() wrote:

>>I don't know what "honfoglala" means,

>This term means "taking of the homeland" in Hungarian, referring to the
>singular event in Hungarian history exactly 1,100 years ago.

Thanks, I might have gone over this term once, but for some reason it
didn't ring any bells this time. 

>>because the established historical facts described by Anonymus do not
>>fit into the 5th century one must conclude that the chronicler was not
>>having in [MIND] Attila the Hun.

Sorry, I hope it  makes more sense this time :-)
 
>>... Therefore, Atthyla regis, the
>>last rex of the Siculi, was not Attila the Hun but probably the Khagan
>>of the Pannonian Avar-Onogur federation. 

>Well, isn't it also possible that the Gesta is not to be taken too
>literally, as is the concensus of Hungarian historians?  I think their
>prevailing opinion is that Anonymus tried to write a chronicle to please
>his contemporaries, primarily the nobility, filling gaps in his
>knowledge with his rich imagination.

Actually, when analyzed carefully, as Boba did, Anonymus' Gesta proves
to be not an entirely  fictional story, as many Hungarian historians
have suggested (Anonymus will always be blamed for   his inopportune
mentioning of a certain Gelou dux Blacorum :-), but rather a
reasonably accurate and logical historical account. As Boba pointed
out, the interpretation of the information on "Athila" as being an
effort by Anonymus to prove a dynastic or political continuity between
Attila the Hun and Arpad, or an ethnic continuity between the Huns and
the Hungarians, is based on the assumption that he did not know the
basic facts of of early medieval history, or that he wanted and was
able to tell his readers an "invented story. In simple words, the
assumption sucks.  Anonymus, who in spite of his anonymity must be one
of the most famous figures in the annals of historiography,  could not
have hoped to deceive the reader of his Gesta in Western Europe, for
whom he dedicated his work, a "literatus" well versed in medieval
historiography:

>>>>P, called the master, the notary of the late glorious Bela of good
memory,  King of Hungary, sends his greetings to N, his dearest
friend....[Prologue]<<<<

The Gesta, written for a friend in the West, was unknown in Hungary. A
copy of it was found in Austria only late in the 18th century, and
until 1928 Anonymus' Gesta was kept in Vienna. Moreover, Anonymus
could not have intended to mislead with an "invented" story the
Hungarian nobility or the royal family descending from Arpad.

>This may be the cause of such
>anachronisms as you alluded to above. 
>>

I can't think of any anachronism in Gesta. Anonymus' Atthyla, who was
not Attila the Hun,  fits very well into the events of the 9th
century. The information provided by Anonymus is not contradicted by
any domestic of foreign sources, nor was his Gesta known to the
authors of such sources

>>An extremely interesting reading on this topic is Imre Boba's "One or
>>two Attilas in the Gesta of Anonymus Belae Regis?"[Ural-Altaische
>>Jahrbucher, 1990, 62, 37-73)

>Wasn't this Prof. Boba teaching here at the U. of Washington back in the
>'80s?  

Yes, that's him, Prof. Imre Boba of University of Washington, an
American historian of Polish and Hungarian origin.

>I seem to recall his name from Seattle Hungarian circles and I
>may have even run into him before I knew of his fame.

Hmmm, very interesting! If you run into him again send my regards and
ask for his opinion on who was Gelou dux Blacorum :-)

Liviu Iordache

Jo napot kivanok!

I'm looking for anything nice to read in hungarian.
I'm actually teaching my girl-friend a bit of hungarian,
as I was born in Hungary. Now all we have to read is some
children's books, as my parents left Hungary when I was four!
Does anyone know where to get something nice and easy to read,
but a bit more interesting.
The best thing would be Antoine de Saint-Exupery's "Le Petit Prince", as
she likes it very much. But also the Bible (or parts of it) would be 
very interesting, if there is some modern translation of it.

Please mail to


Koszonom!

Viszlat!
Andras

Liviu wrote:

>>Frankish chronicles make mention of three cities in Great Moravian empire,
>>these being Nitra(va), Dowina (Devin) and the ancient city of Breslavva,
>>later known as Brezalaus-purc, Breslaus-burg Press-purk and Bratislava
>>however inadmissible that may be to some Chicago circles :-)
>
>Belive it or not, Chicago circles accept as facts the testimony of
>Frankish chronicles. Also, it might be more or less correct that
>Nitra, Devin, and Bratislava were added at some point during the 9th
>century to the "Great" Moravia. Actually,  the confusion between

Actually the only reference to Moravia having been "great" was by 
Porphyrogenet and then cited and recited ever since :-) however the term 
Morava in old slavic basically meant a river habitat, which in the period 
may have been applied to almost any old slavic river habitat of which 
at least two have retained the name Morava to this day, though the names 
Nitra, Devin, and Bratislava bring specificity into the picture.

>Moravia and 9th century "Great" Moravia resulted also from the fact
>that Sventopolk became duke of Bohemia in 870-871 and, from his new
>power base, around 880-890, conquered territories along the Upper
>Vistula and northern Morava rivers.  However, let me explain why some

However, the Bohemian tribes merely payed tribute to Svatopluk, also
the Vistula estuary is rather remote from Bohemia, whereas Slovakia
and Nitra is definitely in the proximity of the Vistula river.

>Little Rock  and Seattle circles have rejected the hasty equivalences
>Nitra=Nitrava, Devin=Dowina, and Bratislava=Brezalauspurc.

Nitra was the first archdiocese in all of central Europe, a fact which
was recognized by John Paul II during his visit in 1995 so it seems that
the Little Rock and Seattle circles have rejected Rome's recognition.
Mount Zobor, in Nitra, stands to this day, the monastery upon Zobor also
stands and had been the subject of numerous documents wherein its tax
priviledges had been reaffirmed, first in the Zoborska' Listina of 1111,
then in the Zoborska' Listina of 1113, the original of which was the basis
for the Uhor king Bela IV's Bull of 1249, which was then the basis for king
Zigmund's Bull of 1410, then again in 1592 and 1628, thereby presenting
a continuum in the Zobor monastery's tax priviledges, which have a long
established record of reaffirmation of priviledges dating to Stephan I,
whose coins have preserved the name of Breslava Civ(itas) and his name.

>Nitra, Nitrava, Nitrensis
>Based on Conversio Bagoariorum et Carantanorum, it was argued that
>sometimes after 833 Moimir, the duke of the Moravians, defeated
>Pribina, a rival Slavic warlord, whose lordship was centered in Nitra,
{deleted}
>Interpreted in this manner, the passage of Conversio has been used to
>"demonstrate" that the southern Moravian thesis is untenable.
>According to Bowlus (1995, p.105), the conclusion is unwarranted:
>
>The author of the Conversio simply wrote that "Priwina exulatus a Moimaro
>duce Maravorum supra Danubium venit ad  Ratbodum." The place *from
>which* he had been expelled is unspecified in this text. The assertion
>that he came from Nitra north of the Danube is based on a separate
>passage in the Conversio. It states that Archbishop Adalram of
>Salzburg (821-836) had consecrated a church on the allodial lands of
>Pribina *in Nitrava ultra Danubium*[...] the passage concerning the
>church in Nitrava is suspect. A glance at the Conversio makes it
>apparent that is it is completely out of place and disrupts the
>continuity of the text. After recounting Pribina's construction of a
>fortification in the swamps and forests on the Zala (after 838), the
>text erratically jumps backward in time to the consecration of the
>church in Nitrava (presumably before 833), then it continues to
>discuss the completion of the fortress of Zalavar and the consecration
>of a church dedicated to the virgin there (c.850)<<<

>
>Bingo! Since the church in Nitrava was consecrated before Pribina's
>expulsion, he must have overseen the consecration of a church on his
>property before he had been baptized (which happened after his
>expulsion). Kind of weird, isn't it?  Bowlus emphasized that the

Pribina's wife was Frankish, therefore it may not have been all that
weird that Adalram would have consecrated the church for Pribina to
the bavarian saint St. Emeram for his Frankish wife, who may well have
been baptized already, just as Vajk (Stephan I) married a Bavarian.

>passage concerning Nitrava was not part of the original version of
>Conversio and, therefore, no hypothesis should be based on it. In any

Annales Fuldenses, mentioned by Birnbaum, also mention the church
of St. Emeram having been consecrated by Adalram, which correlates with
a passage in the 3rd book, 3rd chapter of Imago Antique Hungariae
published in 1733 by Samuel Timon, drawing from Aventinus amongst others.
In Imago Antique Hungariae, Timon discusses the chronicles of prior
medieval historians and presents them with the insight of a Jesuit
into the Latin terminology of the period. In his treatise Timon also
makes mention of the Frankish chroniclers of the Annales Fuldenses,
which documented various Frankish expeditions to the Moravian empire
consisting of the Morava and Nitra principalities and indicated that
there were 30 castles in the Nitra principality, while there were
only 11 castles in the Morava principality, and that the archbishop
of Salzburg had consecrated a church to St. Emeram in Nitra for Pribina
during one of these expeditions. The point being that Conversio may not
be the sole reference to the consecration of the church to St. Emeram
in Nitrava, as demonstrated in the Bavarian historiography of Johann
Thurmayer in the middle ages, amongst others, cited by Timon in Imago.
Not having read Bowlus the question comes to mind whether Bowlus had
given consideration to sources other than Conversion in formulating
his hypothesis concerning Nitrava.

>case, although it is impossible to say where precisely Pribina's
>original residence was located, strong evidence indicate that the
>place from which he was expelled by Moimir was not Nitra.

In a prior chapter, Timon citing bavarian historians amongst others wrote
that Mojmir (I) rose to preeminence in the Nitra principality in battles
along the Vah river and upon the middle Danube, not along the Morava river
supporting the interpretation that Mojmir expelled Pribina from Nitra.

All disclaimers apply. Not speaking for FORD.

 (Tony Pace) wrote:

>Actually the only reference to Moravia having been "great" was by 
>Porphyrogenet and then cited and recited ever since :-)

It is not a surprise that a dedicated Boba fan :-), as you presumably
are, knows that Porphyrogenitus, referring to megale Moravia, meant
"old" or "former" Moravia, not "great" Moravia.

>however the term 
>Morava in old slavic basically meant a river habitat, which in the period 
>may have been applied to almost any old slavic river habitat 

You might be correct here, but Porphyrogenitus located the land of
megale Moravia, "over which in former days Sphendoplokos used to
rule," between the Danube and the Sava rivers. Now, isn't so that he
was not referring to "any old slavic river habitat?" 

Just because you mentioned it, no Church-Slavonic source pertinent for
the study of Moravia's history uses for Moravians a term denoting both
an ethnic group and a territory, that is, something similar to Niemty,
Greki,  or Shvaby. As Boba (1971) stressed, there is no such form as
Moravy. This should be contrasted against the recorded form
"Moravliene,"  defining the people of a city, not a river habitat,
called "Morava" (cf., Krakowianie, Smolenschane, and Pskoviane)
Interestingly enough, contemporary Latin sources recorded the forms
Sclavi Margenses, and Sclavi Marahenses,  Sclavi of or belonging to
the city Margus/Maraha. Actually, Margus was the classical name for
the southern (Serbian) Morava River, whereas the ancient name for the
northern Morava was Marus. 

Cosmas of Prague (d.1125) is responsible for the firs occurrence of
the term "Moravia" in Latin sources. Cosmos based his report on
Reginonis chronicon in which the term Marahenses Sclavi was used.

>>Moravia and 9th century "Great" Moravia resulted also from the fact
>>that Sventopolk became duke of Bohemia in 870-871 and, from his new
>>power base, around 880-890, conquered territories along the Upper
>>Vistula and northern Morava rivers.

>However, the Bohemian tribes merely payed tribute to Svatopluk, 

Sure, that's one way to put it, but Regino of Prum, in his Chronicon,
did it a bit differently: "[Arnulf] cede to Zwentibald, king of the
Moravian Slavs, the ducatus of the Bohemians, who until then had
princes of their own kin and people over them."
 
>also
>the Vistula estuary is rather remote from Bohemia, whereas Slovakia
>and Nitra is definitely in the proximity of the Vistula river.

That's very interesting, I never knew that an estuary can be located
in the upper course of a river :-)

>>Little Rock  and Seattle circles have rejected the hasty equivalences
>>Nitra=Nitrava, Devin=Dowina, and Bratislava=Brezalauspurc.

>Nitra was the first archdiocese in all of central Europe, a fact which
>was recognized by John Paul II during his visit in 1995 so it seems that
>the Little Rock and Seattle circles have rejected Rome's recognition.

This is what I called a hasty conclusion. According to my All-New
Hammond World Atlas, Nitra is on the map labeled "North Central
Europe," but Sremska Mitrovica (Sirmium) is not. The maps labeled
"Northern Balkan States," and "Southeastern Europe" both include
Sirmium, but not Nitra. Therefore, I guess the Pope might be correct,
and so are the Little Rock and Seattle circles :-) Actually, the Pope
is always right. Pope John VIII, in a letter of 873, claimed
jurisdiction for the Papacy, and for Methodius, explicitly only "intra
totius Illyrici fines," because Methodius had been appointed to the
see of Saint Andronicus. I'm definitely convinced that Pope John Paul
II knows that Illyricum was south of the Danube, and that Andronicus
was once a bishop of Sirmium, in Illyricum.. 

>Mount Zobor, in Nitra, stands to this day, the monastery upon Zobor also
>stands and had been the subject of numerous documents wherein its tax
>priviledges had been reaffirmed, first in the Zoborska' Listina of 1111,

Yeap, but the Christian faith was brought to Nitra only after
Sventopolk, conquered the region and baptized the people. Remember the
letter of Archbishop Theotmar of Salzburg?

>>
>>Bingo! Since the church in Nitrava was consecrated before Pribina's
>>expulsion, he must have overseen the consecration of a church on his
>>property before he had been baptized (which happened after his
>>expulsion). Kind of weird, isn't it?  Bowlus emphasized that the

>Pribina's wife was Frankish, therefore it may not have been all that
>weird that Adalram would have consecrated the church for Pribina to
>the bavarian saint St. Emeram for his Frankish wife, who may well have
>been baptized already, just as Vajk (Stephan I) married a Bavarian.

It was *speculated* that Pribina's wife was a Bavarian. No documentary
source recorded that Pribina's wife was Christian. It was just an
attempt to explain the rather curious fact of the building of a church
on the lands of an unbaptized landlord (see farther details in Peter
Puspoki-Nagy's "On the Location of Great Moravia: A Reassessment."
Duquesne University Studies in History, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania)  

>>passage concerning Nitrava was not part of the original version of
>>Conversio and, therefore, no hypothesis should be based on it. In any

>Annales Fuldenses, mentioned by Birnbaum, also mention the church
>of St. Emeram having been consecrated by Adalram, 

Under what year is the Fulda entry mentioned by Birnbaum?

>which correlates with
>a passage in the 3rd book, 3rd chapter of Imago Antique Hungariae
>published in 1733 by Samuel Timon, drawing from Aventinus amongst others.

1733 is not quite contemporary with Methodius' Moravia. Aventinus'
Annales Boiorum was compiled between 1517-37; by that time the
confusion between megale Moravia and the later Moravian Margravate was
already made. The relevant passage in Aventinus reads (Puspoki-Nagy,
1982):

>>>Our King's son, Karlmann collected his troops on the southern and eastern 
regions of Bavaria, and with the king of the Wends Bryano (Pribina),
who lived at the Danube, he turned his arms against the Moravians. He
defeated Radislav's  (Rastislav's) forces and destroyed the whole of
Moravia (the territory once inhabited by Quadi, the Suevian people,
and by the Gepidae and the Dacians, i.e that invaded by the Getae and
the Goths)...<<<

Speaking of the Dacians and Goths in connection with the Gepidae one
might think that Aventinus' Moravia was nowhere near present-day
Nitra.but rather in Romania, which actually  may be partly correct .
According to Aventinus, Pribina ruled over Nyitra (Nitra), Pozsony
(Bratislava) and Brun (Brno) However, Aventinus can at times be blamed
for employing rather questionable ethymological means to identify the
towns. For example, in light of the fact that the capital of the
Moravian Margravate was called Brunn (in Latin Brunno), he altered
Pribina's name (in contemporary sources Priwina) into Brynno and the
Latin name of the city into Brynna. It was in this manner that the
Moravian city of Brunn became Pribina's alleged capital. After this
Aventinus could easily claim that "Brynno" (Pribina) ruled over
Nitravia. It was the false ethymology of Pribina--Brynno and
Brunn--Brynna that made it possible to established Pribina as a ruler
of Brunn, as well as of Pozsony and Nyitra.

Anyhow, one should keep in mind that wherever was located Pribina's
fief, it was not on but near the lands of  Moimir dux of the  Sclavi
Margenses, and that civitas Nitrensis (Nitra, Wiching's episcopal see)
was conquered by Sventopolk, not by Moimir.
  
>Not having read Bowlus the question comes to mind whether Bowlus had
>given consideration to sources other than Conversion in formulating
>his hypothesis concerning Nitrava.

I think we answered already that question, didn't we? 

>>case, although it is impossible to say where precisely Pribina's
>>original residence was located, strong evidence indicate that the
>>place from which he was expelled by Moimir was not Nitra.

>In a prior chapter, Timon citing bavarian historians amongst others wrote
>that Mojmir (I) rose to preeminence in the Nitra principality in battles
>along the Vah river and upon the middle Danube, not along the Morava river
>supporting the interpretation that Mojmir expelled Pribina from Nitra.

Let's just say that by that time the traditionalists kept insisting on
the fictitious conception of the medieval Czech chroniclers, which
identified the megale Moravia with the later Moravian Margravate At
the same time, they adopted all of Aventinus' erroneous conclusions
(see Puspoki-Nagy, 1982)

Liviu Iordache

Please send a free eight-week subscription to my office. The
          fax number is (212)963-0159. If there are any questions,
          please contact me at . Thank you.

In article >, 
 (Peter Ulbrich) writes:
|> In article >,  (Vikram) wr
ote:
|> 
|> > I need to write HAPPY BIRTHDAY TO YOU  in the Magyar langauge.
|> >  Would somebody help, please.
|> > Thanks.
|> > 
|> > Vikram
|> 
|> 
|> Boldog szuletesnapot kivanok!
|> 
Sok boldog sz"ulet'esnapot k'iv'anok!

where "u means a _u_ with two dots on it, and 'e, 'a and 'i mean the vowels wit
h an
accent aigue (in french), basically an apostroph (in the case of the i, there i
s no
dot then, of course)
The "Sok" I added means "Lots of"
I don't know why, but the hungarians wish the other one not ONE happy birthday
but many of them, i.e. a long happy life...

Andras

I just read that the Debreceni Nyari Egyetem is publishing simplified
Hungarian texts for foreign readers. One, which just appeared, is a
"rewrite" of Legy jo mindhalalig by Zsigmond Moricz. Address: H-4010
Debrecen, Pf. 35, Hungary. Telephone/fax: 36-52-329-117.

Good luck!

Eva Balogh

Well said!!!

\ /
@@
\/

Liviu Iordache > wrote:
>
>Actually, when analyzed carefully, as Boba did, Anonymus' Gesta proves
>to be not an entirely  fictional story, as many Hungarian historians
>have suggested (Anonymus will always be blamed for   his inopportune
>mentioning of a certain Gelou dux Blacorum :-), but rather a

I don't think Hungarian historians say the Gesta is _entirely_
fictional.  Only that in parts it is.  But I don't think the last word
has been said on Anonymus, as prof. Boba's new interpretation proves.
As to Master P. mentioning the Vlachs, do you also recall what the good
notary's opinion was of them? ;-)

>reasonably accurate and logical historical account. As Boba pointed
>out, the interpretation of the information on "Athila" as being an
>effort by Anonymus to prove a dynastic or political continuity between
>Attila the Hun and Arpad, or an ethnic continuity between the Huns and
>the Hungarians, is based on the assumption that he did not know the
>basic facts of of early medieval history, or that he wanted and was
>able to tell his readers an "invented story. In simple words, the
>assumption sucks.  Anonymus, who in spite of his anonymity must be one
>of the most famous figures in the annals of historiography,  could not
>have hoped to deceive the reader of his Gesta in Western Europe, for
>whom he dedicated his work, a "literatus" well versed in medieval
>historiography:

Well, this sounds reasonable, and I keep an open mind on the Gesta.
It's been a long time I read translations and analysis of it, but I
recall that it was not only the Attila aspect that lead historians to
their conclusion of Gesta not being entirely reliable as a source.
There were other things there that were proven by other sources to be
anachronistic.  Unfortunately I don't recall now what they were.
But your bringing up the subject raised my curiosity enough to dig into
Boba's published research.  Heck, I might even nudge the local Hungarian
association to invite him for a series of talks.

>Yes, that's him, Prof. Imre Boba of University of Washington, an
>American historian of Polish and Hungarian origin.

His first name is a typical Hungarian version of Emery, for sure.

>Hmmm, very interesting! If you run into him again send my regards and
>ask for his opinion on who was Gelou dux Blacorum :-)

I've got it!  But Bossy's insinuations not withstanding, I am open to
the possibility that some Vlachs may have crossed the Southern
Carpathians into Transylvania even before the Hungarian conquest.  After
all, Transylvania at the time was still part of the Bulgarian Empire
and the main body of Vlach migration was in that empire, even if south
of the Danube.  Thus I can imagine Vlachs serving in Bulgarian garrisons
in Transylvania.  That, however, could hardly be considered a proof for
the Daco-Roman continuity theory.

BTW, does Prof. Boba know you if you are sending him your regards?

Regards,
Joe

Liviu Iordache > wrote:
>
>I don't know what "honfoglala" means,

This term means "taking of the homeland" in Hungarian, referring to the
singular event in Hungarian history exactly 1,100 years ago.

>because the established historical facts described by Anonymus do not
>fit into the 5th century one must conclude that the chronicler was not
>having in  Attila the Hun. 
>... Therefore, Atthyla regis, the
>last rex of the Siculi, was not Attila the Hun but probably the Khagan
>of the Pannonian Avar-Onogur federation. 

Well, isn't it also possible that the Gesta is not to be taken too
literally, as is the concensus of Hungarian historians?  I think their
prevailing opinion is that Anonymus tried to write a chronicle to please
his contemporaries, primarily the nobility, filling gaps in his
knowledge with his rich imagination.  This may be the cause of such
anachronisms as you alluded to above. 
>
>An extremely interesting reading on this topic is Imre Boba's "One or
>two Attilas in the Gesta of Anonymus Belae Regis?"[Ural-Altaische
>Jahrbucher, 1990, 62, 37-73)

Wasn't this Prof. Boba teaching here at the U. of Washington back in the
'80s?  I seem to recall his name from Seattle Hungarian circles and I
may have even run into him before I knew of his fame.

Joe Pannon

 (Joe Pannon) wrote:

>I don't think Hungarian historians say the Gesta is _entirely_
>fictional.  Only that in parts it is. 

I skimmed  recently through the 1992 English edition of the Erdely
tortenete. The author(s) dealing with Gesta, sorry I don't recall his
(their)  name(s), emphasized as one of the basic premises of analyzing
Anonymus that anyone must make the decision of either accepting or
disregarding, in its entirely, Master P's Gesta. 

It was not in my intention to imply that *all* Hungarian historians
consider Gesta as being entirely fictional. However, even some of
those that apparently concede  in accepting Gesta as at least partly
correct, are intentionally distorting the facts recorded by Anonymus.
Due to one of your recent articles, I went recently over the following
piece of jewelry:

>>>(Note: Those "Dako-Roman theorists, who welcomed Anonymus' 
''Gelou'' as the found "missing link" between the Daks and modern
Rumanians made not only "Gelou", but also "Glad", and the Hungarian
Menumorut as "Wallachian Princes" of X. Century Transylvania. Of
course, these historians forget to mention that the same Anonymus also
called the Magyars as "the people of the great King Attila[i.e.,. the
Hun].") <<< [Haraszti, E., 1972, Origin of the Romanians (Vlach
Origin, Migration, and Infiltration to Transylvania). Danubian
Research Center.]

I never heard of this guy before, but I strongly doubt that his work
ranks high enough to be included in a Hungarian page on the History of
Transylvania. First, Menumorout,  "the Moravian Stallion," is nowhere
in Gesta described as Hungarian; he is presented as a ruler over
Kavars, who declines "with a Bulgarian heart," to yield any part of
his territory to Arpad. Secondly, Anonymus named "the Siculi," not the
Magyars,  as the "populi Atthyle regius". Finally, Haraszti's theory
on the " Hun-Avar-Late Avar-Magyar chain" almost starts me thinking a
bit more highly of the Daco-Roman continuity :-)

>As to Master P. mentioning the Vlachs, do you also recall what the good
>notary's opinion was of them? ;-)

Yes, this is why I called Gesta a
>>*reasonably* accurate and logical historical account.:-)
 Actually, his opinion is pretty good evidence that by Vlachs he meant
the Romanian shepherds, not the Latin-speaking Franks.  As a matter of
fact,  Western annals, contemporary to the Honfoglalas, recorded many
unflattering descriptions of the marauding uncivilized Ungari. Do you
take them for granted?

>But your bringing up the subject raised my curiosity enough to dig into
>Boba's published research.  Heck, I might even nudge the local Hungarian
>association to invite him for a series of talks.

He might be one of the most suitable guests for your 1100th
Honfoglalas celebration. BTW, is there a specific day for this
anniversary? 

>>ask for his opinion on who was Gelou dux Blacorum :-)

>I've got it! 

No, you didn't :-) 

>I am open to
>the possibility that some Vlachs may have crossed the Southern
>Carpathians into Transylvania even before the Hungarian conquest.  After
>all, Transylvania at the time was still part of the Bulgarian Empire

That's debatable. Recently, Martin Eggers, building partly on Boba's
thesis and utilizing archeological evidence, as well as an impressive
array of written sources, suggested that Ratislav's capital, Margus,
was a fortress on Mures, mentioned by some sources as urbs Morisena,
(later Maroswar, modern Hungarian Marosvar), and known today as Cenad
in Romanian (near Sinnicolau Mare). Therefore, if Eggers is correct,
at least the eastern part of Transylvania and most of Banat was at
that time under the influence of megale Moravia.

>That, however, could hardly be considered a proof for
>the Daco-Roman continuity theory.

You got this one right! A 9th century  Vlach presence in Transylvania
cannot be considered proof for or, as a matter of fact,  against the
Daco-Roman continuity. 

>BTW, does Prof. Boba know you if you are sending him your regards?

No. I am extremely well acquainted with his work and great fan of his
breaker-of-myths mentality, but if I mislead anybody in believing that
I know Boba personally, I regret the poor choice of words.

Regards, 

Liviu Iordache

Peter Szaszvari > wrote:
>
>Ki az a "mi" akik nem ertik az atomelmeletet? Miert kellene
>mindenkinek erteni?
>Kik vezetnek be az uj "tudomanyos gondolatot" es milyen modon?
>Amit nem ertunk az zavaros?

Nekem nagyon "hitterito" szagu volt az illeto irasa.
Valami uj szektarol lehet szo.

Joe

"A.M." > wrote:



Yepp, things are really that bad. My aunt works in a Hungarian
orphanage, she's the head nurse there and also does some
administrative work. I visited there last summer and I could not
believe what I saw. There's hardly any money for food so they rely on
charities mostly. The buildings need to be repaired and remodeled.
Money is so scarce that they had to turn off the heat in the offices,
hallways and kitchens. They only heat up the children's rooms.
The biggest problem is that there are more and more babies left there.
Teenage pregnancy is rising and people don't have money to raise
children. 


Andrea  




>Hi all!

>I read recently that a British charity is sending aid to a
>Hungarian Orphanage.

>Does anyone know of the conditions in the Hungarian orphanages.
>Are things really that bad?

>Thanks for any info.

>A.M.

Peter Szaszvari ) wrote:
:  (Blaise Szekely) wrote:

: (cut)
<snip>

: >Kozben gyorsitott utemben piszkoljuk es pusztitjuk a termeszet vilagat.
: >Egyetlen remenyunk csak az lehet, hogy felredobva a mai zagyvalekos 
: >atomelmeleteket, bevezetunk egy teljesen uj tudomanyos gondolatot,
: >melynek segitsegevel megertjuk az atomok es a termeszet mukodeset.
<snip>
: Ki az a "mi" akik nem ertik az atomelmeletet? Miert kellene
: mindenkinek erteni?
: Kik vezetnek be az uj "tudomanyos gondolatot" es milyen modon?
: Amit nem ertunk az zavaros?
: Az uj "tudomanyos gondolat" majd nem lesz zavaros azoknak akik nem
: ertik? Vagy azt majd nem is kell erteni? (Bar ebben az esetben
: szerintem automatikusan atsorol az elso pont ala, a vallasokhoz.)

kinai zen tao reg elfogadta a lelki s physikai vilag kulombosztetesenek a
lehetetlenseget, igy, maga a gondolatok, sic vallasos/tudomanyos, okozak
a rombolast! uj gondolatok csak mas fele szenvedest fognak teremteni...

: Miert kell osszekeverni a tudomanyos megismerest, a fektelen
: autogyartassal? Persze ha mindenki teljesen eszetlen lenne, akkor
: autot sem lehetne gyartani, de ez meg nem jelenti azt, hogy a
: fizikusok felelosek a kornyezetrombolasert.

: Jobb lett volna teljesen tudatlanul? Mar keso!
nem keso! ha munkanelkuli fizikusok, mernokok, vegyeszek stb. bele'pne'nek
a politikaba... :)

: Peter Szaszvari

Kinai zen tao reg el