« PrethodnaNastavi »
“the presence of the Magyars in Atelkuzn covers the period from approximately 8:9:5 to 895,"
This argumentation carries no conviction. We can readily accept 885 is the approximate date of Arpal's death, for c. 889 his son Leventc (who is not mentioned in this passage) was king. But this does not necessitate the inference that Arpad was elected before 8:50, or even before 860. Suppose that he was sixty years old when he died; then he would have been born in 825. Suppose that Salmutzes, his father, was then twenty-five years old, he would have been sixty, a “bodrii starik,” in 860. This hypothesis, which might be varied (there is no reason to suppose that Arpad was old when he died; he may have been much younger than sixty), is sufficient to show that Westberg's reasoning is arbitrary, and that the datil admit of no such conclusion als he drilw's.
Our fixed date ante quem for the first migration of the Magyars is A.D. 862, the year in which they invaded the empire of the Franks, for it is improbable that this invasion was indertaken before they had settled west of the Dnieper. Our fixed date post quem is the time of the visit of Constanting the Philosopher to Cherson and the Khazars, which we can only vietinc approximately als before 1.1). 863 (scc above, p. 396). At that time, ils we learn from the l'ila Constantini, thc Magyars were still in the neighbourhood of the Crimea. Although there are many unhistorical details in this Vila, the episode of the Hungarians evidently preserves a genuinc fact, for when the l'ilu was written the Hungarians were far away, and no inventor of fiction would have dreamed of introducing them on the scene. Westberg (ill
. 51) admits the genuineness of the notice, but scems to think that the Hungarians invaded the Crime: from Atelkuzi. This is possible, but less probable; once they left their old seats, they were not likely to return across the Dnieper and trespass on the hunting grounds of the Patzinaks, whom they drealed.
As the mission of Constantine was probably about A.1). 860, wc can dedncc A.1). 860-861 as a probable date for the first historical migration of the Magyars. Their second migration, to their abiding home, occurred about 89.5, so that their perioil in Atelkuzu was about forty years. The election of Arpad may be
. placed roughly alont a.1). 860.
The appearance of the Magvars west of the Drieper c. A.1). 837 (scc above, p. 371) proves only that, as we should expect, they made · predatory expeditions into Atelkuzu long before they occupied it.
2. Dute of the First Magyar Migration (to Lrhelia) The quication of the date of the migration of the Magyoll's into their earlier home between the son amil Dicper ix roue dillicult.
According to Constantino (op. cit. 168) they enlled this territory Lelilie, after the name of their most important tribal lealer, Lebedias. I take this to mean that in later times, when they were in Atelkuzu and Hungary, they described this territory, having no other name for it, as the country of Lebedias—the country which they associated with his leadership. According to the text of Constantine, il., they occupied this country, on the borders of the land of the Khazars, for three years (évuuttui's tpeis). This is certainly an error; and we can indeed refute it from Constilntine himself, who goes on to say that during this period the Magyars fought for the Khazar's "in all their wars," a statement which naturally presupposes a much longer period. The probability is that there is a textual error in the number. Westberg (iv. 51) proposes to read τριάκοντα τρείς or τριάκοντα. If we adopted the former, which is the less violent, correction, we should obtain C. 822-826 as the date of the arrival of the Magyar's in Lebedia.
It must be considered doubtful whether they had come to Lebelia from beyond the Cancisus, where there were Magvars known to the Armenians as the Sevordik. See above, p. 410. Constantine indecil silys that they were still known by this name (Σβάρτοι άταλοι) . (Supptul ürpudul) in Lebedia. It is true thit the troubles which districted Armenia and the adjacent regions in the reign of Mimun (see the account of Yakubi, apuu Marqnert, Streif-rige, 457 597:) might have forced a portion of the Sevordik to seek a new habitation unler the protection of the Khazars.
We can say with certainty that the Magyars did not arrive in Lebedia at it later period than in Mamu's reign, and there is perhaps a probability that if they had been there long before that period, some indication of their presence would have been preserved in our sources. The conjectural restoration of Constantine's text (thirty-three years) cannot be relied on; but it may be noted that the Bulgarian warfare on the Dnieper in Omurtay's reign (sce above, p. 366), if it was provoked by the presence of the Magyars, would be chronologically compatible.
Constantine clocs not tell us the source of his information about the Magvars and their carlier history. We can, liowever, form it probable opinion. While he was ongiged in writing his treatise known als je alministrowo imperio, or just before he had beyin it, an Hungarian enibilssl'irrived at Constantinople (referred to above, p. 489) consisting of Termat zus, il grandson of Arpad, and Bultzus, who held the dignity of karchas (the third dignity in the realm, after the king and the lis). It seems very likely that Constantine derivad much of what he tells als illonit the Mayvill's from this friendly embassy. Compare any priper on "The Treative Dw wil.. impr." 1;.%. 50. 50:-56:3.
3. The names Magyar, Ilungarian, Turk While they were in Lebcdia, the Hungarians scem alreuly to have called themselves Magyarx, for they were known by this name to an Arabic writer (before A.1). 850), who reproduceel it als Bitzhghar (cp. Marquart, op. cit. 68).' In their own ancient chronicles the name appears as Mogor. It is obviously identical with the name of one of their tribes, the Meyéry, mentioneel by Constantine." We may conjecture that this was the tribe of which Lebedlias was chieftain, and that his pre-eminence was the canse of its becoming a name for the nation.
To the Slavs and Litins, the Maggars were known loy the more comprehensive name of the Ugrian race, to which they belonged : Ingri, whence longuri; and the Greek chronicle, which describes their appearance west of the Dnieper in the reign of Thcophilus, likewise calls them iyypore («lolol. Cirurgo 18). But this designation in a Greck writer of the ninth ind tenth centuries is exceptional, for the Cirecks regularly applied to them the term Torproe, and even in this pilssidye they are also called Toipkou and Oirro.. Why did the Greeks call them Turks? The simplest answer is that the name came into use after the union of the Magvars with thc Kabars who were Turks.
Marquart has put forward an ingenions but hardly convincing explanation of Torpkot. lle identifies. it with the 'lípkule of Herodotus 4. ?.?, who seem to appear in Pliny, vi. 19, iis Tyirae, and in l'ompwonins Mela, i. $ 116, as Turrue. He supposes that Iurkai is the same word as Ingra, Vyrian, with nictathesis of r, that the Wooril afterwarıls icquired an initial.t in Scythian dialectx, iind that the Circcks borrowcil it from the Alans üs il designation of the Magrill's (op. cit. 51 p.) before their union with the Kabar's. According to this theory, the Turks are false “Turks," and the Magvars irre true " Turkis," :lccording to the original verotation of the name; in firct, the Vyriin nime, in its Seythian form, came
: in the course of history to be transferred from the lyrian to the Turaniin race.
I Thee Arlos'll need the same name to improbabile that these Majapou are the ilesignite the Bislikirs, iinil this losit 10 sine is the Topac (.Mivars) who are coutursions, for which see Marquart; 6:0 me'ntioned a fi'w lines below. Solie
castern peopole is meant-l suspect the : It lies lwen supposed that Majapo Bil-likirs, who lived between the l'atzinalis in ('oust. De alm. imp. 1tif,, medinis illed the Bulgarians of the kama. Prob. Magpiers ; so Ilmfalvy, Roesler.. The alily we should real Bajápoi's (:ını instance l'atzinaks are still to bite hall as their of the frontent confusion of u anil B in 1123hours, when they of weldoel betwee'ns eleventh-century MSS.). the lola al l'ral (l'arx), roi's re * But this does not prove that the Majägmoe's vai rois inoroun jonivor's Ofs. (ireeks called the 'Torpaol in the origine The colitest, however, regler's it liiglily :: Tl.cophilus (as Marquart arnes, p...ill.
Turfollowing list includes most of the works cited in the notes of this volume, Those which it omits are referred to soldon. or lo not Inar directly on the periol. The following abbreviations are use-l :-A.S. Acta Sanctorum (Bull.); 1.%. = Byzantinische Zeitschrift; E.I.R. = English Iistorical Review ; Izv. kpl. - Izviestiin raskago arkheologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopolie; J.II.S. = Journal of Hellenic Studies ; M.(1.Jl. = Mommentit (iermaniae historica ; Mansi = Minsi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et umplissima collectio; Migne = Migno, l'atrologin (iraeco-Latin' (Migne, P.L. = l'air. Latina); SD = Sitzungsberichte; Slamnik = Sbornik z narolnayo inotvorenia nauka i knizhınina (Sotia): Viz. Vrem. Vizantiiski Vremenik ; Zapiski im. Ak. nauk = Zapiski importurskoi Akademii nauk (St. Petersburg) ; Zlur. min. 11.p. = Zhurnal ministerstva na rovimago prosviesburheniia.
In sulme cases I have aceled references to other citions than those from which I cites for the convenience of reaclers to whom they may happen to be more accessible.
dita Concilii ...1). 815.-Les Actes illi concile iconoclaste de l'in 815.
El. 1). Serruys. Mélanges d'archéologie et d'hoistoire (ficole
, , Acta Cone, viii.--Acta Concilii generalis viii. ( = Constantinopolitani iv.).
Mansi, xvi. 308 879. Anonymi chronographia syntemos o cxlice Matritensi No. 121 (nunc
4701). Fil. d. Baner. Leipzig, 1909. Anonymus. De Stauropatix Mansi, xvi. 441 814. Celrenus, (icorge. Vivofis iotopuôi. Vol. ii. Ed. Bekker.
El. Bekker. Bonin, 1839. Constantine, Cer. ; Constantine, llepi Tae---Constantinus Porphyro
genitus, vol. i. [De cerimoniis, and llepi tomu Brasideron TULEELDWP = Appendix ad librum primum). El. Bukker. Bonn,
1829. Constantine, Them. ; Constantine, De adm. imp. - Constantinus Porplıyrogi'nitus, vol. iii. (D).: thematibus, and. De aulministrando impwrio).
tål. Dekker. Born, 1840. Cont. Th.--Thcoopolians continuatix. El. Bukker. Brill, 1838. 'Erapxikon Bupatow. Eil. Nicole, Ciencvn, 1893. Επαρχικών βιβλίων. . lien.livnerius. Basedcine. fal. Ichmann. Bonn, 1831. Epistola synodion Orientalium aul Theophilum iniuratorem de cultu m.
imagini. Jigne, 35, 345 x111. (icorge.-Georgius Monachux. Chronikon. El. C. de Boor. 2 volk. .
Laipzig, 1904. The interpolistel Chronicle, with its continuidtion, vl. Muralt, Petersburg, 1869 ; the latter part, al. Bekker
(with Cout. Th., q.r.). See under Simeon. Ignatius diaconus. Epistolac. El. M. Geleon, ler the title Abdor [Ocueferor's Xerrius) Tutului.
Νέα βιβλιοθήκη εκκλησιαστικών συγγραφέων, 1. 1. Constantinopoli, 1903. (For the true authorsliipu sewu Parcoire, l'ir. l'ro'111
. x. 63:3 xj.) Libellus lyn. - Ignatius patriarcha. Lilllus (written ly Thi
gr10stos). Mansi, xvi. 290 s'y. kasin. Fii. Krumbachor. Munich, 1897. Lev (immm..ogrammaticus. 'Il TÔV vev Burdeon Xporoypada.
Ed, Bekker (I'l". 207 77.). Donn, 1842. Metlolins monitchins. De schismate vitanu. Migne, 110, 781 sq. Methodius patriarcha. Epistoli ad llierosolymorum patriarchami.
l'itra, luris ecclesiastici Graccorum historia et monumenta, ii.
355 $14. Rome, 1868. "Εκθεσις περί των αγίων εικόνων, 15, 357 8ηη. Epistola aili. Siulitas. Migne, 100, 1293 37%. (See also Pitm,
ib. 361-362.) Metroplanes. Epistola al Manuelem logothetam. Mansi, xvi. 413 819. Narratio de ss. patriarolis Tarasio «t Nicephoro. Migne, 99, 1849 899.
(Also Mai, Spicilegimn Romanum, vii. xxis 849 ; and (ivar's com
mentary on Thcophanes, ul. Bonn, ii. 557 sqq.) Naukratios. Encyclica le obitu S. Thcolori Studitac. Migne, 99,
Nicephorus patriarcha. (1) Opera (including Apologeticus, and three
Antirrhetici). Migne, 100. (2) Other Antirrhetics in Pitra,
Spicilegium Sole:niene, i. 302 84%. ; iv. 233 s94. l'utrus Siculus, Ilistoria Manichacorum. Ed. Gieseler. Göttingeu,
18.16. (Also in ligne, 104.) l'hilothes, Klitorvlogion. Eil. Bury. Supplemental Papers of British
. Academy, i. 1911. (Also in Constantine, De cerimoniis (7.v.,
89 poru), ii. cc, 52 and 5:3.) Photius. Epistolae. (1) El. Valettas. London, 1864. (Also in
Mign, 102.) (2) Sanctissimi Patriarchal Photii, archiepiscopi
Hergenrother. Regensburg, 1869.