DSpace Repository

Rákosi Boldizsár és Bojti Veres Gáspár vitája (1621)

Show simple item record

dc.coverage.spatial Erdély
dc.coverage.temporal 17. sz.
dc.creator Molnár, Dávid
dc.date.accessioned 2018-09-13T11:27:24Z
dc.date.available 2018-09-13T11:27:24Z
dc.date.created 2014
dc.date.issued 2014
dc.identifier.uri https://eda.eme.ro/xmlui/handle/10598/30600
dc.description.abstract Several manuscript sources have been discovered in the previous decades which represent the Unitarian position in the polemics which they endured during Bethlen’s reign. Beyond doubt, Boldizsár Rákosi’s polemical work, the Defensio is one such work, preserved in manuscript nr. 32/C-D of the Unitarian College’s Library in Cluj-Napoca. Rákosi was probably transferred to the famous ecclesia of the market-town Radnót, “into such a confusion of school activities”, when his opponent, Gáspár Bojti Veres won the schoolmaster position in the particula of Marosvásárhely. Beforehand, as a disciple of the Unitarian “Goliath” Pál Csanádi, he was a lector in one of the schools of Kolozsvár, where his master produced the polemic works Magyarázat (1615) and Pöröly (1617). In the year when Bojti Veres returned home (1620), Csanádi was working on a pamphlet (Argvmentorum de doctrina Triadis solvtio tradita) which was 14 years later published in Leiden (no mistake!). The Transylvanian Calvinists called Csanádi’s work a “Circean nectar” or elixir, in which “the rector off ers dangerous error even for the desolate youth of orthodox schools”. Rákosi’s explication for Bojti Veres, lost (or hidden) today, the Argumenta reminds to this both in title and subject, so probably this led Bojti Veres to claim in his also lost/hidden reply (before 8 March 1621) that Csanádi acted as the spiritus rector of the Argumenta. Rákosi denied this, and in a rewritten version of the Argumenta, the Defensio (13 March 1621), he tried to convince his opponent that Csanádi has no knowledge of their polemy, since they are split by the huge distance between Kolozsvár and Radnót, and it was not Csanádi’s, but a certain András Feltóti’s advice to defend his arguments. This chain of ideas might be extended by information collected by János Herepei from the account books of urban merchants. These show that Csanádi was taken to Meggyesfalva to cure the serious disease of judge János Angyalosi. The Angyalosi family was an illustrious Unitarian family, so it is possible that Csanádi heard from them about the debate between Rákosi and Bojti, and maybe he even reported it to the Unitarian bishop Valentinus Radecius when he returned to Kolozsvár. In 1621, one month after Csanádi’s visit to Angyalosi, the same Radecius found it advisable to call a synod to the city of Radnót with the commission to discuss the problem of Trinity. This triggers the question whether the invitation could be connected to the debate between Rákosi and Bojti Veres. Even if no such connection exists, it might be declared that whoever knew about the debate must have considered both the place and the subject of the debate as symbolic. And if yes, then the synod, even if only symbolically, could have been a part of Bethlen’s cultural policy, a manifestation of his inimical sentiments concerning students who were sent abroad. The manifestation of the same sentiment which, at the same time but in a diff erent voice, “talked about the academia per ludibrium ignominiose”. However, Bojti Veres criticised his opponent not only for talking ironically or disgracefully about him, but also for employing human reasoning against him in the Argumenta. Rákosi, who is said to have learned from the written records of the most learned philosophers at the side of his master, made a distinction between reasoning and reason, which was in his view “given to man as a means to distinguish between good and evil, true and false”. Based on this place, the work could be compared to Andrzej Wiszowaty’s Religio rationalis (cca. 1670), where the author makes reason and not Scripture the basis of critique against doctrine. However, while Wiszowaty makes reason the touchstone of doctrines because there are no impenetrable transcendent truths, Rákosi does the same only because the tenet of logical antilogy supersedes the exegetical argumentation. In other words: Rákosi enters the field of Biblical argumentation rarely not because he thinks that reason is capable of recognising the truths of faith even without revelation, but because he finds reason and revelation perfectly identical. Nothing proves this stronger than the apology for Scripture which can clearly be read in the last part of his polemic work: “Quicquid necessariu[m] est ad salutem, id omne extat in s. scripturis…”
dc.description.tableofcontents 372-379. old.
dc.format Adobe PDF
dc.language.iso hun
dc.language.iso eng
dc.publisher Edélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
dc.rights Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
dc.source Edélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
dc.subject Bethlen Gábor
dc.subject történelem
dc.subject vitairat
dc.subject unitárius
dc.subject Csanádi Pál
dc.subject Rákosi Boldizsár
dc.subject Bojti Veres Gáspár
dc.subject Pamphlet
dc.subject Unitarianism
dc.title Rákosi Boldizsár és Bojti Veres Gáspár vitája (1621)
dc.title.alternative The Debate between Boldizsár Rákosi and Gáspár Bojti Veres (1621)
dc.type article
dcterms.provenance Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
europeana.provider Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
europeana.unstored Erdélyi Múzeum-Egyesület
europeana.type TEXT
dcterms.medium paper


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search DSpace


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account