Journal index

The Barth-Brunner debate is one of the significant moments of the Protestant theological history in the 20 th century. The replica-exchange of the two outstanding figures of dialectical theology in 1934 not only includes the theological centres of gravity of Karl Barth and Emil Brunner, but also gives insight into the sparkling theological and spiritual atmosphere of the 1930s. Brunner’s interpretation reveals a specific version of natural theology, while Barth, in the spirit of New Reformation Theology, expresses his position in terms of the authority of the Word. In this essay until we explore the content of some points of the debate, we also briefly reconstruct the circumstances of its origin, as well as we mention its history and evaluation in Transylvania.

This is the third, closing section on the life of Countess Anna Teleki (1783-1851). In Part I we dealt with her youth, in Part II with her marriage to Simon Kemény, and in this last section with her widowhood. After the death of her husband, Anna Teleki moved to Enyed (Aiud), where her home, the “Burg”, became not only a centre of her family life but also of cultural and political life. She was responsible for the financial support of Farkas Bolyai. Her sons and sons-in-law played a nationally important role in the Union and during the War of Independence (1948). They were forced to flee from Enyed because of the attack of the Romanian Moț groups. After the War of Independence, the family went into hiding in Tiszaroff and Érmihályfalva (Valea lui Mihai). Here she received a letter from Farkas Bolyai evaluating the recent events of those days. She died on her return to Kolozsvár (Cluj-Napoca) in 1851. Her life and moral example deserve respect even by biblical standards.

After presenting the youth of Anna Teleki in Part I. of our study, in this second part, we deal with her marriage to Simon Kemény. Count Anna Teleki married Br. Simon Kemény Jr in 1801, who had previously studied at the University of Göttingen with his fellow student, Farkas Bolyai. Simon Kemény later remained Bolyai’s friend and spiritual companion. The young couple lived in Marosvásárhely (Târgu Mureş), Apanagyfalu (Nușeni) and in Csombord (Ciumbrud) in Lower-Alba county. They had six children, five of whom reached adulthood. Anna Teleki raised her children to virtues such as kindness, honesty, diligence, modesty. Her prayers and writings on educating of children have survived the centuries. With the support of the family, most of them had reached an outstanding career: Dániel Vajda, the later winemaker expert, János Szabó, portrait painter, Miklós Barabás, painter, and Károly Szász Sr., a mathematician and a lawyer. From 1823 until his death in 1826, a period considered by contemporaries the golden age of the county, Simon Kemény served as the administrator (chief lord) of Lower-Alba county.

The life of Anna Teleki (1783–1851), wife of Count Simon Kemény is presented in 3 parts. Part I deals with his youth, Part II with his marriage to Count Simon Kemény, Part III. with her widowed years.

The father of Anna Teleki was Count Domokos Teleki Sr., the later chancellor and memorial writer of Turda, her mother was Countess Judit Bethlen of Bethlen. Her mother dies when she was one years old, and her two brothers follow their mother soon. Until the age of six, she was raised in Apanagyfalu (Nușeni) and Cluj-Napoca by her maternal grandmother, Countess Júlia Wass from Czege, wife of Count Elek Bethlen. When her father remarries, she moves to Sárpatak (Șapartoc). At the age of 15, in 1798, she became the bride of the famous mineral collector, Count Domokos Teleki Jr., but her fiancé tragically died the same year.

Die persönlichen und kollektiven tragischen Erfahrungen des zwanzigsten Jahrhunderts haben den französischen Philosophen Emmanuel Lévinas dazu geleitet, das bekannte biblische Gebot wieder ins Licht zu bringen. Der Imperativ, du sollst nicht töten hat in der Philosophie von Lévinas eine paradigmatische Funktion. Auf einer Seite unterstreicht Lévinas die göttliche Originalität des Verbotes, auf der anderen Seite betont er, dass diese Aufforderung fürs jeweilige Ich gültig ist, denn auf dem Gesicht des anderen steht immer zu lesen: Du sollst nicht töten!