Specimina Nova Pars Prima Sectio Mediaevalis_IX_2017.pdf (original) (raw)
Related papers
Journal of Modern European History, manuscript submitted
Journal of Modern European History
This article attempts to reify the vicissitudes of Ukrainian and Jewish political paradigms in the Time of a Ukrainian strive for an independent state in East Galicia, 1918 -- 1923. The article analyzes geo-political realities as they were perceived by the Ukrainian and Jewish political establishments and public opinion. The course of analysis follows the line of existential borderline situations pertaining to each of the given community. These existential situations overall relate to the call of choice with regard to political and military alliances, electoral support and acceptance or unacceptance of the governing power (Poland). In conceptual terms the article elicits paradigms of mutual Ukrainian and Jewish mistrust, lack of compassion and often implementations of typical but not reflective clichés. Proclamation of West Ukrainian National Republic, the Battle for Lviv in November 1918, the course of Polish-Ukrainian War in 1918, 1919, the electoral campaign of 1922 for Polish Parliament (Sejm) and the corresponding mutual reflections, all in all comprise the contextual background, presented in this article. The article draws on the periodical of the Time, personal statements and memoirs and on the interwar monographs and collective works with regard to the Ukrainian, Jewish and Polish mutual vexations. Modern secondary literature on the subject has also been taken into consideration.
INCORRUPTA MONUMENTA ECCLESIAM DEFENDUNT. Studi offerti a mons. Sergio Pagano, prefetto dell’Archivio Segreto Vaticano I–III (COLLECTANEA ARCHIVI VATICANI 108), a cura di Andreas Gottsmann – Pierantonio Piatti – Andreas E. Rehberg, CITTÀ DEL VATICANO, 2018
The sources revealed from the ‘Fondo Concistoriale’ of the Vatican Secret Archives basically change the previous statements of the research about the Index-case of Ottokár Prohászka, the bishop of Székesfehérvár. To the general consternation of the Hungarian catholic public opinion, in the summer of 1911 three writings of the symbolic figure of the modern Hungarian Catholicism were put on the list of forbidden books in the Roman Curia. The most important result of our writing is, that we could prove: it was not simply an “Index-case” as it had been stated by Gábor Adriányi, Ferenc Szabó, Jenő Gergely and others, leastwise in the Roman section of the investigation by no means. The real motivation of the curial process of 1911 was to make an example of him, namely, the intention to make him deprived from his office as a bishop. The putting of his works on the list of forbidden books was only a kind of device for it. In the Roman Curia he was not only desired to be silenced or removed from Catholic public life (it could be rather the plan of the Vigilantia Commission of Esztergom), but intended to be removed from the church governance. This explains why he had not been asked to give an explanation about the meaning of his criticized writings before they would have been put on the list of the forbidden books, despite the fact that according to the order of Pope Benedict XIV he expressly should have been asked as a bishop. Instead, in the well-known decree of the Index Congregation of 5 June 1911, it was forbidden their reading and there was the deliberation that about this the Secretariat of State or the Consistorial Congregation had to be informed. The importance and real intention of the latter condition we can see only now. In 1913 the Index Congregation did not discussed the case of his subsequently criticized works; regarded as a recidivist, immediately the Consistorial Congregation took action against him. Hence, it would be more correct in the future talking about putting the works of Prohászka on the list of forbidden books and the failed attempt to deprive him from his office as a bishop, namely about his “Index and Consistorial-case”. While in Hungary the social views of Prohászka were caused resentment among the clergy, in Rome his accusation of modernism was in the focus and arouse the opposition of Cardinal Gaetano de Lai, the prefect of the Consistorial Congregation and the vanguard of fight against modernism. Cardinal De Lai informed also Pope Pius X about the measures against Bishop Prohászka, who approved them. Though, Ottokár Prohászka was not deprived from his office as a bishop in the end, as the head of the Hungarian Episcopate, János Csernoch, the primate of Hungary expressly opposed this and stood up for his bishop-mate against Cardinal De Lai. In the autumn of 1913 Prohászka had a private audience with Pope Pius X, who privately rehabilitated the Hungarian bishop, but his works remained on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum. The reports about the Hungarian prelates’ antimodernist measures in their dioceses – obligatory on the basis of the Motu proprio Sacrorum Antistitum issued on the 1st September 1910 –, among them Prohászka’s account, are published in the appendix of the study.
A Divided Hungary in Europe: Exchanges, Networks and Representations, 1541–1699, eds. G. Almási, S. Brzeziński, I. Horn, K. Teszelszky, Á. Zarnóczki, vol. 2: Diplomacy, Information Flow and Cultural Exchange, eds. S. Brzeziński, Á. Zarnóczki, Newcastle upon Tyne 2014.
Despite fragmentation, heterogeneity and the continuous pressure of the Ottoman Empire, early modern “divided Hungary” witnessed a surprising cultural flourishing in the sixteenth century, and maintained its common cultural identity in the seventeenth century. This could hardly have been possible without intense exchange with the rest of Europe. This three-volume series about early modern Hungary divided by Ottoman presence approaches themes of exchange of information and knowledge from two perspectives, namely, exchange through traditional channels provided by religious/educational institutions and the system of European study tours (Volume 1 – Study Tours and Intellectual-Religious Relationships), and the less regular channels and improvised networks of political diplomacy (Volume 2 – Diplomacy, Information Flow and Cultural Exchange). A by-product of this exchange of information was the changing image of early modern Hungary and Transylvania, which is presented in the third and in some aspects concluding volume of essays (Volume 3 – The Making and Uses of the Image of Hungary and Transylvania). Unlike earlier approaches to the same questions, these volumes draw an alternative map of early modern Hungary. On this map, the centre-periphery conceptions of European early modern culture are replaced by new narratives written from the perspective of historical actors, and the dominance of Western-Hungarian relationships is kept in balance due to the significance of Hungary’s direct neighbours, most importantly the Ottoman Empire. The editors of the volumes—Gábor Almási, Szymon Brzeziński, Ildikó Horn, Kees Teszelszky and Áron Zarnóczki—are based at Hungarian, Polish and Dutch institutions of historical research. Their collaboration is the result of a joint research programme generously financed by the Hungarian Scientific Research Fund and carried out at the Eötvös Loránd University of Budapest.