LURKING FRATRICIDES
One of the most characteristic features of medieval Hungarian historiography is the proud declaration of Attila as an ancestor of the Árpád dynasty. This positive opinion confronts the compulsory commonplace view of the Western-European Christian memory. Although we have texts from the beginning of the thirteenth century and the whole tradition is known only from the middle of the fourteenth century, but Hungarian historiography started in the second half of the eleventh century, and the Ancient Gesta had already contained the Attila-tradition of the Árpáds.1 (I have to mention that the dynastic Attila-genealogy is independent from the general Hunnic tradition of the Hungarian people.) King Attila’s actual-ity had not gone astray with the extiction of the Árpáds (1301), on the contrary Attila remained a symbolic person in Hungarian history, with his military power.
Attlia’s respect reached its height in the Hungarian Chronicle written by János Thuróczy (1488). In his Dedicatio his intention looks clearly:
„Enimvero et magni regis Atile gestarum gloria rerum stili pravitate comprehensa digno laudum preconio non minus quasi subticere videbatur.
Nec crimine de hoc Hungarorum vetustas arguenda est, quod suarum re-cordia rerum altum oblivionis in pelagus defluere permisit. Hoc genus homi-num ipsarum etate rerum armorum potius strepitu quam literarum scientia sese exercitabat. Nam et hoc nostro evo pars nationis eiusdem quedam Trans-siluanis regni posita in horis caracteres quosdam ligno sculpit, et talis sculp-ture usu literarum adinstar vivit. Externarum nationum invidiam exactis per ipsum Atilam regem victoriis condignum preconii subtraxisse stilum et eidem regi Atile gloriam imperialis nominis dempsisse puto, neque per ipsum
gesta-∗ The making of this study was supported by the Bolyai János Research Fellowship.
1 There are several views on the origin of the Ancient Gesta (or Chronicle). It was dated to the pe-riod between the reigns of King András I (1046–1060) and Kálmán (1095–1116). Some of the most important studies see Domanovszky, Sándor, Kézai Simon mester krónikája. Budapest, 1906.; Hóman, Bálint, A Szent László-kori Gesta Ungarorum és XII–XIII. századi leszármazói.
Budapest, 1925. 95–96.; Gerics, József, Legkorábbi gestaszerkesztéseink keletkezésrendjének problémái. Budapest, 1961. 46–84.; Kristó, Gyula, A magyar történeti irodalom a kezdetektől 1241-ig. Budapest 1994. 114., 123–130.
55
GYÖRGY SZABADOS
56
rum rerum in decus quidpiam preterquam illatas per ipsum eis miserias planctuosi carminis adinstar scripsisse inveniuntur… Nemo mundanam mise-ria absque aliena adeptus est glomise-riam. Ninus Assyriorum rex, regna quod in aliena violentas iniecit manus, universarum originem historiarum peperit, et, nisi quondam Agamemnon Grecorum imperator Troiianum Ilion evertisset, Magnus quoque Alexander tristibus armis orbem vastasset, illorum nomina pariter cum corporibus cecidissent.”2
The chronicler who summarized the Hungarian medieval tradition gave the great monarch of the Huns a new living actuality: he regarded him the historical ances-tor of his king, Mátyás [Matthias]. The thousand year long paralell between tila and Mátyás – the glorious beginning and the glorious present – explained At-tila’s leading role and the reasons why the important persons who had lived in between were all overshadowed. The Augsburgian text-version of Thuróczy’s chronicle tells us the victories which Mátyás gained with these words:
„Prefulgida rege de hoc per orbem fama volat, et ensis illius vicinis regionibus terrori est. Nec aliquando Machumetes ille Manus, cuius framea perpecit nulli, vires regis huius campestrali certamine tentare ausus fuit. Cum et desub castro Jaiicza, ut premissum est, deque Moldauia eiusdem ante gladium fugerit vehementer, expersque sui voti suam redierit in terram, victoriosum quidem hunc hominem ut secundum Atilam reddidere fata.”3 The conception is clear. Mátyás’ glorious reign has brought the Hungarians At-tila’s victorious time again. All the textual variations of the Hungarian Chronicle contain these hexameters:
„Sorte nova rediit Hunorum clarissima, quondam tempore, que fuerat Atile, victoria, regis.”4
Attila’s actuality in that time is quite remarkable because King Mátyás did not regard himself Attila’s descendant, otherwise – according to the written tradition – he found in him only one of his political predecessors. To see the ideological circumstances more clearly we have to take a look at the personal prehistory of King Mátyás. His father was János Hunyadi, governor of Hungary, a great and victorious warrior of the Christianity. His origin has different traditions. Accord-ing to Thuróczy’s chronicle János Hunyadi’s descent was pure and noble, his
2 Johannes de Thurocz, Chronica Hungarorum. I. Textus. Ediderunt Elisabeth Galántai et Julius Kristó. Budapest, 1985. 15–16. [hereinafter Thuróczy, Chron. Hung.]
3 Mályusz, Elemér, A Thuróczy-krónika és forrásai. Budapest, 1967. 54. [hereinafter Mályusz 1967.]
4 Thuróczy, Chron. Hung. I. 292.
ATTILA AND MÁTYÁS 57
clan came from the Transalpine region [Wallachia] (it means the south-eastern neighbourhood of the Carpatian Basin, that is, the territory of the medieval Hun-garian Kingdom) during the reign of King Zsigmond [Sigismund].5 Antonio Bon-fini – whose work will be discussed later – led his back family to the ancient Roman Corvinus clan by a typical Romanizing method of the Humanistic histo-riography.6 The legendary tale that follows is at least more likely than Bonfini’s
„official” genealogy. Bonfini tells us a story – nevertheless, he did not believe it – that János Hunyadi was an illegitimate son of King Zsigmond. Gáspár Heltai, the Transylvanian chronicler asserts that this theory is true.7 Recent historical scholarship – based on not only narrative sources but also documentary evidence – has put it forward that János Hunyadi’s father was Vajk, a nobleman at the court of King Zsigmond.8 In these controversial opinions there is only one firm point: Mátyás did not come from an ancient royal dynasty as a legitimate descen-dant. Especially not from Attila. In the domestic tradition there had been a great choice for Mátyás: Attila’s memory was not a necessary part of the historical heritage with all its disadvantageous aspects, on the contrary, it was an alterna-tive to emphasize the advantageous elements, since Attila’s historical memory did not present then a homogeneous picture.
Nevertheless, the personality of the legendary great monarch of the Huns was spoiled by eternal bloodstains. He killed his brother Bleda (or in Hungarian form, Buda) by his own hands. Medieval Hungarian narrative sources did not keep quiet about the fratricide, instead, they gave a reason for it. Buda broke the agreement and crossed the border between the two brother’s realms.9 Although his death was terrible, it was righteous. Thuróczy could take the rational reason easily from his chronicle-writer ancestors:
„Buda frater suus terminos sui rectoratus sibi per Atilam deputatos trans-gressisse et illius in absentia regnum sibi usurpare voluisse erga illum accu-satus est. Et his rebus id, quod rex Atila suo in recessu Sicambriam urbem Atile preceperat vocari, Buda vero illam vocabulo sui nominis Budawara de-nominaverat, apud Atilam magna comprobatione erat. Quare ipse rex Atila eundem fratrem suum dolo circumventum captivavit, et propriis suis manibus occidit, cadaverque illius in Danubium demergi fecit.”10
5 Ibid. 237.
6 Antonius de Bonfinis Rerum Ungaricarum Decades. Ediderunt I. Fógel et B. Iványi et L. Juhász.
Tomus III. Decas III. Lipsiae, 1936. 95., 218–224. [hereinafter Bonfini, RUD.]
7 Heltai, Gáspár, Krónika az Magyaroknak dolgairól. Kolozsvár, 1575. 81r–v.
8 Kubinyi, András, Mátyás király. Budapest, 2001. 8–9. (Kubinyi does not believe the tradition of the illegitimate royal origin, but he does not regard it as an absolute impossible story.)
9 Simonis de Keza Gesta Hungarorum. Szentpétery, Emericus, Scriptores Rerum Hungaricarum I.
156. Chronici Hunagrcii Compositio Saeculi XIV. Ibid. 268.
10 Thuróczy, Chron. Hung. I. 48.
GYÖRGY SZABADOS
58
This kind of reason was the seed from which the theory in the public was to grow up in Bonfini’s great work and rise to a major role. Returning to Thuróczy, we can summarize his historical parallel, as King Attila’s superhuman greatness, even in a better version, can be recognized in the personality of King Mátyás.11
During the reign of Mátyás the medieval tradition coincided with new re-naissance knowledge represented by two Italian-origin historians, Petrus Ransanus and Antonio Bonfini. They wrote Hungarian history from the point of view of a foreigner but their works were based on Thuróczy’s chronicle. The two human-ists brought a new attitude in our historiography. Although neither of them used the Attila–Mátyás parallel, without their thoughts we are not able to understand Miklós Zrínyi’s Contemplations. It is interesting that on the one hand, Ransanus, following the Western-European pattern gave a negative portrayal about Attila, on the other hand, Bonfini, according to the Hungarian historical memory sidered him as a positive hero. Ransanus, as bishop of Lucera was closely con-nected in his heart and mind to the negative Attila-tradition of the medieval church. From this point of view it seems clear that he emphasized King Attila’s warlike and ambitious character in a tragic contrast with Buda’s peaceful and moderate mind as follows:
„Bledam fratrem dolo occidit, quam ob causam id scelus admiserit, varie traditur. Perhient nonnulli causam eo fuisse, quod magna erat utriusque fratrum morum diversitas, miti erat ingenio Bleda, Atila feroci, pacem amabat Bleda, bellum Atila, humanus ille erat, hic truculentus et sanguinarius, ille beneficus, hic congerendarum opum cupidissimus, abstinebat ille alieno, hic nec domesticorum parcebat opibus… Bleda Atilae fratri longinquiorem diuturnioremque militiam saepe dissuadebat. Id ille permoleste ferens clam imperat nonnullis e suis, quos ad hoc iudicavit aptissimos, ut quom primum nanciscerentur oportunum tempus, Bledam incautum interficerent…”12
On the contrary, Bonfini’s historical judgement did not simply follow the Hun-garian tradition. Moreover, he absolved Attila from the sin of fratricide arguing with the theory of “state-ratio” and cited the antique example of Romulus and Remus. As he was a genuine humanist historian, he wrote a long apological speech:
„Quam misera sit condicio et sors ipsa regnantium, exemplo meo discite, proceres, qui ut iustitiam et equitatem ac mandatorum observantiam edo-cerem atque simul ostenderem, quo studio edicta et imperata prestari
de-11 Mályusz 1967. 155–156.
12 Petrus Ransanus, Epithoma Rerum Hungaricarum. Curam gerebat Petrus Kulcsár. Budapest, 1977. 86–87. [hereinafter Ransanus, ERH.]
ATTILA AND MÁTYÁS 59
beant, fraterno, heu, sanguine me id experiri prius oportuit. Fratrem unicum, quem mihi consortem imperii feceram, ut interficerem, me necessitas adegit Romuli, ut aiunt, necessitate adductum, qui legum mandatorumque contemp-tum fraterno quam alieno supplicio ulcisci maluit. Non enim ignorabat vir ille divinus, qui e pastoribus ovium reges gentium facturus erat, nullum bene im-perium et regi et amplificari posse, nisi omnes legibus ac regi parere didicis-sent. Quod, si leges et edicta pro irritis habeantur, is et ire perditum. Iustitia nanque sola non modo respublicas et imperia, sed societatem omnem munit et servat… Qui gubernationi salutique publice natus est et in tanto fastigio divino numine collocatus, nulla privati affetus ratione a publica utilitate et equitate diverti debet. Immo, quanto coniunctior est, qui errarit, tanto severius in eum animadvertendum est… Quid fecit infelix? Immemor edicti, immemor mei, qui fraterna charitate in imperii societatem neminem corrivalem admittentis adsciveram mecumque pariter regnare iusseram, pre ambitione immodica, ut nomen ac dignitatem meam sensim attenuaret, ut demum unicus imperaret, regiam sedem contempto mandato a se Budam nominavit, lese maiestatis crimen de eo tam benemerite pro nihilo duxit…
Fratre quam regno, quam republica, quam dignitate carere malui. Quo si neque sanguini meo neque unico fratri reipublice gratia me perpecisse videtis, quid in alios qui scelerate quid comisserint me facturum putatis?
Pugnavit in pectore meo aliquantisper um publica privata charitas, publice tandem rationi privatus cessit afectus, quod omnibus his, qui presunt, faciendum esse censeo, si optime sibi et reipublice consultum iri velint. Tu autem, frater infelix, mecum usque regnasses, si pari mecum amore et publica charitate certasses. Non te in regni consortium frater admiseram, ut te mox vita privarem, quando tecum, qui unicus idemque carissimus mihi fueras, dignitatem et utranque fortunam inde carerem, sed ut gubernandi labores cum honoribus pariter et triumphis tecum imptertirer, ut mutuo quandoque alter alteri congratularemur. Plus tibi quam mihi timere solebam, ego labores, ego pericula obibam, ego in prelia descendebam, ut tuam mee vite anteferrem. Non fratris, sed unici loco filii te habebam. Si fortuna dedisset, ut immaturo fato interciperer, te regni heredem, te mei nominis defensorem et ultorem cedis forte sperabam. O spes hominum fallaces, o miseram mortalium conditionem et eorum presertim, qui in aliquo fastigio siti sunt, quibus quanto fortuna maior, tanto editior miseriarum et periculorum cumulus accedit.
Maluissem, si per utilitatem nostre reipublice licuisset, hostili manu occumbere, qfraterno sanguine fedasse manus. Malim tamen preponentis iustitie numen fraterna victima pro regni salute expiare, quam commissa in rempublicem piacula preterire. Proinde edicta, leges et mandata servare exemplo mei sanguinis discite, que sint ab his regi expendenda supplicia, qui
GYÖRGY SZABADOS
60
eius imperia militiamque detrectarint aut patria iura leserint aut humanitatis officia violarint…”13
In this imaginary historical speech the fraternal emotion was defeated by public interest. According to this logic, both Buda and Attila became victims of the state-ratio: one of them had to kill the other who was to be killed.
Nevertheless, the murder of Buda meant a serious, invincible contradiction which was haunting the Hungarian historical memory. It appeared in its deepest tragic form in the works of Count Miklós Zrínyi. By his lifetime the reign of King Mátyás had become a part of the glorious past, thus, the meaning of the At-tila–Mátyás paralell had been changed. The political cirumstances had also changed radically. The Hungarian Kingdom collapsed and its territory was torn into three parts. Several other political and religious antagonisms made the situa-tion even more serious. To learn a lesson from the heritage in order to earn a bet-ter future – we can absolutely understand the feeling of the contemplating statesman. There are two sources about Zrínyi’s historical images: some short epigrams written after the Obsidio Sigetiana (printed in 1651) and the Contem-plations about the life of King Mátyás (written in the winter of 1655 and 1656).
The epigrams written after the Obsidio Sigetiana absolved Attila in the name of the common weal as Bonfini did. Moreover, they raised him onto the highest place in the Hungarian historical pantheon. The second Attila-epigram showed the great monarch as a primordial starting point of Hungarian statehood:
„I am the first King of all the Hungarians,
I have brought them out far from the extreme lands!
Therefore I am the ideal of Hungarians,
For their fame and reign be grown with sword in their hands!”14 Here is the almost perfect national and epic hero. Only the fratricide was left as a disturbing fact. For Miklós Zrínyi was as a great poet as an important commander of the armies, from this mortal sin he gave an imaginary absolution in the name of the victim himself:
„How wrong can sit together in one royal throne Dignity and mind, which went unruly and wrong,
13 Bonfini, RUD. I. 73–75.
14 „Én vagyok Magyarnak legelső Királlya, | Utolssó világ részrül én ki-hozója! | Én lehetek tehát Magyarnak példája, | Hirét s birodalmát hogy nyujtsa szablyája!” Adriai Tenegernek Syrenaia, groff Zrini Miklos. Anno 1651.
ATTILA AND MÁTYÁS 61
Me and Remus became the best example for
All the ones who can not stay in their brother’s throne.”15
In these short poems Zrínyi undoubtedly created the absolute ideal. But this opin-ion could not last long. The statesman-writer Zrínyi ruined his virtual Attila-statue few years later by a fatal contradiction with what he had just built himself in his poesy. At the end of his Contemplations he emphasized Attila’s main role in Hungarian prehistory. The following words are not – yet – in contradiction with the poems:
„Alexander the Great became a monarch of the world in few years, Em-peror Julius ruled the Romans for a while, who have conquered the world, during few years Attila led his victorious army from one end of the world to another, defeated many nations, and founded a Kingdom in Pannonia for himself and his nation. Although Alexander did more than Attila, Attila’s ef-forts were more useful, because Alexander’s victories and conquests passed away soon after his death, Attila built a Kingdom that would last long and eternally, if we keep on going as the good old Hungarians had started.”16 He went further than the medieval chronicles because none of them declared At-tila as the absolute initiative force of Hungarian statehood. On the contrary, by mentioning Mátyás’ disadvantageous features, Zrínyi changed his mind about the absolution of Attila as we can see in his poems:
„Ungratefulness is a really dirty flavour, darkening many beauties on the royal mantle. Fate made your way much easier King as it prevented you from Attila’s shameful sin who killed his brother Buda, protected you from the sac-rilegious deed of Romulus who slayed Remus: strangers’ cruelty took away your brother László.”17
15 „Mely rosszul alkhatnak egy királyi székben | Méltóság és egy ész, az mely engedetlen, | Rólam és Remusról példát vehet minden | Vesztő, mert nem fértem az bátyám székiben.” Ibid.
16 „Sándor kevés esztendők alatt világi monarchává lett, Julius császár kicsiny ideig világbiró ró-maiakat maga alá hajtá, Atila kevés esztendeig világ eggyik végéről a másikig győzedelmessen jára, sok nemzetet elronta, magának s nemzetének Pannoniában királyságot építe, aki mai napig is vagyon. És noha Sándor ennél több dolgokat vive véghez,… de Atilának fáradsága haszno-sabb vala, mert amannak az ő győzedelmei, országlásai holta után mind füstben menének, ez maradandó és örökös királyságot csinála magyarnak, ha mi is úgy continuálnánk, mint a régi jó magyarok kezdték.” Mátyás király életéről való elmélkedések. Zrínyi Miklós Prózai Munkái.
Sajtó alá rendezte és a jegyzeteket írta Kulcsár, Péter. (Zrínyi Miklós Összes Művei. Eds. Ko-vács, Sándor Iván–Kulcsár, Péter). Budapest, 2004. 196–197.
17 „Bizony nagy mocsok a háládatlanság, a királyi paláston sok szépséget sötétít be. Neked penig, király, az Fátum nagy könnyebbséget szerzett, és el akarta veled kerültetni az Attila gyalázatos vétkét, ki az öccsét, Budát megölte; az Romulus istentelenségét, ki Remust agyonverte; más ke-gyetlensége elvette előled bátyádat, a Lászlót.” Ibid. 175.
GYÖRGY SZABADOS
62
In this part of the Contemplations Zrínyi considered Attila’s deed purely from a moral point of view and however he honoured him as a great statesman he did not absolve him of the fratricide. This judgement was so strong that he seemed to find in King Mátyás a lurking brother-killer who was protected from this sin only by fate. His extremely moral thoughts defeated the absolution which based on the public interest. We should not forget that the negative memory of Attila made a strong influence on Zrínyi by a short chronicle too. It was written by Gergely Petthő, who followed Ransanus in the motive of the fratricide.18 Zrínyi was the editor.19 Anyway, Zrínyi bid farewell to the reason for the existence of the Attila–
Mátyás paralell. Further on, Hungarian historiography has now turned again into the opposite direction of this parallel.
Mátyás paralell. Further on, Hungarian historiography has now turned again into the opposite direction of this parallel.