ATTILA

AUDOEttUS

214

associations and memories, was at 'first strictlyanathematized by the Church, but in 1061, underthe reign of Bela 1st, this rigour produced sostrong a reaction in favour of Paganism, thatChristianity was driven to purify the poemsinstead of banishing them. Through the Hun-garian schools, which exercised a religious andliterary criticism over the national songs, thetraditional descent of the Magyars was tracedfrom Magog, son of Japhet, and king of Scythia,through a line of biblical and mythical patri-archs, including Nimrod, down to Attila, ances-tor of the Duke Arpad, and common patrons ofthe Magyars and the Huns. The oldest of thesestrange genealogies is the work of an anonymouschronicler, who wrote probably in the 11thcentury. (See Thierry , ii. 351.) The second,called Chronica Hungarorum , was composed by abishop, Chartuicius, for King Coloman, and datesbetween 1095 and 1114. The third and mostimportant is the Chronicle of Simon Keza, dedi-cated about 1282 to Ladislaus III., in imitationof which the Chronicle of Buda was composedduring the 14th century in rude leonine verses.

In the Hungarian legends Attila, Arpad, andSt. Stephen, the first Christian king of Hungary,are invariably the dominant characters, and inthis epic trilogy Attila is pre-eminent. “Theinseparable patron of the Magyar people, hechanges when they change, and lives through allthe stages of their national existence. . . . Whenthe Magyars become Christians, it is to themerits of Attila that they owe this blessing.Attila paved the way for their conversion agesbefore by his docility under the hand of God,whose scourge he was” ( Thierry , ii. p. 362).Such is the systematic idea developed through-out these legends, which are not indeed eitherhistory or tradition, but an original conception,grand and poetical, well calculated to elevateand purify the taste which could only be satisfiedwith national epics, analogous to the Aeneid andIliad. How far the Attila of Hungarian legendresembles and differs from the Attila of history,may be seen in Thierry ii. 364-383, his con-nexion with Arpad and St. Stephen in thefollowing pages, and modern traces of the nameand influence of Attila in Hungary and in theEast from p. 413 to 422.

In 1838, the Hon. and Rev. William Herbert,afterwards Dean of Manchester, published apoem in 12 books, under the title Attila , orthe Triumph of Christianity , to which he ap-pended an historical treatise on “ Attila and hisPredecessors.” His object in this work is thusexplained in his dedication to Mr. Hallam:—“ The foundation of the pagan empire of Romewas the noble subject of the Aeneid. Thatwhich I have chosen is the firm establishment ofChristianity by the discomfiture of the mightyattempt of Attila to found a new Antichristiandynasty upon the wreck of the temporal powerof Rome, at the end of the term of 1200 years,to which its duration had been limited by theforebodings of the heathens.” This undertakinghas been conducted by the author with greatspirit and laborious research, but his authoritiesare chiefly drawn from those compilers who gavecurrency to the Italian and Hungarian traditionsabout the 16th century. For instance, heapparently assigns an equal historical value tothe fact of the discovery of the mysterious

sword-blade' by the Scythian shepherd, whichrests on the unimpeachable authority of Prisonsand Jornandes, and to the fabulous title of Attila,first recorded by Olahus, a Hungarian prelate ofthe 16th century (Bonfin., Rev. Ungar. Dec. p.865, ed. 1606), who elsewhere (ib. p. 888)gravely proves that Attila lived 124 years.The following is the style:—“‘Attila, son ofBendegioz, descendant of great Nemroth ( i.e .Nimrod), nurtured in Engadi, by the grace ofGod, King of the Huns, Medes, Goths, and Dane?,the terror of the world :* to which title lieadded later, on account of the hermit's words,‘The Scourge of God'” (cf. Thierry , ii. 369).Mr. Herbert’s ingenious arguments (pp. 348-364) which deserve a careful study, go to prove,not the assumption of the character of Anti-christ by Attila himself, but that Christianwriters, after the long blending of history withmyth, traced in this mighty impersonation ofthe principle of evil a resemblance to the Anti-christ of Scripture. Hence the almost diabolicalfeatures, and the goat’s horns, in the frontispieceto the ancient Italian legend of Attila frequentlyprinted at Venice in the later years of the 15thcentury. (See note in Thierry , ii. 424.) Dante iscontent to place Attila in the seventh circle ofthe Inferno, where the tyrants are tormented byCentaurs—

“ There Heaven’s stern Justice lays chastising hand

On Attila, who was the scourge of earth;

On Sextus, and on Pyrrhus.”

Canto xii. 133, transl. Cary.

See a curious allusion to the fabulous destruc-tion of Florence by Attila in Dante, Infern. cant,xiii. 144, and cf. Thierry , ii. 255-258.

The leading authorities for the life of Attilaare enumerated in Gibbon’s Roman Empire (ed.Smith), iv. 191 (notes). Other writers harebeen sufficiently indicated above. [C. D.]

AUDITORES. [Manes.]

AUDIUS or AUDAEXJS, the founder of anAnthropomorphite sect, of which an account isgiven under Antiiropomorphitae.

AITDOENTJS, formerly called DADO, S.(St. Ouen, or Ouein), son of Autharius and Aiga,brother of St. Ado, who shared with him theblessing of St, Columban, and (if we may trustFridegodus) of Rado (Act. SS. Roll. Aug. 4, 797),was successively referendarius to Dagohrrt ofFrance, and bishop of Rouen. He was born about609 at Sancy near Soissons, and was educated athis parents’ home, Ussy-sur-Marne. While stil.a youth he was sent to the court ofClothaire II.,where he formed a most intimate friendship,based on their mutual love of asceticism, withSt. Eligius, whose biographer he became. Ouenstates in this life—first published with muti-lations by Surius, then verbatim by D’Achery(Spicilegium, t. v. 190), and with notes byGhesquiere, in Act. SS. Belgii , iii. 198-310—that he and Eligius were consecrated bishops otRouen and Noyon respectively on the same day,i. e. May 14, 640. a Shortly before this they hadbeen associated in opposing the introduction ot

a This Is Cuper’s opinion, after Le Comte and others.Chiffiet fixed the date at 635, Henschen at 646. For thereasons and particulars of this elaborate discussion, seeCuper’s dissertation in Act. SS. Boll. 1. c., and Gall. Christxi. 13.