It is always better, to wait with responses to various issues to avoid a
hasty reply.
I do make mistakes and have to apologize periodically. Particularly after
further research about the times, as in the example following:

" The material conditions of the peasant was in accord with his economic
position, his housing, his clothing, and his food furnishing him with the
necessaries, but with no more than the necessaries of existence. There were
three types of peasant dwellings. In the districts where stone was
plentiful, blocks of it were used to erect a coarsly built structure; in
this a low ground floor served as a cellar, store house, and a pigsty, above
was a single living room with a ceiling of beams and joists, and under the
roof was a loft.
Where building materials were scarce, the peasant lived in an excavated den,
the floor of which was well below ground level and the thatched roof not
much above it. In the third and most common type the walls were either built
of of mud or clay or they consisted of a framework of lathes with the
intersteces stopped with hay or straw. The one low room had a floor of stone
or earth; and except in proximity to to slate quarries, the roof was of
thatch or rarely wood shingles. The door was kept shut with a wooden pin,
and over the door was a shutter, which could be opened. As a rule this
shutter provided the only source of light, for windows were uncommon; when
provided, they were narrow slits filled sometimes with oiled papare or
parchment, and sometimes with hay. Only in buildings of the better sort was
there a chimney, the usual practice being to burn fire of wood on dogs in
the middle of the room to allow smoke to escape through a hole in the roof.
In these dwellings a part of the structure was usually devoted to the
storage of grain and hay, and another part to the accomodation of live
stock, which weres eparated from the living area by nothing more than
substantial thann flimsy partition. Around outside of the dwelling pools of
putrid water alternated with heaps of dung. In these small, dark, damp,
cold, and foul hovels there were few comforts. A table, a dresser, and a
kneading trough were sometimes the sum total of the peasants domestic
equipment. The bed, if he had one seldom had a mattress, being made up with
hay or starw. In most dwellings there were a cooking pot, a hook  to remove
it from the fire, a grain bin, a table and a seat, the seat being a storage
box as the sole recepticle for clothes and other possessions. Such cups and
platters as were owned were of earthenware or wood. A lantern, a wash tub, a
bucket, a hand mill, a ladder and a few tools were added to the stock of
possessions, when the man's circumstances warranted additional expenditures.
The dietary matched the equipment, being planned upon the same penurious
scale. A bread of barley or rye was the staple food, and water was the main
drink. Th berad was sometimes soaked in vegetable soup and sometime eaten
with cheese, while in good times fish, pork, bacon and eggs brought a
variety to the table. In lean times life was supported on beans, nuts, etc.,
and in accute shortage upon roots, herbs and even dead animals. The dietary
of the poor ttown dweller was much the same. He too ate meat and poultry and
drunk wine only on great occasions, his normal nutriment consisting of rye
or barley bread soaked in thin soup, beans and onions, fish on fast days,
and pork or bacon with eggs as an occasional and unusual indulgence."

Well this is not very encouraging for the support of my argument.

Darn it! I have to apologize again. twice in one posting is not showing much
credibility. The text I was qouting from is from:
Se'e, Henri "Les Classes rurales et le regime domanial en France", 1901 and
Tawney, R.H. "The agrarian problem in the XVI century", 1912. I am sorry,
but the above sounded so dismal, that I automatically assumed that it had to
be about Hungary. Well that much about my comparative status evaluation for
the the then majority agricultural population.

Let's look also at some city sizes for France as an example.
First from John S. C. Bridge " A history of France from the death of Louis XI"

"It is to be noted first that these towns were were for the most part quite
small, there being as yet in France no exception to the rule but paris,
Rouen, and Lyons, and even Paris being still confined within the walls with
which it had been girdled by Philip Auguste and Charles V."  or from Lot, F.
"L'Etat des paroisses" in the "Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes, vol. XC,
1929. "Les "bonnes villes" du moyen age les plus celebres sont des bourgades
de 8 a 15,000 habitants sauf Rouen, qui eut peut-etre 40,000 ames."

Now Paris certainly was much larger (probably sveral hundred thousand) than
the erstwhile Hungarian capital at the same time. But if I correctly recall,
Buda was under slightly different circumstances than Paris or Venice or
almost all of the other western cities of the identical time. Please lets
remember that about 150 years of warfare took place in Hungary itself which
is not very beneficial to healthy growth of society. In my opinion, the
major difference between Hungary and western Europe was that serfdom, as
such, was fading out in the west, while in Hungary it became even stronger
from the end of the Turkish occupation. That is a factor worthwhile for
comparative studies but not as an abstract issue.

While searching through the background material I have run into a solution
to the puzzle of where the expression "toast" was introduced in relation to
drinking.
A piece of toast was placed in the bottom of a cup and the cup filled with
wine. The cup was passed around the participants each drinking from it until
finally it reached the honoree, who not only got (besides everything that
the participants had) the remnant of the wine, but also the wine soaked toast.

Th above is posting is not as comprehensive as i would have liked to make
it. Maybe after I get back it is possible to look at commerce and production
in more detail.
However, it looks to me that the relatively fast growth of the west was only
starting at that time, certainly Hungary had a "minor distraction" with the
Turks at that time, which may have put it at a great disadvantage; thus the
question is still was there a capability to get to an accelerated growth in
the 1700s to play catch up with other countries.

Regards,Jeliko.

19 October 1956

The Hungarian party and government delegation participates in the meeting
of a workers' council in Zagrabe.

The Central Committee of the Polish commmunist party co-opts W. Gomulka and
three others who earlier were considered Titoists. At the intiation of A.
Rokossowski and his Natolin group Khurschev, Kaganovich and Molotov.
Negotiations begin between the Central Committee and the Soviet delegation.

The Hungarian Minister of Justice pays 200,000 Ft compensaation to Mrs.
Julia Rajk who donates the sum to the reviving Peoples' Colleges.

A meeting of the engineering university students takes place at the Hess
Andras Square residence. they demand improved living conditions and
threaten to demonstrate on the streets unless their demands are met within
two weeks.

The Attila Jozsef Circle of Szeged debates the situations of the
intellectuals. there are about two thousand participants present. In the
various college towns "circles" are formed.

Albert Konya, Minister of Education, abolishes compulsory Russian language
instructions at the universities. He promises to review the necessity of
military instructions at the universities.

In the parliament building the Zalka Mate group of the International
Brigade which fought against Franco twenty years earlier, is celebrated.
Imre Nagy is present during the decoration of the veterans.

At 11:35 18/10/96 -0400, Eva S. Balogh, in response to Gabor Fencsik wrote:

>At 12:34 AM 10/18/96 PDT, Gabor Fencsik wrote:
>
>>Eva Balogh brought up the lamentable state of
>>early 19th century Hungarian as additional proof of Hungary's backwardness
>>at the start of the modern era.  Behind this lie a number of assumptions,
>>each highly debatable: that there is such a thing as a "backward" language;
>>that the backwardness of the language is correlated with technological,
>>social, political, and economic backwardness; that Hungarian was a backward
>>language 180 years ago; and that there existed things, thoughts, and ideas
>>that were not expressible in the language of the era.  These are more than
>>subjective assertions and perceived needs: they are testable hypotheses.

First of all, you all are more aware of the modernization of Hungarian that
occurred in the 19th. century, because it is part of your heritage. However,
I am aware that there is a French Academy (is that the right term) which
even today tries to eliminate such corrupt terms as *le weekend* and *le Big
Mac* from the French language. To do this, the illustrious personages
presumably sit around dreaming up suitably French equivalents for these
terms. Very similar it sounds, to what the Hungarians were doing in the
19th. century. My question is, is there still a group still doing this in
Hungary? Is it more informal or more amorphous than the group which
undertook the modernization in the 19th. century?

Secondly, one cannot just judge Hungary as backward because the language was
modernized in the 19th.century. I tend to object to Eva's notion that
Hungary was backward just because economically it was behind western Europe.
Definitely and absolutely, the prosperity of Britain, France, Holland, and
Spain was built on trade, especially that developed after the discovery of
the New World (and, as many people say, built on the exploitation of the
subject peoples through imperialism). And a big part of the problems between
Britain and Germany, I think it is well accepted, were the result of German
resentment that it came late to the imperialist table and thus was not
terribly successful in creating a profitable empire. Austria-Hungary had
relatively little opportunity for such colonization (quick, were there any
overseas Austrian colonies prior to WWI?)

Anyway, I think the Hungarians did remarkably well considering the
devastation to the country which was wrought by the Mongols and the Turks.
Furthermore, as I have said before, I think it is a mistake to judge the
achievements or worth of a country or a people in terms of its material
accomplishments. That is the mistake of the U.S. - the assumption that the
mere accumulation of material wealth is an indication of superiority. From
the little I know of  Hungarian history, it appears to me that the
Hungarians were particularly enlightened when it came to relations with
other peoples living within their territory. Also, the Western ideals of
religious freedom and tolerance and the Enlightenment seem to have found
fertile soil in Hungary. Contrast Hungary with Russia during the same period.
>
>        Let me repeat it. The language reformers had three goals in mind:
>make the language modern enough to express modern philosophical es technical
>concepts; make the language capable of catering to a new literary style;
>and, Magyarize the vocabulary. Gabor doesn't believe there might be
>differences between languages. But, why not? Surely, the language of some
>Indian tribe living in the jungles of South America can't possibly have the
>vocabulary and expressiveness of, let's say English or Hungarian.

Although I don't speak any South American dialects (heck, I have enough
trouble with English), I am sure this is wrong. First of all, many peoples
who have an oral culture have a tremendously rich language. For example, the
traditions in ancient Greece (Homeric) and Ireland (the bards) were vital,
and were passed down from generation to generation solely by memorization.
If I remember correctly, the Irish, and this may apply to the other Celtic
peoples in Britain and Brittany as well, used triads to help them remember
their poems. Things like *The Three Great Heroes of Ireland* and so on. The
important thing is that as far as the *advanced* cultures of Britain and the
U.S. were concerned, these peoples would have been considered rather
barbaric - and certainly many people are aware of the English disdain for
the Irish - but their rich oral tradition has been translated into a
correspondingly rich literary tradition - and where would English literature
be without the contributions of the Irish writers and poets like Joyce and
Yeats and Wilde etc. etc. Yet the country was nevertheless still
poverty-stricken, in terms of material wealth.

And, finally, isn't it natural that all of the languages of the world in the
19th. century had to be modernized in the 19th. century due to the
technological developments of the era? This happened in English, too, where
the practice has been to create words for new inventions from Latin (e.g.
the telephone, etc.) or to borrow phrases from French (e.g. tete-a-tete,
savoir-faire, etc.), because French culture was considered superior. Is that
a sign of backwardness or inferiority on the part of the English and the
Americans? Not necessarily - I'll give the barbarians the benefit of the doubt.

BTW, I wonder if England during the 16th. and 17th. centuries mightn't have
looked pretty barbaric to the Hungarians, if one considered the standards of
personal hygiene and the standards of judicial punishment (hanging, drawing,
and quartering for example) were concerned, yet in many ways those were
golden ages of British history. Likewise, I don't think there is any doubt
that the 19th. and early 20th. century were golden ages for Hungary. Thus
the flourishing of the arts and literature which Eva referred to.

<snip snip>
 It is also a commonplace that English has a huge vocabulary, larger
>than most other languages.

Yes, and as I recall, Shakepeare used a vocabulary of about 40,000 words,
many of them coined by him, I believe (don't quote me on that), whereas the
average person's vocabulary today has been judged to be about 15,000 words.
Judging from that, one would say that America was definitely degenerating,
wouldn't one?
>
>        I am not sure whether one can assess for sure all the benefits of
>the language reform in some substantial way. But one thing is sure:
>Hungarian literature blossomed in the 19th century as opposed to the 18th.
>Surely, this flowering of Hungarian literature wasn't only the result of the
>language reform but rather it was the kind of material and intellectual
>development which began to be felt with the arrival of the Enlightenment and
>the Industrial Revolution.

Yes, and those years were a time of relative peace in all of Europe, were
they not, so all the countries of Europe more or less enjoyed the fruits of
the prosperity.
>
>        Eva Balogh
>
>
Johanne L. Tournier
e-mail - 

Eva balogh writes:

>        I assume you meant Bela III (1172-1196). Bela IV was the fellow who
>was around when the Mongols came (1235-1270).
>
>>The problem I have, that if not from the extant document, how
>>would anyone establish when the chancellery practice started.

Yes, I went one Bela too far.

>orders the establishment of the royal chancellery. Also, it is most likely
>that we have direct evidence that the first holder of the title, royal
>chancellor, was Adorjan and his successor's name is also known.
>
>>I do have problems with the assumption
>>that the literacy increased because the number of chancellery written
>>documents increased.
>
>        I don't think that this is what our historians, starting with Homan,
>say. To paraphrase Homan, at the beginning of Bela III's reign, the king
>personally could oversee all the judications which came to his court. He
>personally presided over most of the cases. Often under a big oak tree. But
>Bela III's reign was a prosperous one, the court became much larger, the
>number of office holders grew, the royal court's affairs became much more
>complicated and thus it was necessary to keep records. Official records of
>the royal edicts. Also judications done by others than the king. Thus, the
>necessity of a separate royal office with a chancellor at its head.

There was need for assuring the survival of important records. See the
Golden Bull's
seven copies passed around to various locations to assure safekeeping.

>        "Literacy" in the sense you use it doesn't mean "irasbeliseg," and
>it is perhaps my fault that I didn't explain it well enough, or rather
>translated it rather loosely. "Irasbeliseg" is a special word used
>specifically in history. According to the Hungarian dictionary it means "Az
>irasnak a gyakorlati elet es a muvelodes celjaira valo altalanos
>hasznalata." Simply put: "the general use of writing for the purpose of
>every-day life and culture." One could add, bureaucracy to this description.
>So, it doesn't mean that because we had a chancellery suddenly more people
>could read or write, but that writing replaced orality in administration.

As it is getting clearer, we may even agree on the surmised effect of the
chancellery or for the actual reason for its establishment.

>>In spite of the availabilty of documents signed as Chancellor? This is
>>closer to what I have stated, that it ws a stepwise growth, probaly first
>>resulting in a chancellor and later a chancellery, but all of this before
>>the 1200s.
>
>        Question #1? Are you reading this documents in the original Latin or
>in Hungarian translations? Question #2? Did you realize that it is not
>enough to pick up a Latin-English/Hungarian dictionary, for example, when
>one is doing research on medieval history. It is not even enough to consult
>a general medieval Latin-English/Hungarian dictionary. There is such animal
>as Medieval Hungarian Latin/Hungarian Dictionary. That is, Latin used in
>Hungary differed in many respects from Latin used in Germany or France, or
>England. Well, as far as "kancellar" is concerned "cancellarius" simply
>meant "doorman, head of an office." Thus, just because you found a document
>signed "cancellarius" it doesn't mean that he was head of the royal
>"kancellaria/chancellery. It most likely meant the head of some kind of
>office, the office which prepared the document.

Sorry, as I stated earlier, it was Greek that I clamied for needing a
dictionary. The issue here may not get clearer by your wordsmithing. I did
not go even as far as to claim that the "chancellor" from Bela II's time
document is possibly a "head of an office" as shown in your above
translation. I just stated that there was a chancellor writing the document.
What is wrong with having a Chancellor before an Office of the Chancellor is
established. Here in the US, we did not start having a Secretary of State
when the State Department as such was established. Neither did our foreign
policy start with the establishment of the State Department. The case is a
response to the increase of burocracy needed to handle the paperwork.

>>What I see is  that through Bela II and Bela III the documentation was
>>increasing (the country was developing and Bela III copied some of the
>>Byzantine practice) and there are already documents signed as chancellor. By
>>the time of Bela IV, (again for explanable reason) the office became quite
>>busy. But please consider whether the continuing explosion of government
>>officies with their commensurate paperwork have any influence on literacy
>>today.
>
>        I already pointed out that you misunderstood the word "irasbeliseg."
>It is not the same as "irni-olvasni tudas = literacy."

Thank you that adds clarification, and I agree without reservation that the
number of documents increased from the estbalishment of the office of the
chancellor.

>>The more I read the less satisfied I became
>>with the general histories and their oft cavallier handling of source data.
>
>        As I said. If you are interested in a specific topic and want to
>dwell into it deeply, you don't go to a general history. You go to
>monographs. First, you go to bibliographies to find out where you can find
>these monographs (which periodicals). I wasn't getting my information on
>Hungarian foreign policy in 1919-1920 from general histories either. They
>had about one or two sentences on the topic, if I was lucky.
>
> A reform
>eredmenyekent *1200 korul* a szobeliseget felvaltja az irasbeliseg idoszaka,
>amelyrol az ismereteink mar osszehasonlithatlanul alaposabbak es
>reszletesebbek, mint az Arpad-kor elso ket evszazadarol. A magyar kiralysag
>ekkor kezd igazabol betagolodni a kereszteny Europaba." Out of this the only
>thing I quoted was that "around 1200" Hungary entered the age of
>"irasbeliseg" which, for lack of better English word, I put down as
>"irasbeliseg/literacy." Admittedly, it would have been better to simply
>describe it as "the use of written records."

Again, it reads better, but I am still disagreeing with the tacked on term
used by Engel that this change started the "betagolodas" (incorporation) of
Hungary into Christian Europe. The establishement of the Office of
Chancellery by Bela III was more likely based on his experiences at the
Byzantine court, than from any specific desire to incorporate by act or by
consequence into Christian Europe.  What type of criteria is this "betagolodas"
(must be another nyelvujitas word!) incorporation into Christian Europe? As
an example, is the slaughter and expulsion of a highly cultured Moorish
population indicated a
Spanish "betagolodas" into Christian Europe? Or was Charlemagne's slaughter
of the Saxons an indication of the same for the Saxons? Why can't an issue
be discussed on its own merits?

>        I don't know a thing about St. Laszlo's courier service, but I am
>sure there are monographs dealing with this aspect of his laws also. But, of
>course, one must keep in mind that not all laws could be applied--they
>remained on the book, as we say. With this I don't want to say that
>Hungary's courier service was not two hundred years ahead of France's.
Sorry, if I indicated that it was two hundred years before France's, I
thought I have indicated it was two hundred years before the Mongols. God
only knows how much earlier it was than France's or other parts of Christian
Europe?

>Maybe. But I wouldn't jump to conclusions until I knew more about this
>question than what St. Laszlo's laws tell us.

Now the law discusses the handling of the mounts, what to do with left
behind horses and so on. It would be somewhat foolish to establish laws
about it if it was not a problem. Or is it questionable just because the law
shows that a royal pony express was operating in Hungary? Or because it
cannot be considered as a "betagolodas" into "Christian Europe", it is not
important? Why should not both the good and the bad be accepted? The various
royal edicts are accepted verbatim if they are used to show lack or late
progress compared to another place. Am I "hungarocentric" because I ask
these questions?

Regards,Jeliko.

Johanne:

Thank you for an erudite evaluation on the above subject.

I think, at issue is, whether the incorporation or the translation of a word
is considered more "advanced". As an example most other languages
incorporated words from Latin or Greek, while the Hungarians translated (and
in some cases remongrified) the words into Hungarian. In French, Italian,
Spanish and to some extent English the incorporation does not stand out (but
check the words and see how many are French either from the Norman invasion
and how many were incorporated later). The Germans did some of both and the
"translations" at times are as unwieldy as in Hungarian.

Please do not underestimate the richness of the Hungarian language either. I
tried at one time to find English equivalents to the many expressions of
personal motion ( megy, jar, jarkal, fut, szalad, ballag, gyalogol, baktat,
koborol, talpal, rohan, o:d:ong,
o:do:lo:g, oson, mendegel, futkarozik, oldalog, setal, cammog, bandukol,
menetel, sundorog, etc.) and could not find many of the equivalents words.
My favorit poet Arany
wrote many poems in which to my knowledge there are mostly old sounding
words (I never did a scientific analysis of them!), and they are, to me,
more beautiful than those which show the effects of the language reform.
Jokai, was a more frequent user of the new words, but also fortunately many
of the "creations" just plain disappeared.

BTW, I am only aware of the steaming jungles of Franz Joseph Land as an
external possession, where the Monarchy was exploiting the native. However,
I have not checked any records regarding the possible establishment of the
Chancellery of Colonial Affairs. There may have been some islands which were
claimed, but probably they are completly underwater by now. Some of our
recent history specialists surly can give a more authorative answer.

In some ways I am reminded of the old story about the simple farmer who
bought "salami"
rather than good old kolbasz and the store gave him a written document
describing variuos ways of preparing it or eating it. He sat down on a log
in his yard and placed the salami next to him while he was reading the
"instructions". His dog came up to him
and grabbed the salami and run off with it. At which time the farmer said;
"Viheted kutya nalam a recept." (You can take it dog, I have the instructions.)


Regards,Jeliko.

Jeliko now resorts to sarcasm. Instead of admitting his real
mistakes he creates fake ones:

>Darn it! I have to apologize again. twice in one posting is not showing much
>credibility. The text I was qouting from is from:
>Se'e, Henri "Les Classes rurales et le regime domanial en France", 1901 and
>Tawney, R.H. "The agrarian problem in the XVI century", 1912. I am sorry,
>but the above sounded so dismal, that I automatically assumed that it had to
>be about Hungary. Well that much about my comparative status evaluation for
>the the then majority agricultural population.

        Instead of the above, perhaps it would have been better to admit
that Pal Engel and Eva Balogh didn't talk about "the 1200s" and "literacy"
when talking abut the establishment of the chancellery, but they used the
expressions "around 1200," and "irasbeliseg=use of written documents."

        As for the above, we have no idea what age Henri Se'e is talking
about. As for Tawney's book, who ever said that the peasants of Europe lived
like princes either in the 12th or the 16th centuries. The above says
nothing about the East European conditions or anything concerning
comparisons between east and west.

        And, of course, I am also able to quote--at least talking of the
12th century and not the 16th--passages concerning peasant dwellings. Otto
of Freising claimed that most of the houses were "built of reed, rarely of
wood... and therefore they spend the whole summer and autumn in tents." Then
Pal Engel: "A regeszet az emlitett fahazak colopnyomait, valamint foldbe
melyitett es naddal fedett, ezert nadepitmenynek latszo, ablaktalan,
foldpadlos kunyhok maradvanyait tarta fel, ezek lehettek a falusi nepesseg,
szabadok es szolgak megszokott szallasai. Nemelyik egy, masik ket
helyisegbol allt. A kemencet az egyik sarokba epitettek, kemeny nem volt, a
fust a hazban terjengett es az ajtonyilason tavozott. Amig az idojaras
engedte, satorban eltek, amit a haz mellett vertek fel.... A koepulet eppoly
ritka lehetett, mint nyugaton a 10-11. szazadig--magyaran a templomok egy
resze, nehany udvarhaz meg palota epult kobol. Ez is mutatja, hogy a varosok
inkabb nagymeretu falvak benyomasat kelthettek, eroditmenyeik nem voltak es
termeszetesen hianyoztak meg ekkor azok a tartalmi jegyek is, amelyek az uj
nyugati varostipust ezekben az evtizedekben kezdik jellemezni; vagyis nem
volt onkormanyzatuk." For those of you who can't read Hungarian: The houses
consisted of dug-outs, with dirt floors covered with reed. Some of them had
only one room, some two. In one corner there was a stove but no chimney, and
the smoke spread all over the room and exited through the door. Wheather
permitting they lived in tents which they set up next to the house.
Buildings made out of stone were as rare [in the middle of the 12th century]
as in the tenth and eleventh centuries in the West--to be precise, parts of
churches, some manor houses and mansions. That's why the cities looked more
like oversized villages without fortifications and of course, missing
was--what by that time began to part of city life in the west--self-government.

>Let's look also at some city sizes for France as an example.
>First from John S. C. Bridge " A history of France from the death of Louis XI"
>
>"It is to be noted first that these towns were were for the most part quite
>small, there being as yet in France no exception to the rule but paris,
>Rouen, and Lyons, and even Paris being still confined within the walls with
>which it had been girdled by Philip Auguste and Charles V."  or from Lot, F.
>"L'Etat des paroisses" in the "Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes, vol. XC,
>1929. "Les "bonnes villes" du moyen age les plus celebres sont des bourgades
>de 8 a 15,000 habitants sauf Rouen, qui eut peut-etre 40,000 ames."

        First of all, it is not clear what century Lot is talking about
here. I don't have the necessary books here to make a meaningful
contribution concerning the twelfth century. But books like Henri Pirenne's
book on the Medieval city, or P. Riesenberg's the Medieval Town or R. E.
Dickinson's The Western European Town, and some newer books, I am sure,
could be useful. In general, I know that the twelfth and thirteenth
centuries saw more foundings of towns than any other until the Industrial
Revolution. These were also the centuries of the beginnings of municipal
self-governments. Even a town with 8-15,000 inhabitants was unheard of in
Hungary in the twelfth century. Even later. As for Paris, I can't easily
come up with estimated size, but put it that way--by the eleventh century
there were guilds established in Paris. Guilds in Hungary in the eleventh
century?


>Now Paris certainly was much larger (probably sveral hundred thousand) than
>the erstwhile Hungarian capital at the same time. But if I correctly recall,
>Buda was under slightly different circumstances than Paris or Venice or
>almost all of the other western cities of the identical time. Please lets
>remember that about 150 years of warfare took place in Hungary itself which
>is not very beneficial to healthy growth of society.

        Again you are jumping all over. Here you talk about the sixteenth
century and after. Pal Engel and I were talking about the twelfth. Let's
stick with this.

        As for economic developments in later centuries Hungary was making
some headways in catching up, but even during the reign of Mathias Corvinus,
at least according to Ferenc Szakaly, Hungary was still behind the West,
especially when it came to urbanization and industry. "A varos- es azon
belul az iparfejlodes visszamaradottsaga tukrozodik a magyar kulkereskedelem
strukturajaban is, amely tovabbra is a magyar mezogazdasi termekek
(szarvasmarha es az allatbor) meg nyersanyagok (ezust es rez), illetve a
nyugati iparcikkek (kivalt textiliak es a femaruk) cserejen alapult. [In
English: Foreign trade {during the reign of Matthias} reflected the urban
and industrial underdevelopment. It was still based on the exchange of
cattle and animal hides, silver, and copper, on the one hand, and western
industrial products, especially textiles and metal works, on the other.]

        In my opinion, there is no way of denying, or even minimizing the
fact that Hungary, alongside with other East European countries, lagged
behind the West in development.


>In my opinion, the
>major difference between Hungary and western Europe was that serfdom, as
>such, was fading out in the west, while in Hungary it became even stronger
>from the end of the Turkish occupation. That is a factor worthwhile for
>comparative studies but not as an abstract issue.

        The second serfdom, already mentioned by Hugh, has been subject of
many, many studies, comparative and otherwise.

>it looks to me that the relatively fast growth of the west was only
>starting at that time, certainly Hungary had a "minor distraction" with the
>Turks at that time, which may have put it at a great disadvantage; thus the
>question is still was there a capability to get to an accelerated growth in
>the 1700s to play catch up with other countries.

        And this is where you are wrong. It was not the "minor distraction"
of the Turks which made Hungary lag behind the west. It sure made the gap
greater, but it was not the cause of it. Not that I know what the cause was.
I don't think anyone doe. But denying it? But minimizing it? Why? I can't
think of anything else but misplaced nationalism.

        Eva Balogh

As soon as I send an answer to one post of Jeliko's, another comes.

>There is such animal
>>as Medieval Hungarian Latin/Hungarian Dictionary. That is, Latin used in
>>Hungary differed in many respects from Latin used in Germany or France, or
>>England.
>Sorry, as I stated earlier, it was Greek that I clamied for needing a
>dictionary.

        You don't have to become defensive about this. As you most likely
know medieval Latin, Hungarian medieval Latin, is not the same thing as
classical Latin. Even those who learned Latin in gymnasium (I understand
that you learned Latin later because you went to "technikum") can't just sit
down and read medieval Latin documents. Words can have rather particular
meanings, depending on location and time. I bet that medieval Hungarian
scholars find the existence of such specific dictionary useful in their work.

>Well, as far as "kancellar" is concerned "cancellarius" simply
>>meant "doorman, head of an office." Thus, just because you found a document
>>signed "cancellarius" it doesn't mean that he was head of the royal
>>"kancellaria/chancellery. It most likely meant the head of some kind of
>>office, the office which prepared the document.
>

>The issue here may not get clearer by your wordsmithing.

        I think this is crystal clear, and it has nothing to do with
wordsmithing. A "cancellarius" can be the head of any office, not just
necessarily a chancellery, according to the Hungarian etymological
dictionary. Moreover, checking the word in the English dictionary,
"cancellarius" could also mean secretary. In fact, its first meaning in
Webster is: secretary of a nobleman, prince, or king. Thus, the document in
your possession may have been simply penned by the secretary of the king or
some other nobleman. Since at that time there was no office of chancellery
this was most likely the case.

>> A reform
>>eredmenyekent *1200 korul* a szobeliseget felvaltja az irasbeliseg idoszaka,
>>amelyrol az ismereteink mar osszehasonlithatlanul alaposabbak es
>>reszletesebbek, mint az Arpad-kor elso ket evszazadarol. A magyar kiralysag
>>ekkor kezd igazabol betagolodni a kereszteny Europaba." Out of this the only
>>thing I quoted was that "around 1200" Hungary entered the age of
>>"irasbeliseg" which, for lack of better English word, I put down as
>>"irasbeliseg/literacy." Admittedly, it would have been better to simply
>>describe it as "the use of written records."
>
>Again, it reads better, but I am still disagreeing with the tacked on term
>used by Engel that this change started the "betagolodas" (incorporation) of
>Hungary into Christian Europe.
>The establishement of the Office of
>Chancellery by Bela III was more likely based on his experiences at the
>Byzantine court, than from any specific desire to incorporate by act or by
>consequence into Christian Europe.  What type of criteria is this "betagolodas
"
>(must be another nyelvujitas word!) incorporation into Christian Europe? As
>an example, is the slaughter and expulsion of a highly cultured Moorish
>population indicated a
>Spanish "betagolodas" into Christian Europe? Or was Charlemagne's slaughter
>of the Saxons an indication of the same for the Saxons? Why can't an issue
>be discussed on its own merits?

My, my, I am getting to know you.... I knew that you would have something
nasty to say about "betagolodas." Well, it isn't the best prose, or at least
not to your or my ear, but don't forget we have been living away from almost
forty years and therefore we might be a bit old-fashioned when it comes to
language. Again, you object to a comparison to the West, or Christian
Europe. But again, the only thing I can say, Hungary always considered to be
part of that world and still compares itself to the West. Right now the
slogan is that they want to join Europe (felzarkozni is the verb used--best
translation maybe "to close the gap.") So, what's wrong with that
comparison? Do we want or don't we want to be considered part of Europe.
Surely, just because Bela III was educated in Byzantium it doesn't mean that
Hungary's main cultural features or religion had much to do with Byzantium
in the second half of the twelfth century, despite a brisk
Hungarian-Byznatine intercourse. And I very much doubt that the
"cancellaria" in Hungary had much to do with Byzantium. It is a clearly
western concept as practically all Western-European languages adopted it:
chancellor in English; chancelier in French, cancelliere in Italian,
kancelar in Croatian, Kanzler in German.


>>        I don't know a thing about St. Laszlo's courier service, but I am
>>sure there are monographs dealing with this aspect of his laws also. But, of
>>course, one must keep in mind that not all laws could be applied--they
>>remained on the book, as we say. With this I don't want to say that
>>Hungary's courier service was not two hundred years ahead of France's.
>Sorry, if I indicated that it was two hundred years before France's, I
>thought I have indicated it was two hundred years before the Mongols. God
>only knows how much earlier it was than France's or other parts of Christian
>Europe?

        What can I say: five hundred years, surely! As for the courier
service, I find it very difficult to imagine the whole thing. There were
very few villages. Most of the country was uninhabited. Whole of
Transdanubia was covered with heavy forests without roads. Travelers could
go on for days without meeting a soul (I don't even remember where I read
this lately). The state of roads was not great even in the more developed
areas of Europe, although by 1178(!!!) the Old London Bridge was built and a
few years later the Pont d'Avignon. Bridges in Hungary during the reign of
Bela III? Try to imagine it.

>Now the law discusses the handling of the mounts, what to do with left
>behind horses and so on. It would be somewhat foolish to establish laws
>about it if it was not a problem. Or is it questionable just because the law
>shows that a royal pony express was operating in Hungary? Or because it
>cannot be considered as a "betagolodas" into "Christian Europe", it is not
>important? Why should not both the good and the bad be accepted?

        I will accept, I will accept: the good, the bad and the indifferent,
but I find it difficult to believe, based on everything we know about the
Hungary in the eleventh century, that during the reign of St. Laszlo
(1077-1095) there was a well developed, functioning courier service.
However, this is just a guess on my part. I will do a little research to see
whether there is anything on this particular subject or not in the vast
historical literature. Oh, yes, and by the way, I assume that the messengers
were carrying verbal messages.

>Am I "hungarocentric" because I ask
>these questions?

        No! Not because you ask these questions. You are because you refuse
to accept that Hungary's development was behind some other parts of Europe.

        Eva Balogh

To change the subject to something more contemporary. A few weeks
ago someone was asking whether we knew anything about what kind of
celebrations are being planned for the fortieth anniverary of the
revolution. Now, I have a few answers.

        First and foremost, at last the government and the opposition
parties as well as the different veteran associations agreed to celebrate
together and from the description it sounds grand. The cemetery where the
victims lie will be visited and wreaths placed on the graves only on
November 4, the day of the Soviet return. October 23 will be celebrated with
joy and pride. There will be an exhibition, and a gala performance where the
main speaker will be President Arpad Goncz, himself a participant and
victim. A new statue will be unveiled: The Flame of the Revolution will be
lighted on October 23 and November 4, not just this year but every year
hence. The different organizations and government delegations will visit the
most important locations: the statue of Imre Nagy, Corvin-ko:z, Bem Square
and Kossuth Square. With the help of the Austrian government the old bridge
at Andau was repaired and it will open for pedestrians and bicyclists
between October 19 and 27. The Bridge at Andau was the place of crossing for
70,000 Hungarian refugees. On November 4, there will be wreath laying in the
cemetery. I am terribly pleased that at last the revolution's anniversary
will be celebrated with due respect. Let's just hope that the monkey wrench
will not be thrown in by some extreme group.

        Eva Balogh

Sorry, but this has`nothing to do with the Chancellery or Pal Engel, this
isjust some sampling from the XVI century French information. Repeat NOT
from the XI.XII, XIII, XIV (I do not want to claim that the end of XVth may
not be included by the references of the original authors.) centuries.
I thought the reference clearly shows the date. It is just a sampler to
compare the percieved tremendous differences in the development of the two
countries. No Chancellery, no Pal Engel info was cited or discussed in this
posting, I have even changed the subject and replied on the Chancellery
issue under a separate posting.

Eva Balogh writes:


>        Jeliko now resorts to sarcasm. Instead of admitting his real
>mistakes he creates fake ones:
>
>>Darn it! I have to apologize again. twice in one posting is not showing much
>>credibility. The text I was qouting from is from:
>>Se'e, Henri "Les Classes rurales et le regime domanial en France", 1901 and
>>Tawney, R.H. "The agrarian problem in the XVI century", 1912. I am sorry,
>>but the above sounded so dismal, that I automatically assumed that it had to
>>be about Hungary. Well that much about my comparative status evaluation for
>>the the then majority agricultural population.

Please note the reference title for date!

>        Instead of the above, perhaps it would have been better to admit
>that Pal Engel and Eva Balogh didn't talk about "the 1200s" and "literacy"
>when talking abut the establishment of the chancellery, but they used the
>expressions "around 1200," and "irasbeliseg=use of written documents."
>
>        As for the above, we have no idea what age Henri Se'e is talking
>about. As for Tawney's book, who ever said that the peasants of Europe lived
>like princes either in the 12th or the 16th centuries. The above says
>nothing about the East European conditions or anything concerning
>comparisons between east and west.

I am not trying to compare princes. I was using what at that time was the
majority of the population, i.e. the peasants.

>        And, of course, I am also able to quote--at least talking of the
>12th century and not the 16th--passages concerning peasant dwellings. Otto
>of Freising claimed that most of the houses were "built of reed, rarely of
>wood... and therefore they spend the whole summer and autumn in tents." Then
>Pal Engel: "A regeszet az emlitett fahazak colopnyomait, valamint foldbe
>melyitett es naddal fedett, ezert nadepitmenynek latszo, ablaktalan,
>foldpadlos kunyhok maradvanyait tarta fel, ezek lehettek a falusi nepesseg,
>szabadok es szolgak megszokott szallasai. Nemelyik egy, masik ket
>helyisegbol allt. A kemencet az egyik sarokba epitettek, kemeny nem volt, a
>fust a hazban terjengett es az ajtonyilason tavozott. Amig az idojaras
>engedte, satorban eltek, amit a haz mellett vertek fel.... A koepulet eppoly
>ritka lehetett, mint nyugaton a 10-11. szazadig--magyaran a templomok egy
>resze, nehany udvarhaz meg palota epult kobol. Ez is mutatja, hogy a varosok
>inkabb nagymeretu falvak benyomasat kelthettek, eroditmenyeik nem voltak es
>termeszetesen hianyoztak meg ekkor azok a tartalmi jegyek is, amelyek az uj
>nyugati varostipust ezekben az evtizedekben kezdik jellemezni; vagyis nem
>volt onkormanyzatuk." For those of you who can't read Hungarian: The houses
>consisted of dug-outs, with dirt floors covered with reed. Some of them had
>only one room, some two. In one corner there was a stove but no chimney, and
>the smoke spread all over the room and exited through the door. Wheather
>permitting they lived in tents which they set up next to the house.
>Buildings made out of stone were as rare [in the middle of the 12th century]
>as in the tenth and eleventh centuries in the West--to be precise, parts of
>churches, some manor houses and mansions. That's why the cities looked more
>like oversized villages without fortifications and of course, missing
>was--what by that time began to part of city life in the west--self-government
.
>
That must be impossible, it sounds like France later. How can it be?

>>Let's look also at some city sizes for France as an example.
>>First from John S. C. Bridge " A history of France from the death of Louis XI
"
>>
>>"It is to be noted first that these towns were were for the most part quite
>>small, there being as yet in France no exception to the rule but paris,
>>Rouen, and Lyons, and even Paris being still confined within the walls with
>>which it had been girdled by Philip Auguste and Charles V."  or from Lot, F.
>>"L'Etat des paroisses" in the "Bibliotheque de l'Ecole des Chartes, vol. XC,
>>1929. "Les "bonnes villes" du moyen age les plus celebres sont des bourgades
>>de 8 a 15,000 habitants sauf Rouen, qui eut peut-etre 40,000 ames."
>
>        First of all, it is not clear what century Lot is talking about
>here. I don't have the necessary books here to make a meaningful
>contribution concerning the twelfth

Sorry again the time is the XVI century not the XIIth, This not the
Chancellery issue. Undoubtably the population was growing from the time of
Louis XII when the droit d'aubaine was exempted at least on privilaged
hospeses arriving in France (I wonder why they needed hospeses and why the
immigration of those is not treated in the same way in Hungarian histories)
" Moreover the, period was one of continuous immigration, and influx of
aliens materially accelerated the rate at which the population increased.
The foreigner was welcomed alike by the monarch,who wanted men for his
armies, builders and artists for his palaces and scholars for his court and
by people which wanted financiers, merchants, mechanics, miners, and
artisans to manage its finaces, direct its trade, and develop its industry.
In these conditions old restrictions which had hampered the alien were
removed, and many new privilages which encouraged his settlements were
granted. Throughout the south he was enabled to live and work with the
assurance that the fruits of his labor would not be snatched from his heirs
under the droit d'aubaine and in the north similar rights were conferred on
privileged nationalities by treaties and letter patents of Charles VIII and
Louis XII, The results were a steady stream of immigration which brought
into the country men of all nationalities and all classes, Montpelier was
repeopled by immigrants from Spain; Italians repeopled Provance; Nantes and
Rouen had Spanish quarters; and in Toulouse a considerable Spanish colony
enjoyed exemption from civic dues, Members of all the European races found
their way into Paris, and most languages of Christendom might be heard in
the streets of Lyons, That the population was increasing rapidly under these
ausicious influences may be capable of scientific proof, but is not open to
reasonable doubt. A well informed and obsr=ervant writer of the middle of
the XVI century, who was interested in economic conditions, declared that
there has been an incalculable growth of the population in the kingdom since
the end of the English wars." From John S Bridges above cited tomes Volume V
which starts at 1515, at which time France wa the most populous country in
Europe.

Now, why is it that in western histories of France the arrival of hospeses
shows growth and wisdom on the side of the monarch. While in Hungarian
histories it is used to show that the development could be accomplished only
with foreign help and the Hungarian population was incompetent to achieve
this. Similar event, dissimilar analysis.

>But books like Henri Pirenne's
>book on the Medieval city, or P. Riesenberg's the Medieval Town or R. E.
>Dickinson's The Western European Town, and some newer books, I am sure,
>could be useful. In general, I know that the twelfth and thirteenth
>centuries saw more foundings of towns than any other until the Industrial
>Revolution.

Yes and what happened to them during the wars in France, lo and behold the
same thing that happaned in Hungary during the Turkish wars, many
disappeared were depopulated and only later rebuilt or reoccupied.

>These were also the centuries of the beginnings of municipal
>self-governments. Even a town with 8-15,000 inhabitants was unheard of in
>Hungary in the twelfth century. Even later. As for Paris, Inturyn can't easily
>come up with estimated size, but put it that way--by the eleventh century
>there were guilds established in Paris. Guilds in Hungary in the eleventh
>century?
>
You are the only one assuming that the above is the XII century. It is the
XVI and just as Hungary in the XVIIth coming out from long warfare. I do not
have handy info of the noriginal guild s and their format in Frace in the
XIth century, but the same tome quoted above has a whole chapter on the
French guilds
indicating that they became widespread and regulated by the court in the XV
century also see G. Unwin "Industrial Orgaization in the XVI and XVII
century ppm 1-5 and 71, or Boissonnade in "Essai sur l'organisation du
travail en Poitou" Societe des Antiquaires de l'Oeast, series I, vol xxii, p
290.
>
>>Now Paris certainly was much larger (probably sveral hundred thousand) than
>>the erstwhile Hungarian capital at the same time. But if I correctly recall,
>>Buda was under slightly different circumstances than Paris or Venice or
>>almost all of the other western cities of the identical time. Please lets
>>remember that about 150 years of warfare took place in Hungary itself which
>>is not very beneficial to healthy growth of society.
>
>        Again you are jumping all over. Here you talk about the sixteenth
>century and after. Pal Engel and I were talking about the twelfth. Let's
>stick with this.
>
Let me clarify it again, this has nothing to do with the Chancellery or
Engel. It is just a little comparative evaluation on the original theme from
the the Rakoczi issue. I have responded separately to the Chancellery issue.

>        As for economic developments in later centuries Hungary was making
>some headways in catching up, but even during the reign of Mathias Corvinus,
>at least according to Ferenc Szakaly, Hungary was still behind the West,
>especially when it came to urbanization and industry. "A varos- es azon
>belul az iparfejlodes visszamaradottsaga tukrozodik a magyar kulkereskedelem
>strukturajaban is, amely tovabbra is a magyar mezogazdasi termekek
>(szarvasmarha es az allatbor) meg nyersanyagok (ezust es rez), illetve a
>nyugati iparcikkek (kivalt textiliak es a femaruk) cserejen alapult. [In
>English: Foreign trade {during the reign of Matthias} reflected the urban
>and industrial underdevelopment. It was still based on the exchange of
>cattle and animal hides, silver, and copper, on the one hand, and western
>industrial products, especially textiles and metal works, on the other.]

I am not going to jump around picking from mhere and there, but lets see
what an underdeveloped country like England traded to France in the XVI
cebtury: "In exchange for these England sent the products of pastoral
industry industry and the fisheries, a good many metals, and some
manufactures, the pastoral industry and the fisheries contributing most
largely to the general total....Horses of English breed were also popular in
France and there was some trade in talow, grease, hides, and leather, in
salt meat and bacon and in butter and in cheese.


>        In my opinion, there is no way of denying, or even minimizing the
>fact that Hungary, alongside with other East European countries, lagged
>behind the West in development.

Here goes the energezier bunny. Let me state again France after the end of
the Englsh wars was in pretty bad shape, but when all foreign influence was
eliminated and the wars hav ended the centrally organized state was capable
of very fast growth in many areas. There were same areas where life was not
too hot, as quoted earlier, and not much diffrent from that of the peasants
in  Hungary at the same time. But coming out of the war and united
uncontrolled by foreign political control, the growth really took off. Why
is in not possible elsewhere? Because it is Hungary and ............

>
>>In my opinion, the
>>major difference between Hungary and western Europe was that serfdom, as
>>such, was fading out in the west, while in Hungary it became even stronger
>>from the end of the Turkish occupation. That is a factor worthwhile for
>>comparative studies but not as an abstract issue.
>
>        The second serfdom, already mentioned by Hugh, has been subject of
>many, many studies, comparative and otherwise.
>
>>it looks to me that the relatively fast growth of the west was only
>>starting at that time, certainly Hungary had a "minor distraction" with the
>>Turks at that time, which may have put it at a great disadvantage; thus the
>>question is still was there a capability to get to an accelerated growth in
>>the 1700s to play catch up with other countries.
>
>        And this is where you are wrong. It was not the "minor distraction"
>of the Turks which made Hungary lag behind the west. It sure made the gap
>greater, but it was not the cause of it. Not that I know what the cause was.
>I don't think anyone doe. But denying it? But minimizing it? Why? I can't
>think of anything else but misplaced nationalism.

Case rested, I have nothing else to add to this specific discussion.

Regards,Jeliko.