A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséről II. : Kinek készült eredetileg a magyar királyi korona?

Holler, László (1998) A magyar korona néhány alapkérdéséről II. : Kinek készült eredetileg a magyar királyi korona? UNSPECIFIED, Budapest. ISBN 963-03-7128-6

Preview

Text Kinek készült eredetileg a magyar királyi korona.pdf - Published Version Download (63MB) | Preview

Abstract

Applying results of recent research in the fields of history of art, universal history and goldsmith technology, the author wishes to answer the three following questions in the present study: - Who was the Hungarian royal crown made for and when? (Chapter 5) - What event may have damaged it so seriously as to necessitate, among others, the replacing of two enamels on the lower part? (Chapter 6) - Through what operations was it mended? (Chapter 7) All these questions concern the Byzantine period of the history of the crown. As a result of his research, the author publishes some substantial new statements in this field. The present study is basically independent from the author's formerly published work concerning the Hungarian royal crown, however, the following conclusions have been taken over from his previous study: - The lower part was manufactured for the upper part to be completed into a crown; - The lower part was made in Byzantium; - Neither the portrait of Emperor Michael, nor that of Constantine was originally made for this crown, but for that of Emperor Michael Doukas' wife; - The lower part was probably made between 1071 and 1081. In Section 5.2, the author makes the point that the triangular decorations above the band of the crown recur on several Byzantine crown representations, but almost exclusively on ladies' crowns. The form of the headdress lets us know without a shadow of doubt that the Hungarian royal crown was originally made for a woman - so the first owner of the crown must have been a top-ranking lady in Byzantine hierarchy. In Section 5.3, the author proceeds to point out that this vaulted-and-closed crown type made its appearance in Byzantium during the reign of Alexios I, i.e. between 1081 and 1118. Further, in Section 5.4, attention is drawn to the fact that the crown is evidently composed of two different parts. The vaulted shape must have emerged as a result of the owner's wish that the upper part of the crown should include part of a certain reliquary that had been made by a goldsmith. In the author's opinion, this may have been the very first vaulted crown in the Byzantium of the 11th century, which, later, served as a model for the closed Byzantine crowns. In Section 5.5, the author considers the symmetries of the crown, as well as the spiritual program expressed by the enamels. On the basis of his findings, he goes on to conclude in Section 5.6 that the person who ordered the crown must have been Anna Dalassena, Alexios l's mother. To the author's mind, the crown was probably made in the period from September to December 1081, right after Emperor Alexios had conferred practically unrestricted power on her mother in August 1081. Having scrutinized the coronation miniature of the so-called Barberini psalm-book, the author concludes in Section 5.7 that the codex in question was originally made between 1074 and 1078 for the coronation of Emperor Michael Doukas' only son, Constantine. The miniature had formerly shown Emperor Michael Doukas, whose portrait could originally be seen on the Hungarian crown as well, together with his wife, Mary „of Alany", and son, Constantine, but the pictures must have been repainted in 1092, on the occasion of the coronation of Alexios Komnenos' first-born son, loannes. These findings support the author's view that Anna Dalassena was the first to use a compound crown. In Section 5.8, it is established that on the back of the crown, the enamel of Emperor Alexios Komnenos I had originally been shown in a vaulted setting, but later it was replaced Emperor Michael Doukas's portrait; while Constantine's image replaced by that of Gheorghiy II, Georgian monarch, defender of the East-Southeast borderlands of the Byzantine Empire. In Section 6.1, the author lists the most serious damages that the crown has suffered, and makes the point that all of these can probably be ascribed to two shocks. The enamels of the lower part must have been replaced because they had got smashed into pieces. One of the power impulses affecting the crown was a short shock that pushed the top plate down, while the other apparently was a violent, momentary hit that reached the crown from the back side of the band. Since the two new pictures, too, were fastened to the crown in Byzantium, the author concludes on the basis of historical evidence that the crown was mended in the period between 1118 and 1185. What remains to be seen now is when and how the crown may have suffered such ravaging impacts. There are, however, no written sources explicitly treating this subject. If to prove the possibility of intentional spoiling, then the author is obliged to have recourse to a historical short story, recording Emperor Alexios I's death. More than 90% of this short story has been taken over word for word from the historical works of Anna Komnene, loannes Zonaras and Niketas Choniates. The author's working theory is that the Hungarian crown was crushed and cast against the ground by Eirene Doukaina, Emperor Alexios Comnenos' wife in the Constantinopolitan Mangana Palace, on August 15th, 1118. On the basis of research results in the field of goldsmith technology and geometry, the author reconstructs the mending process in Chapter 7. One of his important conclusions is that, viewed from above, the upper part of the crown was turned off anticlockwise by half a turn while mended, as compared to its original position. Besides, the author identifies the bores that had been used for the upper part to be fixed on another work of art previously.

Actions (login required)

Edit Item