« PrethodnaNastavi »
neighbouring Slavs, even Rurik ruled at Novgorod. <Some twenty years later. Rurik's son Oleg came down and
put Oskold and Dir to death, and annexed Kiev to his sway. It soon overshadowed Novgorod in importance, and became the capital of the Russian state. It has been doubted whether this story of the founding of Kiev is historical, but the date of the foundation, in chronological proximity to A.D. 860, is probably correct.
§ 5. The Magyars The Russian peril had proved a new bond of common interest between the Empire and the Khazars, and during the reign of Michael (before A.D. 862), as we have seen, a Greek missionary, Constantine the Philosopher, made a vain attempt to convert them to Christianity.S
About this time a displacement occurred in the Khazar Empire which was destined to lead to grave consequences not only for the countries of the Euxine but for the history of Europe. At the time of Constantine's visit to the Khazars, the home of the Magyars was still in the country between the Dnieper and the Don, for either in the Crimea itself or on his journey to Itil, which was probably by way of the Don, his party was attacked by a band of Magyars. A year or two later the Magyar people crossed the Dnieper.
1 Pseudo-Nestor's date is A.M. 6370 the embassy of Rostislav, see above, = A.D. 862 (but events extending over p. 393); but we can limit it further a considerable time are crowded into by the Magyar incident, cp. Appendix his narrative here). The chronicler XII. The circumstance that in A.D. attributes to Oskold and Dir the attack 854-855, Bugha, the governor of on Constantinople, which he found in Armenia and Adarbiyan, settled the Chronicle of Simeon and dates to Khazars, who were inclined to Islam, A.D. 866. I am inclined to think that in Sham-kor (see above, p. 410, n. 6), there is a certain measure of historical may, as Marquart suggests (Streifzüge, truth in the Pseudo-Nestor tradition, 24), have some connexion with the if we do not press the exact date. If religious wavering of the Chagan. Kiev was founded shortly before A.D. 860 as a settlement independent of
3 See above, p. 394 sq. Novgorod, and if the Kiev Russians 4. Vita Constantini, c. 8.
The atattacked Cple., we can understand the tack of the Hungarians is related circumstances of the conversion. It before Constantine (c. 9) starts for was therulers of Kiev only who accepted the country of the Khazars, to which baptism, and when the pagans of Nov- he is said to have sailed by the gorod came and slew them a few years Maeotis. If this order of events is later, Christianity, though we may accurate, we must suppose that the conjecture that it was not wiped out, Magyars made an incursion into the ceased to enjoy official recognition. Crimea, and perhaps the incident
2 The posterior limit is usually occurred in the territory of the Goths. given as A.D. 863 (the latest date for See Appendix XII.
The cause of this migration was the advance of the Patzinaks from the Volga. We may guess that they were pressed westward by their Eastern neighbours, the Uzes; we are told that they made war upon the Khazars and were defeated, and were therefore compelled to leave their own land and occupy that of the Magyars.' The truth may be that they made an unsuccessful attempt to settle in Khazaria, and then turned their arms against the Magyar people, whom they drove beyond the Dnieper.? The Patzinaks thus rose above the horizon of the Empire and introduced a new element into the political situation. They had no king; they were organized in eight tribes, with tribal chiefs, and each tribe was subdivided into five portions under subordinate leaders. When à chief died he was succeeded by a first cousin or a first cousin's son ; brothers and sons were excluded, so that the chieftainship should be not confined to one branch of the family.
The Magyars now took possession of the territory lying between the Dnieper and the lower reaches of the Pruth and the Seret 4—a country which had hitherto belonged to the dominion of the Khans of Bulgaria. They were thus close to the Danube, but the first use they made of their new position was
i Constantine, De adm. imp. 169. it is said to be called κατά την επωνυIn the later movement of the μίαν τών εκείσε όντων ποταμών, which Patzinaks to the west of the Dnieper are enumerated as the Bapoux (= (in the reign of Leo VI.), we are Dnieper, cp. Var in Jordanes, Get. expressly told that they were driven c. 52, and Bory-sthenes), the Koußoü from their land by the Uzes and (=Bug), the Tpollllos (=Dniester : Khazars, ib. 164.
Turla, Tyras, cp. Roesler, 154), the 2 Constantine says that a portion Bpoûtos (=Pruth), and the Eépetos. of the Magyars joined their kinsmen, Atel or Etel means river (and was the Sabartoi asphaloi in “Persia,” i.e. specially applied to the Volga-the the Sevordik in Armenia (see above “Itil”—cp. Constantine, ib. 1649). p. 410).
Zeuss (Die Deutschen und die Nach3 Constantine, ib. 165. He gives barstämme, 751), Kuun (Relat. Hung. the names of the eight γενεαί or θέματα, i. 189), Marquart (op. cit. 33), explain in two forms, simple and compound, kuzu as between (cp. Hungarian köz, e.g. Tzur and Kuarti-tzur, Ertem and in geographical names like SzamosIabdi-ertem.
köz); so that Atelkuzu would mean 4 This country was called (by the Mesopotamia. But Westberg (R anal. Hungarians or Patzinaks, or both) ii. 48) explains Kocho in the Atel-kuzu : Constantine, ib. 169 eis Geography of Pseudo-Moses as the τόπους τους επονομαζομένους 'Ατελκούζου. Dnieper, and identifies the name with The name is explained, ib. 173, as Kuzu. He supposes that in Conκατά την επωνυμίαν του εκείσε διερχο- stantine, p. 169, the true reading is μένου ποταμού 'Έτέλ και Kουζού (where (as on p. 173), ’ATėl kai Kovcov, and there seems to be an error in the text, that Atel and Kuzu were alternative as 'E. Kai K., two rivers, is incon- names (val="or") for the region of sistent with toll totajoû) and p. 171 the lower Dnieper.
not against Bulgaria. In A.D. 862 they showed how far they could strike by invading territories in central Europe which acknowledged the dominion of Lewis the German, the first of that terrible series of invasions which were to continue throughout a hundred years, until Otto the Great won his crushing victory at Augsburg. If we can trust the accounts of their enemies, the Magyars, appear to have been a more terrible scourge than the Huns. It was their practice to put all males to the sword, for they believed that warriors whom they slew would be their slaves in heaven; they put the old women to death ; and dragged the young women with them, like animals, to serve their lusts. Western writers depict the Hungarians of this period as grotesquely ugly, but, on the other hand, Arabic authors describe them as handsome. We may reconcile the contradiction by the assumption that there were two types, the consequence of blending with other races. The original Finnish physiognomy had been modified by mixture with Iranian races in the course of many generations, during which the Magyars, in the Caucasian regions, had pursued their practice of women-lifting.
Up to the time of their migration the Magyars, like the Patzinaks, had no common chieftain, but among the leaders of their seven tribes one seems to have had a certain preeminence. His name was Lebedias, and he had married a noble Khazar lady, by whom he had no children. Soon after the crossing of the Dnieper, the Chagan of the Khazars, who still claimed the rights of suzerainty over them, proposed to the Magyars to create Lebedias ruler over the whole people. The story is that Lebedias met the Chagan—but we must interpret this to mean the Beg—at Kalancha in, the gulf of Perekop," and refused the offer for himself, but suggested
1 Their attack on the Slavs of Kiev cannot be dated. Pseudo - Nestor, xix., p. 12; Marquart, op. cit. 34.
2 Ann. Bert. (Hincmar), s.a. “sed et hostes antea illis populis inexperti qui Ungri vocantur regnum eiusdem populantur.”
Megerê ( = Magyar ?), Kurtygermatu,
6 Kuun (op. cit. i. 205, 208) thinks
Cp. Ann. Sangall., s.a. 894 (M.G.H. Scr. I.).
4 This hypothesis is Marquart's, op. cit. 144.
5 Constantine (op. cit. 172) gives the
of the tribes : Nekê,
? Constantine, op. cit. 169 Toll após αυτόν αποσταλώναι Χελάν δια ον πρώτον αυτών βοέβοδον.
Banduri saw that Xelávdia was a proper name, and eis has probably fallen out of the text. See Kuun, i. 208, Marquart, 35.
ܝܟ ? ܟ
LEASTERN ROMAN EMPIRE
Salmutzes, another tribal chief, or his son Arpad. The Magyars declared in favour of Arpad, and he was elevated on a shield, according to the custom of the Khazars, and recognized as king. In this way the Khazars instituted kingship among the Magyars. But while this account may be true so far as it goes, it furnishes no reason for such an important innovation, and it is difficult to see why the Khazar government should have taken the initiative. We shall probably be right in connecting the change with another
fact, which had a decisive influence on Magyar history. Among the Turks who composed the Khạzar people, there was a tribeor tribes—known as the
Kabars, who were remarkable for their strength and bravery. About this time they rose against the Chagan ; the revolt was crushed; and those who escaped death fled across the Dnieper and were received and adopted by the Magyars, to whose seven tribes they were added as an eighth. Their bravery and skill in war enabled them to take a leading part in the counsels of the nation. We are told that they taught the Magyars the Turkish language, and in the tenth century both Magyar and Turkish were spoken in Hungary. The result of this double tongue is
” the mixed character of the modern Hungarian language, which has supplied specious argument for the two opposite opinions as to the ethnical affinities of the Magyars. We may suspect that the idea of introducing kingship was due to the Kabars, and it has even been conjectured that Arpad belonged to this Turkish people which was now permanently incorporated in the Hungarian nation.4
1 Almus in the Hungarian chron- subject throughout, and consequently icles. On Arpad's date, see Appendix τον Λιούντινα τον υιόν του 'Αρπάδη είχαν XII.
åpxovta means that Levente, Arpad's 2 Constantine, op.cit. 171-172. Vám- son, was ruler of the Kabars. I canbéry, A magyarok eredete, 140, explains not accept this strict interpretation of the name Kabar as “insurgent. the grammar. I feel sure that the 3 See above, p. 410, n. 4.
subject of the verbs (διεπέρασαν, είχον, 4 Marquart makes this assertion etc.) is not the Kabars, but the (op. cit. 52), basing it on the passage Hungarians (oi Toûpkol), who include in Constantine (op. cit. 17214-21), the Kabars. Levente was ápxwv of where, he observes, oi Káßapoi is the the Hungarians.
ART, LEARNING, AND EDUCATION IN THE AMORIAN PERIOD
THROUGHOUT the Middle Ages, till its collapse at the beginning of the thirteenth century, the Eastern Roman Empire was superior to all the states of Europe in the efficiency of its civil and military organization, in systematic diplomacy, in wealth, in the refinements of material civilization, and in intellectual culture. It was the heir of antiquity, and it prized its inheritance—its political legacy from Rome, and its spiritual legacy from Hellas. These traditions, no less than the tradition of the Church, which was valued most of all, may be said to have weighed with crushing force upon the Byzantine world; conservatism was the leading note of the Byzantine spirit. Yet though the political and social fabric always rested on the same foundations, and though the authority of tradition was unusually strong and persistent, the proverbial conservatism of Byzantium is commonly exaggerated or misinterpreted. The great upheaval of society in the seventh century, due to the successive shocks of perilous crises which threatened the state with extinction, had led to a complete reform of the military organization, to the creation of a navy, to extensive innovations in the machinery of the civil and financial government, to important changes in the conditions of the agricultural population and land-tenure; and it is a matter of no small difficulty to trace the organization of the eighth and ninth centuries from that of the age of Justinian. But even after this thoroughgoing transformation, the process of change did not halt. The Emperors were continually adjusting and readjusting the machinery of government to satisfy new needs and meet changing circum