A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséről

Holler, László (1996) A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséről. SZÁZADOK : A MAGYAR TÖRTÉNELMI TÁRSULAT FOLYÓIRATA, 130 (4). pp. 907-964. ISSN 0039-8098

Preview

Text 1996 Holler László - A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséról.pdf - Published Version Download (8MB) | Preview

Abstract

The author examines some fundamental problems of the Hungarian Royal Crown and this way gives several completely new statements in the fields of History, Linguistics and Art History. The significance of the Hungarian Crown stems partly from its special role played in Hungarian History, moreover it is the only surviving intact Byzantine crown of a sovereign in the world. It has two distinct components. On the lower part there are ten enamel pictures with Greek inscriptions, including the pictures of the two Byzantine emperors Michael Doukas and his son, and a third ruler's with an inscription: Geobitzas, Believer, Krales (King) of Tourkia. Since more than two hundred years scientists believe that the Hungarian king, Géza the First portrayed in this picture, who is believed to receive the lower part of the Hungarian Crown from emperor Michael Doukas as a gift. On the upper part there are nine enamel pictures, eight of them representing apostles, having Latin inscriptions. According to the most accepted scientific opinion till now, the upper part was made later than the lower part. The Hungarian Crown raises several questions about its origin, but its complexity as a piece of art and its information content, both pictorial and written, gives the possibility to find answers by means of the accumulated knowledge of different scientific disciplines, and this gives the special flavour of this research. In the 1st chapter the built-in asymmetries of the lower part are studied. It is noted, that the displacement of the rectangular field of the frontal gem from the axis of the central enamel plaque is exactly the same as the displacement of the hanger of the right back pendant comparing to the left one. Simple geometrical considerations give the explanation of these asymmetries by supposing that the upper part of the crown was manufactured earlier with a certain little asymmetry, and the lower part was made specifically completing the upper part to produce the present-day form of the Hungarian Crown. This is a completely new idea, different from all existing theories. Careful stylistic and numerical comparisons lead to the conclusion in chapter 2.1 that the two emperor-portraits were not members of the original enamel series, instead, these were made to decorate the crown of emperor Michael's wife, Maria of Alania. On the other hand the enamel representing Krales of Tourkia was on the crown from the very beginning. The two emperor-portraits were made between 1074 and 1078, and the extremely sharp similarity of style suggests a very close manufacturing time for the other enamels, and for the lower part itself. By this reason it is supposed to be made between 1071 and 1081. Chapter 2.2 shows that the so-called Monomakhos-enamels (Hungarian National Museum) represent a transient state between the enamels of the upper and the lower part of the crown in several respects. Examining the epigraphic characteristics of the apostle-portraits draws the conclusion that these enamels were made by a Greek-speaking artist, in a goldsmith's workshop on the domain of the Latin Church. By means of enamels, coins and mosaics with well-defined date of production the author estimates that of the apostle-portraits were made between 1026 and 1042 (median-value 1034), and the Jesus-portrait of the upper part was made between 1042 and 1071 (median-value 1057). The subject of chapter 3 is to prove that Krales of Tourkia is not the Hungarian king Géza the First. In chapter 3.2 – using detailed linguistic considerations – it is established that the pronounced form of the Greek name on the enamel is irreconcilable with the reconstructed eleven-century pronunciation of the name of the Hungarian king. In chapter 3.3 the author examines the appearances of the country-name Tourkia and nation-name Tourki in Byzantine sources. He proves that although these names really referred to Hungary and Hungarians in the 10th century, but from the 11th century these expressions are used practically exclusively in cases of quotations from earlier sources. The single passage in any Byzantine written source using the expression "Krales of Tourkia" (excluding the Hungarian Crown) is in Skylitzes' Synopsis historion. The three-line passage is the subject of an all-round study in chapter 3.3.4. The surprising result contradicts to the former interpretation: the word Pannonia stands for Hungary, while Tourkia corresponds to a neighbour-state and a detailed geographical analysis determines its localization. In chapter 3.4 the author looks for the earliest appearances of the title "krales" in any language, and it turns out that the very first authentic appearances are just Skylitzes' quotation and the Hungarian Crown itself. This suggests a completely new explanation to the origin of this title. The final conclusion is that the portrayed ruler of Tourkia is not Géza the First, but was of Slavic origin according to his name. In the postscript the author states that the Hungarian kings had Byzantine style crown in the 11th century, probably Stephen the First as well – a statement based on the examination of the early Hungarian coins. The completely new statements of the study, or those which contradict all former theories are marked by letter T and numbered from 1 to 45.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item