|
|
Post by keaganjoelbrewer on Oct 4, 2008 9:37:12 GMT 3
Byzantine Perceptions of the Huns in the fourth and fifth centuries. To the Byzantine historians, the Huns were a distinct picture of 'otherness', to which they reacted with seeming xenophobia and repulsion; but primary source accounts reveal these reactions to be naïve and unconsidered, embroiled in the polemics of wartime and in problems of historiography. The 'swarthy' appearance of the Huns was the first thing one noted upon meeting them, and this in itself has a lot to answer for in terms of its creation of the Hun image. Early writers like Ammianus Marcellinus and Olympiodorus had no literary sources to draw upon when the Huns arrived on the scene in the late fourth century, therefore they simply wrote sterile and proper histories which reported what they could gather from people who had come into contact with them. Others, like Eunapius, could not hesitate to fill in the gaps left by these early writers and cloud the picture with inventive mythologies and heresay. Fiction, often more exciting that fact, prevailed. Unfortunately, some documentable customs of the Huns, such as their nomadism or self-mutilation, only seemed to confirm the mythologies that many writers espoused. Also, the fact that the Huns were a formidable and frightening wartime enemy certainly makes its way into contemporary accounts and affects the Byzantine perception. But amazingly, there is one extant work which cuts through the propaganda and mythology that other primary sources propagated, revealing the Huns to be in the realm of humanity after all. Thus, the majority of Byzantine accounts of the Huns are tied up in the bizarreness of their appearance and customs, textual mythologies and wartime fear to the effect that the Byzantine perception of the Huns may as well have been of the Martians. The bizarre appearance of the Huns was initially what defined their 'otherness' for the Byzantines. On their appearance, Priscus remarks that “they have a sort of shapeless lump, if I may say so, not a face, and pinholes rather than eyes”1. This image, indeed, has permeated the ages as the archetype for the barbarian and has captured the imaginations of the world's subconscious, from Monty Python to Verdi, Dante to Fritz Lang, the Eddas to Dimmu Borgir. This barbarian image was accentuated by their apparent custom, according to Priscus, of facial self-mutilation: “Their wild appearance gives evidence of the hardihood of their spirits for they are cruel even to their children on the first day they are born. They cut the cheeks of the males with a sword so that before they receive the nourishment of milk they are compelled to learn to endure a wound”2. Apparently, the cutting of faces is inhibitive to beauty only insofar as it prevents the growth of a beard: “the youths are without good looks, because a face furrowed by a sword spoils by its scars the natural grace of a beard”3. According to Ammianus Marcellinus “they grow old without beards and without any beauty, like eunuchs”4. It is interesting to note the paradox that by the time of Procopius in the sixth century, a 'Hunnish style' of fashion had evolved, such that followers of this new trend “did not touch moustache or beard at all, but were always anxious to let them grow as long as possible... this is why they sometimes called this the Hunnish style”5. Later medieval depictions of a bearded Attila have probably been misled by this unusual change in understanding6. Their short stature and stockiness is another common theme in the primary literature: “they all have compact, strong limbs and thick necks, and are so monstrously ugly and misshapen, that one might take them for two-legged beasts or for the stumps... that are used in putting sides to bridges”7. So important was the appearance of the Hun that it was greater than their bizarreness of custom, language and way of life. This can be shown through treatment of the Alans, a group similar in the above fields, but not in appearance. “Almost all of the Alans are tall and good looking”, Ammianus Marcellinus writes, “their hair is generally blonde”8. Indeed, if we are to believe Priscus, when the Huns and the Alans went to war with each other, the “horribly swarthy” appearance of the Huns was enough to send the Alans running!9 It seems that steppe ethnic features, facial scarring preventing beard-growth and short stocky stature were certainly major turn-offs for the Byzantines. We must, therefore, agree with the appelation of secondary historian Denis Sinor that “their physical appearance [was] probably the principal single element that accounts for the deep impression they made on their contemporaries”10. The Huns alien customs were also a major issue for the Byzantine writers. Certainly the most notable concern for contemporary Byzantines was self-mutilation. The custom is well attested by various primary sources, anthropological comparisons with other Central Asian nomad cultures and by archaeological evidence. It is thus barely questioned by modern scholarship, and even my own sceptical inquiry into this issue found no evidence to the possibility of it being an invention of the Byzantine writers. According to Priscus' account of Attila's death: “They found Attila dead from a flow of blood, unwounded... then, as is the custom of that race, they cut off part of their hair and disfigured their faces horribly with deep wounds so that the distinguished warrior might be bewailed, not with feminine lamentations and tears, but with manly blood”11. Herodotus discusses self-mutilation in reference to the ancient Scythians12. This funerary practice is depicted in some wall paintings in the Turfan region13. Amazingly, a Byzantine envoy of the sixth century and his troupe were even asked to lacerate their faces in mourning for the death of a Türk chief!14 At Attila's funeral, his body was placed on a central pyre around which mounted Huns rode, slashing their faces with each circling of the burning corpse15. Surely this custom served to blacken the name Hun in the mind of the contemporary Byzantine, confirm their status as 'barbarian', and increase the fear which many Byzantines felt for this strange new foe. Another cultural divide between Hun and Byzantine was the common dichotomy between nomadism and sedentism. Their constistent description, in various contemporary sources, as “in the form of humans, but with the savagery of beasts” is testament to this divide16. According to many a contemporary Byzantine, the Huns lived like wild animals; they are often equated with wolves. We of the twenty-first century, however, are cursed by the lack of sources presenting the nomad perspective as well as by the culture of our modernity. “Historians dislike nomads...”, Rudi Paul Lindner writes, “since our sedentary habits keep us from a full comprehension of people whose prosperity depended so much on continual movement and opportunistic raiding... The primary sources reinforce this dislike with their universally pejorative attitude... In short, travelling light gave military advantages to the nomads, but it also gave their history into the hands of their settled prey. It is no wonder that the medieval Huns, Avars, Turks and Mongols have been endowed with such unflattering reputations”17. The Hunnish affinity with the horse was a natural product of this nomad versus sedentist dichotomy and, naturally, the horse is a major theme of the Byzantine writers. Zosimus, an early 6th century Byzantine historian, described the Huns as having difficulties walking because they spent so much time on horseback18. Indeed, Claudian even described them as “centaurs”19. Many a military historian has noted the importance of the horse to the warfare of the Huns, and indeed it has been suggested that the Hun empire in Europe collapsed due to a paucity of suitable grasslands with which to support large horse-based armies20. Whatever the case, nomadism and 'barbarism' were inextricably linked in the Byzantine perception. Byzantine writing of the period is embroiled in mythological intertextualities, much to the detriment of the historicity of available material on the Huns. Some works are, of course, better than others, but all texts make use of some sort of mythology in describing the Huns, be it Herodotus, Livy, Aescylus, the Bible, pure heresay or a prior historian who had made use of one of these previously. The first commentator on the Huns, Ammianus Marcellinus, writing around 395, had no literary sources to draw upon with regard to the Huns. He thus based his tame account on what he was told by military officers, soldiers and others who had come into contact with this new and formidable foe21. His result is a clear little-nonsense picture of what the Byzantines actually knew about the Huns at the close of the fourth century, that is, very little. But where Ammianus Marcellinus played nice, others soon followed who equated the Huns with Herodotus' Scythians and 'snub-nosed men', who used descriptions similar to Livy's descriptions of black Africans, who bandied about biblical mythology and apocalyptic eschatology. One particular offender is Eunapius. Analysis of a particular passage of Eunapius' has shown that he essentially made things up where sources were inadequate22. We must, of course, keep in mind the different expectations of his day: “An Ammianus or an Olympiodorus might have somewhat higher standards than their contemporaries; in general, however, neither the historians nor their public demanded the precise truth in descriptions of the northern nomads. But every writer considered it a duty to display his knowledge of the classics which were the heritage of his class”23. Of course, it must also be remembered that early medieval historical writing had the intent of entertaining a public audience rather than recording pure fact, and any public audience likes to see its enemies portrayed like two-dimensional caricatures, accentuating their follies as a justification for war. The misleading propaganda only increases with the onset of Christian apocalyptic literature. Attila and the Huns were equated with Gog and Magog, the archenemy of God and his people: “Therefore, son of Man, prophesy and say to Gog: 'You will come from your place in the far north, you and many nations with you, all of them riding on horses, a great horde, a mighty army. You will advance against my people Israel like a cloud that covers the land... [etc.]”24. In Revelations, Gog and Magog act as Satan's army and attempt to overrun the heavens25. Christian missionaries (eg. John Chrysostom) were repeatedly sent to the Huns, but often faced difficulties because of the language barrier. Despite the shortcomings of the missions, many commentators reported the success of the missionaries in converting the Huns; Theotimus reported that the Huns no longer slayed and ate their geriatrics (a false custom derived from the equation of the Hun and Herodotus' mythological Massagetae) because they had heard the gospel26. As Thompson wittily puts it: “although [Prudentius] thought that the 'bloody ferocity' of the Huns had been tamed somewhat – they no longer drink blood, he says – [he] can do no more than look forward to the day when they will drink the blood of Christ”27. The contemporary Roman perception of the Huns, therefore, is tied up with pejorative religious and secular mythologies. A further issue affecting the Roman perceptions of the Huns is the fact that they were a wartime enemy. Fear of the Huns plagues many of the Roman accounts. To be fearful of the Huns was a perfectly prescient reaction for the Romans on a personal level (because of the universally pejorative perception being propagated), yet even on the whole they were a major threat to the empire which was teetering on the edge of a knife: “They [the Romans] were not only wary of undertaking war on him [Attila], but they also feared the Parthians who were, it chanced, making preparations for war, the Vandals who were troubling the sea coasts, the Isaurians who had set out on banditry, the Saracens who were overrunning the eastern part of their empire, and the unified Ethiopian races”28. And again: “The Romans feigned that they voluntarily made these agreements [hefty tribute payments], but actually it was by necessity and by the exceeding great fear which constrained their rulers. In spite of the fact that the whole injunction was harsh, they had to be satisfied to make peace in eager haste”29. Sheer terror was a motivation, thus, for diplomatic appeasement. But certainly the general populous was afraid too? Historians, where they didn't make it up themselves, for the most part sourced their information from interviews with those who had encountered the Huns on the battlefield30. Hence, they are are everywhere described by their numerosity, for example as “a vast horde... plundering and overrunning the land”31. This, coupled with the inventions that some of the historians were throwing their way (eg. that the Huns ate their own parents) must surely have frightened the lay Roman. As well as this, our analysis is faced with the fact that the Huns were a devastating and frightening military force even without the mythology to back it up. To put it simply, the Romans were scared, and justifiably so: “How many monasteries were captured, how many streams were reddened with human blood!... Flocks of captives were dragged away... Not even if I had a hundred tongues and a hundred mouths, and a voice of iron could I recount the name of every catastrophe... They filled the whole earth with slaughter and panic alike as they flitted hither and thither on their swift horses... May Jesus avert such beasts from the Roman world in the future! They were at hand everywhere before they were expected: by their speed they outstripped rumour, and they took pity neither upon religion nor rank nor age nor wailing childhood. Those who had just begun to live were compelled to die and, in ignorance of their plight, would smile amid the drawn swords of the enemy... Then we ourselves were forced to make ships ready, to wait on the shore, to take precautions against the enemy's arrival, to fear the barbarians more than shipwreck even though the winds were raging”32. The Roman accounts must therefore be read with the understanding that the Huns were wartime enemies, and a fearful one at that. One final picture of the Huns that must be commented on is that which emerges from the only primary writer to have actually encountered a Hun. That is, of course, Priscus. Priscus gives such detailed descriptions of his own voyage as an emissary to Attila the Hun that we must agree with Thompson: “that Priscus was jotting down notes from day to day and almost from hour to hour while the embassy was still in progress. It would have been all but impossible for him to have remembered the incidents of the journey so vividly and in such detail had he not written down copious notes on the spot”33. What this reveals of Attila especially and of the Huns in general is of unparalleled value to a well-rounded understanding of the nomads although it seems to have had little effect on the prevailing perception of the Huns. In Priscus' account, Attila follows the rules of diplomacy, gives gifts, and is generally hospitable and welcoming. As a person, he is modest, humble and fair. In an oft-quoted passage, Priscus tells us of Attila's modesty: “while sumptuous food had been prepared – served on silver plates – for the other barbarians and for us, for Attila there was nothing but meat on a wooden trencher. He showed himself temperate in all other ways too, for gold and silver goblets were offered to the men at the feast, but his mug was of wood. His dress too was plain, having care for nothing other than to be clean, nor was the sword by his side, nor the clasps of his barbarian boots, nor the bridle of his horse, like those of other Scythians, adorned with gold or gems or anything of high price”34. Other Huns that Priscus visited showed kindness to the Roman envoys: “A woman rules in this village... and she sent us provisions and good-looking women to comfort us. This is a Scythian compliment, but we, when the eatables had been laid out, showed them kindness but refused intercourse with them”35. Prior to this picture Priscus gives us, the only good word a Roman historian could put in for the Huns was in relation to their skill in warfare36. Attila even displays family values: “At the time of the banquet, came forward, and... he softened everyone except Attila and caused unquenchable laughter to rise. But Attila remained unmoved and his expression unaltered, nor in speech nor action did he reveal that he had any laughter in him, except when his youngest son... came in and stood before him. He pinched the lad's cheeks and looked on him with serene eyes”37.
This remarkable depiction of Attila the Hun, the archetype of the blood-thirsty barbarian, certainly makes one wonder why his image has been so maligned throughout history. Perhaps this only confirms the old saying that a symbol can serve as anything, and anything can serve as a symbol. Whatever the case, this presentation of Attila and the Huns, which is almost certainly the closest to reality and the furthest from arrogance, close-mindedness and the sedentist pejorative, had little effect on the dominant Roman perception of the Huns which is essentially upheld in every other instance of Roman writing.
The Roman perception of the Huns, therefore, was clouded in an almost universal pejorative. The Huns were spoken of with repulsion and disgust, equated with animals, demons and even logs. Their strange appearance and bizarre customs led to a distinct cultural xenophobia on the part of the Romans. Historiographically, the lack of prior sources on the new enemy meant that the earliest histories were very cautious. Later accounts filled in the gaps with borrowings from classical writers, religious discourse and imaginative invention, perpetuating what would become the archetype of the barbarian. Furthermore, the Romans and the Huns were at war, and the Huns were not your average enemy. The prevailing perception is, quite reasonably, plagued with fear. Therefore, historiographical problems, wartime polemics, and the 'otherness' of Hun appearance, customs and society led to the almost universally negative light in which Roman primary sources discuss the Huns.
Bibliography.
Primary Sources
Ammianus Marcellinus,
Rolfe, J.C. (trans.), Loeb Classical Library, 3 vols.,
(Cambridge: Mass., 1935).
Claudian, In Rufinum,
Levy, H.L. (ed.), (Geneva: Scholars Pr., 1935).
Eunapius, Olympiodorus, Priscus, Malchus, Candidus,
Blockey, R.C. trans., The Fragmentary Classicising Historians of the Later Roman Empire, vols. I & II, (Liverpool: Francis Cairns, 1983).
Jerome,
Thompson E.A. (trans.), The Huns,
(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996), pp.31-2.
Jordanes, Getica,
Mierow, C.C. (trans.), The Gothic History of Jordanes,
(New Jersey: Arx Publishing, 2006).
Marcellinus,
Croke, B. (trans.), The Chronicle of Marcellinus,
(Sydney: University of Sydney Press, 1995).
Olympiodorus
Gordon, D.C., The Age of Attila: Fifth Century Byzantium and the Barbarians,
(Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1961).
Priscus
Gordon, D.C., The Age of Attila: Fifth Century Byzantium and the Barbarians,
(Michigan: Ann Arbor, 1961).
Procopius, The Secret History,
Williamson, G.A. trans., (London: Penguin Books, 1981).
Secondary Sources
1Banchich, T.M., “An Identification in the Suda: Eunapius on the Huns”
2Classical Philology, Vol.83, No.1, (Jan. 1988).
3
4Brion, M., Attila: The Scourge of God,
5(London: Cassell & Co., 1929).
Goffart, W., Barbarian Tides: The Migration Age and the Later Roman Empire,
(Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006).
Howarth, P., Attila: King of the Huns,
(London: Constable & Co., 1994).
Klaeber, F., “Attila's and Beowulf's Funeral”
1PMLA, Vol. 42, No. 2 (June, 1927), pp.255-267.
1Lindner, R.P., “Nomads, Horses and Huns”
2Past and Present, No.92, (August 1981).
3
4Lindner, R.P., “What was a Nomadic Tribe?”,
5Comparative Studies in Society and History, Vol.24, No.4 (October 1982), pp.689-711.
6
Maenchen-Helfen, O.J., “The Date of Ammianus Marcellinus' Last Books”,
The American Journal of Philology, Vol.76, No.4 (1955), pp.384-399.
1Maenchen-Helfen, O.J., The World of the Huns,
2(California: University of California Press, 1973).
1Sinor, D., “The Historical Attila”,
2Bäuml, F.H. & Birnbaum, M.D. (eds.), Attila: the Man and his Image,
3(Budapest: Corvina, 1993).
1Sinor, D., “The Inner Asian Warriors”,
2Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol.101, No.2,
3(April-June 1981), pp.133 – 144.
4
Thompson, E.A., The Historical Work of Ammianus Marcellinus,
(Groningen: Bouma's Boekhuis N.V. Publishers, 1969).
Thompson, E.A., The Huns,
(Oxford: Blackwell Publishers, 1996).
1Wells, P.S., The Barbarians Speak,
2(New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1999).
|
|
|
|
Post by ALTAR on Oct 4, 2008 18:12:09 GMT 3
I'm not sure about the Nordic sagas... but the Nibelungenlied was written in the 12th century or something. The people discussed above were all writing before, during or shortly after (within about a hundred years) the time of Atilla, not seven hundred years later. And do they say he's noble and fair? I would've expected them to treat him as a fearful warrior rather than noble and fair? (I haven't read them though). It depends of nation by nation. Romans and Byzantines reacted Hunns naturally as an enemy because they fought Hunns many times. On the other hand, many Germanic Nations supported Atilla against the Invasion of Rome. Despite of them, we can take Byzantine Diplomat Priscos wirings about Hunns as a serious and objective record. The owner of Nibelungenlied was Burgundians. They were also fierce rivals of Romans. In the summary of the epic, I dont see a negative comment against Atilla. Although they had fought with Hunns in the end of the epic. Beside Nibelungenlied, Atilla was also mentioned in Volsunga Saga, Poetic Edda. |
|
