(E. Re.*)
1See the table in Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems in Hungary, Appendix xiii. p. 470, and Drage,Austria-Hungary, p. 289. Of the emigrants in 1906, 52,121 were Magyars, 32,904 Slovaks, 30,551 Germans, 20,859 Rumanians and 16,016 Croats.2Racial Problems, p. 202.3The colouring of ordinary ethnographical maps is necessarily somewhat misleading. When an attempt is made to represent in colour the actual distribution of the races (as in Dr Chavanne’sGeographischer und statistischer Handatlas)the effect is that of occasional blotches of solid colour on a piece of shot silk.4The distribution of the races is analysed in greater detail in Mr Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems, p. 3 seq.5Seton-Watson,op. cit.pp. 173, 188, 252; Drage, Austria-Hungary, pp. 280, 588; Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.6An admirable account of this “little world, which produces almost everything and is almost self-sufficient” is given by M. Gonnard in hisHongrie au XXmesiècle, p. 159 seq.7Ib.p. 349 seq.8Merchandise passing the boundaries is subject to declaration; the respective values are stated by a special commission of experts residing in Budapest.9The acquisition of the Austrian Staatsbahn in 1891 practically gave to the state the control of the whole railway net of Hungary. By 1900 all the main lines, except the Südbahn and the Kaschan-Oberbergar Bahn, were in its hands.10The franchise is “probably the most illiberal in Europe.” Servants, in the widest sense of the word, apprenticed workmen and agricultural labourers are carefully excluded. The result is that the working classes are wholly unrepresented in the parliament, only 6% of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the franchise, which is only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population (see Seton-Watson,Racial Problems, 250, 251). For the question of franchise reform which played so great a part in the Austro-Hungarian crisis of 1909-1910 seeHistory, below.—[Ed.]11i.e.Catholics of the Oriental rite in communion with Rome.12The methods pursued to this end are exposed in pitiless detail by Mr Seton-Watson in his chapter on the Education Laws of Hungary, inRacial Problems, 205.13Ger. Ottrik, in religion Anastasius.14At its worst,c.1030-1033, cannibalism was common.15The English title of lord-lieutenant is generally used as the best translation ofFöispánorcomes(in this connexion). The title of count (gróf) was assumed later (15th century) by those nobles who had succeeded, in spite of the Golden Bull, in making their authority over whole counties independent and hereditary.—[Ed.]16The bán is equivalent to the margrave, or count of the marches.17Andrássy,Development of Hung. Const. Liberty(Eng. trans., p. 93);Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 26 seq., where its provisions are given in some detail.18The full title of the palatine (Mag.nádorornádor-ispán, Lat.palatinus) wascomes palatii regni, the first palatine being Abu Samuel (c.1041). By the Golden Bull the palatine acquired something of the quality of a responsible minister, as “intermediary between the crown and people, guardian of the nation’s rights, and keeper of the king’s conscience” (Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 30).19Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 41.20That is to say the western portion of Walachia, which lies between the Aluta and the Danube.21Though elected king of the Romans in 1411, he cannot be regarded as the legal emperor till his coronation at Rome in 1423, and if he was titular king of Bohemia as early as 1419, he was not acknowledged as king by the Czechs themselves till 1436.22In 1412 he pawned the twenty-four Zips towns to Poland, and, in 1411 he pledged his margraviate of Brandenburg to the Hohenzollerns.23Some of these were of gigantic size,e.g.the Varga Mozsar, or great mortar, which sixty horses could scarce move from its place, and a ballistic machine invented by Matthias which could hurl stones of 3 cwt.24We know actually of fifteen, but there may have been many more.25It should be remembered that at this time one-third of the land belonged to the church, and the remainder was in the hands of less than a dozen great families who had also appropriated the royal domains.26TheOpus tripartitum juris consuetudinarii regni Hungariaewas drawn up by Verböczy at the instance of the diet in 1507. It was approved by a committee of the diet and received the royalimprimaturin 1514, but was never published. In the constitutional history of Hungary theTripartitumis of great importance as reasserting the fundamental equality of all the members of the populus (i.e.the whole body of the nobles) and, more especially, as defining the co-ordinate power of the king and “people” in legislation:i.e.the king may propose laws, but they had no force without the consent of the people, and vice versa. See Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 64.27He was just twenty.28It was kept secret for some years for fear of Turkish intervention.29In contradistinction to Turkish Hungary and Transylvanian Hungary.30At first the Habsburgs held their court at Prague instead of at Vienna.31According to contemporary records the number of prelates and priests in the three parts of Hungary at the beginning of the 17th century was but 103, all told, and of the great families not above half a dozen still clung to Catholicism.32The counties of Szatmar, Ugocsa and Bereg and the fortress of Tokaj were formally ceded to him.33He was the first Protestant palatine.34The jobbagyok, or under-tenants, had to follow the example of their lords; they were, by this time, mere serfs with no privileges either political or religious.35E.g. in Esztergom, the primatial city, there were only two buildings still standing.36Charles VI. as emperor.37Litterae credentiales, nearly equivalent to a coronation oath.38Up to 1848 the Hungarian diet was usually held at Pressburg.39Franz Phillip, Count von Lamberg (1791-1848), a field-marshal in the Austrian army, who had seen service in the campaigns of 1814-1815 in France, belonged to the Stockerau branch of the ancient countly family of Orteneck-Ottenstein. He was chosen for this particular mission as being himself a Hungarian magnate conversant with Hungarian affairs, but at the same time of the party devoted to the court.40The crowning atrocities, which the Magyars have never wholly forgiven, were the shooting and hanging of the “Arad Martyrs” and the execution of Batthyány. On October 6, 1849, thirteen generals who had taken part in the war, including Damjanics and Counts Vécsey and Leiningen, were hanged or shot at Arad. On the same day Count Louis Batthyány, who had taken no part in the war and had done his utmost to restrain his countrymen within the bounds of legality, was shot at Pest.41Transylvania, Croatio-Slavonia with Fiume and the Temes Banat were separated from the kingdom and provided with local governments.42ThisReichsrathwas a purely consultative body, the ultimate control of all important affairs being reserved to the emperor. Its representative element consisted of 100 members elected by the provinces.43Beust was the only “imperial chancellor” in Austro-Hungarian history: even Metternich bore only the title of “chancellor”; and Andrássy, who succeeded Beust, styled himself “minister of the imperial and royal household and for foreign affairs.”44See for this Mr Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems of Hungary, passim.45Ibid.p. 168.46Especially the Electoral Law of 1874, which established a very unequal distribution of electoral areas, a highly complicated franchise, and voting by public declaration, thus making it easy for the government to intimidate the electors and generally to gerrymander the elections.47The Austrian court resented especially the decree proclaiming national mourning for Louis Kossuth, though no minister was present at the funeral.48Subsequently extended till 1907.49The question involves rather complex issues. Apart from the question of constitutional right, the Magyars objected to German as the medium of military education as increasing the difficulty of magyarizing the subordinate races of Hungary (seeKnatchbull-Hugessen, ii. 296). On the other hand the Austrians pointed out that not only would failure to understand each other’s language cause fatal confusion on a battlefield, but also tend to disintegrate the forces even in peace time. They also laid stress on the fact that Magyar was not, any more than German, the language of many Hungarian regiments, consisting as these did mainly of Slovaks, Vlachs, Serbs and Croats. In resisting the Magyar word of command, then, the king-emperor was able to appeal to the anti-Magyar feeling of the other Hungarian races.(W. A. P.)50Of the 16,000,000 inhabitants of Hungary barely a half were Magyar; and the franchise was possessed by only 800,000, of whom the Magyars formed the overwhelming majority.51The cabinet consisted of Dr Wekerle (premier and finance), Ferencz Kossuth (commerce), Count Gyula Andrássy (interior), Count Albert Apponyi (education), Daványi (agriculture), Polónyi (justice) and Count Aladár Zichy (court).52Seton-Watson,Racial Problems, p. 194.53The Times, March 14, 1907.54Ibid.October 11, 1907.55Ibid.October 15, 1907.56The Times, September 27, 1908.57The People’s party first emerged during the elections of 1896, when it contested 98 seats. Its object was to resist the anti-clerical tendencies of the Liberals, and for this purpose it appealed to the “nationalities” against the dominant Magyar parties, the due enforcement of the Law of Equal Rights of Nationalities (1868) forming a main item of its programme. Its leader, Count Zichy, in a speech of Jan. 1, 1897, declared it to be neither national, nor Liberal, nor Christian to oppress the nationalities. See Seton-Watson, p. 185.58See Hunfalvy’s “Die ungarische Sprachwissenschaft,”Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn, pp. 80-87 (Budapest, 1877).59Specimen usus linguae Gothicae in eruendis atque illustrandis obscurissimis quibusdam Sacrae Scripturae locis; addita analogia linguae Gothicae cum Sinica, necnon Finnicae cum Ungarica(Upsala, 1717).60Hunfalvy, p. 81.61Id. pp. 82-86.62Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse(Copenhagen und Tyrnau, 1770).63See Count Géza Kuun’s “Lettere Ungheresi,”La Rivista Europea, anno vi., vol. ii. fasc. 3, pp. 561-562 (Florence, 1875).64So also Jámbor (A Magyar Irod. Tört., Pest, 1864, p. 104). Környei, Imre and others incline to the belief that it was Béla I. and that consequently the “anonymous notary” belongs rather to the 11th than to the 12th century.65An example of this work, printed on vellum in Gothic letter (Augsburg, 1488), and formerly belonging to the library of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, may be seen in the British Museum. Of the three first-mentioned chronicles Hungarian translations by Charles Szabó appeared at Budapest in 1860, 1861 and 1862.66Both this and the later editions of Frankfort (1581), Cologne (1690) and Pressburg (1744) are represented in the British Museum.67The only copy existing at the present time appears to have been transcribed at the beginning of the 16th century. Both this and theHalotti Beszéd(Pray Codex) are preserved in the National Museum at Budapest.68This codex contains Ruth, the lesser prophets, and part of the Apocrypha. According to Toldy, it is copied from an earlier one of the 14th century.69First made known by Coloman Thaly (1871) from a discovery by MM. E. Nagy and D. Véghelyi in the archives of the Csicsery family, in the county of Ung.70One of the only seven perfect copies extant of the Vienna (1574) edition is in the British Museum library.71A copy, with the autograph of the editor, is in the British Museum.72A copy is in the British Museum library.73There are two copies of this edition in the British Museum library.74The earliest, styled “Song on the Discovery of the right hand of the Holy King Stephen,” and printed at Nuremberg by Anton Koburger in 1484, is lost.75See Chas. Szabó’sRégi Magyar Kònyvtár(Budapest, 1879). Cf. alsoLit. Ber. aus Ungarn for 1879, Bd. iii. Heft 2, pp. 433-434.76The subject is similar to that of Grillparzer’s tragedy,Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn.77It was founded in 1825 through the generosity of Count Széchenyi, who devoted his whole income for one year (60,000 florins) to the purpose. It was soon supported by contributions from all quarters except from the government.78Among the earlier publications of the academy were theTudománytár(Treasury of Sciences, 1834-1844), with its supplementLiteratura; theKülföldi játékszin(Foreign Theatres); theMagyar nyelv rendszere(System of the Hungarian language, 1846; 2nd ed., 1847); various dictionaries of scientific, mathematical, philosophical and legal terms; a Hungarian-German dictionary (1835-1838), and a Glossary of Provincialisms (1838). TheNagy-Szótár(Great Dictionary), begun by Czuczor and Fogarasi in 1845, was not issued till 1862-1874. Among the regular organs of the academy are theTransactions(from 1840), in some 60 vols., and theAnnuals.79Among its earlier productions were theNemzeti könyvtár(National Library), published 1843-1847, and continued in 1852 under the titleUjabb Nemzeti könyvtár, a repository of works by celebrated authors; theKülföldi Regénytár(Treasury of Foreign Romances), consisting of translations; and some valuable collections of proverbs, folk-songs, traditions and fables. Of the many later publications of the Kisfaludy society the most important as regards English literature is theShakspere Minden Munkái(Complete Works of Shakespeare), in 19 vols. (1864-1878), to which a supplementary vol.,Shakspere Pályája(1880), containing a critical account of the life and writings of Shakespeare, has been added by Professor A. Greguss. Translations from Molière, Racine, Corneille, Calderon and Moreto have also been issued by the Kisfaludy society. TheÉvlapok új folyama, or “New Series of Annuals,” from 1860 (Budapest, 1868, &c.), is a chrestomathy of prize orations, and translations and original pieces, both in poetry and prose.80Unitarian bishop of Transylvania, author ofVadrózsák, or “Wild Roses” (1863), a collection of Szekler folk-songs, ballads and sayings.81Besides the various translators from the English, as for instance William Györi, Augustus Greguss, Ladislaus Arany, Sigismond Ács, Stephen Fejes and Eugene Rákosy, who, like those already incidentally mentioned, assisted in the Kisfaludy society’s version of Shakespeare’s complete works, metrical translations from foreign languages were successfully made by Emil Ábrányi, Dr Ignatius Barna, Anthony Várady, Andrew Szabó, Charles Bérczy, Julius Greguss, Lewis Dóczi, Béla Erödi, Emeric Gáspár and many others. A Magyar version, by Ferdinand Barna, of theKalewalawas published at Pest in 1871. Faithful renderings by Lewis Szeberényi, Theodore Lehoczky and Michael Fincicky of the popular poetry of the Slavic nationalities appeared in vols. i. and ii. of theHazai nép költészet tára(Treasury of the Country’s Popular Song), commenced in 1866, under the auspices of the Kisfaludy society. In vol. iii. Rumanian folk-songs were Magyarized by George Ember, Julian Grozescu and Joseph Vulcanu, under the titleRomán népdalok(Budapest, 1877). The Rózsák (Zombor, 1875) is a translation by Eugene Pavlovits from the Servian of Jovan Jovanovits. Both the last-mentioned works are interesting from an ethnographical point of view. We may here note that for foreigners unacquainted with Hungarian there are, besides several special versions of Petöfi and of Arany, numerous anthologies of Magyar poetry in German, by Count Majláth (1825), J. Fenyéry and F. Toldy (1828), G. Steinacker (1840, 1875), G. Stier (1850), K. M. Kertbeny (1854, 1860), A. Dux (1854), Count Pongrácz (1859-1861), A. M. Riedl (1860), J. Nordheim (1872), G. M. Henning (1874), A. von der Heide (1879) and others. Selections have also been published in English by Sir John Bowring (1830), S. Wékey in his grammar (1852) and E. D. Butler (1877), and in French by H. Desbordes-Valmore and C. E. de Ujfalvy (1873).82The translator of Macaulay.83See, however, J. Szinnyei & Son’sBibliotheca Hungarica historiae naturalis et matheseos, 1472-1875 (Budapest, 1878), where the number of Magyar works bearing on the natural sciences and mathematics printed from the earliest date to the end of 1875 is stated to be 3811, of which 106 are referred to periodicals.84This will appear even more striking by a consideration of the number of periodical publications published in Hungary in languages other than Magyar. Thus, while of German periodicals appearing in Hungary there were in 1871 only 85, they increased in 1880 to 114, in 1885 to 141; and they were, at the beginning of 1895, still 128, in spite of the constant spread of that process of Magyarization which has, since 1880, considerably changed the linguistic habits of the people of Hungary.
1See the table in Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems in Hungary, Appendix xiii. p. 470, and Drage,Austria-Hungary, p. 289. Of the emigrants in 1906, 52,121 were Magyars, 32,904 Slovaks, 30,551 Germans, 20,859 Rumanians and 16,016 Croats.
2Racial Problems, p. 202.
3The colouring of ordinary ethnographical maps is necessarily somewhat misleading. When an attempt is made to represent in colour the actual distribution of the races (as in Dr Chavanne’sGeographischer und statistischer Handatlas)the effect is that of occasional blotches of solid colour on a piece of shot silk.
4The distribution of the races is analysed in greater detail in Mr Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems, p. 3 seq.
5Seton-Watson,op. cit.pp. 173, 188, 252; Drage, Austria-Hungary, pp. 280, 588; Gonnard, La Hongrie, p. 72.
6An admirable account of this “little world, which produces almost everything and is almost self-sufficient” is given by M. Gonnard in hisHongrie au XXmesiècle, p. 159 seq.
7Ib.p. 349 seq.
8Merchandise passing the boundaries is subject to declaration; the respective values are stated by a special commission of experts residing in Budapest.
9The acquisition of the Austrian Staatsbahn in 1891 practically gave to the state the control of the whole railway net of Hungary. By 1900 all the main lines, except the Südbahn and the Kaschan-Oberbergar Bahn, were in its hands.
10The franchise is “probably the most illiberal in Europe.” Servants, in the widest sense of the word, apprenticed workmen and agricultural labourers are carefully excluded. The result is that the working classes are wholly unrepresented in the parliament, only 6% of them, and 13% of the small trading class, possessing the franchise, which is only enjoyed by 6% of the entire population (see Seton-Watson,Racial Problems, 250, 251). For the question of franchise reform which played so great a part in the Austro-Hungarian crisis of 1909-1910 seeHistory, below.—[Ed.]
11i.e.Catholics of the Oriental rite in communion with Rome.
12The methods pursued to this end are exposed in pitiless detail by Mr Seton-Watson in his chapter on the Education Laws of Hungary, inRacial Problems, 205.
13Ger. Ottrik, in religion Anastasius.
14At its worst,c.1030-1033, cannibalism was common.
15The English title of lord-lieutenant is generally used as the best translation ofFöispánorcomes(in this connexion). The title of count (gróf) was assumed later (15th century) by those nobles who had succeeded, in spite of the Golden Bull, in making their authority over whole counties independent and hereditary.—[Ed.]
16The bán is equivalent to the margrave, or count of the marches.
17Andrássy,Development of Hung. Const. Liberty(Eng. trans., p. 93);Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 26 seq., where its provisions are given in some detail.
18The full title of the palatine (Mag.nádorornádor-ispán, Lat.palatinus) wascomes palatii regni, the first palatine being Abu Samuel (c.1041). By the Golden Bull the palatine acquired something of the quality of a responsible minister, as “intermediary between the crown and people, guardian of the nation’s rights, and keeper of the king’s conscience” (Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 30).
19Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 41.
20That is to say the western portion of Walachia, which lies between the Aluta and the Danube.
21Though elected king of the Romans in 1411, he cannot be regarded as the legal emperor till his coronation at Rome in 1423, and if he was titular king of Bohemia as early as 1419, he was not acknowledged as king by the Czechs themselves till 1436.
22In 1412 he pawned the twenty-four Zips towns to Poland, and, in 1411 he pledged his margraviate of Brandenburg to the Hohenzollerns.
23Some of these were of gigantic size,e.g.the Varga Mozsar, or great mortar, which sixty horses could scarce move from its place, and a ballistic machine invented by Matthias which could hurl stones of 3 cwt.
24We know actually of fifteen, but there may have been many more.
25It should be remembered that at this time one-third of the land belonged to the church, and the remainder was in the hands of less than a dozen great families who had also appropriated the royal domains.
26TheOpus tripartitum juris consuetudinarii regni Hungariaewas drawn up by Verböczy at the instance of the diet in 1507. It was approved by a committee of the diet and received the royalimprimaturin 1514, but was never published. In the constitutional history of Hungary theTripartitumis of great importance as reasserting the fundamental equality of all the members of the populus (i.e.the whole body of the nobles) and, more especially, as defining the co-ordinate power of the king and “people” in legislation:i.e.the king may propose laws, but they had no force without the consent of the people, and vice versa. See Knatchbull-Hugessen, i. 64.
27He was just twenty.
28It was kept secret for some years for fear of Turkish intervention.
29In contradistinction to Turkish Hungary and Transylvanian Hungary.
30At first the Habsburgs held their court at Prague instead of at Vienna.
31According to contemporary records the number of prelates and priests in the three parts of Hungary at the beginning of the 17th century was but 103, all told, and of the great families not above half a dozen still clung to Catholicism.
32The counties of Szatmar, Ugocsa and Bereg and the fortress of Tokaj were formally ceded to him.
33He was the first Protestant palatine.
34The jobbagyok, or under-tenants, had to follow the example of their lords; they were, by this time, mere serfs with no privileges either political or religious.
35E.g. in Esztergom, the primatial city, there were only two buildings still standing.
36Charles VI. as emperor.
37Litterae credentiales, nearly equivalent to a coronation oath.
38Up to 1848 the Hungarian diet was usually held at Pressburg.
39Franz Phillip, Count von Lamberg (1791-1848), a field-marshal in the Austrian army, who had seen service in the campaigns of 1814-1815 in France, belonged to the Stockerau branch of the ancient countly family of Orteneck-Ottenstein. He was chosen for this particular mission as being himself a Hungarian magnate conversant with Hungarian affairs, but at the same time of the party devoted to the court.
40The crowning atrocities, which the Magyars have never wholly forgiven, were the shooting and hanging of the “Arad Martyrs” and the execution of Batthyány. On October 6, 1849, thirteen generals who had taken part in the war, including Damjanics and Counts Vécsey and Leiningen, were hanged or shot at Arad. On the same day Count Louis Batthyány, who had taken no part in the war and had done his utmost to restrain his countrymen within the bounds of legality, was shot at Pest.
41Transylvania, Croatio-Slavonia with Fiume and the Temes Banat were separated from the kingdom and provided with local governments.
42ThisReichsrathwas a purely consultative body, the ultimate control of all important affairs being reserved to the emperor. Its representative element consisted of 100 members elected by the provinces.
43Beust was the only “imperial chancellor” in Austro-Hungarian history: even Metternich bore only the title of “chancellor”; and Andrássy, who succeeded Beust, styled himself “minister of the imperial and royal household and for foreign affairs.”
44See for this Mr Seton-Watson’sRacial Problems of Hungary, passim.
45Ibid.p. 168.
46Especially the Electoral Law of 1874, which established a very unequal distribution of electoral areas, a highly complicated franchise, and voting by public declaration, thus making it easy for the government to intimidate the electors and generally to gerrymander the elections.
47The Austrian court resented especially the decree proclaiming national mourning for Louis Kossuth, though no minister was present at the funeral.
48Subsequently extended till 1907.
49The question involves rather complex issues. Apart from the question of constitutional right, the Magyars objected to German as the medium of military education as increasing the difficulty of magyarizing the subordinate races of Hungary (seeKnatchbull-Hugessen, ii. 296). On the other hand the Austrians pointed out that not only would failure to understand each other’s language cause fatal confusion on a battlefield, but also tend to disintegrate the forces even in peace time. They also laid stress on the fact that Magyar was not, any more than German, the language of many Hungarian regiments, consisting as these did mainly of Slovaks, Vlachs, Serbs and Croats. In resisting the Magyar word of command, then, the king-emperor was able to appeal to the anti-Magyar feeling of the other Hungarian races.
(W. A. P.)
50Of the 16,000,000 inhabitants of Hungary barely a half were Magyar; and the franchise was possessed by only 800,000, of whom the Magyars formed the overwhelming majority.
51The cabinet consisted of Dr Wekerle (premier and finance), Ferencz Kossuth (commerce), Count Gyula Andrássy (interior), Count Albert Apponyi (education), Daványi (agriculture), Polónyi (justice) and Count Aladár Zichy (court).
52Seton-Watson,Racial Problems, p. 194.
53The Times, March 14, 1907.
54Ibid.October 11, 1907.
55Ibid.October 15, 1907.
56The Times, September 27, 1908.
57The People’s party first emerged during the elections of 1896, when it contested 98 seats. Its object was to resist the anti-clerical tendencies of the Liberals, and for this purpose it appealed to the “nationalities” against the dominant Magyar parties, the due enforcement of the Law of Equal Rights of Nationalities (1868) forming a main item of its programme. Its leader, Count Zichy, in a speech of Jan. 1, 1897, declared it to be neither national, nor Liberal, nor Christian to oppress the nationalities. See Seton-Watson, p. 185.
58See Hunfalvy’s “Die ungarische Sprachwissenschaft,”Literarische Berichte aus Ungarn, pp. 80-87 (Budapest, 1877).
59Specimen usus linguae Gothicae in eruendis atque illustrandis obscurissimis quibusdam Sacrae Scripturae locis; addita analogia linguae Gothicae cum Sinica, necnon Finnicae cum Ungarica(Upsala, 1717).
60Hunfalvy, p. 81.
61Id. pp. 82-86.
62Demonstratio Idioma Ungarorum et Lapponum idem esse(Copenhagen und Tyrnau, 1770).
63See Count Géza Kuun’s “Lettere Ungheresi,”La Rivista Europea, anno vi., vol. ii. fasc. 3, pp. 561-562 (Florence, 1875).
64So also Jámbor (A Magyar Irod. Tört., Pest, 1864, p. 104). Környei, Imre and others incline to the belief that it was Béla I. and that consequently the “anonymous notary” belongs rather to the 11th than to the 12th century.
65An example of this work, printed on vellum in Gothic letter (Augsburg, 1488), and formerly belonging to the library of Matthias Corvinus, king of Hungary, may be seen in the British Museum. Of the three first-mentioned chronicles Hungarian translations by Charles Szabó appeared at Budapest in 1860, 1861 and 1862.
66Both this and the later editions of Frankfort (1581), Cologne (1690) and Pressburg (1744) are represented in the British Museum.
67The only copy existing at the present time appears to have been transcribed at the beginning of the 16th century. Both this and theHalotti Beszéd(Pray Codex) are preserved in the National Museum at Budapest.
68This codex contains Ruth, the lesser prophets, and part of the Apocrypha. According to Toldy, it is copied from an earlier one of the 14th century.
69First made known by Coloman Thaly (1871) from a discovery by MM. E. Nagy and D. Véghelyi in the archives of the Csicsery family, in the county of Ung.
70One of the only seven perfect copies extant of the Vienna (1574) edition is in the British Museum library.
71A copy, with the autograph of the editor, is in the British Museum.
72A copy is in the British Museum library.
73There are two copies of this edition in the British Museum library.
74The earliest, styled “Song on the Discovery of the right hand of the Holy King Stephen,” and printed at Nuremberg by Anton Koburger in 1484, is lost.
75See Chas. Szabó’sRégi Magyar Kònyvtár(Budapest, 1879). Cf. alsoLit. Ber. aus Ungarn for 1879, Bd. iii. Heft 2, pp. 433-434.
76The subject is similar to that of Grillparzer’s tragedy,Ein treuer Diener seines Herrn.
77It was founded in 1825 through the generosity of Count Széchenyi, who devoted his whole income for one year (60,000 florins) to the purpose. It was soon supported by contributions from all quarters except from the government.
78Among the earlier publications of the academy were theTudománytár(Treasury of Sciences, 1834-1844), with its supplementLiteratura; theKülföldi játékszin(Foreign Theatres); theMagyar nyelv rendszere(System of the Hungarian language, 1846; 2nd ed., 1847); various dictionaries of scientific, mathematical, philosophical and legal terms; a Hungarian-German dictionary (1835-1838), and a Glossary of Provincialisms (1838). TheNagy-Szótár(Great Dictionary), begun by Czuczor and Fogarasi in 1845, was not issued till 1862-1874. Among the regular organs of the academy are theTransactions(from 1840), in some 60 vols., and theAnnuals.
79Among its earlier productions were theNemzeti könyvtár(National Library), published 1843-1847, and continued in 1852 under the titleUjabb Nemzeti könyvtár, a repository of works by celebrated authors; theKülföldi Regénytár(Treasury of Foreign Romances), consisting of translations; and some valuable collections of proverbs, folk-songs, traditions and fables. Of the many later publications of the Kisfaludy society the most important as regards English literature is theShakspere Minden Munkái(Complete Works of Shakespeare), in 19 vols. (1864-1878), to which a supplementary vol.,Shakspere Pályája(1880), containing a critical account of the life and writings of Shakespeare, has been added by Professor A. Greguss. Translations from Molière, Racine, Corneille, Calderon and Moreto have also been issued by the Kisfaludy society. TheÉvlapok új folyama, or “New Series of Annuals,” from 1860 (Budapest, 1868, &c.), is a chrestomathy of prize orations, and translations and original pieces, both in poetry and prose.
80Unitarian bishop of Transylvania, author ofVadrózsák, or “Wild Roses” (1863), a collection of Szekler folk-songs, ballads and sayings.
81Besides the various translators from the English, as for instance William Györi, Augustus Greguss, Ladislaus Arany, Sigismond Ács, Stephen Fejes and Eugene Rákosy, who, like those already incidentally mentioned, assisted in the Kisfaludy society’s version of Shakespeare’s complete works, metrical translations from foreign languages were successfully made by Emil Ábrányi, Dr Ignatius Barna, Anthony Várady, Andrew Szabó, Charles Bérczy, Julius Greguss, Lewis Dóczi, Béla Erödi, Emeric Gáspár and many others. A Magyar version, by Ferdinand Barna, of theKalewalawas published at Pest in 1871. Faithful renderings by Lewis Szeberényi, Theodore Lehoczky and Michael Fincicky of the popular poetry of the Slavic nationalities appeared in vols. i. and ii. of theHazai nép költészet tára(Treasury of the Country’s Popular Song), commenced in 1866, under the auspices of the Kisfaludy society. In vol. iii. Rumanian folk-songs were Magyarized by George Ember, Julian Grozescu and Joseph Vulcanu, under the titleRomán népdalok(Budapest, 1877). The Rózsák (Zombor, 1875) is a translation by Eugene Pavlovits from the Servian of Jovan Jovanovits. Both the last-mentioned works are interesting from an ethnographical point of view. We may here note that for foreigners unacquainted with Hungarian there are, besides several special versions of Petöfi and of Arany, numerous anthologies of Magyar poetry in German, by Count Majláth (1825), J. Fenyéry and F. Toldy (1828), G. Steinacker (1840, 1875), G. Stier (1850), K. M. Kertbeny (1854, 1860), A. Dux (1854), Count Pongrácz (1859-1861), A. M. Riedl (1860), J. Nordheim (1872), G. M. Henning (1874), A. von der Heide (1879) and others. Selections have also been published in English by Sir John Bowring (1830), S. Wékey in his grammar (1852) and E. D. Butler (1877), and in French by H. Desbordes-Valmore and C. E. de Ujfalvy (1873).
82The translator of Macaulay.
83See, however, J. Szinnyei & Son’sBibliotheca Hungarica historiae naturalis et matheseos, 1472-1875 (Budapest, 1878), where the number of Magyar works bearing on the natural sciences and mathematics printed from the earliest date to the end of 1875 is stated to be 3811, of which 106 are referred to periodicals.
84This will appear even more striking by a consideration of the number of periodical publications published in Hungary in languages other than Magyar. Thus, while of German periodicals appearing in Hungary there were in 1871 only 85, they increased in 1880 to 114, in 1885 to 141; and they were, at the beginning of 1895, still 128, in spite of the constant spread of that process of Magyarization which has, since 1880, considerably changed the linguistic habits of the people of Hungary.
HUNGER and THIRST.These terms are used to express peculiar sensations which are produced by and give expression to general wants of the system, satisfied respectively by the ingestion of organic solids containing substances capable of acting as food, and by water or liquids and solids containing water.
Hunger(a word common to Teutonic languages) is a peculiarly indefinite sensation of craving or want which is referred to the stomach, but with which is often combined, always indeed in its most pronounced stages, a general feeling of weakness or faintness. The earliest stages are unattended with suffering, and are characterized as “appetite for food.” Hunger is normally appeased by the introduction of solid or semi-solid nutriment into the stomach, and it is probable that the almost immediate alleviation of the sensation in these circumstances is in part due to a local influence, perhaps connected with a free secretion of gastric juice. Essentially, however, the sensation of hunger is a mere local expression of a general want, and this local expression ceases when the want is satisfied, even though no food be introduced into the stomach, the needs of the economy being satisfied by the introduction of food through other channels, as, for example, when food which admits of being readily absorbed is injected into the large intestine.
Thirst(a word of Teutonic origin, Ger.Durst, Swed. and Dan.törst, akin to the Lat.torrere, to parch) is a peculiar sensation of dryness and heat localized in the tongue and throat. Although thirst may be artificially produced by drying, as by the passage of a current of air over the mucous membrane of the above parts, normally it depends upon an impoverishment of the system in water. And, when this impoverishment ceases, in whichever way this be effected, the sensation likewise ceases. The injection of water into the blood, the stomach, or the large intestine appeases thirst, though no fluid is brought in contact with the part to which the sensation is referred.
The sensations of hunger and thirst lead us, or when urgent compel us, to take food and drink into the mouth. Once in the mouth, the entrance to the alimentary canal, the food begins to undergo a series of processes, the object of which is to extract from it as much as possible of its nutritive constituents. Food in the alimentary canal is, strictly speaking, outside the confines of the body; as much so as the fly grasped in the leaves of the insectivorousDioneais outside of the plant itself. The mechanical and chemical processes to which the food is subjected have their seat and conditions outside the body which it is destined to nourish, though unquestionably the body is no passive agent, and innumerable glands come into action to supply the chemical agents which dissolve and render assimilable those constituents of the food capable of being absorbed into the organism, and of forming part and parcel of its substance (see further underNutrition).
HUNGERFORD, WALTER HUNGERFORD,Baron(d. 1449), English soldier, belonged to a Wiltshire family. His father, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d. 1398), was speaker of the House of Commons in 1377, a position which he owed to his friend John of Gaunt, and is the first person formally mentioned in the rolls of parliament as holding the office. Walter Hungerford also served as speaker, but he is more celebrated as a warrior and diplomatist, serving in the former capacity at Agincourt and in the latter at the council of Constance and the congress of Arras. An executor of Henry V.’s will and a member of the council under Henry VI., Hungerford became a baron in 1426, and he was lord treasurer from 1426 to 1431. Remains of his benefactions still exist at Heytesbury, long the principal residence of the family.
Hungerford’s son Robert (c.1400-1459) was also called to parliament as a baron; he was very wealthy, both his mother and his wife being heiresses. Like several other members of the family, Robert was buried in the cathedral at Salisbury.
Robert’s son and heir, Robert, Lord Moleyns and Hungerford (c.1420-1464), married Eleanor, daughter of Sir William de Moleyns, and was called to parliament as Lord de Moleyns in 1445. He is chiefly remembered through his dispute with John Paston over the possession of the Norfolk manor of Gresham. After losing this case he was taken prisoner in France in 1452, not securing his release until 1459, During the Wars of the Roses he fought for Henry VI., with whom he fled to Scotland; then he was attainted, was taken prisoner at the battle of Hexham, and was executed at Newcastle in May 1464.
His eldest son, Sir Thomas Hungerford (d. 1469), was attainted and executed for attempting the restoration of Henry VI.; a younger son, Sir Walter Hungerford (d. 1516), who fought for Henry VII. at Bosworth, received some of the estates forfeited by his ancestors. Sir Thomas, who had no sons, left an only daughter Mary (d.c.1534). When the attainders of her father and grandfather were reversed in 1485 this lady became Baroness Hungerford and Baroness de Moleyns; she married into the Hastings family and was the mother of George Hastings, 1st earl of Huntingdon.
Sir Walter Hungerford’s son Edward (d. 1522) was the father of Walter, Lord Hungerford of Heytesbury (1503-1540), who was created a baron in 1536, but was attainted for his alleged sympathy with the Pilgrimage of Grace; he was beheaded on the 28th of July 1540, the same day as his patron Thomas Cromwell. As his sons Sir Walter (1532-1596) and Sir Edward (d. 1607) both died without sons the estates passed to another branch of the family.
Sir Edward Hungerford (1596-1648), who inherited the estates of his kinsman Sir Edward in 1607, was the son of Sir Anthony (1564-1627) and a descendant of Walter, Lord Hungerford. He was a member of both the Short and Long Parliaments in 1640; during the Civil War he attached himself to the parliamentary party, fighting at Lansdowne and at Roundway Down. His half-brother Anthony (d. 1657) was also a member of both the Short and the Long Parliaments, but was on the royalist side during the war. This Anthony’s son and heir was Sir Edward Hungerford (1632-1711), the founder of Hungerford market at Charing Cross, London. He was a member of parliament for over forty years, but was very extravagant and was obliged to sell much of his property; and little is known of the family after his death.
See Sir R. C. Hoare,History of Modern Wiltshire(1822-1844).
See Sir R. C. Hoare,History of Modern Wiltshire(1822-1844).
HUNGERFORD,a market town in the Newbury parliamentary division of Berkshire, England, extending into Wiltshire, 61 m. W. by S. of London by the Great Western railway. Pop. (1901) 2906. It is beautifully situated in the narrow valley of the Kennet at the junction of tributary valleys from the south and south-west, the second of which is followed by the Bath road, an important highway from London to the west. The town, which lies on the Kennet and Avon canal, has agricultural trade. John of Gaunt, duke of Lancaster, presented to the citizens manorial rights, including common pasture and fishing. The fishing is valuable, for the trout of the Kennet and other streamsin the locality are numerous and carefully preserved. Hungerford is also a favourite hunting centre. A horn given to the town by John of Gaunt is preserved in the town hall, another horn dating from 1634 being used to summon the manorial court of twelve citizens called feoffees (the president being called the constable), at Hocktide, the Tuesday following Easter week. In 1774, when a number of towns had taken action against the imposition of a fee for the delivery of letters from their local post-offices, Hungerford was selected as a typical case, and was first relieved of the imposition.
HÜNINGEN,a town of Germany, in Alsace-Lorraine, situated on the left bank of the Rhine, on a branch of the Rhine-Rhone canal, and 3 m. N. of Basel by rail. Pop. (1905) 3304. The Rhine is here crossed by an iron railway bridge. The town boasts a handsome Roman Catholic church, and has manufactures of silk, watches, chemicals and cigars. Hüningen is an ancient place and grew up round a stronghold placed to guard the passage of the Rhine. It was wrested from the Imperialists by the duke of Lauenburg in 1634, and subsequently passed by purchase to Louis XIV. of France. It was fortified by Vauban (1679-1681) and a bridge was built across the Rhine. The fortress capitulated to the Austrians on the 26th of August 1815 and the works were shortly afterwards dismantled. In 1871, the town passed, with Alsace-Lorraine, to the German empire.
See Tschamber,Geschichte der Stadt und ehemaligen Festung Hüningen(St Ludwig, 1894); and Latruffe,Huningue et Bâle devant les traités de 1815(Paris, 1863).
See Tschamber,Geschichte der Stadt und ehemaligen Festung Hüningen(St Ludwig, 1894); and Latruffe,Huningue et Bâle devant les traités de 1815(Paris, 1863).
HUNNERIC(d. 484), king of the Vandals, was a son of King Gaiseric, and was sent to Italy as a hostage in 435 when his father made a treaty with the emperor Valentinian III. After his return to the Vandal court at Carthage, he married a daughter of Theodoric I., king of the Visigoths; but when this princess was suspected of attempting to poison her father-in-law, she was mutilated and was sent back to Europe. Hunneric became king of the Vandals on his father’s death in 477. Like Gaiseric he was an Arian, and his reign is chiefly memorable for his cruel persecution of members of the orthodox Christian Church in his dominions. Hunneric’s second wife was Eudocia, a daughter of Valentinian III. and his wife Eudocia. (SeeVandals.)
HUNNIS, WILLIAM(d. 1597), English musician and poet, was as early as 1549 in the service of William Herbert, afterwards earl of Pembroke. His friend Thomas Newton, in a poem prefixed toThe Hive of Hunnye(1578), says: “In prime of youth thy pleasant Penne depaincted Sonets sweete,” and mentions his interludes, gallant lays, rondelets and songs, explaining that it was in the winter of his age that he turned to sacred lore and high philosophy. In 1550 he publishedCertayne Psalms ... in Englishe metre, and shortly afterwards was made a gentleman of the Chapel Royal. At Mary’s accession he retained his appointment, but in 1555 he is said to have been one of a party of twelve conspirators who had determined to take Mary’s life. Nothing came of this plot, but shortly afterwards he was party to a conspiracy to dethrone Mary in favour of Elizabeth. Hunnis, having some knowledge of alchemy, was to go abroad to coin the necessary gold, but this doubtful mission was exchanged for the task of making false keys to the treasury in London, which he was able to do because of his friendship with Nicholas Brigham, the receiver of the exchequer. The conspirators were, however, betrayed by one of their number, Thomas Whyte. Some of them were executed, but Hunnis escaped with imprisonment. The death of Mary made him a free man, and in 1559 he married Margaret, Brigham’s widow, but she died within the year, and Hunnis married in 1560 the widow of a grocer. He himself became a grocer and freeman of the City of London, and supervisor of the Queen’s Gardens at Greenwich. In 1566 he was made Master of the Children of the Chapel Royal. No complete piece of his is extant, perhaps because of the rule that the plays acted by the Children should not have been previously printed. In his later years he purchased land at Barking, Essex. If the lines above his signature on a 1557 edition of Sir Thomas More’s works are genuine, he remained a poor man, for he refuses to make a will on the ground that “the good that I shall leave, will not pay all I owe.” In Harleian MS. 6403 is a story that one of his sons, in the capacity of page, drank the remainder of the poisoned cup supposed to have been provided by Leicester for Walter Devereux, 1st earl of Essex, but escaped with no injury beyond the loss of his hair.
Hunnis’s extant works includeCertayne Psalms(1549),A Hive full of Hunnye(1578),Seven Sobbes of a sorrowful Soule for Sinne(1583),Hunnies Recreations(1588), sixteen poems in theParadise of Dainty Devices(1576), and two inEngland’s Helicon(1600). See Mrs C. Carmichael Stopes’s tract on William Hunnis, reprinted (1892) from theJahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft.
Hunnis’s extant works includeCertayne Psalms(1549),A Hive full of Hunnye(1578),Seven Sobbes of a sorrowful Soule for Sinne(1583),Hunnies Recreations(1588), sixteen poems in theParadise of Dainty Devices(1576), and two inEngland’s Helicon(1600). See Mrs C. Carmichael Stopes’s tract on William Hunnis, reprinted (1892) from theJahrbuch der deutschen Shakespeare Gesellschaft.
HUNS.This or some similar name is given to at least four peoples, whose identity cannot be regarded as certain. (1) The Huns, who invaded the East Roman empire from aboutA.D.372 to 453 and were most formidable under the leadership of Attila. (2) The Hungarians or Magyars. The Magyars crossed the Carpathians into Hungary inA.D.898 and mingled with the races they found there. The modern Hungarians (excluding Slavonic elements) are probably a mixture of these Magyars with the remnants of older invaders such as Huns, Petchenegs and Kumans. (3) The White Huns (Λευκοὶ Οὕννοιor Ephthalites), who troubled the Persian empire from about 420 to 557 and were known to the Byzantines. (4) The Hûnas, who invaded India during the same period. There is not much doubt that the third and fourth of these tribes are the same, and it is quite likely that the Magyars are descended from the horde which sent forth the Huns in the 4th century, but it is not demonstrable. Neither can it be proved that the Huns and Magyars belonged either physically or linguistically to the same section as the Hûnas and Ephthalites. But the occurrence of the name in both India and Europe is prima facie evidence in favour of a connexion between those who bore it, for, though civilized races often lumped all their barbarian neighbours together under one general name, it would seem that, when the same name is applied independently to similar invaders in both India and eastern Europe, the only explanation can be that they gave themselves that name, and this fact probably indicates that they were members of the same tribe or group. What we know of the history and distribution of the Huns does not conflict with this idea. They appear in Europe towards the end of the 4th century and the Ephthalites and Hûnas in western Asia about fifty years later. It may be supposed that some defeat in China (and the Chinese were successful in driving back the Hiung-nu in the 1st centuryA.D.) had sent them westwards some time earlier. One body remained in Transoxiana and, after resting for a time, pushed their way through the mountains into Afghanistan and India, exactly as the Yüe-Chi had done before them. Another division pressed farther westwards and probably made its headquarters near the northern end of the Caspian Sea and the southern part of the Ural Mountains. It was from here that the Huns invaded Europe, and when their power collapsed, after the death of Attila, many of them may have returned to their original haunts. Possibly the Bulgarians and Khazars were offshoots of the same horde. The Magyars may very well have gradually spread first to the Don and then beyond it, until in the 9th century they entered Hungary. But this sketch of possible migrations is largely conjectural, and authorities are not even agreed as to the branch of the Turanians to which the Huns should be referred. The physical characteristics of these nomadic armies were very variable, since they continually increased their numbers by slaves, women and soldiers of fortune drawn from all the surrounding races. The language of the Magyars is Finno-Ugric and most nearly allied to the speech of the Ostiaks now found on the east of the Ural, but we have no warrant for assuming that the Huns, and still less that the Ephthalites and Hûnas, spoke the same language. Neither can we assume that the Huns and Hûnas are the same as the Hiung-nu Of the Chinese. The names may be identical, but it is not certain, for in Hun may lurk some such designation as the ten (Turkishonorūn) tribes. Also Hiung-nu seems to be the name of warlike nomads in general, not of a particular section. Again the Finnish languages spoken in various parts of Russia and more or less allied to Magyar must have spread gradually westwards from the Urals, and theirdevelopment and diffusion seem to postulate a long period (for the history of the Finns shows that they were not mobile like the Turks and Mongols), so that the ancestral language from which spring Finnish and Magyar can hardly have been brought across Asia after the Christian era. The warlike and vigorous temper of the Huns has led many writers to regard them as Turks. The Turks were perhaps not distinguished by name or institutions from other tribes before the 5th century, but the Huns may have been an earlier offshoot of the same stock. Apart from this the Hungarians may have received an infusion of Turkish blood not only from the Osmanlis but from the Kumans and other tribes who settled in the country.
History.—The authentic history of the Huns in Europe practically begins about the yearA.D.372, when under a leader named Balamir (or, according to some MSS., Balamber) they began a westward movement from their settlements in the steppes lying to the north of the Caspian. After crushing, or compelling the alliance of, various nations unknown to fame (Alpilzuri, Alcidzuri, Himari, Tuncarsi, Boisci), they at length reached the Alani, a powerful nation which had its seat between the Volga and the Don; these also, after a struggle, they defeated and finally enlisted in their service. They then proceeded, in 374, to invade the empire of the Ostrogoths (Greutungi), ruled over by the aged Ermanaric, or Hermanric, who died (perhaps by his own hand) while the critical attack was still impending. Under his son Hunimund a section of his subjects promptly made a humiliating peace; under Withemir (Winithar), however, who succeeded him in the larger part of his dominions, an armed resistance was organized; but it resulted only in repeated defeat, and finally in the death of the king. The representatives of his son Witheric put an end to the conflict by accepting the condition of vassalage. Balamir now directed his victorious arms still farther westward against that portion of the Visigothic nation (or Tervingi) which acknowledged the authority of Athanaric. The latter entrenched himself on the frontier which had separated him from the Ostrogoths, behind the “Greutungrampart” and the Dniester; but he was surprised by the enemy, who forded the river in the night, fell suddenly upon his camp, and compelled him to abandon his position. Athanaric next attempted to establish himself in the territory between the Pruth and the Danube, and with this object set about heightening the old Roman wall which Trajan had erected in north-eastern Dacia; before his fortifications, however, were complete, the Huns were again upon him, and without a battle he was forced to retreat to the Danube. The remainder of the Visigoths, under Alavivus and Fritigern, now began to seek, and ultimately were successful in obtaining (376), the permission of the emperor Valens to settle in Thrace; Athanaric meanwhile took refuge in Transylvania, thus abandoning the field without any serious struggle to the irresistible Huns. For more than fifty years the Roman world was undisturbed by any aggressive act on the part of the new invaders, who contented themselves with over-powering various tribes which lived to the north of the Danube. In some instances, in fact, the Huns lent their aid to the Romans against third parties; thus in 404-405 certain Hunnic tribes, under a chief or king named Uldin, assisted Honorius in the struggle with Radagaisus (Ratigar) and his Ostrogoths, and took a prominent part in the decisive battle fought in the neighbourhood of Florence. Once indeed, in 409, they are said to have crossed the Danube and invaded Bulgaria under perhaps the same chief (Uldin), but extensive desertions soon compelled a retreat.
About the year 432 a Hunnic king, Ruas or Rugulas, made himself of such importance that he received from Theodosius II. an annual stipend or tribute of 350 pounds of gold (£14,000), along with the rank of Roman general. Quarrels soon arose, partly out of the circumstance that the Romans had sought to make alliances with certain Danubian tribes which Ruas chose to regard as properly subject to himself, partly also because some of the undoubted subjects of the Hun had found refuge on Roman territory; and Theodosius, in reply to an indignant and insulting message which he had received about this cause of dispute, was preparing to send off a special embassy when tidings arrived that Ruas was dead and that he had been succeeded in his kingdom by Attila and Bleda, the two sons of his brother Mundzuk (433). Shortly afterwards the treaty of Margus (not far from the modern Belgrade), where both sides negotiated on horseback, was ratified. By its stipulations the yearly stipendium or tribute payable to Attila by the Romans was doubled; the fugitives were to be surrendered, or a fine of £8 to be paid for each of those who should be missing; free markets, open to Hun and Roman alike, were to be instituted; and any tribe with which Attila might be at any time at war was thereby to be held as excluded from alliance with Rome. For eight years afterwards there was peace so far as the Romans were concerned; and it was probably during this period that the Huns proceeded to the extensive conquests to which the contemporary historian Priscus so vaguely alludes in the words: “He (Attila) has made the whole of Scythia his own, he has laid the Roman empire under tribute, and he thinks of renewing his attacks upon Persia. The road to that eastern kingdom is not untrodden by the Huns; already they have marched fifteen days from a certain lake, and have ravaged Media.” They also appear before the end of this interval to have pushed westward as far as to the Rhone, and to have come into conflict with the Burgundians. Overt acts of hostility, however, occurred against the Eastern empire when the town of Margus (by the treachery of its bishop) was seized and sacked (441), and against the Western when Sirmium was invested and taken.
In 445 Bleda died, and two years afterwards Attila, now sole ruler, undertook one of his most important expeditions against the Eastern empire; on this occasion he pushed southwards as far as Thermopylae, Gallipoli and the walls of Constantinople; peace was cheaply purchased by tripling the yearly tribute (which accordingly now stood at 2100 pounds of gold, or £84,000 sterling) and by the payment of a heavy indemnity. In 448 again occurred various diplomatic negotiations, and especially the embassy of Maximinus, of which many curious details have been recorded by Priscus his companion. Then followed, in 451, that westward movement across the Rhine which was only arrested at last, with terrible slaughter, on the Catalaunian plains (according to common belief, in the neighbourhood of the modern Châlons, but more probably at a point some 50 m. to the south-east, near Mery-sur-Seine). The following year (452), that of the Italian campaign, was marked by such events as the sack of Aquileia, the destruction of the cities of Venetia, and finally, on the banks of the Mincio, that historical interview with Pope Leo I. which resulted in the return of Attila to Pannonia, where in 453 he died (seeAttila). Almost immediately afterwards the empire he had amassed rather than consolidated fell to pieces. His too numerous sons began to quarrel about their inheritance, while Ardaric, the king of the Gepidae, was placing himself at the head of a general revolt of the dependent nations. The inevitable struggle came to a crisis near the river Netad in Pannonia, in a battle in which 30,000 of the Huns and their confederates, including Ellak, Attila’s eldest son, were slain. The nation, thus broken, rapidly dispersed, exactly as the White Huns did after a similar defeat about a hundred years later. One horde settled under Roman protection in Little Scythia (the Dobrudzha), others in Dacia Ripensis (on the confines of Servia and Bulgaria) or on the southern borders of Pannonia. Many, however, appear to have returned to what is now South Russia, and may perhaps have taken part in the ethnical combinations which produced the Bulgarians.