Seite 415 [415]
ESZTER TARJÁNYI
tries to illustrate the distinct character of the fait divers that distinguishes
it from other items of (daily) news by describing the difference between a
political murder and an ordinary murder, which is an everyday event. While
a political murder is embedded in the context of politically determined
background information, news about a common murder does not have any
such aspects regarding the background of the case, nor does it explain the
cause by highlighting any political correlations. Ihus Barthes highlights a
relevant feature that compares both the fait divers and the anecdote to the
joke: they cannot be interpreted, and commentaries merely weaken the effect.
Any attempt at explanation kills its spontaneity and obvious immanence. The
anecdote, like the joke, is a form that defies interpretation.
In Joel Finemann’s study aimed at clarifying the historical view of New
Historicism, the anecdote appears as an intrinsic entity, as the fait divers
does in Barthes’ quasi-structuralist analysis. With Finemann, however, the
focus is not on its present-relatedness, but instead its correlation with history
is underlined. The anecdote here is a “historeme”, which is the “smallest
minimal unit of the historiographic fact”.’® This definition is the closest to
the Hungarian one, although our usage is supplemented with the national
consciousness, which adds a special flavour to its composition.
The strong connection between the anecdote and national sentiment
in Hungary, which is probably also a result of Bela Töth’s activities as a
collector and editor, is manifested in most of the dialogical stories in our
anecdotes, with the Hungarian side being victorious at the narrative level.
In the punchlines, national sentiment gains the upper hand through witty
ripostes and brilliant analyses of situations, even in anecdotes in which our
political and historical position is that of the vanquished. The narrative
formation of the text is capable of reevaluating the actual historical situation.
This particular quality of the Hungarian anecdote, as both constructing and
building on the cultural memory of the nation, modifies its characteristic as
merely a source of information and makes it a sort of mutant that can enrich
the West-European spectrum.
Consequently, the Hungarian anecdote differs from its Western counterparts
in yet another field, in that it cannot be regarded as a “historeme” providing
complete and immanent information for all its readers. Béla Téth’s anecdotes
assume that the reader possesses a knowledge of Hungary’s historyas background
information. Moreover, the story involves the recipient taking sides, as the
sympathy of the reader, who naturally is strongly committed to national issues,
is always won by the Hungarian side, even if we know that the reality behind
the story reflects the position of the loser. The story itself is actually revealed
16 Joel Fineman: The History of the Anecdote, in H. Aram Veeser (ed.): The New Historicism,
New York, London, Routlege, 1989, 56-57.
° 414 +