Peasant Letters

Sources: Peasant Letters to the Slovak Nationalist Press

This section presents a selection of letters that Slovak-speaking villagers of northern Hungary sent, in the decade before the First World War, to the editors of two nationalist newspapers: Pokrok (Progress), which began to appear in 1903, and Ľudové noviny (The People’s Paper), which reached the villages in the years around 1906 to 1910. The two papers were separate ventures, linked primarily by the physician and national activist Pavol Blaho. As a key figure on the editorial side of both publications, Blaho and his circle set out to instruct and awaken a rural Slovak public. The letters gathered here are the replies sent by rural readers to the editors: reports, complaints, appeals, denunciations, and defences, written for the most part by ordinary farmers, craftsmen, and villagers, in their own hands and their own words.The letters are valuable precisely because their writers were not members of the nationalist movement drawn from the educated elite, but villagers taking up the pen, often for the first time, to make some corner of local life public. They show, from below and in unusual closeness, how the vocabulary and the causes of the nationalist movement reached the countryside, and what the people who received them did with them: how they took up some of its words, categories, and concepts, passed over others, and bent the language of the movement to the quarrels, offices, and loyalties of their own villages.

The source

The letters presented here belong to the editorial correspondence of the two papers, preserved among the personal papers of Pavol Blaho in the Slovak National Archive in Bratislava (Slovenský národný archív, Bratislava, SNA, Osobný fond Pavol Blaho, 1867–1927). They survive in two archival boxes, one for each paper: the Pokrok correspondence, running from 1903 through the following years, and the Ľudové noviny correspondence of about 1906 to 1910. Together, the two boxes hold several hundred items.What is offered here is a selection, not the whole. The letters shown have been chosen to represent the range of the correspondence, its recurring themes, its characteristic voices, and its more striking individual cases, and to follow, loosely, the thematic order in which those themes are discussed in the scholarly study from which this collection grew. Each letter is identified by a siglum ([P##] for the Pokrok correspondence, [LN##] for the Ľudové noviny correspondence). Within the archival fond the originals can be located by their inventory number and folio number, both of which are given with each letter, so that any item can be traced back to the source.

How the letters are presented

Each letter is given in three forms. First, a photograph of the letter, so that the original may be seen. Second, a transcription in Slovak. Third, a short description in English summarising what the letter contains and why it is of interest, followed by a brief “what to notice” line pointing to its most telling feature. Where two or more letters concern a single incident, they are grouped together as a case, with a shared introduction and, where a printed newspaper item lies behind the exchange, a transcription of that item as well.The transcriptions are reading editions in modern Slovak. Rather than reproduce every dialectal and orthographic peculiarity of the original, which would make the texts hard to read and difficult to render into other languages, they present the letters in readable modern Slovak while preserving in square brackets the words and forms that carry dialectal, social, or expressive weight. In this way, the texts remain accessible to a reader of standard Slovak and can be rendered into English or another language with the aid of ordinary translation tools, while the original texture stays visible at the points where it matters. The editorial conventions are these:[word] — an editorial supply of an omitted or reconstructed word;[italic] — an editorial remark on the manuscript (e.g. [škrtnuté] struck through, [nečitateľné] illegible);[…] — an illegible or omitted passage;[orig. word] — the writer’s original form, given after a normalised reading;word [?] — an uncertain reading;[sic] — a form reproduced faithfully from the original.Manuscript page-breaks are marked [strana 1], [strana 2]. Spelling and word-forms have been lightly normalised toward modern Slovak; punctuation and the division into sentences have been modernised silently for readability.The letters are grouped below by paper, Pokrok and Ľudové noviny, and they may be read in any order.

A note on the content

A number of these letters contain anti-Jewish language. It is reproduced without alteration, as part of the historical record these sources constitute.

How to cite

Materials on these pages are reading editions and reproductions of manuscripts held by the Slovak National Archive. When citing a letter, please cite both the original manuscript and this edition, for example:Anton Ondriszka to the editorial office of Pokrok, Kúty, 5 April 1903, SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 276–279; quoted from [URL].

The newspaper as a village’s window on itself

The earliest letters, above all those to Pokrok in 1903 and 1904, show villagers discovering the newspaper as a place in which their own village might appear. A recurring opening is the remark that no one has written about the writer’s village for a long time, so that he must take up the pen himself, lest it be forgotten: less a complaint than an expression of the wish to see one’s own village, and one’s own community, made publicly visible ([P21], [P23], [LN22]). The paper is treated as an arena of local publicity, in which misconduct can be exposed and set right; and, strikingly, the correspondents answer and correct one another in print, so that a single village affair may be told in several competing versions ([P21] and [P23]; the case of [P25]–[P27]; the case of [P82] and [P33]). Some writers reflect, from within, on the ethics of this new publicity, warning that the paper must not become a vehicle of private revenge, or a gossip-sheet that discredits the cause ([P25], [P82]).

Self-improvement, temperance, and the moral community

Many letters speak in a didactic, self-improving voice that the papers actively cultivated: they urge the reading of good books and papers over the tavern, praise thrift and learning, and condemn drunkenness as the ruin of the nation ([P21], [P23], [P47], [LN22], [LN138]). Closely related is a concern with the moral life of the village and its young people, whose conduct at dances, processions, and taverns is held up for censure or, at times, for praise ([P47], [LN12]). Village theatricals and reading circles appear as signs that a village is “awakening” from its sleep ([LN12], [P44]).

Office, election, and the good and bad village head and leadership

A large group of letters turns on the offices of the village, the village head (richtár) and the committee, and on the elections to them. Here, the correspondents draw, again and again, a contrast between the good leader and the bad. The good village head appears in the letters as honest, capable, brave, and literate; he cares for the village rather than for his own “dry throat,” and does not let himself be commanded by the lords and gentlemen or drilled by the notary ([P69], [P101], [LN33], [LN78], [LN100]). The bad one is drawn as drunken, incapable, or self-serving, sometimes illiterate, and often in league with the notary ([P72], [P81], [P92], [LN48], [LN108]). A recurring villain is the administrative official who stands above the village and its elected men, most notably the notary, the literate officer who “carries the village head about in his pocket” ([P81], [LN71], [LN108], [LN109]). Elections are watched closely, and their manipulation, the bribe, the packed slate, the drink stood for votes, is reported with a keen eye for procedure and its abuse ([P43], [LN65], [LN88], [LN130]). Officials are not only condemned: where a magistrate or notary conducts an election fairly, he is thanked, warmly and by name ([LN38], [LN95]).

The vocabulary of national belonging and its opposites

Across the correspondence, and more insistently in the later Ľudové noviny letters, the writers reach for a language of national belonging, of being “our own,” of standing “for this Slovak tongue of ours.” With it comes a vocabulary for those held to have gone over to the other side. The chief such term is čvach, a locally coined word of abuse for a Slovak thought to have defected; it appears first, and only in passing, in 1903 ([P31]), and becomes common in the later letters ([LN3], [LN38], [LN73], [LN93], [LN104], [LN116]). The letters show this category being used, stretched, and argued over: a man may be said to have been a čvach and to have become “ours” ([LN3]); the term may be sharpened into kabátoš, the “coat-wearer,” welding a social distinction to a national one ([LN104]); and office and ambition may themselves be said to turn a good Slovak into a čvach ([LN116]). Against the good Slovak the correspondents set his opposite, the renegade or odrodilec, the man who has turned away from what they hold him to be ([LN12]).

The cooperative, the “Christian” economy, and the Jew as the village’s other

A further group of letters concerns the economic life of the village: the founding of consumer cooperatives and credit societies, meant to free the villagers from dependence on the local traders and money-lenders, and gathered under the slogan “each to his own” (svoj k svojmu) ([P40], [P44], [P48], [LN86]). This economic appeal is very often bound up with anti-Jewish rhetoric, in which the Jewish trader or tavern-keeper is cast as the community’s malign other, and “Christian” self-help is set against him. The figure recurs across the collection, from passing epithets to sustained invective, and in several of the letters it is the organising idea of the whole ([P33], [P40], [P44], [P48], [P81], [LN32], [LN65]). It is treated here as one significant strand among the letters’ recurring themes; the letters that carry it are reproduced, like all the rest, without alteration.

The reach of the paper, and the price of writing to it

Finally, a number of letters show what it meant, in practice, to be a reader and correspondent of these papers. Subscribers write of being summoned before officials, denounced, or persecuted for reading or promoting the paper ([LN3], [LN6]); a correspondent orders a hundred handbills of his own election appeal, turning the paper into a supply of local propaganda ([LN119]); and writers apologise, again and again, for their rough hands and uncertain spelling, conscious of the gap between what they wish to say and what they can yet write ([P26], [LN109]). In these letters, more than anywhere, one sees the newspaper reaching people at the very edge of the written word, and those people reaching back.

Pokrok Letters

[P17] Matuš Samek — Burský Svätý Peter (Borský Svätý Jur), [March 1903]

[P21] Anton Ondriszka — Kúty, April 5, 1903

[P23] Janoš Šimek — Kúty, April 19, 1903

CASE: The Burský Svätý Mikuláš affair [P25 + P26 + P27]

[P25] Karol Nečesálek, April 26, 1903

[P26] Ignác Šebesta, April 27, 1903

[P27] Štefan Drábek and Matej Šedivý, April 28, 1903

[P17] Matuš Samek — Burský Svätý Peter (Borský Svätý Jur), [March 1903]

Photograph: 267-268
Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 20.
Transcription (Slovak):[strana 1]Ctený Pán Redaktor,Buďte tak dobrý a uverejnite o našej obci Búrsky Mikuláš, že my máme takých úradníkov, ktorí len po šenkoch chodia. Je tomu ale 2 týždne, ako došiel na nich poplach o 2. hodine po polnoci, prišiel tam taký človek a oni mu povedali, čo tu hľadáš a on sa ich pýtal čo vy tu robíte? Richtár prišiel k nemu, že mu dá jednu facku a ten nemeškal, Richtárovi vylepil 3 krát sa prehodil a nato sa prihlásil aj prísažný, a tomu ako mu jednu dal, tak spadol pod stôl a tak si rozrazil nos, a povedal, že má takú ruku, že mu ju ani býk neohne. A pýtal sa richtára, ty trhane, chceš ešte jednu, Richtár povedal, že už má dosť.A keď bola voľba nových […] tak boli kandidovaní: Ruchovanski Janoš a Totka Jozef. Totka dal chlapom popredu 2 […] vína a na Ruchovanského na múr napísal čiernym uhlom, že takého richtára nechcú. Mal takých kortešov, ktorý prišiel do šenku, Totka mu dal liter vína, musel ho vypiť, a keď nechcel, niektorých ho chcel udrieť po hlave, tak za pijatiku zostal Totka richtár, tak on sa teraz strojí tým, ktorí dávali hlas [orig. vótu] druhému. Taký človek je richtárom, čo nie je so ženou, jeho žena je v Prešporku v špitáli, zaveterku [?] [sic] on chodí každý týždeň do Viedne za kurvami [dve slová škrtnuté]. Ak tomu máme takého pustovníka Márie Magdalény, menom Cintula Valent a jeho syn Ignác, samí laubery [sic] zlodeji, chodia zo sekerou, s nožom, čo každému stojí o život.Amen [strana 2]2/3 [pravdepodobne 2. marca] bola jedna svadba a prišli tam traja a bol tam aj starý Richtár Šebesta Ignác, [ktorý] hneď rozkázal tých troch chudobných palicami biť, ale tí traja keď sa dostali von, dali sa na útek. [Richtár Šebesta] si najal takých 3 trhanov [orig. škubanov], Rozbora Pavel, Rozbora Jozef, Filipek Jan, to sú takí psi v obci. Ale tí traja neboli takí sprostí, hneď išli k doktorovi do Šaštína. Stretli ho pri železničnej trati [orig. stretli sa s ním u štreki], tak ich zobral na voz a hneď išli k babje [sic][?], tam ich prehliadol. [Potom] hneď išli na obecný dom, tak dal každému hneď 5 zlatých, tých 15 zlatých si vyposlál [sic] od notára [orig. notarusa], čo sa tých troch bál, tak si nás tam dal 50 chlapov s palicami. Stáli sme pred obecným domom a potom sme richtára museli viesť domov, čo sa tých troch bál.Teraz budem prosiť Pane Redaktor, len týchto pár riadkov uverejnite; prosím do časopisu ich dajte, aby to každý do ruky dostal. Mňa to teší, keď niečo čítam z každej obce, z vášho Pokroku. Nech niečo čítame [aj] o buranskej obci.To sklatal Samek Matuš,Bur. Svateho Petra 1903

Description (English):A pencil-written, strongly dialectal letter whose first page complains that the village officials of Burský Svätý Mikuláš do nothing but make the rounds of the taverns, recounting how a villager who confronted them after midnight was threatened by the richtár with a slap and returned three, flooring the sworn juror as well; and how a recent election of the village head was carried by one candidate who plied the men with wine while the other was denounced in coal on a wall. Its second page turns to a wedding brawl and to the old village head Ignác Šebesta, whom Samek accuses of ordering three poor men beaten and then hiring ruffians and mustering fifty men with cudgels. Artless and barely coherent, the letter shows at the very outset of the newspaper’s life how a village reader understood the paper: as a place to make local misconduct public. Nothing here is couched in national vocabulary; the complaint is moral and communal. The second page also opens the affair disputed, from the other side, in the Burský Svätý Mikuláš case below.What to notice: Treats the paper as an arena of local publicity; entirely moral, no national framing. Its second page is the accuser’s version of the affair answered in [P25]–[P27] (hyperlink).

[P21] Anton Ondriszka — Kúty, April 5, 1903

Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 26.Transcription (Slovak): [strana 1]Kutti (Kúty)Vct. P. Red! Pozdravujem Vás i ja od nás týmto dopisom. Neviem, či Vám bude vhod, keď nikto nepíše od nás, teda ja som sa na to opovážil, ale len najťažšie [je] začať, už to pôjde, bár do koša.S úctou ostávam,Anton OndriszkaRoľník, Kúty 903 5/IV. [strana 2]Bár je u nás viacej čitateľov „Pokroku“, predsa žiaden nechytí pero a tiež niečo už z tých „Kútov“ nenapíše. Tak teda ja sa do toho osmeľujem.Ale čo že to bude? Nerozmýšľajme dlho, lež dajme černidlom na papier to, čo mienime, a je po paráde.Nového u nás nie je mnoho, len pernikársky jarmok [orig. Pernikárský Jarmek] na kvetnú nedeľu, neviem od kedy býva. Lebo čo [si] ja pamätám, vždy sa koná [orig. vydržáva]. A potom naše gazdinky, kde aký šesták pozháňajú, či z tovarichu [sic] alebo za mlieko, to je im jednom, všetky [ho] za ten perník odnesú. [strana 3]Mnohé by mohli kúpiť radšej deťom šaty, alebo si vybaviť Veľkonočné sviatky. [Namiesto toho si však] nakúpia toho až hrôza, a poškodia sa [orig. a sa oškodia]; a deti to všetko dolámu a pohádžu na zem. A načo je to? A mnohé tieto „kmotričky“ sa jedna nad druhú vynášajú a robia „pýchu na ulici a nič v truhlici“. Ale za to tí predavači [orig. kramári] majú až stovky v truhlici.Kmotričky a kmotrovia, nechajte už tú hlúposť a neškodte sami sebe s nepotrebnými vecami. Otvorte oči a uznajte, že je to zbytočné, na daromnice groš vyhodiť. Kúpte si radšej poučnú knižku lebo časopis, aby ste sa [strana 4]vzdelávali a pokračovali za druhymi obciami [sic] [brali si príklad od druhých obcí].Ale na knižky alebo noviny dať peniaze je mnoho, na čítanie, pravda, nie je času, ale v krčme sedieť je času dosť. Rozmyslite si to a uvidíte, že je tomu tak.Už dosť čiarok moja ťažká ruka spravila, násilná robota i tak nič nestojí. Teda dnes dosť. Požehnaj nás Boh zo všetkým, čo si prajeme.Kúťan.

Description (English):A self-assured letter from a farmer who, noting that Kúty has several readers of the paper but that none will take up the pen, resolves to do it himself. Finding little news to report beyond an approaching gingerbread fair, he turns the occasion into a small sermon on thrift: the village housewives, he complains, scrape together every coin for gingerbread they could better spend on clothes for their children, vaunting themselves one above another in “pride on the street and nothing in the chest,” while only the market-traders profit. Better, he urges, to buy an instructive book or a newspaper and educate oneself to keep pace with other villages; people plead lack of money for books and lack of time for reading, yet find both for sitting in the tavern. The letter is a clear instance of the self-improving, morally didactic reader the paper cultivated, and its patriarchal criticism of female vanity is characteristic of the register. It draws a reply, printed a fortnight later, from a second Kúty correspondent.What to notice: The didactic, self-cultivating voice of the model reader; note the paired reply that follows ([P23]).

[P23] Janoš Šimek — Kúty, April 19, 1903

Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 31.Transcription (Slovak): [strana 1]S Kútov do Kútov, kde nič tu nič, už zas jeden pokrokár chápe sa pera, aby oznámil niečo do Pokroku verejnosti. Aké boli sviatky [...] u pána Mórica Klingera veľmi podarené. [...] spolku borovičky [...] nebojím sa Boha ani Krista a nectím ani matku svoju, bár jej dám pár faciek [orig. bar ji dam par lipakú] až ju krv zaleje a svojich blížnych po blate pováľam v nových šatách. To je pokrok, za 2 koruny od sestry a rozum borovičky sila leva mrav do... – [sic] nebojím sa, udriem ho bár ihličím, čo na tom, to je pokrok od 19. storočia. Taký dobrý človek mal by si brať príklad z nášho Pokroku. Stojí 2 haliere. Času dosť [v] nedeľu ho čítať po kostole, než rozum prepiť a druhým ľuďom pokoj nedať; no keď aj čítať nevie, našiel by som kamaráta, ktorý vie [a] učil by som sa s ním. Keď môžu kamaráti z jedného pohára borovičku piť, tak môžu aj [z] nášho slovenského Pokroku čítať, ten im rozum nezmätie ako borovička; dá im dobré mravy istotne. Dosa citi nech sa ftípi keho nepali nehas [sic] [koho sa to týka, nech sa podľa toho zariadi, koho sa to netýka, nech nehasí, čo ho nepáli] [strana 2]Pán redaktor, s tým perníkovým jarmokom pravdu mal dopisateľ [sic]. Ten jarmok mal by sa uvádzať v kalendároch [orig. mal bi sa vtahnút do kalendarú], aby cukrári, pernikári neboli ukrátení vo svojom obchode týždeň pred veľkou nocou [...].Prosím láskavo pána redaktora, aby uverejnili tento dopis. Nie som síce predplatiteľ, ale u vašich dôverníkov, odoberateľ máme výrobky ešte špatné [sic], ale ledva prídu domov, už mi deti Pokrok nesú. Meno moje nezverejňujte, nemal by som pokoja od tých roztopašníkov.ZbohomŠimek Janoš
Kutti
dna 19/4 1903

Description (English):Explicitly answering the earlier Kúty letter, Šimek opens with a play on the village name and offers a temperance homily of his own. The drinker of spirits, he writes, comes to fear neither God nor Christ, dishonours his mother and beats her till the blood flows, and tramples his neighbours in the mud; better that such a man give two hellers to the newspaper Pokrok and read it on Sundays coming home from church than drink away his reason. Even the illiterate, he adds, might find a literate friend and learn alongside him: if friends can drink spirits from one glass, they can read the paper together too, for it will not muddle their wits as spirits do. Šimek then endorses the previous correspondent on the matter of the gingerbread fair and asks that it be announced in the calendar a week before Easter so the confectioners are not short-changed. He asks that his own name be withheld, lest the “revellers” give him no peace.What to notice: A correspondent openly answering another in print, the clearest single instance of readers in dialogue through the paper; temperance framed in religious-moral terms. Pairs with [P21]

CASE: The Burský Svätý Mikuláš affair [P25 + P26 + P27]

Burský Svätý Mikuláš (Borský Mikuláš), April 1903. SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726.
The case:In the spring of 1903 Pokrok printed a satirical verse, sent from the neighbouring Burský Svätý Peter, mocking the village head of Burský Svätý Mikuláš over a drunken brawl:Dvanásta hodina smutno už bije / The twelfth hour is already mournfully striking
ten starý rychtár na svadbe pije. / the old village head sits drinking at the wedding.
Na troch chudobných, ktorí tam prišli, / At three poor men who had come in there
zakričí Ignác jako pán pyšný. / Ignác shouts like a haughty lord.
Palicou na nich dobre im dajte, / Give it to them well with a stick,
Rozboro hurrá len im vypálte. / Rozbora, hooray at them, let them have it!
Utekali k doktorovi a dali sa prezerať / They ran to the doctor and had themselves examined,
a doktor dal hneď Ignácka zavolať. / and the doctor at once had Ignácko summoned.
Ty starý rychtáru nebudeš panovať / You old village head, you shall lord it no longer,
musel ti pán notár peniaze požičať. / the notary had to lend you the money.
Zaplatil pokutu 30 korún nových / He paid a fine of thirty new crowns
a na stráž postavil päťdesiat chlapov hodných. / and posted fifty stout men as a guard.
Prešla mu svávoľnosť a potratil guráž / His wilfulness passed, and his courage failed,
domov pod palicami viedla ho čestná stráž. / an honour guard led him home under sticks.(Z Petra. In: Pokrok, roč. 1, č. 17, 25 April 1903, p. 3)The verse tells, in mocking doggerel, how at the stroke of midnight the old village head sits drinking at a wedding; how he rounds on three poor men who come in, crying out like a haughty lord that they be beaten with sticks; how they flee to the doctor to be examined, and the doctor at once sends for “Ignácko.” No longer will you lord it over us, old village head, the verse taunts: the notary had to lend you money, you paid a fine of thirty new crowns, and you posted fifty stout men as a guard. His wilfulness spent, and his courage lost, it ends, an “honour guard” led him home under a hail of sticks.The verse provoked three letters from Mikuláš within days, and together they let a single village quarrel be seen from several positions at once. A local activist writes privately to the editor about who should and should not be trusted to report from the village; the accused village head answers the charge in his own hand; and the communal treasurer, with another villager, corroborates the village head's account and narrates the underlying incident in full. The three letters are presented here as one case.A further account survives from the opposing side. The letter catalogued here as [P17], from Matúš Samek of the neighbouring Burský Svätý Peter, devotes its second page to the same brawl, telling it against the village head: in Samek’s version it was Šebesta who, at a wedding, ordered three poor men beaten with sticks and then hired ruffians and mustered fifty men with cudgels, all because he feared the three. Read beside Šebesta’s own defence and the treasurer’s corroboration, Samek’s hostile report shows the same event narrated from four positions: the satirist, the accuser, the accused, and his defenders, a small dossier of a single village quarrel as it played out in and around the newspaper.

[P25] Karol Nečesálek, April 26, 1903

Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 35–36.Transcription (Slovak): [strana 1]Drahý Paľko!Už druhýkrát bola drobnička v „Pokroku“ od Búrana, ktoré každého čo k čemu [sic] človeka nemilo sa dotkli. Maj toľko dôvery v nás dvoch [Nečesálka a učiteľa Holoviča, ktorého spomína nižšie v liste], že keď bude nejaká novina, ktorá sa do „Pokroku“ sa hodí, že Ti pošleme; od druhého nech ani neprijíma správy žiadnej, lebo ako som pobadal, tých ľudí vedie buď pomsta alebo chcú niekoho do rozpakov priniesť. Také pletky môžu dosiahnuť pravý opak toho, čo chceme s pokrokom docieliť. [Pokrok už označujú za] klebetný plátok už aj inteligentní ľudia. Viem, že Ta vedie láska k ľudu, aby aj on chápal a samostatne si počínal v myšlienkach i perom, ale keď ten ľud ešte nevie nestranne písať! To potom škodí. Preto chcem Ťa upozorniť na vec, čo v tom väzí, keď by to bolo vedomé od Teba, to by som sa nepostavil za „Pokrok“, ako doposiaľ.1.) Teraz keď sú oziminy v raste, žiaden sedliak nemá rád, keď mu pes behá po raži; 2.) U nás je poľovka vydaná do árendy istým bankárom z Hannoveru a oni majú 2 hájnikov čo im opatrujú [...] zajačkov. Nuž, keď niektorý z tých hájnikov zastrelil psa, ktorý naháňal zajace [...], kto si to dá ľúbiť? Zastrelili ho, nech je čí chce! Teraz nemajú psi čo do polí behať. To je vo veci. Kto strieľal, neviem, ale že jedna z oných príčin bola, to je isté. Ako počujem, kto to mal byť, to je priam poriadny človek, ženáč; a ako mládenec slúžil za vzor iným.Že vraj mal kolárovi Palkovičovi postrieľať psa, no za to nemusí byť dravec. Tí Hannoverčania vyplatili za šesť rokov celú árendu dopredu naraz, za čo sme postavili novú školu, čo bolo veľkým dobrodením pre obec. Tým hájnikom nik nemá za zlé, keď si konajú svoju povinnosť. [...] To je jedna záležitosť. [strana 2]Druhá vec je: v poslednom čísle je verš údajne z Petra [odkaz na článok: Z Petra. Pokrok, roč. 1, č. 17, 25. 4. 1903, s. 3]. To ťa niekto za nos vodil a zaslúži si, aby bol celým menom na pranier postavený. Z [Burského] Petra nebol, lebo on [verš] sa vzťahuje na pomery mikulášske [Burský Sv. Mikuláš], a je plný lží. Z toho nie je nič pravda, ale opak toho. Týka sa to nášho bývalého richtára Šebestu, ktorého som nedávno tak vychválil v Pokroku. A priam ten odsek o ňom, ktorý si mi z tej správy vynechal, to použili ničomníci proti nemu. Vec sa má takto:Tí vo verši spomenutí chudobní sú: Linek Jan slobodný, Buday Jozef a Janiček (Král) švec, ženáči. Ešte na Štedrý deň ožratí všetci traja robili po obci škandále. Vytĺkali židákom okná a ohrozovali slobodu ľudí po ulici idúcich, slovom, lumpi. Na fašiangy opäť tak [opití] v kompánii opakovali to isté zas inému židákovi. Keď v obidvoch prípadoch bol richtár Šebesta Ignác požiadaný, aby urobil poriadok, oborili sa aj proti richtárovi a z latou z plota dali sa ho biť. Či si to má nechať od lumpov? To ale ešte nebolo dosť.Bola svadba, svadobníci sa tichučko zabávali pri muzike, keď dokvitli vyššie menovaní už opití a začali svadobníkov rozháňať a garázdiť [sic] v samom šenku, tak že títo museli utiecť preč a zavolali zase len richtára, aby učinil v obci poriadok. Richtár keď ich vyháňal von, oni dali sa nožom do neho a dostal i malú ranu pri oku, na šťastie naše lebo sa bránil. Keď videl, že tu má dočinenia s lotrami; a keď videli aj iní, že tu inej pomoci niet; pravda, richtár, chlap ako hora dal sa do nich a jedného dobre udrel do tváre [orig. a jednému dobre chlostnul po drgany]! Čo iného mu patrilo? Vec bola vyšetrovaná, lumpi aj zavretí, šupovaní [sic] žandármi, ale čo si na ňom vyžaluješ, keď je ako tá buranská voš?Iste ich dobre zbili aj sami žandári a poslali ich domov. Lumpi [...] išli ku Dr. Kertészovi do Šaštína pre visum repertum [potvrdenie o ujme]. Ten im ho vystavil – nevediac čo sa deje v obci – a hneď osobitne na bicykli priženie [orig. na kolesi dožene] pre 30 korún, lebo že ináč, ak to pôjde k súdu, bude zle! On [rychtár Šebesta], chudák, neskúsený človek, dal sa Dr. Kertészom nastrašiť a zaplatil radšej 30 kor. než aby mal mať chodenie po súdoch, [strana 3]lebo to bolo už v posledných dňoch jeho úradovania, myslel si: budem mať aspoň už pokoj. Každý rozumný človek zatracoval to, že sa dal terrorizovat [sic] Kertészovi a nútili sme ho, aby žiadal od Dr. Kertésza peniaze späť, hoci aj súdnou cestou, ale on nechcel mať z nikým nič, a za jeho mäkké srdce, za jeho dobrotu, za to, že tých lumpov nedal hnať do väzenia, ako si boli zaslúžili pre ohrozovanie životov a verejného poriadku, za to dostalo sa mu posmechu!Súď sám, či to nie je podlosť aj od toho, ktorý tým lumpom to skomponoval, veď mi vieme, kto je to ten poeta [sic], lebo rozpráva vždy vo veršoch, keď má dobrú náladu (Ruchovansky Ján, 2. kandidát na richtárstvo, a keď prepadol, nuž to bude z pomsty), dal sa na taký podlý skutok; očierňovať, ba osočovať: v obci statočnú dušu; keby boli všetci takí [ako richtár Ignác Šebesta], mohli by sme si len blahoželať. Charakter, aký len u roľníka sa dá predstaviť a očakávať. Pravdaže ho to bolí, keď musí čítať takú lživú hanu o sebe! Ak je podpísaný iný, to bude iste len aby do omylu uviedol Teba [Pavla Blahu]. Preto, [toho] korešpondenta [orig. doposielatela] vystav na pranier úplným jeho menom, nech sa vie, kto je ten podlý človek.Nuž, z tohto súď si sám, či je hodno takým listom veriť, keď sú v stave toľkého pohoršenia v obci spôsobiť? Akcie Pokroku by hneď padli, ak by sa to opakovalo niekoľkokrát.Tí lumpi pobili sa potom ešte aj s paholkami a s rozbitou hlavou zase išli k druhému lekárovi pre visum repertum, aby tento [strana 4]opäť paholkov načepoval [sic], ale tam sa im to už nepodarilo tak ako u Kertésza. To je od lekára neobozretnosť, keď si nevypočuje vec i z druhej strany a chce byť aj sudcom veci.Učiteľ, keď potresce dieťa, vedia, že Kertész dá visum repertum na modré fliačky na zadku, a chceli by tak zterrorizovat [sic] i školu, ale to nejde! My sme nie zajačieho srdca, a p. Dr. ani 5 korún si nemohol vyrobiť za visum repertum u stránky obžalovanej, lebo bol v práve. Preto chceli sme Kertészovi už raz klepnúť po prstoch v Pokroku, a ty si sa bál toho. – Vec už bude zastaralá, už to nechcem hýbať, ale ak by sa ešte voľačo udialo podobného, budem sa naňho sťažovať [orig. neomeškam ho vyfigurovať].Aj na ten list toho mládenca buranského by som mal mať poznámku, bár sa to nás dvoch s Holovičom ani netýka. My [dvaja] sme chceli pred 3 rokmi s paholkami začať [pracovať], po večeroch učievali [sme ich] spevu, čítaniu, prednášali sme im o všeličom, písavali všelijaké listiny potrebné pre život, zdravovedu, ovocinárstvo, slovom všetko, čo sa len myslieť dá [...], ale zo 70 chlapov behom 2 rokoch ostalo nám len 6 (šesť) verných. Už sme im aj knižnicu založili, i svetlo dávali, i sami okusovali [sic] školu, a oni? Dali sa radšej lumpom zviesť, šli do šenku karty hrať a z nás si robili ešte posmech, že vraj kaplán nás povedie s koruhvičkou [sic] atď. A bolo lumpácke heslo vydané: robme zle! Už sa aj povrávalo, že odkedy chodia chlapci do školy, sú čím ďalej horší. Pravda, rodičov klamali, keď neprichodil z krčmy: Boli sme dlho v škole! Rodič sa tešil dobrej veci, a vysvitlo, že oni v šenku u žida hrajú karty. Na také lamentovanie mládenca buranského preto ani nereflektoval.

Description (English):Addressed intimately to Pavel Blaho, this letter from a local assistant priest, a member of Blaho’s activist network, is at once a plea about the conduct of correspondence and a passionate defence of a maligned neighbour. Twice now, Nečesálek writes, a trifling item from “Búry” has appeared in the paper and discomfited every serious person. He begs the editor to trust him and his associate, the local teacher, as the village’s correspondents and to accept reports from no one else, “for as I have observed, those people are driven either by revenge or by a wish to embarrass someone.” He does not doubt Blaho’s motives, only the readiness of the people: the trouble, he insists, is “that the folk still cannot write impartially!” Such tattling makes the paper look like a gossip sheet even to educated people, and if repeated, would see its standing collapse.The bulk of the letter then dismantles two recent items. The first is a report that a gamekeeper had shot a villager’s dog. Nečesálek sets it in context: the hunting rights are leased to a Hanover banker whose keepers rightly drive off dogs coursing hares through the standing rye, and the lease, paid six years in advance, had built the village a new school. The second is a satirical verse purportedly from Burský Svätý Peter, which he denounces as slander aimed at the former village head Ignác Šebesta, whom he had lately praised in Pokrok.He recounts the affair in Šebesta’s favour. The three “poor victims” were drunkards who smashed Jewish windows and terrorised the street; when the village head restored order, they attacked him. Afterwards, they sought out Dr Kertész in Šaštín for a medical certificate. Kertész, Nečesálek charges, issued it hastily and irresponsibly, without inquiring into the matter. He then pedalled after Šebesta by bicycle to collect thirty crowns, under the threat that things would otherwise go to court. An inexperienced man in his last days of office, Šebesta paid rather than face the courts.Here the letter turns on itself in a telling way. The same Nečesálek who has just cautioned Blaho against letting Pokrok be used for private revenge now reserves the paper for a reckoning of his own. He recalls that he had once wanted to rap Kertész over the knuckles in its pages, and that Blaho, wary, had held him back. Should the doctor overstep so again, he warns, he will not fail to expose him. Nečesálek then names the verse’s likely author, a defeated candidate for the village-head office writing from spite, and asks that he be pilloried by name.The letter closes with a rueful account of the writer’s own failed effort, with the teacher Holovič, to educate the village’s young men. Of seventy, only six remained faithful; the rest were lured back to cards and the tavern.What to notice: A correspondent theorising the ethics of village correspondence from within, warning against the paper as an instrument of revenge while reserving it for a reckoning of his own, defends a neighbour against the paper itself and gives the fullest account of the Burský Svätý Mikuláš affair ([P26], [P27]).

[P26] Ignác Šebesta, April 27, 1903

Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 37–38.Transcription (Slovak): [strana 1]List písaný na Buroch dňa 27/4, rok 1903Pane redaktor a doktor,opovažujem sa písať vám. Ja nie som dobrý pisár, lebo keď som mal ísť do školy, rodičia ma potrebovali k práci, a to je teraz moja najväčšia chyba. Teraz neviem, kde patrí hrubé písmeno alebo bodka alebo čiarka alebo otáznik, ale snáď môjmu písmu porozumiete. Teda prosím, odpustite, čítal som v Pokroku taký verš, ktorý ma veľmi bolí, že takéhoto pálenkára, ktorý nevie na slovenskú topánku prišiť flek [sic], šuster sprostý, a jeho verš je uverejnený, ktorý je plný nepravdy. Tí traja chudobní, to sú pálenkári, a ja som všetkej pálenky nepriateľ. Tí traja chudobní, také škandály robili v obci, keď sa opili, že im musel každý uhnúť. A ako richtár musel [som] poriadok robiť, bola richtárova povinnosť, aby ten nepokoj nerobili, lebo aj okná vybíjali.To je pastierov syn aj zať a jeden je žobrákov syn. Tí sa opili. A kde koho stretli, toho bili. Teda, taký je chudobný [človek], keď je ožratý. Ja sa nechcem chváliť, čo som ja alebo kto som ja, lebo vlastná chvála smrdí, ale som prinútený, aby som dopisovateľa poznal. Snáď je to Jozef Janiček, lump a borovičkár. Ale pane redaktor [nech sa spýtajú] našich duchovných horlivých pastierov, ktorí neúnavne pracujú [strana 2]na poli Kristovom, alebo Holovič Šandora, tak horlivého učiteľa, alebo rechtora [sic] Štefana Plško múdreho, tí dajú vysvetlenie, čo je starý richtár, a čo sú tí traja chudobní. Nechcem mnoho písať, však sa obec postará, aby tým trom sa kleplo na prsty. Pane redaktor, prosím vás láskavo neuverejňujte na tých starých richtárov také klebety [orig. pletuchi], [...] ja som si právo tak zastal pri voľbe poslaneckej [orig. ablegáckej] ako sa to na každého kresťana a katolíka sluší. Pálenkár je nepriateľ predstaveného, lebo musí mať s takým lumpom robotu každý richtár. Presvedčte sa, čo je to za človeka. Sú takí občania čo poznajú občana, že to je o mne zložený verš [orig. šak su taki opčane co poznaju opčana toje omje složeni verš], že 12-ta bije. To by ste sa boli čudovali, ako naši voliči stáli ako múr, čo mňa chceli voliť [za richtára], ale ja som [kandidáciu] prijať nechcel.A na svadbe som v tom čase nebol, keď tí chudobní robili v obci neporiadky. Bol som na svadbe potom. Ženil som krstného, nuž, pomodlili sme sa a potom sme sa veselili. [strana 2]Ja som pyšný jakživ nebol, lebo viem, že pyšných anjelov vyhnal Boh z neba a uvrhol ich do pekla.Ani palicou im dobre dajte [tento a nasledujúce riadky reagujú na verš Z Petra; Pokrok, 25. 4. 1903], lebo mali tie palice, ktorými ich ohrozovali. Hurá, to neviem, čo je, to je tuším vojenský výraz a ja som vojakom nebol, tak som to ani nepovedal; no doktor mi nepovedal, že panovať nebudem, lebo on na to žiadneho práva nemá. Notár mi peniaze nepožičal, lebo on sa s peniazmi hnevá; na stráž nepostavil som nikoho, ale sami občania sa rozhodli tých 3 pálenkárov utíšiť.No, pane doktore, nežiadam, aby ste toto uverejnili do Pokroku, ale aby ste sa o veci presvedčili.Zbohom,Priateľ ľudu,Ignac Šebesta
Prosím Pane Pravotár, buďte tak láskavý a toho [meno] mi oznámte, čo ten verš peterský písal, lebo inak musím súdnou cestou to požadovať. Ja [ho] žalovať nebudem, ale ho chcem utíšiť.

Description (English):The self-defence of the accused village head, written in his own barely schooled hand, apologises at the outset that his parents put him to work rather than to school as a consequence he does not know “where a capital letter belongs, or a full stop, or a comma.” The verse item, he protests, was “all untruth,” the work of a “stupid cobbler” who cannot even patch a Slovak shoe. The three men it treated as poor victims were in fact drunkards who made such scandals in the village, smashing windows and beating whomever they met, that everyone had to give way to them; and it was his own plain duty, as the village head, to keep order. He offers his conduct as proof of his character: he had always done his duty, had stood firm at the parliamentary election as befits a Christian and a Catholic, and, though the voters had stood “like a wall” wanting to elect him village head once more, he had declined to stand. He is no drunkard but an enemy of spirits, and no proud man, for he knows that God cast the proud angels out of heaven. Rather than name witnesses to himself, he summons them: let the editor ask the village’s zealous priests, or the diligent teacher Holovič Šandor, or the wise rector Štefan Plško, what the old village head is and what those three drunkards are. He guesses the verse’s author to be one Jozef Janiček, a “scoundrel and gin-drinker,” and asks in a closing postscript to be told the name of the Peter versifier, whom he means not to sue but “to quieten.” Written by the very officeholder the paper had satirised, the letter is a rare view from the other side of a local dispute, and its laboured orthography is itself part of the record, a village head answering print with the limited literacy print now demanded of him.What to notice: The satirised official answering back in his own barely schooled hand, rebutting the verse point by point and marshalling the village's respectable men as witnesses in his defence; the laboured orthography is itself part of the record of what print now demanded of those it reached.

[P27] Štefan Drábek and Matej Šedivý, April 28, 1903

Archival reference: SNA, Pavol Blaho Papers, box 54, inv. no. 1726, folio 39–40.Transcription (Slovak): [strana 1]V Búr. Sv. Mikuláši, dňa 28. apríla 1903.Ctený Pán Redaktor Pokroku.Čítal som v terajšom čísle Pokroku novinku vo veršoch z Búr Petra, ktorá sa týka nášho starého richtára Ignaca Sebestu. Čo stojí v dopise, to je všetko nepravda. Na ten dopis sa pobúrila takmer celá obec. Ten, ktorý vám ten list zaslal, to nebol žiadny riadny človek, lebo samú pomstychtivú vec napísal, a keď písal, mal napísať pravdu ako sa tá vec má, lebo je to takto:1.) Ignac na svadbe ani nebol, on prišiel do toho hostinca ako hosť na pohár vína a sediac v druhej izbe, prišli tam tí traja, ktorých dopisovateľ chudobnými menuje. Tí tam prišli z druhého hostinca ožratí a začali svadobníkov neustále znepokojovať a od muziky odstrkovať, na čo bol richtár požiadaný, aby ich k poriadku napomenul, načo jeden s tých troch menom Jozef Búdai, žobrákov syn, udrel richtára päsťou do ksichtu a na to sa dali všetci traja doňho. Zbadajúc to svadobníci [strana 2]išli richtára brániť. Tak tí traja vidiac presilu, dali sa na útek. Richtár jedného chytil, tí však vidiac richtára samého, zas sa vrátili a pustili sa doňho zas všetci traja. On sa bránil, ale nemohol sa trom ubrániť. Vidiac to neďaleko stojaci Jozef Rozbora, išiel richtára brániť, tak potom s pomocou viacerých ľudí tých troch chytili a odviedli na obecný dom, kde sa oborili aj na notára aj na ostatné obecné predstavenstvo a že veru oni sa ani žandárov neboja. Tak, keď ani tu neposlúchli, tak ich do obecnej väznice zatvorili. Tí, čo tam vnútri našli, dali na hromadu a zapálili. Teda, bojac sa takých troch lotrov, aby tam voľačo horšieho nevyviedli, pustili ich a tí sa hneď na druhý deň ráno pobrali za doktorom do Šaštína. Pán doktor hneď prišiel s nimi, tak pán doktor žiadal pre každého z nich 10 korún, ktoré aj hneď vyplatil richtár, chtiac sa vyhnúť ďalšej mrzutosti s takými lotrami, Radšej sa poddal a nechal to tak.A že postavil stráž, to musí uznať každý, lebo sa vyhrážali, že musia richtára ešte v tú noc zabiť. To nie sú ľudia ale lotri, ktorí nie sú hodní medzi poriadnych ľudí [strana 3]vstúpiť, lebo ešte v ten istý deň zbili ženu na ceste, čo niesla poštu zo stanice, v ten istý deň vybili okná židovi Kohnovi a potom rozlámali židákovi dvere a vraj teraz poďme na svadbu. A tak tam aj prišli, a ako vám píšem, tak sa aj stalo.Tak, ctený pán redaktor, tí traja sú Ján Linek, obecného pastiera syn. Druhý je Jozef Janiček pastierov zať, tretí je Jozef Budai, žobrákov syn, ktorý vlastnému otcovi povyrážal okná a rámy vytrhal. Tak už viete, akí sú to ľudia. Ešte ten Linek povedal, dal som richtárovi facku, dostal som 5 zlatých, tak keď niekoho zabijem, iste dostanem 50 zlatých.Tak, tu máte čistú pravdu opísanú [...].A čo sa týka toho, že [...] richtárom, on dopredu oznámil, že sa už nebude uchádzať o žiadny obecný úrad [orig. on sa predňe podakoval za všecki obecne službi]. Ľud bol veľmi zaňho, ale on nechcel ďalej úradovať, lebo si veľa ťažkostí vytrpel, ktoré trpezlivo znášal.Tak vás slušne a pekne prosím, aby ste vydali meno toho dopisovateľa, ktorý to napísal, lebo sa to musíme dozvedieť, kto to tam napísal. Lebo mňa podozrievajú, to jest Štefana Drabka. Teda prosíme vás [strana 4]buď nám uveďte meno dopisovateľa, alebo nech sa dopisovateľ ospravedlní. Tak vás pekne prosíme o krátku odpoveď na ktorúkoľvek tu uvedenú adresu, lebo pokiaľ by to bolo potrebné, tak sa vám zašlú podpisy, že je to nepravda, ako to v 17 čísle stojí.Štefan Drábek a Matej Šedivi, obecný pokladník [orig. obecni peňažník]

Description (English):Written by the communal treasurer and another villager, this letter corroborates the village head’s account and completes the dossier, though one of its authors writes with a stake of his own. The verse, they insist, was untrue and had roused almost the whole village; no honest man wrote it, only a vengeful one. Their narrative broadly matches Šebesta’s but is fuller and names names: Šebesta was not at the wedding but sat over a glass of wine in the next room when the three drunkards, come from another inn, began shoving the wedding guests from the dancing; called to restore order, he was punched in the face by one Jozef Búdai, “a beggar’s son,” and set upon by all three, until Jozef Rozbora and others subdued them and marched them to the village hall, where they defied the notary and boasted they feared not even the gendarmes, and, locked up, piled the cell's contents together and set them alight. The doctor from Šaštín, the writers add, charged ten crowns for each man, which the village head paid to be rid of the trouble; and the guard was posted because the three had threatened to kill him that very night. These were no ordinary men but ruffians, they insist: the same day they had beaten a woman carrying the post from the station and smashed the windows of Kohn the Jew, and one of them, Linek, had boasted that a punch to the village head earned him five gulden, so a killing would surely fetch fifty. What gives the letter its edge is its final turn. One of the signatories, Štefan Drábek, is himself under suspicion in the village of having written the offending verse, and he asks the editor either to name the true author or to have him publicly apologise, so that Drábek may clear himself; the writers offer, if needed, to send signatures attesting that the printed verse was false.
What to notice: Communal corroboration that is also self-exculpation: a co-signatory, himself suspected of the verse, demands the author’s name to clear it; with [P17] the affair now stands in four competing versions.

Back to Contents

Google Sites

Report abuse