Hungarian Studies Newsletter, 1975 (3. évfolyam, 6-8. szám)

1975 / 6. szám

Acsádi, György, András Kiinger, and Egon Szabady. 1970/1. Family Planning in Hungary. Main Results of the 1966 Fertility and Family Planning (TCS) Study [Családtervezés Magyarországon. Az 1966. évi termékenységi és családtervezési vizsgálat (TCS) fontosabb adatai]. Publications of the Hungarian Demographic Research Institute, Budapest, p. 205.

Andorka, Rudolf. 1967. “Economic and social factors influencing fertility trends of Hungary’s population” [Ä magyar népesség termékenységének alakulását befolyásoló gazdasági és társadalmi tényezők]. Demográfia 10, no. 1:87-102.

Demographic Yearbook 1971 [Demográfiai Évkönyv]. 1973. Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, p. 369.

Hungarian Statistical Pocket-Book, 1971 [Magyar Statisztikai Zsebkönyv, 1971]. 1970. Budapest: Statistical Publishing House, p. 372.

Kiinger, András. 1969. “Demographic aspects of abortions” [Az abortuszok demográfiai vonatkozásai]. Demográfia 12, no. 4:479-491.

_____ 1969. “Demographic situation of

Hungary in the 1960s” [Magyarország népesedési helyzete az 1960-as években]. Statisztikai Szemle. 1969— 47, no. 11:1067-1096, no. 12:1171- 1188; 1970—48, no. 3:227-252, no. 11: 1111-1137, no. 12:1215-1240; 1971— 49, no. 1:91-95.

Miltényi, Károly. 1964. “Demographic significance of induced abortions” [A művi vetélések demográfiai jelentősege]. Demográfia 7, nos. 3-4:419-429.

Miltényi, Károly, and Egon Szabady. 1964. “The problem of abortions in Hungary; Demographic and health aspects” [Az abortuszhelyzot Magyarországon; demográfiai és egészségügyi összefüggések]. Demográfia 7, no. 2: 303-309.

New Hungarian Encyclopaedia [Uj Magyar Lexikon]. Vol. 4, pp. 448-506.

Our Country, Hungary [Hazáink, Magyarország]. 1970. Budapest: Publishing House of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, p. 1077.

“Some lessons of our demographic situation” [Népesedési helyzetünk néhány tanulsága]. 1968. Demográfia 11, nos. 3-4:476-504.

Spread and Methods of Birth Control [A születésszabályozás elterjedése és módszerei], Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Population and Social Statistics Department, p. 24.

Study of Modern Contraceptive Devices, 1970-1971 [A modern fogamzásgátló eszközök vizsgálata 1970-1971], Budapest: Hungarian Central Statistical Office, Population and Social Statistics Department, p. 42.

Szabady, Egon. 1965. “Hungary’s population movement during the twenty years since the liberation” [Magyarország népesedése a felszabadulás óta eltelt húsz évben]. Demográfia 8, no. 1:7-19.

_____ 1969. “Hungarian fertility and

family planning studies” [Magyar termékenységi és családtervezési vizsgálatok]. Demográfia 12:417-436.

_____ 1970. “Changes in the Hungarian

society during the last 25 years” [A

magyar társadalom változásai az elmúlt 25 évben]. Statisztikai Szemle 48, no. 4:371-391.

_____ 1970. “Economy and population”

[Gazdaság és néposség]. Gazdaság 4, no. 4:28-39.

_____1971. “Demography and family

planning” [Demográfia és családtervezés]. Demográfia 14, no. 4:372-380.

_____ 1972. “Interdependence between

changes in fertility and socio-economic development in the socialist countries of Eastern Europe” [Termékenységi változások és a társadalmi-gazdasági fejlődés összefüggései a kelet-európai szocialista országokban]. Gazdaság 6, no. 4:103-115.

_____ 1973. “The development of the

present state of the Hungarian demography with special regard to research in the years 1969-1971” T A magyar népességtudomány fejlődése és jelenlegi helyzete, különös tekintettel az 1969-1971. Évi kutatásokra]. Demográfia 16, no. 1:119-124.

______ 1973. “Legislation directly or indirectly influencing fertility in Europe” [Az európai országok termékenységét közvetlenül vagy közvetve befolyásoló törvények]. Demográfia 16, no. 1:114-118.

Szontágh, Ferenc. 1966. “Present state of contraception” [A fogamzásgátlás mai állása]. Demográfia 9, no. 4:552- 556.

The 1970 Population Census 2. Detailed Data on the Basis of the 1 Percent Sample [Az 1970. évi népszámlálás 2. Részletes adatok az 1%-os képviseleti minta alapján]. 1971. Budapest, 30 March, p. 238.

ARTICLES AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS

(Continued from page 4)

Kosztolnyik, Zoltán J., “The Negative Results of the Enforced Missionary Policy of King Saint Stephen of Hungary: the Uprising of 1046,” Catholic Historical Review LIX (Jan. 1974) 569-586.

There is an amazing lack of chronicles, correspondence and records from the time of Stephen I, and the turmoil in the country following his death is only partially accountable for this. It is not impossible that some ofthe records were carried to Bavaria by Gisella on the death of her husband. This would not account for all of the presumably missing information: only a campaign of destruction by the barons, who had resented Stephen’s iron rule, could account for this. The author points to instances of weakness on Stephen’s part directly attributable to the hostility of the barons, and especially to their resentment of the power of German and/or ecclesiastical lords. Even the death of prince Emery might have been a result of this distrust.

If the king were to keep his people on the frontier of Christendom, and make them Christians, he needed drastic measures. But his program—the unification of the people through legislation; the securing of the acceptance of his kingdom by the European body politic and recognition by the Pope was held as less dangrous politically than recognition

from the Holy Roman Emperor; and a Bavarian wife who could ensure the necessary alliance—was unpopular, and opposition to it was fostered by Stephen’s decision (apparently on his own) to Christianize Hungary. The opposition in the following years was to be directed at his high-handed policies, and resulted-in the near extinction of Christianity eight years after the king’s death. The objections seem to have been based on the small number of missionaries who could speak Hungarian as well as resentment against the missionaries who made no attempt to learn Hungarian. The nation could not seem to forgive Stephen for forcing acceptance of baptism at the hands of those who scorned everything Hungarian.

Data to back up these assumptions are found in the writings of Gerard of Csana'd and the king’s own admission. The king seemed to snub the barons at every opportunity. He was not willing to sacrifice his eccleciastical counsellors. In 1046 the baronial fury broke against the Hungarian episcopate, and only after this force was destroyed did the throne regain baronial support.

The author of this article is Assoc. Prof, of History, Texas A&M U. EMB

Moreua, Jean-Luc, “Strangers in Confrontation in the Work of Ferenc Karinthy,” Books Abroad (Spring, 1973) 260-265. Translated by Wendell E. McClendon.

(Continued on page 16)

HUNGARIAN STUDIES NEWSLETTER No.6,1975

15