As the second important aspect of this history, I introduce the main actors in the world of Hungarian university aesthetics. Georg Aloys Szerdahely (1740–
1808)15, or as he is also known, György Alajos Szerdahely and Georgio Aloysio Szerdahely (as Botond Csuka notes in his essay in this volume, the different forms of his names reflect the diverse sources of his scholarship), became the first person to hold the Chair of Aesthetics in Nagyszombat in 1774. He was a member of the Jesuit order and had taught as a professor of eloquentia profana (secular rhetoric) at the grammar school in Pozsony (now Bratislava, Slovakia).
He graduated from Vienna University, where he studied philosophy. Szerda-hely was intensively active as a university professor. He published four course books16, and he was elected to serve as dean of the faculty of humanities after the university moved to Buda in 1779.
In 1784, Szerdahely was forced to turn his chair over to the German writer Friedrich August Clemens Werthes (1748–1817).17 Werthes was a professor of 14 On the national narratives of the arts and human sciences in Hungary see Pál S. Varga:
A nemzeti költészet csarnokai. A nemzeti irodalom fogalmi rendszerei a 19. századi magyar irodalomtörténeti gondolkodásban [The halls of national poetry. Theoretical systems of national literature in the Hungarian literary history reflections of the 19th century].
Budapest 2005.
15 On Szerdahely’s life and works see Piroska Balogh: Teória és medialitás. A latinitás a magyarországi tudásáramlásban 1800 körül [Theory and mediality. The role of Latin-lan-guage culture in the transfer of knowledge in the Hungarian Kingdom in and around 1800]. Budapest 2014, 13–102.
16 Georg Aloys Szerdahely: Aesthetica, sive doctrina boni gustus ex philosophia pulcri deducta in scientias et artes amoeniores. Buda 1778. – Hungarian translation with commentary:
Szerdahely György Alajos esztétikai írásai. I. Aesthetica (1778) [Georg Aloys Szerdahely’s writings on aesthetics. I. Aesthetica (1778)]. Ed. and transl. Piroska Balogh. Debrecen 2012; Ars poetica generalis ad aestheticam seu Doctrinam boni gustus conformata. Buda 1783; Poesis Dramatica ad Aestheticam seu Doctrinam boni gustus conformata. Buda 1784; Poesis Narrativa ad Aestheticam seu Doctrinam boni gustus conformata. Buda 1784.
Online text see <http://deba.unideb.hu/deba/szerdahely/> [20.03.2018].
17 On Werthes’ biography see Theodor Herold: Friedrich August Clemens Werthes und die deutschen Zriny-Dramen. Biographische und quellenkritische Forschungen. Münster 1898.
On his significance in the history of aesthetics see Hlobil: Geschmacksbildung (= note 1), 200–226.
aesthetics in Stuttgart, and he was appointed to the same chair at the Hungarian University by Joseph II. According to the earlier historiography18, the emperor thought him suitable as someone who would support the introduction of Ger-man at the University of Pest. Werthes did not publish textbooks, only a GerGer-man drama about Hungarian history.19 But his inaugural speech20 and the students’
notes of his lectures21 prove that he taught theoretical aesthetics too, and he did so in Latin, so the presumption about his ›Germanisation‹ of aesthetics proved false.
As his scholarly and freemasonic contacts before 1784 reveal, he was associated with the leaders of Berlin Enlightenment circles (like Friedrich Nicolai)22 and, through them, with Gottfried van Swieten.23 Van Swieten was the inventor and manager of Joseph II’s university reforms, and, as Hlobil observes in his book24, in the centre of these reforms was a special educational program based on the humanities. Werthes’ concept of aesthetics was closer to this educational program than Szerdahely’s. Werthes believed that social cultivation (i.e. the proper use of polite literature and effective speaking and writing) was the key to social success and loyalty. In my opinion, Szerdahely was replaced by Werthes primarily be-18 For example: Erzsébet Nyiry: Werthes Frigyes Ágost Kelemen pesti évei, 1784–1791.
Adalékok első Zrinyi–drámáink történetéhez [Friedrich August Werthes’ years in Pest, 1784–1791. Additions to the origin of our first dramas on Zrinyi]. Budapest 1939.
19 Friedrich August Clemens Werthes, Niklas Zrini oder die Belagerung von Sigeth. Ein historisches Trauerspiel in drey Aufzügen. Wien 1790. About its context see Kálmán Ko-vács: »Zrínyi: National Recycling(s) of a Hybrid Material (1566–2000)«. In: History as a Foreign Country / Geschichte als ein fremdes Land: Historical Imagery in the South–Eastern Europe / Historische Bilder in Süd-Ost Europa. Eds. Zrinka Blažević, Ivana Brković, Da-vor Dukić. Bonn 2015, 83–100.
20 Friedrich August Clemens Werthes: Rede bey dem Antritt des öffentlichen Lehramts der schönen Wissenschaften auf der Universität von Pest. Pest und Ofen 1784.
21 Manuscript (student’s notes about Werthes’ lectures in 1791), Hungarian National Lib-rary, Archive, Quart. Lat. 2399/VII.
22 On the connection and correspondence between Werthes and Friedrich Nicolai see Pa-mela E. Selwyn: Friedrich Nicolai as Bookseller and Publisher in the Age of Enlightenment 1750–1810. Pennsylvania 2000, 300–307.
23 Nicolai and the enlightened circles of Vienna: Norbert Christian Wolf: »Polemische Konstellationen. Berliner Aufklärung, Leipziger Aufklärung und der Beginn der Auf-klärung in Wien (1760–1770)«. In: Berliner AufAuf-klärung. Kulturwissenschaftliche Studi-en. Band 2. Eds. Ursula Goldenbaum, Alexander Košenina. Hannover–Laatzen 2003, 34–64. On Nicolai’s Hungarian contacts see Wolfgang Martens: »Kleine Nebenreise nach Ungarn. Zu Friedrich Nicolais Ungarnbild«. In: Kulturbeziehungen in Mittel- und Osteuropa im 18. und 19. Jahrhundert. Eds. Wolfgang Kessler, Henryk Rietz, Gert Ro-bel. Berlin 1982, 147–154. and Piroska Balogh: Fejezetek egy leveleskönyvből. Palásthy Márton levelei Koppi Károlyhoz 1780–1783 [Chapters of a Correspondence. Márton Palásthy’s Letters to Károly Koppi, 1780–1783]. Szeged 2008, 7–50.
24 Hlobil: Geschmacksbildung (= note 1), 39–51.
cause of this difference, i.e. Werthes’ emphasis on the place of the humanities in education. This hypothesis is corroborated by the fact, that after Joseph II’s death in 1791, Werthes asked for permission to leave his chair and Hungary. Because of his sudden departure, Johann Julius Gabelhofer25, director of the university library replaced him as extraordinary professor for 2 years.
In 1792, the chair of aesthetics was advertised.26 22 candidates competed for the position, which is a surprisingly high number compared to the 14 ap-plications for the most important chair, the chair of philosophy, in 1796. This shows a strong and wide interest in aesthetics. The winner of the competition was the young Johann Ludwig Schedius (1768–1847)27, one of the favourite students of Christian Gottlob Heyne at Göttingen University.28 Schedius came from a German speaking Hungarian (so called Hungarus) Lutheran family, and this background was advantageous for him in the political context at the time.
He taught aesthetics and ancient Greek until 1843. He wrote a monograph and many articles on aesthetics.29 But his identity as an aesthetician implied not only studying and teaching aesthetics. According to him, aesthetics me-ans a harmonious and organised endeavour in support of the cultural sphere of human life. His activity as the editor of journals30, dramatic advisor to the first Hungarian theatre company31, a promoter of clubs and associations32, an
25 On Gabelhofer’s lectures on aesthetics see Béla Kiss: »Julius Gabelhofer esztétikai előadásai a pesti egyetemen (1791)« [Julius Gabelhofer’s lectures on aesthetics at the University of Pest, 1791]. In: Lymbus 9 (2011), 259–317.
26 For details concerning the applications see József Szauder: »Az esztétikai tanszék betöltésére kiírt pályázat és kritikai irányzataink 1791–ben« [The applications for the chair of aesthetics and trends in criticism in 1791]. In: Irodalomtörténeti Közlemények 75 (1971), 78–106.
27 Monographs on Schedius’ life and works: Karola Doromby: Schedius Lajos mint német–
magyar kultúrközvetítő [Johann Ludwig Schedius as mediator between German and Hungarian culture]. Budapest 1933; Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7.).
28 On the connection between Schedius and Heyne see Piroska Balogh: »Heyne és Sche-dius Lajos. A tudományos interakció modellje a göttingeni paradigmában« [Heyne and Johann Ludwig Schedius. The model of scholarly interaction in the science paradigm of Göttingen]. In: Göttingen dimenziói. A göttingeni egyetem szerepe a szaktudományok ki-alakulásában [Dimensions of Göttingen. The role of Göttingen University in the devel-opment of specific disciplines of science]. Ed. Dezső Gurka. Budapest 2010, 127–140.
29 Schedius’ monograph: Principia philocaliae seu doctrinae pulchri. Pest 1828. A collection of his writings on aesthetics: Doctrina pulcri. Schedius Lajos János széptani írásai [Doc-trina pulcri. Johann Ludwig Schedius’s writings on aesthetics]. Ed. and transl. Piroska Balogh. Debrecen 2005.
30 See note 11.
31 See Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 222–237.
organiser of public and higher education33, and a researcher and propagator of cultural geography in Hungary34 indicates that he not only taught aesthetics, he also practiced it. He was a corresponding member of the Göttingen Academy of Sciences35, a full member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, and one of the leaders of Hungarian Evangelical Lutheran Church.36 After he retired in 1843, the chair of aesthetics was entrusted to substitute professors, and its signi-ficance was reduced until Ágost Greguss became ordinary professor in 1870.37
Sources
One should be familiar not only with the professors’ personalities, but also with their works, books, and lectures. Fortunately, we have plenty of sources on which to draw from the 18th and 19th centuries. Unfortunately, most of them are not published, and almost every source was written in Latin. That is why the first step in this exploratory research is primarily the publication and translation of the sources.
The most important group of handwritten sources is the students’ lecture notes. These notes are the sole sources on which any reconstruction of the work of Werthes and Gabelhofer as professors can be based.38 Sometimes these notes
32 Ibid. 237–261.
33 Ibid. 96–164.
34 On Schedius’ map see László Pászti: »Schedius Lajos és Blaschnek Sámuel Mag-yarország-térképének kiadásváltozatai« [Editions of Ludwig Schedius’ and Sámuel Blaschnek’s map of the Hungarian Kingdom]. In: Geodézia és Kartográfia 5 (2002/11), 12–17. On Schedius’ project to give a cultural geography of the Hungarian Kingdom and on his connection with Carl Ritter, who was Humboldt’s friend and colleague and the creator of a special theory of cultural geography, see Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 354–361.
35 For the announcement of Schedius’ membership at the Academy of Göttingen see Göt-tingische Gelehrte Anzeigen, 1802, 1910.
36 Schedius was one of the authors of a new Lutheran educational system, the so-called Systema rei scholasticae, in 1806. On the details see Balogh: Ars scientiae (= note 7), 96–160.
37 On Ágost Greguss see Frigyes Riedl: Három jellemzés. Toldy Ferenc – Greguss Ágost – Katona Lajos [Three characters: Ferenc Toldy– Ágost Greguss– Lajos Katona]. Budapest 1912, 24–33; Österreichisches Biographisches Lexikon, 1815–1950. Bd. 2. Lfg. 6. Wien 1957, 55 <http://www.biographien.ac.at/oebl/oebl_G/Greguss_Agost_1825_1882.
xml> [20-03.2018].
38 Student notes about Werthes’ and Gabelhofer’s lectures from 1791 can be found at the Hungarian National Library, Archive, Quart. Lat. 2399/VII.
were written by well-known writers or people who later became professors.
For example, the notes that were taken by István Horvát and László Festetics39 reveal that the young professor Schedius, in spite of the prohibition of the General Council of Governor40, taught Kant’s works at his lectures, although without the mention of Kant’s name, of course.41
The official documents are also important sources, especially the ap-plications for the chair of aesthetics. The examination of the aforementi-oned applications submitted in 1792 generated 300 pages of documents.42 These documents include the text of applications with the attached essays by the candidates, the candidates’ answers to the written and the verbal ex-amination, and the opinions and decisions of the examination commit-tee. But one finds other types of documents in the archives: professors’
plans and reports on their work, or, for instance, an order from the Hun-garian Royal Council of Governor for professor Schedius to stop teaching Horatius’s political poems, because they had revolutionary context in 1795.43 From the printed materials, I emphasize the importance of the so-called tenta-mina, treatises submitted for public examinations.44 These treatises were prin-ted at the candidates’ cost, and they included the most important topics of the examiner’s lecture.
39 For István Horvát’s notes from 1801 see the Hungarian National Library, Archive, Quart. Lat. 1477; for Count László Festetics’s notes from 1803 see ibid. Quart. Lat.
3280. For the Latin text and Hungarian translation of the latter see Schedius: Doctrina pulcri (= note 29), 33–244.
40 Hungarian Royal Council of Governor, decree 1795.06.15.
41 We can read a long, precise Kant quotation in the first pages of Festetics’s lecture notes of Schedius’ lecture from 1803, see note 39.
42 On these sources see Szauder: Az esztétikai (= note 26), 78–106.
43 On the text and the context of Schedius’ lectures on Horace and his official applications to the Hungarian Royal Council of Governor see Piroska Balogh, »Horatius noster. Der Horaz-Vortrag von Ludwig v. Schedius aus 1794–1795«. In: Camoenae Hungaricae 1 (2004), 121–134.
44 Some interesting treatises: Tentamen publicum ex aesthetica sive theoria et bono gustu scientiarum, et artium pulcherrimarum quod ex praelectionibus Clarissimi D. Georgii Szer-dahelyi AA.AA. & Philosophiae Doct. Aestheticus, & Eloquentiae Profanae Profess. Publ.
Ordin. Reg. subibit nobilis, ac perdoctus Dominus Emericus Fekete amaenioris litteraturae repetens, In annum alterum Mense Augusto 15. Anni MDCCLXXVI. Typis Tirnaviensibus anno ut supra; Tentamen Publicum Ex Aesthetica Primo Semestri Explicata In Praelec-tionibus Ludovici Schedius Phil.Doctoris, Aesthetices Et Artium Eleg. Professoris P.O. In Regia Scient. Univers. Hung. Quod Anno MDCCCII. Mense Martio Subiverunt Sequentes Philosophine Tertium In Annum Auditores. Pest 1801.
One should also take into consideration the efforts made by the professors to popularize the sciences. These efforts included inaugural or anniversary spee-ches45, articles for the public46, and manuals for students. Szerdahely compiled from his monographs a very good short manual for his students.47 Schedius wrote a summary of his aesthetics for women, which was published in Hungari-an in almHungari-anac Aurora.48 Both Szerdahely and Schedius had industrious students who compiled a Hungarian summary of their professors’ monographs and lec-tures.49 These writings played an important part in the transfer of knowledge concerning aesthetics.
And at last but not least, both professor Szerdahely and Schedius were ac-tive researchers who published monographs on their ideas about theoretical aesthetics.50 These monographs were used as textbooks at the university. Com-pared to other universities in Central Europe, Hungarian students were in a distinct situation, because from 1778 they could study aesthetics from their professors’ books, not only from foreign textbooks or monographs. The lecture notes prove that, in addition to these monographs, the professors recommen-ded other textbooks, for example in 1802 Schedius recommenrecommen-ded that his stu-dents consult the works of Johann Joachim Eschenburg.51
45 On Werthes’ inaugural speech see note 20. Schedius’ anniversary speech: De notione atque indole organismi, tamquam principii monarchici per universam naturam vivam vi-gentis, commentatio. Buda 1830.
46 For example, Schedius’ reviews in Literärischer Anzeiger für Ungern (1798–1799).
47 Georg Aloys Szerdahely: Imago aesthetices, seu Doctrina boni gustus breviter delineata et considerationi exposita. Buda 1780.
48 On Schedius’ essay for women on aesthetics see note 11.
49 Szerdahely’s system was compiled and translated into Hungarian by his student, János Szép: Aesthetika avagy a jó izlésnek a szépség filozófiájábúl fejtegetett tudománya ... Szerda-helyi György nyomdoki után írá Szép János [Aesthetics or science of good taste explicated from philosophy of beauty, written by János Szép after Georg Szerdahely]. Buda 1794.
Hungarian summary of Schedius’ system: Florent Simon: »A szépségről« [On the beau-ty]. In: Tudományos Gyűjtemény 10 (1826), 1, 3–33.
50 See notes 16 and 29.
51 Festetics’s lecture notes, see note 39.