Abstract
Despite attending Husserl’s classes, participating in the discussions of the Göttingen phenomenological circle, and writing prolifically on phenomenology, Eugen Enyvvari (1884–1959) seems to have been virtually ignored by phenomenological scholarship. I use an array of unpublished sources and a survey of his juvenilia to reconstruct Enyvvari’s biography and intellectual formation, including his confrontation with Melchior Palagyi’s critique of Husserl and Bolzano. Based on both his reports and records from the Göttingen University Archives, I attempt to establish the influences to which he could have been exposed in Göttingen. I rely on a careful micro-analysis of the development of Husserl’s notion of noematical meaning at the time of Enyvvari’s stay in Göttingen in order to asses Enyvvari’s specific contribution to phenomenology and his significance from the point of view of the general historiography of phenomenology.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The family name is a literal translation into Hungarian of Leimstädter in the 1880s.
Enyvvari is not mentioned in any of the standard reference works on the history of phenomenology (Schuhmann 1977; Spiegelberg and Schuhmann 1982; Moran 2000). The present author is also not aware of any phenomenological secondary literature on Enyvvari either (see note 6 below). In March 4, 1985, Karl Schuhmann was told in a letter by Kornél Steiger (Budapest) about the existence of Enyvvari. Schuhmann intended to include Enyvvari in the planned revised edition of his chronology of Husserl (Schuhmann 1977). This revised edition was never completed, but he did mention Enyvvari in a short footnote appended to the version of the Reinach biography published in the critical edition of Reinach’s works (see Reinach 1989, 2:620, n. 3), Schuhmann’s claim that Enyvvari “nur sehr wenig publiziert hat,” however, is far from being true.
Enyvvari 1910, 194, n. 1—Unless otherwise noted, all translation are by the present author. For obvious reasons, the Hungarian originals are not provided. German quotations are left untranslated, unless standard translations are available.
Ms. M III 10 III 7/1a (the list also bears annotations by Husserl’s hand).
Ms. SP 74. Its title page carries the dedication: “Herrn Prof. Edmund Husserl überreicht von seinem dankbaren Schüler E[ugen] Enyv[v]ári”.
It is emblematic that the pioneering monograph by the Hungarian émigré Tibor Hanák (1981), that was intended to challenge the official Marxist historiography of early twentieth century Hungarian philosophy, heralded Enyvvari as a protagonist of the alternative narrative (6), yet Hanák’s actual presentation of Enyvvari is unconvincing and merely a half page long (133–134). The best exposition so far is the half column long discussion of Enyvvari in Balázs M. Mezei’s excellent English-language encyclopaedia entry on phenomenology in Hungary (1997, 321--322), which, however, puts its emphasis on Enyvvari’s late creative foray (cf. “Conclusion and perspectives: Enyvvari’s place in the phenomenological movement” section below).
The entry on Enyvvari in the New Hungarian Biographical Dictionary (Budapest: 2001, II: 366–367), e.g., claims that Enyvvari “earned a doctoral degree in humanities at the University of Budapest in 1905” (366). In the records of the University Archives of Budapest there is no entry for his alleged doctoral examination.
Besides the notes explicitly mentioned below, I have also relied on Enyvvari’s own manually bound collection of his offprints, which bears annotations presumably from his own hand, and Enyvvari’s biographical letter to Pál Gulyás (1881–1936) a lexicographer whose project of a comprehensive national biographical dictionary was forcefully terminated after the Second World War (Ms. National Széchényi Library (OSZK) Fond 36/175). Data on Enyvvari’s later career as a librarian is based on the history of the Municipal Library of Budapest (Katsányi 2004), which, unfortunately, leaves Enyvvari as a philosopher completely in the dark.
Enyvvari received the grade “excellent” (the best of the five possible grades) in philosophical propaedeutic and religious studies, while in other subjects, except for freehand drawing, he was awarded “good” (the second best) or “sufficient” (just above the failing level). Ms. Budapest City Archives (BFL), VI.502.d (II. ker., 1902.1.6/8).
Data are based on the historical almanacs of the university, consulted in the University Archives of Budapest.
The curriculum of philosophy in the secondary schools was not historically oriented.
It is an interesting question of how Palagyi (and other Hungarians) became aware of Bolzano in the years immediately following the turn of the century and whether osmotic transmission mechanisms from the original Bolzano-Circle, which never totally disappeared in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy, played any role in this process. Both Palagyi and Enyvvari were members of the scarcely documented Bolzanoist philosophical circle in Budapest, called “BEMBE,” which is reported as having been active between 1909 and 1914 (Somos 1999, 597 ff.), Somos, however, believes that the interest in Bolzano was initiated by Husserl’s work (ibid.).
Palagyi claimed that Husserl, despite his explicit praise of Bolzano in the Logical Investigations, concealed the “origin” (Provenienz) of his own position (Palágyi 1902b, 16). Such remarks were apparently taken by Husserl as a hint of intellectual plagiarism: “In a series of hints which would be insignificant taken separately, but which are efficacious when taken in sequence, he gives the reader no less a notion than that I have exploited Bolzano in a dishonest manner and have kept silent about my dependence upon him [in unredlicher Weise ausgenützt, aber meine Abhängigkeit von ihm verschwiegen habe].” (Husserl 1979, 155, ET: Husserl 1994a, 200).
Daubert 2002, 344, ET: 345. Daubert did not explicitly refer to Palagyi’s book.
Palágyi (1902a, 32).
Palágyi (1902a, 34).
Cf. Ms. Göttingen University Archive, draft Abgangszeugnis 1910, Nr. 859, as well as the Abgangszeugnis itself (in private possession).
Enyvvari 1910, 194, n. 1. The printed version reads “W. Conrad,” but Enyvvari corrected it in his own offprint copy to “Th. Conrad” (cf. note 8 above).
Among the many formulations of this principle by Husserl, it is worth highlighting his retrospective claim from 1935 to 1936, according to which “[t]he first breakthrough of this universal a priori of correlation between experienced object and manners of givenness […] occurred during work on my Logical Investigations around 1898” (Husserl 1962, 169, n. 1, ET: 1970, 166, n.; cf., e.g., Moran 2003, esp. 56 ff.).
This tripartite distinction between judgement in specie, uniformity of a relation to the same state of affairs, and state of affairs itself is richer and more specific than the equivocacy that Husserl, as Robin D. Rollinger pointed out, diagnosed between “sentences in themselves […] regarded as the objects” of thought and sentences in themselves “regarded as the species of these thoughts, more precisely of judgements” (Rollinger 1999, 80).
Even the most detailed developmental analysis available so far (Mohanty 2008, 224–241) has a very narrow textual basis, respectively is not fine-grained enough for our purposes, not to mention the commentaries on Husserl’s Ideas I (cf. Ricoeur 1996, 138; Moran 2015, 221). Anchors are provided by the respective editorial introductions, see esp. Husserl 1984c, xxiii ff., 1987, xvii ff., 1996, xxxiii ff., 2009, xxxiv ff.
The published text of Husserl’s lecture course of 1908 contains a more pronounced terminology, namely the distinction between “phansical [phansisch]” and “ontical [ontisch]” (Husserl 1987, 38); though these terms are later additions by Husserl. The adjective “phansical” was employed by Husserl for a short time around 1909-1910 to denote the investigation of mental acts according to their “immanent-real content [reellen Bestand]” (Husserl 2005a, 157, cf. 58 n., 65). Husserl intended to coin the terminus technicus φάνσις, in opposition to the more widespread term φαινόμενον (which he translated as “[das] Erscheinenden” or “[die] Erscheinung”), in order to denote “the appearing itself as an experience [das Erscheinen selbst als Erlebnis]” (Husserl 1988, 307–308). Husserl actively used this terminology during Enyvvari’s stay in Göttingen (e.g., Husserl 2004, 235, 241, 258, 2005b, 238, 258–259), thus Enyvvari unsurprisingly picked it up as early as in 1910 (cf. Enyvvari 1910, 184). Husserl continued to employ it sporadically in 1911–1912 (Husserl 1980, 313, 2009, 291, 300), but he later denounced it (e.g., Husserl 2012a, 465, n. 1) and explicitly replaced it by the adjective “noetical” (e.g., Husserl 2005b, 238, n. 3, 2009, 300, n. 1; unpublished manuscript Ms. M III 12/7-8).
Compare Ms. A I 42/31a and Husserl 2012b, 29 ff.
Husserl 1987, 156 and n. 1 (a research manuscript from 1907), 2012b, 38 (a research manuscript from September 1907), 1987, 33 (the SS 1908 lecture course itself). This incertitude in interpreting Bolzano is markedly opposed to Husserl’s continued confident references to Bolzano’s fundamental discovery of “the distinction between subjective presentations as psychical experiences and logical presentations as ideal unities” (Husserl 2001b, 56 (WS 1902/03), cf. 2002a, 14, 70 (SS 1905), 1984c, 143 (WS 1905/06), 2003, 42 (WS 1908/1909)). The discovery of the latter, simple distinction – essentially, the refutation of the psychologism (in contrast to Husserl’s more moderation assessment of Bolzano’s merits in this regards in the Logical Investigations itself, Husserl 1975, 226 ff.) – was, following the emergence of the noematic sense of meaning, reassigned by Husserl to the Ancient Stoics and Bolzano’s achievement was degraded to a mere rediscovery Husserl 2012a, 87.
Husserl 2009, 160. Concerning the adjective “phansical,” see note 23 above.
According to the student transcript (Ms. N I 3/11b), cf. Husserl 1987, 408.
Husserl 1984b, 790. Bolzano as an unconscious forerunner of the noematic sense of meaning also figures in Husserl’s influential self-interpretation written in 1913 and first published posthumously in 1939 (Husserl 2002b, 298–299), even though the bulk of it is dedicated to explicating the dilemma between Platonism and psychologism (i.e., the more trivial first distinction).
Cf., e.g. Thomas Sheehan’s retraction (1997, 17, n. 59) of his oft-cited claim of Heidegger’s “attack” against Husserl’s notion of an ahistorical pure ego in 1919.
Gotthardt 1909, 27, n. 2; there are question marks at this passage in the copy in the Municipal Library of Budapest, where Enyvvari was working.
Concerning Reinach, cf. the extant table of contents of Husserl’s otherwise lost text on Reinach (Husserl 2009, 447; cf. K. Schuhmann 1987, 246–247). As pointed out recently (Fabbianelli 2015), Conrad’s distinction between Bezeichnung (denoting) and Kennzeichnung (denoting in virtue of alleged ontologically intrinsic properties) aimed at transcending both of Husserl’s concepts of meaning (222, cf. 209), motivated by “entirely different conceptions of phenomenology” (224), i.e., the methodological opposition between Husserl’s Aktphänomenologie and the Gegenstandsphänomenologie that the Munich-based circle of Early Phenomenologists strived for.
As the correspondence with his publisher demonstrates, the manuscript was already finished in November 1916, or presumably even earlier, the publication being delayed due to the war (Ms. National Széchényi Library (OSZK) Fond 2/375).
From this point of view, Enyvvari’s insistence on passages in which Bolzano links proposition in itself and meaning (cf. Enyvvari 1910, 14–15) are particularly telling clues.
Cf., e.g., his self-references at Enyvvari 1913, 10, n. 2, 48, n. 1, 1918, 59.
First put forward: Enyvvari 1911a; further substantiated: 1912b). Enyvvari quoted the essay of Theodor Conrad (1881–1869), an elusive member of the Phenomenological Movement whom Enyvvari met in Göttingen (Conrad 1911; cf. Enyvvari 1912b, 98, n. 1). Since Conrad, however, completely rejected Husserl’s framework of intentional analysis of perceptions and presentations (Conrad 1911, 64 n.), it was mistaken for Enyvvari to rely on Conrad in trying to amend Husserl’s framework.
For example, in presenting Husserl’s mature phenomenology, Enyvvari tried to quote Bolzano as a forerunner of phenomenology (Enyvvari 1913, 37, n. 1).
In January 1915, e.g., he was officially nominated as a corresponding member of the prestigious Hungarian Academy of Sciences by two of his former teachers, Imre Pauer and Bernát Alexander (the first an ordinary, the second a corresponding member of the Academy).
References
Archival sources cited (Ms.)
Budapest City Archives (Budapesti Fővárosi Levéltár).
Göttingen University Archive (Universitätsarchiv Göttingen).
Husserl Archives, Leuven (Husserl-Archief, K.U.Leuven): A I 42, M III 10 III 7, M III 12, N I 3, SP 74.
National Széchényi Library, Manuscript Collection (OSZK Kézirattár).
Private Collection (Enyvvari-family).
University Archives of Budapest (ELTE Egyetemi Levéltár).
Works cited
Alexander, B. (1904). Az újkori philosophia története [The History of Modern Philosophy; in Hungarian]. 2 vols. [Budapest].
Bolzano, B. (1837). Wissenschaftslehre. Versuch einer ausführlichen und größtentheils neuen Darstellung der Logik mit steter Rücksicht auf deren bisherige Bearbeiter. 4 vols. Sulzbach: Seidel.
Bolzano, B. (1973). Theory of science. Edited by Jan Berg. D. Reidel: Dordrecht.
Conrad, T. (1910). Sprachphilosophische Untersuchungen. I. Teil. Archiv für die gesamte Psychologie, 19(3–4), 395–474.
Conrad, T. (1911). Über Wahrnehmung und Vorstellung. In Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen. Theodor Lipps zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von früheren Schülern, 51–76. Leipzig: Barth.
Conrad, T. (1992). Ein Zeitzeuge über die Anfänge der phänomenologischen Bewegung: Theodor Conrads Bericht aus dem Jahre 1954. Edited by Eberhard Avé-Lallemant and Karl Schuhmann. Husserl Studies 9/2, 77–90.
Daubert, J. (2002). Bemerkungen zur Psychologie der Apperzeption und des Urteils. Edited by Karl Schuhmann. New Yearbook for Phenomenology and Phenomenological Philosophy, 2, 344–365.
Enyvvari, J. (1905). A psycho-physikai dualizmus [The Psycho-Physical Dualism; in Hungarian]. Huszadik Század, 6(6), 555–560.
Enyvvari, J. (1909a). Metakritikai jegyzetek a logikai objectivismus problémájához (I.) [Metacritical Remarks on the Problem of Logical Objectivism (I); in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 18(3), 314–326.
Enyvvari, J. (1909b). Metakritikai jegyzetek a logikai objectivismus problémájához (II.) [Metacritical Remarks on the Problem of Logical Objectivism (II); in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 18(4), 397–411.
Enyvvari, J. (1909c). Gerhard Gotthardt, Bolzanos Lehre vom “Satz an sich” […]. Athenaeum, 18(4), 463–465.
Enyvvari, J. (1910). A Bolzano-féle logika kérdéséhez [On Bolzanoist Logic; in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 19(3-4), 184–197.
Enyvvari, J. (1911a). Egy phaenomenologiai adottságosztályról [On a Class of Phenomenological Givenness; in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 20(1), 113–123.
Enyvvari, J. (1911b). Adalékok az ideatio phaenomenologiájához [Contributions to the Phenomenology of Ideation; in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 20(2), 66–83.
Enyvvari, J. (1912a). Bolzano-bibliográfia. Pótlék H. Bergmann Bolzano-bibliográfiájához [Bolzano-Bibliogrpahy. Supplements to the Bolzano-Bibliogrpahy by H. Bergmann; in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 21(1), 168–174.
Enyvvari, J. (1912b). A phansikus (phaenomenologiai) adottságok lényegismeretéhez [On Eidetical Knowledge of Phansic (Phenomenological) Givennesses; in Hungarian]. Athenaeum, 21(2-3), 94–104.
Enyvvari, J. (1913). Husserl tiszta phaenomenológiája és a phaenomenologiai módszer [The Pure Phenomenology of Husserl and the Phenomenological Method; in Hungarian]. Budapest: Hornyánszky.
Enyvvari, J. (1914). Zur Phänomenologie der Ideation (Wesensintuition) im Gebiete der sinnlichen Abstraction. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 153(2), 132–150.
Enyvvari, J. (1918). Philosophiai szótár [Dictionary of philosophy; in Hungarian]. Budapest: Franklin.
Fabbianelli, F. (2015). Bezeichnung und Kennzeichnung. Theodor Conrads Bedeutungslehre in Auseinandersetzung mit Husserl. Studia Phaenomenologica, 15, 207–226.
Frege, G. (1892). Über Sinn und Bedeutung. Zeitschrift für Philosophie und philosophische Kritik, 100(1), 25–50.
Gotthardt, G. (1909). Bolzano’s Lehre vom “Satz an sich” in ihrer methodologischen Bedeutung. Berlin: Mayer & Müller.
Hanák, T. (1981). Az elfelejtett reneszánsz. A magyar filozófiai gondolkodás századunk első felében [The forgotten renaissance. Hungarian philosophy during the first half of the twentieth century; in Hungarian]. Bern: Európai Protestáns Magyar Szabadegyetem.
Heinrich, E. (1910). Untersuchungen zur Lehre vom Begriff. Inaugural Dissertation, Göttingen: Georg-Augusta-Universität zu Göttingen.
Husserl, E. (1962). Die Krisis der europäischen Wissenschaften und die transzendentale Phänomenologie. Eine Einleitung in die phänomenologische Philosophie. Edited by Walter Biemel. 2nd ed. Husserliana 6. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1970). The Crisis of European Sciences and Transcendental Phenomenology. Translated by David Carr. Evanston, Ill: Northwestern University Press.
Husserl, E. (1975). Logische Untersuchungen. Erster Band: Prolegomena zur reinen Logik. Text der 1. und 2. Auflage. Edited by Elmar Holenstein. Husserliana 18. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1976). Ideen zu einer reinen Phänomenologie und phänomenologische Philosophie. Erstes Buch. Allgemeinei Einführung in die reine Phänomenologie. 1. Halbband. Edited by Karl Schuhmann. Husserliana 3/1. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1979). Aufsätze und Rezensionen (1890-1910). Edited by Bernhard Rang. Husserliana 22. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1980). Phantasie, Bildbewusstsein, Erinnerung. Zur Phänomenologie der anschaulichen Vergegenwärtigungen. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1898-1925). Edited by Eduard Marbach. Husserliana 23. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1982). Ideas Pertaining to a Pure Phenomenology and to a Phenomenological Philosophy. First Book: General Introduction to a Pure Phenomenology. Translated by Fred Kersten. Collected Works 2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Husserl, E. (1984a). Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band. Erster Teil. Untersuchungen zur Phämenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Edited by Ursula Panzer. Husserliana 19/1. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Kluwer).
Husserl, E. (1984b). Logische Untersuchungen. Zweiter Band. Zweiter Teil. Untersuchungen zur Phänomenologie und Theorie der Erkenntnis. Edited by Ursula Panzer. Husserliana 19/2. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff (Kluwer).
Husserl, E. (1984c). Einleitung in die Logik und Erkenntnistheorie. Vorlesungen 1906/07. Edited by Ullrich Melle. Husserliana 24. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff (Kluwer).
Husserl, E. (1987). Vorlesungen über Bedeutungslehre Sommersemester 1908. Edited by Ursula Panzer. Husserliana 26. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff (Kluwer).
Husserl, E. (1988). Vorlesungen über Ethik und Wertlehre 1908-1914. Edited by Ullrich Melle. Husserliana 28. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (1994a). Early Writings in the Philosophy of Logic and Mathematics. Edited by Dallas Willard. Collected Works 5. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (1994b). Briefwechsel. Edited by Karl Schuhmann and Elisabeth Schuhmann. 10 vols. Husserliana Dokumente 3. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (1996). Logik und allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie. Vorlesungen 1917-19 mit ergänzenden Texten aus der ersten Fassung von 1910-11. Edited by Ursula Panzer. Husserliana 30. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (2001a). Logical Investigations. Edited by Dermot Moran. Translated by John Niemeyer Findlay. London; New York: Routledge.
Husserl, E. (2001b). Logik. Vorlesung 1902/03. Edited by Elisabeth Schuhmann. Husserliana Materialien 2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (2002a). Urteilstheorie. Vorlesung 1905. Edited by Elisabeth Schuhmann. Husserliana Materialien 5. Dordrecht: Kluwer AP.
Husserl, E. (2002b). Logische Untersuchungen. Ergänzungsband. Erster Teil. Entwürfe zur Umarbeitung der VI. Untersuchung und zur Vorrede für die Neuauflage der Logischen Untersuchungen (Sommer 1913). Edited by Ullrich Melle. Husserliana 20/1. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (2003). Alte und Neue Logik. Vorlesung 1908/1909. Edited by Elisabeth Schuhmann. Husserliana Materialien 6. Dordrecht: Kluwer AP.
Husserl, E. (2004). Wahrnehmung und Aufmerksamkeit. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1893-1912). Edited by Thomas Vongehr and Regula Giuliani. Husserliana 38. Dordrecht: Kluwer AP.
Husserl, E. (2005a). Einführung in die Phänomenologie der Erkenntnis. Vorlesung 1909. Edited by Elisabeth Schuhmann. Husserliana Materialien 7. Dordrecht: Springer.
Husserl, E. (2005b). Logische Untersuchungen. Ergänzungsband. Zweiter Teil. Texte für die Neufassung der VI. Untersuchung. Zur Phänomenologie des Ausdrucks und der Erkenntnis (1893/94–1921). Edited by Ullrich Melle. Husserliana 20/2. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Husserl, E. (2009). Untersuchungen zur Urteilstheorie. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1893-1918). Edited by Robin D. Rollinger. Husserliana 40. Dordrecht: Springer.
Husserl, E. (2012a). Einleitung in die Philosophie. Vorlesungen 1916-1920. Edited by Hanne Jacobs. Husserliana Materialien 9. Dordrecht: Springer.
Husserl, E. (2012b). Zur Lehre vom Wesen und zur Methode der eidetischen Variation. Texte aus dem Nachlass (1891–1935). Edited by Dirk Fonfara. Husserliana 41. Dordrecht: Springer.
Katsányi, S. (2004). A főváros könyvtárának története [The History of the Library of Budapest; in Hungarian]. Budapest: Fővárosi Szabó Ervin Könyvtár.
Künne, W. (1997). „Die Ernte wird erscheinen…” Die Geschichte der Bolzano-Rezeption (1849–1939). In Bolzano und die österreichische Geistesgeschichte, ed. Heinrich Ganthaler and Otto Neumaier, 9–82. Sankt Augustin: Academia.
Lohmar, D. (2008). Kategoriale Anschauung (VI. Logische Untersuchung, §§ 40–66). In Edmund Husserl: Logische Untersuchungen, ed. Verena E. Mayer, 239–237. Berlin: Akademie.
Melle, U. (1990). Objektivierende und nicht-objektivierende Akte. In Husserl-Ausgabe und Husserl-Forschung, ed. Samuel IJsseling, 35–49. Phaenomenologica 115. Springer Netherlands.
Mezei, B. M. (1997). [Phenomenology in] Hungary. In Lester Embree, Elizabeth A. Behnke, et al. (Eds.), Encyclopedia of phenomenology (pp. 321–326). Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Mohanty, J. N. (2008). The philosophy of Edmund Husserl. A historical development. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Moran, D. (2000). Introduction to phenomenology. London: Routledge.
Moran, D. (2003). Making Sense. Husserl’s Phenomenology as Transcendental Idealism. In From Kant to Davidson. Philosophy and the idea of the transcendental, ed. Jeff Malpas, 48–74. London: Routledge.
Moran, D. (2015). Noetic moments, noematic correlates, and the stratified whole that is the Erlebnis. In Andrea Staiti (Ed.), Commentary on Husserl’s ideas I (pp. 195–224). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Morscher, E. (1997). Robert Zimmermann—der Vermittler von Bolzanos Gedankengut? Zerstörung einer Legende. In Heinrich Ganthaler & Otto Neumaier (Eds.), Bolzano und die österreichische Geistesgeschichte (pp. 145–236). Sankt Augustin: Academia.
Mulsow, M. (2005). Zum Methodenprofil der Konstellationsforschung. In Konstellationsforschung, ed. Martin Mulsow and Marcelo Stamm, 74–97. Suhrkamp.
Nyíri, K. (1999). From Palágyi to Wittgenstein: Austro-Hungarian Philosophies of Language and Communication. In Philosophy of culture and the politics of electronic networking. 1. Austria and Hungary: Historical roots and present developments, ed. Peter Fleissner and Kristóf Nyíri, 1–11. Innsbruck: Studien.
Palágyi, M. (1902a). Kant und Bolzano. Eine kritische Parallele. Halle: Max Niemeyer.
Palágyi, M. (1902b). Der Streit der Psychologisten und Formalisten in der modernen Logik. Leipzig: Wilhelm Engelmann.
Reinach, A. (1911). Zur Theorie des negativen Urteils. In Münchener Philosophische Abhandlungen. Theodor Lipps zu seinem sechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von früheren Schülern (pp. 196–254). Leipzig: Barth.
Reinach, A. (1982). On the Theory of the Negative Judgement. In Parts and Moments. Studies in Logic and Formal Ontology, ed. Barry Smith, tran. Barry Smith, 315–377. München: Philosophia.
Reinach, A. (1989). Sämtliche Werke. Textkritische Ausgabe in 2 Bänden. Edited by Karl Schuhmann and Barry Smith. 2 vols. München: Philosophia.
Ricoeur, P. (1996). A Key to Husserl’s Ideas I. Edited by Pol Vandevelde. Translated by Bond Harris and Jacqueline Bouchard Spurlock. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press.
Rollinger, R. D. (1999). Husserl’s Position in the School of Brentano. Phaenomenologica 150. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Schuhmann, K. (1977). Husserl-Chronik. Denk- und Lebensweg Edmund Husserls. Husserliana Dokumente 1. Den Haag: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schuhmann, K. (1987). Husserl und Reinach. In Speech Act and Sachverhalt. Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology, ed. Kevin Mulligan, 239–256. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Schuhmann, K., & Smith, B. (1987). Adolf Reinach: An Intellectual Biography. In Speech Act and Sachverhalt. Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology, ed. Kevin Mulligan, 3–27. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Sheehan, T. (1997). Husserl and Heidegger: The Making and Unmaking of a Relationship. In Psychological and Transcendental Phenomenology and the Confrontation with Heidegger (1927–1931), Edmund Husserl, ed. Thomas Sheehan and Richard E. Palmer, tran. Thomas Sheehan and Richard E. Palmer, 1–32. Collected Works 6. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
Smid, R. N. (1985). An early interpretation of Husserl’s phenomenology: Johannes Daubert and the Logical Investigations. Husserl Studies, 2(3), 267–290.
Smith, B. (1987). On the Cognition of States of Affairs. In Speech Act and Sachverhalt. Reinach and the Foundations of Realist Phenomenology, ed. Kevin Mulligan, 189–225. Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff.
Somos, R. (1999). Bernard Bolzano’s Influence in Hungary during the first Decades of the 20th Century. In Vielfalt und Konvergenz der Philosophie Vorträge des 5. Kongresses der Österreichischen Gesellschaft für Philosophie, ed. Winfried Löffler and Edmund Runggaldier, 597–603. Wien: Hölder-Pichler-Tempsky.
Spiegelberg, H., & Schuhmann, K. 1982. The Phenomenological Movement. 3. revised and enlarged editon. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.
Acknowledgements
The author would like to express his gratitude to Péter Enyvvari for his kind permission to consult and publish privately held manuscript material pertaining to Eugen Enyvvari, as well as for valuable background information and encouragement. Furthermore, the author gratefully acknowledges the impetus he received from Kornél Steiger, the valuable comments on earlier versions of this paper (especially by the editor-in-chief of this journal), and the kind permission by Ullrich Melle, director of the Husserl Archives at the K. U. Leuven to quote from Edmund Husserl’s unpublished manuscripts. The work of the author was supported by the Grant OTKA PD105101 of the National Research, Development and Innovation Office (NKFIH) in Hungary.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendix: Edmund Husserl’s certificate and postcard to Eugen Enyvvari
Appendix: Edmund Husserl’s certificate and postcard to Eugen Enyvvari
Certificate (Husserl’s handwriting):
Zeugnis. |
Herr Enyvvari Jenö aus Budapest, | welcher in diesem Wintersemester | zur Vertiefung seiner philosophischen | Bildung an unserer Georgia Augusta | studierte, hat sich durch außerordent-|lichen Eifer und Fleiß, durch seine | Gründlichkeit u < nd > Tüchtigkeit, durch seine | begeisterte Hingabe an die schwierig-|sten Probleme der Erkenntniskritik | meine besonderen Sympathien erworben. | Seine künftige wissenschaftliche Entwicklung | lässt das Beste erhoffen, wenn ihm, was | er sehr verdient, entsprechende Förderung | zu Theil wird. |
Göttingen<,> den 2. März 1910 |
Dr E. Husserl |
o. ö. Professor an der Uni-|versität.
Postcard (Postal stamp: Göttingen; August 14, 1913; reproduction of a signed photograph of Edmund Husserl, text in Husserl’s handwriting):
Mit freundlichstem | Gruß an |
Herrn Eugen | Enyvvari |
Göttingen<,> 13.8.<19>13.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Varga, P.A. Eugen Enyvvari’s road to Göttingen and back: A case study in the Transleithanian participation in early phenomenology (with an appendix of Edmund Husserl’s two unpublished letters to Enyvvari). Stud East Eur Thought 69, 57–78 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-017-9272-2
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11212-017-9272-2