Gy. MORAVCSIK. Byzantium and the Magyars. "Akademiai kiado". Budapest. 1970. 148 p.
A new book by one of the greatest contemporary Byzantinists, Hungarian academic Gyula Moravczyk, summarizes his half-century of research on the problem of Hungarian-Byzantine relations. Even in the last years of World War II, the author completed his first major work on this subject, which was published in Hungarian in 1953.1 Three years later, another of his works was published in German translation, dealing mainly with the cultural aspect of the same problem .2 Thus, the book under review, on the one hand, is a reprint of previously published works (the author himself notes this in the preface), and on the other hand, it contains such a revised and expanded text that we are, in fact, a new monograph, which takes into account the results of research on problems achieved in science over the past few years. since more than fifteen years.
Like all other studies by D. Moravchik, the book is distinguished by an exhaustive knowledge of sources, a broad approach to the formulation and solution of the problem, and a thorough argumentation of conclusions .3 The work is small in volume, but very rich in content. The author seeks to trace all aspects of Hungarian-Byzantine relations for almost a millennium-from the first news in the sources about the "Onogurs " and" Ugrs " up to the fall of Byzantium in 1453. The author scrupulously takes into account the results of research by specialists in the field of socio-economic and political history of Byzantium and Hungary, relying mainly on Marxist historiography, including the works of Soviet Byzantinists.
In chapter one ("Byzantium"), D. Moravchik gave a masterful description of the socio-economic, political, and cultural development of the Byzantine Empire from the fourth to the fifteenth centuries, briefly outlining its history in the light of the Marxist doctrine of changing socio-economic formations. This chapter, which precedes the study of the main problem, despite its relatively large size (about a quarter of the entire main text), seems methodologically absolutely necessary: the author proceeds from the thesis that the nature of political and other international relations can be correctly revealed only if the internal development of each of the countries in communication with other countries is strictly taken into account (p. 9).
In a brief review, it is hardly necessary to dwell on the minor shortcomings of the chapter. We will note only controversial or inaccurate provisions. Thus, the list of the main reasons for the fall of the Roman Empire is not complete enough: the author points only to the revolts of slaves and colonists and the invasion of" barbarians " (p.11-12), without mentioning the deep economic and social crisis that the empire experienced in the III - V centuries. Further, it is difficult to accept the view that the revival of the empire in the East and its strengthening in the ninth century should be considered only as a result of the colonization of the European provinces of Byzantium by the Slavs (p.12), which corresponds to the current state of historiography. It would be more accurate to speak about the strengthening in the VI-VIII centuries of the peasant free community in the empire, and not only the Slavic, but also the local community of the autochthonous population. It is also controversial to say that the addition of "the theocratic character of the Byzantine State, which remained unchanged for centuries," should be attributed to the time of Constantine the Great (p. 22). It would be more accurate to refer this period not to the IV century, but to a much later time: the process of forming the" theocratic " regime of the Byzantine Basileuses was long and barely ended only in the IX century.
1 Book published in the popular science series of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences: Gy. Moravcsik. Bysanc es a magyarsag. Budapest. 1953.
2 Gy. Moravcsik. Die byzantinische Kultur und das mittelalterliche Ungarn. B. 1956. See the review of B. T. Goryanov: "Byzantine Vremennik", XII, 1957.
3 There are no page-by-page references in D. Moravchik's work, but the bibliographic notes at the end of the book indicate (in addition to the scientific literature) all the most important sources that the author relies on. The only exception is the first review chapter ("Byzantium"), written mainly on the basis of literature.
page 194
It is also very hypothetical to conclude that of all the Slavic peoples, the greatest influence of Byzantine culture and its social and state institutions was experienced by the most remote people from the empire - the Russians (pp. 31-33). The author, by the way, writes at the same time that "as is clear from Russkaya Pravda, the first Russian code of laws, and from the Teachings of Grand Duke Vladimir Monomakh to his children", the forms of the Russian state and social life were formed under the strong influence of Byzantium (p.33). However, all attempts to find traces of Byzantine influence in the first of the monuments mentioned by D. Moravchik have not yet been successful. Russkaya Pravda in this case refutes rather than confirms the author's conclusion. The theory that the internal policy of Emperor Andronikos I Komnenos (1183-1185) is interpreted as an attempt to establish a monarchy based on the lower classes of the population of the empire, long rejected in Soviet historiography, but shared by D. Moravchik, should be supported by some new argumentation (pp. 15, 91).
D. Moravchik considers the relations between Hungarians and Byzantium (the second chapter - "Byzantium and Hungarians") in close connection with the internal development of both countries, as well as in an indissoluble unity with the whole system of complex international relations and changing situations in which both Hungarians and Byzantium were in each specific period of their history. The author divides the history of Hungarian-Byzantine relations, although he does not emphasize it compositionally, into four main stages: from the first contacts to the settlement of Hungarians in the late 9th century on the territory of Pannonia; from the end of the 9th century to 1018, when Hungary did not have a common border with the empire; from 1018 to the mid-80s After the conquest of Bulgaria and the recognition of the sovereignty of the empire by the Serbian-Croatian principalities, Hungary became a direct neighbor of Byzantium; from the end of the XII century to the middle of the XV century, when the South Slavic peoples freed from the empire's power again separated Hungary from Byzantium spatially.
Regarding the question of the formation of the Hungarian people, D. Moravchik takes a strictly scientific position: he does not consider it possible to speak of the "Hungarians" as a well-defined ethnic and cultural unity until at least the ninth century. The author considers the formation of the Hungarian people as a long and complex process of gradual merging of Turkic and Ugric elements, during which other tribes and peoples played a certain role, in particular the Slavs who inhabited Pannonia occupied by the Hungarians. Therefore, his scientific position seems quite natural when, in the first paragraph of the second chapter, he tries to trace the nature of relations with Byzantium of all those peoples whose subsequent participation in the formation of the Hungarian people is considered quite probable (Huns, Onogurs, Proto-Bulgars). As a fairly compact political organization, the Hungarians established themselves in the Northern Black Sea region by the beginning of the 9th century, exerting a significant influence on the balance of power in this area, which was part of the empire's sphere of interests. An excellent connoisseur of Byzantine diplomacy, D. Moravchik notes that Byzantium, in its contacts with the Hungarians, sought, on the one hand, to secure its possessions from a new potential enemy, and on the other, to use the military forces of the Hungarians in its own interests, gradually subordinating them to its political and cultural influence. Traces of this influence (including data on the penetration of Christianity into the Hungarian nomads) D. Moravchik states already for this period of the history of the Hungarians, that is, before their departure to Pannonia. The author's conclusion is quite justified that the very transition of the Hungarians from the Black Sea region to the upper Danube was to a certain extent an indirect consequence of the empire's policy (pp. 49-52). It was in the struggle against it that the Bulgarian Tsar Simeon established relations with the Pechenegs and managed to direct them against the Hungarians allied to Byzantium, whose main forces were on a long campaign. The ruthless destruction of Hungarian hotbeds by the Pechenegs forced the Hungarians to leave the steppes between the Dnieper and the Lower Danube.
According to the author, just as for many centuries Byzantium served as a barrier between East and West and at the same time an area of interpenetration of institutions and cultural phenomena of two different worlds, so Hungary became both a buffer and a mediator between the Western Christian and Eastern Orthodox worlds, having experienced a profound impact of both. The period of the busiest Hungarian-Byzantine relations was 1018-1185, when Hungary shared a common border with the empire. Into this
page 195
During this time, it was particularly strongly influenced by the Byzantine civilization. Peaceful and allied relations during that time were often replaced by hostility and rivalry. The author presents the history of this struggle vividly and figuratively, against the background of a broad picture of contemporary international relations; many neighboring and distant countries (the German Empire, the Norman kingdoms of Italy, Galician, Kievan and Rostov-Suzdal Rus') were directly or indirectly involved in it.
The author rightly challenges the concepts that belittle the scale of Byzantine cultural influence on Hungary. He defends the position that the degree of this influence cannot be determined in direct relation to the degree of strength of the church ties between "Catholic" Hungary and the "Orthodox" Empire (however, as the author shows, the church ties were much closer than sometimes believed).
The Byzantine civilization left a deep mark on the development of world culture, and the work of such a major specialist as D. Moravchik, devoted to the history of relations between Hungary and Byzantium, is another strong argument in support of this important conclusion. The second chapter, which deals with issues in which at present hardly anyone else is more competent than the author, causes much less criticism and suggestions. It should be noted, however, that the conclusion that the Byzantine Empire "always appealed to the help of the West when it was threatened by the Eastern peoples" seems too categorical and too broad (p.98). In the X-XII centuries, the Armenian and Georgian principalities, and sometimes Kievan and Galician Rus, provided almost greater assistance to Byzantium in such cases; in the XIV century, the Serbs and Croats, rather than the Western countries, showed much more perseverance in the fight against the Turks. Finally, there is another drawback, which may be the result of a simple typo: we do not know on what basis the author's claim that in 960 (?) there were Hungarian troops among the troops "sent against Byzantium" by Svyatoslav was based (p.59). If this is simply a typo and should be read not 960, but 969, then why is it said about the troops" sent " by Svyatoslav, and not about the participation of Hungarians in the campaign personally led by the Kievan prince?
D. Moravchik's book is an example of an objective scientific analysis of the history of relations between a scientist's native country and other countries in their distant past. The work of the Hungarian researcher is a valuable contribution to Byzantine and Hungarian studies. Just as D. Moravchik's major work , published in 1958, immediately became a reference book for Byzantinists all over the world, 4 the peer - reviewed work will find universal recognition and serve as a basis for further research in the field of Hungarian-Byzantine relations.
4 Gy. Moravcsik. Byzantinoturcica. Vol. I-II. B. 1958.
page 196
New publications: |
Popular with readers: |
News from other countries: |
![]() |
Editorial Contacts |
About · News · For Advertisers |
![]() 2014-2025, LIBRARY.RS is a part of Libmonster, international library network (open map) Keeping the heritage of Serbia |