Talk:Matthias Corvinus of Hungary

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Hungary
Hungary Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Hungary, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Hungary. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article or you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks or take part in the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the Project's quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as top-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Comments:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject European history, a collaborative effort to build a more detailed guide on Wikipedia's coverage of the history of Europe. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

The text below was recently added to the article by an anonymous author. While it seems valid to refer to the controversy between Romanians and Hungarians, the text as written does not present a balanced view of the dispute and seems to relate specifically to a recent and localised dispute over the replacemtent of a plaque on one particular statue of Matthias). Regarding Matthias' ethnicity, a comment could perhaps be added referring to his mixed ethnicity (Romanian ancestry on his father's side, while his mother was Hungarian), but there has been a separate discussion about the ethnicity of John Hunyadi, and it is not clear what can be regarded as a generally-accepted fact. Scott Moore 12:43, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Matthew Corvin (in Romanian Matei Corvin) is one of the personalities that create great controversies between Romanians and Hungarians. While Romanians celebrate him as a historical Romanian figure, Hungarians are insistent in denying the Romanian ethnical origin of Matei Corvin despite many arguments including a Romanian ethimology of his name. Corvin is clearly a Romanian word. Hungarians avoid the term Corvin or its derivatives calling him only Mátyás, which seems to further support the claim that he was an ethnic Romanian. In all other languages the term Corvin or a derivative is always used.
The story of Matei Corvin has more than historical importance. His statue located in the centre of Cluj Napoca is subject to serious tensions as Hungarians request a public denial of his Romanian origin by posting an inscription on the statue that calls him a Hungarian king. Romanians reject the claim with indignation bringing a large amount of historical arguments that prove his Romanian identity and accuse Hungarians of trying to write the history according to their own advantage.
Beyond the complicated historical debates, it is interesting to note that Matthew Corvin is largely honoured by the Romanians both in historical books and in real life while Hungarian historians treat him briefly and technically insisting that he was not Romanian. This situation seems a bit strange to an objective observer as Matthew Corvin was in fact a successful king of Hungary and Romanians would have very little reason to celebrate him unless he was part of their culture. The number of streets and public schools from Romania that are named Matei Corvin is incredibly high in Transylvania which again seems to support the Romanian identity of Matthew Corvin.

Seems a mess, but there may be some material here worth having in the article:

  1. The dispute itself may be worth mentioning.
  2. I've added the statement about his father being a Vlach. If that's contested, we should probably seek citations on both sides.
  3. "Corvin/Corvinus" is just the Latin for "crow", irrelevant to his ethnicity.
  4. We could probably hav more about the statue in Cluj Napoca. The Ceauşescu government apparently came very close to tearing it down, claiming they needed to dig there in search of Vlach remains.
  5. The last paragraph is just POV, though I could imagine the same point being made from citable sources.

-- Jmabel | Talk 19:41, Nov 18, 2004 (UTC)


Not just a mess, but the comments about Hungarians are a fabrication (in some cases the opposite of reality):

  • "Hungarians are insistent in denying the Romanian ethnical origin of Matei Corvin". This may or may not be true of some Hungarians, but is certainly not a general position. In fact, a couple of Hungarian history books I've just looked through state quite clearly that John Hunyadi came from a Romanian noble family.
  • "Hungarians avoid the term Corvin or its derivatives". Neither is this true. Corvinus is widely used e.g it is the name of a university in Budapest, a radio station, a hotel, a string quartet...The variation "Corvin" is also common.
  • "...while Hungarian historians treat him briefly and technically insisting that he was not Romanian". Plain nonsense. In the couple of history books I refer to above, he probably receives more attention than any other figure in Hungarian history.
  • "The number of streets and public schools from Romania that are named Matei Corvin is incredibly high in Transylvania which again seems to support the Romanian identity of Matthew Corvin." This is equally true for Hungary.

Maybe something about the statue in Cluj-Napoca can be included in the article about that city. Scott Moore 10:14, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)


Hm. I'm a Hungarian citizen (who just re-edited parts of the article), and I can just second everything Scott Moore wrote above. To my understanding, the plaque was a work of ultranationalist Cluj Napoca major Gheorghe Funar, and the problems with it are that it omits to mention Matthias was only half Vlach/Romanian, and that he was a king of Hungary (at least I am told). In addition, I was also taught in school about the real-life Dracula as Wallachian ruler and a fighter against the Turks Matthias relied on (I read about that imprisonment later). On the other hand, for what I know, it may be possible that a large part of Hungarians in Transsylvania, unlike here in the Hungarian Republic, are really in denial about Matthias's descent. Or not.

Hi Hungarian citizen. It would be better if you created an account so that you could sign anything you write in Wikipedia. By the way, I agree with Elizabeth Miller that the fictional character of Dracula was not based on Vlad Dracula (also known as Vlad the Impaler). After all, in the novel Dracula says: "We Szekelys have a right to be proud...Ah, young sir, the Szekelys, and the Dracula as their heart's blood, their brains, and their swords, can boast a record that mushroom growths like the Hapsburgs and the Romanoffs can never reach." And Vlad Dracula was clearly not Székely! Scott Moore 14:54, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)
I'm an American citizen, of mixed Hungarian/Latin descent. I would point out that János Hunyadi himself was only partly of Romanian/Vlach descent. At best, he was half Romanian/Vlach. It is quite possible that he had even less Vlach ancestry than that (his father's name often given as "Vajk" or "Voicu"--Vajk is clearly a very ethnic Magyar name--think of the pre-baptismal name of St. Stephen! As for the citation about Vlad Tepes, it should be pointed out that his mother was...Oy--Hungarian! Yet no one in Hungary claims him as "actually Hungarian, not Rumanian". An important aspect of nationality in the historical Kingdom of Hungary is missing from all of these discussions: what we call "nationality" today was almost unknown in the 15th century. Language, religion, and, most importantly, social status defined what group one associated oneself with. Plenty of famous (and not-so-famous) "Hungarians" have decidedly non-Magyar names and ancestry. (There is no such thing as a "pure" or even "mostly pure" Magyar. No such thing!) Think of some of the most famous names in Hungarian (national and diaspora) history: Garay (a name of Croatian origin), Kossuth (Slovak origin), Madl (Austrian origin), Rubik (Czech or Slovak origin), Klein (German origin), Spiner (English origin), Wiesel (German-Jewish origin), Zrinyi (Croatian origen). Some (somewhat) lesser-known include Maticska (Slovak/Polish), Atamaniuk (Ukranian), Kaminski (Polish), and Stetson (Swedish), all family names of my Hungarian ancestors!
If you asked John Hunyadi what his nationality was, he would probably have said "Hungarian", the name of his native country, the same one he lived in, fought for, governed, and died for. It should be remembered that Hungary was and, for those Magyar chauvinists who may wish to forget, remains a multi-cultural and multi-ethnic state. Every Hungarian has a multi-ethnic (and some might argue multi-racial) ancestry. Like Americans, those Hungarians of non-magyar descent soon adopted a Magyar identity. I am not saying that any sense of descent from other nations was ignored, but the assimilation into the dominant Magyar culture was the norm. (Look at the link for Zrinyi/Zrinski above. His brother was a famous poet in Croatian and he was a famous writer in Hungarian, and his grandfather was one of the great heros of Hungary (and, of course, his native Croatia).
The bottom line: a claim of exclusive Vlach ancestry for Corvinus is not only absurd, but misses the point entirely.

InFairness 07:34, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I don't see why there should be so much text in this article about John Hunyadi (as there is a separate article for him). I have also made the point on Wikipedia that the original concept of nation (natio) was very different to modern interpretations. Other contributors have also explained out that nobles in medieval Hungary would not have identified themselves along ethnic lines - they all belonged the the natio hungarica. Scott Moore 11:28, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Dear InFairness, why do you confuse Hungary before the Ottoman turks and after them?? Nobody denies Hungary after the 18s century became a multi-ethnic teritory of the Habsburg Empire. But, before the Ottoman age it wasn't. 80% of the population was descendents of Arpad's magyars.
About the Matthias Rex origin: only Romanian propaganda (rooted in Supplex Libellus Valachorum from 1791) holds that he was or Romanian origin. This is doubtful for a couple of reasons: 1. Matthias's grandfather name Vajk is an ancient Turk/Cuman name (Bajk = true man) just like his great grandfather's name: Sorbe (means: unfortunate). 2. Vajk have had a brother named Magos (hungarian origin)

3. John Hunyadi was the second John (wasn't dying) in the family ... quite strange?? 4. Historians speculate that he was the illegitimate son of Sigismund (Matthias looked like Sigismund) What we know is, Matthias' grandfather came from Cumania, have had Cuman name, that's all. No evidence on his romanian origin ...--fz22 11:45, 9 August 2005 (UTC)


BTW, Jmabel, it wasn't the Ceaucescu government who wanted to do away with the statues in the process of an archeological survey but Funar (trenches dug from 1995); and it wasn't Vlach remains but Roman remains that were looked for (and found). (As nationalist Hungarian 'historians' try to connect Hungarians with Huns and Sumerians (heh), nationalist Romanian historians try to connect the Vlachs - who surely have a connection to the Roman Empire by every account, but the issue of contention is whether they migrated to their current dwelling places or were there earlier - to the Romans of province Dacia (in today's Transsylvania), and the Dacians who previously had an empire here. But there is no archeological evidence of continued Roman presence after Dacia was emptied in 256 and 275; Funar wanted archeologists to find it.) DoDo

King Matthew's cited knowledge of the Slovakian language is pretty much anachronic as in that time the term "Slovakian language" is nonsense, being a Czech dialect at best. Aetil (10 Nov 2005)

That is, of course not true and has never been true, the Slovak language is as old as any other Slavic language and what you say is very primitive and shows absolute lack of elementary knowledge in this field (even if not deliberately). But, I do not know, whether he spoke it, and have no time to check it. Juro 03:47, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Death date

People keep flipping the death date between April 6 and April 26. The Catholic Encyclopedia gives April 6, so unless someone has a heck of a citation to the contrary, this seems clear. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:53, Dec 19, 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Variants on name

Any reason the variants on his name have been pushed to the bottom of the article? Usually we do this in the opening paragraph. -- Jmabel | Talk 02:55, Jun 16, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Link to Várpalota article

Is this the right King Matthias to be linked to the Várpalota article? It seems so, but I don't have the resources to determine it. The article currently has a link to King Mathias, a fictional character related to LEGO building blocks. I will correct the Várpalota link now, because this is a whole lot more likely to be correct than the LEGO reference. If linking here is not appropriate, I trust that someone will further improve it. Thanks. --Mddake 05:35, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

  • Usually, we don't link from fact to fiction except where the fiction has influenced perception of the fact. -- Jmabel | Talk 00:30, August 8, 2005 (UTC)
  • The question remains whether this is the correct article for the Várpalota article to link to. It is patently obvious that it should not link to a fictional character having nothing to do with the region, which is why I changed the link. --Mddake 01:47, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
  • Yes, this is the correct Matthias. Thanks for correcting the link. Alensha 23:54, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cluj-Napoca (Roman Empire's Napoca)

Kolozsvár is the hungarian name for Cluj-Napoca. The city has always been named Cluj and the "international" name is also Cluj. My point is that saying "Kolozsvár (now Cluj)" is incorrect as it was not renamed. If there are no objections I will change it to "Cluj (hungarian: Kolozsvár)". (please provide arguments if you want to object) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.76.30.78 (talk • contribs) 5 Jan 2006.

No arguments against provided --82.76.30.78 13:25, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Kolozsvár was a hungarian city until the treaty of Trianon. So in context of a hungarian ruler it should be called Kolozsvár.

Napoca is the name that the Romans gave when they conquered Dacia, end of story, no hungarian atom whatsoever.Some people should organize themselves in very large groups, visit Rome, read what ancient Roman poets, historians, politicians have written about Dacia Felix and its constant 200 years of Roman occupation, take pictures of Trajan's Column (which is by the way situated in the CENTER of modern day Rome - how could you have possibly have missed it for the past 2000 years remains a mistery to me) that clearly depicts Emperor Trajan final victory over Dacia.Proof about Romanians origins in Dacians and Roman Empire is infinitely irrefutable, even a 5th grade History teacher from Italy can offer proof for that, get used to it already. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.124.68.58 (talk • contribs) 12 Feb 2006.

Excuse me? Yes, obviously the Romans conquered Dacia, those who dispute the theory of Daco-Romanian continuity do not dispute that. What they dispute is a continuous presence in the region. - Jmabel | Talk 21:20, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Considering the language spoken during Mathias Corvin, and the written language from that time maybe that te name of Latin:Claudiopolis or the German: Klausenburg will be moare appropriate. Maybe for Matei Corvin his nationality was with a very little importance :) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CristianChirita (talk • contribs) 19 Feb 2006.

[edit] Bonfini

"soon learned the finesses of power from his mentor, the Italian Antonio Bonfini" was recently changed to "soon learned the finesses of power from his mentor, the Italian Bonfini". If this was Antonio Bonfini, he certainly should be linked; our article on Bonfini identifies him as a scholar in Matthias Corvinus' court, and I can find references to him elsewhere as an historian and chronicler, but there is nothing about him being regent. Conversely, if not him who was this mysterious Italian? If he was regent of Hungary, he deserves an article. - Jmabel | Talk 02:24, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The first paragraph of "Early life". What I usually do for such issues is go to "Edit/Find" and type the sequence of letters. Dahn 09:50, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
About him being regent or not, I have no idea. Dahn 11:00, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I see, I didn't notice that Bonfini was already linked once. He should probably be qualified by nationality on first mention, not second mention (I'll fix that), but I'd still like to see a citation for him being regent, because I can't quickly find one, and you'd think that if he was, our article about him should say so. - Jmabel | Talk 05:19, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Linked or not, Bonfini was NEVER a regent in Hungary. As far as I remember, in the Hungarian history there were only 4 governors. Bonfini was neiother of them, neither a regent. Moreover, Bonfini arrived to Hungary inthe late 1470s, and was therefore not the mentor, but the historian of Mathias. Instead, Mathias' uncle, Mihály (Michael) Szilágyi was a governor forr a brief period in 1458.CsB Hungarian link: http://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonio_Bonfini

Thanks for sorting that out. Dahn 20:12, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
then why was it re-edited, by returning to the previous version. Bonfini was NOT a regent, neither a mentor, it is useless to write the opposite. if my rights as a user are not sufficient to delete this silly part of the sentence, somebody please do it for me. CsB
I did not edit it out, and I was not paying attention at that moment. You could make sure it stays by leaving note saying "see talk page" when editing it back in (if anyone reverts you again), and perhaps provide a reference (even if you are sure, others may consider that it was not NPOV for whatever reasons - I do not, but others may). Also, you may find it useful to register as a user. In any case, since the info (taken from a very old and rather casual text in Britannica) was not thought to be reliable enough, so you editing it out on the basis of intimate knowledge (whic I do not have) should heve been welcomed by all. In other words: from my perspective, it looks like someone would have to provide reference for getting the sentence back into the text, more than you would for editing it out. Dahn 22:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slovene name for Mathias Corvinus

While the given name, Matija Korvin, really is the name under which the historical persona is described, there is much wider recognition of Mathias Corvinus as "Kralj Matjaž", or King Mathias in Slovene folk-lore. Kralj Matjaž of lore is said to be a just king of ancient times, who currently sleeps in an underground cavern under the mountain Peca, in the northeastern part of Slovenia, sitting by a table. When his beard will grow to encircle the table nine times, he will awaken and resume his just rule, according to lore. He can be seen here: http://www.hervardi.com/vindija/kralj_matjaz.jpg in a picture on a bee-hive ending, with the words "Kral Matiaš", and here: http://www.akropola.org/slike/Pravljice/kralj%20matjaz/kralj-matjaz-velika.jpg sleeping in the cave with his court - notice the beard circling around the table legs. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.172.246.2 (talk • contribs) 24 April 2006.

I may be missing something, but what is the basis to identify Matthias Corvinus (rather than anohter Matthias) with Kralj Matjaž? If this is solid, yes, we should mention the legend in the article, with citation. - Jmabel | Talk 04:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
Reference to him as a sleeping king is made on the page and in the article for sleeping kings. I for one do not know if the two are the same ("do not know if", not "do not agree that"), but I think reference to him should include his official or full name in Slavic versions. I also hold the oppinion that Kralj Matjaž may deserve a special article or section of this one - since it supposedly is a mainly mythical development with a certain local tradition (by which I mean: it is not universally linked to the character). Dahn 11:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Linked or not, Bonfini was NEVER a regent in Hungary. As far as I remember, in the Hungarian history therewere only 4 governors. Bonfini was neiother of them. CsB

[edit] Method of Death

A different wikipage said that Corvinus died from eating poisonious figs, but this one mentions him being injured in battle. Which is it?

Surely, the cause of death was not an injury. He died quite suddenly in Vienna, but we can only guess what was the reason. The two most probable cause is a stroke or poisoning. Dzsibril 21:11, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Factual error about Romania's anthem

I have cut from the last section of the article this part "; in one notable example, Matthias (cited as Corvin) is mentioned in the poem that became the national anthem of Romania, Deşteaptă-te, române! (next to Michael the Brave and Stephen III)." While the other sentence is correct, the particular "Corvin" mentioned in Romania's anthem is Matthias' father, John. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 194.105.19.17 (talk • contribs) October 24, 2006.

It can be about Matthias father, or it can be about Matthias himself too. But probably is about both of them. In Romania, especially in Transylvania, both of them are considered very important historical persons. --Roamataa 21:04, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

"Corvin" was never John's name or nickname. It is theoretically possible that the lyrics' author was not aware of that, and that he probably meant to say "John" (just as many Romanians were doing at the time and have done since) - however, since he never did make his point clear, we have to assume that the person in question is the actual Corvin. Dahn 21:13, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] why was he made king?

Why exactly was he made king? He had nothing to do with Ladislas the Posthumous' family. Is it because he was a Hunyadi? What exactly happened in the Hungarian Diet that decided Matthias will be their king? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.89.165.90 (talk) 02:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC).

Ladislaus didn't have a son. So was the next king elected. As it was in the case of Sigismund or Ladislaus or Wladislaw. And why Matthias. His family had enough money at soldier at this time. He was stronger than all the others including Emperor Friedrich. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by ResetGomb (talk • contribs) 14:09, 9 March 2007 (UTC).
Another point: Hunyadi was connected to "Turul" blood from the female side of the family. The Diet knew this, we tend to forget or not to emphasize. So there goes the Vlach origin to trash! Abdulka 10:24, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] contradiction: origin of corvinus

According to this article:

The later epithet Corvinus was coined by Matthias' biographer, the Italian Antonio Bonfini, who claimed that the Hunyadi family (whose coat of arms depicts a raven—corvus in Latin) descended from the ancient Roman gens of the Corvini.

According to John Hunyadi:

The epithet Corvinus was first used by the biographer of his son Matthias Corvinus of Hungary, but is sometimes also applied to John. The epithet is also related to a legend: during a trip with his parents, a six- or seven-years old John would have shoot with a bow, while his parents were asleep, a rook that stole a precious medallion that emperor Sigismund had given to his father, with which John was playing.
A legend, thought to be discreetly distributed by John himself, was that he was the son of Sigismund of Luxembourg,[1] whose faithful soldier his father was for two decades.

Neither has a solid reference, so I really couldn't say which is correct. Anyone know? - TheMightyQuill 23:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)


What is this argument about? Is Rumania desperately trying to create a history for herself??!

[edit] Reference to Vlad II (Dracula), vampires and Holywood?

Just wondering what you people think about adding a reference to this.
Was just reading Vlad II's bio [1], where I read how he married a relative of Matei Corvin.
That reminded me of the movie Underworld [2] in which both lycans and vampires are descendants of the fictional Alexander Corvinus [3].
I guess you can see what I mean: "Dracula" married a Corvinus, then writers used this to create "Alexander Corvinus" and make him the ancester of both vampires and werefolves.
You think it'd be interesting to add this reference to pop culture here?
Apeder 13:36, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

That's a pretty big stretch isn't it, considering this fictional Alexander Corvinus supposedly lived about 1000 years before Mattias Corvinus. They borrowed the name, but it doesn't actually have anything to do with Matthias. - TheMightyQuill 15:51, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
I agree, but thought I'd ask in case majority thought it'd be interesting. Thanks for the input. --Apeder 15:52, 23 October 2007 (UTC)