« PrethodnaNastavi »
"the presence of the Magyars in Atelkuzu covers the period from approximately 825 to 895."
This argumentation carries no conviction. We can readily accept 885 as the approximate date of Arpad's death, for c. 889 his son Levente (who is not mentioned in this passage) was king. But this does not necessitate the inference that Arpad was elected before 850, 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 data admit of no such conclusion as he draws.
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 undertaken before they had settled west of the Dnieper. Our fixed date post quem is the time of the visit of Constantine the Philosopher to Cherson and the Khazars, which we can only define approximately as before A.D. 863 (see above, p. 396). At that time, as we learn from the Vita Constantini, the Magyars were still in the neighbourhood of the Crimea. Although there are many unhistorical details in this Vita, the episode of the Hungarians evidently preserves a genuine fact, for when the Vita was written the Hungarians were far away, and no inventor of fiction would have dreamed of introducing them on the scene. Westberg (ib. 51) admits the genuineness of the notice, but seems to think that the Hungarians invaded the Crimea from Atelkuzu. 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 dreaded.
As the mission of Constantine was probably about A.D. 860, we can deduce A.D. 860-861 as a probable date for the first historical migration of the Magyars. Their second migration, to their abiding home, occurred about 895, so that their period in Atelkuzu was about forty years. The election of Arpad may be placed roughly about A.D. 860.
The appearance of the Magyars west of the Dnieper c. A.D. 837 (see above, p. 371) proves only that, as we should expect, they made predatory expeditions into Atelkuzu long before they occupied it.
2. Date of the First Magyar Migration (to Lebedia)
The question of the date of the migration of the Magyars into their earlier home between the Don and Dnieper is more difficult.
According to Constantine (op. cit. 168) they called this territory Lebedia, after the name of their most important tribal leader, 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, ib., they occupied this country, on the borders of the land of the Khazars, for three years (éviavroÙS TρEîs). This is certainly an error; and we can indeed refute it from Constantine himself, who goes on to say that during this period the Magyars fought for the Khazars "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 (ib. 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 Magyars in Lebedia.
It must be considered doubtful whether they had come to Lebedia from beyond the Caucasus, where there were Magyars known to the Armenians as the Sevordik. See above, p. 410. Constantine indeed says that they were still known by this name (ZaẞáρToi aσpaλo) in Lebedia. It is true that the troubles which distracted Armenia and the adjacent regions in the reign of Mamun (see the account of Yakubi, apud Marquart, Streifzüge, 457 sqq.) might have forced a portion of the Sevordik to seek a new habitation under the protection of the Khazars.
We e can say with certainty that the Magyars did not arrive in Lebedia at a later period than in Mamun'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 Omurtag's reign (see above, p. 366), if it was provoked by the presence of the Magyars, would be chronologically compatible.
Constantine does not tell us the source of his information about the Magyars and their earlier history. We can, however, form a probable opinion. While he was engaged in writing his treatise known as De administrando imperio, or just before he had begun it, an Hungarian embassy arrived at Constantinople (referred to above, p. 489) consisting of Termatzus, a grandson of Arpad, and Bultzus, who held the dignity of karchas (the third dignity in the realm, after the king and the gylas). It seems very likely that Constantine derived much of what he tells us about the Magyars from this friendly embassy. Compare my paper on "The Treatise De adm. imp." B.Z. xv. 562-563.
3. The names Magyar, Hungarian, Turk
While they were in Lebedia, the Hungarians seem already to have called themselves Magyars, for they were known by this name to an Arabic writer (before A.D. 850), who reproduced it as Bazhghar (cp. Marquart, op. cit. 68).1 In their own ancient chronicles the name appears as Mogor. It is obviously identical with the name of one of their tribes, the Meyépŋ, mentioned by Constantine.2 We may conjecture that this was the tribe of which Lebedias was chieftain, and that his pre-eminence was the cause of its becoming a name for the nation.
To the Slavs and Latins, the Magyars were known by the more comprehensive name of the Ugrian race, to which they belonged: Ungri, whence Hungari; and the Greek chronicle, which describes their appearance west of the Dnieper in the reign of Theophilus, likewise calls them Ovyypoɩ (Add. George 818). But this designation in a Greek writer of the ninth and tenth centuries is exceptional, for the Greeks regularly applied to them the term Τούρκοι, and even in this passage they are also called Τούρκοι and Ovvvol. Why did the Greeks call them Turks? The simplest answer is that the name came into use after the union of the Magyars with the Kabars who were Turks.
Marquart has put forward an ingenious but hardly convincing explanation of Τούρκοι. He identifies it with the 'Iúрkaι of Herodotus 4. 22, who seem to appear in Pliny, vi. 19, as Tyrcae, and in Pomponius Mela, i. § 116, as Turcae. He supposes that Iurkai is the same word as Iugra, Ugrian, with metathesis of r, that the word afterwards acquired an initial t in Scythian dialects, and that the Greeks borrowed it from the Alans as a designation of the Magyars (op. cit. 54 sqq.) before their union with the Kabars. According to this theory, the Turks are false "Turks," and the Magyars are true "Turks," according to the original denotation of the name; in fact, the Ugrian name, in its Scythian form, came in the course of history to be transferred from the Ugrian to the Turanian race.
1 The Arabs used the same name to designate the Bashkirs, and this led to confusions, for which see Marquart, 69 and 515.
2 It has been supposed that Mášapoi in Const. De adm. imp. 16410 means Magyars; so Hunfalvy, Roesler. Patzinaks are said to have had as their neighbours, when they dwelled between the Volga and Ural (Teńx), TOÚS TE Μαζάρους καὶ τοὺς ἐπονομαζομένους Οὔξ. The context, however, renders it highly
improbable that these Mášapo are the same as the Toûрko (Magyars) who are mentioned a few lines below. Some eastern people is meant I suspect the Bashkirs, who lived between the Patzinaks and the Bulgarians of the Kama. Probably we should read Bacápous (an instance of the frequent confusion of μ and ẞ in eleventh-century MSS.).
3 But this does not prove that the Greeks called them Toûρкo in the reign of Theophilus (as Marquart argues, p. 54).
THE following list includes most of the works cited in the notes of this volume. Those which it omits are referred to seldom or do not bear directly on the period. The following abbreviations are used :-A.S. = Acta Sanctorum (Boll.); B.Z. = Byzantinische Zeitschrift; E.H.R. = English Historical Review; Izv. Kpl. Izviestiia russkago arkheologicheskago Instituta v Konstantinopolie; J.H.S.=Journal of Hellenic Studies; M.G.H. Monumenta Germaniae historica; Mansi = Mansi, Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio; Migne = Migne, Patrologia Graeco-Latina (Migne, P.L. = Patr. Latina); SB. = Sitzungsberichte ; Sbornik Sbornik za narodnago umotvoreniia nauka i knizhnina (Sofia) ; Viz. Vrem. Vizantiiski Vremennik; Zapiski imp. Ak. nauk = Zapiski imperatorskoi Akademii nauk (St. Petersburg); Zhurn. min. n.p.= Zhurnal ministerstva narodnago prosvieshcheniia.
In some cases I have added references to other editions than those from which I cite, for the convenience of readers to whom they may happen to be more accessible.
Acta Concilii A.D. 815.-Les Actes du concile iconoclaste de l'an 815.
Ed. D. Serruys. Mélanges d'archéologie et d'histoire (École française de Rome), xxiii. 346 sqq. Paris, Rome, 1903.
Acta Conc. viii.-Acta Concilii generalis viii. (= Constantinopolitani iv.).
Anonymi chronographia syntomos e codice Matritensi No. 121 (nunc
Ed. Bekker. Bonn,
Constantine, Cer.; Constantine, Пepì raέ.—Constantinus Porphyrogenitus, vol. i. [De cerimoniis, and IIepì TOV Bariλik@ v Tageidiwr Appendix ad librum primum]. Ed. Bekker. Bonn,
Constantine, Them.; Constantine, De adm. imp.-Constantinus Porphyro
genitus, vol. iii. [De thematibus, and De administrando imperio]. Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1840.
Cont. Th.-Theophanes continuatus.
Ed. Bekker. Bonn, 1838.
Geneva, 1893. Gen.-Genesios. Bartleîαi. Ed. Lachmann.
Epistola synodica Orientalium ad Theophilum imperatorem de cultu ss.
imaginum. Migne, 95, 345 sqq.
George.-Georgius Monachus. Chronikon. Ed. C. de Boor. 2 vols. Leipzig, 1904. The interpolated Chronicle, with its continuation, ed. Muralt, Petersburg, 1859; the latter part, ed. Bekker (with Cont. Th., q.v.). See under Simeon.
Ignatius diaconus. Epistola e. Ed. M. Gedeon, under the title Αδήλου [Θεοφάνους Νικαίας] ἐπιστολαί. Νέα βιβλιοθήκη ἐκκλησιαστικῶν συγγραφέων, i. 1. Constantinople, 1903. [For the true authorship see Pargoire, Viz. Vrem. x. 633 sq.]
Libellus Ign. Ignatius patriarcha.
gnostos). Mansi, xvi. 296 sqq.
Kasia. Ed. Krumbacher. Munich, 1897.
Libellus (written by Theo
Leo Gramm.—Leo grammaticus. Ἡ τῶν νέων βασιλέων χρονογραφία. Ed. Bekker (pp. 207 sqq.). Bonn, 1842.
Methodius monachus. De schismate vitando. Migne, 140, 781 sqq. Methodius patriarcha. Epistola ad Hierosolymorum patriarcham. Pitra, Iuris ecclesiastici Graecorum historia et monumenta, ii. 355 sqq. Rome, 1868.
Ἔκθεσις περὶ τῶν ἁγίων εἰκόνων, ib. 357 sqq.
Epistola adv. Studitas. Migne, 100, 1293 sqq.
(See also Pitra,
Metrophanes. Epistola ad Manuelem logothetam. Mansi, xvi. 413 sqq. Narratio de ss. patriarchis Tarasio et Nicephoro. Migne, 99, 1849 sqq. (Also Mai, Spicilegium Romanum, vii. xxix sqq.; and Goar's commentary on Theophanes, ed. Bonn, ii. 557 sqq.)
Naukratios. Encyclica de obitu S. Theodori Studitae. Migne, 99, 1825 sqq.
Nicephorus patriarcha. (1) Opera (including Apologeticus, and three Antirrhetici). Migne, 100. (2) Other Antirrhetics in Pitra, Spicilegium Solesmense, i. 302 sqq.; iv. 233 sqq.
Petrus Siculus. Historia Manichaeorum. Ed. Gieseler.
1846. (Also in Migne, 104.)
Philotheos. Klêtorologion. Ed. Bury. Supplemental Papers of British Academy, i. 1911. (Also in Constantine, De cerimoniis [q.v., supra], ii. cc. 52 and 53.)
Photius. Epistolae. (1) Ed. Valettas. London, 1864. (Also in Migne, 102.) (2) Sanctissimi Patriarchae Photii, archiepiscopi Constantinopoleos epistolae xlv. e codd. Montis Atho. Papadopulos-Kerameus. Petersburg, 1896.
Opera. Migne, 101-104. 1860.
Monumenta Graeca ad Photium eiusque historiam pertinentia. Ed.
Hergenröther. Regensburg, 1869.
Contra Manichaeos. In Migne, 102.