Valaki tud segíteni röviden (lényeget) leírni magyarul?

DISCUSSION BETWEEN GÉZA PÁLFFY AND SÁNDOR ŐZE

ABOUT THE BOCSKAI UPRISING

Géza Pálffy’s essay calls attention to several problems related to István Bocskai’s movement, which have not been investigated yet. The mono-graphs and papers have, until now, concentrated on just a few aspects of this movement. Pálffy points out the terminological problems of the name of this movement and the lack of a wide-ranging investigation of the political elites of the Hungarian Kingdom. Moreover, he suggests that the more remarkable part of the Hungarian Estates didn’t fully support the movement which had several intentions and was influenced by several interest groups. However, Bocskai achieved that peace and order was restored in Transylvania and the Hungarian Estates became stronger, and passed a law on the freedom of religion.

As a response, Sándor Őze calls attention to a former argument which, in his opinion, is merely repeated in Géza Pálffy’s essay. He also argues with Pálffy’s opinion that the Bocskai Uprising cannot be regarded as an antecedent to either Rákóczi’s War of Independence or the Hungarian War of Independence of 1848–49. He does not agree with Pálffy regarding the name of the movement. Őze argues it would be improper to name it a civil war. Quoting Ferenc Szakály, he also stresses that the Hungarian Kingdom assumed the role of a buffer state. Therefore Bocskai’s agreement with the Turks and his intention to join a union between states with strong Estates were logical steps for which he could not be blamed. The agreement with the Turks made it possible to avoid a demographical catastrophe. Fi-nally, Őze believes it is false to recognize the uprising against the Habsburg Monarchy as legal according to romantic popular beliefs.

In his answer Géza Pálffy stresses that Őze’s method of investigation has a serious fault because it selectively uses sources. He says that Őze does not consider the latest findings. Without a wide-ranging investigation of sources, Őze’s statements are invalid. Moreover, he does not agree with nineteenth and twentieth- century national expectations and myths of inde-pendence which Őze quotes.

Sándor Őze concludes the discussion and suggests that exclusiveness approaches, unclear terminologies and numerical dates could lead the re-searcher to wrong directions.