Imre Madách: La Tragedio de L’Homo / The Tragedy of Man (4): Kálmán Kalocsay as intellectual / kiel intelektulo

La jena afiŝo estas plejparte anglalingva, pri mia freŝa favora takso de la intelekto de Kálmán Kalocsay, sendepende de lia poezia, stilistika, kaj gramatikista rolo.

Lastatempe mi enretigis la prelegon:

“La Tragedio de L’Homo kaj Imre Madách” de Kálmán Kalocsay

Ĉi tio estas prelego okaze de Madách-memorfesto en la Budapeŝta Grupo Konkordo, la 23-an de novembro 1964.

En estonta afiŝo mi raportos plu pri mia reago al aliaj Kalocsay-aferoj.

Mi citas el mia lasta (anglalingva) mesaĝo al miaj kundiskutintoj ĉe la evento ĉe la Hungara Konsilejo:

Szathmári claims (La Tragedio de L’Homo [kritiko], Sennacieca Revuo, n-ro 100, 1972, p. 35-40.) that The Tragedy of Man is undoubtedly pessimistic, and that God, who tells Adam in the end to keep the faith, is a negative figure, and that this admonition definitely does not reflect Madách's own view, which he could not declare openly without reprisal. 

But I am also [reading] the text of a speech Kálmán Kalocsay, colleague of Szathmári and eminent Esperanto poet, delivered on Madách in 1964. While Kalocsay doesn't name Szathmári, he expresses disagreement with those who hold Szathmári's view, providing an analysis of the work showing the optimistic counterweights to the pessimism-inducing events of the work. In the end Kalocsay quotes Karinthy on Madách: Karinthy says that the Tragedy is neither optimistic nor pessimistic, neither tragic nor comedic, but a synthesis of both tendencies. Finally Kalocsay refers to the Tragedy as dialectical. This is interesting, as several Esperantist critics of Szathmári characterized the schema of Szathmári's perspective embodied in Kazohinia as undialectical.

[. . .] I may have mentioned [at the Szathmári symposium at the Hungarian Consulate in New York] that Kalocsay in his foreword to the 1958 Esperanto edition [of Kazohinia] himself anticipated various reactions to Kazohinia. I never thought much about Kalocsay in this role, before. (Also, I didn't take the foreword seriously when I read it 42 years ago.) Kalocsay was the architect of what is now known as "parnasismo" (Parnassus-ism [in Esperanto poetry]), i.e. a poetics of varied traditional fixed-form poetry, something that disappeared long ago in American poetry. That historical period was previously labeled "polished Romanticism". Not everyone approved of it, and various dissenting poems and essays can be found on my web site. But nobody denied that Kalocsay was a genius of form. But now I see that Kalocsay had a keen intellect beyond his linguistic gifts, and beyond his own special competence as a surgeon.

-