Dear fellow-listmembers:

Just to avoid any misunderstanding, caused by the "reply" function on most
mail editors, the quote in Charles Atherton's response to my last post was
not from me, but from Palacky, about whom we had been talking, at least
tangentially, in the argument about the evaluation of the arrival of the
Magyars in the Pannonian basin.

When one says of any historian before, let's say, the later nineteenth
century, that he is "great", it doesn't usually equate with "most accurate"
let alone "objective".  I posted Palacky's own words (in my inadequate
translation) and refrained at that time from commentary.  Certainly his
approach to history, while sharing something with the professional, pre-post-
modern colleagues of later years, is also hardly what a mainstream historian
of recent times would consider "objective".  No-one reads Edward Gibbon on
the Roman Empire, or Macauley on the history of England, for their "objective"
and non-partial accounts, but they remain very significant.  Palacky, too
was and remains very significant in a similar way.

Sure, his long passage in the first paragraph is purest "if-history":  what
might have happened had the Magyars not arrived cannot be known, even in the
unsatisfactory way that what happened after they arrived can be known so many
centuries after their arrival.

And I don't think that whatever we were to call the Honfoglalas, whether
conquest, occupation, annexation, or establishment, would justify saying that
the Hungarians should "go back" to wherever they may have originally come
from as some ultranationalists (even on the floor of the Romanian senate,
if my memory is correct) have said.

Is it not true, though, that there was some kind of "state" there (whatever
the word may mean in the 9th century) before the Magyars arrived, that was
a Slavic one?  And that it had accepted Christianity and begun the process
that elsewhere led to the establishment of "feudal" monarchies imitating
patterns of political development further West?  (Similar, in fact, to what
the Magyars successfully achieved in the decades that followed).  Is it
possible that some aspects of the culture and political patterns of the
preceeding "state" were absorbed or even consciously imitated by the Magyars
in their process of establishing the fatherland?  I would be sincerely
interested (maybe you can remember something from your earlier study, Eva?)
in what the generally-accepted Hungarian historiography says about this
period, as well as what Hungarian linguists think about the time and place of
the adoption into Magyar of elements that to my non-linguistic but Slav-
language-speaking mind looked like old friends when I started studying
the Hungarian language.  Could the honfoglalas have had some aspects of
-mutual- influence about it?

Maybe in interpreting the past, this kind of paradigm (rather than the
nationalist ones of "conquest" etc.) shows more promise of achieving what
I agree with Eva is the highly desirable goal of arriving at an understanding
of our shared past without the baggage of nationalist conflict.

To this end, when I have a chance, I'll try to post here my comments about
a recently published book by the leading Czech specialist in Hungarian
historical studies, Richard Prazak (from Masaryk University in Brno), titled
"Czech-Hungarian relations from 1848 to the present".  I've seen positive
comments about it in the journal of the Society for Czech-Hungarian
Understanding, "Amicus".

Anyway, this is already long enough.  Thanks to all participants on the
list over the last year, and greetings to everyone for the coming year
1995.  May we all help keep this list what some people have kindly called it,
one of the more interesting (if sometimes off-topic ;-)!) and civilized
lists in internetland!

Sincerely,

Hugh Agnew

On Mon, 2 Jan 1995 03:43:05 EDT Hugh Agnew said:
>Dear fellow-listmembers:
>
>Just to avoid any misunderstanding, caused by the "reply" function on most
>mail editors, the quote in Charles Atherton's response to my last post was
>not from me, but from Palacky, about whom we had been talking, at least
>tangentially, in the argument about the evaluation of the arrival of the
>Magyars in the Pannonian basin.
>
--I'm sorry if I inadvertently deleted your clear attribution of the
material from Palacky.

>Is it not true, though, that there was some kind of "state" there (whatever
>the word may mean in the 9th century) before the Magyars arrived, that was
>a Slavic one?  And that it had accepted Christianity and begun the process
>that elsewhere led to the establishment of "feudal" monarchies imitating
>patterns of political development further West?

--Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before the
15th century.  Medieval societies really didn't have the agreed upon
boundaries and social structure of a state in the sense that this word
usually means.  One might make that case that there were distinct
cultures on the basis of shared languages and traditions, but not
states.  Although there were kings who in theory ruled a given
territory, the medieval contract was with the king, not the state and
boundaries were shifted primarily through warfare and conquest.  And
sometimes marriage.  The early nation-states that emerged in the
14th century, England for example, became distinct entities primarily
through conquest didn't they?  And I would submit that their emergence
as nations had more to do with commercial motives than Christianity.
Most early "nations" were nominally Christian, but that didn't imply
boundaries, highways, banks, and trading patterns.  In fact, I think
that the argument can be made that Christianity was anti-national
since Rome held to delusions of empire under the popes until maybe
the 15th century.  Even in 1848, the "Clericals" opposed nationalism,
particularly in the Hapsburg lands.

--I would submit that while there is always a certain mutual influence
when cultures intersect, it would be very difficult to discard
the "nationalist baggage" in explaining historical trends.

Charles

Thanks to Hugh Agnew for his reasoned and balanced postings about Palacky's
place in East European historiography.  But I am puzzled by the apparent
differences of opinion about the pre-Magyar-conquest political arrangements
in the Carpathian basin area.  If I remember my graduate school stuff accurate-
ly, there was in existence at the time of the conquest the Great Moravian
Empire based in the Czech lands, and the object of a famous Christianizing
mission from Constantinople under Sts. Cyril and Methodius.  The mission was
successful, but abortive, in the sense that Byzantine Christianity was soon
supplanted by Roman Catholicism coming from Germany.  The consequence, of
course, was that not only the Czech lands, but the whole Carpathian Basin,
became ever after linked with the West, however tenuously.  Thus the Magyars,
too, joined the West, not only religiously but politically as well.  Exactly
what the influences from the Great Moravian Empire were on the incipient
Kingdom of Hungary, culturally, politically, and in other ways suggested by
Hugh, I leave to others to sort out.

Have a great year!
Be1la

Charles writes:

> --Seems to me that it is very difficult to talk of "states" before the
> 15th century.  Medieval societies...

Are we to forget `the glory that was Greece/ And the grandeur that was Rome'?

--Greg

Pal Gyoni asks in connection with my posting on Palacky:

>What year did nationalizm become a one sided evil.

Well, it is not all evil but it is if it means of belittling others or being
anti-this or anti-that. Palacky referred to the arrival of the Hungarians as
a tragedy, a calamity. This kind of nationalism is an unattractive kind. Or,
to give an example from Ho1man-Szekfu3. I remember of sitting down with one
of the earlier volumes of their work because I have only a very average
knowledge of medieval, early modern Hungarian history and decided it was time
to read a bit more. And what do I read, that the ruin of the soil in the
Great Plains was entirely due to the Turkish occupation. Now, really, one
doesn't have to know much to know that this is rubbish. It must have been
centuries of mismanagement of the soil which made it what it is today: szikes
(saline?). Unfortunately, most East-European nationalism is this kind. The
most important thing is to be objective and not to put your own nation above
others. It is that kind of nationalism which I find abhorrent.

Eva Balogh

Charles ) wrote:

: First off, in the 10th century there was no established civilization in the
: Carpathian Basin.

one (wo)man's civilazation is another one's barbarism.

to the moslem, a christian is an infidel, a barbarian.
to the christian, a moslem is a heathen, a pagan.

to adjudicate such disagreement one should have independent, neutral
criteria.

i recall learning in school how "primitive" the australian aboriginals
had been. yet since the 1970's quite a number of new insights have
changed my perceptions. for example the "discovery" that the indigenous
peoples of australia axtiviely pursued agriculture. this had not
been recognised because many of the peoples were not sedentary but
roamed a reasonably well-defined region, sowing and reaping as they went,
practising even "forest management" in some regions.

of course this was partly due to the geographiuc difficulties, as there
are regions in australia where it has not rained for several years
and this is no novelty. it is difficult to mainain an urban society
or intensive settled agriculture without adequate reliable supplies
of fresh water.

thus the circumstances made traditional european "civilisation" and
"agriculture" impossible here. the euroean "settlers" and "civilisers"
did not recognise the locals as being "civilised". but does that mean
they weren't "civilised"?

it smacks of arrogance and condescension to answer in the affirmative.


a recent item was that it was the indigeneous people of australia
who are responsible for the first known instances of creating flour.
the oldest known paintings are also to their credit.


in any event i do not see why the "degree of civilisation" should
affect what we would call "human rights" or claims to legitimacy.

why should an urbanised or mechanised people have a greater claim
to a piece of real estate than anyone else?

d.a.

JELIKO ) wrote:

: While in some cases there may be unwarranted
: pride in ancestors or siblings, it should not be derided.

i see no legitimate grounds whatsoever for pride in any
"achievement" to which one has not and could not have contributed.
if one adds to or extends the achievements of one's forebears, then this
addendum may well be a legitimate source for pride. but i fail to see
how anyone can contribute to the success of past deeds.

if we are to be proud of the achievements of our forebears, then we must
also be ashamed of their misdeeds and accpet responsiblity for the
mediate consequences of their actions. ancestors are a package deal.
they come warts and all.

to select only parts of their legacy as legitimate and to disallow
the rest is basking in reflected glory ad, as such, gross hypocrisy.

on the other hand, to see their achievements as exemplary and to
use them as a source of inspiration, their misdeeds and failings
as salutory lessons is certainly legitimate. but there is neither
need nor place for either pride or shame here.

: IMHO, "pride" is
: necessary for the improvement of society.

au contraire!! it is *humility* that is needed for the "improvement
of society".


: Generally we are proud of the
: good deeds and if we purvey that pride in good deeds to others also, then
: there is more moral strength in good deeds. Soceity will improve by the sum
: of small individual good deeds of which we all should be proud.

only those who have contributed to these "good deeds" are entitled to be
proud of them. the rest of us may be honoured, grateful, inspired, but
we have no legitimate grounds for pride.

notice how it so often is with a football team. when it wins "we" have
won. "we" are great. when it loses, "they" have failed. "they" have
let us down.

it is not the "pride" that ought to be purveyed, but the deeds which
are the legitimation for such (unwarranted) pride.

of course this leaves unanswered the questions as to what are
"good deeds", "achievements", "misdeeds", "improvement of society"
"moral strangth".

after all, one (wo)man's fish is another one's poison.

d.a.

JELIKO ) wrote:

i'd like to first point out that i was referring to southern africa
as opposed to merely "south africa" and as far as i recall, i only referred
to southern africa (although i may have made typing errors occasionally,
as i have so frequently done).

: Yes, but that argument better stand up. Your case for the Boer does not. At
: the time of the Dutch settlements that part of Africa was not the
: presettled area that you presume.

encyclopaedia britannica (1962 edition) vol. 21, p.49:
"thereafter* the portuguese gained maritime supremacy in the indian
ocean .... but, though they colonized angola and mozambique, they
madew no settlements as far south as what is now the union of south
africa, regarding its resources as negligible and its inhabitants as too
primitive for commercial or evangelical effort."

[* the reference is to vasco da gama in 1498]

correct me if i am wrong, but i read this as meaning that the
portuguese new the area to be settled

accroding to this article, the white population of south africa (and here
i *am* referring to what we know today as the union of south africa)
"grew, mainly by natural increase, to about 15,000 in 1795." (p.50)

and what about other inhabitants? the britannica writes:

"the nearest approach to a hottentot war had taken place in the
1670s.t was smallpox that took the heaviest toll of the hottentots,
especially a shattering epidemic in 1713. after that, as the trekkboeren
advanced into their territories, the surviving hottentots lost their
land and their cattle, their only means of an independent existence....

the small bushmen were still more primitive than the hottentots.
before whiute settlement began they njhad been driven into the more
arid and mountainous parts of south africa by the hottentots and
african tribes." (pp. 50-51)

that does *not* sound to me like virgin, unpopulated territory.

d.a.

On Sat, 31 Dec 1994 22:00:13 GMT IMRE BOKOR said:
>Charles ) wrote:
>
>: First off, in the 10th century there was no established civilization in the
>: Carpathian Basin.
>
>one (wo)man's civilazation is another one's barbarism.
>
--Doesn't compute.  Civilization as an historical term has to do with
the establishment of ordered life in cities.  Doesn't imply barbarian vs.
civilized in the sense you use these terms.  Don't bother to quote
dictionary definitions, since they don't apply to this situation.

>to the moslem, a christian is an infidel, a barbarian.
>to the christian, a moslem is a heathen, a pagan.
>
--I don't know of any contemporary Christian theologian that would
use the word pagan to apply to Muslims.  Prior to the Second World
War, maybe, but not in recent years.

>to adjudicate such disagreement one should have independent, neutral
>criteria.
>
--This is a matter of faith.  Not all of us believe in neutral criteria.

>i recall learning in school how "primitive" the australian aboriginals
>had been. yet since the 1970's quite a number of new insights have
>changed my perceptions. for example the "discovery" that the indigenous
>peoples of australia axtiviely pursued agriculture. this had not
>been recognised because many of the peoples were not sedentary but
>roamed a reasonably well-defined region, sowing and reaping as they went,
>practising even "forest management" in some regions.
>
--Sure.  The word "primitive" went out of fashion when I was an
undergraduate in the late 1940s.  We toyed with such terms as
pre-industrial or agricultural.

                         it is difficult to mainain an urban society
>or intensive settled agriculture without adequate reliable supplies
>of fresh water.
>
>thus the circumstances made traditional european "civilisation" and
>"agriculture" impossible here. the euroean "settlers" and "civilisers"
>did not recognise the locals as being "civilised". but does that mean
>they weren't "civilised"?

>
>it smacks of arrogance and condescension to answer in the affirmative.
>
--Again, you are using civilized as a moral term.  Remove the moral
content.  It is perfectly possible to have a very complex culture in
such conditions, but technically--not morally--it is not a civilization.
There are examples of civilization in the technical sense in both Ghana
and Nigeria.  Both countries had highly structured societies in the
12th century.  Coincidentally, in southern Nigeria, the Ibo civilization
was structured very like that of England at around the same time.  It may
explain why the Ibo got along better with the English than did the Yoruba.

>a recent item was that it was the indigeneous people of australia
>who are responsible for the first known instances of creating flour.
>the oldest known paintings are also to their credit.
>
--Again, a people can have a high culture without technically
developing a civilization.

>in any event i do not see why the "degree of civilisation" should
>affect what we would call "human rights" or claims to legitimacy.
>

>why should an urbanised or mechanised people have a greater claim
>to a piece of real estate than anyone else?
>
--By 20th century standards, they wouldn't.  But in the tenth century,
we didn't have the same standards of legitimacy.  Again, in judging
the Hungarian migration into the Pannonian Basis, you are arguing that
they should have had the benefit of twentieth century thinking and
should have consulted the EU or the United Nations before migrating
there in order to be sure that no one had a prior claim.  This is
what my old profs used to describe as "reading history backwards."

Charles

On Mon, 2 Jan 1995 12:32:25 -0800 > said:
>
>Are we to forget `the glory that was Greece/ And the grandeur that was Rome'?
>
But Greece wasn't really a nation, but a collection of what were called
city-states, each independent of one another.  And Rome was an empire, but
not really a nation as historians use the term after the 15th century.  Both
would be considered civilizations, but not nations.

Charles

Charles writes:

> >Are we to forget `the glory that was Greece/ And the grandeur that was Rome'
?

> But Greece wasn't really a nation, but a collection of what were called
> city-states, each independent of one another.  And Rome was an empire, but
> not really a nation as historians use the term after the 15th century.  Both
> would be considered civilizations, but not nations.

I didn't claim they were nations, I was nit-picking your assertion that there
were no "states" before 1500.

--Greg