Laonikos on the Ethnonyms of the Hungarians*

Tamás Mészáros

In the memory of József Vekerdy

Laonikos Chalkokondyles often added colourful geographical and ethnographic details to the main narrative of his work on the rise of the Turkish Empire. Almost as much as one third of the whole work consists of excursuses: we can read about the Slavs, the Germans, the French, the British, the Italians, the Mongolians, the Egyptians, etc. The ‘new Herodotus’, as Anthony Kaldellis refers to Laonikos in his re- cently published book,1 mentions the Hungarians for the first time in Book II, when discussing the doomed crusade led by Sigismund of Luxemburg (1396). In the course of the narrative he mentions several events and data related to the history of the Hungarians. Here I will discuss a problematic detail of the first longer locus, the ethnonym Παίονες used in reference to the Hungarians, and the questions related to it. After briefly presenting the geographical location of Hungary (Παιονία) and mentioning the system of government (kings of foreign origin, office of the governor, etc.) and the characteristic features of the Hungarian people (religion, way of life, customs, etc.), Laonikos continues his narration with the problems of the origin and language of the Hungarians. Let us see the passage in question. The text is the following (II,17): φωνῇ δὲ χρῶνται οὐδαμῇ παραπλησίᾳ ἑτέρῳ τινὶ τῶν γενῶν, ἀλλὰ ἄλλῃ τὸ παράπαν διενεγκούσῃ τε τῆς Γερμανῶν τε καὶ Βοέμων καὶ Πολάνων. οἴονται δέ τινες τούτους οἱ μὲν Γέτας γενέσθαι τὸ παλαιόν, καὶ ὑπὸ τὸν Αἷμον οἰκοῦντας, ὑπὸ Σκυθῶν κακουμένους, ἀναχωρῆσαι ἐς τήνδε τὴν χώραν, ἣν καὶ νῦν οἰκοῦσιν· οἱ δέ φασι Δᾶκας γενέσθαι. ἐγὼ δέ,

* This study has been prepared with the support of the research project OTKA K 116371 and NN 104456. 1 Kaldellis, A., A New Herodotus. Laonikos Chalkokondyles on the Ottoman Empire, the Fall of Byzantium, and the Emergence of the West. Dumbarton Oaks 2014. 196 Tamás Mészáros

ὁποῖον ἄν τι εἴη τὸ γένος τοῦτο τὴν ἀρχήν, οὐκ ἂν οὕτω ῥᾳδίως εἰπεῖν ἔχοιμι· τοὔνομα μέντοι τοῦτο ὑπό τε σφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ὑπὸ Ἰταλῶν καλουμένους, οὐ πάνυ τοι καλῶς ἔχοιμι ἑτέρῳ τινὶ ὀνόματι καλεῖν τούτους.2 In this passage, Laonikos does not mention the ethnonym of the Hungarians expressis verbis. It is replaced with pronouns (τούτους, σφῶν αὐτῶν) and participles (οἰκοῦντας, κακουμένους). All in all, he tells us everything about the Hungarians but the ethnonym. Fortunately, there is no need to guess ‘this name’ (τοὔνομα τοῦτο), because it can be inferred from the geographical name. He calls the Hungarian Kingdom Παιονία, therefore the Hungarians certainly bear the name of Παίονες (nominative plural form) in his work. If we survey the complete work, our suspicion will turn into certainty especially as Laonikos proves to be consequent in his terminology. In his work the Hungarians are always referred to as Παίονες (235 times), Hungary is always called Παιονία (11 times), and even Transylvania is occasionally referred to as Παιονοδακία (8 times). Anthony Kaldellis finds this usage of names and Laonikos’ above quoted explanatory remark rather strange. He mentions this at the relevant place of the translation and also in his book published later. Even the idea of the corruption of the text might have occurred to him. Kaldellis first writes: It is odd that Laonikos pretends not to know the ethnonym Oungroi, because it was well established in Byzantine and international usage. It is also not clear which name he means by »this name« (presumably what he calls them, Paionians, but they did not call themselves that),3 and later as good as repeats his earlier opinion: It is not clear which name he means (presumably »Paionians«), but this is not what they called themselves or what they were called by the Italians (for example, in his Commentaries, Aeneas calls them Hungari). The term Oungroi, moreover, was established in Byzantine usage along with »Paionian« and other ethnonyms (»Turks«). We may be dealing with an unrevised or ob- scurely written passage here.4

2 I quote the English text translated by Kaldellis (Kaldellis, A., [transl.] Laonikos Chalkokondyles. The Histories I–II. Dumbarton Oaks 2014): They speak a language that is like that spoken by no other people and is entirely different from that of the Germans, Bohemians, and Poles. Some believe that they formerly used to be the Getai and lived beneath the Haimos range, but when they were oppressed by the Skythians, they moved to the land where they live now. But others say that they were Wallachians. For my part, I cannot easily decide, what these people were originally. This name is what they use for themselves and what they are called by the Italians, and so it would not really be correct for me to call them by any other name. 3 Kaldellis (n. 2) 496. 4 Kaldellis (n. 1) 64–65. Laonikos on the Ethnonyms of the Hungarians 197

Similarly to Kaldellis, I also believe that the expression τοὔνομα τοῦτο refers to the Paeoneans and any other ethnonym is impossible. However, the passage he discusses does not seem so obscure for the Hungarian reader, due to the fact that the question was one of the most popular – if not the most popular – areas of research in the first half of the 20th century, the heroic age of Byzantine studies in Hungary. The names referring to the Hungarians in Byzantine sources were discussed by Jenő Darkó,5 Gyula Czebe,6 Gyula Moravcsik – in several of his works7 – and later by Moravcsik’s pupil, Mátyás Gyóni as well, who also published his results in a paper.8 As well as focusing on the collection and the analysis of the loci of the Greek written sources, they also dealt with the phenomena related to the usage of names in general. The corpus they examined included the works written in the 15th century, among them those of Laonikos Chalkokondyles. So a significant amount of the work has already been completed by our eminent predecessors. No wonder I feel like a chef in one of the popular cookery programmes on television, who, after having listed the ingredients, immediately produces the beautifully garnished dish, prepared by some- one else, from the oven. However, applying the general observations of the Hungarian Byzantinologists to the Laonikos-locus may yield some further particular results. The earlier findings relevant for us can be summed up as follows: (1) The Byzantine sources use nearly twenty different ethnonyms for the Hungarians: Γέται, Γήπαιδες, Δᾶκες, Κάβαροι, *Μάζαροι/Μάτζαροι, Μυσοί, Οὐγγροβλάχοι, Οὖγγροι, Οὖννοι, Παίονες, Πάννονες, Σάβαρτοι ἄσφαλοι, Σαυρομάται, Σερβουγρική, Σκύθαι, Στρασαλβάνιοι, Τοῦρκοι, Χαλίσιοι.9 These were grouped into three types by Moravcsik: ethnonyms referring to the Hungarians exclusively; names used as ethnic generic terms; and the ones

5 Darkó, J., A magyarokra vonatkozó népnevek a bizánczi íróknál. [The Ethnonyms of the Hungarians Used by Byzantine Authors] Budapest 1910; Darkó, J., Die auf die Ungarn bezüglichen Volksnamen bei den Byzantiner. BZ 21 (1912) 472–487. 6 Czebe, J., Ephraim, Missionär von Τουρκία. Ein Beispiel für den Bedeutungswandel eines byzantinischen Landnamens. BZ 25 (1925) 106–113. 7 Moravcsik, Gy., Die archaisierenden Namen der Ungarn in Byzanz. BZ 30 (1929–1930) 247–253; Moravcsik, Gy., A magyar történet bizánci forrásai. [The Byzantine Sources of the Hungarian History] Budapest 1934; Moravcsik, Gy.,: Byzantinoturcica I–II. Berlin 1958. 8 Gyóni, M., Magyarország és a magyarság a bizánci források tükrében. [Hungary and Hungarians in the Byzantine Sources] Budapest 1938. 9 Moravcsik, Byzantinoturcica (n. 7) 360. According to Moravcsik, the form Μάζαροι is a scribal error instead of the correct Χάζαροι. 198 Tamás Mészáros we are now focusing on, the so-called archaizing ethnonyms (Γέται, Γήπαιδες, Δᾶκες, Μυσοί, Παίονες, Πάννονες, Σαυρομάται, Σκύθαι).10 From the point of view of the Byzantine authors, archaization is a tool for the conservation of ancient heritage and tradition. Their purpose is to maintain the so-called historia continua, the living connection with the past.11 (2) In the cases of the incorrect identification of evidently different peoples with the Hungarians there is always at least one link between the people in question and the Hungarians, which serves as the basis for the identification. As Moravcsik puts it, It is a common phenomenon that besides or instead of the actual names of the peoples they encounter the Byzantines will use the names of other antique peoples and identify them with ones known from antiquity. The identification is usually based on the geographical position, but there can be other reasons as well, for example identical ethnographic characteristics, or less frequently the similarity of the names.12 (3) The usage of names shows certain tendencies from time to time. The pres- tige of a remarkable author, the general practice of the era, the expectations related to the contemporary aesthetic taste can all decisively influence the usage of names. There is no doubt, for example, that the almost exclusive use of the form Τοῦρκοι in the 10th century can be attributed to the influence of Leo the Wise and Constantine Porphyrogenitus. As they tended to use this form, the very same ethnic collective noun appears in the works related to the imperial court, in the sequel to Theophanes’ Chronicle (Theophanes Continuatus) and in the works of Genesios and Symeon the Logothete (and Pseudo-Symeon as well), in spite of the incorrect identification. The colloquial form Οὖγγροι is used in the standard language as well from the end of the 11th century. However, as a parallel phenomenon the archaizing usage of names also exists. As for the form Παίονες referring to the Hungarians, it occurs from the end of the 12th century (Kinnamos, Niketas Choniates), and becomes widespread in the 14th and 15th centuries (Gregorios Pachymeres, Ioannes Kantakuzenos, Nikephoros Gregoras, Kritobulos, and of course Laonikos Chalkokondyles). Its usage is scholarly, preferred by a trend which aims to imitate the antique authors even by borrowing the proper names.

10 Moravcsik, Die archaisierenden Namen (n. 7). 11 For the archaization in the Byzantine literature, see Moravcsik, Gy., Klassizismus in der byzantinischen Geschichtsschreibung. In: Wirth, P. (Hrsg.), Polychronion. Festschrift Franz Dölger zum 75. Geburtstag. Heidelberg 1966, 366–377. 12 Moravcsik, A magyar történet bizánci forrásai (n. 7) 245. Laonikos on the Ethnonyms of the Hungarians 199

Mátyás Gyóni also discusses the Laonikos-locus quoted above. He says that the identification of the Παίονες and the Hungarians is based on the well known identity of the homeland of the two peoples. Laonikos’ procedure is justified, as the Hungarians themselves (in the Latin historical works and charters probably known by him) (i. e. Laonikos) and the Italians also use the same name.13 Although the identification of the Παίονες and the Hungarians is certainly a stylistic archaism, if we recall what we know about the Paeoneans,14 it will be clear that in Gyóni’s argument there is a missing link. Herodotos, obviously a model for Laonikos in his choice of words (as well), says the following (V, 13): εἴη δὲ ἡ Παιονίη ἐπὶ τῷ Στρυμόνι ποταμῷ πεπολισμένη, ὁ δὲ Στρυμὼν οὐ πρόσω τοῦ ῾Ελλησπόντου, εἴησαν δὲ Τευκρῶν τῶν ἐκ Τροίης ἄποικοι.15 The source of the river Strymon is in the present-day Bulgaria and it flows into the Aegean Sea. We find that the inhabitants of the past Paeonia, the Paeoneans, probably of Thracian-Illyrian origin, did not live in the territory of Hungary. So the identification based on the geographical identity of the homeland is incorrect. Furthermore, as far as I know, the ethnonym ‘Paeonean’ was used neither by the Hungarians for themselves nor by the Italians for the Hungarians, so we are unable to interpret the explanatory remarks of Laonikos (and Gyóni). Naturally, all this must have been clear for Gyóni as well, perhaps far too obvious. This is the only explanation for the fact that he failed to mention the change of the meaning of the words Παίονες / Παιονία, although the phenomenon had also been observed by Darkó and by Moravcsik. The first author to mistake the Paeoneans for the Pannons, the inhabitants of the Roman province Pannonia – or, if you like, to identify them with each other – was probably Appianos of Alexandria in the 2nd century. In the Book IX of his work, where he discusses the Illyrian wars, Appianos says the following (Illyr. 40): οἱ δὲ Παίονές εἰσιν ἔθνος μέγα παρὰ τὸν ῎Ιστρον, ... Παίονες μὲν ὑπὸ τῶν ῾Ελλήνων λεγόμενοι καὶ ῥωμαϊστὶ Παννόνιοι.16 So, according to the author whose work could have been read by Laonikos, the names Paeonean and Pannonian are the Greek and Latin names of the same

13 Gyóni (n. 8) 39. 14 Lenk, B., Paiones. In: Kroll, W. – Mittelhaus, K. (Hrsg.), Pauly–Wissowa Realencyclopädie XVIII/2. Stuttgart 1942, 2403–2408. 15 The towns of Paeonia were on the Strymon, a river not far from the Hellespont, and they were colonists from the Teucrians of Troy. Translated by A. D. Godley. 16 The Paeones are a great nation on the Danube, (...) they are called Paeones by the Greeks, but Pannonians by the Romans. Translated by H. White. 200 Tamás Mészáros people. Appianos must have been confused and misled by the phonetic form of the two ethnonyms (Παίονες ~ Πάννονες) and the relative geographical proximity of the two territories (Παιονία ~ Πα[v]vονία). Despite the subse- quent refutations, the error persisted. Appianos’ statement was disproved by another historiographer in the pe- riod of the empire, Cassius Dio, who was no less than a real authority on the Pannonian question, as he lets us know (XLIX,36,4) τῇ Παννονίᾳ τῇ ἄνω καλουμένῃ προσετάχθην, ὅθεν ἀκριβῶς πάντα τὰ κατ’ αὐτοὺς εἰδὼς γράφω.17 About the land of the Pannonians he writes (XLIX,36,2) οἱ δὲ δὴ Παννόνιοι νέμονται μὲν πρὸς τῇ Δελματίᾳ, παρ’ αὐτὸν τὸν ῎Ιστρον, ἀπὸ Νωρικοῦ μέχρι τῆς Μυσίας.18 After discussing their customs he writes about the origin of the name of the people (XLIX,36,5): ὀνομάζονται δὲ οὕτως ὅτι τοὺς χιτῶνας τοὺς χειριδωτοὺς ἐξ ἱματίων τινῶν ἐς πάννους ἐπιχωρίως πως καὶ κατατέμνοντες καὶ προσαγορεύοντες συρράπτουσι. καὶ οἱ μὲν εἴτ’ οὖν διὰ τοῦτο εἴτε καὶ δι’ ἄλλο τι οὕτως ὠνομάδαται.19 Finally, he mentions the ethnonyms ‘Paeonean – Pannonian’ as well. His most important sentence which can be connected to the locus in Laonikos is the following (XLIX,36,6): τῶν δὲ δὴ ῾Ελλήνων τινὲς τἀληθὲς ἀγνοήσαντες Παίονάς σφας προσεῖπον, ἀρχαίου μέν που τοῦ προσρήματος τούτου ὄντος, οὐ μέντοι καὶ ἐκεῖ, ἀλλ’ ἔν τε τῇ ῾Ροδόπῃ καὶ πρὸς αὐτῇ τῇ Μακεδονίᾳ τῇ νῦν μέχρι τῆς θαλάσσης. ὑφ’ οὗπερ καὶ ἐγὼ ἐκείνους μὲν Παίονας τούτους δὲ Παννονίους, ὥσπερ που καὶ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς καὶ ῾Ρωμαῖοί σφας καλοῦσι, προσαγορεύσω.20 Cassius Dio’s historical work was highly popular in Byzantium. Several summaries, epitomes and compilations were made of the monumental work (for example by Zonaras and by Xiphilinos), and one of the most important surviving manuscripts got from Constantinople to Italy with the contribution of none other than an older contemporary of Laonikos, Bessarion. Theoretically, Laonikos could have known Dio’s historical work. However, it is unlikely that

17 I was appointed to what is known as Upper Pannonia, and hence it is with exact knowledge of all conditions among them that I write. I quote Dio’s text translated by E. Cary. 18 The Pannonians dwell near Dalmatia along the very bank of the Danube from Noricum to Moesia. 19 Their name is derived from the fact that their sleeved tunics are made by stitching together pieces of old clothes which they cut up into strips in a way peculiar to themselves and called panni. This is their name, whether the reason be what I have stated or some other. 20 But certain of the Greeks in ignorance of the truth have called them Paeones, an appellation which, though no doubt old, does not, however, apply to that country, but rather to Rhodope, close to the present Macedonia, as far as the sea. Therefore I also shall call the people of the latter district Paeones, but the others Pannonians, just as both they themselves and the Romans do. Laonikos on the Ethnonyms of the Hungarians 201 he used it as a source. Cassius Dio’s last sentence quoted above recalls the wording seen in Laonikos (ὑπό τε σφῶν αὐτῶν καὶ ὑπὸ Ἰταλῶν καλουμένους ~ καὶ αὐτοὶ ἑαυτοὺς καὶ ῾Ρωμαῖοί σφας καλοῦσι), but the similarity is deceptive, as the content of the first sentence is completely contrary to that of the second one. Dio actually rejects the Paeonean – Pannonian identification, which for Laonikos and the other Byzantine authors was the starting point for the identification of the Paeoneans, the Pannonians and the Hungarians. However, Dio’s efforts proved to be fruitless. The Byzantines irrevocably blurred the line between the Paeoneans and the Pannonians. The situation is aptly described by Ioannes Lydos, who says Παννονία, ἣν Ἕλληνες Παιονίαν δι᾽ εὐφωνίαν καὶ φυγὴν βαρβαρισμοῦ καινοτομοῦντες ἐκάλεσαν.21 Being Greek was very important for Laonikos. He considered himself to be a Greek rather than the representative of the Roman Empire. For this reason he must have chosen to use the ‘Greek’ word ‘Paeon’ rather than the ‘Latin’ ethnonym Pannonian. With this choice of word he also imitated his model, Herodotos. The Latin sources from the early Middle Ages proved to be conservative only concerning the name of the country. The Western chroniclers refer to the Hungarians settling down in the Carpathian Basin as Ungri / Ungarii, but they keep using the name Pannonia for the country despite the fact that the former province makes up only a smaller part of the territory of the newly established Hungarian Kingdom (Ungaria). Clerks in the 11th century Hungary still used the name Pannonia when writing about the country, the ethnonym Pannonii, and occasionally the term rex Pannoniorum also appears referring to the Hungarian king. Roughly after the death of King Ladislaus I (the Saint) (1095) the practice changes, the ethnonym Pannonii is replaced by the form Ungari / Hungari. The use of the former is revived by Hungarian humanists and clergymen in the 15th century. The Hungarians studying abroad will assume the surname Pannonius (or Ungarus, or de Ungaria) and are called by that name by the Latin speak- ers in the West as well. Among them were the Carthusian monk Andreas Pannonius serving in the circles of János Hunyadi,22 the Pauline theologian Michael Pannonius studying in Paris,23 the poet Ladislaus Pannonius

21 For the sake of euphony, and because they wanted to avoid the Barbarism going together with using the new word, the Greeks called Pannonia by the name of Paeonea. 22 Veress, E., Olasz egyetemeken járt magyarországi tanulók anyakönyve és iratai 1221–1864. [Birth Certificates and Records of Hungarian Students Learning in Italian Universities 1221–1864] Budapest 1941, 367–368. 23 Veress (n. 22) 158. 202 Tamás Mészáros

(László Vetési),24 and the best known of all, the poet Janus Pannonius. Laonikos could have heard of Hungarians using the name Pannonius from his relative Demetrios Chalkokondyles, who built an unparalleled career in Italy, and who was also exceptionally successful in Rome, Perugia, Padua, Florence, and Milan. Though we have no proof of this, he might even have known some of the above Hungarians personally. At least, Demetrios was in contact with Marsilio Ficino, who dedicated his own commentaries on Plato’s Banquet (In Convivium Platonis de amore) to Janus Pannonius in 1469.25 Furthermore, Demetrios was also informed by Giovanni Lorenzi, a papal legate, about the death of Janus Pannonius (24 April 1472).26 If our train of thoughts is correct, we can explain Laonikos’ statement: this name is (i. e. Pannonian, that is Paeonean) what they use for themselves and what they are called by the Italians. To sum up, the following can be said to explain the locus in Laonikos: (1) Due to the relative proximity of their homelands and the similarity of the names the antique authors confused and incorrectly identified with each other the ethnic groups of the Paeoneans and the Pannonians. (2) In spite of the disproval the incorrect identification was borrowed by the Byzantine authors, and in the course of time the two ethnonyms started to be used as synonyms. (3) After the Hungarians (in colloquial speech Οὖγγροι) had settled down in the territory of the former province Pannonia, in accordance with the rules of the archaizing literary taste, they were also referred to as Παίονες and Πάννονες. (4) In their written sources until the 12th century and later in the usage of names of the 15th-century humanists, the Hungarians also used the same Latin terminology (Pannonia, Pannonii, Pannonius, rex Pannoniorum) to refer to themselves. (5) Laonikos could have learnt about the name ‘Pannonii’ of the Hungarians either from written sources or through personal relationships. So he is likely to have used the form Παίονες, considered to be a synonym, as an ethnonym of the Hungarians identified with the Pannonians – a choice motivated by the ‘Greek character’ of the word and the authority of Herodotos.

24 Hegedüs, I., Irodalomtörténeti tarlózások az olasz könyvtárakban III. [Literary Investigations in Italian Libraries III.] ItK 8 (1898) 465–480. 25 Huszti, J., Platonista törekvések Mátyás király udvarában. [Platonic Pursuits in the Court of King Mathias] Pécs 1925, 28–29. 26 For the text of Lorenzi’s letter, see Huszti, J., Janus Pannonius. Pécs 1931, 285.