The aims of modern philology about the Middle Greek sources of Hungarian protohistory
Fehér Bence / Bence Fehér
Hadak útján. A népvándorláskor kutatóinak XXIX. konferenciája. Budapest, 2019. november 15–16. 29th Conference of scholars on the Migration Period. November 15–16, 2019, Budapest
MŐK Kiadványok 4.1 (2022) 453–462
DOI 10.55722/Arpad.Kiad.2021.4.1_23
A magyar őstörténet korszakában és térségeiben a legjelentősebb írásbeliség a görög volt. A latin írásbeliség minden tekintetben fejletlenebb volt, a keleti írásoknak pedig nagy hátrányuk volt, hogy alkalmatlanok voltak idegen nyelvű szavak és nevek pontos visszaadására. A görög írásrendszer minden hangot rögzít, sőt a diakritikus jelek még a hangsúlyozásról is adnak információt; bár jelenleg nem világos, mit jelent pl. a végéles hangsúly az Ἀρπαδής vagy a véghajtott a Kαρῆ szón. A források értelmezéséhez a középgörög nyelv fejlődését figyelembe kell vennünk. Viszont az írott szövegben a nyelvi újítások egy része nem látható: az irodalmi stílus végsőkig archaizál (sőt Menandrosz protector saját bevallása szerint atticizál), következésképpen e korszakban diglosszia alakult ki. Az irodalmi források tipikusan az „antikizáló” és a feliratok a „vulgáris” oldalon vannak. Léteznek feliratos források, amelyek a keleteurópai nomád népek történetével állnak kapcsolatban; még a Kárpátmedence „barbár” területéről is vannak példák, a legismertebbek a legnagyobb aranykincsek, a nagyszéksósi és a nagyszentmiklósi feliratai.
Kulcsszavak: középgörög, bizánci források, nagyszentmiklósi kincs, Bíborbanszületett Konstantin, Menandrosz protector
In the period and regions, which were the stage of the Hungarian protohistory, the most important written documents were in Greek. The Latin literacy was less advanced in every respect, and the oriental writing systems had a great hindrance: they were inapt for the accurate rendering of words and names in foreign languages. The Greek writing system lays down every sounds, moreover the diacritical sign can transmit some information on the accentuation. Still presently it is not explained what is the meaning of, say, an oxyton accent on Ἀρπαδής or circumflex on Kαρῆ. We must consider the development of the Middle Greek, for the interpretation of the sources. Yet a lot of new linguistic phenomena cannot be seen in the written texts; the literary style was extremely archaizing (indeed Menander protector confesses he is Atticizing), and consequently in this era a regular diglossy evolved. Typically the literary sources are on the ‘antique’ side and the epigraphic ones on the ‘popular’ side. Surely there are epigraphic sources which refer to the history of the East European nomad peoples; there are some examples even in the ‘barbarian’ regions of the Carpathian basin: the best known ones are the inscriptions of the greatest golden hoards, those of Nagyszéksós and Nagyszentmiklós. Although the inscription of the vessels Nos 9 and 10 from Nagyszentmiklós is a pure Greek text, its solution is far from perfect; a lot of attempts were made, but the readings of Géza Fehér (1950: X^ρ(ιστέ) || δεὰ (=διὰ) ὕδατος ἀνάπαυσον ἅ(γι)ε I(η)σ(οῦ) Σ^τ^(έφα)ν^ο^ν || Π(αύ)λου υ(ἱ)όν.) and Gábor Vékony (1972: δ(ὸς) ἐξ ὕδατος ἀναπλύσ⸢ω⸣ν ἅ(γι)ε I(η)σ(οῦ) ζω(ὴ)ν ’I(ωάνν)ην Ἄλτινον) were closest to the reality. Still they were certainly mistaken in several points. But previously Vékony wrote a far better solution (1971) which remained in manuscript; he could explain most of the seemingly inexplicable litterae minores at the end of the text: δ(ὸς) ἐξ ὕδατος ἀναπάσ⸢ω⸣ν ἅ(γι)ε I(η)σ(οῦ) ζω(ὴ)ν > δ(ὸς) ἐξ ὕδατος ἀναπλύσ⸢ω⸣ν ἅ(γι)ε I(η)σ(οῦ) ’H(ωάννου) ὄνομα Ἄχτο(νο)ν. It is not flawless; instead of the letters δ(ὸς) ἐξ Fehér’s reading seems to fit better, and the word ὄνομα is problematic too. But the proper name Ἄχτον seems really proper, even more proper than Vékony thought, because it contains no Greek accusative ending: it is simply indeclinable, and renders the vowels of an Old Hungarian *ɔχtum/ɑχtum/ɑχtom name exactly (modern spelling Ajtony). Thus a probable interpretation is: δεὰ (=διὰ) ὕδατος ἀνάπα`υ´σον ἅ(γι)ε ’I(η)σο^ῦ ⸢’Iω⸣(άν)νη(ν) Ἀχτον. Both Fehér and Vékony believed the treasure was closely related with the Hungarian history. Although they were certainly mistaken in terms of chronology, this name shows their belief true in another sense: it makes possible a dynastic continuity between the proprietors of the vessels and the 10th century Hungarian elite. We could mention a number of the common folk’s inscriptions too, but the literary sources are no ways less problematic either. There are authors whose words are sometimes very hard to understand, and sometimes they have a double sense. A few samples can demonstrate it from Menander protector: frg. 4,2 ‘Silzibul continued his war against the Ephthalites’ or ‘gave up his war’ – both meanings are correct in terms of grammar, but naturally one of them is sorely incorrect historically; frg. 33,2 ‘Bonus did not calm down at all after his words’ or ‘did not lessen the tension at all’.
Keywords: Middle Greek, Byzantine sources, Nagyszentmiklós treasure, Constantine VII Porphyrogenitus, Menander protector
