In his book, or, compilation I might say, entitled King Saint Stephen of Hungary, György Györffy is essentially telling the story of the life of King Saint Stephen (or István) and the mediaeval times in which he reigned. Using the scarce existing documentation as well as concurrent chronological records to either prove or disprove commonly accepted myths, Györffy attempts to put together as complete a picture of this legendary king as possible. He also explores the time in which he existed, writing not only a substantial essay on Saint Stephen’s father and the society which he established, but looking into the social, economic and political changes occurring at the time which assisted the strategic political moves the king made that contributed to his fame. In fact, the whole book is really a series of linked essays, each on small topics which contribute to the understanding of every aspect to Saint Stephen’s life as a whole.

The compilation was originally published in German by a Hungarian press in 1988, a year before the fall of communism. Therefore it was probably not intended for a general Hungarian audience, but for historians in the analytical field, considering it was written in one of the major languages, even though written by a Hungarian. I call it a compilation because essentially that’s what it is. Not only is it a series of small essays, but the author continually mentions that this or that fact comes from legend as well as correlation to historical events yet is refuted by a document from elsewhere. Considering the scarcity of documents he uses careful reasoning and historical evidence from elsewhere in Europe to place events in the most likely time frame. He attempts to put together a plausible story line of events in the king’s life through use of every source possible whilst acknowledging the many possible alternatives for the poorly documented event. Many times in his work does he come across a point where there are two or three alternatives for the correct course of events due to various legends as well as previously argued options from other scholars. At those times he not only supports his own preference, but provides substantial evidence for it as well as properly refuting the other alternative. A good example of that is on page 135, where he refutes the common idea of the second book of King Saint Stephen’s laws being written just after the occurrence of Vazul’s plot against the throne. He places the writings at a later date, after a second revolt in which were more specific occurrences to which various laws in the book can be directly attributed.

The technique of offering every plausible aspect to the story is due to Györffy’s acknowledgement of the ‘many faces’ of public figures. That is, not only are records of King Stephen’s personal life scarce but those which do exist were created in order to present a very particular kind of man; one intended for canonisation. "The face shown to the world is not the same as natural features; the common image is modified by positive or negative propaganda, and as far as the life is concerned, the criterion on which it is judged by the parties interested is the extent to which their efforts were helped or hindered by it. Where judgement is made by a contemporary, the necessary historical perspective is missing." (1) There was not a wide selection of information on Saint Stephen since at the time not many could read and write, though Stephen did establish writing and an official language during his reign. Those directly effected by his control could most certainly not document his actions. Those who did write of him were most likely church figures, especially those with whom he corresponded. Very few of those letters survive, and he did seem to correspond a lot; after all not only did he establish the organised church in Hungary but one of the biggest pilgrimage routes by land, for which he was well-praised. Therefore it was only assumptions of his true countenance made by people who revered him. In traditional legend he is known as the peace-loving, benevolent, strong ruler, the way any saint would ideally be remembered. Yet Györffy points out that considering the warfare he went though to establish control of his father’s kingdom as well as his cruel methods of dealing with competition, he was anything but as ideal as the Church would have liked him to be.

Györffy also notes, however, that his methods, as inhumane as they may have seemed, were also surprisingly "merciful": at least in mediaeval context. "It was an act of mercy to blind a man who had wanted to kill the king and send his children into exile", in this context the case of Vazul who aspired to ascending the throne after the death of Saint Stephen’s son (170). In addition to that, his nationally established laws, which continued to be in effect for long after his death, were surprisingly just to the various social classes. They were based on many older traditions as well as religion, and were somewhat of a compromise between church, tradition and reason. What was most fascinating about the laws, was the placement of responsibility for crimes on the individual and not on the children/family. "Everyone should be free to divide his property…and no one should dare to invalidate this"(130). The quote later goes on to apply it for even criminals, saying that the "innocent children should remain unpunished" (131), which I see as rather odd considering the weight of honour on a household at the mediaeval time.

Regarding the author’s personal approach to the information, it is only occasionally apparent that he is writing from a Hungarian perspective, having grown up hearing the legends of "Szent Istvàn kiràly". Though few and far between, he makes references to occasional myths without announcing their mythological origin directly, rather as if everyone reading is meant to know that they are myths. Not being a learned historian I can’t decisively say that these myths aren’t widely known, but as a Hungarian hearing these stories and never reading them anywhere else, it seems a little peculiar to me that he should use them so carelessly in his writing. "The pouring of hot lead into Vazul’s ears cannot be considered a historical fact…" (170) In the case of that particular legend, he makes no previous references in the book to the event and there is no introductory sentence preparing the reader for the following doubted information. I know the story, but it makes me wonder what exactly the knowledge of the historian community is regarding Hungarian myth.

Györffy presents to us a well constructed critique of the life of King Saint Stephen as historically honest as possible, unbiased by prejudices, legend and nationality. He shows an effective and convincing knowledge of the subject as well as having good support for his arguments, and is persuasive in his submissive yet knowledgeable style of voice and his concise method of presentation. Despite initial dryness, Györffy’s writing is actually simple to read (considering it was written in German and not the overly loquacious Hungarian) and enjoyable, considering it deals not only with disproving fact but substantiating legend.

Bibliography: Györffy, György King Saint Stephen of Hungary New York, NY, Columbia University Press 1994 Pp.213