THE GREEK CHARTER OF THE HUNGARIAN KING STEPHEN I

Зборник радова Византолошког института LIII, 2016 Zbornik radova Vizantološkog instituta LIII, 2016 UDC: 091=14'04:930.2:003.074(439)”10” 271.2-523.4”10” DOI: 10.2298/ZRVI1653127S BORIS STOJKOVSKI University of Novi Sad – Faculty of Philosophy [email protected] THE GREEK CHARTER OF THE HUNGARIAN KING STEPHEN I1 he irst Hungarian Christian ruler, King Stephen I (997–1038) issued several charters that have survived to this day. One of them is the charter issued on behalf of the nuns from the Monastery of the Holy heotokos in Veszprémvölgy. he charter was written in the Greek language, and has been the subject of many studies. he original has not been preserved; what remains is a copy from the time of King Coloman, dated to 1109. he charter has not been published in a critical edition in any language other than Hungarian and even though it has been examined by numerous Hungarian scholars, many questions remain open. he aim of the author is to provide a critical edition and an English translation of the charter, but also to clarify some remaining doubts about the charter and its contents. Furthermore, some comparisons will be made with the Byzantine charters issued at the beginning of the 11th and during the 12th century. Keywords: Stephen I of Hungary, Veszprémvölgy monastery, diplomatics, the Greek charter. I. A general introduction he Byzantine inluence on medieval Hungary was especially present in the early centuries following the arrival of the Hungarians to the Pannonian plain. his inluence was mostly carried out through the signiicant role of the Byzantine (later Orthodox) Church in the early medieval Hungary. his inluence is particularly noticeable in the age of King Stephen I (997–1038), later venerated as a saint. His mother Sarolta was baptized according to the Byzantine rite, and Stephen himself was such 1 he paper is the result of research conducted as part the project no. 114-451-2529/2016 Interaction of cultures, economic lows and social structures on the soil of Vojvodina as historical processes of long duration (from the Antiquity to the 16th century), funded by the Provincial Secretariat of Science and Technological Development of Vojvodina. 128 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 a loyal ally of the Byzantine emperor Basil II that Hungarian troops even helped the emperor during Byzantine campaigns in the Balkans. During his reign, besides Western Christian inluences, the Byzantine church was very much present, with many Greek monasteries that are documented to have existed in this period.2 he latter is of key interest for this work. Alongside many Greek (Byzantine rite) monasteries throughout Hungary, one has particularly drawn the attention of many scholars throughout the years. his is the convent of Veszprémvölgy. Situated in one of the oldest bishoprics and counties of medieval Hungary,3 this monastery is very interesting for the fact that King Stephen I issued a charter in the Greek language granting this endowment and many privileges to the nuns of this monastery. herefore, this cloister belonged to the nuns that were following the Byzantine rite. Furthermore, this charter is very unusual since it is the only Greek charter issued by a Hungarian medieval king and contains one of the irst (possibly even the very irst) mentions of the word κράλης i. e. King. In addition, this charter has many diplomatic characteristics that are similar to the Byzantine practice. In the following passages an edition of this charter will be provided, both in Greek and translated into the English language for the irst time, which will be followed by the necessary comments on this interesting document. II. About the charter he Greek charter of King Stephen I is a donation of villages and many other privileges, possessions, incomes, cratsmen and goods to the monastery of the Most Holy heotokos in Veszprémvölgy. With this donation the nuns of the monastery were not only richly endowed by the King, but their property was exempt from the authority of the King, his barons, high clergy or anyone else, therefore the nuns were given εξουσία (of course the correct form would be ἐξκουσία). he original document has not been preserved. In 1109 King Coloman made a copy of the Greek original on the upper half of the paper, whilst on the lower part of it King Coloman explains why he needed to issue the copy of the charter, and also provides a Latin paraphrase of the document itself.4 2 Cf. Moravcsik, Görögnyelvű monostorok Szent István korában, 422; Idem, Role of the Byzantine Church in Medieval Hungary, 134–151; Obolenski, Vizantijski komonvelt, 186–197; Stojkovski, Niš u vizantijsko-ugarskim odnosima, 383–394; Idem, Samuilovo carstvo i Ugarska, 65–76. 3 he bishopric was founded by King Stephen I himself in 1009 and the founding charter mentions comitatus Wesprimiensis, which clearly shows that the county was founded even earlier than the bishopric. For the critical edition of the charter see Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima, I, 49–53, including the irst mention of a bishop of Veszprém named Stephen (hereinater DHA); for the founding of the county and the bishopric see Kristó, A Vármegyek kialakulása Magyarországon, 242–243; Solymosi, Veszprémi püspökség, 727–728; Zsoldos, Magyarországi világi archontológiája, 99, 226. he city was most probably the irst seat of the Hungarian bishop, who was at the earliest times (presumably around the end of the 10th century) entitled a missionary bishop, with a task to spread Christianity and to organize the church in Hungary, without any particular diocese. Nevertheless, the missionary bishop’s territory spread to the entire country. Cf. Múcska, Az első magyarországi püspökségekről, 17–18 (he author also makes a comparison with Poland). 4 Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 4. BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 129 Two copies of the 1109 charter have been preserved. he irst of the copies was kept by the Cistercian nuns5 in the monastery of Veszprémvölgy until 1543, when, leeing from the Turkish invasion, the sisters went to Körmend, taking their archives with them. he archives containing this charter were in the property of the Jesuits from Győr. Ater the repeal of the Jesuit order in 1773 by the Empress and Queen Maria heresa the archives and this charter were transferred to the Archives of the Chamber and today both copies of the 1109 charter are kept at the National Archives of Hungary, as the oldest documents in their collection.6 Both copies are preserved on paper, the so-called A copy on a 46.5 X 58.5 cm paper and the B copy on a paper sheet measuring 46.5 X 64.5 cm. Both of the copies have on the back a small seal and a 9 cm hanging seal with a king sitting on the throne depicted on it, alongside the inscription † COLOMANNVS D(E)I GRATIA VNGARORVM REX.7 As early as the 19th century, the Hungarian historian László Fejérpataky determined that there are signiicant imbalances between the two versions,8 and ater his analysis of the two Greek copies Gyula Gyomlay, a classical philologist and Byzantologist, came to the conclusion, that the A copy is genuine, while the B copy was written by someone with very scarce knowledge of the Greek language.9 Finally, by thoroughly analyzing the Latin text, and in accordance with the above mentioned conclusions of the earlier scholars, Bálint Homán, another prominent Hungarian historian of the medieval period, established that the B version is inauthentic, and that it was created for the purposes of a lawsuit involving the possessions of the monastery in the late 13th century.10 herefore, this paper only examines the original version and in the following passages this edition is provided alongside the irst translation into any language other than Hungarian, i. e. into the English language. 5 In the beginning the nuns of this monastery followed the Greek, i. e. Byzantine rite. It is uncertain at what time the Roman Catholic order took over the monastery. In 1180 the bishop of Veszprém took the title that had belonged to the monastery, and this right was returned to the nuns by the bishop Robert 30 years later. During the irst half of the 13th century there are mentions in the sources of the abbesses of the monastery, but without any mention of the order that they had belonged to. From 1240 the monastery of Veszprémvölgy belonged to the Cistercian order. Ater the Turkish devastation, the monastery was deserted. In 1627 the ruins of the monastery and its archives became the property of the Jesuits of Győr. Solymosi, Észrevételek a ciszterci rend magyarországi történetének repertóriumából, 236–252; Fülöp – Koppány, A veszprémvölgyi apácákolostor régészeti kutatása (1998–2002), 7–8. 6 Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 4. 7 Gyomlay, Szent István veszprémvölgyi donátiója, 4–9. 8 Fejérpataky, Kálmán király oklevelei, 5. 9 Gyomlay, Szent István veszprémvölgyi donátiója, 9–44, especially 24 where he explicitly states that the writer of the text did not know Greek and was even unfamiliar with Greek letters, signs, accents, and so forth. 10 For a detailed analysis on the authenticity of the two versions see Hómán, A veszprémvölgyi 1109. évi oklevél hitelessége, 123–134, 167–174; Idem, Szent István görög oklevele, 99–136, 225–242. 130 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 III. he Greek edition and the English translation † Ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ π[ατ]ρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου π[νεύ]μ[ατο]ς. Ὲντέλλομαι ἐγῶ Στέφανος χριστιανὸς ὁ καὶ κράλης πάσης Οὑγγρίας ποιοῦτα καὶ διοικοῦντα καὶ καταστένοντα τῶ μοναστήριον τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου τοῦ μητροπολίτου τὸ είς τὸ Βεσπρὲμ καὶ ἐν αὐτῷ ἀθροίσας πλῆθος μοναζουσῶν ὑπερ τῆς ἐμῆς ψυχηκῆς σοτηρίας ἂμα συμβείου καὶ τοῖς τέκνοις μου καὶ τῆς Πανονίας ἀπάσης καὶ δίδωμι ἐν αὐτῷ τῷ μοναστηρίῳ ἐννεά χωρία μετα τῶν χωραφίων αῦτῶν. Τα ὁνόματα τῶν χωρίων αῦτῶν εἰσίν ταύτα τῶ πρῶτον Σαγάρβρυεν ἒχοντα καπνοῦς τεσσαράκοντα ὁκτῶ καὶ ὁψαράδας ἒξ καὶ ἒτερον χωρίον τὸ Σάμταγ ἒχοντα φαμιλίας τριάκοντα, ὅπερ ἐστὶν εἰς τὸν Δούναβιν καὶ εἴκοσι φαμιλίας εἰς τὸν ἐνθρονιασμὸν τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καὶ τῶ πέραμα τοῦ Σομβώτου μετα καὶ περάτας ἑπτὰ ὁμοίος καὶ τῶ πανηγύριν καὶ βεστιαρίτας ἐξίκοντα καὶ ὁψαράδας εἰς τὸ Δοὑναωιν δωδεκα καὶ ξυλουργοὺς τρεῖς καὶ χαλκεῖς δύο καὶ βουτζιάριν ἒναν καὶ τορνάριν ἒν(αν) καὶ εἰς τοῦ Πωλοσνίκου τοῦ μιρᾶ ἀμπελουργὸς εἶς καὶ εἰς τοῦ Παταδὶ ὁ Μελεκδὶς ἀμπελουργὸς εἶς, ἴνα δέ ἒχει καὶ τοῦ νησὶν τὴν Άγίαν Τριάδα εἰς μετόχιον. Όμου δὲ πάντες τῶν χωρίων τα ὁνόματα εἰσὶν ταύτα α Σαγάρβρυεν καὶ τοῦ Μάμα καὶ τοῦ Σάνδρου καὶ τοῦ Κνῆσα καὶ τοῦ Τζίτουμ καὶ τοῦ Σάμπαγ καὶ τοῦ Παδρούγου καὶ τοῦ Ζαλέση καὶ Γριντζαρι. Καὶ ἒτερα πλείωνα δίδωμι εἰς τὴν ὑπὲραγίαν Θεοτόκον τοῦ μητροπολίτου τὸ μοναστήριον ἴνα μέχρι συστήκει ὁ οὐρανὸς καὶ ἡ γῆ ἴνα εἰσὶν τοῦ μωναστηρίου. Δίδωμη δὲ καὶ ἐξουσίαν ἐν ταύτῃ τῆ μονῆ ἴνα τοῦς μὴ θέλοντας κατοικῆσαι εἰς τὸ κράτος τῆς ἀγίας μονῆς ἂνευ προστάξεως τῆς ἡγουμένης καὶ τὸν ἀδελφάδων ἴνα διοχθήτω ἐκ τοῦ τόπου ἄκον καὶ μὴ βούλομενος. Εἰ δε τις φοραθῇ ἐξ αὐτῶν ὧνπερ δέδωκα εἰς τὴν μονὴν ἀποκόψαι ἢ ἀποποιήσασθαι τί ἢ ὲκ τῆς γενεᾶς μου ἢ ἒτερός τίς εἴτε βασιλεῖς εἴτε ἄρχοντες εἴτε στρατιγοὶ εἴτε ἐπίσκοποι εἴτε ἔτεροι τινὲς ἴνα ἔχων τω ἀνάθεμα παρα πατρὸς καὶ υἱοῦ καὶ ἀγίου πνεύματος τῆς ἐνδόξου δεσποίνης ἡμῶν Θεοτόκου καὶ ἀεὶπαρθένου Μαρίας, τῶν ἐνδόξων ἀποστολῶν καὶ τῶν τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὁκτῶ πατέρων καὶ πάντων τῶν ἀγίων καὶ ἀπ΄ εμοῦ τοῦ ἀμαρτωλοῦ. 11 In the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, I, Stephen, Christian and the king of whole Hungary, ater I established, set up and furnished the metropolitan monastery of the Most Holy heotokos in Veszprém, and [ater I] gathered the assembly of the nuns, for the salvation of my soul, [the soul of] my wife, children and the whole Pannonia order the following. I donate to this monastery nine villages with land. he name of the villages are as follows: irstly Szárberény, with 48 hearths and six ishermen; then the village of Szántó, with thirty families, this one is on the Danube, furthermore [I donate] twenty families in the investiture of the Most Holy Mother of God, in the same 11 he present edition was made according to the original document (MOL DL 11) and the following critical versions: Czebe, A veszprémvölgyi oklevél görög szövegkönyve, 15–16 (Hungarian translation on 17–18); Moravcsik, Az Árpád-kori történet bizánci forrásai, 79–81 (hereinater ÁKTBF); Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 7. English translation by the author. It is important to stress that the Greek text has been preserved without changing the form of the words that are not correct and are not in accordance with the Greek language of the time. Some of them are cited in the following paragraphs according to the original text in the charter. BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 131 way a ferry in Szombotú with seven ferrymen, similarly a customs oice too, then forty equestrian servants, twelve ishermen on the Danube, three carpenters, two blacksmiths, one cup-bearer, one turner; [I further donate] a vine-dresser in Paloznak and in Fad, and one vine-dresser Melegdi; furthermore it is awarded the Holy Trinity island by way of major economies. All the names of the villages together are as follows: Szárberény, then Mama, then Sandor, then Kenese, then Csittény, then Szántó, then Padrag, then Zalészi, then Gerencsér. And many other things too I donate to the Most Holy Mother of God (heotokos), to the metropolitan monastery, to be of the monastery, as long as the sky and the earth stand. I also invest this monastery with the law of free provision according to which, without a speciic order,12 the prioress or the sisters [can] expel those who refuse to live under the authority of the holy monastery, regardless of their will or desire. If someone would take away what I donated to the monastery, to tear away or to estrange that which is given, either from my kindred or anyone else, either the King, or the baron, or the count, or the bishops, or anyone else may come down on him with the curse of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, of Our venerable Lady, Mother of God and the ever Virgin Mary, of the most glorious Apostles, of the three hundred eighteen fathers and of all the saints, and of me, the sinner. IV. Commentary he founder of the monastery remains unknown. here was a hypothesis put forth that the monastery was built for an unknown Byzantine princess who arrived in Hungary, and was supposed to marry Imre, the only son of King Stephen I. Since the marriage never took place, she remained in Hungary and lived in the monastery in Veszprém.13 he basis for this assumption is the Legend of Saint Margaret, about a princess from the house of the Árpáds that lived in the 13th century, i.e. more than two and a half centuries ater Saint Stephen. She died a virgin and a Dominican nun. Her chastity was, according to her hagiographers, one of her greatest virtues. Saint Margaret is compared in the Legend to Saint Imre, the only son of Saint Stephen (King Stephen I), who also died a virgin, even though he did not become a monk. he text of the Legend states that Imre refused his engagement with the daughter of the Byzantine emperor. he narrative further informs us that he never consummated his relationship with this girl and that he lived his whole life in chastity.14 his much younger source is the only one that mentions a possible iancée of the Hungarian heir to the throne. Nevertheless, it has already been noted in the literature that there is no mention either of this marriage or Imre himself in the Byzantine sources. In addition, none of the contemporary sources mention this engagement. Above all, in the Legend of Saint Imre there is a mention of the engagement of Imre, by order of his father, to a girl of royal descent, without a clear statement as to where the supposed wife of the prince was from. he adjectives used to describe the future bride of the prince were 12 Certainly of the king. 13 Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 5. 14 Szent Margit legendája, 125. 132 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 of nobilis and regali kindred, whereas the Legend of Saint Imre also mentioned a delegation of prince Álmos to Constantinople, on their way to Jerusalem; the Byzantine emperor was described in the same source as imperator Graecorum.15 he issue date of this charter is also unknown and it is not mentioned in the charter itself. here are opinions among the scholars that the monastery (and therefore the charter) was constructed before 1002.16 Perhaps the mention of the metropolitan, i.e. the archbishop, can clarify the approximate date of the issue of the charter. he currently dominant opinion in historiography is that the term μητροπολίτης in this case refers to the archbishop of Esztergom. he irst archbishop of Esztergom, Dominic, was mentioned in the charters of King Stephen I in the year 1001 or 1002. He was succeeded by Sebastian, then probably by Radla and inally, from 1007 onwards, the archbishop of Esztergom was Anastasius/Asztrik.17 As mentioned above, the irst bishop of Veszprém in the sources was mentioned in a document dated to 1009. herefore, it is possible that it is in this period, that is, prior to 1009 that we might ind the date of the construction of the monastery, as well as the approximate date of the issue of the donation charter of Saint Stephen to the Veszprémvölgy nuns.18 However, it is also possible that the word μητροπολίτης refers to another high-ranking church dignitary. Since this charter is in Greek, it is worth mentioning that in the Greek language and in the hierarchy of the Greek clergy of the medieval period (and later among other Orthodox churches) two titles were used in the clergy. From the Council of Nicaea onwards, the title metropolitan was used to designate the head of the episcopate of a certain territory, usually coinciding with the civil province. here were also bishops without sufragans who bore this title, as well as some bishops who also held the title of archbishop.19 he title of archbishop was, on the other hand, initially used to designate certain metropolitans; from the 5th century the epithet was used for the ive heads of the biggest churches in the Empire, and later it was applied to the autocephalous ecclesiastics or to the most important members of the clergy. Over time, the archbishops that answered directly to the patriarch (autocephalous archbishops) become more numerous. 20 herefore, in spite of the at times quite complicated use of the two terms, they do have certain diferences. 15 Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum II, 454–456. 16 Moravcsik, A Magyar történet bizánci forrásai, 175. 17 Esztergomi érsekek 1001–2003, 17–19 (Érszegi G.); Zsoldos, Magyarországi világi archontológiája, 79 (he does not mention Radla). 18 here is also an opinion that the monastery was built ater 1018 when the supposed coalition between Stephen I and the Byzantine emperor Basil II was made. Cf. Györfy, Szent István és műve, 323; Idem, A veszprémvölgyi alapítólevél, Veszprém kora középkori emlékei (Veszprémi Múzeumi Konferenciák), 17; Fülöp – Koppány, A crosier from the territory of the Veszprémvölgy convent, 116. he problem that arises here is the fact that the Hungarian king was already an ally of Basil II at the beginning of the century, and they fought together against Samuel, so the chronology of Györfy was seriously questioned, see Stojkovski, Samuilovo carstvo i Ugarska, 68–76. 19 Oxford dictionary of Byzantium vol. 2, 1359 (hereinater ODB). 20 ODB vol. 1, 155–156; Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya, tom III, 530–532. BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 133 Besides this, in 1028, John, the metropolitan of Turkia, was summoned by the patriarch Alexios Stoudites to attend the council in Constantinople. he other data comes from a manuscript found in the monastery Esphigmenos on Mount Athos. In this manuscript among the metropolitans sufragans of the patriarch of Constantinople the metropolitan of Turkia is listed under number 60. It is needless to explain in detail that Turkia (Τουρκία) is used to mark Hungary. he third important piece of information is the discovery of a seal of synkellos (syncellus) and proedros of Turkia Antonios. he title of proedros was oten used for a bishop or even a metropolitan, especially one of high signiicance. Based on this data Nikos Oikonomidés and István Baán came to the conclusion that the metropolitan mentioned in the Greek charter of Stephen I to the monastery of the Most Holy heotokos in Veszprémvölgy was the metropolitan of Turkia, i.e. the Byzantine metropolitan.21 his is undoubtedly possible, especially in view of the above mentioned distinction between the two titles depicting high-ranking clergy. However, there is no concrete evidence that points to this. In the Latin version there is a mention of an auctor in whose language the Greek charter was issued in the time of Saint Stephen. his term most oten denotes the person who had issued the charter. But, the word auctor can also mean defender or supporter,22 which might suggest that this could be connected with the Byzantine emperor i.e. with the person who had initiated the construction of the monastery.23 However, it could also have been dedicated to the metropolitan who was a member of the Greek clergy.24 Hence, if this conclusion is correct, the exact time of the founding of the monastery remains unknown. Concerning the language of the charter, it is important to stress that there is no evidence whatsoever of an existing Greek chancellery of Stephen I. However, in the literature there has been a dispute as to the exact origin of the writer of the charter. Gyula Czebe, a classical philologist, was the irst to analyse the complete Greek text from the linguistic point of view. He drew the conclusion that the Greek text had been changed between the period of Saint Stephen and the age of King Coloman. He 21 Oikonomidés, À propos des relations ecclésiastiques entre Byzance et l’Hongrie au XIè siècle, 528–531; Baán, ’’Turkia metropóliája’’. Kisérlet a Szent István kori Magyarországi orthodox egyházszervezet rekonstrukciójára, 19–21; Idem, Metropolitanate of Tourkia, 47–48. his hypothesis was neither rejected nor accepted by Koszta, Byzantine archiepiscopal ecclesiastical system in Hungary?, 128–129. Koszta mostly concentrates on refuting Baán’s thesis that the archbishop of Kalocsa was actually of Byzantine origin. Concerning the charter of King Stephen I he does not deny the possibility that the metropolitan of Turkia was actually the metropolitan mentioned in the donation, but he does not conirm it either. 22 Blaise, Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi, 80. 23 Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 5–6, for Latin text cf. Idem, 8–9. 24 For a detailed analysis of the possible identity of the metropolitan as auctor, from a mainly linguistic point of view see Szentgyörgyi, A veszprémvölgyi görög nyelvű adómánylevele-a hazai legelső nyelvemlékünk?, 306–320; idem, Auctor monasterii of the Byzantine monastery of Veszprém Valley 1, 181–191; idem, Auctor monasterii of the Byzantine monastery of Veszprém Valley 2, 191–203. Rudolf Szentgyörgyi names this document as he Deed of Git of the Monastery of Veszprem Valley. His researches are very valuable especially from the linguistic aspect and his conclusions are very close to the possibility that the auctor could be a Greek-speaking clergyman. 134 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 suggested that the author was someone from the Greek community of southern Italy or Sicily.25 However, on the basis of other contemporary Byzantine sources, Eugen (Jenő) Darkó presented the possibility that the person who wrote down the donation was of some other origin.26 he dominant opinion in the scholarly circles today is that the Greek language of the charter does belong to the age of Saint Stephen.27 his charter is furthermore very interesting since it is most probably the irst text that uses the title κράλ(ης) to denote the dignity of the king in medieval Hungary. his title entered the Hungarian language through the Slavic word kralj, which in Hungarian became király. In the charter (of course if the copy of the Greek text is the same as the original version) the term is used for the irst time to denote the ruler of the Hungarians in the Greek language.28 he largest part of the main body of the text of the donation is of course dedicated to the list of the possessions given by King Stephen I to the Veszprémvölgy monastery. A large section of the villages donated has been identiied in historiography, but a brief overview is certainly necessary. he king donated the following villages: Szárberény, known later during the medieval period as Berény, the modern day locality of Vörös-Berény and Kis-Berény; the possessions Máma, a deserted place at the Balaton Lake; Sandor, also near the lake, as well as the possession of Kenese, on the northeastern part of Balaton, alongside Csitény (in medieval times known under the name Csitun, Csitim, Csitin; today this is the deserted locality Csitény) and a customs oice at Vámos (mentioned as Szántó in the charter). Padrag, which still exists today under the same name, is also found in the donation, along with Zaleszi (modern day Erdőntúl i. e. Sarlós)29 and another contemporary locality named Gerencsér.30 In the Greek donation of the irst Hungarian Christian king to the monastery of Veszprémvölgy a very peculiar use of Byzantine diplomatics can be observed. In Byzantine diplomatics, this type of endowment is called χαριστική or ψυχικὴ, since it is mentioned that the king gives this donation to the monastery for the salvation of his soul and the souls of his family and his people.31 25 Czebe, A veszprémvölgyi oklevél görög szövegkönyve, 15–93. 26 Darkó, A veszprémi apácamonostor alapítólevelének 1109-i másolatáról, 257–272, 336–351. 27 Érszegi, Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, 6. 28 Melich, A királyi címről, 385–387; Moravcsik, A magyar Szent Korona görög feliratai, 160–164; Gyóni, Magyarország és a magyarság a bizánci források tükrében, 88 (with the list of other sources that use the same title for the king of medieval Hungary); cf. also ÁKTBF, 348 for a full index which points to the use of the term κράλης in various Byzantine sources during the Árpád-period. In this collection of sources edited by the famous Gyula Moravcsik the mention of κράλης in the donation charter for Veszprémvölgy monastery is noted as the irst. 29 For this toponym cf. Györfy, A veszprémvölgyi alapítólevél, 20, this toponym is not mentioned by Csánki. 30 Csánki, Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, III, 222, 226, 231, 236, 241, 251, 258, 259, 292. 31 Medvedev, Ocherki vizantiyskoy diplomatiki (chastnopravovoy akt), 48; ODB vol. 1, 648–649. BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 135 he other peculiar diplomatic characteristic is the invocation. As it can be seen, the charter of King Stephen I starts with the invocation Ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος. his type of invocation is present in the vast majority of the contemporary Byzantine charters that the author of this paper had the opportunity to consult, as well as in numerous Byzantine documents throughout the history of the Empire.32 he documents consulted are mostly various published charters from the monasteries of Mount Athos. Of course, only those documents that have an invocation at their beginning were consulted.33 Such an invocation is, for instance, found at the beginning of the document from 1001 by which Joseph, the abbot of Philadelphos, sells a hermitage to the Vatopedi monastery.34 In the two guarantees issued in 1008 or 1009 at the Great Lavra of Mount Athos, as well as in the donation of monk Eusthatios of Lavra to the monastery of heotokos of Bouleuteria issued in 1012, this type of Trinitarian invocation is given. Two years later, in another donation act to Lavra, the same words are found in the invocation.35 In the charters of Saint Stephen, on the other hand, the invocation is diferent. In some cases it states In nomine sanctae et individuae Trinitatis,36 but also In nomine Domini Dei Summi as is the case in the founding charter of the Pannonhalma abbey from 1001.37 A similar invocation can be found in the 1015 charter concerning the foundation of the abbey of Pécsvárad. he irst Hungarian Christian king begins this document with the words In nomine Domini Dei supremi. he same words are also found in the charter of the Zalavár abbey from 1034. Ater that he continues with the intitulation and other parts of the charter that follow.38 In the year 1006 Stephen I issued a founding charter of the chapter of Nitra, and this document has no invocation. It begins with Nos Stephanus, Dei miseratione et apostolicae Sedis gratia, Hungarorum 32 Idem, 53. Medvedev states that this type of simple Trinitarian invocation is the most common, with numerous documents conirming this. Cf. also Dölger – Karayannopulos, Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, 120; ODB vol. 1, 18. Gábor Krajnyák inds parallels in the Slavic documents issued between the 9th and the 11th century, with the same invocation. According to him, the Slavic invocations and the invocation in the donation to Veszprémvölgy show an inluence of the Byzantine practice. Krajnyák, Szent István veszprémvölgyi donatiójának görög egyházi vonatkozásai, 500. 33 It is important to emphasize that the invocation In nomine patri, ilii et spiritu sancti is also largely present in the Hungarian diplomatic practice during the medieval period. Cf. Solymosi, Oklevéltán, 162. But, here we are referring to the diplomatic practice of the irst years of the 11th and in part of the early 12th century, where this invocation is not present in Hungary, but is in Byzantium. 34 Actes de Vatopédi I, 74. 35 Actes de Lavra I, 134, 137, 142, 149. At the beginning of the 12th century there were also charters issued with this Trinitarian invocation, for instance one donation from 1102, as well as the chrysobull of Emperor Alexios I Komnenos from the same year. Cf. Ibidem, 280, 292, 36 When the mentioned bishopric of Veszprém was founded, the charter begins wth these words, cf. Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae I, 289. Similarly when the bishopric of Pécs was founded, in the same year, the invocation is In nomine sancte trinitatis, et indiuiduae vnitatis, idem, 291. 37 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae I, 280; DHA 39–41 for the critical edition. he same invocation can be found in a 1015 founding charter of the abbey of Zalavár. Cf. G. Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae I, 304. 38 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae I, 296, 307. 136 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 Rex, in other words the intitulation is found at the beginning.39 hus, there are no contemporary charters issued during the reign of the irst Christian king of Hungary that contain the invocation In nomine patri, ilii et spiritu sancti in any form. If a comparison is made with the charters issued by King Coloman (to whose period the copy of a donation to Veszprémvölgy can be dated) one can see that in some cases there is even no invocation of any kind. If the charter does contain an invocation, it starts with, for instance, In nomine domini nostri Jhesu Christi, as is the case in his charter from 1103 where Coloman conirms privileges of the archbishopric of Split.40 In the oath of King Coloman to the citizens of Trogir the beginning is as follows: Anno dominice incarnationis… and no invocation is found.41 In the charter of the Zobori abbey from 1111 there is no invocation of any kind. Rather, the document starts with Temporibus victoriosissimi regis Colomagni, whereas the charter issued two years later on behalf of the same convent starts very similarly with Temporibus gloriossimi regis Colomanni. 42 From the year of 1111 there is also a document issued by the same king, in which he conirms the privileges of the bishopric of Rab in Dalmatia. his document starts with the intitulation Ego Colomanus, Dei gratia rex Hungarorum, and again there is no invocation.43 his brief analysis of contemporary charters conirms that the invocation was most probably an element of Byzantine practice that had its example in the Greek donation charter of King Stephen I. he end of the charter includes a spiritual sanction (poena spiritualis) for anyone who dares to harm the properties of the monastery or the convent itself. Undoubtedly the most obvious Byzantine inluence in the domain of the spiritual sanction is the part τῶν τριακοσίων δέκα καὶ ὁκτῶ πατέρων, i. e. the one concerning the 318 fathers. his, of course, refers to the alleged number of participants at the First Council of Nicaea in 325. Once again, if the contemporary Byzantine diplomatic documents are consulted there are some parallels, for instance, in the cited guarantee of monk George from 1008 or 1009, held by the Lavra monastery, where the curse of 318 Holy Fathers is mentioned as poena spiritualis, as is also the case in the donation of Constantine and Maria Lagoudes to the same Athonite monastery.44 39 Fejér, Codex diplomaticus Hungariae I, 285. 40 Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae II, 1875, 8. (hereinater CD with the volume speciied) 41 CD II, 14. 42 Fejérpataky, Kálmán király oklevelei, 42, 55. 43 CD I, 210. 44 Actes de Lavra I, 134, 150. It is worth mentioning that this sanction is quite rare in Byzantine documents of the 11th century. On sanction in Byzantine documents cf. also Mošin, Sankcija u vizantiskoj i južnoslovenskoj ćirilskoj diplomatici, 27–54. On the other hand Györfy claims that this type of a sanction is not found in any other medieval Hungarian document and he also inds here the inluence of the Byzantine practice. Györfy, Szent István és műve, 323. here is also an opinion stated more than 81 years ago by Gábor Krajnyák concerning the strong Byzantine liturgical inluence on the spiritual sanction in the donation of Stephen I. According to this Greek Catholic priest and theologian, the sanction in the charter that refers to the heotokos and to the apostles has been taken directly from diferent parts of the Holy Liturgy in the Orthodox Church. See BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 137 V Concluding remarks he Greek donation charter of Saint Stephen (King Stephen I) has been an object of dispute and research in Hungarian scholarly circles for more than one and a half century. here have been many hypotheses in connection to this remarkable document, important not only for Hungarian medieval history, but for Byzantine history as well. It is an extraordinary monument of Byzantine inluence in Hungary during the reign of its irst Christian king. he donation could have been issued on behalf of a metropolitan of Turkia who founded the monastery for the nuns following the Byzantine rite, or perhaps even for a member of the Byzantine ruling family. he issue date remains unknown; it could be that the charter was written before the establishment of the bishopric of Veszprém, but this is not certain. he monastery was given many possessions, and they remained in the hands of the nuns until the end of the medieval period, even during the time when the Roman Catholic Cistercian nuns took over the monastery in the 13th century. his charter is almost certainly the irst text in which the word κράλης appears, and this Greek version of the Slavic word for king would be used in other sources throughout the medieval period to designate the Hungarian king. he donation of King Stephen I to the nuns of Veszprémvölgy is also important as it contains some very interesting elements of Byzantine diplomatics. he donation and privileges issued by King Stephen I to the Greek nuns of Veszprémvölgy were also one of the reasons for which the Ecumenical Patriarch Bartholomew proclaimed Stephen I a saint in the Ecumenical Patriarchate of Constantinople in 2000.45 he subject has not been yet exhausted, nor have all possible conclusions been drawn, nor has the whole literature on this matter been thoroughly studied from every possible aspect. Nevertheless, some new points of view have been given with the intention of shedding more light on this highly thought-provoking monument of 11th century Byzantine-Hungarian relations. Krajnyák, Szent István, 501–502. here is no clear evidence to support this, even though there is a strong possibility that the words from the anaphora were included in the Divine Liturgy at the beginning of the 11th century. Cf. Tat, Pontiical liturgy of the Great Church according to a twelth-century diataxis in codex British Museum Add. 34060, 100. It is important to note that Krajnyák was a theologian, and a Greek Catholic priest, and even a music teacher. His opus consisted of a number of liturgical books, but he was not a church historian, nor did he study the Byzantine liturgical rite through history. Cf. His biography: A hajdúdorogi egyházmegye és a miskolci apostoli kormányzóság schematizmusa. s. l., 1982, 149. 45 Rokai, Đjere, Pal, Kasaš, Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002, 31. 138 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 ЛИСТА РЕФЕРЕНЦИ – LIST OF REFERENCES Извори – Primary Sources Unpublished sources: Magyar nemzeti levéltár, Collectio Diplomatica Hungarica, A középkori Magyarország levéltári forrásainak adatbázisa (MOL DLDF) Published sources: Actes de Lavra I, ed. P. Lemerle, A. Guillou, N. Svoronos, Paris 1970. Actes de Vatopédi I. des origins à 1329, ed. J. Bompaire, J. Lefort, V. Kravari, C. Giros, Paris 2001. Árpád-kori legendák és Intelmek, Érszegi G. (sz.), Budapest 1987. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae volumen I, ed. I. Kukuljević Sakcinski, Zagreb 1874. Codex Diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae volumen II, ed. I. Kukuljević Sakcinski, Zagreb 1875. Csánki D., Magyarország történelmi földrajza a Hunyadiak korában, III. Kötet, Budapest 1897. Diplomata Hungariae antiquissima, Volumen I, ed. Gy. Györfy, Budapestini 1992. Fejér G., Codex diplomaticus Hungariae ecclesiasticus ac civilis. Tomus I, Budae 1829. Moravcsik Gy., Az Árpád-kori történet bizánci forrásai, Budapest 1984. Scriptores rerum Hungaricarum II, E. Szentpétery (ed.), Budapest 19992. Литература – Secondary Works Baán I., ’’Turkia metropóliája’’. Kisérlet a Szent István kori Magyarországi orthodox egyházszervezet rekonstrukciójára, Az ortodoxia története Magyarországon a XVIII. századig, Szeged 1995, 19–25. Baán I., he Metropolitanate of Tourkia. he Organization of the Byzantine Church in Hungary in the Middle Ages, Byzanz und Ostmitteleuropa 950–1453. Beiträge zu einer table-ronde des XIX International Congress of Byzantine Studies, Copenhagen 1996, Herausgegeben von Günter Prinzing und Maciej Salomon, Wiesbaden 1999, 45–53. Blaise A., Lexicon latinitatis medii aevi praesertim ad res ecclesiasticas investigandas pertinens (Corpus Christianorum. Continuatio medievalis), Turnhout 1975. Czebe Gy., A veszprémvölgyi oklevél görög szövegkönyve, Értekezések a történelmi tudományok köréből 24 (1918) 5–114. Darkó J., A veszprémi apácamonostor alapítólevelének 1109-i másolatáról. Egyetemes Philológiai Közlöny 41 (1917) 257–272, 336–351. Dölger F. – Karayannopulos J., Byzantinische Urkundenlehre, München 1968. Érszegi G., Szent István görög nyelvű okleveléről, Levéltári szemle 38 (1988) 3–13. Esztergomi érsekek 1001–2003, sz. M. Beke, Budapest 2003. Fejérpataky L., Kálmán király oklevelei, Értekezések a történelmi tudományok köréből 15 (1892) 3–88. Fülöp A. – Koppány A., A veszprémvölgyi apácákolostor régészeti kutatása (1998–2002), Műemlékvédelmi szemle XII/1 (2002) 5–40. Fülöp A. – Koppány A., A crosier from the territory of the Veszprémvölgy convent, Acta Archaeologica Academiae Scientiarum Hungariae 55 (2004) 115–135. Gyomlay Gy., Szent István veszprémvölgyi donátiója, Értekezések a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Nyelv- és Széptudományi Osztálya köréből 17 (1902) 3–44. Gyóni M., Magyarország és a magyarság a bizánci források tükrében, Budapest 1938. Györfy Gy., Szent István és műve, Budapest 1983. BORIS STOJKOVSKI, he Greek charter of the Hungarian King Stephen I 139 Györfy Gy., A veszprémvölgyi alapítólevél, Veszprém kora középkori emlékei (Veszprémi Múzeumi Konferenciák), Veszprém 1994, 16–21. A hajdúdorogi egyházmegye és a miskolci apostoli kormányzóság schematizmusa. s. l. 1982. Hómán B., A veszprémvölgyi 1109. évi oklevél hitelessége, Turul 29 (1911) 123–134, 167–174. Hómán B., Szent István görög oklevele, Századok 51 (1917) 99–136, 225–242. Koszta L., Byzantine archiepiscopal ecclesiastical system in Hungary?, sz. T. Olajos, A Kárpát-medence, a magyarság és Bizánc, Szeged 2014, 127–143. Krajnyák G., Szent István veszprémvölgyi donatiójának görög egyházi vonatkozásai, Századok 59–60 (1925–26), 498–507. Kristó Gy., A Vármegyek kialakulása Magyarországon, Budapest 1988. Medvedev I. P., Ocherki vizantiyskoy diplomatiki (chastnopravovoy akt), Leningrad 1988. Melich J., A királyi címről, Károlyi-emlékkönyv : Emlékkönyv Károlyi Árpád születése nyolcvanadik fordulójának ünnepére. 1933. október 7., Budapest 1933, 385–387. Moravcsik Gy., A Magyar történet bizánci forrásai, Budapest 1934. Moravcsik Gy., A magyar Szent Korona görög feliratai, Értekezések a Nyelv- és Széptudományok köréből XXV. kötet (1935) 131–180. Moravcsik Gy., Görögnyelvű monostorok Szent István korában, Serédi J. (sz.), Szent István emlékkönyv I, Budapest 1938, 389–422 Moravcsik Gy., he Role of the Byzantine Church in Medieval Hungary, he American Slavic and East European Review Vol. 6, No. 3/4 (Dec. 1947) 134–151. Mošin V., Sankcija u vizantiskoj i južnoslovenskoj ćirilskoj diplomatic, Anali Historijskog instituta JAZU u Dubrovniku 3 (1954) 27–54. Múcska V., Az első magyarországi püspökségekről, FONS. Forráskutatás és Történeti Segédtudományok XII (2005) 3–28. Obolenski D., Vizantijski komonvelt, Beograd 1996. Oikonomidés N., À propos des relations ecclésiastiques entre Byzance et l’Hongrie au XIè siècle: Le Métropolite de Turquie, Revue des études sudéest Européennes IX/3 (1971) 527–533. Oxford dictionary of Byzantium vol. 1–3, ed. A. Kazhdan, Oxford, 1991. Pravoslavnaya enciklopediya, pod. red. Patriarha Moskovskogo o vseya Rusi Kirilla, tom III, Moskva 2001. Rokai P., Đjere Z., Pal T., Kasaš A., Istorija Mađara, Beograd, 2002. Solymosi L., Észrevételek a ciszterci rend magyarországi történetének repertóriumából, Levéltári Közlemények 55/2 (1984) 236–252 Solymosi L., Veszprémi püspökség, fősz. Gy. Kristó, Korai Magyar történeti lexikon (9–14. század), Budapest 1994, 727–728. Stojkovski B., Niš u vizantijsko-ugarskim odnosima u XI i XII veku, ed. M. Rakocija, Niš i Vizantija VII, Niš 2009, 383–394. Stojkovski B., Samuilovo carstvo i Ugarska, ur. B. Krsmanović, Lj. Maksimović, R. Radić, Vizantijski svet na Balkanu I, Beograd, 2012, 65–76. Szentgyörgyi R., A veszprémvölgyi görög nyelvű adómánylevele-a hazai legelső nyelvemlékünk? Magyar Nyelv 108/3 (2012) 303–322. Szentgyörgyi R., he auctor monasterii of the Byzantine monastery of Veszprém Valley 1, dir. E. Egedi-Kovács, Byzance ot l’Occident II. Tradition, transmission, traduction, Budapest 2015, 181–191. Szentgyörgyi R., he auctor monasterii of the Byzantine monastery of Veszprém Valley 2., dir. E. Egedi-Kovács, Byzance ot l’Occident II. Tradition, transmission, traduction, Budapest 2015, 191–203. Tat R. F., A Pontiical liturgy of the Great Church according to a twelth-century diataxis in codex British Museum Add. 34060, Liturgy in byzantium and beyond (Colected studies series CS493), London 1995, II, 279–307, 89–124. A történelem segédtudományai, sz. I. Bertényi, Budapest 2001 Zsoldos A., Magyarországi világi archontológiája, Budapest 2011. 140 ЗРВИ LIII (2016) 127–140 Борис Стојковски Универзитет у Новом Саду – Филозофски факултет [email protected] ГРЧКА ПОВЕЉА УГАРСКОГ КРАЉА СТЕФАНА I Међу дипломатичком грађом угарског средњег века, једна повеља се посебно издваја. Ради се о повељи коју је први угарски краљ Стефан I на грчком језику издао калуђерицама манастира Пресвете Богородице у Веспремској долини. Ова повеља није сачувана у оригиналу, већ у препису из 1109. године, из времена владавине краља Коломана. У раду аутор доноси грчку верзију, као и енглески превод ове повеље уз њену дипломатичку анализу. Сама повеља преставља донацију првог хришћанског краља Угарске калуђерицама реченог Богородичиног манастира, а место и време издања ове повеље су нејасни. Претпоставка је, да услед помена титуле митрополита, али не и епископа Веспрема, да је повеља могла бити издата пре 1009. године, када се веспремски епископ (бискуп) први пут помиње. Титула митрополита која се наводи у повељи се у историографији често повезивала са титулом калочко-бачког надбискупа, али се у раду сугерише да би у питању могао бити и византијски митрополит Туркије. Овом повељом краљ Стефан I дарује манастиру Пресвете Богородице у Веспремској долини поседе и привилегије, као и приходе од скела, винограда, села, итд. Овом повељом он и штити власт овог манастира над дарованим добрима, и изузима манастир и његове поседе испод власти и црквених и световних великодостојника. Повеља показује неке типичне знаке да је писана под утицајем византијске дипломатичке праксе. Један пример је инвокација Ἐν ὀνόματι τοῦ πατρὸς καὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ καὶ τοῦ ἀγίου πνεύματος која је карактеристична махом за византијске повеље, и јавља се у многим консултованим повељама светогорских манастира. Други показатељ утицаја византијске дипломатичке праксе јeсте и санкција. У повељи краљ Стефан I наводи да свакога ко наруши привилегије манастира стигне проклетство и 318 отаца никејских, што је типична санкција у византијским повељама, и не среће се нигде у доступној угарској дипломатичкој грађи. Ова повеља преставља веома занимљив пример византијског утицаја на Угарску у време краља Стефана I.