Last modified: 2013-08-01 by zoltán horváth
Keywords: hungary |
Links: FOTW homepage |
search |
disclaimer and copyright |
write us |
mirrors
.gif)
image by Željko Heimer, 3 November 2001
See also:
I was asked: ""Szent Corona" means
"saint's crown" in Hungarian. Is that term used
frequently to identify St Stephen's crown?
The answer is no. The Holy Crown (Szent Korona) is the crown you
can see as part of the nowadays Coat of Arms.
No data about the form of St. Stephen's Crown. Only legends. The
Holy Crown was the crown of King St. Stephen by the legends.
The Holy Crown is symbolised the country and its people (of
course before 1848 only lords, nobles) by the Idea of the Holy
Crown. The Holy Crown ruled the country not the king. See
information in English at <www.historicaltextarchive.com>
.
István Molnár, 30 October 2001
From the
pages of the Embassy of the Republic of Hungary in Zagreb:
The institution of kingship in Hungary was established by King
Stephen I, who was later canonized. His work of organizing the
state and the church was embodied in the royal crown, which he
received from Pope Sylvester II in the year 1000. He had himself
crowned with it on the first day of the new millennium, while the
rest of Europe quaked at the prospect of the end of the world and
the coming of Antichrist.
This crown received from the Pope had a double significance. On
the one hand it meant that the Hungarian king was spiritually a
direct dependant of the Pope, and not, therefore, a vassal of the
Holy Roman Emperor. So it symbolized, within bounds, the
sovereignty of the kingdom. On the other hand, it was an emblem
of secular rule given by the Pope to the king so that he might
support the aspirations of the Roman Catholic Church in the
country.
In depictions of the time, this crown bears no resemblance to the
crown of today. The crown of King Stephen was the kind of jeweled
open crown worn by almost all European monarchs at the turn of
the millennium.
Although the first crown disappeared, the belief persisted for
centuries in Hungary that the Holy Crown was identical with the
one donated by the Pope to crown the king who founded the state.
So what happened to the original Crown of St Stephen?
The most likely of the many views expressed by historians is that
the original Hungarian crown was plundered by Henry III, Holy
Roman Emperor. Since Hungarian sovereignty was temporarily
suspended at the time, Henry returned the crown to Rome, where it
vanished, or at least its fate is unknown.
The present crown, however, is also a relic of St Stephen. It is
probably an amalgam of a reliquary for a skull and a Greek crown
presented in about 1074 to King Géza I by the Byzantine Emperor
Michael Ducas. It is presumed that the Holy Crown known today,
symbolizing Hungarian kingship, existed by 1166. So the finest,
most radiant relic of Hungarian history is more than 800 years
old.
However, the crown went through every conceivable adventure down
the ages. There can hardly be another historical art object that
has been hidden in as many countries, places, castles, mansions
and fortresses.
Battles and wars were fought and thrones toppled for possession
of it. On occasions it has been lost while being brought back to
Hungary from abroad. There were characters in history who simply
purloined it, and others who kept it in secret. It has even been
pawned, and buried during flight. It has been taken out of the
country many times, and on each occasion, its return was a cause
for solemn, national celebration. A special institution was set
up to protect it, with guards chosen from the highest men in the
land and a special military detachment.
Supporters of the extreme right-wing Hungarian government at the
end of the Second World War took the crown to the West, where it
came into the hands of the US military. The crown and other crown
jewels were then kept in the United States, and some repairs even
done to them, until 1978, when Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, at
the behest of President Carter, ceremoniously returned them to
Hungary. Since then, the crown and regalia have been on public
display at the Hungarian National Museum.
The crown has two parts. Most researchers agree that these were
merged in the last quarter of the 12th century.
On the lower part of the crown, which is of Greek origin, one of
the enamel plates shows the bust of a king with the legend in
Greek, "Geza, Loyal King of Turkia" (i.e. Hungary). On
the king's head is a diadem that resembles the lower part of the
crown without its upper parts and pendants. This, as mentioned,
was presented by the Byzantine emperor to Géza, whose consort
was the daughter of a Byzantine patrician. The upper part of the
present crown closely resembles a medieval reliquary for a skull.
In its original form, the bands forming a cross may have been
adorned with pictures of the twelve apostles, surmounted by a
plate holding the four bands together and bearing a picture of
Christ Enthroned. When the reliquary was incorporated into the
crown, one panel was cut from each band, leaving a total of eight
pictures of apostles.
István Molnár, 30 October 2001
Istvan is, of course, right, but this small semantic
difference that is so obvious to Hungarians is not quite
understood by others, not even to Austrians and Croatians whith
whom their history was so much intermigeled. So, what Hungarians
call Holy Crown is called (in ignorancy) by "everybody
else" (when they have need for calling it anyhow) St.
Stephen's Crown. It is centainly so in Croatian documents
regarding the crown (once it was a big issue in Croatia as if
that crown "could" be set above the Croatian shield).
Željko Heimer, 30 October 2001
The same happens in English, German etc. heraldry sources.
They all talk about St Stephen's crown as a way of designating
what Hungarians call the "Szent Korona", rather than as
authenticating a historical claim to the "real" crown
of the saint.
Santiago Dotor, 31 October 2001
The decision to include the crown in the Coat of Arma of
post-communist Hungary was controversial. A sizable minority in
parliament (mostly centrist to leftist politicians) preferred a
version of the Coat of Arms without the crown when post-communist
symbols were being adopted, but at the time, the mood of the
country was predominantly conservative. Even though there have
been several center-left governments in the meantime, I don't
think there has been any (serious) attempt from the Coat of Arms.
I guess people have gotten used to it.
At the time, the critics pointed out that it is strange that a
republic will have a royal crown upon the shield. , but there
were a couple of factors in play, here. Other than in much of
Western Europe, the current Hungarian republic did not replace a
monarchy, but a communist regime. Therefore, the sentiment of the
day was anti-communist, rather than anti-monarchist. In fact
there was some discussion of installing some ancient Habsburg
figure as Hungarian king, but I guess the whole thing seemed
outdated and therefore the republic became sort of the default
form of state.
So, there really wasn't a strong political reason to oppose a
crown. Also, the Coat of Arms with crown had been in use before
WWII and many people probably just felt nostalgic about "the
good old days" before communism. In addition, Hungarians
always have had a very sentimental attachment to the royal crown
with the peculiarly bent cross, even during communism.
The crown itself had been exhibited in the National Museum. A few
years ago, then prime minister Orbán sought to move it to
parliament, something opponents of Orbán's right-populist
government decried as a cheap political move. While being
restored, the crown could not be seen by the public for a while,
and at this moment I don't recall where it is now.
Thorsten, 17 March 2004
Regarding the Hungarian crown, I believe that by the tradition
it is the "Holy Crown" that is the (symbolic) sovereign
of the country and not any person, even if he is being the king.
The crown symbolises the Hungarian people - as the real sovereign
of the country. In that view of the maters, there is indeed no
reason why there would be no crown.
Željko Heimer, 17 March 2004
The Szent Korona (Holy Crown) seems to be considered a symbol
of the continuing sovereignty of the 1,000 year old Hungarian
state, transcending questions of the form of government, and is
thus a "crown of sovereignty" in the same manner as San
Marino's.
Joe McMillan, 17 March 2004
I think that this explanation is a later fabricated meaning of
the crown. It is called St. Stephan's crown but was originally
made as a royal crown - thus of course in itself also marking the
sovereignity of the kingdom of Hungary.
Elias Granqvist, 18 March 2004
The Holy Crown don't relates to the monarchy it relates to the
independent Hungarian State and the 1000 years of the sovereign
of the country.
Information abouth the Holy Crown as translated by Nora
Bencsics:
The Hungarian Holy Crown was returned to Hungary in 1978. Dr.
Csaba Ferencz, in collaboration with four of his engineering
colleagues, has been investigating it ever since, and the results
of their investigations have altered traditionally accepted
assumptions about the crown. In the publication of their
findings, they show that the Holy Crown is not, as originally
thought, assembled from different pieces based on Roman and
Byzantine models, but carefully designed and executed in the
course of a single artistic endeavour.
"It seems clear that the band encircling the crown was never
meant to show all twelve apostles, but was designed specifically
to hold panels showing only eight apostles. The hoop at the base
of the crown was never meant to be a stand-alone crown either,
but was contrived to support the band. It is seems apparent that
the design of the hoop and the band it supports, were
specifically devised to bear a bent cross. Thus, the cross on the
crown is bent not because of the many hardships the crown endured
through the centuries, but because it was meant to be bent."
"Detailed expert examinations of the crown also show that
the very spot where three images were replaced is part of the
crown's base. This base was believed to have been the original
crown which King Geza I received from Byzantium. But marks left
by the replacement work prove that these three pictures, and only
these three pictures, were affixed to the entire crown, not just
separately onto its hoop."
"Finally, analysis indicates conclusively that the Holy
Crown was truly Saint Stephen's crown."
".. Acknowledged expert opinion confirms that the bent cross
on the crown is not the result of damage, but was planned this
way at the time of its design. The angle at which the cross leans
is approximately 23.5o . This is the earth's angle of rotation,
as Aristarkhos wrote in his On the Sizes and Distances of the Sun
and the Moon in 280 B.C."
"Since the angle at which the visible sky and the Earth are
separate from each other form an exact angle of 23.5o, the symbol
of the juxtaposition of earth and the heavens is captured in the
angle of the bent cross atop the crown. As a symbol, this is
quite valid for those times; it also indicates an advanced
understanding of astronomy."
"A bent cross on a crown is quite unusual, but for our
purposes, this is irrelevant, since we know that at the time, the
Holy Crown was not at all usual in any way, its design and
construction completely unique. Furthermore, the bent cross and
the angle at which it is bent are in complete accord with
Christian symbolism around 1000 A.D. Undoubtedly this hints at
considerable learning which stretches the limits of knowledge in
those times. The bent cross further indicates that the crowned
individual is the servant of God, having won from God the right
to rule, and that he must rule faithfully according to divine
law." (all excerpts from Ferencz Csaba: Saint Stephen's
Crown)
Dr. Ferencz Csaba, b. October 23, 1941, at Csiksomlyo in
Transylvania, (now Roumania). After World War II, his family had
to flee, and thus he grew up in Mezobereny, Hungary. He
graduated, receiving his degree as an electrical engineer, from
the Budapest University of Technology. As a student, he had
already begun his attempts to create a space program in Hungary,
when in 1961 he assembled the first University of Technology
Space Research Team. In 1965, he built a radio satellite, and in
1966, Central Europe succeeded at photographing clouds from a
satellite for the first time. In 1968, just as the Warsaw Pact
troops were marching into Czechoslovakia, he made transatlantic
radio contact with America using the ATS3 satellite. The success
of the space research team and its project leader was cause for
the Communist government to restrict their research. At the same
time, he was appointed as full-fledged university professor at
the University of Technology. With a second team, he developed
the first Hungarian satellite bridge device, a micrometeor
electronic detector, with which the Interkozmos-12 satellite flew
successfully in 1974. He took part in the creation of the first
Hungarian academic spaceship program. In 1981, he became academic
professor of technology at MTA; from 1991 on, he was a renowned
professor at the University of Technology, and in 1995 the
university made him professor-in-residence, and academic advisor
in 1996. He is a member of EuroEngineer, the New York Academy of
Sciences, and the Hungarian Engineer's Academy, holds a Budapest
University of Technology honorary doctorate, and is a member of
other national and international organizations. He is a
recognized expert on space research, and also on electromagnetic
wave emissions, and has more than 300 publications on
electromagnetic wave theory, and is published in academic
journals. In addition to this, he is a knight of one of the
Catholic Church's organizations, the Cruciferi Sancti Stephani
Regis (Saint Stephen's Order of Knights) and currently its
grandmaster.
"Always remember that every man is born the same [before
God] and that nothing raises you up but humility, and nothing
casts you down but pride and hatred." - Saint Stephen, King
to his son, Prince Imre; Esztergom, 1013 A.D.
István Molnár, 23 March 2004
I just wanted to add that if anyone wants to see the Holy
Crown (eleventh - twelfth century) - which also appears on the
state flag and the Budapest municipal flag for real, it is in the
main hall at the beautiful Parliament building in Budapest,
together with the other Hungarian coronation regalia.
Imagine my surprise to discover in May of this year, that upon
production of my British passport, admission to the building -
which is more exquisite than the Palace of Westminster in London
- was free, as it was to citizens of other European Union
countries.
Colin Dobson, 8 October 2004
It has been my understanding that the Holy Crown of Hungary is
not simply "something that the king (or queen regnant) wears
on his (or her) head". The Holy Crown *is* the
state; the king (or queen) governs the state on behalf of the
crown, and of the Virgin Mary, whose realm Hungary was, since it
is no longer a monarchy. Some kings have had to hold
multiple coronations, since preceding coronations were seen as at
the very least unofficial, since they had not been crowned with
the Holy Crown (Charles Robert had to be crowned three times, as
the first two occasions were not with the Holy
Crown). While I'm sure this is not the view of the
government of Hungary, as it is currently a republic, the fact
that the Holy Crown has been at the Parliament Building since
2000 would seem to indicate the Crown has some form of symbolic
authority.
Georges G. Kovari, 24 January 2009
Generally speaking, a royal crown is never just
"something that the king (or queen regnant) wears on his (or
her) head". The crown in a monarchy is the sign of the
monarch and the power of the state, something in the way the sash
of a president in Latin America or the seal of the president of
the United States is the sign of the presidency in those
countries. Thus, in many monarchies, "the crown" has
been a common synonym for "the government". But if the
form of government change, the symbols tied to what type of
government it is generally change too. You don't call the
government in a republic "the crown" just like you
don't call a republic a monarchy.
Elias Granqvist, 24 January 2009
First of all, I have to say that Kovari's comment is a part of
so-called Doctrine of the Holy Crown (Szent Korona-tan in
Hungarian) what is based on Hungarian historical traditions. It
is mainly supported by right or right-center political
characters. You can read some more details about this issue at wikipedia.
Before adaptation of new arms of Hungary in 1989-90, there was a
big and long debate on what arms would be that of Hungary.
Current (or historical) was one of them, but it was not supported
by all people. This debate shared the public society along the
lines of their political or ideological view. Normally, crown is
not placed on a repuclican arm, but in this case supporters
focused on historical past and surviving the traditions. The
Parliament finally has adopted this current version.
There was a proposal of Minister of Justice in 2000, if I
remember well, to put a new sentence into our Constitution
concerning to the connection between Holy Crown and the people as
it is described in Doctrine, but this proposal was failed. Crown
is mentioned in our Constitution only where Hungarian CoA is
described. Facts and history of Holy Crown can be found at wikipedia.
However, Hungary is not only republic those arms contains a
monarchy crown. I have to mention Bulgaria, Georgia, Montenegro,
Poland, Serbia. (I know that cronologically Hungary was the first
one) And some of these countries has more supporters of monarchy
like in Hungary. Maybe Albania can add to this list, but its arms
contains a helmet, rather than a real crown.
So, a royal crown placing on a shield is not express only a
monarchy, but refers to the historical past, like in case of
Hungary or some other countries. I agree with those opinion that
some countries (especially in Eastern European region) have mixed
their historical symbols with the real (current) geopolitical
facts. But an other opinion also can be supported, that a Coat of
Arms has more respect if it is older (created earlier).
A great amount of Hungarians consider to the Crown as a part of
history, not to a symbol of current sovereignty. A lot of people
has fully supported the Holy Crown theory, as well. Everybody can
decide which side is accepted. Please do not confuse the personal
emotions of people with political ideas of various governments.
In everyday life, this question is not so sharp, and debate
flashes only for a while in political forums.
Zoltan Horvath, 24 January 2009
I have also heard that the Holy Crown was placed back on the
Coat of Arms back in 1990, to represent the fact that Hungary was
once again a free and independent, sovereign nation, free of
foreign occupation (i.e., the Red Army). Any truth to this, or is
this another "popular interpretation"?
Georges G. Kovari, 26 January 2009
From "Crown Jewels of Britain and Europe" by Prince
Michael of Greece, Peerage Books, London, 1990 (first edition
1983 by Dent & Sons, 144 p), on p. 120 it says:
"In 1848, when the revolutionary tides reached Hungary, the
population, under the leadership of the poet Louis Kossuth, rose
against the Austrians and the oppressive domination of the
Habsburgs. But the Russians crushed the revolt.
Kossuth ran away with the crown, and buried it under a
tree. A traitor sold the information to the Austrians, who
extracted the crown and brought it back to Royal Castle of Buda
in great pomp. In its tribulations the crown had slightly
suffered and the cross surmounting it had been twisted. It
was never righted, perhaps in order to symbolize the freedom of
Hungary."
Some additional info from: Gert Oswald, Lexikon der Heraldik
(Heraldic Lexicon), Bibliographisches Institut, Leipzig, 1984,
478 p., lemma "Stephanskrone" on p. 381: The
crown was buried near Orsova from 1848 till 1853. A book on
the crown is listed: J. Deér, Die heilige Krone Ungarns
(Hungary's holy crown), Wien (Vienna), 1966.
Jan Mertens, 27 April 2003
According to "The Holy Crown of Hungary" at <hungary.topcities.com>:
"We do not know why the cross came to be bent, but a diagram
drawn in 1790 shows it already bent."
John Ayer, 27 April 2003
I agree that 1848 date seems rather much to late. I do believe
that it is shown with bent cross much, much earlier then 18th
centruy either, but I have no data by hand. I am also sure that
there are several "legends" of which I have heard in my
youth few (e.g. similar story as the 1848 one cited was told to
me about St. Stephen running from Tatars, certainly
anachronistic).
Željko Heimer, 27 April 2003
The website <www.kfki.hu/~arthp>
shows the mediaeval king St. Stanislaus in a 1600s painting using
what seems either the earlier, original St. Stephen's Crown ( I
don't know what it looked like) or the current crown with the
cross seemingly upright.
Also, in <www.katolikus.hu>
it is said "The cross on the top came into being later,
presumably in the middle of the 16th century, replacing an
earlier one, made in the time of Béla III or on the occasion of
the coronation of Endre III in 1290, but this is still disputed.
It is also uncertain exactly when the cross was damaged, which is
now bent into an angle of 12 degrees, it might happen between
1613 and 1793"
Joăo Madureira, 27 April 2003
It appears that there are several conflicting stories on why
the cross is set at an angle. Another one (according to which the
cross was bent when the crown was damaged sometime in the 18th
century) is briefly mentioned above. I think there may even be
some stories that the cross wasn't bent as the result of an
accident at all, but rather that the cross was set at an angle on
purpose. Bottom line, nobody seems to know for sure, although
from having seen the crown up-close, it certainly looks as if the
cross was bent by accident (there is an indentation in the gold
material on which the cross is mounted that is consistent with
what one might expect if the crown had been accidentally
dropped.)
Thorsten, 28 April 2003