ON OUR CORONATION INSIGNIA

The least we need to know about them

The title of the present brochure has the phrase “coronation insignia” in it, but for the sake of accuracy we must note that these insignia are by no means equal in rank, from the aspects of history, art, public law or religion. The attribute “holy” has never been applied to the mantle, the sceptre, the orb or the sword ¬ only to the Holy Crown. In fact he is the only entity – we shall see that the designation “he” is not unjustified! – that has been, and still is even today, entitled to this attribute out of all the royal headdresses known to us.

As regards the distinction that can be perceived from the standpoint of public law, it is to be noted that the year 1440 saw two coronation ceremonies in Hungary. At the one involving the infant László V, the Holy Crown was the only insignia to be present. At the other involving Ulászló I, all the other insignia were present excepting the Holy Crown. The former was recognised as valid by the nation, the latter however was only recognised as such with restrictions. So much so that all the decrees issued by this monarch were legally invalid. After his death King Mátyás had to renew them, but it was only four years after his election
that he was able to do so – after he was crowned.

This remarkable distinction in rank can justify the fact that the amount we will write about the other insignia will total much less than that we will write about the Holy Crown himself.

---

ON THE SCEPTRE

The Hungarian coronation sceptre

The sceptre head with the crystal sphere
and one of the lions carved on it

Even if it does not bear comparison in terms of sacredness, from the aspect of cultural history the Holy Crown is directly followed by the sceptre, within the collection of insignia. It is customary to highlight three out of the set of motifs applied on it: the filigree ornamentation running along the handle as well as along the bands and “petals” embracing the sceptre-head above and below (a similar technique is used on the crosspieces of the Crown), the “magic knot” at the top of the sceptre-head, and the sphere of rock crystal encased in the head and decorated with three lions. The latter is traced by researchers, in a fairly unanimous manner, to the circles of the Fatimid dynasty, ruling Egypt at the time of our first Christian king, Saint István (reigned from 1000 to 1038). Under this family’s reign Islam lived the most peaceable period of its early history. At this time and here in Egypt, the trend of Ikhwan made it possible for the “true believers” to establish indirect, occasionally friendly relationships with some of the outstanding representatives of European Christianity, which was as yet unbroken. The lions in their turn, being the symbols of kingship, have since the earliest times been shown on royal maces functioning as sceptres. They first appear in a similar function in ancient Mesopotamia, on the power insignia of Mesilim, king of the city-state of Kish, at the turn of the fourth and third millennia B.C. It is to be noted that modern science considers rock crystal to be the ideal means of information storage as well. That this option is open for the crystal sphere of our sceptre is an undisputable fact. The only question is whether our ancestors knew about this option, and if they did, whether they made use of it or not. And as long as they used to store in it information concerning the law and order of sacred kingship, in what manner was it retrieved? A recent hypothesis says the “magic knot” can be interpreted as a kind of code for this operation. However, all this can be regarded as nothing else but an interesting conjecture, as yet inadequately verified.

Top view of the sceptre head with the filigreedecorated flower-cup,
and with the magic knot in the centre of the latter

---

ON THE MANTLE

Outspread picture of the coronation mantle: at the top centre is Christ Victorious; the figures on both of his sides are the major and minor prophets of the Old Testament, below them twelve sitting apostles, and the bottom row shows the portraits of twelve martyr saints.

At first approximation this “insignia” may seem to present fewer problems than any of the rest. For one can read the following inscription embroidered on it (translated from Latin and slightly compressed): “this chasuble was made and given to the Church of Saint Mary of Fehérvár in the year 1031 of the incarnation of Christ (...) by King István and Queen Gizella.” Thus the date when it was made can be taken for granted as well as the fact that the coronation mantle of the Hungarian kings was originally a chasuble. The royal couple having it made and donating it are themselves shown on the mantle, in the bottom row, with their names inscribed. This is exactly where the problem first arises.

Portrait with the inscription „Stephanus rex” (originally Sebaldus) in the bottom row of the mantle, representing martyr saints

„Gisla regina”, with the inscription altered, shown as a
bearded man in the bottom row of portraits on the mantle

For the letter T is missing in the inscription “Stephanus”, and part of the symbols reveals rather rough and careless re-embroidering. The original text can be reconstructed stroke by stroke, thus we can state with certainty that it is not the Hungarian King István but Saint Sebaldus that was immortalized here in the row of martyr saints. As far as his crown, his lance and the orb in his hands are concerned, these can be seen on the head or in the hands of every martyr. In turn, the problem with Gizella is that her original inscription has been completely destroyed (some people destroyed it in the past), and the “queen” herself has a beard! She wears a beard just as thick as “her husband” or the other martyr saints do. Opinions differ as to the time the remaking took place. The earliest proposal for the date suggests the first half of the 11th century, the latest indicates the beginning of the 17th century (!) as the time of the drastic intervention.

The other problem with the mantle surfaces in the row of apostles represented on it. For above the bottom row showing the half-length portraits of twelve male (!) martyr saints, one can see the sitting figures of the twelve apostles lined up, and they can also be identified by their name inscriptions. (The third row above them shows the minor and major prophets of the Old Testament.) Now what is the matter with the Portrait with the inscription „Stephanus rex” (originally Sebaldus) in the bottom row of the mantle, representing martyr saints „Gisla regina”, with the inscription altered, shown as a bearded man in the bottom row of portraits on the mantle apostles? To put it briefly, only one of the two Jameses is shown, but both of the Judases: both Thaddeus and the “traitor” Judas! Ever since the Hungarian king has been wearing this mantle, remade from a bellshaped chasuble, at the coronation ceremonies, he must willy-nilly undertake the sin of Judas Iscariot as well.

---

ON THE ORB AND ON THE SWORD

The 16th century sword of Venice and its sheath, included among the coronation insignia as a replacement for the original

The orb with the arms of the house of Anjou

Both were made and included in the set of insignia in order to replace earlier, original pieces.

The gilded silver sphere adorned with a double cross, bearing the enamelled coat of arms of the house of Anjou on its side, was by all probabilities made on the order of Károly Róbert, the dynasty’s founder, to replace an earlier piece of pure gold.

The sword is the youngest of the insignia, and the least significant from the artistic aspect; Venetian work from the 16th century. Before it became part of the collection, at an unknown date and upon unknown consideration, it had apparently been used in practice, as an instrument of war.

---

ON THE HOLY CROWN OF HUNGARY

The first question concerning our crown – and let me add quickly that it is a legitimate one to ask – is this: what makes the Hungarian Holy Crown holy? The answer is simpler than one would believe: the same thing that makes a devotional picture holy. What makes both things holy is that they can influence their viewer or wearer not only symbolically but directly, and right down to the roots of the personality. We usually keep in evidence the type of crown which represents the intermediate stage in a graduated system consisting of three grades. Of these, at the lowest stage one finds the domestic crown, at the middle the state crown, and at the topmost grade the initiation crown. The Hungarian Holy Crown is often interpreted as a state crown, which he is certainly not! The state crown may be worn by a monarch whenever he or she manages state affairs. Our Crown may however be worn exclusively at the coronation of the king, which is a kind of initiation rite. Therefore we are justified in applying to him the designation “initiation crown” as well. The influence that initiation crowns exert is thus direct and fullscale. During the ceremony they affect the person to be initiated in such a way that his or her personality goes through a significant transformation. Analogies can be found among the so-called “primitive” peoples, who have, until quite recently, been familiar with this type of coronation, or the corresponding institution: the sacred kingship. It is in the area of Siberian shamanism that scholars of comparative anthropology have managed to collect the most spectacular, and at the same time the most informative examples.

The Crown viewed from above – paternal and filial roles

Front view of the Hungarian Holy Crown

The Hungarian Crown viewed
from the king’s right side

The Hungarian Crown viewed
from the king’s left side

Rear view of the Hungarian Holy Crown

Top view of the Hungarian Holy Crown

Who and what appear on the Hungarian Holy Crown? On top, directly below the cross, the upper image of Pantokrator finds its place in a quadratic field. “Pantokrator” is a Greek word meaning “Ruler of the Universe”. The name “Christ” is generally added to this, but it would not be appropriate here. However much it may resemble the enthroned Jesus Christ, the two figures shown around his head – one of them is a group of symbols reminiscent of the Sun, the other, of the Moon and the stars – reveal unambiguously the fact that it is about the separation of light and darkness, which is the Father’ task, not the Son’s. Thus the image in question is evocative of paternal, rather than filial, properties – at the moment of creation at that. The probable reason why the “pantokrator” had to be shown twice, both at the top of the cross bands and on the hoop, is that this upper enamelled image is in principle never visible to human eyes. (One could see an initiation crown only at coronation, but one cannot get above the king even then!) This picture is directly fed back to the Father.

The upper Pantokrator image at the summit of the Crown’s system of cross bands

The lower Pantokrator image on the hoop of the Crown

But if all this really has to do with the evoking of paternal properties – one might ask – why then were they not called forth in the figure of the Father, but of the Son? Surely this enthroned, apparently middle-aged bearded man shows striking resemblance to the person who is shown in the middle section of the gable rising directly over the hoop, who is also a “pantokrator,” but this time in an explicitly filial function. If the one at the top is really the Father, why then is he not shown as Father, that is an old gentleman with a long white beard? Well, the Hungarian Holy Crown still preserves, in its pure form, the fundamental Christian tenet stating that it is solely and exclusively in his Son that the Father has revealed himself in a human form, for the world inhabited by man.

Thus here, at the top, the paternal property radiates through the Son. Should any doubts arise, we can immediately justify this assumption of ours since the New Testament provides a scene for us – and only one such scene can be found in it – in which the Son has the totality of  paternal properties radiating through him with a similar intensity. It is a kind of scene to which it was not possible to invite the entire crowd assembled to hear the Sermon on the Mount, not even the group of twelve apostles in full. Only three persons with outstanding qualities. For a horrible amount of energy was expected to be released, unbearable for persons with ordinary abilities. The transfiguration on Mount Tabor is in question. The three apostles invited by Jesus to witness the event are Peter, John and James the Greater. And who are the persons placed on the Holy Crown round the upper image of the Pantokrator? Peter is on the right-hand side of the king to be crowned, John is in front, and James is opposite him at the back. No one can ever get any closer to that manifestation of the Son, when the Father radiates through him with all his might. Thus out of the four pictures resting on the upper part of the Crown, in other words on the cross bands, three pictures are in their
places in such a way as to make it unobjectionable even from the dogmatic aspect. However, in the case of the fourth picture, we are concerned with an apostle (Paul) called by Jesus after his resurrection. Unlike the event on Mount Tabor, when the Father radiates through the Son here on this earth – this time the Son has already ascended to the Father, and thence he calls someone to follow him.

Levels and pairs – unity of spirit, soul, body

The upper apostolic images yield a sensible interpretation even when they are arranged in pairs. Here Peter is paired off with Paul, and John with James. These pairings do not require specific explanation, as Peter and Paul are the two great pillars of the Church, and James is John’s brother. How about the pictures or characters below them?

Enamel picture of Apostle Peter on the upper Pantokrator’s right side

John the Apostle and Evangelist is the only one of the saints shown on the Crown who looks us straight in the eye

Enamel picture of Apostle Paul on the upper Pantokrator’s left side

Enamel picture of Apostle James at the back of the Crown, on the upper floor of the cross-pieces

Of the four lower pictures only two are visible in full. The front bottom picture is not visible at all. The opposite figure at the back is part of the human body designates “spirit” in every case. This manner of designation is found not only on the Holy Crown – it has been present in our folk-art up to the present day. The part extending from the neck down to the waistline is the level of  bosom, the field in which “soul” operates. And the part below the waistline belongs to “body”. Therefore the human figure is the picture sign of a universe that has three layers and functions in this framework, no matter who is represented: a beggar, a king, an apostle or an archangel. How much of them is represented shows how much is regarded as necessary to have an effect in the given environment.

The lower part of the Crown – in other words, the hoop – has only figures represented from the waistline upwards. This means that in their case there should be some kind of danger lurking on the level of the body below the belt. Thus corporeality cannot be admitted, indirectly and without control, to access the community governed by the sacred ruler. If this assumption of ours is true, we should be expected to be able to prove it – on the upper part of the Crown. And indeed we are, exactly with the help of the apostolic picture just mentioned. For we know about one single apostle who committed the error our king should not fall into: he required physical evidence, based on direct experience, for something that is transcendental by essence. The apostle in question is Thomas, who wished he could see and touch the wounds of the resurrected Christ. We have a different situation on the front side of the hoop. There, an apostle is covered up to the top of his head by the enamel picture of Christ the Pantokrator. The four letters iota, sigma and chi, sigma together yield the initials of the name Iesous Christos. That is to say, this enamel picture is the representation of the filial property on our crown. Nor should we forget the fact that this is the only picture on the Hungarian Holy Crown that subjects can view undistorted during coronation. the pictorial message addressed directly to us is conveyed by Him straight from the Father.

However strange or unusual it may sound, today there is no apostolic picture behind the lower image of Pantokrator. We know by tradition who could have been there, but we do not have specific evidence for this. However, the stripe of inscription inserted in its place does not show what one would expect, namely that it might be the remnant of an inscription for St Bartholomew’s enamel picture mentioned in a few sources. In fact, it should begin by the letter combination SCS, the abbreviation of Latin “sanctus”, meaning “saint, holy” – this is how all the names begin in the Crown’s apostolic pictures – but there is no trace of that here. The only thing that can be seen here is ARTHOLO. Which shows unambiguously that it was removed from an inscription “Bartholomaeus” by cutting both the beginning and the end of the word. This in turn shows that we do not have to do with the inscription of the original Bartholomew picture. However, we know for certain that the removal of the original picture and the insertion of this mock inscription had been performed before 1792. For this is the state of things recorded in a report published in 1800 and relating to the investigation of the Crown in that year. This seems to be the date when several pictures were replaced on the Holy Crown.

In a book by Josephus Koller published in 1800, the top-view drawing of the Crown clearly shows the inscription „Artholo”, slipped in to replace the original picture of Bartholomew

Let us suppose that it is really St Bartholomew the Apostle that appears here on the front of the crosspiece. We wonder if he did something to justify his being screened out of sight. Something that could become the source of harmful forces if it is admitted into the circle of the subjects, if the king allows it to get across unstrained and undisciplined. It should be a very serious offence, more serious that that committed by Thomas. John’s Gospel narrates the calling of Apostle Bartholomew, who bears the name Nathanael in this case, rather than his more familiar name. The calling is proposed by the fellow apostle Philip, already a convert, who is also represented on the Crown. What news does he report of Jesus to Nathanael? That he cures the sick and resurrects the dead. The long-awaited Messiah has thus arrived.

What would – Thomas reply to this? “I will believe if I see it.” What does Nathanael do? Does he do the same thing? No. He replies with a question: “Can anything good come out of Galilee?” For him, it is written that the Messiah will come out of Judea. Where did Jesus come from? From Galilee. Then he cannot be the Messiah. Our Nathanael alias Bartholomew is not interested in the facts of reality, for him it is written... This type of offence endangers us not only on the level of body and soul but its effect extends up to the level of the spirit as well. Therefore Bartholomew had to be covered up to the top of his head, and that by the representative of the highest level of “spirit”, the Saviour.

Apostle Thomas is covered, up to the line of his neck, by the rear gable element rising in front of him, which originally contained „the image of the Holy Virgin Mother”, but today holding the enamel picture of Byzantine emperor Michael Doukas, mounted at a later date

Andrew and Philip, the missionaries among Scythians

There are still two apostles left. Andrew rests below Peter, Philip below Paul, completing the apostolic congregation on the upper part of the Crown. Andrew’s relation to Peter is quite obvious as they were brothers. However, Philip below Paul can set us thinking, for Philip the Apostle is in no way related to Paul in the Bible. The name Philip however is borne not only by an apostle, but also by a deacon. Deacon Philip performed some spectacular deeds in the apostolic era, and he established a direct and lasting relationship with the Apostle Paul. We may begin getting used to the fact that the figures on the upper part of the Crown do not each represent a single independent personality. For instance, at the top we have James, whose inscription says “Jacobus”. But there were more than one Jacobuses, even among the apostles; there were two, an older one (James the Greater) and a younger one (James the Lesser). At this point, one might say that the question has been solved by placing John in front, and James opposite him, at the back of the Crown. In that case he cannot be other than James the Greater, John’s brother. Yes indeed, if we consider the situation from this aspect. But if we consider his holding a green bough in his hand, then this can no longer refer to James the Greater. This “James’ Bough” still shows up as an accessory in certain rites, but its use is appropriate on the feast day of St James the Lesser. It did not use to be a feast in its own right, but Philip and James occupied between them the first of May in the calendar. In all probability, we can see a representative of the “green bough” of May in the hand of our Jacobus.

Apostle Andrew’s enamel picture is situated below his brother, Peter, on the crossband

Apostle Philip’s enamel picture faces Andrew on the lower floor of the cross-bands, on the king’s left side

Thus it is emphatically indicated that the enamel picture in question can represent both the greater and the lesser St James together. But reading the name Jacobus in the inscription can lead us to the name Jacob of the Old Testament patriarch as well. This suggestion is rejected officially on the grounds that the attribute “sanctus” would not be due to him; but if out of the three Jacobuses two appear in the New Testament, what basis would one have for banning the attribute “saint” simply because the third one belongs to the Old Testament? We have a similar situation concerning John’s image on the front. Its inscription is not what we would expect, namely “Johannes”. In fact, we have a letter I, which could be read as J, followed by the letter O, with the sign of abbreviation over it, then comes a ligature (joining of letters) which can be read as either N or H, or both at the same time, and finally a letter S. This group of characters can be read as Johannes but also as Jonas. Jonas is the prophet from the Old Testament, whom Jesus himself names as the only “sign” given to this “evil and adulterous generation”. And it is exactly as such that he appears on the Holy Crown. What is more, this is the only apostolic image that those present at coronation can see in its entirety. What we get here is not the Old Testament teaching but its lesson, filtered through the New Testament. The Old Testament is not banned from the Crown’s programme, but it can get across only as long as it is capable of being filtered through
Christ’s teaching. What is not, is not appropriate for the era of Grace, because it would only produce offence. The pairing of Philip with Andrew deserves further analysis. For Philip plays a significant role on the Crown, not only as a deacon but also as an apostle. And it is in this function of his that he is interrelated with Andrew, actually in two respects. One case is described in the Bible: they are present as a pair at the feeding of the five thousand (John 6:5- 13). And there is another thing that connects the two of them. They worked as missionaries together – as recorded in their legends and not in the Bible – in the land of the Scythians, among others. In other words, Andrew and Philip are the two apostles who evangelized the Scythians. But at the time the Holy Crown functioned properly, there was one single king of Scythian descent in Europe – the Hungarian king. Therefore in this case “evangelizer of Scythians” means the evangelizer of Hungarians. This item in the Crown’s programme is meant directly for us.

Michael Doukas or Virgin Mary?

Today all the crucial questions concerning the Crown are related to the enamel picture riveted in front of the one single gable element at the back of the hoop. It presents the portrait of a Byzantine emperor, with a perfectly legible name inscription. He is “Mikhael en Kh[rist]o pistos basileus Romaion ho Duk[a]s”. That is to say: “Michael, the emperor faithful in Christ of the Romans, from the family Doukas”. There was only one Byzantine emperor with this name, thus there can be no misunderstanding. And this Michael VII Doukas reigned between 1071 and 1078. Everybody knows that our first Christian king, St István died in 1038. Now the question is: could he have worn the Holy Crown or not? The answer depends on whether the picture of Michael Doukas can be regarded as original on the Crown. Well, this picture extends beyond the original frame behind it at the bottom, by 26 percent of the frame. Now if a picture (or a gem, or a pearl) does not go into its setting, this means that it is secondary in that place. It is a question of fact, not of opinion.

In any field of research one may commit the following serious methodological error: one disguises one’s supposition as a fact. The research history of the Holy Crown is full of assertions formulated in the past fifty-to-hundred years exclusively in the indicative mood, as if they had been facts. All of them were, however, suppositions never supported by any sort of fact. To mention just one of the best known assertions: the Crown consists of two parts, each made at a different place and time. This is disclosed to us as a fact, usually as the first sentence, when it comes to discussing the Crown. In fact, we do not know any decisive
and trustworthy evidence indicating that the two parts ever appeared independently of each other. If the upper part were to be lifted off the lower one, it would be obviously unable to function as a crown by itself. It would by all means be necessary to have a hoop in order to hold it together at the bottom. There is no evidence whatever to indicate that this hoop would at any time have been different from the present one.

Returning to the emperor’s portrait at the back we might ask: do we know what kind of picture originally appeared in its place? We certainly do – from the report of Crown Guard Révay Péter, published in 1613. In order to realize the significance of this fact one should see clearly what it means when a crown guard makes a statement about the Crown. This is the only profession whose occupant does know what is on the Crown and what is not. Rather than handling it just for a few seconds, it is his task to examine it carefully on removing it from the chest, and, when he puts it back at the end of the coronation ceremony, to check again that it is in perfect order. Moreover, the above-mentioned crown guard, owing to the given historical circumstances, could see more of the Crown at close quarters than any of his predecessors or successors. And he says in his description that “the image of the Holy Virgin Mother” is there. (In Latin: “imago Diuae Matris Virginis”.) There can be no misunderstanding.

Supplanting the pictures: the opportunity and the cause

When, for what purpose and by whom could the picture of the Holy Virgin Mother have been removed from the Holy Crown? We can propose a date after which the replacement must have occurred: 1613. And another date before which it must have happened: 1790. It was in 1790 that the three pictures that can be seen at the back today were described for the first time. That is, the image of Michael VII Doukas, the picture with the inscription “Kón”, generally interpreted as Konstantinos, and the third one bearing the inscription “Geobitzas”, read as Géza – without foundation, we must add. Thus we must date the replacement between 1613 and 1790. As it is an initiation crown, it was not possible to replace pictures, gems, pearls or pendilia on it at arbitrary times. When was it possible? For one thing, at one of the coronation ceremonies, after it was removed from its chest and before it was returned to its place – but in that case the event would certainly have been recorded and thus we would have some kind of document relating to it. Alternatively, we know about a certain period of time, extending for almost six years from 1784 to 1790, when practically anything could have happened to our Crown. When by the decree of József II, the “Hatted King”, he was carried out of the country, and the nation lost sight of him for a long time.

To what purpose were the pictures supplanted, and what was at stake? In order to be able to answer this question we should be informed of a grandiose rearrangement project for the whole of Europe: the so called “Second” or “New Byzantium” project. Otherwise we would be at a loss to understand why Byzantine emperors needed to be placed on the Hungarian Crown in the second half of the 1780’s, given that Byzantium had fallen as early as 1453. Another fact that we would not understand: once a Byzantine emperor was to be put on a crown, why did he go to the back of the head? Emperor images had never been put on the back of the head, if the objective was to indicate in some way or other the supremacy of the person represented. What we have to do with here is obviously some kind of belated and confused activity, when those making the replacement were aware neither of the original function nor of certain formal peculiarities.

Involved in executing the “Second Byzantium” project were two powers both of which planted themselves on us in succession: the Habsburgs and the Russians. The enterprise proved a failure for both of them, for they did not manage to perform it completely. For this reason they did not like us talking about it at all. The essence of the project, which was the invention of Empress Catherine II, with József II as her partner in the execution, was to oust the Turks out of Europe. But not only out of here
but also out of Anatolia. They intended to restore the Byzantine empire, at the time of its greatest expansion. In exchange for yielding the territories on the Balkan – which would belong to the Second Byzantine Empire from now on – József II would get Bavaria, in what remained of Europe. The Bavarians were no more consulted on the matter than we Hungarians were, who would simply have been wiped off the map. Hungary as an independent state did not figure in this plan for Europe.

During József II’s reign the deprivation of Hungarians of Virgin Mary’s cult went on in this context, at full force on all frontlines. We would not understand why it mattered so much to him if we did not know that the relationship between Hungarians and Virgin Mary is of a different nature than Virgin Mary’s relation to any other nation or ethnic group. In contrast to popular belief, it was not Saint István who established this relationship. In one of his legends as well as in one of St Gellért’s legends we find a reference to the fact that the saint found this peculiar relationship ready-made here. He did take note of the fact that Hungarians call Virgin Mary their regina, that is queen, rather than their patroness. The title “regina” denotes a relationship defined in terms of public law. We can hardly imagine the advantages implied by St István’s success in getting Europe to accept this ancient system of defence, namely that Hungary is defended by her queen, the Virgin Mother! It was after suppressing Rákóczi’s war of independence that Károly III downgraded Virgin Mary from regina to patroness in the everyday sense, and propagated the title
“Patrona Hungariae” all over the country. We have ever since been singing and talking of her as a Patroness, rather than venerating her as our Regina – our Queen.

The illusion of the Second Byzantine Empire

Having said that, we should return to the question: once the monarchs’ portraits are forgeries on the Holy Crown from the end of the 18th century – and this is indeed suggested by the facts considered – why could the picture of Doukas not be proportioned to go into its setting? So far we have heard one single opinion that can be accepted for the case in question: it is not the place this picture was intended for originally. It was actually intended for the front position, to take the place of Christ’s image. Hence onwards we can use simple reasoning to infer that it was this crown that King József II and his accomplice, Empress Catherine II intended to re-programme as the crown for the Second Byzantine Empire. Thus it is easier to understand why one can notice traces of dismounting on the Pantokrator icon in front. In fact, it may well have been dismounted. But one also understands why it was this famously incompetent Byzantine emperor whose picture was mounted there. Michael VII Doukas was enthroned in 1071. Directly before that was fought the Battle of Manzikert (also called Malazgirt), in which the Seljuk Turk army completely destroyed the Byzantine forces. This put an end to Byzantine hegemony in Anatolia. Therefore, if the emperor and the tsarina between them were to restore the Byzantine empire as far as the easternmost edge of Anatolia, it stands to reason that they needed to validate legal continuity retroactively, back to Michael Doukas. They indicated their intention in due course on the Crown, whose pictorial programme was redesigned for the new state formation.

For this abortive enterprise, the roles of both Kón(stantine) and Geobitzas were accurately outlined. In the case of the former we apparently have to do with a picture clipped round, which makes it unambiguous that it cannot be original in that place. Concerning the image Geobitzas we should know that the name Géza was never spelt as Geobitzas in Byzantium. They had to write down the name more than once since every one of our kings named Géza, including Duke Géza, got in touch with Byzantium in some way or other. Thus we know very well how the name Géza was spelt: Geica, Jaca, Jesse... The name Geobitzas
is not even suggestive of these. It must have been the name of a dignity in its age, such as Gyula or – Koppány. Its reconstructed pronunciation is Yeovicha. In all probability we have to do with the Turkish designation of the dignity of a duke or general. In West-European practice the title “dux” may best correspond to it. The rest of the inscription reveals that the person in question is “pistos krales Turkias”, that is “faithful” or “devoted king of Turkia”. Now this title never applied to the king of Hungary. In Byzantium a wide range of names were used to refer to the Hungarian king, but that one was not. Geobitzas, regarded as a dignity
name, immediately reveals how, between 1780 and 1790, it could have found its way to the royal diadem, reprogrammed to be the crown of the Second Byzantine Empire. The population of this artificial makeshift state would have been mostly of Turkish nationality. Some kind of representation had to be provided for them by all means. It would presumably have been the dignity of “yeovicha”. As a “faithful” or “devoted” executive of the new empire, he may have been intended to become the leader of the Turkish ethnic group, by the Greek designation “krales”. If we do not know the ethnic composition of the Second Byzantine Empire, the historical circumstances of its establishment, we could have no idea why exactly these persons of all were needed to replace the original enamel images.

Replaced enamel picture of Kón(stantine) on the back of
the hoop, on the king’s right side

Replaced enamel picture of Geobitzas on the back of the
hoop, on the king’s left side

The stripe of the sheet of the setting behind the Doukas picture ought to bend over the edge of the mounted picture if the original one rested in this place; however, the picture having been replaced, it does not even reach the edge

Pairs of roles on the hoop

On the upper part of the Crown we saw floors or levels, and pairs within the floors. Here on the hoop, which has only ground floor, it stands to reason that only pairs of images are found. On the cross band, it was by its proximity to the source of creative power that the upper floor was qualified as upper, and the lower floor as lower. This means that a certain effect has started from the intersection of the bands, that is, from the top centre, and come down near the earth through a distribution of power having a peculiar kind of logic. The upper figures are in direct contact rather with the centre of creation, while those at the bottom have the earthly distribution of the properties as their task. This is why it is so important that the transmission towards the earth should be worthy and appropriate to the age, and this is why the properties must be filtered. For, they may become dangerous when they descend to the earth, as in the case of Bartholomew (Nathanael) or Thomas.

Though the Pantokrator image in front belongs to the lower part, it extends over the upper one. What comes towards us through Him is immediately transferred, down here, to two message transmitters. They are the archangels. In what follows we must define everything in relation to the monarch’s person since it is him that the Holy Crown directly affects, and through him, the world influenced by him. This means that he should, through the right hemisphere of his brain, be guided by the qualities characteristic of St Michael. Correspondingly, through the left hemisphere, by qualities possessed by St Gabriel. The two sets of archangelic properties are complimentary to each other. Gabriel is the archangel of the Annunciation (25 March). This means that he spreads, in the form of good tidings – today we would call it an information package – creative power over our world, which is designed to elevate the human mode of existence to a higher level. These good tidings are equivalent to begetting, for nine months later is born the Son of Man, that is, Jesus. But when information is brought to the Earth, however good those tidings may be, they get inevitably distorted by the time they become flesh in us. We commit errors despite our best intentions. To Gabriel’s function as bearer of good tidings there must therefore correspond a function to cut back the evil that nevertheless comes to pass. All this also points to the fact that all kinds of directions that the Hungarian kingship may get must come from nowhere else but directly from above, that is, it functions unambiguously as sacred kingship. Though this fact could be inferred already from the very shape of the Crown, considering only the order of images also leads us to this inference.

The second pair in the row of enamel paintings on the hoop belongs to warrior saints. St George is placed on the king’s right-hand side, while the other side is occupied by St Demetrius. The complementary duality that we have observed in the case of the archangels is continued here too. What Michael has performed on the highest level, is repeated by George one floor lower. He fights against the same Satan attacking in the form of a dragon, but he does so under earthly circumstances. Gabriel’s function in turn continues to live in Demetrius. He himself does not fight but, by means of conversion, that is, by transmitting the good tidings, he gets a gladiator in such a state that he succeeds in fighting and winning the battle of faith. – But what is the business of – two doctors on a sovereign’s headgear? For it is their images that now follow on the hoop.

Enamel picture of Archangel Michael on the front side of the
hoop, on the king’s right side

Enamel picture of Saint George on the anterior part of the hoop, on the king’s right side

Enamel picture of Saint Cosmas on the back of the hoop, on the king’s right side

Enamel picture of Archangel Gabriel on the front side of the
hoop, on the king’s left side

Enamel picture of Saint Demetrius on the anterior part of the hoop, on the king’s left side

Enamel picture of Saint Damian on the back of the hoop, on the king’s left side

Coming over to the rear side of the Crown, we have arrived at the area of instincts. What must be indicated here is what the monarch and, through him, the nation, have to carry out by all means, without any schooling and automatically. What kind of task is it? It is to heal the misfortunes of mankind, its physical, spiritual and intellectual diseases. Have we had the help for it from above? We most certainly have! There is no other area in the world like the Carpathian basin, so perfectly adapted for healing as it is.

From the foregoing one could clearly feel that, in the Holy Crown’s original order of functioning, the task of operating the energies near the earth was fulfilled by the hoop, while the cross bands were responsible for ensuring continuous celestial supply as well as for transmitting the creative energy down to earth and distributing it effectively. We should not forget that we are discussing an initiation crown.

Wisdom and power – the nation is being crowned

We can thus reckon with two levels of functioning for the Crown, within which undoubtedly there appears a variety of traits differing from one another essentially. Concerning the differences that can be observed between the lower and upper parts of the Crown, we have, for more than two hundred years continuously, been getting the explanation that the two parts were made at a different time and place. However, there is no appreciable evidence whatever that can be had for this!

It is worth discussing in detail the differences that exist between the upper part and the lower one of the Crown. First of all we should note that the enamel paintings have a marked significance among the active constituents of the Holy Crown. There are altogether nineteen representational pictures, showing persons, animals and plants. They are the most conspicuous phenomena, no matter what angle of vision we may choose to look at the Crown. This suggests that it is primarily the pictorial message of the Holy Crown that must be taken seriously.

Investigating the matter on this basis, we find that there are four kinds of aspects in all, from which the upper and lower Crown components may be distinguished. The first and most obvious is that all the pictures on the upper part have Latin inscriptions while those on the lower have Greek ones. However, the fact that a certain text was worded in Greek does not prove that it was created in Byzantium. Similarly, concerning the Latin inscriptions on the upper part, the statements that they must have been written somewhere in Western Europe because that is where Latin was the official language cannot be regarded as conclusive.
The explanation for bilingualism should be sought elsewhere.

Within the circle of the Roman church, the simultaneous use of the two languages was considered compulsory practice for the most important sacred activities from about the middle of the Medieval period. For instance, for the consecration of a church or the ordination into priesthood. At such times bilingualism was not meant as a reference to Byzantium or Rome, but Greek as the language of wisdom, and Latin, as that of power. At the ordination of priests it has been necessary up to the most recent times to recite every important text through in both languages. For one language formulated the most important articles of faith on the part of wisdom, while the other did so on the part of power. The two kinds of approach used to be in a hierarchical relationship with each other, nor could their positions be transposed on the Holy Crown with respect to each other. For wisdom qualifies for man being directed by man – to be sure, with the highest degree of efficiency for that. But this did not make the person crowned a sacred king. This can only be achieved by power – “potestas” in Latin – to be granted directly by the Creator.

Closely related to this is another important issue. The Hungarian Holy Crown has never been regarded as an inanimate object in Hungarian public law. Ever since we have had data from reliable sources concerning the Crown himself and his functioning, he has always been assumed to be a superpersonal living entity. Under public law, this “quality of a living creature” manifests itself in the fact that in the Kingdom of Hungary the Holy Crown was regarded as the sole source of all law. But we should not in fact use the past tense here, since this state of affairs has never been legally invalidated by anyone. The jurisdiction of the Hungarian Holy Crown – is a living jurisdiction up to the present day. But however living he is assumed to be, he is incapable of implementing his rights directly. One might believe that it is the king’s duty, but it is not so. In terms of traditional Hungarian law it is not the king’s individual responsibility to implement the Crown’s rights, but the nation and the king are to share the task equally. And they do so in this order! For in this country, in contrast with general European practice, it is not the ruler who acquires for himself a country in this or that manner, but it is the nation that elects a king for itself.

The decisive change in the Hungarian Holy Crown’s order of functioning came about on 1 January 2000. It is a fact that we have no king, nor is there anyone on the horizon that could be seriously considered in this respect. At such times the nation has to undertake the full-scale implementation of the Crown’s rights. How can this be done? It can be – and has been – done by setting the Crown in the very centre of legislation so that he could be visited, naturally within a legally regulated framework, by all members of the nation who feel a personal incentive to pay their respect to him, to derive strength from being together with him, and in turn, to try and charge up the holy relic of Hungarians by the strength of their faith.

To put it briefly: the nation is being crowned at present. It is the nation that must, in a spiritual sense, rise to royal status in order to become worthy of having a king. But at the moment it is not a king we need; what we need is that the nation should be able to reach up to the task expressed in and by the Crown: to heal the world’s diseases, which have certainly assumed serious proportions.

The unity of dubieties

Returning to the pictorial order of our Crown, we note that the first difference refers to a kind of duality whereby the pictorial programme of the cross bands expresses the mobilizability of “potestas”, a power of heavenly origin. The programme relating to this was first formulated on the upper level of the system of cross-bands, and continued to be further detailed on its lower floor, accompanied throughout with texts in Latin. In turn, at the level of the hoop, the assembly of the persons named in Greek, in the language of wisdom, demonstrates the way this programme operates in an earthly environment. We would only have reason to doubt the thoroughness of the argument if the Greek texts were inscribed at the top, and Latin at the bottom.

The second type of duality is no longer new to us. We can see halfsize figures on the lower part, on the hoop, and full-size figures at the top, on the cross-pieces. Does this kind of duality have anything to do with the above-mentioned duality? For, should these four kinds of duality refer to something different in each case, we might as well regard them as dualities combined randomly. Then the dualities could be explained as two works of art made at different locations, joined randomly and assembled subsequently. But this second duality is closely linked up with the previous one. How so? Once we know that it is wisdom that functions in the region near the earth as the leading virtue, we are also supposed to know that wisdom arms one against lots of things – except for temptations of the bodily-sensual kind. Thus the second duality points exactly towards what the first one does, the question being which qualities could, in an earthly environment, become dangerous enough – think of Thomas the Apostle’s example – to be excluded from sacred kingship. The fact that he has been covered up to the line of his neck by the Virgin Mother’s image may have appeared to us as an essential motif in counteracting Thomas the Apostle’s sin. But why as far up as that line? Would it not have sufficed to cover him up to the waist-line?

To understand the situation one should recognize the fact that on the upper part of the Crown the characters are not yet shown in the medium of earthly functioning, but in a more elevated, at the same time more concentrated and condensed medium of existence. There, “soul” and “body” are not yet separated, but it is the body imbued with soul that functions, which is affected neither by weapon, nor by poison. Here therefore, we are still on our way from the centre of creation to the Earth, or on our way back to the Creator, but in neither case do we tread on earthly soil. Which also means, in turn, that once we have sinned on the bodily level, the sin does not stop at the waistline but continues to infect us up to the line of the neck. This is as far as it must be filtered out. The apostles do not even have a line of separation indicated at the height of their waist, only at their necks. The figures appearing on the hoop, however, are left defenceless by wisdom below the waist, therefore this region, being exposed to infection, could by no means have been allowed to affect directly the subjects of the sacred king.

Now what shall we do with the third type of duality? Namely, with the fact that on the lower part of the Crown only the figures and their inscriptions are enamelled, while the background is the golden plate itself which holds the design; on the upper part however we find the socalled “full enamel” technique, which means that the background is also enamelled. The question is whether this difference suffices for us to assume different workshops behind the two parts of the Crown. Well, it certainly does not. All things considered, both were made using the same cloisonné technique – we can even assume with good reason that in the same workshop. To be more exact: one can imagine that the individual parts were made at different places and times, but such an assumption ought to be justified. The mere fact of the twofold nature does not imply such a claim; this fact in itself does not provide sufficient argument for us to establish that the two parts of the Crown originate from two different sources. However, it lends a strong probability to the fact of their coherence. How so?

In fact, individuals and personalities, which are unique and indivisible, can only be found in an earthly environment. For that, one needs to be born unto the earth. From that point onward, “I” and all that is “non-I” are separated from each other by a sharp dividing line. Down here it is “I” that matters, and what is “non-I” is of secondary importance. But this cannot be said of the upper level, where the internal structure of the figures and their environment are made up of the same elements. In a cosmic order – which is at the same time the order of salvation history – they have nothing but an envelope in which to retain their relative independence, but what is concealed in this envelope is not a personality, not an individual. Just recall James, who at the same time embodied two apostles named James, and a patriarch called Jacob into the bargain. Or John, who was also Jonah at the same time, but even of John’s there were at least two: the Baptist and the Evangelist.

Finally the fourth kind of dissimilitude: the lower part depicts the human figures with almost representational accuracy, while the upper part does so only symbolically. But indeed, how could we depict in a representational manner someone who is not an individual? If once he has James the Greater as well as the Lesser, and even the old Jacob, concealed inside him – which one of them should he resemble?

Was the Crown sent to us or not? – the “Stephanian turning-point”

Sooner or later we shall doubtless be asked the question: who then could have made the Holy Crown, where and when? This obsessional search for a piece of temporal and a piece of spatial data – as if that were the essence of it all – may as well be regarded as the symptom of a disease. Primarily, this Crown has a message expressed through pictures, after all. But where, when and by whom He was made can at best be only circumscribed as yet. What we can state with certainty is related to His order of operation. And from this we can conclude as to the operating or the making agent. For the time being we must confine ourselves to a metaphor, which however should be taken very seriously. Just think of your wristwatch. It is a simple, traditionally designed machine, ticking away peacefully. Now this watch must evidently have been made at a place where (firstly) it is known to tick, (secondly) it is known what makes it tick, and (thirdly) it is known for what purpose it ticks. By way of analogy, it is evident that our Crown could only have been made in the circle of a nation where they know “it ticks” – know it from a tradition preserved through centuries – and flatly refuse every attempt at dissuading them from the idea that “it does tick”. Moreover, they know – and they leave a trace that they do – what “makes it tick”, and for what purpose “it ticks”. And they cannot be dissuaded from this idea either. Now, could anyone name another nation like that, besides Hungarians?

We know altogether two written sources that contain vague references to the Crown’s having been sent from somewhere rather than having been made here at home. One of them, cited the most commonly, is the legend of St István written by Bishop Hartvic. In this legend, the unidentified pope has the crown made originally for Mieszko, a Polish king – the crown that he is later to hand over to the envoys of the Hungarian king, having been warned in his dream by God’s angel. The problem arises from the fact that this King Mieszko was not a contemporary of either our Saint István or Pope Sylvester II. (He had reigned earlier.) The other contemporary report, written by Theotmar or Thietmar of Merseburg, chronicler to the ruler of the Holy Roman Empire Otto III, uses a specific formula – with reference to Vajk rather than István – which reads literally as follows: “coronam et benedictionem accepit”, meaning “[he] received crown and benediction”. However, in his time this formula meant neither more nor less than – and this could be proved from Thietmar’s work itself – that a coronation which had already taken place was recognised as valid by the head of the Roman Catholic Church.

After all this, the question may be asked again: when could our Crown have been made? Inquiring into time, we find two dates that have often been mentioned up to the present day, after which He must have been born. The first is linked up with the person of Michael Doukas, focussing in particular on the early 1070’s. However, this proposal, as we already know, can be confidently deleted from our calendar, for this Byzantine emperor has nothing to do with our Crown. There remains another attractive date: the year 1000, to which especially frequent references are made nowadays. One may wonder why? Because the Crown’s programme as formulated through pictures and texts obviously bears a Christian character. And – “as we all know” – Hungary came to know Christianity in 1000. But this is not true! As witnessed by authentic finds from excavations, the pectoral cross is a characteristic grave item that belonged to the determining layer of conquering Hungarians. Now what religion could these ancestors of ours have practiced? In any part of the world, in a similar situation, people would exclaim in chorus to reply: Christians, of course!

The Stephanian turn took place at a time when two great opponents appeared on the horizon against the young king. One was called Koppány, the other, Gyula. Concerning the latter, problems of a religious nature are not really brought up by our historians. Koppány however was pagan, as stated by the ruling opinion even today. Well, excavations performed in his ancient region have, in the past fifty years, verified unambiguously the fact that in his era and under his authority several Christian churches were built in the south of Transdanubia. What religion then did Koppány have? Today we can state, with due caution, that he was most probably as Christian as his opponent, Vajk-István. What is the problem then? The problem is that the Christian faith that Koppány practiced can be most aptly characterised as the continued survival of Late Avar Christianity. (The name Koppány itself may also be regarded as a regular phonetic version of the Late Avar dignity name “kapkán”.) This trend of religion had its centre at Salzburg, the chief leader of the evangelization was the Archbishop of Salzburg, and the missionaries themselves were the Benedictines of Passau. What does all this mean? It means that the centre of Avar-Hungarian Christianity was displaced from the Carpathian basin. And what about Gyula? His Christianity was of the Byzantine kind. And where was the centre of that? It was in Constantinople. So what happened? By the year 999, an early version of the Treaty of Trianon was put together! The Carpathian basin was torn apart. If this state of affairs is to become definitive, if the trend of Koppány or Gyula is later to become dominant, there is no need for Trianon in 1920.

In slightly less than a decade, Saint István managed to achieve for Hungarian Christianity to continue independently within the Carpathian basin. He was able to place the Holy Crown upon his head, accompanied by the highest level of recognition then available in Europe, and he was granted the title of “apostle” – a singular case in the history of Christianity. He performed an unparalleled deed – not against Hungarians but absolutely in our favour. He did not make us catch up with the West, as claimed unanimously by both his followers and haters: he actually saved Hungarians – the Carpathian basin – from being rent in two parts, one conforming to the West, the other conforming to Byzantium. His feat is enormous. If this is what we celebrate in him, we justly do so.

Let this much suffice now to be said of the morals concerning the Crown.

Download as PDF: Gabor Pap - The Hungarian coronation insignia