The Eighth Tribe, 1978 (5. évfolyam, 1-12. szám)
1978-02-01 / 2. szám
February, 1978 THE EIGHTH TRIBE Page 7 where there is not a single party secretary of Hungarian nationality. It is clear from only this much that a multitude of factual realities violate the Constitution, the founding charter of the party and the fundamental principles set down and provided for in party documents. What is occurring in practice is not in harmony with the principles in these documents—indeed, it completely contradicts them—and has nothing in common with Marxist-Leninism, fundamental human rights, humanism, or ethical behavior and human dignity—that is, all that which is trumpeted far and wide in the most varied kinds of propaganda. Distrust and Doubt All of this in no way benefits either the Rumanian people or the other nationalities. The tendency to forcefully assimilate nationalities living in Rumania is also revealed by the press at times, and this creates total distrust in nationality policies; indeed, it casts doubt over the sincerity of all policies in general, and for millions of citizens it destroys their confidence in socialist society. What concerns me the most at this time is the obstinacy with which this problem is ignored by our party organs; from the lowest level to the highest they act as if they were totally unaware of it. My own personal efforts, as well as those of others, to draw their attention to it, have thus far remained fruitless. And the situation continues to deteriorate, to the detriment of the prestige of our party and society. I am writing to you with a deep sense of responsibility, as I am one of those Communists who is convinced of the truth of our ideals. I have fought for these THE MAGYARS IN HISTORY by S. B. Vardy, Ph.D. Professor of History — continued — CHAPTER XIV ST. STEPHEN AND THE SHAPING OF THE MAGYAR “NATION” AND THE HUNGARIAN STATE (The Relationship between the Regnum and the Patrimonium) Hand-in-hand with the establishment of the basic institutions of Christianity, King Stephen also constructed sound and lasting foundations for a centralized national monarchy. Although this is not generally known, during the Middle Ages the ‘public” and “private” possessions and functions of a king were basically inseparable. Thus, there was no real division between “state property” and the ruler’s “private property;” nor between “national income” and the king’s “private income.’ In point of fact, during the feudal period, the national income used for purposes of running the state was basically identical with the king’s income from his own estates. As such, although a feudal king was the ruler of the whole kingdom (regnum), and he had certain authority over all of his subjects (including the feudal lords), the financial basis of his royal power was largely the income from his hereditary (patrimonial) estates. And so it was with King Stephen of Hungary. But in his strive to extend royal power, Stephen lay claim not only to the lands of his own (Megyer) tribe, but also to the lands of his defeated rivals (Koppány, Ajtony, Gyula, etc.), as well as to the uninhabited or sparsely inhabited fringe territories of his kingdom. As a result, his patrimonial (“royal”) estates may have been as much as two-thirds of the country. (Homan, Szent István; Bogyai, Stephanus; Győrffy, István király.) CENTRAL AND REGIONAL ADMINISTRATION The center of King Stephen’s power was the royal court (aula, curia, domus regis), which was the headquarters of his patrimonial estates, as well as the administrative and judicial center of the whole kingdom. In the administration of his estates and the country in general, King Stephen was aided by his councillors (seniores) who made up the Royal Council (senatus). But this informally composed council had only advisory powers. 82
