Repository index

In his 1583 ritual entitled Agendarius, which was innovative in many respects in comparison to its Hungarian predecessors, Bishop Miklós Telegdi of Pécs, the administrator of the diocese of Esztergom, added sample-like sermons to the rituals of the administration of the sacraments accompanying the great turning points of life (viz. baptism, confirmation, wedding etc.). He was presumably guided chiefly by pastoral considerations. For the second edition of 1596 (published after Telegdi’s death), the editors added a second funeral sermon, clearly intended for a more educated, urban audience – judging from the scholarly Latin quotations and the general tone. A comparison of the structure and content of the two speeches provides useful conclusions as to what the ecclesiastical authorities of the time considered advisable to preach at the time of death to mourners lacking basic schooling and what to the more learned audience.

My study approaches Unitarian sermon literature from the perspective of church discipline. There are several reasons for this: 1) Historical records of reception are scarce because in the early modern age, only a handful of Unitarian sermons could be published. 2) it was uncommon among Unitarian preachers to use theoretical works (ars concionandi/praedicandi) until the end of the 17th century, they learned instead by observing the written and oral practices of their colleagues. 3) Because of the medium of the manuscript, most early modern Unitarian sermons did not survive beyond the 17th–18th century. Therefore, in our exploration of the rules and ideals of sermon literature as well as the attitudes of followers, preachers, and schoolmasters to the genre, we are forced to rely on inferences based on the norms, especially the offences recorded in (ecclesiastical) court protocols.

The “Why?” question emerges inevitably whenever a tragedy or trauma happens in our human lives. The case was hardly different in prehistoric times, in the Old Testament, or in Jesus’s era. It is an intriguing question therefore what Jesus’ attitude and approach would have been to such unexpected disasters.

A 16-17. század történetét többnyire kudarcok jellemzik. Tragédiák követik egymást hűségesen. Ott a török, a tatár, egyik nagyobb nyomorúságot hoz, mint a másik. Érdekelt, hogyan éli meg ezt a kor embere? Hogyan hat ez magára a társadalomra, hogyan befolyásolja az életet, a gondolkozást? Hogyan élik meg a kudarcból kudarcba életérzést? Miben látják a nyomorúság okát? Így jutottam el a „bűneiért bünteti Isten a magyar népet” felfogáshoz. Erről hallva, a kíváncsiság útnak indított. A cím mellé akár kérdőjel is kerülhetett volna. A kíváncsiságból adódóan a dolgozat nem csak bizonygatja ezt a felvetést, hanem valamilyen szinten akarva-akaratlanul a kérdés is megfogalmazódik. A gondolat szűrőn megy végig, mire megszületik a tiszta igazság, mire határozott pontot vagy felkiáltójelet tehetünk a végére. Úgy gondolom ez így helyes, így van rendjén.