||Re: language reform (mind)
|| 43 sor
||Re: English in Hungary (mind)
|| 15 sor
||Re: The 1700s (mind)
|| 79 sor
||What's in a name? (mind)
|| 58 sor
||Re: Logic, Church, and State (mind)
|| 28 sor
||Re: 40 years ago today: 15 October (mind)
|| 8 sor
||Re: Suicide (mind)
|| 37 sor
||Re: Comment: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)
|| 61 sor
||What is history based on? (mind)
|| 75 sor
||Re: Amazing America (mind)
|| 22 sor
||Re: the Right & abortion (mind)
|| 23 sor
||Re: The 1700s (mind)
|| 127 sor
||Re: Amazing America (mind)
|| 25 sor
||Re: Logic, Church, and State (mind)
|| 44 sor
||Town in Hungary? (mind)
|| 12 sor
||Re: Amazing America (mind)
|| 27 sor
||Re: What is history based on? (mind)
|| 54 sor
|+ - ||Re: language reform (mind)
Much as I agree with the sentiment expressed by Ga1bor Fencsik that "importing
words for imported concepts is perfectly normal", I find his summary dismissal
of the Hungarian language renewal movement completely ahistoric. His version,
presented in 20/20 liberal hindsight, is based on the assumption (by now more
a proven fact than an assumption, but at the time only an assumption, and a
highly suspect one) that nationalism itself is a tremendous problem.
Like it or not, in the 19th century everything that was emotionally stirring,
morally uplifting, politically forward-looking, theoretically reasonable, and
practically doable, was predicated on the twin pillars of "Haza e1s Halada1s"
[Homeland and Progress]. In particular, the linguistic theory of the period
was only dimly aware of pidgins, creols, and trade languages, and viewed
borrowings as a sure sign of cultural inferiority. Contact between cultures
and languages was percieved through the romantic model of armed conquerors
imposing their language.
Nor was the herderian prophecy a completely unreasonable one: during the 19th
century large segments of the world population were actually conquered and
culturally absorbed by the dominant Western European nations. In Hungarian it
was literally impossible to discourse on any "higher" subject (not only
Science and Art, but also Law, Politics, Economy, etc) without using Latin or
German for everything other than function words. Since Latin was inimical to
Progress and German to Homeland, language renewal had the support of every
segment of Hungarian society.
> Eva Balogh holds that backwardness in the 19th century led to gaps in
> Hungarian vocabulary, which in turn were remedied by the language renewal
> movement ("nyelvujitas")
It's not that E1va thought so, but that _all_ Hungarians did. It does not
really matter whether they (and E1va) were, by some higher standard of
objectivity, right or wrong in thinking so. What mattered was that _they_
thought that not having their own words for irodalom or a1llam was the
first step towards not having their own literature or state.
> "Zongora" is not an improvement over "fortepiano" by any stretch of the
Pekulia1ris muzika1lis instrumentum, lakrima1l, hneka1l, e1s vibra1l.
> These words were not "needed" in any objective sense.
Maybe not in an objective sense, this is very hard to argue one way or
another. A need is always largely subjective.
|+ - ||Re: English in Hungary (mind)
my grandfather was born in 1890 in as far as i know at this time,
austria hungary....anyone knowing any information about the village
he might have come from, or his parents name, or any existing
reliatives please contact
me his name was michael josvai he
immigrated to the us in 1908
or my grandmother barbara balasz (balas)
or if you can find either on a ships manifest, or birth certificates
grandma was born in 1897...exact birth dates as follows:
grandma april 10 1897 (her mother was barbara petrac)(her fr was
grandpa january 11, 1890 michael josvai or mihaly
|+ - ||Re: The 1700s (mind)
Peter Hidas writes:
>At 10:39 AM 10/15/96, jeliko wrote:
>>> Twelfth-century western "tourists" mention the plenty Hungarian
>>>lands produced and the beauty of the countryside, but at the same time
>>>notice that there are hardly any buildings built of stone.
>>This is interesting, would you please cite some specific source from the XII
>Actually, "tourism" started during the reign of St Stephen. The first king
>of Hungary encouraged pilgrims to travel through Hungary to the Holy Land.
>He made travelling safe and provided rest "stations" in the monasteries.
I am aware of Stephen I activities in regard to pilgrims, but very little of
the pilgrim's commentaries. What I was looking for is which specific
visitor's comments were being used in the reply from Ms Balogh.
>>most of the trading in Hungary in the early days was in the hands of
>>"Ismaelites" and "Israelites" who most likely came with the Hungarians from
>>the Khazar areas. There was a strong effort to oppress these trader folks by
>>the newfangled Christians. But even in the XI century, there are records
>>indicating the presence of "Hungarian" traders at the market in Prague.
>The traders were mostly Jewish and Muslim. The Jews were of German origin.
>There is no evidence of Khazar-Jews surviving in Hungary after the late 9th
>The traders who went to Prague were Jews and Muslim traders who had their
>bases in Hungary.
>The first kings of Hungary generally protected their Jewish traders from
>papal delegates and German citizens. Hungary provided safe haven for these
>merchants and financiers while the Crusaders butchered the Jews in the
Yes, during the crusades, there was protection from violence, but please
look at the contemporary Hungarian laws. From 1100 (Kalman) Section 47 " Az
izmaelitak minden falujanak megparancsoljuk, hogy templomot epitsenek, s azt
ugyanazon falu teruleterol adomannyal lassak el. S miutan a templom felepult
az izmaelitak falujanak a fele koltozzon el a falubol, es masutt
telepedjenek le, hoggy mikeppen egyforma sxokasuk lesznek velunk az
egyuttlakasban, ugy Krisztus egy es ugyanazon egyhazaban..."
Section 48 "Az izmaelitak kozul senki se merje leanyat a sajat nepebol
valohoz adni ferjhez, hanem csak a mi nepunkhoz valohoz." Section 49 "Ha
valamelyik izmaelitanak vendegei vannak, vagy valakit lakomara hiv, mind o,
mind vendegai csupan disznohust egyenek." These quotes indicate that we are
talking about a relatively large group, (they have their own villages) I
have difficuly assuming that they were just plain newcomers, in my opinion
they were more likely folks who brought their faith with them in groups
assoviated with the Hungarians. Section 75 " Akinek pedig kozuluk
szantofoldje van, wzt csakis pogany rabszolgakkal miveltesse. Birtolaik
ugyan lehessenek a zsidoknak, akiknek modjuk van ilyent vasarolni, de oket
masutt, mint ahol a puspoki szekhely van, letelepedni ne engedjek." Source
"Szemelvenyek az 1526 elotti
magyar tortenelem forrasaibol, Vol I" Editors I. Bolla and F. Rottler Bp. 1993.
>>Please also check the date for the establishment of the free royal cities,
>>versus many of those in the west which were fiefs of individual landlords.
>>That feudalism started in the west earlier than in Hungary is undoubtable.
>>But it has still little to do with the basic argument that started it. Forts
>>were generally built for protection. See the royal requirements to build
>>forts in Hungary after the Mongol invasion. Prior to that date, there was no
>>reason to have that type protection in Hungary while apparently in the west
>>it was a question of survival.
>Royal fortification were built in Hungary from the 11th c. The king sent
>ispans with armed support (castle-jobbagys)to control the neighbourhood.
>There was never a feudal-system in Hungary in the Western sense.
The original royal forts were generally not stone construction but more like
earthen and wooden walled affairs. The major stone based construction effort
occurred after the
experience of the Mongols being able to easily besiege and destroy the earth
and wooden fortifications.
|+ - ||What's in a name? (mind)
While perusing some old documents, I have run into some name lists from
olden days. The
names maybe of interest to some. BTW, I am not aware of their sexual,
religious or politcal affiliation, so the posting may not be appropriate for
the Hungary list. It is, at least to me, interesting in regard to guesses as
to their origin. I am starting with the earliest dated list I have and may
continue later with newer ones. (I know that the names are not as advanced
as names from contemporary western countries expect when they can be clearly
identified as originating outside Hungary.)
The list of names is from an 1138 document when king Bela II for some
reason "inventoried" the properties of the Do:mo:s monastery's holdings. I
am indicating the
locality, the county when known and the names. While the list is very
extensive, I have picked only several different region localities for the
Koppany (Somogy): Besenehdi, Bodor, Waridan, Hurcik, Sipus, Jarudi, Jutomoz,
Tamas, Kaku, Isep, Widuta, Micula, Salin, Lukeu, Petir, Vlues, Serugdi,
Madasa, Pulbert, Firedi, Lapudi, Daus, Numel, Budisa, Gokundi, Sucedi,
Kiceudi, Adrian, Beku, Petri, Egid, Iporent, remem, Benia, Emun, Selez,
Sene, Eulegen, Puke, Merasa, Dume, Vrbas, Kudusti, Vzadi, Fiadi, Patkan,
Sambuh, Bucu, Toluhi, Numwh, Vilmos, Vlos, Gekeu, Selle, Symiem, Mogdi,
Kutos, Baka, Bata, Japuh, Machari,Arsci, Samudi, Sixti, Kusidi. (these were
granted to the monastery with their "lands, forrests and vinyards".
Edele'ny (Tolna): Feles, Cunos, Laurenci, Pilop, Egudi, Lengen, Samsin,
Ecse'r (Csongrad): Gurtin, Furna, Kuteles, Wosas, Embel, Sixti, Surandi,
Micula, Waltaudi, Bandi, Bese, Tabus, Bahatur, Wadadi, Ehine, Tulhoii,
Zeher, Budus, Bedi, Mogdi, Badi, Cenke, Scerecin, Buheteg, Egus, Cetin,
Sele, Warand, Micic, Buus, Vnici, Gteu, Munca, Kulondus, Mate, Nue, Seter,
Ese, Ticla, Embel, Mihail, Stephan, Soina, Mark, Cimor, Sunthei, Keuereg,
Selez, Samsun, Berendi, Apadi, Heimu, Sumbot, Soina, Sidemer, Scegun,
Sebestyen. These were granted with their lands.
Bata (Bihar): Gabriel, Kehen, Ogus, Wasas, Weiteh, Elus, Paul, Mirsa, Elees,
Mercudi, Benedi, Otus, Moris, Kuecte, Simun, Fonusu, Janus, Keuerug, Vrink,
Tama, Vrusti, Mahali, Lampert, Geu, Stamer, Muncadi, Samsin. These were
granted with their lands.
Tamacz (Zarand): Siholt, Suda, Tumas, Bolosy, Lengen, Sumboth, Martin,
Heunes, Legia, Paceneg, Silte, Petus, Latus, Bulsu, Petuk, Crachin, Alekal,
Tume, Tusedi, martin, Suente, Etretica, Ceke, Opudi, Tosu, Tuke, Vradi,
Behu, Vdelem, Perluke, Simun, Stephan, Kuut, Filedi. These were granted with
There are many additional locations listed and some very interesting
specialties shown separatetly, e.g "In Koppany village there are three
housholds who are making glass
Lompus, Wolsu and his brother." " In Ka'b village there are 14 carpenter
households, Petus, Izsak, Peter, Petus, Zonur, Hithlen, Bugardi, Zima,
Tartaudi, Samsin, Simum, Cik, Martin, Felesi, Saba ( I know it comes to 15
and the two Petus' are shown as different)
Good luck in finding some ancestor!
|+ - ||Re: Logic, Church, and State (mind)
At 08:30 AM 10/15/96 +1000, George Antony wrote:
>As for the need to collect such info in the census, I am not convinced
>that it is so necessary. Being a rather private issue, some people may
>not want to disclose it (in Australia this is the only question that is
>not compulsory to answer), and there are sufficient private polls in
>Hungary nowadays to fill the gap with statistically reliable information.
Census information is supposed to be secret and therefore I don't
see much trouble asking for religious affiliation. In Canada once I was one
of those people the census bureau targeted for a detailed questionnaire with
an employee of the statistical office coming to my apartment. One of the
questions concerned religion. (Nowadays I know the practice has been
abandoned.) She and I had a heck of a time coming up with something because
Hungarian Reformed was not one of the possibilities. We eventually settled
for Presbyterian, which turned out to be wrong because the Hungarian
Calvinists joined the United Church of Canada (is that the proper name?).
But to return to religious affiliation in censuses. I find it
invaluable in the 1910 census. Just to give you an example. There were a few
Yiddish-speakers in Hungary (in Maramaros county) but the census didn't have
a separate linguistic category for Yiddish. It was registered as German.
Now, in order to know who spoke Yiddish and who spoke German there is only
one clue: religion. Or, in mixed Romanian-Hungarian villages, the religion
usually gives another clue, in addition to langugage, which is not always
reliable, who was Romanian or Romanian origin and who wasn't.
|+ - ||Re: 40 years ago today: 15 October (mind)
>15 October 1956
>Where were you on that day?
|+ - ||Re: Suicide (mind)
At 02:48 PM 10/14/96 -0700, Norma wrote:
>You're quite right that Slovak behavior is not very different,
>though I personally feel more optimistic about it because it seems based
>in great part on the growing pains associated with finally getting their
>own state, their name on the map, etc, and having to outgrow 19th century
>nationalism in the late 20th century of internationalism etc.
I wish I could share your optimism. Slovaks, like the Hungarians,
Romanians, Croatians, were merrily falsifying their own history mostly to
prove that the past was glorious as opposed to a rather shabby present.
Nationalism grows in a soil which is full of inferiority complex and resentment
>Secondly, I blame the failure of the Magyar language (i.e.its governors)
>to create a word equivalent to the Slavic uhorsko, uherske, etc for the
>Empire or Hungarian kingdom as a multi-national state, to distinguish it
>from mad'ar, mad'ersky for the nationality of magyars within that
>multinational state. This failure has created a false image that
>everything in the old
>state belonged to the Magyar nation, and all the other peoples were just
>"minorities." While common sense and common knowledge of the history deny
>the validity of that image, it still exists and creates a sort of
>"double-think" or double-bind that is conflicting to say the least.
You are right about the misnomer, Magyarorsza'g. It was certainly
not just the country of the Magyars and it would have been better to have a
more neutral designation. See Great Britain, or United Kingdom. But, of
course, it wouldn't have made a great deal of difference as far as "peaceful
coexistence" was concerned. But it might have had some soothing effect.
Here, you may want to keep in mind the question of the official language of
the country. Once the Hungarian nobility began clamoring for replacing Latin
with Hungarian all hell broke lose. On the other hand, can you imagine a
modern nation trying to use a dead language as the language of
administration and intercourse?
|+ - ||Re: Comment: Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe (mind)
Eva Balogh recently commented on some of Istvan Deak's thoughts regarding
Charles Ingrao's "Ten Untaught Lessons about Central Europe: An Historical
Perspective." Before I add a few thoughts inspired by her comments, let me
just inform the list that the full text in printed form of Ingrao's paper
is available from the Center for Austrian Studies, University of Minnesota,
for $3.00 ($4.00 for foreign addresses).
The ordering address is:
Center for Austrian Studies
Attention: Working Papers
314 Social Sciences
University of Minnesota
Minneapolis MN 55455
Ingrao's paper has the paper number of 96-3. There are a number of other
papers, information about them could probably be found at the HABSBURG list
website: http://h-net.msu.edu/~habsweb. I believe the full text of Ingrao's
paper can also be found there.
Eva asked what strategy Franz Joseph could have followed, given who and
what he was. Certainly he could not have contemplated the strategy followed
in the end by Hungary's liberal leadership under the guidance of Kalman
Tisza, to try to make of his realm a unitary nation-state, albeit with
national minorities. The Habsburg didn't (couldn't?) think in such terms.
The only "strategy" seems to have been that of the Taafe government in
Cisleithania during the era of the "Iron Ring" (1879-1893), which Taafe
once described as keeping all the peoples of "The Lands and Kingdoms
represented in the Reichsrat" in a "well-modulated state of discontent."
After that the best the regime could come up with was the policy of
"fortwursteln" while the nationalist politicians paralyzed parliamentary
But (and here I get in trouble with myself for something I'll post soon
in response to some of Jeliko's recent contributions), for a counter-
factual possibility, it seems to me that during the period of Joseph II's
reign, and possible thereafter until the restoration after the defeat of
Napoleon, it _might_ have been possible to generate a genuine patriotism
and who knows perhaps eventual national identity on an "Austrian" basis
that went beyond dynastic or personal loyalty (Habsburgertreu). Only,
and here perhaps I lean towards believing that individuals _can_ have an
effect on the course of history, Franz I was so limited that he actively
discouraged such efforts as were being made. History has no way of knowing
whether these efforts would have been successful had they been continued,
but certainly under Franz even their continuation was actively discouraged.
Many contributors to the discussion of the "Ten Lessons" have pointed
out that the national identity was not in fact the primary one for some
people even towards the end of the nineteenth century, so the construction
of some kind of other, empire-wide identity seems by implication to be a
logical (if not a practical) possibility. But it's hard not to share
Istvan Deak's somewhat reluctant conclusion that the creation of a Europe
dominated by putative "nation-states" was (is?) "inevitable."
"The Austrian has a Fatherland, and loves it, and has reason to love it."
--Schiller, _Wallensteins Tod_, Act I, Scene 5
|+ - ||What is history based on? (mind)
Why are many of the available sources not used by historians?
A good example is the data available from old documents. The following is
from the establishment of the monastery at Tihany in 1055. It not only gives
an economic indication for the times, but has some early use of the
Hungarian language, although the Latin spelling gets it a little
complicated. Notes in  are mine.
The composition of the grantees (by Andras I) by itself, is interesting.
20 ploughs with with 60 houses
20 vintners with 20 vineyards
5 grooms (lovasz)
3 cowboys (gulyas)
2 millers with two mills
1 turner (esztergalyos) [probably wood]
Thus the grant comprises 140 households (mansio)
In my opinion this gives a reasonable cross section of the social
composition of a
community and its economic status.
The Hungarian words are used in the document to delieneate the boundary of
The boundary is given as the line goes from place to place
"Sar feu eri ituera" Sa'rfu: eri itatora
"Ohut cutarea" O ut kutjara
"Holmodi rea" halomra
"Gnir uuege holmodia rea" nyir [akkor mocsar] vegi halomra
"Mortis uusara kuta rea" Mortis vasara kutjara
"Nogu azah fehe rea" nagy aszo fejere [kezdetere]
"Feheeruuara rea meneh hodu utu rea" Fehervarra meno hadi utra
"Petra zenaia hel rea" Petra szenaja helyere
Other Hungarian words used in the text:
"kert hel" szenakert
"Koku zarma" koku foka(?) [possibly Szantod]
"Keuris tue" Ko:ris tove [confluence]
"zilu kut" szili kut [sorry no sobri kut here]
"Kues kut" koves kut
I have no recollection of using this type of economic information in general
Hungarian history books or any comparative (if one is so set on comparing
everything to non absolute measures) information considering its
implication. Did you know there were
"hadiuts" in the XI century in Hungary. Did anyone check if it may have been
overlaid on some earlier Roman road? There are always more unanswered
questions when I read original documents and compare them to the assumptions
written in generic history books. I was accused both directly and by
innuendo of being "nationalist" and having an "inferiority complex", or
trying to "glorify" old Hungarian history. I would like to assure the
readers that I am not a nationalist and the last thing my friends would
accuse me of is having an "inferiority" complex. I am not trying to glorify
anybody or anything, I just prefer for historians or anybody else to do
their homework first. However, I am a great believer in Sargeant Friday.
Source for above quotes is Barczi Geza " A tihanyi apatsag alapitolevele
mint nyelvi emlek." Bp. 1951.
|+ - ||Re: Amazing America (mind)
Sam proved once again how insensitive he is about the current issues:
> It is, indeed, babbling. He couldn't provide any names, dates or details
> about where this supposed indoctrination of children in suicide techniques
> was occurring. He couldn't even tell us what television program he saw it
If Sam is talking about me, I should enlighten him that I was talking about
two (2) different things, which he completely and desparately mixed up:
1. The suicide quote from Father Kennedy was not aired on TV. I did not
comment this quote at all. (I was not compelled to do it.) The source,
a book by Father Kennedy, was given together with the quote.
2. The television program I was talking about had a different topic: teaching
oral sex to teenage girls in school facilities without the knowledge of
their parents. Father Kennedy's report was supported by video recording.
If there is any interest regarding Father Kennedy's mailing/email address
I would be more than happy to provide with it. He offers cassette and video
recordings as well about his sermons/tv-programs. (You may ask them by the
|+ - ||Re: the Right & abortion (mind)
Thumbs up for Johanne/Janka: (Sz. Zoli)
> I think men *should* be allowed to have a say in the
> development of regulations governing abortions.
> While I agree in principle
> with the idea that a woman should be able to govern what happens to her
> body, I cannot help but feel that in 99% of the cases, the abortion was
> obtained because the pregnancy was inconvenient.
> There are better ways to
> avoid having to bear a child - using birth control for one - and, hey,
> whatever happened to abstinence????
> Basically, I think abortion is murder,
> no matter how you try to sidestep the issue - remember a foetus at three
> months is a perfectly formed little human being who even sucks his thumb in
> the womb.
> There maybe reasons that society should allow *limited* and
> controlled abortions (I agree it's better than having back-alley abortions)
> but I think people should not be able to avoid acknowledging the reality of
> what they are doing.
|+ - ||Re: The 1700s (mind)
Eva balogh writes:
> It might be fun to revisit the original sources but they are not
>enough to make generalizations about the history of a period. Moreover,
>published original sources doesn't permit to "review of what opinions were
>formed by others." Historians'--I am talking about good ones--opinions have
>been formed by taking into consideration all sorts of things (economic data,
>demographic data, legal history, institutional history, social history, and
>so on and so forth) in addition to original sources which had been
>published. Vast archives are full of documents which have never been and
>never will be published but which are full of information otherwise not
When the published sources are not listed, or interpreted without basis, I have
questions about the diligence or the motive of the writer. It is not unusual
even in technical fields, that the writer does not reference or only
partially reference previous publications. When I run into such publication
I question the expertise of the writer ( I cannot question the writers
>The author of a scholarly book on a subject (especially articles)
>rely heavily on original research to which the reader is not privy.
Unfortunately often the original work is based on the interpretation of
other earlier generic works who's writers were not familiar with the basic
>be able to rely on these secondary sources. And most of the time one is able
>to rely on them. Very rarely did I find that the footnote references simply
>lied: the author's opinion allegedly based on documentary evidence on page
>such and such simply wasn't there. But most of the time, one can rely at
>least on the facts. And one must. Otherwise, one will be unable to have
>meaningful appreciation of a period.
That maybe true. But even the translations are often lousy and a mistake
propagated in later rewrites.
> Yes, I relied on Pal Engel's book for two reasons. It is new which
>means that he incorporated the results of latest research in his findings.
>Also, Pal Engel is a well known medievalist. The designated author of the
>volume was supposed to be Jeno Szucs (of great historical fame) but due to
>his sudden death, it was Pal Engel who replaced him. Also, Engel's book is
>the first volume in a four-volume series (only two appeared up to now) with
>the title: "Magyarok Europaban" which pays special attention to Hungary's
>place in Europe. Let me quote from the Preface by Ferenc Glatz, historian,
>the new president of the Hungarian Academy:
> "A sorozat a magyar tortenelmet az eddigi osszefoglaloknal nagyobb
>kitekintesu europai beagyazottsaggal adja elo. (Nem titkolt celja is a
>szerkesztonek, szerzoknek, hogy a magyar tarsadalom napi, jelenrol
>gondolkodasaban az egyetemes osszefuggesekre az eddigieknel nagyobb
>figyelmet kell forditani.)" [The series presents Hungarian history in
>greater European context than its predecessors. (It is not a secret that the
>editor and the authors believe that today's Hungarian society, in its
>thinking about the present, should pay greater attention to Hungarian
>history's universial connections than it did before.)]
Already the "beagyazottsag" gives me the wiilies. Is this an example of
> I think this speaks for itself. The editor and the authors believe
>that Hungarian history was presented until recently out of its natural
>context, European history, and therefore its presentation was distorted.
>Only if we put side by side "world history" and "Hungarian history" we can
>have a true appreciation of where Hungary stood when. Thus, Engels' book,
>for example, spends 70-odd pages on general European history before he
>introduces, on p. 88, "The people of the steppe and the Hungarian
>`honfoglalas' (500-900)." After devoting another chapter to "Kalandozasok
>es allamallapitas (900-1038)," he again returns to general European history
>("Europa felviragzasa (1000-1200)." And there he goes until 1440.
Certainly, nobody's history can be written in a vacuum. At least the
and commercial aspects of any country need to be evaluated together with the
archeological. etc, information. I am glad that the relevant to Hungarian
Eouropean history takes up 70 odd pages. I wonder if it is an abstract.
> It is certainly worth quoting from his epilogue (pp. 350-51) in
>which he summarizes the main thrust of his thesis.
> "Visszaterve mindarra, amirol az utolso fejezetekben szo esett,
>talan kitunt, hogy nemcsak az ujkorban jelzik eles kontrasztok a
>kelet-kozep-europai zona es benne Magyarorszag helyet az europai civilizacio
>terkepen. Mar korabban is, sot kezdettol fogva lenyeges minosegi es
>mennyisegi kulonbsegek egesz sora veheto szamba mind a tarsadalom
>szerkezete, mind a gazdasagi fejlodes iranya, mind a kultura barmely
>szferaja tekinteteben. E kulonbsegek felismerese igen fontos ahhoz, hogy
>megertsuk a regio tovabbi sajatos, a nyugatitol sokban eltero fejlodeset."
Anyone who expects that the history of even a small region is uniform, needs
his (or her) head examined. If you want to get regional just look at two
states in the USA like Ohio and Kentucky or Virginia and West Virginia and
consider the issue. Often difference is considered as better or worse
without accepting it as different. Unfortunately this extends to humans
also; but is it good to base history strictly on a comparative basis without
having all of the details?
> After this paragraph Engel tells us that Hungary, although not the
>same, was still familiar to the western traveler during the period he
>covers, but after a few miles east or south of "Brasso, Nagyszeben,
>Temesvar vagy Pecs the world became strange, everything looked different,
>and people were thinking entirely differently. Thus the traveler could truly
>notice that he arrived to the edge of `Europa Occidens'"
Well, a few miles south or east of Brasso is and was not Hungary anymore.
Outside Nagyszeben it was the farmlands and forrests of the Saxons, where
the good folks preferred for logical reason to concentrate themselves in
walled cities. Temesvar is a puzzler, but in those days it was a swamp, thus
it could be called dismal (or protected wetlands if you are pc) Around Pecs,
in the honfoglalas time there were many villages (outside the mountain area)
but it is true that later many of them were destroyed by the Mongols. Just
for interest what is the timeframe of the comment? Shortly after the Mongol
occupation? How far had to go one, even in Louis XIV time, for example,
north of Paris to see "everything" different or even today is not Grinzing
very different from Vienna inside the walls?
See how a little tidbit without additional facts can be used to support a
The role of the historian is take all of the avilable information and
discuss it in its entirety and when not sure based on the data avilable show
the various possible interpretations instead of dogmatically picking one.
|+ - ||Re: Amazing America (mind)
> I knew a couple of '56 refugees who survived this specific torture,
> amongst others, as part of their *interrogation* by the AVO and,
> apparently, it wasn't always a rubber hammer that was used in
> the smashing process...one of those victims, Geza, lost most of
> his genitalia due to the zeal of his own particular AVO *attendant*.
> I have never ceased to be amazed at how Geza retained his sanity
> after such horrible mutilations...even the Spanish Inquisition
> forbade attacking the eyes and genitalia of their victims...
The idea goes back to the Ancient Times. The Assyrian army
was famous about its cruelty against the conquered. The
Bible has passages about heaps of dead men in front of the
city gates after Shalmanazer's conquests. And the survivors
were tortured and deported all over the ancient world.
Probably the Babylonian army was not very much different
either. Because of its significant appearance the Jews even
had to deal with some special problems after coming back to
Judea from the Babylonian exile. In their collection of Laws,
i.e. in the Deutoronomy Book, for example, we find instructions
about how to handle the cases of men whose specific body part
was cut off. (Shout up, Lorena Bobbit! :-(((( )
|+ - ||Re: Logic, Church, and State (mind)
> At 10:30 PM 10/13/96 -0400, Zoli Szekely wrote:
> >Some people,
> >who think their heavenly duty on this list is a 'blanket
> >condemnation' as the Holocaust is concerned, should also take
> >this seriously
> What do you mean by this? The Holocaust does not deserve blanket
> condemnation? Only some aspects of it? Or what?>
The Holocaust was the greatest crime of the 20th Century.
No question about it. And it deserves all the condemnation
it gets. Condemning wartime crimes is the duty of any
human being of right sense.
Blanket condemnation of countries involved in deportations
is another question and I am against it. Jews were deported
from Hungary and it is a shame on the country. But you can
not say that Hungary as a country or Hungarians as a nation
should be condemned. It would be a misunderstanding of the
issue and a mistreatment of the Holocaust itself.
The Holocaust was a tragedy for Hungarian people also. Some
Hungarians took part in the deportations, but not everyone
approved it. It was forced on the Hungarian politics by an
exteme minority. The majority of the people were not
enthusiastic about labeling and deporting fellow Hungarians.
(Also, Hungarian Jews were a part of the nation. The great
Hungarian poet, Radnoti Miklos accepted Hungary as his
homeland. He wrote very nice poems about Hungary and he did
not only identify himself with the Hungarian culture, but
also added to it significantly. Too bad he had to die.)
> >In Hungary they still teach Darwinism as the only possible
> >approach to the origin of the humankind.
> In most US public schools this is the case too.
According to my knowledge, in US public schools the creation
is also mentioned, as an alternative to the Darwinism.
|+ - ||Town in Hungary? (mind)
Any guesses would be appreciated.
Was there a town in Hungary called "Oyhell" (phonetic spelling)
between the years 1867 and 1890? If so, what is the correct spelling?
|+ - ||Re: Amazing America (mind)
> And, perhaps, by the long shot of your actual
> acceptance of such a discovery; you might like to consider:
> D) Answering my question, as to who is actually financing your *visit*
> to America - prior to demanding answers to quizzes of
> your own?
So you don't know the answers for my 'quiz' questions? Well, let me repeat:
President Bill "God as I believe is the God of second chances" Clinton
did kill the Grizly Abortion Bill. He did it because he believes, that the
only human beings who don't deserve a second chance are the almost-babies
in the womb. Nice enough?
Anyway, you are kinda' curious about my financial status, aren't you! Why
are you so caring for me? Why do I deserve this special treatment of yours?
May I know that? I'm just puzzled like a stone... Maybe you have a secret
intention ...? ... huhh, to marry me, or what !? Oh boy, don't scare me to
death! Please! ;-( ;-( ;-(
(Let me assure you, I don't have to starve, anyway. Well, ... and how about
you? Are you at least well off? Any big car or nice house you deliver? How
about that? You know, I'm just curious... :-)
|+ - ||Re: What is history based on? (mind)
At 03:44 PM 10/16/96 -0400, Jeliko wrote:
>Why are many of the available sources not used by historians?
>A good example is the data available from old documents. The following is
>from the establishment of the monastery at Tihany in 1055. It not only gives
>an economic indication for the times, but has some early use of the
>Hungarian language, although the Latin spelling gets it a little
>complicated. Notes in  are mine.
Jeliko, Where on earth do you get the idea that historians don't use
documents of this sort? Especially such a famous one as the "Tihanyi
alapitolevel," which is terribly important both historically and
linguistically. In fact, it has been combed through with fine tooth comb by
hundreds of historians. I happen to have here a bibliography, covering the
works of Hungarian historians between 1945 and 1968. During this period
there were five articles just on the "Tihanyi alapitolevel," starting with
"the problems of the Tihanyi alapitolevel" and continuing with "traces of
French latinity in the Tihanyi alapitolevel." Gyorgy Gyorffy, the famous
medieval historian, wrote another article in which he claims that "the
Tihanyi alapitolevel--hitherto considered to be a fake and dated 1055"
actually has a section which is genuine and contains a gift to ten of Bela
I's servants (1060-1063).
The kind of information Jeliko quoted from the Tihanyi alapitolevel
has been thoroughly utilized in books like Istvan Szabo, *A falurendszer
kialakulasa Magyarorszagon: X-XV. szazad," Budapest, 1966. In it, Istvan
Szabo estimates the number of villages for a few thousand in the 10-11th
centuries and about 20-21,000 in the 15-16th centuries. As for the "mansio,"
which Jeliko mentions by name from the Tihanyi alapitolevel, here is another
article just on that: Ilona Bolla, "A jobbagytelek kialakulasanak
kerdesehez. (A "curia" es "mansio" terminusok jelentesvaltozasa az
Arpad-korban.)" And one could go on and on but I will mention only one more:
Otto Trogmayer, "Gyumolcsoskert 750 evvel ezelott." [Orchard 750 Years Ago.]
Where do you think these gentlemen got their information from if not from
It is all fine and dandy to have an interest in history and I do
hope that more and more people will read at least reliable secondary
sources, but it is wrong to assume that historians are just a bunch of
ignorami who don't even know how to use original sources; or, if they do,
they simply neglect to consult them. I can assure Jeliko that a historian's
life is a busy one. Even those historian friends who had the good fortune in
Hungary of not teaching worked more than eight hours a day by reading,
taking notes, thinking, and writing. Not easy, I can assure you, especially
if you add teaching and other administrative duties to research. For
diplomatic historians there is another problem: archives must be consulted
in different countries. Several languages must be mastered: at least Latin,
French, German, and English, in addition to Hungarian in our case and
depending on the topic it doesn't hurt to know the languages of the
neighbors. As for the study of the Habsburg Monarchy, as Macartney said in
the introduction to his book on the monarchy: it is almost an impossible
task because one must learn so many languages and be familiar with so many
national histories. Even he undertook the task with reluctance.