with a topic in literary theory which had pro- voked extreme views for a long time. While organizing that conference, we expressed many times that what interested us most from a m o n g suggestions for topics was comparative criticism. Our institute decided already at the end o f the sixties to write the history o f Hungarian criticism after finishing the huge, comprehensive project o f a six-volume literary history. Although in this research we had to start almost from scratch, we have produced quite a few achievements. We have published volumes introducing the Middle Ages, the beginning o f the nineteenth century, and the age o f positivism. Forthcoming is the analysis o f the concept o f literature in the age o f Reason, soon the monograph on the second half o f the nineteenth century (which can be termed as the age o f national classicism) will be ready. We have started working on the twentieth century, as well. I would like to say a few words a b o u t this last topic since during our conferences the research into Hungarian litera- ture confronted us with the idea o f universality. We were aware o f the fact that the history o f criticism implies the examination o f the relationship between the history o f ideas and that o f literature; and once we realized that the history o f criticism in fact coincides with the history o f the concepts o f literariness, then poetic conceptions would have to be re-evaluated as well. In the age o f positivism, for example, this was taken for granted. But in other periods when Hungarian criticism was n o t under the influence o f a universal movement, only a deeper and more complex analysis was able to emphasize universal points o f view. In the first part o f the twentieth century there was only one critical movement in Hungary which could be regarded as uni- versal. This was Geistesgeschichte in the 20s. Before that, O P E N I N G R E M A R K S 11 however, when at the turn o f the century the ideal o f modern- ism started to dominate, no ideas or methodological principles could be found which could be linked to any o f the internation- ally recognized movements. I, personally, like to call the begin- nings o f Hungarian modernism the age o f impressionism, al- though I know that the use o f this term is much debated not only in the history o f criticism, but in the history o f literature as well. I admit that the Hungarian critics o f the period were less able to express their views on the period and the world than contemporary writers. The reason is that impression- ism sacrificed itself when it denied the justification for thinking in terms of systems, so it failed to clarify and systematize even its own principles. Still, when modern Hungarian critics, inspired by Oscar Wilde and Alfred Kerr, for example, saw the record- ing o f the self o f the critic as the only possible way o f describing a work o f art without any preconceptions, then they launched a historically motivated attack on inherited a n d obsolete poetic dogmas, thereby introducing new poetic values in modern literature. But soon it became obvious that their struggle had to be carried on even if it would eventually turn against the impressionists. In the early stages o f Hungarian modernism several critics came to realize that the essence o f Hungarian literary modernism was the creation o f literary au- tonomy in the ontological sense and the expression o f the metaphysical self after the pronouncement o f the freedom o f the individual. Young Luk~ics and the art historian, Lajos Ftilep (regarded by Charles de Tolnay as his master), were in- volved in this exterior and interior debate at the beginning o f the century. At the time this conception could only offer a theoretical alternative, but it was reaffirmed by the achieve- ments o f writers such as Endre Ady, who summed up his vision o f existence in the social and historical context o f World War I. Mihgly Babits, who started with a major essay on Bergson and ended up expressing neoclassical ideals is also an important figure in this intellectual debate. This theoretical alternative and these literary achievements paved the way for the 12 GYORGY BODN.~R second period o f modernism, which can be characterized b y - i n s t e a d o f neoromantic s u b j e c t i v i t y - the application o f objective ideals and methods. Even though the requirement o f exactness and prestructuralism was not voiced system- atically at that time in Hungarian literary thinking, still there were certain tendencies parallel to them, and there also appeared the ideal o f impersonality exemplified b y T. S. Eliot between the two world wars. After the exciting interlude o f Geistesgeschichte in the twenties, the Hungarian poetic revolu- tion started only the sixties. Slow as it was, it created the chance o f reintegration into universal literary thinking. I am fully convinced that this conference was born out o f this revolution, too. I think dialogue is the confrontation o f different histori- cal situations. I hope my opening remarks have convinced y o u that this conference is not only an exchange o f abstract ideas, but the confrontation o f the principles and methods for a long- term project which includes the requirement o f universality.