On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 23:28:24 GMT > said:
>
>numerous contributors to this list have frequently read far
>more into my postings than have been there.
>
--Hmmm.  Then there is less to you than appears on the surface?

>it has been a source of consternation to have views and
>statements attributed to me which are the opposite of my own
>on the basis of unsuccessful attempts to "read between the lines"
>and successful attempts to false adduce opinions on the basis of
>the actual text.

--See, there's the problem.  Very few people confine their
understanding of another's communication to the literal meaning
of the words.  I suspect that it is because we all bring our own
meanings to the text.  One forms conclusions about another's
communications from the context.  Some see you as anti-Hungarian.
I just think that you are a nit-picker, and I find you a very
amusing person.
>
>in short, read into what is there as you will at your own peril.

--Of course that is what everyone does.  Peril seems a bit strong,
but certainly there is a risk in reading anyone's post, especially
since we really don't know each other and can't see each other's
expressions.

>but i do not accept any responsiblity for any conclusions you may
>draw through such endeavour, nor for any opinions you may mistakenly
>impute me to hold.

--Then it is your position that a communicator has no obligation
for his or her communications?  It's all up to the other guy?
>
>i hope i ahve been sufficiently pompous and clear.

Well, I have known people who were both more pompous and more nearly
clear, but you'll do for now.  It just doesn't do to take you too
seriously.
>
Charles

On Fri, 6 Jan 1995 13:51:12 -0800 > said:
>Eva Balogh writes:
>
>>  Imi Bokor is a very irritating fellow.
>
>You must train yourself to delete unread messages from such folks.
>Otherwise you may give up on the whole list, or take it out on
>the less deserving, etc.
>
>--Greg

--I must rise to defend Brother Bokor.  He is a very entertaining
fellow.  He is what I believe the French call a "type."  There is
no mortal sin in marching to a different drum.  Delete him if
you must, but read his postings first for the sheer enjoyment of
his convolutled rhetoric.  While he is no Bill Buckley, he has
his points.  It is, of course, unfortunate that he considers the
Encyclopedia Britannica to be the final authority in economic,
political, and social matters, but there are worse sins.  And
he has provided me with some excellent suggestions about
Australian wine.

Charles

Tony Pace writes, quotes, misquotes and interprets.


> Actually Methodius was designated Archbishop for Pannonia by the Holy See.
> The Holy See's letter naming Methodius as Archbishop for Pannonia was
> addressed to Rastislav, Svatopluk and Kocel. Rastislav ruled the moravian
> principality, Svatopluk (his heir apparent) ruled the Nitra principality,
> and Kocel ruled in Pannonia, Kocel admittedly ruled on behalf of Franks.
> Pope John VIII's encyclical 'Industriae tuae', issued in 880, not only

Now Tony, there is no original of that Holy See letter, is there? There is a
letter claimed in the Vitae but there is no original. Beside which by the
time of the letter Rastislav was turned over by Svatopluk to the Franks and
the Bishop in Nitra was Wiching the Swabian.

> re-affirmed the Slavonic liturgy for Pannonia, but also took the GMEmpire
> (consisting of the moravian and Nitra principalities) and its ruler under
> Papal protection and established the first bishophric of St. Method in
Nitra
> thereby establishing an independent Church province (which was
re-established
> in 1977 by Pope Paul VI nearly 900 years later). Matter of fact a recent
> VOA report mentioned the matter of Nitra in the IX century.

Well you are getting contemporary but not to the times. Naturally VOA is the
epitome of historical expertise for the area. But let's see what folks in
those "good old days actually wrote. Regino of Prum is a good one to start
with. In his "On the breakdown of the Carolingian Empire" for the year 890,
he jotted:
"In the year of the incarnation of the Lord 890, King Arnulf handed the duchy
of the Bohemians to Zwentibold, the king of the Moravian Slavs (I hope you
know who this Zwentibold is, his other alias was Svatopluk, the guy who
captured and turned over Rastislav to  King Louis II of the East Franks in
870 and submitted himself as fief in 874) The Bohemians had heretofore had a
prince of their our kindred and tribe and had maintained a fealty they had
promised to the kings of the Franks without violating that agreement. Arnulf
did this because, even before he was raised to the summit of the realm, he
had been joined with Zwentibold in intimate friendship. In point of fact,
Zwentibold lifted the son. whom Arnulf received from a mistress, out of the
sacred font and had him called by his own name Zwentibold. The elevation of
Zwentibold, however, provided considerable stimulus for discords and
defection. For the Bohemians, on the one hand, abandoned the fealty they had
kept so long, and Zwentibold, on the other believing he had gained much
strength by the addition of another kingdom, puffed out with conceit and
pride, rebelled against Arnulf. (So the start of Tony's GME can be
approximated as 890, when Zwentibold rebells against the boss previous to
that date from the Forchheim treaty in 874, he was fief of the East Franks)
When Arnulf learned of this, he invaded the kingdom of the Moravians with an
army and leveled everything he found outside the towns to the ground. In the
end, when even the remaining fruit trees were being cut out with their roots
(OOPs even the slivovic supply was threatened) Zwentibold asked for peace and
somewhat belatedly, having given his son as surety, obtained it." (so it
seems the end of Tony's GME can be approximated soon afterwards as many
sources indicate in 894)

Source of Prum translation "Medieval Europe, Readings in Western Civilization
volume 4, editors J. Kirshner and K.F. Morrison, The University of Chicago
Press, 1986.
Notes in brackets by Jeliko.

Now, I think Zwentibold died in 894, and his sons also placed themselves
under Arnulf's fealty first before the fighting among them broke out.

But Prum is not the only one describing the events it appears that Arnulf had
(or needed) some assistance in addition to the Slovenian Prince Braslav, for
his little excursion. Liudprand of Cremona writes in chapter 13 "Meanwhile,
Arnulf the strongest ruler among the northern peoples, found himself unable
to overcome the vigorous resistance offered him by the aforsaid Centebald
(another alias for Svatopluk) duke of the Maraveni. Accordingly he broke down
- O grievous tale! - the strong barriers which, as we have said before, are
usually called the closures and called in the Hungarians to help him, a
people of greedy, reckless, ignorant of Almighty God (probably they were
*unbaptized* too) acquainted with every sort of crime, only eager for carnage
and rapine. (Now I hope you will not claim that he was a Hungarian
*propagandist* and miswriting the history like you do) I use the word 'help'
but I should rather say ruin, for when Arnulf soon afterwards died these
Hungarians proved themselves deadly danger both to his people and to all the
other nations in the south and west, What happened? Centibald was beaten,
subdued and forced to pay tribute: but he was not the only one. How blind was
King Arnulf's desire for power! How cruel and accursed did that day prove!
The bringing down of one weak man (Svatopluk) brought down sorrow upon all
Europe".

> In 950/951 The Emporer of Byzantium, Constantine Porphyrogenet wrote
> Ruling of the Empire, in which he referred to the Hungarian clans as Turks.
> The chronicle was translated into Magyar by prof Gyula Moravcsik of
Budapest
> Uni. and it was published by the Pa1zma1ny Pe1te1r Tudoma1nyegyetemi
Go3ro3g
> Filolo1giai Inte1zet.

That is great Tony, but the original Greek version is also available,
indicating the differences in the various extant copies and the Dumbarton
Oaks Text One, even has a page by page Greek-English version of "De
Administrando Imperio".

>For Jeliko's benefit(apologies to the rest for repeating)
> a short excerpt of Chapter 38 "Of the genealogy of the nation of the
Turks."
> "Before this Arpad the Turks had never at any time had any other prince,
and
> so even to this day the prince of Turkey is from his family. Some years
later
> the Pechenegs fell upon the Turks and drove them out with their *prince
Arpad*
> The Turks in flight and seeking a land to dwell in, came and in their turn
> expelled the inhabitants of Great Moravia and settled in their land, in
Tony you have capitalized the "Great" while in the text it is plain
"megalni"

which
> the Turks now live to this day. And since that time the Turks have not
> sustained any attack from the Pechenegs. But the Turks, expelled by the
> Pechenegs, came and settled in the land in which they now dwell in.

But now you are not quoting Chapter 38 anymore, you are in the middle of
Chapter 40.

> In this place are various landmarks of the olden days: first there is the
> bridge of the emporor Trajan, where Turkey begins; then a three days
journey
> from this same bridge, there is Belgrade, in which the tower of the holy
and
> noble Constantine, the emporor; then again, running back of the river,
> is the renowned Sirmium (Sremska Mitrovica) by name, a journey of two days
> from Belgrade; and beyond lies *Great Moravia*,

OOpsy daisy Tony, the word is again not capitalized and you have carefully
omitted the the rest of the sentence which goes like guess what "lies great
Moravia the unbaptized, which the Turks have blotted out, but over which in
former days Spehendoplokos  (this guy had more aliases than anyone I know
from history) used to rule"

 which the Turks have completely
> destroyed, but over which in former days *Svatopluk used to rule*."
> 'nough said.

Tony, at times what you do not say is where the meat is. First you expound on
the great christian heritage than you carefully omit the the good emperor of
the Byzantines calls the area "unbaptized". Tony you are not playing with a
full deck.
Even in those days the good folks had various angles involved, when writing
their texts, your additional mongrelizing those texts indicates lack of
balance in your attitude. Your "creativity" regrding history has been pointed
out to you in the past  and it will be pointed out to you everytime you
parctice it. In another posting you have indicated that you have studied in
Hungary, I hope that it was not there that you were taught to apply your
"creativity", because I used to think more of Hungarian education than to
accept that.


Jeliko

Charles writes:

> --Actually, this sounds more like Proudhon than Marx.  Marx believed
> in government and he and Proudhon split over the issue because Proudhon
> didn't.  But Proudhon essentiall followed Christian ethics.  Does this
> mean that your conversion is immanent?

> Charles
> Kook, First Class (I may quit writing this.  Everyone knows it now.)

I think she has taken the novitiate. She will qualify for the "siter Eva"
yet.

Regards,Jeliko

Charles writes:

>  --I must rise to defend Brother Bokor.  He is a very entertaining
>  fellow.  He is what I believe the French call a "type."

And what we back home used to call a "character".  No, I don't
advocate everyone delete him unread, just those who get no pleasure
or benefit from him.

--Greg

Eva Durant writes:
>> >"he who joyfully marches to music in rank and file
>> >has already earned my contempt. he has been given
>> >a large brain by mistake, since for him the spinal
>> >cord qould fully suffice. this disgrace to civilisation
>> >should be done away with at once. heroism at command,
>> >senseless brutality, deplorable love-of-country stance,
>> >how violently i hate all this..."

>>         You do, however, profess that the quote expresses your own beliefs.
>> Thus, I must ask you:  By hating your own country so greatly that you are
>> blind to non-revisionistic history and you (perhaps unknowlingly) accept and
>> propagate material which often fully coincides with the nationalistic drivel
>> written by others, do you not violate your own beliefs?

>The gist of the quote is NOT hating one's country (where does it say
>that??)...

        First, I don't know the answer to your question.  Second, I don't know
why you're asking _me_.

>...but hating the idea to be hero/murderer on command/soldier etc.
>I don't comprehend the position of individualism when social
>conscience is called for, and call of total loss of individuality
>(military training) for some mystical national identity...

        "Love-of-country" is the same as adherence to a "mystical national
identity?"  Oh boy.....

>There are similar schizophen fenomenom in persons, who worry about
>the life of embrios, but support speedy executions of all
>non-desirables...

        Are you trying to respond to two messages at the same time?

        Norb

 writes:
>If this was not an occupation, please give me a term which fits.

        The act itself was a conquest.  I really can't define the entire 1000
year period by one word; maybe statehood (with the changing connotation that
that word has over time, implied).

> I'm aware of the Slovakian Empire theory, but don't give it much
>credence.

        I don't. 8-)

>Let's not use the name "Slovakia" but instead refer to the
>Eastern and South-Eastern lands of the Great Moravian Empire.  The
>Hungarians seized controll of these lands.  If this was not occupation,
>what was it?

        Jeliko is providing some insight into the nature of this so called
"great empire" (keep in mind, we are talking about 900, not 1900).  But to
answer your question, did the poor souls who got "occupied" by the Hungarians
ever try to ressurect their "occupied" state?  In fact, was there ever a
collective memory (on the part of the "occupied") of their once "independent"
state?

>Of course, we could always ask a mathematician and be enlightened. :)

        Oh gosh!  Don't even say that!!!!!!!!! ;-)))

        Norb

This is in reply to someone else's reply to my reply to Eva Durant
concerning the subject. 8-)  Unfortunately my mailer ate the message, so I
can't quote and I don't even remeber who sent it (maybe B. or W. Batkay,
forgive me if I'm wrong).

        I just wanted to add that I know an American Zoroastrian personally
(his parents are from India), and it's quite an interesting group.  It really
is a wonder that they can keep their religion intact.  Also, my musings on what
Farsi is (I think just a dialect of Persian, and not the nation itself) was als
o
in response to Eva Durant.

        Norb

Date sent:  7-JAN-1995 14:37:25
>
 writes:
>>If this was not an occupation, please give me a term which fits.
>
>        The act itself was a conquest.  I really can't define the entire 1000
>year period by one word; maybe statehood (with the changing connotation that
>that word has over time, implied).

I'll stop nit picking: conquest it is.

>
>>
>>Let's not use the name "Slovakia" but instead refer to the
>>Eastern and South-Eastern lands of the Great Moravian Empire.  The
>>Hungarians seized controll of these lands.  If this was not occupation,
>>what was it?
>
>        Jeliko is providing some insight into the nature of this so called
>"great empire" (keep in mind, we are talking about 900, not 1900).  But to
>answer your question, did the poor souls who got "occupied" by the Hungarians
>ever try to ressurect their "occupied" state?  In fact, was there ever a
>collective memory (on the part of the "occupied") of their once "independent"
>state?

I found some of Jeliko's barbs a bit harsh, but agreed with much of what he
wrote.  I won't argue and never argued that the Great Moravian Empire was
formidable in any real sense.  That doesn't mean, however, that it did not
exist.
Not all lands that were seized during the Hungarian conquest remained
Hungarian.  The area that is present day Moravia (more or less) was seized
by the PremyslidsI believe I read somewhere that it was initially within
the Hungarian lands:  correct me if I'm wrong).  It COULD be argued that
the continuation of Bohemia and Moravia marks a continuation of the G.M.
political legacy (Hell, it HAS been argued).  The connection would exist
much in the same way that there is a connection between the Holy Roman
Empire and Germany (large unit breaks apart, one particular part [Prussia]
eventually forms a political unit in roughly the same region).
I have real reservations about this, however, because many of this theories
supporters have traditionally been Czech nationalists, and Bohemia was
associated with G.M. for such a short time.

>
>>Of course, we could always ask a mathematician and be enlightened. :)
>
>        Oh gosh!  Don't even say that!!!!!!!!! ;-)))
>
>        Norb
Too late, now I guess I'll have to take the consequences.  Please, correct
me on any errors:  I feel as if I'm studying calculus when I study this
period :).


                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"

I am sorry if I hurt your feelings, Tom, but comparing the Hungarian
situation to the holocaust is a very unfortunate comparison. The Hungarian
government after 1867 insisted on a unitary state. That is, they refused to
comtemplate any territorial or corporal rights. They recognized only
individual rights of all citizens. Even today, 130 years later, Romania and
Slovakia refuse to grant territorial autonomy to the Hungarian minority. So,
it was not a great sin. The Hungarians were afraid, rightly or wrongly, that
territorial autonomy would lead to disintegration. And, of course, you have
to remember that in 1848-49 there was a full-fledged civil war between the
Hungarians and the non-Hungarians and the memory twenty years later was still
quite vivid. However, the Nationality Law of 1868 was an exceptionally
liberal document, especially for its time. As far as the individual was
concerned his native tongue enjoyed full equality with the official language
of the state, Hungarian. Every citizen had the right to use his mother tongue
with any government office, court, institution, or church. Village
authorities had the right to use the language of the majority in written
communications. At meetings on the village level, in the courts, at church
meetings, everybody could use their mother tongues. At the beginning careful
attention was paid to pick civil servants of the nationality of the area they
served in. This law was never changed; moreover, several times it was
reaffirmed. However, in practice local "national enthusiasm" interfered with
the letter of the law. The number of Hungarian civil servants were eventually
in great majority. However, still in 1890 in addition to the 500 Hungarian
newspapers and periodicals, there were 102 German, 15 Romanian, 14 Serbian,
thirteen Slovak papers. Moreover, the autonomy of the national churches of
the Romanians, Serbs, and Transylvanian Saxons played an important role in
keeping nationality cultures alive. Over 80 percent of all schools were in
church hands and thus, the churches could decide on the language of
instruction. In 1869 in Transylvania there were altogether 13,798 elementary
schools out of which 5,818 were Hungarian, 6,535 in languages of the
nationalities, that is Romanian, and German. Admittedly, with time passing,
the number of Hungarian schools grew, mostly because of the introduction of
state schools where the language of instruction became Hungarian. There were
very few high schools whose language of instruction was not Hungarian. Five
Romanian high school, one German, and, until 1874, three Slovak. And of
course, there was no university where the language of instruction was not
Hungarian. I may add that that is the situation today in Romania and
Slovakia.

It certainly had a great deal to be desired but comparing it to the holocaust
is really way out of line.

Eva Balogh

Dear List Members,

   Does any of you know about an English language Russian list?
Or better yet, somebody with an e-mail address in Russia? If you
know any of the above, please let me know.

   Thanks in adavance,

                          Amos

Date sent:  7-JAN-1995 16:05:35
Dear Eva Balogh -
        Perhaps I overreacted:  I've been rude at times myself.  At any
rate, my comparison to the Holocaust was meant to illustrate a point:  I
don't hate Germany even though Germany has done things (the Holocaust being
one) which I find morally repugnant.
        I won't claim to be an expert on the Habsburg period.  You
obviously do know more than I about the minority situation.  What I have
read has led me to the conclusion that the Habsburg solution (Germanization
and Magyarization) was IMHO immoral, though no where nearly as much as the
Holocaust.  My point was:  while I consider the policy immoral, I still can
feel proud to be part Magyar (only a little; Paul wouldn't consider me his
"brother").  Even more importantly, I can enjoy learning about Hungarian
history.
        I know it is reading History backwards to judge these policies
immoral.  Formally, you wouldn't hear a word in that direction from myself.
Actually, I find the whole association of language to nation to have been
frighteningly destructive (though like most generalizations, this one has
plenty of exceptions).  States such as Switzerland have flourished.  I
don't see why multi-ethnic states are impossible, when mutual respect, etc.
are employed.
        A couple of notes:
                Several times I have noticed you implying that the French
Revolution was the birth of Linguistic Nationalism.  France did not to my
knowledge pursue the Francification of the population (who belonged to many
different linguistic groups:  Bretons, Langue d'Oc, not to mention a whole
mess of Italians and Germans).  The linguistic nationalists (Pan-German,
etc) I understood to be in the minority among the various uprisings of 1848
(most being associated with the ideology of Liberal-Conservatism).  While
German and Italian Nationalistic movements were really just covers for
expansionist policies in Piedmont and Prussia.  The real popular push for
Linguistic Nationalism came AFTER Italy and Germany's successes, as various
groups started buying into the "independence=success" propaganda German and
Italian officials were using to legitimize their expansion.
        At least, that's how I was taught it.  Comments?



                        Thomas Breed
                        

                "Like Prometheus still chained to that rock
                        In the midst of a free world"