Contemporary reception
In Hungary, the works of these aestheticians were widely read among schol-arly circles and had a significant impact on scholschol-arly life. Schedius and Sze-rdahely had an influence on the works, correspondence, and other writings of many eminent Hungarian writers, from Mihály Csokonai Vitéz to Mihály Vörösmarty.78 For instance, after the publication of Szerdahely’ Poesis narrativa, the well-known poet Ádám Horváth rewrote his epic poem according to Szer-dahely’s concept, and he sent the new version, so that the professor could judge it.79 As a respectable member of Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Schedius attained a certain reputation for aesthetics inside academic circles, too.80 The 75 Benno Ortmann: Principia cum sacrae, tum civilis eloquentiae, in usum auditorum
colle-git, disposuit, illustravit. München 1797.
76 Hugh Blair: Lectures on Rhetoric and Belles Lettres. London 1783.
77 See Ferenc Hörcher’s and Kálmán Tóth’s paper in this volume: »The Scottish discourse on Taste in early 19th-century Hungary. Two Translations of Hugh Blair’s Introduction to Rhetoric«.
78 See Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 20–22, 293–294.
79 On Szerdahely’s influence on Ádám Horváth see Balogh: Teória (= note 16), 89–103.
80 On Schedius’ influence and activity at the Hungarian Academy of Sciences see Piroska Balogh: »Non sine fructu – Schedius Lajos klasszika-filológiai kezdeményezései« [Not without fruit – Johann Ludwig Schedius’ initiatives in philology]. In: Antik Tanulmán-yok – Studia Antiqua 44 (2000), 271–284.
81 See note 13.
82 On the aesthetic orientation of Magyar Museum (1789–1793) see Attila Debreczeni:
»Az aesthetica fogalma és a Magyar Museum programja« [The concept of aesthetics in the programme of Magyar Museum]. In: Edmund Burke esztétikája és az európai fel-világosodás [Edmund Burke’s aesthetics and the European Enlightenment]. Eds. Horkay Hörcher Ferenc, Márton Szilágyi. Budapest 2011, 193–211.
83 Schedius wrote many important papers that were published in Tudományos Gyűjtemény (1817–1841), see Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 165–166.
84 Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 148–155.
85 »Aesthetik«. In: Johann Georg Sulzer: Allgemeine Theorie der schönen Künste [Neue, ver-mehrte Auflage]. Leipzig 1786, Bd. I, 35–38, hier: 37.
86 »1779. [sic!] Szerdahel Georg. Aesthetica, seu doctrina boni gustus, ex Philosophia pul-cri deducta in scientias, et artes amoeniores. Vienn. Bernardi, [sic!] 1779. gr.8. 2 Bde (1 Thlr.16 gr.) Im Jahre 1780 gab der Verfasser Imago Aesthetices s. doctrina boni gustus – Budae – in 22 Seiten heraus, worin er einen kurzen Abriß seines erst angeführten Werkes liefert. Er hat nehmlich darin gehandelt: von den schönen Wissenschaften, vom Geschmack, von den Zeichnen, deren einige successiv, andere coexistent sind, u.s.w.
Er glaubt, sein Eigenthümliches bestehe darin, daß er alle ästhetischen Regeln aus dem Begriffe des Schönen hergeleitet habe. Schön ist ihm, was eine ästhetische, überein-stimmende Mannigfaltigkeit hat; aus diesen 3 Begriffen: mannigfaltig, übereinstimmend, ästhetisch, d.h. sinnlich, erklärt er Alles. Die Dichtkunst bearbeitete er in 5 kleinen Thei-len 1) Allgemeine Poetik 2) von der erzähThei-lenden, 3) der dramatischen, 4) der lyrischen, 5) der didaktischen Dichtkunst.« Benedikt Joseph Koller: Entwurf zur Geschichte und Literatur der Aesthetik, von Baumgarten bis auf die neueste Zeit. Regensburg 1799, 41–
42.
problems and questions of aesthetics therefore appeared in the thematic calls for applications of academy and in the programs of academic publications.81 Moreover, both Szerdahely’s and Schedius’s aesthetics influenced the contents of literary journals, which were being published in ever growing numbers in Hungary, like Magyar Museum [Hungarian Museum]82 and Tudományos Gyűj-temény [Scholarly Collection].83 Schedius had an influential role in shaping Lutheran education in Hungary, and he inserted aesthetics and its auxiliary sciences into the curriculum of studies used in Lutheran secondary schools.84
Perhaps more surprising, both Schedius’ and Szerdahely’s monographs had some influence on the historiography of aesthetics outside of Hungary.
At the time, most Hungarian scientists mediated knowledge in only one di-rection: from foreign intellectual centres of science to the Hungarian public.
But Szerdahely’s works were quoted and sometimes reviewed in international handbooks of contemporary aesthetics, such as Johann Georg Sulzer’s Allgemei-ne Theorie der SchöAllgemei-nen Künste85, Benedikt Joseph Koller’s Entwurf zur Geschichte und Literatur der Aesthetik, von Baumgarten bis auf die neueste Zeit86, Wilhelm Traugott Krug’s Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften,
87 Wilhelm Traugott Krug: Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften, nebst ihrer Literatur und Geschichte. Leipzig 1832, Bd. V, 63.
88 Wilhelm Hebenstreit: Wissenschaftliche-literarische Encyclopädie der Aesthetik. Wien 1843, LI.
89 Benedetto Croce: Problemi di estetica e contributi alla storia dell’estetica italiana. Bari 1910. On Croce’s interpretation of Szerdahely see Kristóf Hajnóczi: »L’Æsthetica di Georgius Szerdahely, un esteta ungherese del 700 e un saggio di Benedetto Croce«. In:
Benedetto Croce 50 anni dopo. Eds. Krisztina Fontanini, János Kelemen, József Takács.
Budapest 2004, 292–299; and Laura Cannella Tóth: »György Alajos Szerdahely e Bene- detto Croce«. In: Nuova Corvina 1 (1993), 19–21.
90 A critical edition of Schedius’ correspondence is currently being compiled. The most important letters can be read in Fritz Valjavec: »Briefe Deutscher Gelehrter und Schrift-steller an Ludwig Schedius«. In: Jahrbuch des Graf Klebelsberg Kuno Institut für unga-rische Geschichtsforschung in Wien. Budapest 1933, 258–302.
91 Arnold Heeren, Göttingische Gelehrte Anzeigen 26 (1828), 190. Stück, 1889.
92 For instance, Göttingen, Niedersachsische Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek, 8 AE-STH 1212; Österreichische Nationalbibliothek 32.W.79; British Library 11825.d.15 93 Hebenstreit: Wissenschaftliche (= note 88), LII.
94 Wilhelm Traugott Krug: Versuch einer systematischen Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften.
Leipzig 1813, Bd. 3, 115.
nebst ihren Literatur und Geschichte87, and Wilhelm Hebenstreit’s Wissenschaft-liche–literarische Encyclopädie der Aesthetik.88 Szerdahely’s constant presence in these lexicons and reference books explains how his aesthetics caught the atten-tion of Benedetto Croce, who gave a detailed account of Szerdahely’s concept of beauty in his book Problemi di estetica e contributi alla storia dell’estetica ita-liana.89
Schedius built up a wide scholarly network outside of Hungary. He corre-sponded with Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Christian Gottlob Heyne, Fried-rich Schlegel, Johann Gottfried Eichhorn, Ignaz Aurel Fessler, Christian Daniel Beck, Joseph von Hormayr, Christoph Freiherr von Aretin, Heinrich Carl Abra-ham Eichstädt, brothers Grimm, and so on.90 Thanks to Heyne’s patronage, Sche-dius became a corresponding member of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences and Humanities. That is why Schedius’ works were reviewed in Göttingische Gelehrten Anzeigen: the review about Principia philocaliae was written by Heeren.91 Thanks to the scholarly network in Göttingen, Schedius’ monograph was and is availa-ble in several German libraries and in the British Library.92 Hebenstreit, in his Wissenschaftliche-literarische Encyclopädie der Aesthetik, published a detailed and very appreciative review of Principia philocaliae.93 An interesting dialog developed between Wilhelm Traugott Krug’s works and Schedius’ monograph. Krug took notice of Schedius’ Zeitschrift von und für Ungern in his reference book Versuch einer systematischen Enzyklopädie der Wissenschaften.94 In the Philocalia,
Schedi-95 Krug: Geschmackslehre (= note 58). Quotation: Schedius: Principia (= note 29), 102.
96 Wilhelm Traugott Krug: Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften, nebst ihrer Literatur und Geschichte. Leipzig 1834, Bd. 5, 140.
97 See note 14.
98 On the dispute see László Perecz: »A ›nemzeti filozófia‹ születése (Egy 1847-es akadémi-ai vitáról)« [Birth of »national philosophy« (A dispute at the Academy in 1847)]. In:
Gond 1 (1992), 2, 29–36.
99 We know only of two inefficient attempts: János Szép compiled a short Hungarian extract of Szerdahely’s Aesthetica (= note 49), and Johann Ludwig Schedius translated his own Principia Philocaliae into Hungarian, however, it was not published, and its manuscript is lost.
us quoted Krug’s handbook System der theoretischen Philosophie. Geschmackslehre oder Aesthetik.95 Finally, after six years, Krug devoted a complete lexicon article to Schedius in his Allgemeines Handwörterbuch der philosophischen Wissenschaften, nebst ihrer Literatur und Geschichte.96